While the film tries to tie itself in with the current finger-wagging, media-bandwagon’d “concern” for global warming and general eco-goodness, I don’t think the film makers intended for the film’s plot – passing on responsibility to look after the planet to a robot to escape the hard work of doing it ourselves – to be used as a basis for government policy (aside from the whole taking-over-the-earth-through-making-us-all-crybabies thing).

So I can’t help but not draw parraells between Wall-E and the government’s plans to build “Eco-towns”, which might be unlawful if the Local Government Association have got anything to do with it.

There are two aims, according to the plans.

First, we need to build lots more housing to cope with a growing, fitter (apparently) and aging population. This is true. (The trick here is to make sure that people can, y’know, actually afford such new housing.)

Second, we need to make housing more envirochummy. This is also true.

So, rather than saying “We’ll make all new housing genuinely affordable by re-introducing council housing and making sure that all homes are re-fitted to make them envirochummy” which might be the clever thing to do, they’ve decided that they’re going to pritty much abandon current housing stock in the cities change their emphasis and build new “Eco-towns” in the Country.

Apart from my noted concern for Cows (magnificent creatures that they are), I can’t say I blame the LGA for turning round and saying “Gert Orf Moy Laaand”.

There’s already lots of land being underused that could be redeveloped for housing. CCHQ, for example. Having lived pritty much in the countryside for the best part of last year, I can start to appreciate that perhaps building over existing greenfield might not be such a good idea.

They say that the Amazon rainforest is the “Earth’s Lungs”. Our countryside is sort of like Britain’s lungs. Except they’re the set of lungs of a country which has smoked 40 Lambert & Butler for the past thirty-plus years. And on the verge of emphaysima. And a bit asthmatic. Still, lungs nonetheless.

So, rather than making envirochummyness someone else’s responsibility, mabye the State should look in the cities and start cleaning them up first.

 Plaid Cymru supports the unions and actively encourage our members to join a union. We also value the good political work that unions do and think that it is important that people support the General Political Funds that many unions use to campaign for better and more equal rights for all workers.

We also believe that union members should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not the Labour party is representing their interests. At the moment many union members do not realise that they are paying money to the Labour party.

Already I can spot problems with Plaid’s claims. Firstly, the only union which I know of that has two political funds is my union, UNISON – a General PF, and an Affiliated PF. No prizes for guessing which one I contribute to, but the existence of two political funds is a historical comprimise between the former unions which make up UNISON – NALGO (whose political fund wasn’t affiliated) and NUPE and COHSE (whose political funds were affiliated).

Nearly every other union which has a political fund only has one political fund. In fact, it’s only UNISON which has more than one.

Secondly, I think nearly every union member is aware of what their political fund does. The Tories introduced a requirement for unions to ballot their members every ten years as to whether they should set up/continue the political fund, so they do have a choice as to whether they have a fund or not. And there has not been a case where union members have voted to give up their political voice through a fund – indeed, more unions are starting political funds. Also, the majority of union members do know if their political fund is affiliated – again, only one union, the RMT, has given money to political parties other than Labour (the Scottish Socialist Party, and I think the Greens and Plaid). Those who do give money to the Labour Party (UNITE, GMB, UNISON amongst others – see the “Unions Together” website for a full list) are also keen to show what they are doing with members’ money, lest they find themselves out of a position.

It’s quite clear what Plaid are trying to do – grab the union cash for themselves. I don’t think I can trust any party that openly considers rainbow alliances with those erstwhile friends of the workers, the Tories and LibDems, and I am sure that there are Plaid AMs, Councillors etc who would be just as axe-happy with spending cuts as their right wing Labour In Name Only counterparts. Plaid does have a socialist left, but anyone who sees this as a reason for Plaid being somewhat more progressive, let alone more socialist, is deluding themselves. Because it’s like that in the Labour Party, too.

But, despite the opportunistic nature of Plaid’s cash grab, it does raise a serious point. From my own experience, there are people in the UNISON-Labour Link (as the APF is known as) who are just as dogmatic and raving in their support of the Link as some of those, like the SWP, who want to see the link severed.

