The price of Britain's disappearing wildlife | |||||
Food is relatively cheap and plentiful in Britain today, but will that still be the case in 50 years? Overfishing and the decline of species on land has left some experts saying it is getting both harder and more expensive for the UK to feed itself in the long term. That decline also opens up questions about the sort of countryside being left to future generations as nearly half of Britain's native land mammals are now considered a priority for conservation, be they hedgehogs, water voles, red squirrels or bats. Farmland birds are also disappearing, with skylark numbers having been halved during the 1990s and continuing to drop. One in five wild plants, the starting point for so much of our wildlife, face extinction.
This year the UK missed two international targets, set by the European Union and United Nations, that were aimed at halting the decline in our biodiversity - that intricate web of nature on which we depend so much. Ecological meltdown Professor Callum Roberts of York University said the Firth of Clyde, off Scotland's west coast - which is no longer considered viable for commercial fishing of white fish - is an example of how bad the situation can become. Once a stretch of sea teeming with life, Prof Roberts said it is now approaching ecological meltdown due to overfishing. "It shows what the end point of overfishing really looks like, we're very close to that point here - where there's nothing left that's worth catching."
The local fishing fleet no longer concentrates on catching white fish, like cod, and some say this is leading to a recovery of stocks, but Prof Roberts said trawlers and dredgers catching shellfish mean the seabed is paying the price. A camera sent to film the seabed off the east coast of the Isle of Arran, a popular spot for fishing boats to dredge for scallops, revealed a sandy bottom, lots of broken shells and crabs, and very little else. It is because of areas like this that Prof Roberts thinks the UK needs a better balance in the seas between places that are off limits to fishing and places that are fished more intensively. Jellyfish salad Investment banker Pavan Sukhdev has been asked by the UN to look at the hard economics of declining wildlife, in particular how costs will rise if species that are readily available become hard to find. If dwindling stocks make a restaurant's 'fish of the day' prohibitively expensive, Mr Sukhdev said restaurant-goers may have to contemplate menu choices such as plankton soup or jellyfish salad when dining out. And it is not just the seas that are worrisome, he said, it is also the bugs and bees - the insects that pollinate crops. Here the statistics of decline are worrying. The UK has lost at least two of its bumblebee species, and a quarter of those left are at risk of extinction. Three quarters of butterflies are also losing numbers. If too many of these insects disappear, crops will have to be pollinated by hand - a labour-intensive practice that despite sounding far-fetched is already under way in China. Initial estimates put the additional cost of doing something similar in Britain at £1.5bn per year. "Just imagine if bees sent you invoices for their pollinating services - it would make you sit up and take notice, but you don't right now, because it's free," Mr Sukhdev said of the hidden value of a robust and abundant mix of wildlife. Where is action needed? Farming is the single biggest influence on biodiversity on the land, and amid the push to intensify food production since World War II, the country's wildlife has suffered. About half of the £546m that the government spent on biodiversity last year went to incentives to farmers to encourage wildlife. And while some farms have seen results, overall the trend of the farmland bird population in the UK is still downward, with over a 50% drop since 1970.
The incentive schemes are voluntary and inspections focus on what the farmer has signed up to do. Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon said the government might become more demanding of farmers in the future when it comes to expectations. "If we're giving taxpayers' money to a farmer to do certain things, we want to make sure that there is an outcome," Mr Benyon said. On the seas, the government recently announced 15 new marine protected areas round the UK's coast, which could restrict such things as fishing, dredging and even wind farms in a bid to protect biodiversity. The question for those who track Britain's wildlife both in the water and on land is whether or not the downward trend can be reversed or if these new measures are too little too late? Panorama: Britain's Disappearing Wildlife, BBC One, Monday 30 August at 2030 BST and then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer. | |||||
The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut and when he tries to pay his bill the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Member of Parliament came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The MP was very happy and left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen MPs lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it. (Thanks to Noel Lynch, London GP for the Joke)
THIS UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT A JOKE! DID THEY LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE EXPENSES SCANDAL?
From The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ 25 Aug 2010
MPs 'abused staff over expenses changes' Several MPs have verbally abused expenses watchdog staff, with one calling the new system an "abortion", official documents suggest.
An MP made one worker cry, later giving chocolates to apologise, it is alleged. Denis MacShane said he was the MP involved but called that account of the incident "partial and one-sided" The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, set up after the expenses scandal, published the revelations after a Freedom of Information request.
The revised expenses system has come in for severe criticism, with many politicians claiming it is too bureaucratic and time-consuming. There have also been reports of MPs abusing authority (IPSA) staff as they attempt to come to grips with its intricacies. 'Intimidating' The document, outlining the details of complaints made by workers, contains several instances of swearing and intimidation.
