Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Old habits die hard in Wales
I read Rhodri Morgan's autobiography not so long ago and in particular the way that the Welsh Labour establishment lined up to stop him leading them into the first Assembly elections.
The union block vote was ruthlessly manipulated to get Alun Michael past the finishing line, effectively disenfranchising ordinary members, and the irony is that it was all within the rules.
Of course, they paid the price at the elections, as Labour voters refused to support a man they considered to be Tony Blair's puppet, and the resulting controversy nearly torpedoed the devolution project this side of Offa's Dyke for good.
Now it seems that they are up to their old tricks. The BBC report that the Unite union is investigating members who appeared in a video supporting Julie Morgan's campaign to become Welsh Labour deputy leader. They say that three members have had their credentials suspended, meaning they can no longer represent the union as officials:
In a social media video for Mrs Morgan's campaign, Unite members explain their support for her.
Three of the people featured have received letters from Unite's Welsh secretary, Andy Richards, telling them the union is investigating "alleged breaches of conduct".
The complaints against them say the video used the Unite logo without authorisation and included an attack on Unite's "balanced energy policy" - an apparent reference to them opposing nuclear power.
They are also accused of allowing themselves to appear in a video used by an "outside organisation which publicly voiced support for a candidate in an election who is opposing a Unite supported candidate".
It is precisely because of control-freakery like this that so many people are put off backing the Labour Party. This is not democracy, it is a travesty and, whoever wins this election, their legitimacy will be under question because of it.
The union block vote was ruthlessly manipulated to get Alun Michael past the finishing line, effectively disenfranchising ordinary members, and the irony is that it was all within the rules.
Of course, they paid the price at the elections, as Labour voters refused to support a man they considered to be Tony Blair's puppet, and the resulting controversy nearly torpedoed the devolution project this side of Offa's Dyke for good.
Now it seems that they are up to their old tricks. The BBC report that the Unite union is investigating members who appeared in a video supporting Julie Morgan's campaign to become Welsh Labour deputy leader. They say that three members have had their credentials suspended, meaning they can no longer represent the union as officials:
In a social media video for Mrs Morgan's campaign, Unite members explain their support for her.
Three of the people featured have received letters from Unite's Welsh secretary, Andy Richards, telling them the union is investigating "alleged breaches of conduct".
The complaints against them say the video used the Unite logo without authorisation and included an attack on Unite's "balanced energy policy" - an apparent reference to them opposing nuclear power.
They are also accused of allowing themselves to appear in a video used by an "outside organisation which publicly voiced support for a candidate in an election who is opposing a Unite supported candidate".
It is precisely because of control-freakery like this that so many people are put off backing the Labour Party. This is not democracy, it is a travesty and, whoever wins this election, their legitimacy will be under question because of it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Is Labour prepared to jettison peace in Northern Ireland to help the Tories secure a hard Brexit?
Remarks by Barry Gardiner, the shadow trade secretary, that the Good Friday agreement is a shibboleth that is being “played up” in the Brexit negotiations for economic rather than political reasons are quite shocking. It is almost as if Labour have decided that peace in Northern Ireland is expendable as long as they achieve their objective in supporting the Tories in securing a hard Brexit.
As the Guardian reports, Gardiner was answering questions at a think-tank session in Brussels last month, when he suggested there was no reason to fear that a border with customs controls would lead to a return of paramilitary activity:
He also said: “I think we must also recognise that there are real economic reasons why people have played up the issue of the Irish border and the need to have the shibboleth of the Good Friday agreement. And that is because it is hugely in the Republic of Ireland’s economic interest to make sure that there is no tariff and no external border there.”
The paper comments that these remarks, from one of Labour’s inner group of Brexit decision-makers, strike a markedly different tone to the party’s existing policy. Jeremy Corbyn restated Labour’s opposition to the re-emergence of a hard border as a principle of the future relationship in a keynote speech in February. Do Gardiner's comments mark a shift in tone and substance since that speech?
