Lazy press

Last week's Riverside CAF meeting promised to have it's fair share of controversy and political sniping. And it didn't let those present down, with some rather enjoyably acerbic exchanges between councillors John Anglin and Jane Branley.

However, there was no Gazette reporter present. The Gazette had been forewarned that the Riverside CAF meeting would be an exceptional one. Unfortunately the Gazette declined to send someone. Perhaps the Gazette's ace reporters were on holiday.

This is just one example of a local journalistic decline. The Gazette prints (copies and pastes?) council press releases without question, making the newspaper appear part of the local New Labour PR machine. It's difficult for the Gazette to deny this when you consider South Tyneside MPs Miliband and Hepburn, and Labour council leader Waggott, all have regular spots in the Gazette.

It would be naive of me to expect no political bias. However, the feeling that the Gazette is excessively council-friendly was reinforced in the run-up to the local elections when the paper was bursting with Labour councillors gurning in photo ops and taking credit for mediocre successes, which coincidentally all happened to be resolved just before the elections.

The Gazette has started to fill space with stories from Sunderland. Page 2 of the Gazette should be referred to as the 'Sunderland Echo Echo' page, since that's where the pieces are lifted from. There's no shortage of news in South Tyneside, just a lack of willingness to dig out the stories. Tuesday 24th July's Gazette is a case in point. There are massive issues currently facing the borough, but the centre pages feature an airhead two-page spread plugging the Gazette 'spook' reporter's (if there is such a thing) new book on imaginary friends.

We get the basic luck news stories, but there's no real accounting taken of local politicians and comment is left to the letters page.

If the Gazette fails to adequately cover what's really going on politically in South Tyneside then it's failing it's readership. The paper's editor should be ashamed that local bloggers are reporting and analysing the news that the Gazette can't be arsed to do.

A free press is important to democracy - but only when it fully reports on the actions of those we put into positions of responsibility. Otherwise it's just fluff and marketing.

Coastline sidelined

Here in South Tyneside, we have one of the most beautiful coastlines in the UK, made more remarkable by it's easy accessibility. In Saturday 14th July's Guardian there was a free magazine featuring the UK's best seaside attractions. South Tyneside featured once in it's plethora of top tens, and that was for seaside pubs, namely the Marsden Grotto. It's a unique and remarkable pub, cut into the limestone cliff face opposite probably South Shields' most famous landmark and natural feature, Marsden Rock (which the Guardian piece fails to mention). But frankly the pub has seen better days.

It's a real disappointment that the massive spread of coast missed out on any of the other 'Top 10' features - the sandy beaches, the excellent coastal path, the impressive Frenchman's Bay, Souter Point and it's lighthouse, and of course, Marsden Rock.

How someone could only mention Marsden Grotto and miss all these other attractions only leaves me to conclude that the reporter visited on a cold wet foggy day, and the pub was the best place to be.

Talking rubbish

Not content in allowing the Progressives to get all the stupid is as stupid does action, South Tyneside's Labour councillors are now also weighing in behind incineration. At the Riverside CAF meeting on Thursday 19th July, Councillor Ed Malcolm threw his reputation behind "Energy from Waste" (yes, I know it's a spin word for incineration) as a 'solution' for dealing with the waste we don't recycle or compost. Councillor Michael Clare assured everyone that "no incinerators will be built in South Tyneside"; but it does allow plenty of leeway for building them in nearby Sunderland or Gateshead. I can almost hear the people of Wrekenton groaning.

Councillor Malcolm seemed anxious to let everyone know that EfW (yes, I know, burning rubbish) isn't as bad as it used to be, and verbally painted a rosy image of free energy and heating for homes. He missed out the less than tinted bits about the carbon dioxide emissions, heavy metal particulates and our old cancer causing chums dioxins. He also missed the point that incineration reduces take up of recycling. Oops, and you still have to find somewhere to bury the toxic slag that's left over.

I'm sure the people from Byker have a lot of good things to say about EfW incineration. Well, the one's who didn't get cancer anyway.

Coincidentally, Ed Malcolm's brother, Deputy Leader Councillor Iain Malcolm, has a financial relationship with rubbish supremos Premier Waste Management, although I'm sure Iain Malcolm removes himself from such discussions in council.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that Labour councillors support burning rubbish. Labour councillors support the second Tyne Tunnel, backed concreting the Fellgate greenbelt and proposed planting a training shed (sorry, 'superschool') on Temple Park. Given that Labour and Progressive are supposed to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, when it comes to incineration how do they both manage to take the same ground at the same time?

When it comes to rubbish ideas our councillors are world class.

Has no-one told them - there's no such thing as a safe level of pollution?

Wasted targets

Further exploration of South Tyneside Council's Draft Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy reveals another example of target-itis. Here we have the policy aspiration for recycling:

"Policy 7: The Partnership will aim to achieve the following recycling / composting targets:
- 30 per cent by 2010
- 35 per cent by 2015
- 45 per cent by 2020"

Look impressive? Challenging? Compare South Tyneside's aspirations compared with what other UK councils are doing now:

Top 10 recycling councils:
North Kesteven 51.5 per cent
Rushcliffe 49.9 per cent
South Cambridgeshire 49.4 per cent
St Edmundsbury 48.6 per cent
Huntingdonshire 48.0 per cent
Melton Mowbray 47.1 per cent
Waveney 46.6 per cent
Forest Heath 46.1per cent
Teignbridge 45.4per cent
Lichfield 45.4per cent

These councils are beating South Tyneside's 2020 recycling target now.

Like the Council's pathetic 'target' to reduce it's carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent over 5 years, it seems the council only like targets which are easily achievable with the minimum output. It looks good on performance target press releases I suppose.

If the council wants to avoid accusations of being cynical and lazy, it (and that includes councillors too) really needs to up it's game and aim higher.

Burning ambitions

South Tyneside Council has launched it's consultation process covering the new Draft Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy which will take us to 2020. Among the commonsense "three R's" (reduce, reuse, recycle) proposals, the council is raising the subject of incineration.

South Tyneside Council has entered into a partnership agreement with Gateshead and Sunderland councils to establish the new waste strategy.

Incineration is proposed as one of the possible methods of disposal for the waste which we cannot (or we can't be bothered to) recover. Since the terms 'incineration' and 'burning' aren't easy to sell, the process comes under the wizzy euphemism of "Energy from Waste" (EfW) or "energy recovery".

If incineration is selected there's a rumour that the preferred site is on the site of the former incinerator at Wrekenton, on the border between Gateshead and Sunderland, although it should be noted there is no official documentation supporting this.

So soon after seeing off the industrial park on the green belt at Fellgate, and the rehabilitation of the Monkton cokeworks site it seems that residents in that part of South Tyneside may be faced with another dark environmental cloud. Not to mention the people in the Wrekenton area who thought they'd seen the last of local waste incineration.

Dioxins are a pretty nasty bunch

Incinerators release dioxins and heavy metals, which can cause cancer, birth defects and endometriosis.

The rise of endometriosis – a painful condition possibly afflicting as many as ten per cent of British women – is linked to emissions of dioxins. British mothers carry in their breast milk levels of dioxins which significantly exceed the World Health Organisation’s recommended “tolerable daily intake”, partly due to the widespread incineration of hazardous waste.

Studies have repeatedly linked dioxins to both breast and testicular cancers.

A study by the US Environmental Protection Agency suggested that as many as 7 per cent of all cancers are caused by dioxins, mostly from incinerators.

Progressives - the crazy bunch?

At the East Shields CAF meeting on the 5th July Progressive Councillor and Progressive Party leader Jim Capstick nailed his colours firmly to EfW (yes, that's incineration) as his party's preferred method of disposal for the waste designated as 'unrecoverable'. The Draft Waste Strategy concedes that incineration "will generate additional hazardous waste".

Quite why his party is called 'progressive' is odd. They have lent their support to a practice which will damage the environment and will precipitate a new crisis in public health. The victims will be among the poor and the young. In my understanding this is about as far from progress as you can get.

Poor rating

I need to get more hardcore!

Hat tip: prisonlawinsideout/

Human touch

All too often designers are criticised for ignoring the human element. Sometimes it's through poor specification or implementation, or sometimes intentionally to accentuate a design aesthetic.

In terms of usability, design can decide success or failure.

For instance, when designing software user interfaces, poor design can not just define whether a product works or not, if done badly can lead to health problems; unclear text causing headaches, too many mouse movements and clicks leading to RSI. This is called Human Computer Interaction, or HCI for short. When software testers talk about software being 'intuitive', 'organic' or 'natural' in operation, this often reflects the amount of work that the developer has done to ensure the most comfortable user experience.