I have a different idea of what the link should be. It’s there, so it should be used. But it should not be used simply to funnel Labour policy into the unions, but rather, the other way around; it is possible the only space left for union members to influence Labour politics and to advance independent working class politics in the Labour Party.

If, as Plaid claims, we should simply stop paying into the Political Funds, then what does that mean for the political voice of the unions, and the workers they represent? Because the pratical implications of such a move is that the unions (under the current law) will be politically straight jacketed. Remember the excellent UNISON ad in defence of the NHS, with the surgeon and the cigar chomping fat cat staring down at the lens over the operating table? That was paid for by the political fund. RMT ads against the East London Line privatisation? Forget them.

If we follow the Plaid/SWP line of not paying into political funds, then any pretense of progressive politics is lost; instead, the unions will end up wallowing in a pit of apolitical syndicalism. And is that any good for anyone?

This post is deliberately in short note form (this is why the blog is called Kit Notes) because there are points that I do want to come back to. I think it’s also worthwhile pointing out that I’m not an expert on nuclear power; I’m a local government worker and did Media Studies at University, so I can’t really pretend to be one either. But hopefully I’ll have stimulated some debate, and perhaps clarify where I stand a bit better, too.

I’m always open to being convinced otherwise, so do please comment.

• Disposal of nuclear waste is a massive problem. Kate Ahrens is correct when she says that we simply don’t know how to store nuclear waste properly. I still think that it’s perhaps better for the environment, however, that such waste isn’t circulating in the air like power generation from coal or gas. It’s also worth making the point that there could be a use for spent uranium – perhaps not depleted uranium weapons, but social uses – think about the machines that we use in our daily lives that use radioactive materials. It’s worth the research, I think – and perhaps a better use of the time of nuclear researchers and institutions like QinetiQ.

• I am opposed to the new wave of nuclear power plants planned by the Brown government – even more so if they are in private hands. As I said in my initial post on the subject, I simply do not trust capitalism – whether free market or state regulated – to run nuclear power. If companies who are bidding to win the contracts, such as EDF and RWE, run the new plants with the same devil-may-care attitude companies like Initial in the NHS, then we are in serious danger.

• Renewable energy, such as wind, hydro, tidal etc would be a perfect solution to the problem, but it isn’t. The UK has a population of 60 million, and even if we covered every green space with wind turbines, it isn’t going to be enough, as they simply can’t produce enough energy to satisfy demand, even if they run on full capacity. I don’t mind wind turbines – they cover the Pennines and I always wondered at their grace and beauty when I crossed the Pennines to get into (gnnnnh) Yorkshire. And any objections to them because of middle class NIMBYist tripe should be head on. But they’re not enough.

• Following on from that, there is still waste produced from all forms of energy production. There are also issues relating to the efficiency of the electricity transmission network – the National Grid. This also needs to be looked at.

• I don’t buy into the hype surrounding carbon capture. “Clean Coal” is an inefficient method, and takes more energy to capture emissions than it warrants. There is also the question of what to do with that captured carbon – where will it go? Underground?

The identities of the blog producers are somewhat hidden; there is a “Left Manifesto for Nuclear Energy” which you can read here. The four founding principles of the manifesto are;

 • [The need to recognise that] The worldwide, social need for nuclear power has changed dramatically since the 1980s.

• As socialists, we need to deal with technological reality as it has developed in the last 30 years.

• We need to reverse our opposition to nuclear power and instead support its development.

• We need to oppose its privatisation and support its nationalization where it is private as part of state-owned, transparently regulated, nationalized energy monopoly for the sake of economically building of power plants and for their safety.

 It’s certainly something I’d sign up to if I knew more about who was organising it (get in touch).

Meanwhile, this article by Martin Thomas on the Workers’ Liberty website seems to echo my position. I’m pleased to find that the irrational blanket anti-nuclear fearmongering so often peddled by socialists and progressives is starting to wain; technology has progressed in the twenty years since Chernobyl and the left needs to recognise the new technological developments in nuclear energy.

As we’ve all suddenly become ecowarriors, there is still one issue that haunts progressives of all stripes: nuclear power.