Once more I find myself agreeing with the sacked Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Smith:
On Monday, Smith, a leading supporter of the Open Britain campaign, said Gardiner’s remarks were reckless and plain wrong. “I worked in Northern Ireland with Barry and it is remarkable that he can display so little understanding of the vital and continuing importance of the Good Friday agreement, or of the essential need to avoid any hardening of the border in Ireland,” he said.
He accused Gardiner of being an “ideological Brexiter” who was putting leaving the EU before everything else. “Labour members will be particularly shocked, but it should concern people in every party and none that there now seems to be a substantial group of senior politicians – from [the Tory MEP] Daniel Hannan to Barry Gardiner – who are prepared to sacrifice the Good Friday agreement in order to deliver Brexit.”
Having just read in Tim Shipman's book on the Brexit referendum how Jeremy Corbyn's office effectively sabotaged the Remain Campaign, I am not surprised at the way that Labour are backing the Tories in securing a hard Brexit. What does astonish me however is the way key spokespeople now seem prepared to jettison hard won peace initiatives in pursuit of that aim.
As the Guardian reports, Gardiner was answering questions at a think-tank session in Brussels last month, when he suggested there was no reason to fear that a border with customs controls would lead to a return of paramilitary activity:
He also said: “I think we must also recognise that there are real economic reasons why people have played up the issue of the Irish border and the need to have the shibboleth of the Good Friday agreement. And that is because it is hugely in the Republic of Ireland’s economic interest to make sure that there is no tariff and no external border there.”
The paper comments that these remarks, from one of Labour’s inner group of Brexit decision-makers, strike a markedly different tone to the party’s existing policy. Jeremy Corbyn restated Labour’s opposition to the re-emergence of a hard border as a principle of the future relationship in a keynote speech in February. Do Gardiner's comments mark a shift in tone and substance since that speech?
Once more I find myself agreeing with the sacked Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Smith:
On Monday, Smith, a leading supporter of the Open Britain campaign, said Gardiner’s remarks were reckless and plain wrong. “I worked in Northern Ireland with Barry and it is remarkable that he can display so little understanding of the vital and continuing importance of the Good Friday agreement, or of the essential need to avoid any hardening of the border in Ireland,” he said.
He accused Gardiner of being an “ideological Brexiter” who was putting leaving the EU before everything else. “Labour members will be particularly shocked, but it should concern people in every party and none that there now seems to be a substantial group of senior politicians – from [the Tory MEP] Daniel Hannan to Barry Gardiner – who are prepared to sacrifice the Good Friday agreement in order to deliver Brexit.”
Having just read in Tim Shipman's book on the Brexit referendum how Jeremy Corbyn's office effectively sabotaged the Remain Campaign, I am not surprised at the way that Labour are backing the Tories in securing a hard Brexit. What does astonish me however is the way key spokespeople now seem prepared to jettison hard won peace initiatives in pursuit of that aim.
Monday, April 09, 2018
Warning that Labour in danger of disintegration
Having survived the 1980s and the growth of the SDP, I am very aware of how close Labour came to self-destruction in that decade.
At that time I lived in Swansea West, which was a major target for a Militant take-over. Tony Benn came to speak to party members during the Labour deputy leadership contest and, as a young, politically aware person I went along to see what he had to say for myself.
His rival in that contest, and the eventual narrow victor, Roy Hattersley, was backing the local Labour MP, Alan Williams, who somehow survived a particularly vigorous deselection contest.
Now, Lord Hattersley has reignited the party’s feuding by claiming it is “in danger of disintegration” as extremists take over. As the Independent reports, he believes that Labour is in “a much more dangerous situation” than during the Militant Tendency insurgency of the 1980s because left-wing activists are “increasingly in control”:
Lord Hattersley said the public was suspicious that “the people behind Jeremy will take over the party and run it in a way which we find unacceptable” – putting hopes of an election win “in difficult trouble”.
Moderate party figures with “sense” had to speak out, he argued, describing it as a “tragedy for the Labour Party” that they remained silent about what was going on.
The peer, deputy to Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, also attacked Mr Corbyn for failing his “democratic duty” to fight Brexit, calling for a referendum on the final withdrawal terms.
On the Corbynista takeover, Lord Hattersley said: “I think the Labour party is in a much more dangerous situation than it was in the 1980s.
