Tag Archives: labour

Green surge – 13 reasons why the Greens are a party whose time has come Updated for 2026





After thousands of new members have joined this week, the Green Parties in Scotland and England and Wales now have more than both UKIP and the Lib Dems.

Farage’s party has 41,943, the Lib Dems head of membership tells me that they now have 44,680. On Wednesday, the Greens gained 2,000 members across the UK and overtook UKIP.

Today, Thursday, so far, they’ve gained more than 2000 more. As I write, Scottish Greens + the Green Party of England and Wales are at a combined total of 44,713.

In 2003, there were around 5,000 signed up Greens across the UK. That’s about the same number as has joined this week. What’s caused this growth, which has now so dramatically accelerated?

1) The debates

There’s something strange about British politics: an obsession with process. A huge portion of people feel that the exclusion of the Greens from the election debates is unfair.

For those who vote Green, or were thinking about it, being told that their chosen party isn’t significant is almost a personal affront. Hundreds of thousands signed a petition calling on the Greens to be included. Some clearly decided that they’d go one step further, and sign up.

2) The referendum

A huge portion of the growth took place in Scotland the week after the independence referendum – when the Scottish Greens grew from 1,800 members to 7,500. But it wasn’t just in Scotland. There was a significant surge in Green support in England and Wales that week too.

As one new member in Oxford put it to me, they and their partner had been students at Glasgow university. They were excited by the radical independence campaign, ‘Green Yes’, and the broader Yes movement. That’s what inspired them to join.

3) The Labour Party

It’s been 21 years since Tony Blair became leader of Labour. And throughout that time, despite ‘modernising’ it he also become a shield for it. People could persuade themselves that they still supported Labour, they just didn’t like Blair.

When Miliband came in, the excuses were gone. What was clearly the most left of the centre-left candidates of Labour had won the leadership. And the party still supported austerity. Without the charisma to be blamed personally, people started to look more closely at the party as a whole, and have found it wanting.

Look at a timeline of the growth in Green membership, and there were two, almost simultaneous events which happened before it started. If one was the referendum, the other was the 2014 Labour Party conference.

4) It’s the economy, stupid

Perhaps in a bid to stem the Green tide, Ed Miliband gave a speech about how much he cares about climate change.

Now, here’s the thing. I suspect he means it. But saying you care about climate change if you aren’t willing to stand up to big oil companies would be like saying you care about inequality without being willing to tackle bankers’ bonuses.

The fundamental problem in society is the power of massive corporations – of capital. And as long as Miliband and Balls promise to retain Tory cuts, as long as Labour remains a party of austerity, they will always look like they are on the side of capital, not ordinary people.

To put it another way, people have joined the Green Party because it opposes austerity and Labour doesn’t: the Greens have become the reasonable party of the left. 

5) The Lib Dems

A huge portion of the new Green membership is under the age of 30. The older ones in this group largely voted Lib Dem in 2010, and were then disenchanted not just by the trebling of fees but the blatant cynicism of Lib Dem leaders betraying their solemn promises.

The younger ones are of the sort who the Lib Dems were good at attracting five years ago. No more. For a long time, Lib Dems were able to appeal to different electorates by pretending to be very different things. Being in government meant they could only be one of those things.

6) UKIP

One consistent message from new members is that they felt so horrified by the rise of UKIP that they had to do something. The sense that Greens have the only party standing up to UKIP rather than pandering to them seems to have attracted many to the party.

A case in point here is the surge in Green membership around the Rochester and Strood by-election, where the party ran with the slogan “say no to racism”. When I got off the train in Rochester on polling day, the first person I bumped into had a big Green Party badge on, and had just joined, largely for that reason.

Likewise, though it’s uncomfortable for many Greens to admit this, UKIP have reshaped British politics in a way that’s good for outsiders of all hues.

They’ve shown that you can have huge political influence by supporting a party that will almost certainly not be in government; along with the SNP, they’ve made newer and smaller parties the major story of this election, and they’ve generated (along with the yes campaign) a sense that the establishment is on the run. These things all help Greens.