For the left, it’s an absolute given; nuclear power is evil incarnate, it’s wasteful, it’s harmful to the environment, and nobody wants nuclear armageddon thankyouverymuchifitsallthesame.

But is it? One of the main arguments against nuclear is that it has a record of going wrong. And when nuclear goes wrong, it goes very very wrong. Certainly the latter is true. But the former? I’m not so sure. People remember the discharge of radioactive material into the Irish Sea from Windscale (now Sellafield) in the 1940’s and 1960’s, but surely the numerous oil spills from sinking tankers can’t be that good for the environment? Lots of people died at Chernobyl, but lots of workers also died aboard Piper Alpha in 1988. Not quite the same scale, but all forms of generating energy have risks.

Truth is, every nuclear accident seems to find its roots in cutting corners and money saving – or profit, in other words. Chernobyl happened due to attempts to ramp up production to hit productivity targets – had the technicians not been forced to overload the reactor, it may never have happened. Nine Mile? Lack of health and safety. Windscale and Calder Hall? Over-production. These all – whether state in the case of the former Soviet Union and the UK or private in the case of the USA – are due to bosses trying to make a bigger buck for their bang.

Another main argument against nuclear is; what happens to spent uranium? True, it’s difficult to safely dispose of, especially as it has a half life of hundred of years. But what do you think happens to Carbon Dioxide and Carbon particles chucked out by gas and coal? Even clean coal produces some waste – I remember from my sketchy GCSE physics lessons that every energy-producing reaction causes waste.

I don’t trust capitalism to run nuclear power – but, if the profit motive is removed, then why not? Why is there this – quite frankly irrational – knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power? What other options do we have?

These days, I don’t get pressured to buy what were (when I look back on it) stupid pants, but, in entering 2008, I am getting pressured into choosing a Democratic candidate for US President.

It seems that everyone has their man (or woman). Voltaire’s Priest over at Shiraz Socialist chooses John Edwards, and a Labour friend of mine is torn between Edwards and Obama. Harry’s Playground completely misses the point as usual and says we should vote for Obama because he’s the most American (which is like saying we should have Boris Johnson for Prime Minister because, as an imperialist, racist eccentric buffoon who went to Eton, he is the epitome of Britishness).

Edwards, Clinton and Obama are the Democratic frontrunners at the moment. Would I choose one?

Their programme – which will be decided at the Democratic Convention anyway, so it’s somewhat beyond the candidates – will no doubt be the same neo-liberal gubbins, with some reigning in of NAFTA as a concession to the unions, but where is the accountability? How is the Democratic Party supposed to hold their candidate to account?

The Brownite leadership of the Labour Party in Britain may be a sleaze-ridden and capitalist bought machine serving the interests of the rich, but the structure of the union affiliations make it possible for the union leaders to put some pressure on them, so long as rank & file workers put pressure on them.

The Democratic Party is not a socialist party, or even a workers’ party – just because workers and unions vote for it, doesn’t make it a workers’ party in any meaningful sense. The air traffic controllers union in the USA supported Regan and union leaders have been known to fund Republicans.

What is needed in the US is a workers’ party, or as they might call it, a labor party. Such a party would be a limited step forward, but a step forward nonetheless.

I used to think that perhaps trying to make a quick quid out of some of the most oppressed people in Britain is more impossible than trying to extract the proverbial, but then again, I believe that old friend of public services Sodexho tried to make money out of the rather humiliating (perhaps for all parties concerned; but more so for the asylum seekers themselves) scheme of vouchers for food. Sort of like second-class Luncheon Vouchers.

So, the news that some enterprising Austrian “aviation consultant” called Heinz Berger (yes, his name makes me hungry as well) is to set up an airline specialising in forced removal of asylum seekers, according to the Independent.

Never mind that there have been allegations (Hello, Mr Solicitor!) of “physical and racial abuse” against Mr Burger’s operations, and that airlines like XL refusing to do business with the Home Office and take those pesky asylum seekers home. Apparently, there are a huge number of “aborted” “removals” (didn’t “removals” used to be called “deportations” or something? I can never keep up) because those troublesome asylum seekers are “disruptive”. Well, I’d be bloody “disruptive” if I were to be returned to a place where I might be murdered. Or worse.