The male MP who allegedly called the new system an "abortion" went on to describe Sir Ian Kennedy, IPSA's chairman, as "stupid". Another, who was told he had to take part in an induction session to learn the workings of the system, is reported to have "struck a laptop on the facilitator's desk and loomed over the facilitator in an intimidating manner". I did not swear or raise my voice. I do not get cross with young ladies” Denis MacShaneLabour MP In another recorded incident, trainers and all IPSA staff were referred to as "monkey" by one female MP.
One MP is said to have grabbed a trainer's name badge, while another reportedly declared: "I am going to murder someone today." A staff member recalls a meeting in which an MP was "very difficult and disruptive" and after 10 minutes a volunteer "burst into tears and a staff member attempted to intervene". They add: "When a staff member offered to help, the MP dismissed him as 'condescending', at which point another staff member pulled the volunteer (still in tears) out of the session. At this point the MP immediately became contrite and apologised... He later returned with a box of chocolates and a note addressed to the volunteer."
'Tears in my eyes' Labour's Denis MacShane told the BBC he was the MP concerned but said the account of the incident was "partial and one-sided". It occurred immediately after the election, he said, when MPs were "exhausted" and trying to get to grips with a new computer system for making claims which proved impossible to operate.
In what he described as an "awful experience" and "disastrous error", he said IPSA officials had put young female volunteers from government departments "into the front line" to induct MPs about using the system. "I was getting frustrated, upset and saying, 'Look, I want to be an MP, I don't want to have to grapple with this bureaucracy,'" he told BBC Radio 4's PM. "I was getting upset with myself... I saw that she just had a grumpy middle-aged MP on her hands. She got upset, there were tears in my eyes and I just stopped it, ran out and got the biggest box of chocolates I could find." But he stressed. "I did not swear or raise my voice. I do not get cross with young ladies." Mr MacShane said he was disturbed that IPSA had kept "secret records" of conversations between MPs and their staff and these had been released to the press without members being informed. "This is quite worrying that IPSA continue this kind of war with MPs when we need to stop it."
IPSA was set up last year to enforce a revised expenses system. A spokesman said: "These instances relate to the early days of operation. IPSA is focusing on getting on with its job which is managing the new regime governing MPs' expenses - that means checking and processing thousands of claims each week.
"Last week alone, for example, IPSA handled 4,000 claims and paid £650,000 to MPs."
According to a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Budget has hit poorest families the hardest.
From the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11086137
In George Osborne's June Budget, the chancellor increased VAT from 17.5% to 20% and cut welfare spending.
Child benefit and public sector pay were frozen and 25% cut from public service spending.
The IFS said: "Low-income households of working age lose the most as a proportion of income from the tax and benefit reforms announced in the emergency Budget.
"Those who lose the least are households of working age without children in the upper half of the income distribution.
"They do not lose out from cuts in welfare spending, and they are the biggest beneficiaries from the increase in the income tax personal allowance."
The report also questioned the government's decision to use the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) instead of the Retail Prices Index (RPI) when calculating certain benefits.
The report said that more than three-quarters of benefit claimants were affected by increases in housing costs, which are included in the RPI.
Many analysts say that government spending cuts often have a disproportionate impact on the poorest households.
They site the example of Canada, which cut spending sharply in the 1990s and saw the gap between rich and poor widen. The same phenomenon has occurred in Sweden and Finland, they say.
TimescalesThe BBC's chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym says the disagreement between the Treasury and the IFS over their forecasts was about timescales.
When George Osborne said in the Budget the measures were progressive, he was referring to changes taking effect by 2012. The IFS argues that we should look at a longer period, up to 2014, taking in a fuller range of measures including cuts to housing benefit.
On that basis, the IFS stands by its analysis that the full package of measures, taking in Alistair Darling's last Budget and Mr Osborne's changes, is regressive, our correspondent says.
Rugby Borough Council is now officially a laughing stock after satirical magazine Private Eye awarded it 'ROTTEN BOROUGH' status.
OPEN LETTER
15 August 2010
Senior Officers; Andrew Gabbitas & Ian Davis
Rugby Borough Council
Town Hall
Evreux Way
Rugby
CV21 2RR
Dear Mr Gabbitas and Mr Davis
COUNCILLOR CRAIG HUMPHREY SHOULD STAND DOWN!
We wish to express our concerns about your endorsement of Councillor Craig Humphrey being employed by Rugby Borough Council in a Chief Executive role.
As you will be aware an individual employed by the local authority is strictly forbidden from standing for election as candidates for the said local authority.