“In the 1980s there was entryism, there was the Militant Tendency, but they only operated in one or two small constituencies. They didn’t control the machine, they certainly didn’t control the leader, there were trade unions who were prepared to stand out against them and we always knew that the battle in the 1980s would eventually be won.
“Now things are much more serious because people who are not ‘real Labour’ as I define it are increasingly in control of the machine, they’re increasingly taking over constituencies, they’re increasingly bullying moderate MPs. And if it goes on like this the Labour party is in danger of disintegration.”
On Brexit, Hattersley has wise words that need to be listened to by those in charge of the Labour Party's policy-making process: “There’s no doubt at all that a majority of Labour Party members, the majority of Labour supporters, want to remain in the European Union.
“The only barrier to the Labour Party coming out formally for staying in – or getting the best terms possible – is Jeremy’s historic association with the anti-common marketeers of the 1960s and 70s, and he has a democratic duty to swallow that view, realise he’s in a tiny minority and do what the party wants.”
If Labour continue to back the Tories on this issue then they will be equally culpable in creating the disaster that follows. The Liberal Democrats are the only UK wide party offering a way out with their campaign for a confirmatory referendum. Can Jeremy Corbyn come around to that position? I have my doubts.
At that time I lived in Swansea West, which was a major target for a Militant take-over. Tony Benn came to speak to party members during the Labour deputy leadership contest and, as a young, politically aware person I went along to see what he had to say for myself.
His rival in that contest, and the eventual narrow victor, Roy Hattersley, was backing the local Labour MP, Alan Williams, who somehow survived a particularly vigorous deselection contest.
Now, Lord Hattersley has reignited the party’s feuding by claiming it is “in danger of disintegration” as extremists take over. As the Independent reports, he believes that Labour is in “a much more dangerous situation” than during the Militant Tendency insurgency of the 1980s because left-wing activists are “increasingly in control”:
Lord Hattersley said the public was suspicious that “the people behind Jeremy will take over the party and run it in a way which we find unacceptable” – putting hopes of an election win “in difficult trouble”.
Moderate party figures with “sense” had to speak out, he argued, describing it as a “tragedy for the Labour Party” that they remained silent about what was going on.
The peer, deputy to Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, also attacked Mr Corbyn for failing his “democratic duty” to fight Brexit, calling for a referendum on the final withdrawal terms.
On the Corbynista takeover, Lord Hattersley said: “I think the Labour party is in a much more dangerous situation than it was in the 1980s.
“In the 1980s there was entryism, there was the Militant Tendency, but they only operated in one or two small constituencies. They didn’t control the machine, they certainly didn’t control the leader, there were trade unions who were prepared to stand out against them and we always knew that the battle in the 1980s would eventually be won.
“Now things are much more serious because people who are not ‘real Labour’ as I define it are increasingly in control of the machine, they’re increasingly taking over constituencies, they’re increasingly bullying moderate MPs. And if it goes on like this the Labour party is in danger of disintegration.”
On Brexit, Hattersley has wise words that need to be listened to by those in charge of the Labour Party's policy-making process: “There’s no doubt at all that a majority of Labour Party members, the majority of Labour supporters, want to remain in the European Union.
“The only barrier to the Labour Party coming out formally for staying in – or getting the best terms possible – is Jeremy’s historic association with the anti-common marketeers of the 1960s and 70s, and he has a democratic duty to swallow that view, realise he’s in a tiny minority and do what the party wants.”
If Labour continue to back the Tories on this issue then they will be equally culpable in creating the disaster that follows. The Liberal Democrats are the only UK wide party offering a way out with their campaign for a confirmatory referendum. Can Jeremy Corbyn come around to that position? I have my doubts.
Sunday, April 08, 2018
Wildcats to be reintroduced in the UK
This is going to be interesting. As the Telegraph reports, tens of thousands of wildcats once roamed Britain before they were hunted and killed from the 1700s onwards, due to fears they would target lambs, rabbits and poultry. The last English wildcat population was wiped out on Exmoor near the River Exe just over a century ago. Only a small population now survives in the north of Scotland.