7) The politicisation of young people 

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the growth of the Greens is that around a quarter of new members are under 30. It used to be that the first rule of generation Y was ‘don’t join anything’. The fact that thousands have broken that is fascinating.

Specifically, the generation who flooded central London with angry protests four years ago has now graduated, and is facing a general election.

Looking for political organisations they can join now that their student union days are behind them and their university societies distant memories, they’ve largely rejected – or, more tellingly, not even considered, the NGOs that the New Left of their parents generations built.

They are interested in questioning power and the inter-relationships between problems, not just campaigning on one single issue after another. They don’t just want to sign petitions, they want to organise collectively to challenge those who rule them, and the Green Party has become a key path to do that through.

8) Syriza, Podemos and the global fightback 

This generation is very alert to the political mobilisations taking place across Europe. It was not just that the Scottish referendum showed that participating in official politics could be effective, even transformative.

The rise of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain in particular are inspiring a younger generation to rethink the opportunities offered by electoral and party politics

9) The snowball effect 

If the referendum and the Labour conference were the two external events which kicked off the surge, there was an internal one too.

The Green Party of England and Wales got quite a lot of coverage, back in September, for passing 20,000 members. This chat about joining clearly acted as an encouragement to lots of people to join, because there was a huge boost to membership in the next few days.

10) Natalie’s tours

Natalie Bennett is the second ever Green Party leader – before her, there was Caroline Lucas, and before her, there wasn’t a leader.

Caroline, because she was candidate and then MP in the target constituency, had to pour a huge amount of her time into Brighton. Natalie, on the other hand, has been touring the UK, often speaking to public meetings two or three times a week.

On Wednesday night, the day that 2,000 people joined the party, 600 people in Exeter turned out to hear Natalie Bennett speak. Tonight, hundreds are hearing her speak in Norwich. For two and a half years, week after week, local parties have reported surprisingly large turnouts – with two or three hundred people showing up where they usually get five to a meeting.

That means there are thousands of people across the country who’ve been to a public meeting with Natalie Bennett. I know some who have joined directly because of that.

It’s worth asking the question: of the new members, who finally made up their mind and joined because of one of the more short term factors above, how many were in one of those meetings? Or were recruited by someone who joined at one of those meetings?

More generally, having a national leader who isn’t also the key target candidate has given the party the chance to develop a national strategy, outside of the few strongholds its traditionally done well in.

11) The move to the left

Greens have always been on the left. But they haven’t always been very good at sounding like it. Instead, too often, they’ve sounded like a sort of preachy hair-shirt party, who wants to tax anything fun.

Of course, more often this is an image painted of the party by its enemies, but Greens haven’t always been brilliant at challenging it.

Equally damaging, there’s long been a sense that Greens are a single-issue environmental party. In order to combat this, it was important that Greens spend a lot of time telling a different story about themselves. And, for years, they largely failed to do this – instead using party communications to appeal to the select group who already agreed.

With Caroline and then Natalie out in front, and with the (left leaning and very influential) Young Greens and groups like Green Left organising among the activists, the image presented in recent years has been much more consistently left. Gone are the days of ‘not left or right but forwards’. The party is now clearly an electoral expression of the emerging new left.

Last year, the minority in the party who don’t like this (old fashioned ecologist liberals) set up a group to oppose this shift. As a response to the ‘watermelons’ of Green Left (green on the outside, red in the middle), they established a conference newsletter ‘the kiwi and the lime’ (green all the way through).

Their protests were largely ignored, and the surge in membership is the party’s reward: at new members meetings all across the country, people cite the Greens opposition to austerity, and being the only party left on the left, as key reasons for joining. 

12) Staying radical

For a long time, Greens had radical policies – like supporting Basic Income – but were often a little embarrassed to talk about them. Natalie Bennett, who has an impressive grasp of the complexities of policy, has been more comfortable highlighting such ideas.

