Stonehenge

The BBC have just reported that in addition to the dramatic cuts to public services, the Con Dem coalition have cut the government funding for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre Project. I imagine the project will now be cancelled as it is unlikely that English Heritage, Wiltshire Council, the Highways Agency or indeed anyone else will be able to stump up the twenty odd million needed.

A great shame, another opportunity missed. To be honest, like Mike Pitts, i thought I was dreaming when I saw the news; bad case of deja vue… Since I’ve been working in archaeology, I’ve worked on two major projects aimed at sorting out Stonehenge which have looked at many, many options and there were previous projects before that. Just think of all the time and money that has been spent to date on the various iterations of road routes, visitor centre plans and assessment/evaluation work, all of which has come to nothing.

Given the enormity of the national debt, surely funding for this project is a drop in the ocean. The Con Dems are truly scratching around down the back of the sofa for any coppers to be found. And what is most galling is that the bankers who caused all of this mess recieved such large bonuses again this year, out of money British tax-payers provided, they could probably club together and pay for a new visitor centre (if they had an ounce of social responsibility between them).

Related posts:

1. Stonehenge world heritage status at risk as tunnel plan is shelved – Times Online
2. Secrets of Stonehenge
3. Stonehenge panoramas

Oh, The Rose, The Dead Red Rose by greg hefner

I recently criticised Conservative policy in the run up to the general election but that’s not to say the Labour party is the answer to all our prayers; having been in power for thirteen years, the optimism of the early days has long gone. The red rose of Labour has well and truly wilted…

Higher education and vocational training

One of the darkest stains on New Labour’s record is the mess they have made of higher education provision. Starting off by continuing the Conservative agenda and effectively abolishing student grants to be replaced by student loans and subsequently top up fees was a terrible decision. Combined with the spurious target of 50% of school leavers going to university, this has led to a a culture of debt amongst students and a general lowering of standards in order that more people can go to university. I would instead argue that 100% of school leavers should have the opportunity to go to university, with their places earned on merit and awarded to those who achieve the highest standards; the economy surely does not need 50% of the workforce to have undergraduate degrees and reduced numbers would also mean more funding for fewer university places.

A corollary of this is the impact on vocational trajectories. By emphasising academic routes into the workplace, this appears to denigrate more vocational routes. This is fundamentally wrong as it firstly unfairly raises expectations amongst young people with regard to academic courses and secondly fails to appreciate that there is nothing inherently better about academic qualifications over and above vocational qualifications. The idea that a university degree automatically qualifies someone for a ‘better’ job is simply not true.  And by turning many schemes which were formerly practical based, workplace learning schemes into lecture based college/university courses, many graduates are not suitably equipped to enter the workplace; theoretical knowledge is often best supported by practical experience.

There is a place for all and there are many routes to a successful career, one size does not fit all and the steps Labour have taken during their term in office have not helped build the diverse, skilled workforce needed by the country. Furthermore, it has produced a generation who have been led into massive debt, which relates to my next point.

An end to boom and bust…

Dependence on debt, an increased gap between rich and poor and grand, sweeping statements about having overcome historical trends towards economic cycles all demonstrate an approach to financial matters which is cavalier at best and one which, for the most part, the old Labour party would not recognise. Appreciated, the old Labour party was far from economically competent and led the country into some of its darkest times since the Second World War during its time in office during the 1970’s, when the trades unions had the country in a choke hold, but at least it had aims to foster an egalitarian society not based around financial gain alone. Unfortunately, much of what New Labour has overseen can be seen as a direct continuation of Thatcherite policies centring on generation of personal wealth and the idea that this will trickle down through society. What has actually happened is that obsession with the accumulation of personal assets by whatever means, including over reliance on debt, has actively contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history; this combined with deregulation which allowed the banking system to run rampant has led to the gap between rich and poor getting wider and wider on Labour’s watch. So much for socialist ideology.

Change

Change seems to be a major topic at this election and Labour have equally been bandying about their plans for change. At a time when public faith in politicians is at an all time low, this seems like a good strategy, but Labour have had thirteen years to implement meaningful electoral reform and have achieved virtually nothing. Not only this, but in the wake of the expenses scandal, they have actively blocked attempts at reform alongside the Conservatives. Who would have seen that one coming from a party which has always supported reform of the House of Lords in favour of a fairer system, one not based around antiquated hereditary rights to rule.