Herr Burger promises clients specialist aircraft with restraints and holding cells on board. Has he been watching Con Air too much? These people are not criminals; they have committed no crime, except to seek sanctaury.

If anything, I would hope that this might shut up the racists of the ”swamping brigade” who parrot what racist bile that comes out of the Daily Mail. Surely, if there is a market for a specialist airline which forcibly moves asylum seekers from one place to another back to places where they will be tortured or murdered, then are we really being swamped now? I don’t know.

As education workers and student activists, we condemn the detention of
over forty student activists by the Iranian regime since 7 December (16
Azar in the Iranian calendar). This date has been a day of student protest
in Iran for many years; it is now a symbol of Iranian students’ struggle
against the theocratic-capitalist regime of the Islamic Republic just as
it was against the dictatorship of the Shah. Activists were arrested in
the run up to the day of action, and following the demonstrations and
actions which took place in a number of cities. Many are now reportedly
being held in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison and have been subjected to
torture.

This is just the latest act of repression meted out by the Islamic
Republic; it follows an intense crackdown on the Iranian workers’ movement
and the brutal victimisation of leading trade unionists such as Tehran
busworkers’ leader Mansour Ossanlou and Saqez bakers’ union activist
Mahmoud Salehi. The Iranian regime is acutely aware of the growing
alliance between Iran’s workers’ and student movements; meanwhile it is
using the threat of a US attack to legitimise itself and step up its
repression of dissent.

We call on the Iranian government to immediately release all detained
student, women’s and labour movement activists, and call on all
working-class, student, left and anti-war activists and organisations in
the UK for solidarity with Iranian workers, students and women against the
dual threats of US militarism and theocratic-capitalist oppression.

Sofie Buckland, NUS National Executive Committee and Education Not for Sale
Laura Schwartz, NUS Women’s Committee, University of East London
Sophie Lafayette, NUS Women’s Committee, University of Nottingham
Aled Dilwyn Fisher, London School of Economics Students’ Union executive
and Young Greens membership officer (pc)
Sacha Ismail, for Alliance for Workers’ Liberty students and youth
Heather Shaw, Bretton Hall Officer, Leeds University Union (2005-6)
Daniel Randall, NUS NEC (2005-6) & Secretary, University of Sheffield No
Sweat Society
Pat Murphy, National Union of Teachers NEC
Tom Unterrainer, Joint Secretary, Nottingham City NUT
Pete Radcliff, Branch Secretary, Derby University UCU
Pat Markey, Branch Secretary, Northampton Association NUT
Tim Cooper, Nottingham Trent University
Sam Ross, University of Sheffield SWSS
Daniel Perrett, Cambridge University
Clare Whitney, Cambridge University
Tom Bamford, University of Sussex
Richard Houguez, Byam Shaw School of Art
Stephen Wood, President, Hull University Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transexual Campaign (pc); Treasurer, Hull University Left Book Club
Daniel Fisher, SRC Science Representative, St. Andrews University
Molly Uzzel, SRC Representative for Women’s Issues, St. Andrews University
Terry Fulton, SRC Representative for Postgraduate Accommodation, St.
Andrews University
James Pollard, SRC Accommodation Representative, St. Andrews University
Harry Giles, SRC Representative for Absent Students, St. Andrews University
Alex Hayes, SRC Representative for Part-Time Students, St. Andrews University
Lukas Ross, SRC Representative for Ethnic Minorities, St. Andrews University
Marcus Mayo, SRC Representative for the School of Divinity, St. Andrews
University
Martin Schmier, SRC Reprentative without Portfolio, St. Andrews University
David Broder, Kings College London
Alois T Mbawara, Sussex University, Free Zim Youth activist
Laura Rogers, Institute of Education
Joe Flynn, Youth & Students Officer, Chingford and Woodgreen Constituency
Labour Party
Joe Wilson, Cambridge University
Ed Maltby, Camridge University
James Ross

Please add your or your organisation’s name to this statement; it will be
translated and sent to activists in Iran. Email your name to Daniel at
skillz_999@hotmail.com