After the financial crisis, huge numbers are coming to the conclusion that ideas which aren’t radical aren’t enough, and Greens have got a lot better at attracting them.

13) Telling a story about the party

For years, the party used to seem to basically put out press releases in response to external events, long after the articles about them had been written.

Not only was this a useless media strategy, it also failed to tell any clear story about who the party was. And so people accepted stories written by others (cf hair shirts).

Since Natalie’s taken over, they’ve been much better at gaining proactive media coverage, and been much more willing to embrace conflict and controversy (because the opposite of being controversial is being ignored).

Whether gaining headlines by announcing support for a £10 minimum wage or getting praise for bare-knucked denunciations of Farage’s migrant-bashing, the leading Greens have got much better at using the media to paint a picture of a party that’s on the left side of the brewing culture war, that’s fearless in the face of the establishment.

Of course, what happens next is all to play for.

 


 

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of OurKingdom and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. His e-book ‘42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence‘ is now available.

Author’s declaration of interest: I am a long-standing member of the Green Party.

This article was originally published on openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




389127

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026





The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 


 

The report:Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026





The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 


 

The report:Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026





The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 


 

The report:Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026





The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 


 

The report:Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Nuclear power trumps democracy Updated for 2026





Why is our democracy failing to tackle the horrific urgency of the climate crisis and the decimation of our eco-systems?

And why are all the main political parties betting the farm on nuclear power in spite of its madhouse economics – and against all their promises to either oppose nuclear power altogether, or to refuse subsidies for it?

In my new book, The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought, I set out my view that there is a single problem at the root of our nation’s difficulties.

A corporate elite have hijacked the pillars of Britain’s democracy. The production of thought, the dissemination of thought, the implementation of thought and the wealth arising from those thoughts, are now controlled by a tiny, staggeringly rich elite.

As a result the UK is no longer a functioning democracy but has become a  ‘Prostitute State’ built on four pillars: a corrupted political system, a prostituted media, a perverted academia and a thieving tax-haven system.

This has disastrously resulted in a flood of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the top 1%. This stolen wealth is built on the destruction of the planet’s ecosystems, which are essential for humanity’s survival.

Nuclear power defeats democracy

The reversal of government policy on nuclear power is a classic example of how the Prostitute State trumps democracy. Betrayed environmental activists must understand that – notwithstanding the noble form of democratic structures – what they are really up against is a corrupt corporate state.

The concept of lobbying is reasonably well known, but few of us understand how far lobbying has penetrated and hijacked the political parties themselves.

For example, most people are perplexed at how the nuclear industry managed to persuade the UK’s previous Labour government to build a fleet of hugely expensive experimental nuclear power stations on land prone to flooding from rising sea levels.

They also struggle to comprehend and why Labour’s shadow energy and climate change minister, Caroline Flint MP, having stated that she would only support nuclear power if built without public subsidies, now supports the £15-20 billion subsidy package for Hinkley C nuclear power station

Labour managed managed this policy U-Turn despite the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear catastrophes; the failure to find safe waste-disposal sites capable of protecting radioactive waste for over 100,000 years; and insurance companies’ point blank refusal to provide nuclear accident insurance.

It’s the money, stupid

My simple answer is that the nuclear industry has poured millions of pounds year after year into a massive political lobbying campaign.

They bought a whole swathe of senior ex-politicians to work as nuclear lobbyists, spent a fortune on trying to manipulate public opinion through media and advertising, and even funded school trips to their nuclear plants.

As they managed to persuade a Labour government to abandon their 1997 election manifesto commitment to oppose new nuclear power stations, it is crucial to understand how deeply the nuclear lobby is embedded in the Labour party.

My personal belief is that a complex web of financial interests ensured that the Labour government served the nuclear industry – no matter what Labour party members or the British public wanted.