Sleaze & War

And finally, after years of Conservative sleaze (and who does it better), 1997 should have been a turning point, a moment when a socially responsible party took the helm and set an example. Instead, we’ve had dodgy property deals, various Mandelson episodes and finally the whole expenses fiasco.  Labour had the chance to be so much more, to set standards for people to aspire to but this was not to be.

Furthermore, Labour did absolutely nothing to engage with world problems until post 9/11 at which point the country was led into two simultaneous wars, the second of which of dubious legitimacy and almost certain illegality. Acting as Bush’s lapdog did nothing to enhance the reputation of Great Britain in the international arena, the man obviously being an idiot being directed by some of the most abhorrent right-wing politicians ever to have influence over the United States, approving torture techniques and rendition thanks to imaginative interpretations of long standing international conventions.

Wilted

So, given the polls, it looks doubtful that Labour will be returned to government. These last thirteen years have been a great opportunity wasted and worse than that, it has opened the doors for a Conservative victory, something that will further exacerbate social difference, increasing the gap between rich and poor and threatening essential services such as health and education. Well done New Labour.

Related posts:

1. ‘Big Society’ or ‘Back to the Future’…?
2. Question Time

Victorian era tea by Thiophene_Guy

Well, the manifestos are published and everyone seems to be pushing ‘fairness’ and ‘change’. None more so than the Conservatives and they have unveiled their grand vision of the future: Big Society. This seems to be superficially about empowerment of local people, reducing tax burdens and getting the populous more involved in society and government. Lift the lid, however, and therein lurks the same old Tory party. Change, yes, but not necessarily change for the better…

Setup your own school

Their plan for improving schools is to allow people to setup their own schools using government funding. Great idea in principle, it seems, but what about the practicality of this?

Well, in areas where there are struggling schools, there are unlikely to be the necessary skills and resources to go about setting up new schools. All that will happen is those able to help themselves will do so, diverting funding away from the less privileged which is arguably where it needs to be directed if we are to equalise opportunities for children and young adults. Many of the public schools in this country originated as schools set up by those who could afford education for their children at a time when there was no state provision; so are the Tories looking to replicate this historical episode but this time creating a new set of elitist public schools using government funding…? If they were in any way serious about improving outcomes across the board and not just for the lucky few, they would look to bringing back quality vocational paths and meritocratic higher education rather than allowing some parents to create new schools and further increasing social division.

Control you own police force

Another part of the policy is to make police forces accountable to elected representatives. The idea being that this will make the police more directly accountable to the communities they serve. Again, sounds like change and on the face of it, could be for the better. Until we lift the lid…

Firstly, our police are accountable to the panels of people to whom they must answer, panels which include elected representatives. Importantly, these panels include non-elected specialists who are not at the beck and call of the general public. If policing policy is entirely populist, responding to the current whims of anyone or any group with an axe to grind, then long term strategy will be replaced by knee jerk policing where one priority is replaced by another priority, and all the essential behind the scenes work that police do will be diminished in favour of the latest high profile crime: As priorities are constantly juggled according to the flavour of the month, everything will ultimately become a priority, hence nothing becomes a priority.

I’m all in favour of community interaction and simply having community officers known to the community and capable of reporting and responding to community needs fulfills an important role, but to put elected officials in direct control of policing rather than leaving it to senior police officers and their specialist advisors is to invite longer term problems.

Get involved!

Community involvement is a central tenet of the Big Society and again, the spin put on this is all about empowerment, reducing top-down government and rebuilding a functional society. All good aspirational notions. But once again, the reality lurking beneath is very different…

Volunteer work is undoubtedly a good thing; it is good for social cohesion and gets things done that otherwise would not get done. More of this is undeniably good. However, when talk of this is combined with cuts to local government services, it is plain to see that the plan here for cutting government spending relies on getting the public to do things which are currently the job of local government. Many support structures, facilities and services already depend on volunteer contributions but cannot survive without some contribution from government. And to expect the individual members of society to undertake a broader range of activities necessary to support society is a retrograde step; remember, the reason we have local government is so that it can manage on our behalf the things we expect to be done communally. In other words, this increase in volunteer contributions is nothing more than a cynical ploy to make it possible to make cuts in government with charities and volunteer organisations being expected to pick up the strain .