But when it comes to South Tyneside Council, design seems to have become a function of expediency. The awful fake chimneys on the former Nook public house won a design award for 'innovation'. They were introduced to allow a mobile phone company to hide their telecommunications equipment. Three years later and the appearance of these 'innovations' just gets worse.

The Quadrus Centre

The cubist monstrosity of the Quadrus Centre is another example of design which seems to be ugly form more than pretty function. However, South Tyneside Council seems desperate for a signature icon to represent it's aspirations for a thrusting entrepreneurial culture, so if the council feels a couple of oddly placed boxes do the job, then who am I to argue?

'Streetscape' design though, is less esoteric than the concepts behind Jenga wannabe Quadrus.

Street planning, if done badly, can mean the difference between life and death. Streetscape isn't just about green verges and pretty flower planters, it serves a 'mission critical' function.


Walking along the Nook shopping centre I came across what has got to be a beacon of council design incompetence. The road sign to the left has been positioned in such a way that 4 feet of pedestrian space has been effectively removed, also creating a pinch right next to a road crossing point. In this one simple instance, pedestrians have been failed by the road planners.

However, looking at the sign from another angle (image below), from a driver's perspective, and the realisation of impractical planning practice is complete. The sign's position means that it isn't visible to drivers coming out of the lane until they are 7 feet away from the end of the lane, a busy pedestrian crossing point.

I'm sure that the planners have followed all the neccessary rules and regulations and that the sign's position is perfectly legal. However, the sign's position is not sensible, not for pedestrians or drivers.

There are practical alternatives. One could be to extend the 20mph zone to the perimeter of the parking area adjacent to Prince Edward Road, and place the sign at the exit from the parking area onto Prince Edward Road. However, this would likely require changes to road orders and byelaws. A simpler alternative would be to move the signpost closer to the road, a matter of two feet, remove the existing signpost which holds a parking restriction sign, adding the parking restriction sign to the speed signpost.

It seems like a big deal all because of a simple street sign. But if the Council can't get the little things right, then what hope have we for the big projects?

Soft target

Taking time off from massaging easyJet's overblown eco ego, South Shields MP and Environment Secretary David Miliband yesterday hosted the "Climate Change Citizens' Summit" in London, with the objective of highlighting "the need for government, business and consumers to work together to reduce CO2 emissions." Sounds like a great idea - let's get citizens involved in working out solutions to our rising carbon emissions. But there seems some confusion over contexts here though - was it a citizens' summit or a consumers' summit? It seems like our Government doesn't know the difference between a citizen and a consumer, which is disturbing.

And hold on, which citizens were attending? Apparently, they were "...a representative sample of 150 people, recruited from six locations around the country...". I'm sure the citizen representatives are righteous people, but how 150 hand-picked people out of a population of 65 million can be termed as 'representative' is difficult to comprehend.

I'm hoping that the event wasn't managed to achieve preferred outcomes - ie giving the Government the opinions it wants - but given the history of this Government I may be being a little optimistic.

If the nu-Lab command and control machine does have the climate change Bill in it's sights then we can say good-bye to the controls that a coherent Climate Change Bill requires like annual targets and ministerial accountability.

But considering that Richard Lambert, Director General of the CBI and Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC were speakers at the event I've got to wonder if it's part of an attempt to warp the Bill to be as business friendly and pro-nuclear as possible. I know it's important to get business buy-in in the battle against climate change, but self interest groups like the CBI already have an enviable level of access to Government, and when they're given the keys to influencing supposedly 'representative' events like this it's reasonable to suspect the Government is putting the interests of it's chums in business before saving the planet.

Given the Government's policy of appeasement towards the road building lobby and the aviation industries despite the increases in emissions, at the moment there's little hope of what is needed - a strong government not afraid of using regulation to do what we need to survive.

Guilt trips

Quite often anthropogenic climate change is characterised by it's opponents as a faith structure or religion. If that's the case then a church has arisen around this religion and the money lenders are already in the temple. So it's fitting that Environment Secretary and South Shields MP David Miliband had an audience with the Pope last week, as the Church of Rome and the Church of Greenwash have a very similar stance on guilt.

In the Roman Catholic Church sins are forgiven through the acts of confession, contrition, penance and absolution. During the Middle Ages the rich could buy absolutions from priests to avoid eternal damnation. Those folk knew they could carry on sinning, comfortable in the knowledge that they could buy themselves out of hell.

In the Church of Greenwash, burning fossil fuel is the new sin and like the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, absolutions can be bought. We don't call them absolutions now though, we call the process offsetting. I have a problem with offsetting - it's complete bollocks. It doesn't do anything to reduce emissions. Once you've flown to Paris for a tenner your share of the emissions is out there - and they're going to be around for a very long time.

Offsetting is not so much absolution as an absolving of responsibility.

In Tuesday's Guardian Monsignor Miliband praised budget airline easyJet for promising a scheme where it's passengers can purchase offset credits from easyJet. To back his support for offsetting, he said:

"Businesses and consumers need to be sure that the way they offset actually results in a robust and verifiable emission reduction."

To the objective eye this seems like a reasonable statement, but he followed up with:

"That's why the government has consulted on a proposed voluntary code of best practice for all providers of offsetting products and is now considering the responses."

Voluntary. Let's think about that word. It's certainly not a synonym of "robust". Then think of the phrase "best practice". My spidey senses tell me that Miliband didn't really mean "robust" at all. Translated out of Westminster bullshit into English it really means "businesses can do what the fuck they want". That's New Labour's dogma - let's talk about how terrible climate change is, but never actually do anything about it that may upset our chums.

In Rome, Mr Miliband and Pope Benedict called for a moral and ethical approach to climate change. To most sensible folk this is a no-brainer - if it's not dealt with global heating can bring about the deaths of millions, if not billions, of people.

As an aside - if Pope Benedict wants to reduce the Catholic Church's carbon footprint then a good start would be to look at the human footprint. He could kick in the Church's support for family planning, including contraception, straight away. Less people on the planet means a bigger share of the planet's resources for everyone.

But on the ethical conundrum, the problem is that most businesses don't know how to be ethical - their prime function is to make profit. Profit in itself is neither good or bad, it's merely an economic surplus. It's how the profit is made that defines it's moral and ethical boundaries. For most citizens we have laws drawing those boundaries. But in the UK there is no law saying that businesses should act ethically or in the interests of society. Gordon Brown saw to that by ripping out the corporate social responsibility reporting requirements for companies' financial reports.

But offsetting gives businesses a chance to sell themselves as somehow caring and responsible, whilst not actually doing anything to reduce their emissions and profiting off the enviro-guilt of their customers.

If businesses and consumers need to be sure of anything, it's that offsetting is nonsense. It produces nothing but apathy and feeds the current ambivalence towards the environment and the peoples in other countries who are going to feel the pain of global heating before we do.

Offsetting promises guilt-free polluting but gives us business as usual and sod the planet.

I am a plastic bag

No doubt a comment on the greed displayed by some ebayers profiting on the back of the non-profit "I'm not a carrier bag", an ingenious satirist is selling a "GENUINE 100% AUTHENTIC SAINSBURY'S CARRIER" on ebay.

Before I get the morally bankrupt 'profit at any cost' bunch on my back I'd just like to let them know - this kind of cashing in makes Baby Jesus cry.

So there.

Try something new today, or perhaps not

Sainsbury's, in an attempt to impress on us that they've come over all green and responsible, attached itself to the collaboration between wearewhatwedo.org and designer Anya Hindmarch which created the reusable "I'm not a plastic bag". The project was based on the premise that it can be stylish and fashionable to reuse bags and avoid using plastic carrier bags.

Normally, Anya Hindmarch bags can fetch hundreds of pounds, so when the "I'm not a plastic bag" was originally released for £5.00 a bag it sold out from wearewhatwedo.org in minutes, the massive web traffic generated also crashing their servers. Many of the £5.00 bags sold ended up on ebay changing hands for hundreds of pounds.

A second release of bags today at 8.00am at large Sainsbury's stores saw queueing outside stores up and down the country. Outside their Washington Galleries store, one couple had been waiting since 1.00am to be the first for two of the store's allocation of thirty bags. By about 7.30am fifty or so people had queued outside the Washington store, when tickets were given out to the first thirty people in the queue (I was number 14) to avoid jostling when tne store opened at 8.00am.