Just consider for example the following list of Labour Party politicians:

  • Former Energy Minister Brian Wilson became a non-executive director of Amec Nuclear, a client of BNFL, a nuclear operator.
  • Former Energy Minister Helen Liddell was hired to provide “strategic advice” by the nuclear corporation British Energy.
  • Former Secretary of State John Hutton, who as Business Secretary published the government White Paper announcing government plans to build new nuclear stations, was appointed Chair of the Nuclear Industry Association in 2011. He also joined the advisory board of US nuclear corporation Hyperion Power Generation in July 2010.
  • Colin Byrne, the Labour Party’s former chief press officer, headed up lobbying giant Weber Shandwick’s UK arm, which BNFL hired to lobby for new nuclear plants.
  • Gordon Brown’s brother, Andrew, was nuclear giant EdF’s head of media relations in the UK.
  • Yvette Cooper was the Planning Minister who introduced fast-track planning for nuclear power stations. Her father was chair of nuclear lobbyists The Nuclear Industry Association and is director of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
  • Alan Donnelly, former leader of the Labour MEPs, runs the lobbying company Sovereign Strategy, which represented US nuclear engineering giant Fluor. His website promised “pathways to the decision makers in national governments”.
  • Former Labour Minister Jack Cunningham was legislative chair of the Transatlantic Nuclear Energy Forum, an organisation founded by lobbyist Alan Donnelly to foster “strong relationships” between nuclear power companies and governments.
  • The Tory Peer Lady Maitland was a paid member of Sovereign Strategy’s board.
  • Donnelly funded Labour leadership contender David Miliband’s constituency office refurbishment.
  • David Sainsbury, Labour Minister for Science from 1998 to 2006 told the House of Lords that he regarded nuclear power as a form of renewable energy.
  • Ed Miliband’s barrister wife Justine Thornton advised EdF Energy on its Development Consent Order for a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point.

Of course I cannot say that the financial links of any individual with the nuclear industry had any bearing on the party’s change in policy. However this wholesale hiring of senior Labour Party figures by the nuclear lobby may have been influential in the fact that a number of key aims were achieved over the last ten years:

  • the reversal of Labour’s commitment to rule out new nuclear power stations.
  • Labour ministers’ introduction of a fast-track planning process for new nuclear plants without lengthy inquiries.


The saintly Lib Dems …

It is also noteworthy that whilst governments across the world were abandoning nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, the new Tory / Lib Dem coalition abandoned their manifesto commitments to provide no public subsidy for new nuclear, by guaranteeing multi-billion pound annual subsidies.

The Tory / Lib Dem government also made the taxpayer liable for nuclear disaster costs, after the private insurers refused to do so – as just one catastrophic accident would bankrupt most global insurance companies.

    To understand the comparative power of political lobbying versus voting at elections, you need to realise that the final two aims above were achieved despite the Lib Dems having for decades supposedly opposed nuclear power and the Tories having opposed nuclear subsidies in the 2010 general election.

    I was never convinced by the Lib Dem leadership’s opposition to nuclear power after it successfully, in the late ’90s, squashed the adoption in policy papers of the phrase “a renewable energy economy” that I had proposed to replace “a low carbon economy” which they favoured.

    The latter of course allowed the switch to a pro-nuclear policy once the Lib Dems were in government.

    The prominent Lib Dem MP Ed Davey stood for election opposing nuclear energy, but as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he became nuclear power’s chief cheerleader – announcing that the government’s entire industrial strategy was now based on new nuclear!

    The UK government is already spending the equivalent of 93% of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s entire annual budget on nuclear subsidies! This was achieved despite polls indicating overwhelming support by the public for renewable energy over nuclear power.

    Lib Dem nuclear links

    Ed Davey’s brother, Henry Davey, works for the global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills which has advised EdF on its purchase of nuclear plants and the development application for a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point.

    Also Lib Dem peer Tim Clement-Jones, Nick Clegg’s Party Treasurer at the last general election and the Party’s spokesman on culture and sport in the House of Lords, is founder and chairman of Global Government Relations, the lobbying arm of the huge multinational law firm DLA Piper, and serves as DLA Piper’s London Managing Partner.