The National Health Service

The Conservatives are now apparently the party of the National Health Service. This seems like a dramatic change of policy given the years of underfunding and attempts to dismantle via privatisation experienced throughout the last Conservative government. Enough said.

Big Society or Big Con…?

So, overall, this push for change from the Conservatives is just wrapping for the same old bigoted, outdated policies which favour the rich and those able to take advantage of the policies on offer. Unfortunately, whilst the wrapping is superficially attractive, there will be dire consequences for many groups in society. Yes, some people will benefit, but these policies will do nothing to increase social cohesion or help to improve British politics. This is Cameron trying to do a Tony Blair / New Labour style shift towards the centre but without actually moving away from the very traditional right wing stance which is essential to maintain the Conservative power base. Interestingly, this style is apparently very popular with a number of young people; I can only assume that this is in part due to the years of the last Conservative government being history for them rather than a vivid memory of mass unemployment, the decimation of our social housing infrastructure , education for the rich through the abolition of student grants and lack of funding for state schools, the erosion of quality NHS provision and bubbles of inflation which led to incredible interest rates; all this coupled with incredible profits for the few and the start of the burgeoning gap in between the poor and the super rich.

I for one wait with trepidation…

Related posts:

1. It ain’t all smelling of roses…
2. Stonehenge Visitor Centre RIP. Again.
3. Last orders…?

comfort me with apples by monkeyc.net

Amongst all the pre-election political ranting, posturing and point-scoring, an argument from Theresa May stood out today. Yes, social cohesion, the financial problems faced by the country and the so-called war on terror are all big issues but May claimed on Radio 4 that binge drinking and anti-social behaviour can be reduced by targeting what she referred to as high strength ciders. Now, as I’m partial to the occasional glass of appley nectar, typically a fine cider such as Aspall’s, Westons Vintage or one of the Thatchers varieties, all of which clock in at over 7% alcohol, I take issue with this in a big way.

May has completely missed the point and obviously wouldn’t know a Katy from a Frosty Jack. Binge drinkers and drunk teenagers are unlikely to have been anywhere near any cider, high strength or otherwise. They will have undoubtedly been drinking the noxious fluid marketed as ‘white cider’ something which is only nominally related to cider. Cider and scrumpy are made from apples, pressed and fermented to form a wholesome beverage, one of your five-a-day. Added ingredients may include the odd bit of straw or a wasp if drinking some of the rougher scrumpy’s but that’s about it. White cider is at best chemically concocted from apple waste products mixed with alcohol produced from sugar; at worst it has never been anywhere near an apple with the flavour coming from artificial flavourings. I would go into more detail but there is an excellent article by James Crowden which sums it all up quite eloquently.

If politicians are in anyway serious about tackling drink related problems and want to do this by reducing access to high strength alcoholic drinks though increased taxes, a good place to start would be with these incredibly cheap yet potent white cider drinks commonly referred to as cider: Leave proper, natural ciders alone. An argument for some kind of trading standards definition of cider could help with this so that Diamond White, Frosty Jack’s and their ilk cannot be sold as cider; they could be called apple flavoured loopy juice or whatever, I really don’t care as long as it is clear that they are not cider. It’s easy enough to tell proper cider from imposters by the amount of apple juice used, which should ideally be properly pressed and not cheap imported concentrate; by all means crank up the tax on such rubbish if you feel that will help solve anti-social behaviour. Decent cider is already expensive whereas these imposters retail almost as cheap as bottled water, being cheap to produce via industrial chemical processes.

So, politicians, if you want my vote, get to the bottom of issues and ensure you understand them before making cheap political points. But more importantly, hands off my cider!

Related posts:

1. Last orders…?

Put the needle to the record by tricky

Not quite law yet,  but with cross-party support from the three main parties, it looks like the Digital Economy Bill soon will be. Unfortunately, being driven by the small-minded folks in the record and film industries shouting loudly about lost profits (not the Welsh band though), the bill is far from being what creative industries and the public need, rather it looks like being a massive missed opportunity and another example of the law being dragged into disrepute. To quote Mr Bumble, the (proposed) law is an ass.