So when the store opened the lucky thirty ticket holders queued at the service desk to hand over their £5.00 notes for their reusable bags. In retail terms, the operation was very slick and professional. In terms of the "I'm not a plastic bag" project it was a lesson in idiocy. At the service desk, Sainsbury's management had set up one member of staff taking the money, and another packing the "I'm not a plastic bag" inside - yes, you guessed - a plastic carrier bag!

I was truly astounded. All these hours later I still feel the outrage. Despite their connection with the project, Sainsbury's didn't have a fucking clue what it was all about. When I loudly pointed out the rare irony to the store manager, who was so far smugly enjoying the whole episode, he looked at me like I was talking Martian, then he quickly disappeared from the scene.

Try something new? Why don't the witless bastards at Sainsbury's try thinking? That would be new.

Lies, damn lies and educational resources

South Tyneside Council leader Councillor Paul Waggott has decided to play the legacy card for the second Tyne Tunnel (thanks for the nod Curly) stating magniloquently that "a new generation now stands to benefit from the second Tyne Tunnel" in his support for new internet-based 'teaching materials' prepared by the North Tyneside Education Business Partnership.

This isn't the first time the North Tyneside Education Business Partnership and the Tyne Tunnel bods have got together to provide pro tunnel educational materials. Their previous stunt pretending to be an educational resource was known as 'Xingthetyne', which had a pro tunnel 2 bias of the like which would normally be considered unacceptable outside schools teaching Creationism as a science.

It's not surprising given that a lot of political reputation rests on the Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Authority's pet project. Even the Lib Dem council in Newcastle turned two faced and gave the tunnel it's full support, despite what Lib Dem leaders said about road building not working. You could argue that such propaganda stinks of totalitarian control of our childrens' minds to meet political ends.

Of course road builders like the TWPTA would say we 'need' the tunnel, and would do their most to support their position. Further, the education departments in North and South Tyneside belong to councils which are both members of the TWPTA and support the second Tyne Tunnel so any lack of balance in the materials may not be so rigorously examined.

I haven't seen the new Key Stage 3 and 4 resources (you've got to register to access them) but with the travesty that was Xingthetyne you could ask why would any school want anything to do with the new Key Stage 3 and 4 materials from North Tyneside Education Business Partnership? It's a bit like fast food giants or tobacco manufacturers being allowed to distribute to schools 'educational resources' which mention their products.

I'm looking forward to the first bright student asking why we are building more road space when it's proven that building more roads doesn't reduce traffic? Or why we are encouraging more traffic when we are supposed to be reducing CO2 emissions?


Coun Waggott also tells us that "It is timely that young people in both boroughs understand why a second tunnel needs to be built". Why indeed? Let's see what the tunnel inquiry inspector said.

The Inspector who nodded the tunnel through was also bit vague on the benefits issue and despite his decision to favour the project go ahead (from www.tyne-crossings.org) made the following observations:

"the NTC (New Tyne Crossing) would substantially increase the number of journeys taken by private car"

"the NTC would not reduce journey lengths, but would increase them significantly"

"there's very little chance of better bus services"

"I see little to prevent the spare capacity realised being utilised by additional cars"

"a linear or corridor development of this sort can only deflect from the creation of sustainable communities"

"such locations [of employment opportunities opened up by the NTC] are less sustainable and unlikely to further the reality of sustainable communities"

I'll bet you'll not see these comments from the Inspector in the learning materials.

A borough near Newcastle

I've come to the conclusion that our borough has a really crappy name. South Tyneside. A boring mid Seventies bureaucratic name born out of a post socialist miasma designating more of a geographical position than an identity. Just saying it, South Tyneside, and you're stifling a yawn. I can see why our folk in the council have a hard time selling the area. The name is little more than a soulless pin on a map instead of an icon to fire the imagination. South Tyneside doesn't say 'winner', it says 'well, whatever'.

It's so boring it often gets downgraded to an abbreviation. ST - even that conjures up a soporific image of a settee.

So perhaps here in South Tyneside we need a new name. Something that encompasses the three main towns of South Shields, Jarrow and Hebburn. A proper name that sticks in people's minds. A name you'd be comfortable saying, 'I come from xxx', without having to add on the end almost apologetically, 'near Newcastle'.

I haven't thought of something that doesn't sound like a wanky car name, so a referendum is probably the way to go, but avoiding the likes of the ironic 'Spirit of the Tyne', where a black joke became the name of the Tyne ferry which was built in Portsmouth.

Better not tell the council though. If they get in on the game they'll be signing cheques to branding consultants before you can say 'Comedia'.

Edinburgh rocks

I love Edinburgh and really feel at home there. Like every other major city it has it's dark underbelly and fair share of nutters but there's also a canny optimism and confidence. Also there's a real concentration of great places to eat and drink. My favourite pub is probably the Halfway House in Fleshmarket Close and it's an example of one of those gems you find by accident. There's also places to find food you can take home, and not just the famous ones like Jenners and Valvona & Crolla.

If you're in the Edinburgh area, make your way to Portobello to visit butchers Findlay's of Portobello. Take along a cool bag as I can guarantee if you're a foodie you'll be impressed by their range of meats, along with their award-winning haggis. I've yet to taste a better haggis. They do a wide range of haggises and even a vegetarian version. Once you're meated out, cross the road to the small deli and café Kitchener's. Their coffees are great and are an excellent accompaniment to their cakes, which are made on the premises. Add to this a massive range of organic foods packed into the tiny shop area.

Taking the high road

I've returned from a few glorious days in Edinburgh and what struck me while I was there (apart from the great food and drink) was the huge amount of public debate there is about the May 3rd elections. Not just on the telly, but in the pubs and cafés. Even the graffiti shows a spirit of engagement in the elections that we haven't got here in South Tyneside. I know the Scottish are voting in both Scottish Parliament and local council elections, but there's a real anticipation of change in Scotland, not just for the SNP, but also for the Scottish Green Party. Viewing the visit of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to Scotland from the Scottish perspective, it was clear that Labour are on the defence, with the Lib Dems and Conservatives definitely sidelined by the media.

Back in South Shields, I reviewed the past few days' papers and came crashing back to the reality of politics on planet South Tyneside. I found more of the same old bollocks we've become accustomed to here - councillor photo ops or election leaflets telling us how bad the other lot are. I know councillors need to tell us how great they are so folk know they're doing something sometimes, but how do we inject life back into politics (is it principle that's missing?) and get the Scottish electoral spirit here?

Listening to be heard

It was handbags at dawn between Fellgate and Hedworth ward councillors Paul Waggott and Steve Harrison in the Shields Gazette yesterday, and it indicates that there may be more media contretemps before the May 3rd election. Hijacking of media credit is not new in South Tyneside - recently Couns Brady and Gibson basked in the glow of a misleading headline whilst [Independent candidate] Steve Pattison and his Friends of Temple Park did all the legwork to stop the development of the site's former caretaker's residence into a surgery.

So I can understand Coun Harrison's petulance at Coun Waggott's alleged press hijacking but the real point has been missed. Residents' concerns have finally begun to be addressed, and if it took the fear of losing Fellgate and Hedworth ward to the Independents to get things moving it shows that sometimes our electoral system does work.

What the voters will see though is two councillors fighting very publicly, when it's obvious they should have been working together, or at the very least talking to each other. It's apparent to anyone watching from the sidelines that it's partisan politics that's all that matters in South Tyneside, and particularly Fellgate and Hedworth, not consensus resolution for the benefit of residents.

While the sitting councillors are noisily sound biting each other in the press, apparently today the prospective Green Party candidate for Fellgate and Hedworth ward quietly collected nomination signatures and listened to residents concerns.

Re-engineered opinion

It's been said that there's no such thing as an original thought when it comes to writing, and I've got to agree with that to a certain extent. As a computer programmer by trade, I acknowledge that much of my professional work stands on the shoulders of others.

Reading Curly's blog yesterday I came across his comment on a piece in Celia Walden's 'Spy' column in the Daily Telegraph, discussing South Shields MP David Miliband's alleged status as a 'gay icon'. Not a paper I read much, but when I read the full text on the Telegraph website I was struck by the familiarity of the context of the article, and particularly the phrase "His voting record on gay rights has regularly been used by Pink News to contrast against Gordon Brown's".

So back to my blog entry of 9th December 2006, where I found I'd written "His voting record on gay rights is regularly used by pink news to contrast against Gordon Brown's", discussing Mr M's new entry as a celebrity; strikingly similar to Celia Walden's statement. The main difference between her comment and mine was the tense.