Now, Ben Goldsmith, a City financier and Tory donor who was appointed to the board of Mr Gove’s Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, and who has already spent £200,000 on supporting the reintroduction of beavers to southern England, has told Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, that he is willing to bankroll the reintroduction of wildcats to help cull the grey squirrel population:
Derek Gow, the UK’s leading expert on mammal re-introductions, has already drawn up a briefing for ministers ahead of a meeting with nature conservation organisations next month.
Mr Goldsmith continued: “Some of the smaller mammal species and bird species that have been missing could pretty easily be brought back without impacting much on people’s way of life.”
Any reintroduction of wildcats to England would be done in conjunction with farmers and local people, to try to ensure there would be no impact on crops or livestock.
Mr Gow said forestry organisations were very keen on the idea, and that wildcats were “absolutely not a species that presents anyone with a problem. They are a small mammal specialist hunter, hunting rabbits, field voles and grey squirrels.
“Grey squirrels exist at very high density quite commonly. These cats would certainly kill them.”
He added: “One of the reasons why grey squirrels do such damage in forest environments is that we have taken out the predators.”
I don't have a huge problem with this plan. Grey Squirrels, as this article explains are not native to the UK. As with other non-indigenous species they have had a huge impact on other wildlife, particularly the red squirrel.
Being larger than red squirrels and capable of storing up to four times more fat, grey squirrels necessarily stand a greater chance of surviving tough winter conditions. On top of this, competition is increased by their ability to produce more young and live at higher densities.
But the main threat is that Grey squirrels are carriers of the Squirrel pox virus, which the reds have no immunity to. It needs only one grey squirrel to introduce the virus to a local population of red squirrels for the virus to take a hold and spread throughout the entire group, with devastating effects. Where a grey squirrel has introduced Squirrel pox, population decline amongst red squirrels is 17-25 times more rapid than through competition alone.
It seems to me that reintroduce balance amongst species in the wild is a much more humane solution than a cull and that this will give the red squirrel a fighting chance to re-establish itself.
Now, Ben Goldsmith, a City financier and Tory donor who was appointed to the board of Mr Gove’s Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, and who has already spent £200,000 on supporting the reintroduction of beavers to southern England, has told Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, that he is willing to bankroll the reintroduction of wildcats to help cull the grey squirrel population:
Derek Gow, the UK’s leading expert on mammal re-introductions, has already drawn up a briefing for ministers ahead of a meeting with nature conservation organisations next month.
Mr Goldsmith continued: “Some of the smaller mammal species and bird species that have been missing could pretty easily be brought back without impacting much on people’s way of life.”
Any reintroduction of wildcats to England would be done in conjunction with farmers and local people, to try to ensure there would be no impact on crops or livestock.
Mr Gow said forestry organisations were very keen on the idea, and that wildcats were “absolutely not a species that presents anyone with a problem. They are a small mammal specialist hunter, hunting rabbits, field voles and grey squirrels.
“Grey squirrels exist at very high density quite commonly. These cats would certainly kill them.”
He added: “One of the reasons why grey squirrels do such damage in forest environments is that we have taken out the predators.”
I don't have a huge problem with this plan. Grey Squirrels, as this article explains are not native to the UK. As with other non-indigenous species they have had a huge impact on other wildlife, particularly the red squirrel.
Being larger than red squirrels and capable of storing up to four times more fat, grey squirrels necessarily stand a greater chance of surviving tough winter conditions. On top of this, competition is increased by their ability to produce more young and live at higher densities.
But the main threat is that Grey squirrels are carriers of the Squirrel pox virus, which the reds have no immunity to. It needs only one grey squirrel to introduce the virus to a local population of red squirrels for the virus to take a hold and spread throughout the entire group, with devastating effects. Where a grey squirrel has introduced Squirrel pox, population decline amongst red squirrels is 17-25 times more rapid than through competition alone.
It seems to me that reintroduce balance amongst species in the wild is a much more humane solution than a cull and that this will give the red squirrel a fighting chance to re-establish itself.