Firstly, laws must be enforceable. An unenforceable law is a bad law. Relying as it does on the threat of having the internet disconnected at the behest of copyright holders is an untenable basis given what has been stated regarding access to internet access being a right not a privilege. Thankfully, the ISPs seem to be resisting pressure on this front and appear to be taking a stance that disconnection will only occur under the direction of a court order, ie in extreme cases where a case has been demonstrated to and supported by a court of law.

Secondly, laws must be beyond reproach. The law is there to serve the people, the rights of individuals and the common good, it is not there to protect the money making, self serving interests of a few corporate fat cats. It is true there needs to be a recording industry in some form but current moves are simply about self-preservation and stifling innovation rather than reshaping cultural industries for the new millennium. Allowing the record and film industries to largely draft their own legislation solely to protect their own current interests is a sure way of bringing the law into disrepute. As has happened with industries in the past, times change and industries need to keep pace with change, the law cannot be used to flagrantly support the status quo (not Rossi & Parfitt!) in favour of a small (but powerful) minority group. Imagine if the original Luddites had managed to get legislative backing to protect their industry and ban mechanical looms or if manufacturers of steam engines had done similar at the advent of the internal combustion engine.

I am not, however, arguing here for a complete breakdown in the creation and provision of music and film. Anarchy is not the way forward. Taking music as my main interest, it is possible to see that the ‘industry’ can play a useful role in promoting artists and supporting live shows, expensive activities which often need serious financial backing. But that does not require the behemoths of yesteryear and they cannot expect to make the vast piles of cash as before. The industry has been in the fortunate position of controlling the means of production and had total editorial control, hence could dictate how material would be created and sold but with technological advances, this has changed and those days have gone. Recording equipment is relatively cheap and easy to come by with a variety of venues in which bands and artists can record, not to mention bedrooms, attics, cellars and outbuildings countrywide. Publishing electronically removes the need for pressing factories. So what is the role for the big corporations in the new millennium? Rather than stifling innovation and access to music, sticking with business models that have existed as long as the recording industry and based around outdated technology, the industry should shrink dramatically and focus on activities which directly benefit artists and their fans.

An interesting statistic came out on tonight’s Panorama: people who download music via file sharing services tend to spend more on music, almost twice as much in fact. I would support this anecdotally in that music fans I know use file-sharing as a way of finding new music but nothing beats owning a piece of vinyl or a CD complete with the inlays and artwork. Having greater access to music encourages sales of music not the opposite despite what industry representatives like the BPI argue. File-sharing is simply the modern equivalent of taping vinyl, CDs and the radio, putting together mixes of favourite songs and sharing them with like-minded people, activities which help to get artists off the ground and have done for decades. True, sales of the latest manufactured disposable Syco pop dross may be in decline (although I note with sadness the return of the Stock and Waterman combo and can’t help wondering whatever happened to Aitken…) but real music produced by real musicians is as popular as ever and new acts are finding that they can use technology to break through whilst experienced acts can use technology to break free from the shackles of  major labels.

As Ludacris said:

Knowing he could rap
No one lift a hand
So he went about his bidness
And devised the plan
Made a CD then he hit the block
Fifty thousand sold, seven dollars a pop

Artists like Ludacris, Kate Nash and the Arctic Monkeys have all made a name for themselves through sheer talent and then subsequently been picked up by record labels. Their fan bases were arguably expanded by the promotion and exposure given to them by major labels but it was not major labels who gave them their break. Their live gigs are definitely facilitated by major labels, scale and finance being important factors, but they were gigging successfully before getting their deals. So there is still a place for the big players, it’s just not the same place they are comfortable with and used to, nor are there the untold millions available through restricting access to the cultural resource and exploiting artists and the public alike. And instead of moving forward, the Digital Economic Bill looks like fossilising this already dying industry; rather than being the panacea touted by the BPI and others, it will only serve to alienate fans and hinder development. The chorus to track 3 on the Prodigy’s Music for the Jilted Generation album springs to mind. Thankfully, music and musicians will survive in one form or another but I fear for the wider ramifications of this crass proposed legislation.