The 'no original thought' rule could easily explain this similarity. Surely hundreds of folk on t'interweb have commented on the Miliband vs Brown gay rights voting record, and the likelihood of a similar or the same sentence being used would be high?

So to slay the paranoia demon I did a literal search on Google for the consistent part of the quote, the phrase "used by Pink News to contrast against Gordon Brown's". It brought up only one entry. Mine.

Did my original blog post provide Celia Walden with inspiration for her own piece? If so, it's comforting to have at least one reader out there. Then again, it may just be coincidence.

I suppose at the very least it's nice to be ahead of the professional opinion writers. And then there's the old saying about imitation and flattery...

Miliband's moment

South Shields MP David Miliband is a key player in a defining moment in British history. Not over the next Labour leader bun fight, but in the publishing of the Draft Climate Change Bill, released today. The UK will be the first country in the world to introduce a legal framework for reducing carbon emissions and it's an achievement to be proud of.

The Bill is a remarkable monument to people working together for a common cause. It was born as Early Day Motion 178, tabled by former Environment Secretary Michael Meacher, signed by 412 MPs and supported by thousands of British citizens through Friends of the Earth's Big Ask campaign.

South Tyneside is a local pivot to the story. South Tyneside Friends of the Earth has spent the last year or so campaigning for public support, getting hundreds of people to sign 'Ask your MP' postcards. One thing that STFOE volunteers found was the wide geographical range of visitors to South Shields. People from as far away as Canada showed interest at the stall under the bridge on King Street, and UK residents visiting from from Falkirk and Liverpool signed postcards.

To his credit, Jarrow MP Stephen Hepburn was one of the first MPs to sign the EDM. Beats tilting at statues.

However, South Shields MP David Miliband has been a minister of one sort or another during the campaign, which meant that unfortunately he felt tied to ministerial convention which prohibits ministers from supporting EDMs which call for legislative change. He met with local green activist Bryan Atkinson last year to discuss a climate change bill and the meeting spawned the recent Climate Change Conference in South Shields.

Today's news of Mr Miliband's carbon crusade was slightly depressed by him showing symptoms of Labour's schizophrenia over transport. His swipe at the Conservatives' throwaway policy on aviation that, "criminalising aviation isn't going to save the planet", implies that there is an anodyne solution to flying. Labour's projected growth in aviation is at odds with the need to reduce it. There is no way to square this circle; Branson's super fuels, Blair's magical airframes or Miliband's offsetting won't reduce the air industry's fair share of emissions whilst the number of flights are growing. However flawed, the Conservatives seem to be at least thinking about the issue.

But the draft Bill is very far from perfect. There's no year on year annual emissions target mechanism, a 'carbon budget' if you like, essential for the timely monitoring and management of emissions reduction. As Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said:

"To be truly effective, any bill should have three elements: annual emission reduction targets, an independent body to set as well as monitor these targets, and an annual carbon budget report from the secretary of state."

The Bill's target of a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 has been overtaken by recent findings by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change which suggests that a 90 per cent cut is more appropriate. So if the higher 90 per cent isn't going to be the target initially, the Bill must include a mechanism to allow increases to the 2050 target.

You can expect to see business groups like the CBI and the power industries throw their political and economic muscle at the consultation in an attempt to dilute the Bill even further, which means groups like FOE will have at least another year campaigning to make the Bill even stronger and fit for purpose.

But at least we have a Bill on the table to debate. Considering that there were no voices in the cabinet publicly supporting a Climate Change Bill, that's a worthy enough success for now.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will try to garner some credit for the Bill reaching Draft stage, but the applause should go to two environment ministers, one past and the other present, Micheal Meacher and David Miliband.

Michael Meacher for Labour party leader with DM as DPM anyone?

Respectable vandals

There's regularly local media coverage of vandalism, with the main perpetrators apparently being disaffected youths with no concept of respect or social reponsibility. Walking down my street the other day I found another kind of vandalism, but one which won't get 'respect' headlines or visible 'blitz it' campaigns.

Pavement and verge parking. I took a few pictures of some stunning examples of parking, planning to prepare a post on the subject and an email to the council. Most of the verge parking was done by residents, people who you would think wouldn't want the area in which they live to look like a day at Diggerland.


But then by coincidence a few days later I received a letter from South Tyneside Council. Once I drew my eyes away from the awful presentation and grammar, I found that our Council was threatening to take action against motorists parking on the green verges. I presume this was prompted by a resident in my street, as residents in adjacent streets with equally Somme-like verge damage haven't received the letter.

So, what will our council do with these anti-social motorists? According to the letter from the Council, prosecution under the Highways Act 1980 or a vague "could be considered to be Criminal damage".

Sounds good. However, our Police are already stretched and this kind of activity comes low on their list of priorities. So we should have cause to celebrate when the recent South Tyneside Council On View magazine told us that new Decriminalised Parking Enforcement would "reduce dangerous and inconvenient parking". But the council's 'Parking Team' dashes hope, saying that "South Tyneside Council can only issue PCNs to cars parked on footpaths where there is a yellow line restriction."

Our councillors aren't much better, where similar anti-social behaviour has been met with appeasement by offering to tarmac, concrete over or replace green verges with parking bays - often using Community Area Forum 'environment' budgets (yes I know, it's bitterly ironic). There's little surprise in this attitude - politicians have become terrified of annoying drivers.

Green tree-lined avenues are disappearing. As a community, we don't value the green verges. We park on them, discard our litter and allow our dogs to shit on them.

At least if you drop litter or let your dog poo without picking it up you can get an on-the-spot fine. If you're a Council tenant and cause problems for the neighbours you will become the focus of the Council's remedial 'Respect' policy, with the threat of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.

But park on the verge and you get little more than Council hand wringing and feeble letters.

The simple answer is to introduce on-the-spot fines for these vandals. Moves are already under way in Newcastle and London to introduce such schemes. If fining irresponsible parkers doesn't work, then ASBO their ass into showing some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for something that belongs to all of us.

Potts' worthless two-pence

Over on Curly's Corner Shop it seems at first reading that local Tory Councillor David Potts has had something of a revelation over climate change. He's telling us that "a recent consensus has been reached that the cause is human activity of various sorts." Welcome to the 21st Century.

This is a big change from 2005, when Coun Potts challenged "anyone to show me just one single solitary shred of concrete proof that humans contributed or are at all responsible for global warming." He also claimed that "reducing emissions is a complete and utter waste of time and money." I'm guessing Stern kicked that Lomborg-esque nonsense into touch.

His climate change denial mode was matched by a similar position over second hand tobacco smoke. In 2006 he wrote that the "notion that smokers are harming non-smokers is a little shaky to say the least."

His argument moves to the hilarious, accusing some unnamed characters as the "same types of smart people predicted that the world would have run out of oil by now many times over". I presume the "smart people" was the oil industry; but they didn't predict oil running out - it was peaking which caused so much consternation (and still does) to the oil industry.

Coun Potts also bemoaned these same "smart people" for predicting "that the world cannot feed the number of people alive today." Guessing by the number of people who die for lack of food each day, the "smart people" were right.

Potts then places his faith in technology as the answer. It may be part of the answer - we have all the technology we need available to us now. But no amount of technology is a substitute for what we really need to do - reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

Possibly Coun Potts is just jumping on Cameron's greenish bandwagon. Or you could argue that Potts has finally seen the light and decided to listen to the scientists. But I doubt it. He's acknowledging that climate change exists, but all he's done is moved with the rest of the denial lobby to an 'it's not that bad - it's all scaremongering' position. Instead of rubbishing the evidence, he's mocking the risks.

By dismissing concerns over climate change as hysteria, Potts is carrying on that good old denial tradition and burying his head in the sand.

Capstick and Dix, slapstick tricks

The election season for the Harton ward has well and truly started now, with Councillor Jim Capstick in Friday 2nd February's Gazette pleading for independent candidates not to stand against the 'anti-Labour' candidates (read Progressives). He asserted that it's the "public wish" that anti-Labour voters are unified. I've got no particular beef against the Progressives and I think Coun Capstick is a worthy councillor, but I don't remember being asked about this anti-Labour unification. And isn't asking potential candidates not to stand for election in support of their principles just to allow the Progressives defeat Labour a wee bit cynical?

That's politics I suppose.

Labour's local publicity attack has also now got into gear, with former councillor Rob Dix's pamphlet hitting my mat today. The leaflet is a slick multi-colour glossy piece which spends plenty of space berating the Progressives for not communicating with local residents. He also manages some time for that old local election chestnut, the "strong voice".

