BRITAIN’S threats to bomb the Yemeni Houthi movement for attacking Israeli-linked ships in the Red Sea “pose a serious threat to world peace” and is “completely irresponsible,” anti-war campaigners warned today.
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said that the government would not hesitate to take “direct action” on the Iranian-backed forces after the US military said four boats from Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen fired at the Maersk Hangzhou and got within metres of the vessel.
Britain and the US were reportedly preparing a joint statement to issue a final warning to the Houthis.
Stop The War Coalition’s Lindsey German said that the action would be “another potential escalation” in the Middle East, warning that it is “the last thing we need.”
She told the Star: “We have got Israel bombing Gaza on a daily basis with terrible consequences and so far the war hasn’t spread further than Palestine, but the truth is the Israelis are threatening to launch attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
…
“People might wonder what British and US ships are doing in the Middle East and they have to realise they are contributing to a very dangerous situation which may lead to a regional war.”
In the ‘coming soon’ notice announcing this article I said that “[t]here aren’t any real climate deniers anymore”. I was mistaken and there are a very few people like Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers Corbyn. I’ve only met and spoken with him once but I’m satisfied that he’s genuine in his beliefs despite them being misguided. He and others like him have the right to believe whatever they like and he’s harmless enough – while he may persuade a few people the vast majority will understand that he’s mistaken and wrong.
Image of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reads 1% RICHEST 100% CLIMATE DENIER
So apart from Piers Corbyn and a few similar people, there is no such thing as a climate denier nowadays. The Capitalists profiting from climate destruction have known for 60 years of more that they were profiting from destroying the planet and were forcing future generations to endure intolerable climate conditions, annihilating many thousands of species of plants and animals and generally totally fekking everything.
Governments are controlled, directed, owned by a very few extremely rich and powerful people, the very people that are profiting and maintaining their wealth, power and influence from destroying the planet. According to this perspective we do not exist in a democracy and it is instead a pretence hiding the influence of the rich and powerful. We exist in a plutocracy – we have a wealthy ruling class that politicians serve.
It cannot be accepted that politicians like UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak or our expected next Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the like are mistaken true believers like Piers Corbyn believes. Rather they are climate deniers in the sense of the fossil fuel industries – Exxon, Shell and BP – who know fully well that they are destroying the planet but deceive and mislead to continue making a filthy profit. It’s obvious to see that these politician cnuts serve this rich elite’s interests – Tory and Labour UK governments have answered to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, sucking up to him, grateful to accept his orders.
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
Sunak, despite being fully aware of the climate crisis is continuing to destroy the planet. Announcing the go-ahead for the Rosebank oil field he said that he intends to get every last drop of North Sea oil.
Experts say prolonged delay in replacing chair signals that government does not take net zero policy seriously enough and is harming investment
Rishi Sunak has come under fierce attack from UK climate experts for the Conservative government’s failure over the past 18 months to appoint a new chair of the independent committee that advises ministers on emissions targets.
In a letter to the prime minister leaked to the Observer, the UK’s leading organisation working on the economic effects of global warming condemned the “excessive delay” in finding a replacement to the previous chair, Lord Deben.
Bob Ward, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change’s head of policy, warned Sunak that the delay is harming efforts to control carbon emissions and damaging the UK’s reputation as a climate change leader.
“Given that the recruitment of the new chair began 18 months ago it is inexplicable that the appointment has still not been announced,” wrote Ward. The work of the committee is at a “critical stage”, he added. “It is not helpful that it does not yet have a new chair as it carries out this work.”
The economist Lord Stern, who is chair of the institute, said: “It seems to be yet another signal that the government does not take climate change policy seriously enough. All this is damaging the confidence of other countries and of investors in the UK’s commitment to climate action.”
The failure to find a new committee chair is the latest example of a lack of consistency displayed by Sunak towards his party’s green commitments. This year, he dismayed environmentalists when he announced legislation for an annual system of oil and gas licensing in the North Sea which followed a scaling back of other measures including delays to a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
The Climate Change Committee is a body of experts set up under the 2008 Climate Change Act to guide national policies for controlling emissions and for helping the country prepare for the impact of global warming. In the past, it has been highly critical of Britain’s poor performance in areas including the nation’s flood defences and domestic energy efficiency.
We know think tanks can shape government policy. But we often have no idea who is paying them to do so
openDemocracy’s Who Funds You? report finds think tanks raking in millions ahead of general election | Getty
You don’t have to follow UK politics too closely to have spotted the names of a handful of think tanks cropping up again and again in the news.
There is little doubt these organisations exert significant influence. Just last year, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) was reported to have shaped then-prime minister Liz Truss’s disastrous budget.