Related posts:

1. Copyright theft on a grand scale

Open by Justin Marty

I’ve been mulling over the nature of Open Data, Open Source and just general openness for a while now and, on the whole, these are admirable concepts. Access to data and software can only bring benefits for the most part. I detest control exerted through access to information in particular, with rigid top down hierarchies being top of my list of pet hates. Access to government information, for example, can only improve the way governments do business. But there has always been something niggling in the back of my mind and that is the need for confidentiality and privacy in some circumstances. I detest the argument that if you have nothing to hide, there is no need for such protection, an argument frequently used when talking about the draconian use of DNA databases and the growing desire by governments and organisations to amass data about people. And this week, in the week that data.gov.uk went live (a fantastic resource providing open access to government data), I’ve seen a couple of stories which reinforce the need for a pragmatic approach to information; one size certainly does not fit all and not everything should be open all hours. If we are going to open things up, there are implications which need to be carefully examined.

Firstly, a case on the Victorian Society website of the owner of a listed building who submitted a planning application. Replete with plans and high quality photographs, the application number was duly published in the local newspaper and the detailed submission, including the photographs, made public by the local authority. Within ten days, the obviously empty house had been burgled, the thieves using the address as published and the photographs as a guide. Numerous period fixtures and fittings were taken, presumably having been identified as easy pickings from the photographs which showed the house obviously vacant midway through renovations. Surely, this is a case of too much information being placed in the public domain.

Secondly, an interesting article on Open Access to scientific publications. Whilst I love reading a vast range of material on all sorts of topics, largely via Google Reader, it must be appreciated that online publication is not free; there are still costs associated with publishing online and these must be bourne somehow. One suggestion is to move towards an author pays model with publications free to end users, a model that could have severe implications for heritage publications if the costs are too high. And of course, a world full of poor quality articles from rich authors who can afford to publish, with excellent articles from those who cannot afford to pay the publication costs falling by the wayside is indeed a more ‘open’ world for end users but a diminished world at the same time.

Finally, following on from the second point, there is the Ordnance Survey, who are currently undertaking a consultation on their future after recent revelations. I wholeheartedly agree that an open access model for spatial data would be beneficial for the most part, especially for the heritage sector where funds are limited. Crucially though, the quality of the mapping must be maintained; simply updating OS holdings costs an arm and a leg and if their income stream is decimated, my concern is that quality will suffer. Other commentators, such as Richard Fairhurst, see other considerable problems arising from any open release of certain OS products. It is certainly not as straightforward as some of the posts on campaign blogs/websites such as Free Our Data make out.

So, whilst I am a firm believer in openness, I temper that with the observation that having everything accessible for all and for no cost is not the best way to proceed in all cases; not all information should be available in this way. And some information such as genetic sequences of the population at large should not be collated in the first place let alone be made available, even to those such as law enforcement agencies. Information is a vital resource in this digital world and it’s creation, use and provision of access to it need to be considered carefully on a case by case basis. Most definitely not open all hours in all cases.

Related posts:

1. Now we’re getting somewhere!
2. Free our data: New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey’s copyright control @ SocietyGuardian.co.uk
3. Time’s up for the Ordnance Survey…?

Ordnance Survey triangulation station by Wessex Archaeology

Not only are we getting somewhere but news this week suggests we will have access to all kinds of map goodness to find our way and see what’s around us! First, the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) decided to start giving away their data in the public interest as announced at a recent conference. Then the Guardian’s Allegra Stratton reported yesterday (18/11/09) that moves are afoot to make more UK geospatial data freely accessible, including (wait for it) Ordnance Survey data. This was followed tomorrow (not sure how that works but the article is dated 19/11/09!) by another article in the Guardian by Charles Arthur with some more details. The long and the short of it is that the ‘mid-range’ series of maps from the OS will become freely available for both commerical and non-commercial use. Crucially for us archaeologists, that means the 1:10,000 map series we all know and love and currently pay through the nose for, unless we are privileged enough to have access to Edina Digimap or are working under an OS Subcontractor License.

Talking about Gordon Brown’s statement, Chairman of Ordnance Survey, Sir Rob Margetts said:

As Chairman of Ordnance Survey, I am delighted that the Prime Minister and John Denham have today made these proposals about releasing for free some of Ordnance Survey’s data to support innovation, accountability and growth. I  also very much welcome the commitment made by Government to contribute to the cost of this. This on-going commitment is fundamental to maintaining the sustained quality of Ordnance Survey’s data that has made the organisation a world leader in its field. The Board of Ordnance Survey will work very closely with Government, as well as our customers, partners and others to ensure that the proposals are fully developed for consultation and implementation next year.”