The leaflet doesn't appear to be printed on recycled paper, which is further evidence that our borough's councillors still need to learn the meaning of 'sustainability'.

Under the witty title "Delivering for South Shields", postman Mr Dix allows the Labour council to claim credit for "The multistorey car park site will be demolished in February and should be completed in less than three months." Perhaps it was shortage of leaflet space that caused Mr Dix to fail to add how long said eyesore has been permitted to crumble?

In his leaflet, Mr Dix humbly informed us that at the last local elections "I came within 18 votes of regaining my Council seat" and also asked mischievously "when was the last time the Progressives...delivered an environmental improvement for your community?" I was somehow under the impression that this was a Labour dominated council, so surely the question should be pointed to his chums in the cabinet? No doubt the Progressives will respond to Rob Dix's claims.

With the likelihood that Progressive and Labour will be publicly pieing each other in the months to come, what have other prospective candidates got to lose by trying to slip through them with good old fashioned ideology and principles?

And, of course, a strong local voice.

Jesus - bigger than the BNP

After the BNP's hope to make South Shields the jewel in their crown I decided to look around for a bit of background on them. I stumbled across this old spat between the fundamentalist Christian Voice and the fascist BNP. Despite their handbags at dawn, there are many similarities between the two groups - they court publicity, shout louder than their membership size suggests and criticise any sign of progressive attitudes in modern Britain.

Both groups are paranoid about Muslims, whipping up hate towards the Muslim community. They suggest that Britain is becoming an Islamic state, despite the lack of street corner stonings. Although given the 'tough on crime' image they like to portray, I suspect the BNP may support such a punishment. The groups' accusations that governments show deference to Islam conveniently forgets that British armed forces have killed more Muslims over the last ten years than at any time since the Crusades, and ignores Tony Blair's support for a country which spent much of 2006 using Lebanese civilians for bombing practice.

The BNP and CV trod the same ground over 'Jerry Springer The Opera', both arguing that it should be banned, whilst apparently unaware of the irony that organisations that benefit from our country's respect for free speech would wish to deny that very same right for others.

However, the brief courtship between the two couldn't last, and perhaps a souring should have been expected. Christianity, especially the fundamentalist kind practised by CV, is not compatible with BNP mantra.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the mother and father of humanity. That means that, according to Acts 17:26, that we are all of "one blood". That's blasphemy to the BNP's race-hate core values. Instead, the BNP markets a twisted interpretation of evolution disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi race theory in which, according to BNP press officer Phil Edwards (a pseudonym), "white people are more highly evolved than blacks".

To most Christians the race issue is a no-brainer - BNP ideology is not compatible with the ethic that all Christians are brothers and sisters under God, irrespective of race. This is reflected in the number of Christian organisations opposed to fascists like the BNP, which in turn reflects the massive ethnic diversity of the Christian church.

Over the subject of race, there's no middle ground or 'third way' for the BNP and CV.

In an odd synergy of irrationality, the epic 'Nazi evolution' vs 'supernatural creation' battle between the BNP and CV somehow managed to achieve the impossible, and allow both to conquer the intellectual low ground at the same time.

But despite their ideological mud fight over creation, they still hold similar enough views over homosexuality, Muslims and free speech to confirm that both groups deserve little more than ridicule.

Tommy sure plays a mean hardball with tunnel

Councillor Tom Hanson's forlorn hope that “green groups” would go away and leave his pet project alone (TUNNEL 'HEALTH RISK’), seems to be little more than an attempt to deflect opinion away from the very real worry that local health will be negatively affected by the new Tyne tunnel. That he failed to comment on the research referred to by the Alliance suggests local health issues are secondary where the tunnel is concerned.

The conclusion of the University of Southern California research is clear – high traffic volumes shortens the lives of those who live near busy roads.

Coun Hanson’s "traffic will be free-flowing once the second Tyne Tunnel is built" argument is based upon the presumption that the main cause of the current pollution problem at the tunnel is engine idling. This is a distraction from the real cause of the problem - traffic volumes. The new road tunnel will increase the amount of local traffic, as acknowledged by the PTA's own Environmental Impact Assessment.

The engine idling argument presents the fiction that the PTA is on a mission to reduce the local impact of pollution from cars. If engine idling emissions was the PTA's main concern then mitigation would be simple - oblige drivers to turn off their engines whilst the vehicle is at rest. It's not a novel idea - other European countries employ the same technique. Since the PTA hasn’t already considered this method it's reasonable to assume that concern for the health of local residents isn't the PTA's prime motivation.

Presumably, shortening children’s lives is a fair price to pay to shave vital minutes off the daily commute.

If Coun Hanson genuinely cares about local health, then instead of acting deaf to local peoples' concerns and dumb over the impact of traffic on health, he should do something about getting people out of cars and onto public transport, instead of feeding the roads machine with our children's lives.

BNP's Beacon track

With the Beacon & Bents ward in their sights, BNP activists are trying to draw in more voters. BNP top man Nick Griffin goose-stepped into South Shields and was seen leafleting along with local BNP stormtroopers, among them Regional Secretary and former National Front member Ken Booth. In an apparent attempt to move into 'respectable' politics, the party having allegedly "undergone major changes in the last few years to improve its image", the BNP is eager for portrayal as both anodyne and proactive, attempting to annexe the 'working class' as it's own heartland. But this soothing image is all a lie.

Possibly Griffin would like us all to forget his previous ode to democracy: "The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist Party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

However, I'm sure that many of the BNP's coprophilic supporters will claim that was in all the past and point out to us that Things Are Different Now. Okay then. To get a real feel of this new image of the BNP, we should look closely at what they've been up to lately, and shockingly, it includes a remarkable diversity of assault, fraud and general dishonesty. A peruse of 'white power' website Stormfront fills in the gaps to give enough flavour of what the BNP is all about.

So no real change in BNP attitudes there then, a kind of 'BNP's not Working'.

Nevertheless, on his jackboot tour of Beacon & Bents 'Commandant' Griffin was quite positive, saying, "We are getting a great deal of support on the doorsteps in the area, so we're hoping for a breakthrough at the next election."

But apparently the breakthrough doesn't include the honesty and openness of it's own members though, as one BNP volunteer didn't want to be identified 'because he was a social worker'. Whether the BNP volunteer was ashamed of being a BNP canvasser or a social worker is hard to tell, but if the BNP's own foot soldiers can't bring themselves to be publicly associated with the party, then why should voters?

A Little Haven for the environment

South Shields MP David Miliband chaired Friday's climate change conference, which was kindly sponsored by Nexus, and Mr M has promised another conference in a year's time. Mr Miliband, who described doing nothing about climate change as "playing Russian Roulette with the Earth", proved an excellent chairman, and gamely took snipes about government inaction over climate change and Tony Blair's addiction to air travel. He started with the ethical high ground, accepting that the UK had an obligation to lead the way in climate change as "the richer you are, the more you contribute to the problem."

After Mr Miliband's introduction first up was Bernard Garner, the Director General of Tyne and Wear transport organiser Nexus. His main thrust was that to meet the challenges of not just global warming, but also congestion and sustainability. Public transport needed more investment and more regulation, and he pointed to the success of London's regulated public transport system as an example.

Then Tony Juniper, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth gave an impassioned and inspiring talk, putting climate change in the context of people. Global warming wasn't just about temperatures and hockey stick graphs or economic reports on the cost/benefit of combating climate change. It was people's lives - massive food shortages due to environmental degradation and climatic instability. Mass migration and the inevitable social impacts.

He built upon Mr Miliband's suggestion of the UK's moral obligation to lead the way, as "we enjoy the benefits of a society which is built upon fossil fuels, the impacts of which being reason we are here today. It's not fair to expect developing nations not to want that, and as a nation we are rich enough to help these countries enjoy their own industrial revolutions, but built upon clean renewable energy. At the same time the UK will be reaping the economic benefits and advantages of being innovators in sustainable development."

In a nod to Tyneside's industrial heritage, Mr Juniper said that we could harness local shipbuilding skills (what's left of them anyway) to form the basis of "a massive development in our marine renewable energy resources".

I have a correction to make. In my previous post I stated that Woking council had achieved a 77 per cent cut in CO2 emissions. When Woking council's Chief Executive Ray Morgan got up to speak next, he announced that during his time at Woking:

- CO2 emissions have been cut by 82 percent
- energy consumption have been cut by 52 percent
- sustainable energy generation has increased by 82 per ent
- self generated energy (heat and power) has increased by 11 percent

All of these changes have not had a negative impact on local council tax bills.