    DLA Piper is listed as a member of the Nuclear Industry Association, and boasts of its widespread experience with many nuclear industry companies. According to its website it

    • advised AREVA SA on their investment in New Nuclear Build at Hinkley Point C including the new Contract for Difference regime, waste management strategy and HM Treasury Infrastructure Guarantee Scheme.
    • advised Sellafield Limited on all aspects of their waste management and decommissioning programme covering annual capital spend of £1billion.
    • is advising the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the application of the International Nuclear Liability Conventions in respect of the marine transport of high level radioactive waste from Europe to Japan.
    • is advising nuclear supply chain on tendering exercises in support of new nuclear build in the UK.
    • is advising Westinghouse, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Magnox Limited and International Nuclear Services Limited on all aspects of fuel supply contracts, enrichment, waste management and radioactive transportation in support of activities in UK and globally.

    Of course this could all be complete coincidence and we cannot conclude that Lord Clement-Jones had any influence on Lib Dem policy changes as regards nuclear power.

    But what we do know is that Davey won the battle yesterday at the European Commission to overthrow the Commission’s previous ban on state aid for new nuclear power, following intense political and industry lobbying of the 28 Commissioners.

    Thus the Lib Dems’ legacy will be to have thrown open the floodgates to new nuclear power right across Europe, despite their election manifesto having promised to oppose it.

     


     

    Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA is a former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats. He can be reached via his website 3acorns.

    This article is based on an extract from Donnachadh McCarthy’s new book ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘. 

    Copies of ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk.

    E-book version available from www.Lulu.com.

     

     




    365529

One more heave! Ministers’ pre-election fracking drive Updated for 2026





It’s a question of fear. What secretly worries pro-fracking Conservative ministers, The Ecologist has learned, is that a Labour administration in power after 2015 might reverse the current coalition’s efforts to make widespread fracking possible across the UK.

So in order to make it as hard as possible for the next government to reverse the plans of this one, the Department for Energy and Climate Change is accelerating efforts to get ‘phase one’ of fracking – as one government source calls the current drive – completed before polling day next May.

And they may succeed: none of the three mainstream parties that hold real clout in Westminster are likely to put up much of a fight any time soon.

Labour: intensely relaxed about shale

Right now an odd sort of rapprochement is taking place in Westminster. After years of glaring at each other suspiciously across the despatch boxes, government and opposition frontbenchers might be close to securing consensus on shale gas.

Labour has been creeping towards accepting fracking for some years now. In 2012 it set out a series of regulatory tests designed to limit localised environmental impact. Then, last month, the opposition tabled amendments to the infrastructure bill detailing these.

“If the government accept our amendments we’ll be in a position where there is much more thorough regulation in place”, said Tom Greatrex MP, Labour’s Shadow Energy Minister. “But there are other issues.”

These include the monitoring of methane gas, which remains the subject of a scientific study. A good excuse for Labour to delay its final endorsement of fracking until next year. In response, ministers are considering further concessions to get Labour firmly onside.

A bit more regulation is regarded by pro-fracking Conservatives as a price worth paying to win a swift political agreement. Even the industry has made it clear that they don’t oppose the bulk of Labour’s proposals.

Fracking firms’ only serious concern with Labour’s proposed regulation is the period of time needed to establish ‘baseline’ chemical levels in groundwater before drilling begins. The opposition is calling for a 12-month timeframe, but the United Kingdom Onshore Oil And Gas (UKOOG) thinks three months is plenty.

“This is a very regulated industry already”, said a spokesman. “Whatever government is in place, the industry will be committed to proper regulation and to full consultation with local communities that are affected.”

Nixing the NIMBYs

Oddly, the biggest threat to ministers’ fracking plans comes from backbenchers representing rural constituencies across England’s green and pleasant land – most of which are Conservative. These are the Middle Englanders – the ones who oppose fracking on the time-honoured tradition of ‘not in my back yard’.

Nick Herbert, a former government minister, is among them. Herbert supports fracking nationally, but rejected a proposal for explanatory drilling in his South Downs constituency earlier this year because it involved heavy lorry movements through a pretty local village.