So what does that mean…?

The details are still to be fleshed out but note Margetts said some. I anticipate the data to be made available will be the 1:10,000 raster series. It’s not clear which, if any, vector products would be made available given that LandLine is no more and MasterMap is more detailed than the 1:10,000 scale cut-off, but anything is better than nothing: Some or all of Codepoint and BoundaryLine look to be included which will be useful for some, albeit limited, archaeological purposes. There is also no mention at this stage of other useful OS products such as LandForm, such terrain data being used to place archaeological data into its landscape context, perform analyses such as viewshed/visibility analysis and generate derived products such as slope, aspect and hillshade maps. Historical map data is also not mentioned yet and given that the digital georeferenced products were produced in conjunction with Landmark and are sold at a premium, I doubt we will be seeing such data becoming free anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see how this map data is delivered also. An enterprise (ie chargeable, commercial licensed) version of the OS OpenSpace platform called OpenSpace Pro is now at Release Candidate stage and it is possible that this could be a mechanism for delivery. Some standard WMS/WFS type webservices suitable for inclusion in desktop GIS software would be a useful addition though. And the range of data available through OpenSpace exceeds that being put on the table for open access, although notably does not include the 1:10,000 raster series.

Derived data anyone…?

The derived data issue, which meant that OS claimed ownership of all data produced using its maps claiming it to be a derivation of their intellectual property, should also become a thing of the past. Archaeological data held in Sites and Monuments Records, Historic Environment Records, the vast majority of published sources containing locations derived from OS maps not to mention user generated content created using the OpenSpace platform will be able to be freely distributed, copied and reused without any interference from the OS. The need for the kinds of licensing restriction currently being put in place by many Local Authorities and other repositories to cover themselves against possble legal action from the OS, which I have discussed previolusly, will be no more. This alone is a massive breakthrough for archaeological research.

Where next…?

So it seems a massive U-turn is about to take place with the OS being led by the nose from their position of ‘open data being untenable’ supported by mysterious secretive internal reports and no real evidence to ‘open data is the way forward’ supported by the Prime Minister himself. Perhaps the British Geological Survey will join the movement and make their data freely available…? To be honest, I thought hell would freeze over before the OS released any data for free so I am now in an optimistic mood and waiting for the next amazing installment.

UPDATE: 19/11/09

Ed Parsons has responded and there is an article in the Times from Tim Berners-Lee and Nigel Shadbolt providing some contextual background, these last two gentlemen reporting on the matter for government.

Related posts:

1. Free our data: New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey’s copyright control @ SocietyGuardian.co.uk
2. OS OpenSpace
3. Open all hours

Glow Farm by TahoeSunsets; a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)

This week the government announced it’s plan for solving the upcoming energy crisis: More nuclear power stations. A list of proposed sites was published and various spokespeople were extolling the green credentials of nuclear power. Eh? New one on me. The usual arguments centre on plenty of cheap power, almost limitless amounts; rarely does one hear that nuclear power is the new green icon. It’s true that nuclear power wins hands down when compared to coal or other fossil fuels in terms of carbon dioxide output but that is to look at one part of the picture in isolation. There are a few other factors which need to be discussed.

Firstly, there is the safety aspect. There is some interesting reading on this topic from the industry themselves who are quick to point out there have only ever been two major accidents: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Fair enough, a small number but not insignificant as anyone who remembers either incident will recall.  Yes, incidents are few but when they occur they can be very severe with international reach, unlike incidents at other forms of power station. Add to this the higher incidence of childhood leukemia near nuclear plants, Sellafield reprocessing plant for example, and it is hard to say that nuclear power is clean or green.

Secondly, there is the waste. There are still no plans for dealing with the amounts of waste generated and it was only in 2005 that a government report was recommending various forms of burial as the way forward. So nuclear power may be considered green if we gloss over the fact that it generates toxic waste which cannot easily be dealt with and has enormous potential for environmental harm.

And finally, the cost. Building new nuclear power stations is not cheap, running them is also not cheap but the real cost comes with decommissioning. British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) are already suffering from the costs of decommissioning the UK’s current plants so the idea that a commercial enterprise can run nuclear power stations as a profit making venture seems ill founded. The tax-payer will end up subsidising nuclear power in one way or another; if private companies run the plants then a proportion of this revenue can be seen to be flowing into the hands of private individuals.