The recent case (May 2010) of Councillor Louise Couling who was employed for just a few hours a week as a Lolly Pop lady by Barking & Dagenham Borough Council, who was forced to resign her seat (Barking and Dagenham Post - http://www.bdpost.co.uk/) after being elected to the said Council indicates the pickle that Rugby Borough Council has got itself into.
Mr Humphrey should therefore stand down as a Councillor, as this could be seen to contravene electoral law and many would say long established good practice.
Many people would be surprised to see that Mr Gabbitas himself as the Electoral Returning Officer for Rugby Borough Council has not advice this course of action and we in the Green Party would suggest that Mr Gabbitas urgently seek advice from the Electoral Commission over this issue if he has not done so already?
We in the Green Party, agree that Rugby Borough Council paying £103,000 a year for a Chief Executive as they did with the last Chief Executive Simon Warren is not acceptable and action should be taken to ensure that no one is paid this massive amount at Rugby Borough Council.
The Green Party positive policy in respect of the inequalities in pay that exist in local government is we believe helpful in this matter and that is no one should earn more than ten times the minimum wage in a local authority.
Another bench mark for deciding the pay of a Chief Executive is the pay rate for a Senior Officer of the local authority which is between £20,000 - £24,000 a year, given the greater responsibility involved, the Chief Executive pay should be no more than £35,000 a year, given his or her responsibility for 480 staff and the conduct of 48 Councillors. Thus saving £60,000 on the current post!
So in conclusion Mr Gabbitas and Mr Davis, instead of creating an inappropriate job for Mr Humphrey you should instead seek to reduce the pay of the Chief Executive using the formulas above or perhaps engage with local stakeholders and see what they think?
In the meantime. Craig Humphrey should stand down as a Councillor, as he appears ineligible to sit as a Councillor given his employment by the Council.
Regards
Roy Sandison
Rugby Green Party
In a strongly-worded private letter, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP has accused the prime minister of dealing council and housing association tenants a double-whammy as the PM proposes to slash housing benefit while attacking security of tenure.
The letter was sent on 5 August but the PM has yet to respond.
In the letter, the Green Party leader and MP for Brighton Pavilion questions the PM's evidence base and calls his proposals "ill-judged". Mr Cameron has indicated publicly - but with no prior announcement from the Department of Communities and Local Government - that he would like to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies, lasting as little as five years.
Caroline Lucas points out that "Cutting housing benefits will serve to further increase demand for social housing, as private tenants are unable to afford their rent."
She accuses the prime minister of "coercion", saying that "making continued occupation of a tenant's home dependent on an official deciding whether or not the tenant deserves to remain there would both remove tenants' security and discourage social mobility."
She asks: "Why would I want to get a job and do well if this meant I might lose my tenancy?"
The UK's first Green MP also questions the prime minister over the bureaucracy likely to be created by his proposal, including "the cost of the process of assessing who should and shouldn't lose their home, including the inevitable appeals and possible court cases..."
"These are people's homes not just their houses"
Caroline Lucas continues: "A real look at the evidence shows that the shortage of council house supply is not down to under-occupation by tenants but due to massive and continuous under-investment in council and social housing over decades accompanied by the disastrous policy of 'right to buy' which has decimated the council housing stock."
She adds, "it should not be forgotten that these are people's homes not just their houses and security of tenure is one of the great successes of council and social housing, allowing families to remain in areas they could never afford to stay in if this security did not exist and allowing them to make roots and play an active part in their communities."
The letter concludes with an attack on the government's cuts agenda, which Caroline Lucas says is the driving force behind the policy:
"This policy is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the consequences of the cuts that your Government is making."
Notes
1. See "Housing benefit cuts will increase homelessness, Green Party leader warns" at http://www.greenparty.org.uk/News/2010-13-08-Lucas-Housing-benefit-cuts-homelessness.html.
2. See eg "David Cameron announces plan to end lifetime council tenancies: Council homes for life to be replaced by tenancies lasting as little as five years based on need and income", Guardian 3.8.10, athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/03/lifetime-council-tenancies-contracts-cameron.
3. The full text of the letter is below.
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
5 August 2010
Dear David,
Council and Housing Association Tenancies
I am aware of the convention to write to the Minister responsible on a particular policy area. However I am writing to you directly as public knowledge of your policy proposal on the above issue arises from the comments you made during your recent visit to Birmingham, rather than any official policy document from the Department for Communities and Local Government or communication with Parliamentarians.
The media reports that you want to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies lasting as little as five years. The details of the proposal are not yet available on the DCLG website, despite press reports that a consultation paper is imminent. It is not at all helpful for such a major policy proposal to be made before any official documentation is made available. Nonetheless, going on what the press has reported, I understand that the idea is for a new short-term tenure to be implemented by local councils, involving regular reviews of tenancies.