Saturday, April 07, 2018
Labour's divisions on anti-semitism laid bare
Over on the Guardian website, the full extent of the divisions within Labour over allegations of anti-Semitism and racism has been laid bare. They say that leaked minutes show fierce disagreements on the party's ruling body over disciplinary action against those accused of such transgressions.
The paper reports that key supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have attempted to block action against Labour members facing complaints:
The minutes of the meeting in early March show how fractured the disciplinary body has become and sources said cases involving Corbyn supporters were regularly automatically viewed as being politically motivated.
Among the cases which Corbyn allies pushed to rule out the possibility of expulsion were:
Multiple sources have alleged that suspended members who were perceived as being sympathetic to Corbyn were defended, even when the evidence against them was overwhelming.
“People were generally outraged at the scale of the defence of just anything. It’s all about control: control of the party and control of the processes,” one source close to the NEC said.
It is not surprising that some members are losing faith in the disciplinary process and are questioning Labour's commitment to tackling anti-Semitism and racism in the party.
This behaviour also helps to explain why Jeremy Corbyn's leadership continues to be so tainted by this controversy. It is this failure of leadership that continues to drag the Labour Party down in the polls.
The paper reports that key supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have attempted to block action against Labour members facing complaints:
The minutes of the meeting in early March show how fractured the disciplinary body has become and sources said cases involving Corbyn supporters were regularly automatically viewed as being politically motivated.
Among the cases which Corbyn allies pushed to rule out the possibility of expulsion were:
- A member who allegedly made threats when another raised concern about anti-Semitism, and blamed Zionists for causing his problems in the party.
- A member accused of making antisemitic remarks on social media.
- A member accused of using a racial slur against a black candidate.
Multiple sources have alleged that suspended members who were perceived as being sympathetic to Corbyn were defended, even when the evidence against them was overwhelming.
“People were generally outraged at the scale of the defence of just anything. It’s all about control: control of the party and control of the processes,” one source close to the NEC said.
It is not surprising that some members are losing faith in the disciplinary process and are questioning Labour's commitment to tackling anti-Semitism and racism in the party.
This behaviour also helps to explain why Jeremy Corbyn's leadership continues to be so tainted by this controversy. It is this failure of leadership that continues to drag the Labour Party down in the polls.
Friday, April 06, 2018
The continuing saga of failing assessments for Personal Independence Payments
Those of us who have been involved in helping people with appeals for PiP and ESA are well aware of the flaws in the process, particularly around the assessments. It is not surprising therefore to read in The Mirror that almost a third of assessments for the PIP disability benefit are not fully up to scratch.
The paper says that Atos and Capita have a target for 3% or fewer of their reports to be ranked “unacceptable” and currently it is around 5%:
But figures handed to MPs show thousands more “acceptable” reports still had to be amended or prompted staff feedback.
Atos, for example, said 5% of its reports were "unacceptable" between March and December 2017. But a further 10% were "acceptable with amendments", and 15% were “acceptable with feedback" – meaning there was "learning required" for the assessor.
That left just 70% of Atos reports that were graded acceptable without any changes or feedback.
In the same period, Capita said just 6% of its reports were unacceptable. But a further 15% were acceptable with amendments and 13% had learning required.
That meant 66% of Capita reports were graded acceptable without any amendments or feedback.
An Atos spokesman stressed that “acceptable with amendments” still meant a report was acceptable.
However, these figures are spun it is clear that neither Atos or Capita are meeting their targets. The wider question though has to be what is meant by 'acceptable' in the first place. The volume of successful appeals indicate a much wider problem that needs to be addressed.
The paper says that Atos and Capita have a target for 3% or fewer of their reports to be ranked “unacceptable” and currently it is around 5%:
But figures handed to MPs show thousands more “acceptable” reports still had to be amended or prompted staff feedback.
Atos, for example, said 5% of its reports were "unacceptable" between March and December 2017. But a further 10% were "acceptable with amendments", and 15% were “acceptable with feedback" – meaning there was "learning required" for the assessor.
That left just 70% of Atos reports that were graded acceptable without any changes or feedback.