So, I am not objecting to this latest proposal out of irrational hatred of nuclear power, rather I am objecting to the ’spin’ that is being put on this initiative and the way in which only part of the story is being put forward by the government. It’s true, at current rates of consumption we will need more energy and with dwindling stocks of fossil fuels, we need other options. There is also the greenhouse effect and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But these need to be weighed against other issues and suddenly leaping from a no-nuclear standpoint to a pro-nuclear standpoint, wrapping up the shift in policy in pseudo-green credentials smacks of more New Labour double talk, especially when taken in conjunction with the proposed streamlining of the planning system as being all about empowering local communities (rather than steam-rollering opposition, which seems to be more like it).

On the subject of the planning system overhaul and the proposed nuclear developments, Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, said in the Guardian: “Bypassing the planning system in this way is bad news for democracy and for the environment. A key democratic right is for the public to have a say on how their area is developed. Decision-making about where we get our energy from, and the long-term costs associated with nuclear, should be opened up to more accountability, not less.” Indeed. We need an open and honest debate about these issues with solid scientific advice as the basis and public participation. But I was forgetting, this government wouldn’t recognise good scientific advice or what to do with it anyway, as Dr Evan Harris MP (Lib Dem, Oxford West & Abingdon) most eloquently pointed out in the Guardian.

Related posts:

1. Time for the apple to bite back…

I was in the audience for Question Time last Thursday, broadcast from Salisbury. Unfortunately, rather than debating the hot topics of the week, the programme was completely sidetracked into a live expenses special, a topic which I am ambivalent towards to put it mildly. I have two major issues with this whole fiasco. Firstly, the way in the Daily Telegraph is being allowed to set the agenda, when the information should have been made public from the very beginning (and Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has to lot to answer for here, trying to block attempts to publish the information and otherwise cover up the affair). Secondly, MPs are no different from other people who hold positions of responsibility and operate in the public arena and they should be treated no differently than anyone else; I have worked in the public sector and had to sign up to the principles of public life and had I attempted to use the expenses system in the way some MPs have, I would have simply been dismissed and (if warranted) prosecuted. Why did this not happen for the MPs involved in this blatant abuse of the expenses system? Then MPs could have got on with the job of governing the country rather than embroiling the whole house in a media led witch-hunt.

Once in the audience, however, the debate was lively and it is obvious there is a lot of public interest and dissatisfaction; I am obviously in the minority thinking this issue should have been resolved without the many stages through which it has proceeded: recourse to denial, followed by apportioning blame on the system before finally reaching a stage of massed collaborative wringing of hands and MPs being asked to step down at the next election, potentially up to a year away. Vince Cable and William Hague both argued for an immediate general election in order that faith can be restored in the House of Commons, a notion that would simply play into the hands of minority parties as the public express their anger at the main parties; Marta Andreasen (UKIP) was certainly quite pleased with the suggestion. As i have already said, if the House had acted promptly to sack (and prosecute) those MPs who have fraudulently exploited the system, calls for a general election could have been avoided. If a general election were to be called now, there is a good chance some exemplary MPs would lose their seats as a result of the actions of their colleagues and furthermore, some of the most repugnant elements of British politics (such as the inherently racist BNP) would be given the chance of a lifetime. The only person speaking rationally on this part of the debate was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown with Ben Bradshaw failing to convince the audience that an immediate general election is a bad idea.

Furthermore, for William Hague to argue that David Cameron is doing his bit any more than Gordon Brown is simply preposterous, when his MPs have committed some of the grossest examples of expenses fiddling including having moats cleaned and forests planted on their vast country estates: The fact that his toffs have such land-holdings and properties does not give them the right to get the tax-payer to contribute a bean towards their upkeep! Having said that, whilst I would expect such behaviour of the Tory toffs, the fact that some of our so called socialist MPs have been found guilty of such behaviour and Gordon Brown has allowed himself to be targeted through lack of decisive action sickens me to the pit of my stomach; Hazel Blears in particular should be ashamed to call herself a Labour party member and go, never mind trying to justify her actions. Unfortunately, she’s not the only one.