We know that South Tyneside Council is doing very little (a target of only 5 percent reduction over five years) but Woking's achievements illustrate that, as Ray Morgan put it, "climate change is not just a challenge - it's an opportunity". Sadly, no officer from South Tyneside council raised any comments during the Q&A sessions.

Finally, Chris Bywell, Head of Innovation & Integration at One North East got up to speak. Despite his apparent enthusiasm for sustainable business and decoupling growth from emissions (straight from the green handbook), no one was convinced with his assertion that North East business was environmentally sustainable. He failed to solve the contradiction between North East business demands for more road space and the inevitable additional emissions that more cars filling that space would bring.

One of the main themes of comments from the floor (and Mr Morgan) was that government wasn't taking enough action, failing to provide councils and business with an adequate framework and objectives. The planning system will go to pot under the Barker Report (Mr Morgan's point) and the government was ignoring the warnings of the Stern Report. Fortunately the over-used 'hot air' analogy wasn't used too much.

The final question of the conference took us back to the moral and ethical theme, but not quite as I suspect as Mr Miliband expected. The question, from a young woman from Apna Ghar, hung in the air, unanswered. It was deceptively simple and naive but was full of power, because it brought us back to the most human part of the debate. Why does the government "sponsor an arms industry which brings so much death and misery, and contributes so much to environmental destruction."

The same could be said for the government's support for road building, airport expansion and it's failure so far to reduce the UK's emissions. Why?

Hopefully next year we won't need to ask these questions.

Time to stop drifting like a cork on the river

The location of the conference on climate change in South Shields on Friday 12th January reminded me of something that Edward de Bono said about feeling powerless. That feeling of pointlessness that leads to apathy and inaction. At South Shields riverside's Little Haven Hotel, the conference will hopefully not just be a talking shop for 'people of note', but will provide some motivation for South Tyneside Council.

The conference will feature a very special speaker. Not Friends of the Earth gaffer Tony Juniper; not mild mannered MP Mr Miliband (but they'll be there too); but Woking council's chief executive Ray Morgan. He was one of the drivers behind Woking council's 77 per cent cut in CO2 emissions, and his council's achievement is proof that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be made, even by councils working on their own initiative. Other councils have also done really well, such as Kirklees and Aberdeen, showing that with the right combination of ambition, initiative and urgency, councils can have an important role not just in reducing emissions, but as champions of sustainability.

South Tyneside Council, with it's feeble emission reduction target of only 5 per cent over 5 years, could gain a lot from Mr Morgan's advice, even if it's just to learn to say 'It can be done!' and be more ambitious in challenging climate change.

However, it's not just our council that should take something positive from what councils like Woking have achieved. Mr Miliband regularly reminds us that everyone has a role in reducing CO2 emissions. He's right.

As Edward de Bono said,"Everyone can be constructive in tiny ways".

Fish 'n' Chips, Miliband slips?

In South Shields MP David Miliband's dismissal of organic food as a"lifestyle choice" is he really missing the point about organic farming?

The Sunday Times covered Mr M's interview in South Shields fish and chip shop Colman's, which apparently uses "wild fish from sustainable fishing grounds". He was quoted as saying that for organic food, in health terms "there isn’t any evidence either way that’s conclusive." That doesn't mean there's no positive health benefit, just that there hasn't been enough research in this area. It would take a brave government to fund such research. It would no doubt cause consternation to the agri-chemical industry and giant farming concerns who do well out of unsustainable farming practices. There's no worry for them though, as Mr Miliband's DEFRA has been cutting it's agricultural research budget.

However, considering the regular discoveries of pesticide residues on supermarket fruit and veg, his claim is reminiscent of views held by climate change deniers poo-pooing man's effect on the environment and tobacco companies rubbishing the links between smoking and cancer. Or indeed those who denied the links between BSE and CJD.

His comments paint environmental issues as a consumer choice. This is only partly right. Many people view choosing organic as a serious concern and an obligation to ensure safety for farmers and themselves by mostly eliminating the chemical element in their food, and try to instill some kind of respect for the livestock which provides them with their meat and dairy products.

The alternative to organic, the current "conventional" is a food industry which has brought us salmonella, BSE and foot and mouth. The same industry is also responsible for the pollution of water supplies, the destruction of farmland biodiversity, the regular poisoning of farmworkers and the 'blooms' of lung diseases at spraying time.

The cynic in me asks, could it simply be an attempt by Mr M to target his response to the Time's traditionally environmentally sceptic audience? Possibly; every ministerial statement is carefully judged for effect and he would have known his opinion on organic farming would be closely scrutinised, at least by green groups, hence the essentially ambiguous phrasing. He could always fall back on his nod to sustainable farming at last year's Royal Show when he asked farmers to develop "one planet farming which minimises the impact on the environment".

There's a certain whiff of irony in Mr Miliband's choice of a 'sustainable fish and chip shop' as a venue for his comments about sustainable farming. Mr Miliband will be speaking at a climate conference this Friday at the Littlehaven Hotel. It will be interesting to see if anyone asks him if he enjoys the organic food on offer.

However, his statement sounds most like the cautious business-friendly noises you would expect from a DTI or Treasury minister rather than an environment minister. Perhaps Mr Miliband's comments could be saying more about positioning for a future ministerial seat in a Brown government than his understanding of organic farming?

A drowning man will catch a straw

South Tyneside's loosely formed coalition group of independent councillors and hopefuls are watching the start of the slow wind up to the forthcoming May local elections, heralded by the growth in touchy feely council "we're listening" consultations and positive press pieces. Traditionally it's difficult for non Labour parties to get their voices in the local press, which is exacerbated by many council press releases heavily featuring Labour councillors. Added to this the Labour Party gets free party political advertising in the Shields Gazette in the form of regular opinion pieces by South Tyneside Labour MPs David Miliband and Stephen Hepburn, with Councillor Paul Waggott, the Leader of the Council, telling us we ain't had it so good. I've yet to read an opinion piece by an opposition councillor (or opposition anything) in the Shields Gazette.

However, it seems that press bias is becoming the least of the independent worries. Some of the independents councillors and hopefuls are concerned that the local Labour Party will stand a notional 'independent' straw man (or woman) in several of the wards, particularly those where an independent councillor already stands, or where Labour consider a seat loss to be likely. If true, it means that the local Labour party is cynically attempting to dilute the independent vote, hoping that voters will mistake their chap for the real independent. This tactic has been used since the time of the Ancient Greeks, so who said democracy is dead?

The local BNP is planning a big push this year, having already targeted leafleting in several local areas and nationally the BNP is in the middle of an initiative to canvass and encourage expired party members to rejoin. It's anyone's guess where the votes will come from - protest from former Labour voters, traditional right wingers or even those wanting anything but Labour - but chances are it will also erode the independent vote.

Another addition to the opposition brew is the recently formed South Tyneside Green Party, which is planning to field candidates for wards in Jarrow and Hebburn, and in South Shields the wards of Cleadon, Harton, Horsley Hill and Beacon and Bents.

Sure, it's no surprise that politics is dirty, but are Labour really that worried that they'll lose their dominant position in South Tyneside that they'll go to the bother of fielding straw men whilst there's so many opposition vehicles out there? It'll be an interesting game to try and spot the true affiliations of some of the independent candidates.

Warm resolve

In a heart-warming 'New Year resolution' piece in the Shields Gazette on New Year's Day we had our MP David Miliband reassuring us all that South Shields remains his number one priority. And hoping the Gunners do well. On a bit of a down note, Mr Miliband, who is currently keeping the seat warm as Secretary of State for the Environment, failed to use the 'E' word, or even mention global warming/heating. Despite Mr M's woeful omission on emissions, let's hope the Government can start to actually do something to reduce greenhouse emissions, instead of just solemnly talking about 'the greatest challenge we face' whilst enthusiastically supporting road building and airport expansion.

At least South Tyneside's green champion, Council Leader Paul Waggott, managed to get the environment into his resolution by wanting to make "South Tyneside a cleaner, greener and safer place". Then again, perhaps he's hoping people have forgotten about his council's plans to build on greenbelt, it's support for more road building at the Tyne tunnel and on the A19, and his council's pathetic CO2 emissions reduction target of only 5 per cent over 5 years. It would be cynical to suggest that such political amnesia signals that we're winding up to May's local elections already.

DM to A-list?