In the same period, Capita said just 6% of its reports were unacceptable. But a further 15% were acceptable with amendments and 13% had learning required.
That meant 66% of Capita reports were graded acceptable without any amendments or feedback.
An Atos spokesman stressed that “acceptable with amendments” still meant a report was acceptable.
However, these figures are spun it is clear that neither Atos or Capita are meeting their targets. The wider question though has to be what is meant by 'acceptable' in the first place. The volume of successful appeals indicate a much wider problem that needs to be addressed.
Thursday, April 05, 2018
What's in a name?
Having checked that it is the fifth of April and not the first, it is difficult to know where to start with the decision to rename the second Severn Crossing the Prince of Wales bridge. At least with the original designation it did what it said on the tin. And of course this expanse of motorway, an engineering triumph if ever there was one, is so much more than just a bridge.
There are many, myself included, that will resent the implication that Wales is still thought of by the Wales Office as a Principality with all the implications of subservience that entails. Others will baulk at the Secretary of State's deference to the crown, whilst some will point to a failure of imagination in the naming choice.
We are told that the Secretary of State for Wales believes that the name is a fitting tribute to Prince Charles' dedication and commitment to our country, but it is not as if there is a scarcity of objects and places named after the Prince of Wales on this side of Offa's Dyke.
There was no consultation with the public over this choice of name. Did the Secretary of State even ask the Welsh Government if they agreed? And why has no name been allocated to the old bridge. I am astonished in the circumstances that the bridge that no carries the M48 was not rechristened 'The Camilla Crossing'.
But the biggest objection has to be in the missed opportunity. Stadiums and other commercial ventures can make millions from naming rights. Given the strain on public finances, would it not have been appropriate to have put the name out to tender so as to defray the cost of running the Secretary of State's office?
Personally, I would be far more comfortable driving over the Cadbury's Fruit and Nut Bridge than one named after the Prince of Wales.
Wednesday, April 04, 2018
Racist, inaccurate tweet by Leave.EU - time for police intervention
When Nigel Farage unveiled his 'Breaking Point' poster during the Brexit referendum suggesting that if we were to stay in the EU then the UK will be swamped with immigrants, he hit a new low. appealing to his supporters racist instincts to harvest their votes.
Many people voted to leave the European Union because of fears about immigration which Farage and UKIP exploited. It was little wonder that following that plebiscite, the number of racially motivated attacks increased.
Key figures in the official Leave campaign condemned that poster, saying it was entirely inappropriate. That did not stop their cause from benefitting from anti-immigrant sentiment of course, nor has Leave.EU apparently learnt from the experience,
As the Mirror reports, Leave.EU posted an offensive and racist tweet yesterday morning, targeting Muslims and making three claims that are factually incorrect.
The tweet was accompanied by a large picture of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, a mosque and a group of Muslims at prayer. It claimed “British multiculturalists feed Islamic fundamentalism. Londonistan, built on the sad ruins of English Christianity. And the image included a list of statistics: “423 new mosques. 500 closed churches. 100 sharia courts”. As the Mirror illustrated not one of these statistics is true. The post is 100% fake news.
This is abhorrent behaviour by Leave.EU. In my view it seeks to stir up hatred against Muslims in an effort to keep their anti-EU crusade on track. As Labour MP, Wes Streeting, says: “It’s time to see Leave.EU for what it is: an alt-right front for nasty, racist politics designed to whip up division and prejudice, particularly towards Britain’s Muslims.”
Surely the police should be investigating this tweet.
Many people voted to leave the European Union because of fears about immigration which Farage and UKIP exploited. It was little wonder that following that plebiscite, the number of racially motivated attacks increased.
Key figures in the official Leave campaign condemned that poster, saying it was entirely inappropriate. That did not stop their cause from benefitting from anti-immigrant sentiment of course, nor has Leave.EU apparently learnt from the experience,
As the Mirror reports, Leave.EU posted an offensive and racist tweet yesterday morning, targeting Muslims and making three claims that are factually incorrect.