“It’s difficult to judge when the costs of renewable energy might fall”, he says. “What the government must do is reassure those who have concerns about the environmental impact.” He also sees an economic benefit in developing domestic gas sources, since “shale gas could substitute for gas from other countries.”

Herbert, and the NIMBYs in his constituency, are always going to be a problem for the Government. But ministers have a ‘carrot and stick’ plan to reduce the number of times their campaigning actually stops drilling taking place.

Community engagement plans are being developed to combat their concerns. And landowners’ and homeowners’ rights to obstruct fracking under their property are being addressed in the Infrastructure Bill – which will allow energy firms to drill without the owner’s permission.

Campaigners remain defiant, and confident too

Green campaigners are facing a considerable challenge. They are fighting against a firm pro-fracking consensus in Parliament, where arguments about climate change are seemingly only being voiced by a handful of MPs – most visibly the Green MP Caroline Lucas (see photo).

Herbert, in common with ministers, thinks the minority of the population that are seriously worried about fracking and its potentially severe impacts are irrelevant to the debate – and can be safely ignored

But away from Westminster the enemies of fracking remain defiant, and confident. For Hannah Martin, a coordinator of the Say No To Gas group, the imminent election in May 2015 provides the perfect opportunity to squeeze MPs seeking re-election on fracking.

Say No To Gas now comprises 200 community groups which have grown up in the last year or so to stop fracking in their areas, and more are being set up all the time. The network is providing an “unprecedented level of resistance” wherever energy companies seek permits for exploratory drilling, she says.

As for the outcome, she is sure MPs and even ministers will be eager to please concerned constituents in what is likely to be a very close-run election. “It is definitely stoppable”, she insists.

Lib Dems: forgetting the long view

A key target will be Liberal Democrat incumbents desperate to win back popular support which has ebbed away during their time in government.

The party boasted about its environmentalist priorities while in opposition – but has done very little to restrain Conservative ministers in government. Following Cameron’s promise to form Britain’s ‘greenest government ever’, the result has been eco-catastrophe – and the Lib Dems must share the blame for that.

The party insists it has wrung concessions out of the Tories. Applications for exploratory drilling now have to be accompanied by a testing ‘statement of environmental awareness’. Planning guidance makes clear drilling will be refused in sensitive areas – and if the frackers appeal, ministers can ‘call in’ the case to make a final judgement themselves.

None of these really address the fundamentals of shale gas extraction, though. They won’t ensure the carbon from Britain’s shale deposits stays in the ground. Nor will they stop the industrialisation and pollution of countryside which may not all be ‘special’ but is still hugely valued by local people.

Martin Horwood, a Lib Dem MP worried by fracking, says his concerns have shifted away from earthquakes to water contamination and the long-term impact on climate change. “There’s still a lot of scepticism in the party”, he argues.

But will it make any difference? At last year’s autumn conference, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion giving the party’s official blessing to fracking. But it did so in terms that allowed its numerous doubters to keep quiet.

Now the rush is on to implement the policy, we may see further signs of Lib Dem unrest this autumn. So watch the Lib Dem’s party conference, where concerns over fracking may surface with renewed ferocity.

The coalition’s junior partners are unlikely to trigger a big row over the issue if they can help it: on fracking, as with nuclear power, they have allowed the Conservatives to call the shots. But the whiff of a grassroots rebellion among the party ranks could change all that in the blink of an eye.

Ukraine – the joker in the pack

Another dimension is the enthusiasm of American shale gas producers to get into Europe’s gas market. Encouraged by Europe’s growing tensions with Russia, they want to take advantage of the situation and give their flagging industry a new lease of life.

One plan is to open up Europe as a huge new export market for US shale gas. But the US lacks the export infrastructure needed to do this, and realistically the necessary terminals cannot be in place for some years.

The other plan is to use gas shortages in Europe this coming winter to engineer a pro-fracking concensus – and open up Europe’s fracking grounds to US companies.