South Shields MP David Miliband, a strong supporter of gay rights in the House, may be becoming something of a gay icon. His voting record on gay rights is regularly used by pink news to contrast against Gordon Brown's voting history.

Now, seasoned current affairs commentator Julian Clary has admitted in Heat magazine as having "a bit of a thing for David Miliband". This is further to Mr Clary's article in October's New Statesman, when he summoned all of his razor sharp political perception to consider a next possible leader for the Labour Party:

"The only contender my eye lingers on is David Miliband. Quite attractive, especially when he undoes his top button at fringe meetings. Puts me in mind of a bit of rough from Liverpool." Now that Julian Clary has mentioned Mr Miliband, there will be no more 'David who?' from readers of the celeb mags.

Mr Miliband is not alone in enjoying the attentions of Julian Clary, who in 1993 at the British Comedy Awards commented "As a matter of fact, I've just been fisting Norman Lamont", but it's apparent that Mr M has finally arrived as a pop culture tidbit.

I hope Mr Miliband's new celebrity status will do for South Shields (and climate change, by the way) what Kylie did for cancer sufferers.

Mili's silly target trouble

When in Nairobi on the recent round of climate talks to try and start the ball rolling on the replacement for the Kyoto protocol, South Shields MP and Environment Secretary David Miliband dismissed annual targets for reducing carbon emissions as 'silly'. His conclusion is worth exploring, or exploding.

"I don't think that binding annual targets are necessary."

For a government addicted to targets, his is an odd assessment. We have targets for health, crime, education and a host of other areas. But these are seen as a necessary motivational tool in order to gain improvements. Why not annual carbon targets?

"We think binding annual targets are silly"

It's interesting who this 'we' is, but I doubt it includes just about every successful company on the planet which has an annual business plan with - guess what - targets. Even the management-speak acronyms have the elements of goal orientation - Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-bound, or better, Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-bound, Ethical, Recorded. I think I'd rather be SMARTER annually about climate change than silly over 5 years.

"because if the weather is bad in one year it doesn't make sense to change your policies."

Now that is a silly statement. If you fail to reach your target one year, it makes perfect sense to adjust your initiatives and targets to do better the next year. Flexibility is key, and having annual targets doesn't preclude flexible plans. Besides, if we don't do something about our emissions now, we are guaranteeing ourselves and our children plenty of bad weather in the future.

"You don't just have to take my word for it - the international community at Kyoto in 1997 didn't think annual targets were sensible."

This justification is predicated on the assumption that the Kyoto protocol is perfect. It isn't - it has serious flaws. The cuts of only 4.8% of greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 by 2012 are dangerously pathetic, it ushered in the fallacy of offsetting, and excluded air travel from the CO2 emissions measuring mechanism. The Kyoto Protocol was based partly upon the climate change science available at the time. We now know a lot more, and that we have underestimated the scale and speed of climate change. Instead of centuries, we are looking at decades. We could have as little as 25 years to drop our emissions by 90 percent. In such short timescales, 5 years is too long.

The whole point of Mr Miliband's visit to Nairobi was to try and get a Kyoto replacement off the ground. I would expect him and the other delegates to learn from Kyoto's flaws - and a lack of challenging targets was definitely one of them.

If we don't have annual targets, government will have no real impetus to take the drastic action needed on climate change. We haven't had challenging climate targets, and what have we seen? An increase in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions since the Kyoto agreement. Not having annual targets means the government can leave the worry about emissions reductions to the next year, or the next government, or even the next decade. But by then it will be too late.

Targets work. They mean business. They provide motivation to get things done. In dismissing targets Mr Miliband is arguing for complacency and low expectations.

Winners have targets. Leave the silly loser talk to others Mr Miliband, and try being a true champion of emissions reduction - with annual targets.

Credit due

On Friday the manager of South Tyneside Credit Union, Sylvia Hudson, was winner of Woman Social Entrepreneur, in the North East Woman Entrepreneur of the Year Awards. This recognises Sylvia as one of the main drivers of the credit union from it's early days as The Nook Credit Union to South Tyneside's biggest community based credit union.

If you're not in the Credit Union, it's worth joining. Not only to enjoy a truly local savings and loans service, but to help provide financial services to members of the community, who through poverty or circumstances beyond their control are left behind by the big banks and building societies. Anyone can join.

The recent Farepak scandal illustrates just how many people are dependent upon savings schemes just to put something by for Christmas. Unfortunately Farepak wasn't regulated, but credit unions are regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The credit union doesn't charge monstrous loans rates like 'doorstep lenders', who prey on those with low incomes and tend to live a hand to mouth existence. The credit union has helped people out of the clutches of these sharks and given them a real hope to get their financial health back. So if you're looking for somewhere to save for next Christmas - try the credit union.

Even though South Tyneside Credit Union employs a small core of administration staff (funded by sponsorship and grants), most of the work is done by volunteers, including the board and executive. So if you have some spare time to give, the credit union would like to hear from you.

South Tyneside Credit Union can be contacted on (0191) 454 7677, and the main office is at:

119/121 Prince Edward Road
South Shields
NE34 8PJ

It's not often that someone who works hard for the community is recognised, especially as an entrepreneur. My congratulations go to Sylvia for an award well deserved.

Labour's burning us

South Shields MP David Miliband's regular party political puff piece in the Shields Gazette (Now's time to reflect on the achievements of Labour's nine years in government, 11th October) examined Labour's 'achievements' after nine years in power. Whilst he praised his party for low interest rates (despite them being set by the independent Bank of England), record employment and increased education spending, he forgot to mention one particular area of Labour policy. No, I don't mean the war in Iraq. Despite being Secretary of State for the Environment, he didn't have anything to say about Labour's environmental record.

This implies that Labour is embarrassed by it's performance on the environment, and on further consideration, it's not surprising.

Since 1997 Tony Blair has been warning us about the threat of climate change. Unfortunately, since 1997 the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have increased. This increase is set to continue with Labour's plans for airport expansion and massive new road building schemes. Indeed, whilst only about £2.5m has been committed to the low carbon buildings program to support micro renewables, the government is willing to throw £3.7bn at widening 250km of the M1. That's 1,500 times more money is being put into one scheme that will encourage the increase of CO2 emissions than is being spent on reducing them.

But instead of investing massively in emission reduction schemes and developing new initiatives to cut greenhouse gases, Labour has used the concern over climate change and energy to cynically resurrect the nuclear power industry. It seems that when it comes to Labour and the environment, it's business as usual - that is, as usual Labour's relationship with business is more important than it's record on the environment.

Now we hear whispers that the Government will back the Climate Change Bill, perhaps making it a feature of the Queen's Speech in November. That would be great news. But we are still 9 years late on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If the rumours about the Bill are true, I hope that it isn't watered down to make it politically safe. The planet doesn't have time for more talking shops and protracted bargaining. We have a limited time to get things moving and that means we need a social and political determination that we haven't seen since the Second World War. This isn't something that's 100 or 1000 years away. If you're under 40, you're likely to see what's coming in your lifetime, and your children certainly will.

What we do over the next few years will decide if our children will see countries disappear under the sea, food riots on the streets of Britain and wars, not over oil, but water.

Blair's cross to bear

While some suggest that Tony Blair owed the spark for his finale speech to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath , perhaps his real inspiration came from something higher. Craig Brown's excellent satire piece in the Telegraph, hints further at Mr Blair's true calling.

In his speech, Tony told us in almost Last Supper piety, "You can't go on for ever. That's why it's right this is my last conference as leader" and finished off with the truly heart rending "Whatever you do, I'm always with you. Head and heart."

Is he looking forward to a twilight career as the Son of God?

Green guns

BAE Systems, the arms firm from over here that makes weapons to kill people over there, is in the news again after the announcement that it intends to develop environmentally-friendly weapons. When I first read this I thought it a marvellous hoax, or some Mark Thomas wheeze. Oh, what sweet satire it would be.

However, truth is more extraordinary than fiction.

I'm sure the folk hit by the lead free bullets which "can harm the environment and pose a risk to people", will be happier knowing that at least they won't get lead poisoning. And those living in war zones will be able to sleep and breathe easier with the "proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke".

Of course, it is preferable that any organisation should do it's utmost to reduce and minimise its impact on the environment. But for BAE to try and score some moral and ethical points over it is a measure of extreme cuntitude. It's doubtful BAE's customers will be checking the energy and environment label before buying. A kill efficiency label might be more useful.



To fit in with this new cuddly image, perhaps BAE should offer a free return and recycle bag with their weapons?