And sometimes it seems like only hours have passed between the publication of a Policy Exchange research paper and the adoption and implementation of its content as government policy. This is perhaps unsurprising given even Policy Exchange says its “status as the UK’s most influential think tank is widely recognised”.
The influence of high-profile think tanks is also apparent in the revolving door between them and the government. The former CEO of Taxpayers’ Alliance (TA), for example, took up a job in Priti Patel’s office when she was home secretary.
So we know think tanks can shape public policy. What is often far less obvious, though, is who is paying them to do so.
openDemocracy’s annual Who Funds You? report, published today, assesses how transparent think tanks’ financial disclosures were in the past year, grading them on a scale from A to E based on how much they publish about their funders.
I should mention, at this point, that I am the CEO of Unlock Democracy, a think tank awarded an A rating (the most transparent possible) in the report.
The report has revealed that UK think tanks have raised more than £101m to influence public policy in the run-up to the next general election – £25m of which came from ‘dark money’-funded think tanks, which are opaque about funders.
Policy Exchange and the IEA were both awarded D ratings, the second lowest.
There is nothing in either think tank’s mission that indicates any requirement for high levels of secrecy surrounding their funders. So why are they so shy about revealing their backers?
Is it because the public and ministers might view any advocacy of slower action on climate change or accusations of ‘nanny-statism’ over limits on sugar, salt and fat in processed foods differently if their accounts revealed they were partly funded by oil or gas companies, large food manufacturers or private individuals with an interest in promoting deregulation or privatisation? Of course, they might not be. But that’s the point – we don’t know.
Or is it because much of the media might stop describing them, rather generously, as ‘independent’ if the truth were known about from where and whom they received financial support?
Or is it because pressure would build for Parliament to force these think tanks to register as consultant lobbyists?
Given the IEA, Policy Exchange, the Taxpayers’ Alliance and other think tanks have declined to take voluntary action to reveal their sponsors, it is time for the government to step in and require them to declare funders contributing over £5,000 a year.
The media could help by refraining from describing think tanks whose funding remains as murky as the waters in our polluted rivers as ‘independent’.
We would all then be better equipped to establish whether the exhortations of the most influential think tanks will help deliver ‘a stronger society’ or something far less attractive.
Government criticised for spending £400m on Rwanda scheme while more than 1.2m wait for social housing
A housing charity accused the government of “pandering to dog-whistle politics” with the deal. Getty Images
The government could have increased the number of social homes built across England last year by more than a fifth using the money it has committed to its Rwanda asylum scheme.
Home secretary James Cleverly confirmed on Wednesday that the government’s agreement to deport asylum seekers who enter the UK irregularly to the African country will have cost almost £400m by 2027.
The total sum would be enough to completely fund an estimated 2,131 new social homes, which is more than 22% of the 9,561 completed in England in the year to April 2023. The average government grant required to build a new home for social rent in England is £183,000, according to estimates by the National Housing Federation.
More than 1.2 million households were waiting for social housing in England as of March 2023, statistics published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) show.
The figures also show 7,620 social homes were completed in the year to April 2022, but a much higher number, 27,849, either sold or demolished – a net loss of more than 20,000. No figures have yet been published for social homes lost in the most recent year.
The government gave £140m to Rwanda in 2022 as part of its deal with the county and last week the Home Office’s most senior civil servant confirmed that a further £100m was given to the country in 2023. They added that a further payment of £50m is “anticipated” in 2024.
Cleverly, this week, told Parliament that the UK plans to give a further £50m to Rwanda annually in 2026 and 2027.
The overall costs of the Rwanda scheme could reach far higher that the £390m already committed by the government. An earlier economic impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill said that it would cost £63,000 more to remove a person to a third country, such as Rwanda, than having their asylum claim processed in the UK.
Rishi Sunak claimed in November that the policy “will literally save us billions in the long run”, but has not provided any figures to back this up.
On Tuesday, the National Audit Office confirmed that it would publish a report assessing the costs of the Rwanda scheme in 2024.
The inquiry was prompted by criticism from Labour MPs Meg Hillier and Diana Johnson, the chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Home Office Select Committee respectively, who said that there has been a “lack of clarity around value for money”.
Robina Qureshi, the CEO of Positive Action in Housing, said openDemocracy’s findings show that the government has put “pandering to dog-whistle politics” and “giving asylum contractors huge profits” over people’s futures.
“They haven’t been providing for society,” she said. “Instead they are sitting on their social media accounts trying to promote their own careers, and giving multi-million-pound contracts to asylum contractors. But nothing’s been done to help anyone that really needs it.
“When you build social homes, it increases the pool of houses that are available for anyone who’s in need.”