On a plus side for Labour, it was genuinely pleasing to see that at least one member of the party is capable of rational thought with regards to the electoral process, arguing convincingly for dramatic electoral reform which is long overdue: Full marks to Ben Bradshaw. I’m dreading the next election as, due to the ping-pong nature of British politics as it currently operates, it’s the Tories turn to take the lead before they once again pillage the country to provide for the rich at the expense of the poor; the country still hasn’t recovered from the impact of the last Conservative government, the most significant effect of which was to severely damage the very fabric of British society. But then again, it’s not like Labour has done much to repair things in the decade of so they have been in power with a significant majority… It’s definitely time for some new politics.

The panel comprised Ben Bradshaw (health minister and MP for Exeter), William Hague (shadow foreign secretary and former leader of the Conservative Party), Vince Cable (Liberal Democrat chief economic spokesman), Martin Bell OBE (former journalist and the independent MP for Tatton from 1997 to 2001), Marta Andreasen (treasurer of the UK Independence Party), Jasmin Alibhai-Brown (columnist for the Independent and the Evening Standard). As ever, Question Time was chaired by the incomparable David Dimbleby.

Related posts:

1. It ain’t all smelling of roses…

You could see photos you take of your family and kids, or of a family vacation, used in a magazine or newspaper without your permission or payment to you. You would have to pay to register your photos, all of them, in every new registry in order to protect them. Say the average person takes 300 photos per year (I take a lot more than that). If a registry only charges $5 per image, that is a whopping $1,500 to protect your photos that are protected automatically under the current laws. If there are three registries, protecting your images could cost an amazing $4,500. Not to mention the time it would take to register every photo you take. Plus, you will also have to place your copyright sign on every photo.

From an article in Animation World Magazine where the author describes some horrendously bad legislation being created in the USA whereby an artist will have to register each and every artwork they produce in order to achieve the same levels of protection under copyright law currently afforded. What is more worrying (from my UK pov) is that Europe is noted as looking at similar legislation. If this happens, i would have to register each and every one of my Flickr photos in order that they can be listed as my copyright and not treated as ‘orphaned works’ and therefore free of copyright. Ridiculous! I am currently protected by the current copyright laws and therefore stand to lose protection not gain by such proposed legislation. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of maintaining registers of copyrighted works and potential for errors.
Hopefully this will turn out to be another example of the US legislators failing to understand basic principals (remember how it always used to be the way that to win an election, you needed more votes rather than more friends and relatives in positions of power?) and our legislators in Europe will not go down the same route (if only because they are arguing over the straightness of cucumbers or how dangerous barometers are). But then again, there’s nothing like a bit of new legislation to make it look like you’re doing something useful… 

Related posts:

1. 24 hours of Flickr
2. The law is an ass…
3. The wonders of technology

Haven’t blogged for a while now, been busy doing other stuff, but saw a minor abuse of power today which reminded me of a tune and prompted me to wonder and hence blog, and thanks to the wonders of YouTube, here is that tune and, thanks to the wonders of wordpress, my associated ramblings: The tune was KRS-1 with this classic bit of hip-hop, the sound of the police. You may not agree with all he says, but you have to admit, the power of music combined with a skilled lyricist is awesome to behold. Compared with a large proportion of mainstream (US) hip-hop of today, this was fresh and had meaning and, importantly, was still an absolutley banging tune; something to think about and dance to. It’s good to see UK folks like the Mitchell Brothers and Kano keeping the UK end up, doing similarly pointed material today, Routine Check for example; raising issues through a storming tune. Talking of the Mitchell Brothers, couldn’t not post Harvey Nicks also; love this tune! Again, thought provoking points based on keen observation, banging tune and some classic lines from Sway and the boys. And finally, couldn’t have a post talking about music that makes you think without posting the grand-daddy of all conscious hip-hop tunes; the message by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five. Love those outfits, boys; i can just see fiddy in the cowboy look for his next video Anyway, enough rambling and back to that pile of draft blog posts that have been accumulating since last year…

KRS-1; The sound of the police

The Mitchell Brothers; routine check

The Mitchell Brother; Harvey Nicks

Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five; the message

< 

Related posts:

1. Mark Ronson remixes Bob Dylan
2. It’s been a long time…
3. The way I are