Right-wing elements in the Ukraine government have already openly advocated closing Russia’s gas pipelines to the EU, something that would suit US fracking interests down to the ground.

But either plan would be a disaster for the planet because – thanks to high energy inputs and fugitive methane emissions from fracking wells – the global warming impact of fracked gas is comparable to that of coal. Add in the impact of shipping from US ports and it only gets worse.

But how big can fracking get anyway?

The switch to low-carbon energy generation, mainly from wind and solar, means that demand for gas should fall dramatically over the next 15 years. By 2030, the International Energy Agency estimates, shale gas could only ever provide 10% of the UK’s energy mix.

Then there is the problem that Europeans will strongly resist paying as much for their gas as the Japanese and emerging-economy countries do.

Some business analysts estimate replacing Russian gas with American shale gas would result in European gas prices doubling. Domestically produced shale gas will also need sustained high prices to be economcially viable, as it costs far more to produce than conventional natural gas.

“Realistically”, says the IPPR think-tank’s Joss Garman, “it’s not going to be a significant part of the answer.”

So the news is not all grim for the anti-frackers. Never mind the political support that fracking has engineered in the three main parties. Straightforward market economics might be enough to make sure that fracking never gets far beyond the starting gate.

Meanwhile determined anti-fracking campaigning aimed at MPs keen for electoral advantage in the 2015 election could make all the difference. It’s called democracy – and since it only comes around ever five years, there’s every reason to use it while we can.

 

 


 

Alex Stevenson is parliamentary editor of politics.co.uk, and an occasional contributor to The Ecologist.

 

 




383901

With 4% support, Labour robs Green seat in ‘rotten borough’ election Updated for 2026





Back in May, there were council elections in Oxford. In the Carfax ward, the former Labour council leader, Alex Hollingsworth stood. He lost narrowly to the Green candidate, Ruthi Brandt.

A couple of months later, a by-election was triggered. Each Oxford ward has two councillors, and there are elections for one of them every two years. The other councillor in the ward, Ann-Marie Canning, announced she was standing down.

Ann Marie had moved to London for a job soon after she’d been elected in 2012, and was finding it hard to do both jobs.

Elections timed for electoral advantage at public expense

Usually, it’s frowned upon to trigger a by-election immediately after there’s been a city-wide election, as it costs extra resources and it’s easier for everyone just to elect both seats for the ward on the same day.

But Oxford Labour have done it three times this summer. They know it’s easier to hold by-elections than to hold seats during the city-wide vote because they can pour resources in from across the county and beat the various smaller parties they have to contend with in each area.

Since Greens won the Carfax seat up in May, it seems likely they’d have got two, had both been contested then. Up against the whole Labour machine, it’s harder.

This case is more shocking though. Carfax is a funny kind of a ward. Fully 60% of the people who live there are students living in their Oxford colleges – and are unable to be present outside term time.

No public mandate at all

In a move clearly planned for many months by Labour, Ann-Marie announced her resignation at exactly the right moment to ensure that the by-election would be held at a time when students weren’t there.

She and the Oxford Labour Party connived to ensure that the majority of voters in the ward would be disenfranchised. Oxford students tend to vote Green. The non-students in the ward lean to Labour.

Not surprisingly, therefore, among the 40% of the voters who remained, Labour won. Or rather, among the 8.6% of the electorate who voted. 8.6% is apparently the lowest turnout in British electoral history. It provides no mandate at all.

Hollingsworth should refuse to take up his seat, and the by-election should be held again. If it was, Hollingsworth could well win again.

But he won’t stand down. He’ll instead claim to represent an electorate his party actively chose to disenfranchise, and vote in their name on issues which affect them.

 


 

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of OurKingdom  on Open Democracy, and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. His e-book ‘42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence’ is now available.

Adam also contested Oxford’s Carfax seat for the Green Party in 2012, taking second place to Ann-Marie Canning.

This article was originally published on Bright Green.

 




383785