The tweet was accompanied by a large picture of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, a mosque and a group of Muslims at prayer. It claimed “British multiculturalists feed Islamic fundamentalism. Londonistan, built on the sad ruins of English Christianity. And the image included a list of statistics: “423 new mosques. 500 closed churches. 100 sharia courts”. As the Mirror illustrated not one of these statistics is true. The post is 100% fake news.
This is abhorrent behaviour by Leave.EU. In my view it seeks to stir up hatred against Muslims in an effort to keep their anti-EU crusade on track. As Labour MP, Wes Streeting, says: “It’s time to see Leave.EU for what it is: an alt-right front for nasty, racist politics designed to whip up division and prejudice, particularly towards Britain’s Muslims.”
Surely the police should be investigating this tweet.
Tuesday, April 03, 2018
Sale of Ivory in UK to be banned at last
The UK Environment Secretary has announced that the sale of ivory in Britain will be banned in a bid to stop the “abhorrent” slaughter of elephants. The Telegraph reports that the ban will cover ivory items of all ages and anyone who breaches it could face an unlimited fine or up to five years in jail.
This is a major step forward in attempts to stop this abhorrent trade which has seen elephant numbers decline by almost a third in the last decade with approximately 20,000 a year still slaughtered for their ivory. There were once 26 million elephants roaming the African continent, now only 415,000 remain. At this rate, elephants could disappear from the wild altogether within 20 years.
The ban will contain exemptions to allow the sale of certain items which contain ivory but have been deemed not to contribute to the poaching of elephants. But wildlife campaigners say the strict exemptions are “pragmatic” and they welcome the move to prohibit sales. However, they also warned coordinated global action would be needed to dismantle the ivory trade and put a stop to poaching.
The Mirror adds that charities hope the ban will now stop ivory being exported from the UK to Asia, where it is a status symbol used in ornaments and jewellery, and encourage a similar crackdown elsewhere:
Matthew Hatchwell, of the Zoological Society of London, said: “No one in the UK today would dream of wearing a tiger-skin coat. Thanks to this move, in a few years’ time we believe the same will be true for the trade in ivory.”
Until now, “antique” ivory objects made before 1947 were exempt from the international ban in the UK.
But unscrupulous traders passed off illegal ivory as legitimate antiques to sell them openly here. Much of that ivory ended up in Asia. Since 2005, more than 54,000 pieces have been exported from the UK, more than anywhere else in the world.
But now only items destined for museums, objects of historical importance, and items over 70 years old containing small amounts of ivory are exempt.
It will stop old ivory from the UK being re-carved and sold in Asia and will make it harder for poachers to smuggle illegal ivory through this country.
This is one UK Government policy I can happily endorse.
This is a major step forward in attempts to stop this abhorrent trade which has seen elephant numbers decline by almost a third in the last decade with approximately 20,000 a year still slaughtered for their ivory. There were once 26 million elephants roaming the African continent, now only 415,000 remain. At this rate, elephants could disappear from the wild altogether within 20 years.
The ban will contain exemptions to allow the sale of certain items which contain ivory but have been deemed not to contribute to the poaching of elephants. But wildlife campaigners say the strict exemptions are “pragmatic” and they welcome the move to prohibit sales. However, they also warned coordinated global action would be needed to dismantle the ivory trade and put a stop to poaching.
The Mirror adds that charities hope the ban will now stop ivory being exported from the UK to Asia, where it is a status symbol used in ornaments and jewellery, and encourage a similar crackdown elsewhere:
Matthew Hatchwell, of the Zoological Society of London, said: “No one in the UK today would dream of wearing a tiger-skin coat. Thanks to this move, in a few years’ time we believe the same will be true for the trade in ivory.”
Until now, “antique” ivory objects made before 1947 were exempt from the international ban in the UK.
But unscrupulous traders passed off illegal ivory as legitimate antiques to sell them openly here. Much of that ivory ended up in Asia. Since 2005, more than 54,000 pieces have been exported from the UK, more than anywhere else in the world.
But now only items destined for museums, objects of historical importance, and items over 70 years old containing small amounts of ivory are exempt.
It will stop old ivory from the UK being re-carved and sold in Asia and will make it harder for poachers to smuggle illegal ivory through this country.