I cannot see how your policy announcement could be described as evidence based. On what basis do you conclude that under-occupation and high income are prevalent in the Council and social rented housing sectors? I would be very interested to see the data upon which you have relied in coming up with this ill-judged policy.
A real look at the evidence shows that the shortage of council house supply is not down to under-occupation by tenants but due to massive and continuous under-investment in council and social housing over decades accompanied by the disastrous policy of "right to buy" which has decimated the council housing stock. Do you still support "right to buy" given that you do not even appear to support the "right to rent"?
I should be grateful for details of what account has been taken of the impact of your Government's threatened cuts to housing benefits in relation to this policy? Cutting housing benefits will serve to further increase demand for social housing, as private tenants are unable to afford their rent. Clearly, it makes sense to provide opportunities for council and social housing tenants with space in their home to move to smaller accommodation if that is something they want to do.
However, it should not be forgotten that these are people's homes not just their houses and security of tenure is one of the great successes of council and social housing, allowing families to remain in areas they could never afford to stay in if this security did not exist and allowing them to make roots and play an active part in their communities.
As well as being unfair, coercion will be ineffective - it is not the way to improve council housing supply. The threat of coercion in the background, making continued occupation of a tenant's home dependent on an official deciding whether or not the tenant deserves to remain there would both remove tenants' security and discourage social mobility. Why would I want to get a job and do well if this meant I might lose my tenancy? And what would be the cost of the process of assessing who should and shouldn't lose their home, including the inevitable appeals and possible court cases?
The Government cannot avoid the need for real and sustained investment in both council and social housing by trying to suggest the supply problems are caused by under-occupation of council homes. It is not tenants who are to blame for the council and social housing crisis!
This policy is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the consequences of the cuts that your Government is making and it can only be described as a counterproductive assault on tenants' rights.
I should be grateful for your response to my concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion
Their is raising anger over the job creation at Rugby Borough Council for Tory Councillor Craig Humphrey - who has been appointed the new Chief Executive of the Council behind closed doors and no information of the wage he will be paid. Dear Sir
There seems to be plenty of slight of hand and double speak taking place at the moment in regards to cuts to essential service in Rugby.
As Steve Roberts from the FBU has illustrated, the Tory closure of the Brinklow station will lead to deaths and the reason why people should support the proposed action and campaign by the Fire Bridges Union is the indiscriminate chance that you, your family or friends could lose their lives resulting from the Tory Councillors voting to close the fire station at Brinklow.
The classic tactic of the Tory Councillors who ‘represent’ the Brinklow area to abstain or find a spurious reason not to vote, at the same time knowing that their mates in the Tory party will do the dirty business can only be described as despicable.
The workers in the Fire Bridges Union should be supported in their campaign/action to defend our fire service.
The cuts of the CON DEM government will bite deeply into public services in Rugby if they are allowed to get away with it.
The most vulnerable in our town are under attack, we have already seen our elderly people with dementia and depression being sent into exile to Nuneaton with the closure of the Hawthorn Ward at St Cross. Abbotsbury Care Home in Hillmorton is threaten with closure and the costs of essential services to allow people to remain safely in their homes are planned to be increased massively – this at the same time as the Tory Councillors say they are closing the home because people can now ‘safely’ live at home – a cruel example of double speak from Tory Councillors.
The threat to close St Cross A&E is also being suggested as some sort of improvement in services – can you believe these CON DEM jokers? – The same goes for cuts to local schools – now given ‘freedom’ apparently.
The Police have announced cuts to Officers on the beat in Rugby and even our local magistrate’s court is being closed.
But fear not the people of Rugby – the local Tory leader has now been appointed as Chief Executive of Rugby Council behind closed doors and with no information on the salary he will be given.
A fraction of the people of Bilton ward may have succumb to Craig’s charms and knowledge of the game of rugger at the elections in 2008, but the rest of us perhaps would liked to express our own opinion on Craig Humphrey’s suitability for his new job. If Craig wants to be the paid mayor of Rugby he really should go through the motions of an election – self appointment shows a degree of contempt for local people.
While the local Tories seem able to create a job for one of their number, the rest of us are paying for the actions of the Bankers who gambled and expected us to pick their losses.
The Banks have just announced massive profits along with the usual bonuses. So while its party time as usual for these people the most vulnerable in Rugby will face cuts. This is why ordinary people need to fights cuts to our public services and not be side tracked by the supporters of the CON DEM government crocodile tears.
Regards
Roy Sandison
Rugby Green Party