Don't worry, BAe happy

Robin Cook wrote in his 2003 autobiography, "I never once knew Number 10 to come up with any decision that would be incommoding to British Aerospace."

On the face of it, Swan Hunters' loss of the Lyme Bay to BAe in July after alleged overrun of nearly £309 million and two years late, seems reasonable (see Curly's Corner Shop for a bit of background). This is despite the landing ship project "being largely managed and supervised by 20 BAE Systems staff on-site in Newcastle" in it's last years. Obviously an inquiry is needed to clear matters up.

However, the MoD is not so punitive when it comes to Britain's favourite arms manufacturer.

The National Audit Office has reported that the contract for the new Nimrod MRA4 aircraft is £966m over cost and nearly a decade late. This is despite the fact that the Nimrods will not be new, but refurbished bodies with new wings, engines and systems. The original contract for 21 planes should have been completed in 2003. However, after 'restructuring' of the project in 2003, the number of planes went down to 18 and now only 12 planes will be renewed, and delivery is not expected until 2010 at the earliest.

The MoD's punishment for BAe's poor performance? Award the arms company with a £65m contract to maintain the current aging Nimrod fleet until the 'new' ones are finally ready.

Why does BAe get such preferential treatment?

We need goals, not gas

Conservative Party leader David Cameron's recent announcement of his support for the Climate Change Bill, shows that Labour has a long way to go both nationally and locally to catch up in the 'carbon credibility' stakes.

The Climate Change Bill, which would oblige the government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 3 per cent each year, would form the basis of a framework of policies to reduce greenhouse emissions. Whilst Mr Cameron and Friends of the Earth have called for the Bill's entry into the forthcoming Queen's Speech, the government (and our South Shields MP David Miliband) has so far failed to comment on it, despite the Bill enjoying the support of 380 MPs across the house.

Equally alarming is that South Tyneside Council's Labour cabinet has chosen to adopt a policy which aims for a reduction in its carbon emissions of only 5 per cent over 5 years. The target, set out in the Council's Carbon Management Strategy and Action Plan, is well below what other councils have already achieved.

I suppose a nice low target is easy to achieve, and once met can show the voters just how 'great' the Council is at dealing with climate change.

In typical spin-tastic style, the South Tyneside council leader Councillor Paul Waggott, whose cabinet rubber stamped the pathetic Carbon Management Strategy and Action Plan, has tried to claw back some credibility with a feeble claim that the council already uses a (single) "council vehicle powered by electricity." This is hardly ground breaking technology, which can be attested by the many milkmen in the area who have used electric floats for years.

Of course, South Tyneside Council has made significant inroads into reducing it's greenhouse emissions, with the Middlefields wind turbine and the Temple Park centre energy savings, but to achieve real reductions there needs to be a realistic and challenging target to aim for. The planet doesn't have time for political apathy.

We need big cuts in carbon dioxide. Correspondingly, we need big targets.

Digging the dirt

It seems that the East Boldon and Cleadon by-election is reaching fever pitch with the local Labour candidate desperate to rubbish political opponents. Lewis Atkinson, the new Labour 'strong local voice' candidate, has done little more than use his voice to criticise Conservative councillor David Potts (who isn't actually standing) and Lib Dem / Independent (dependent on which day of the week it seems) Alan Mordain.

Mr Atkinson is busy collecting a petition which demands an apology from the Conservatives over the recent expenses shenanigans. He says on his blog that "This is not a party-political issue." Who is he kidding? He's already trying to score political points with it, and all the signatories would make useful canvassing targets. The giveaway phrase on his petition is, "It may be used by me or the Labour Party to contact you."

Apart from the negative electioneering, I wondered, where have I heard the 'strong local voice' line before? Then it came to me, the last local election. Chris Haine of South Tyneside Green Party used it in a piece back in April when he commended Bryan Atkinson's fight to stop the second Tyne road tunnel. Although the 'strong local voice' concept is not a new one in politics, it has long formed one of the core values of the Green Party and had a place in the Party's national local election strategy in May.

So who is really going to be a strong local voice?

Church gets it in the Privates

The controversy of South Tyneside's Fellgate greenbelt and the church has reached the national press (see Church sinning green), featuring in an article in this week's Private Eye magazine. The magazine said of the Church's plans that it is "happy to make a fat pile cash out of it".

Church sinning green

A recent announcement by the Church of England that contributing to climate change is a sin should spark an immediate change in the Church's attitude to South Tyneside's Fellgate greenbelt.

The Church, in the guises of the Chapter of Durham Cathedral and the Church Commissioners for England, is pressing for the deletion of the farmland at Fellgate from the greenbelt to pave the way for a massive new industrial estate.

Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, who chairs the bishops’ environment panel said, “There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light." This was supported by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said, "We make choices of moral significance and our relation to the environment is no exception.”

Whilst the Church should be commended for encouraging its members to lead a greener lifestyle and minimise their carbon emissions, it should put it's own house in order if it wants to maintain some credibility.

The Church owns most of the greenbelt at Fellgate, and is backing South Tyneside Council's plans to build a giant industrial estate on the site, from which the Church will no doubt make a handsome profit.

The planned industrial estate fails on all measures on environmental sustainability. The project will erode South Tyneside's greenbelt and lose ancient farmland forever. The selection of this site is specifically aimed at access by road so will only further contribute to the growth in carbon dioxide emissions by encouraging more travel by car.

The only way for the Church to avoid accusations of hypocrisy is to change its position on the Fellgate greenbelt, from being backers of environmental destruction for speculative financial gain, to champions of sustainability and conservation.

RSS consultants must fess up

South Tyneside environmental campaigner Bryan Atkinson has won an important Freedom of Information decision from the Information Commissioner regarding a complaint he made against Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM), related to work that ERM carried out on behalf of the North East Regional Assembly.

The Information Commissioner has ruled in favour of Mr Atkinson in a complaint that was brought on his behalf by Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre.

The complaint resulted from ERM’s refusal to supply environmental information relating to work they carried out on the Sustainability Appraisal of the North East Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS will dictate all major planning decisions made in the North East over the next 15 years. ERM had initially refused to release the information on the grounds that as a private company it was exempt from the Environmental Information Regulations of the Freedom of Information Act.

Bryan Atkinson, who is a member of South Tyneside Friends of the Earth, said:

“This landmark ruling has positive implications for campaigners and communities up and down the country. It means public bodies such as councils and regional assemblies will not be able to suppress environmental information by sub contracting their responsibilities to the private sector.”

Phil Michaels, Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth said:

“This is an important decision. Members of the public are often unable to access important environmental information because the information is not held by a traditional public authority but by a private body carrying out an essentially public function. This decision should open the way for members of the public to get important environmental information from a range of private entities.”

The planning system is already weighted in favour of developers and their policitical backers. When public authorities employ private companies they have often protected relevant information by hiding behind 'commercial confidentiality'. This decision will at least make that a little bit harder.

Environmental justice has a cost

On Thursday, June 1st, both the Shields Gazette and Newcastle Journal reported comments by Andrew Sugden of the North East Chamber of Commerce, who criticised the granting of Legal Aid to green campaigner Bryan Atkinson for his legal challenge against the murky goings on behind the Environmental Impact Assessment for the second Tyne road tunnel.

Instead of moaning about the meagre funding granted for Bryan Atkinson's action, Andrew Sugden should aim his ire at the Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Authority for squandering millions in public money on a folly which would prove to be an environmental catastrophe. In criticising the use of Legal Aid, the NECC is effectively declaring that access to justice should be the preserve of the rich.

Rather than being an "essential transport development", the tunnel would prove to be an environmental burden to local residents, exacerbating health problems in an area already blighted by A19 and tunnel traffic. The tunnel fails on sustainability terms - the extra traffic attracted will further contribute to the UK's growing carbon dioxide emissions at a time when we should be trying to reduce them.

The TWPTA and Government argue that the tunnel shouldn't be subject to a fully rigorous and detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. However, it's clearly in the public interest to resolve the issues behind the case, which will impact on future large-scale developments, from roads to nuclear power stations. It's paradoxical that the bigger the project, the less expectations there be from the EIA.

The TWPTA enjoys massive financial resources courtesy of the public purse, whilst a citizen without money can only oppose this juggernaut by relying on limited Legal Aid funds to cover the high cost of barristers and solicitors.

The tunnel case is a grossly unbalanced environmental David and Goliath showdown. Hopefully Legal Aid will be the sling to Bryan Atkinson's pebble.