This is one UK Government policy I can happily endorse.
Monday, April 02, 2018
Australia show there are no easy post-Brexit free trade deals
Did we really think that the claims of Brexiteers, that countries would be lining up to do advantageous trade deals with us once we leave the EU, was ever going to happen? As unevidenced wishful thinking goes, it was one of the more starry-eyed promises made by the Leave campaign last year.
The Trade Secretary and arch-Brexiteer, Liam Fox, should know, as he has accumulated thousands of air miles in the last year knocking fruitlessly on closed doors. The promised land of free, unadulterated trade enriching our economy once we turn our back on the biggest free trade bloc in the world, is proving yet another fantasy.
As if to underline that point, the Times reports that Australia is preparing to demand that Britain accepts hormone-treated beef as the price of a symbolic early Brexit trade deal.
They say that Liam Fox has identified a deal with Australia as an early “win” and informal discussions have been taking place for the past 18 months. But in return, Britain will be told to scrap a European Union ban on the sale of meat from cattle treated with growth hormones:
The practice can increase their weight gain by more than 10 per cent a day, cutting the time it takes to fatten the animals for market. The EU claims that at least one of the hormones used is carcinogenic and their use has been banned since 1981. The Australians have long disputed this scientific analysis. They see the ban as a form of protectionism to shelter European farmers from competition alongside tariffs of 12.8 per cent.
Sources close to the talks say lifting the ban is a key issue for the Australian side. Mr Fox, the international trade secretary, is understood to be sympathetic, arguing that it would reduce meat prices for consumers. Significantly, while the government has ruled out allowing the import of chlorine-washed chicken on animal welfare grounds, it has made no public comment on hormone-treated beef.
It is little wonder that the Farmers' unions are concerned. John Royle, chief livestock adviser at the National Farmers’ Union, said: “Future trade negotiations should ensure a level playing field for British farmers in order for them to be competitive, profitable and productive in the future. We do not believe the British public would want our own farmers to be put at a competitive disadvantage by allowing the import of food produced to different standards and using methods which are not allowed in Britain.”
Without the clout of the European Union behind us we are isolated and having to swallow the unacceptable to do the deals that are needed if we are not to remain that way. This is another fine mess you have got us into Dr Fox.
The Trade Secretary and arch-Brexiteer, Liam Fox, should know, as he has accumulated thousands of air miles in the last year knocking fruitlessly on closed doors. The promised land of free, unadulterated trade enriching our economy once we turn our back on the biggest free trade bloc in the world, is proving yet another fantasy.
As if to underline that point, the Times reports that Australia is preparing to demand that Britain accepts hormone-treated beef as the price of a symbolic early Brexit trade deal.
They say that Liam Fox has identified a deal with Australia as an early “win” and informal discussions have been taking place for the past 18 months. But in return, Britain will be told to scrap a European Union ban on the sale of meat from cattle treated with growth hormones:
The practice can increase their weight gain by more than 10 per cent a day, cutting the time it takes to fatten the animals for market. The EU claims that at least one of the hormones used is carcinogenic and their use has been banned since 1981. The Australians have long disputed this scientific analysis. They see the ban as a form of protectionism to shelter European farmers from competition alongside tariffs of 12.8 per cent.
Sources close to the talks say lifting the ban is a key issue for the Australian side. Mr Fox, the international trade secretary, is understood to be sympathetic, arguing that it would reduce meat prices for consumers. Significantly, while the government has ruled out allowing the import of chlorine-washed chicken on animal welfare grounds, it has made no public comment on hormone-treated beef.
It is little wonder that the Farmers' unions are concerned. John Royle, chief livestock adviser at the National Farmers’ Union, said: “Future trade negotiations should ensure a level playing field for British farmers in order for them to be competitive, profitable and productive in the future. We do not believe the British public would want our own farmers to be put at a competitive disadvantage by allowing the import of food produced to different standards and using methods which are not allowed in Britain.”
Without the clout of the European Union behind us we are isolated and having to swallow the unacceptable to do the deals that are needed if we are not to remain that way. This is another fine mess you have got us into Dr Fox.
