Who needs nuclear weapons anyway?

A heavily-guarded nuclear facility 150 miles south west of Tehran is now an active production plant, according to information obtained by The Telegraph. Photographs show a cloud of steam rising from the location, to which inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been denied access for the past 18 months. This evidence may indicate the ‘heavy-water’ production through which a nuclear rector can generate the plutonium required to produce a bomb. Either that, or someone is making an awful lot of tea.

Although Iran is not yet believed to have the technology needed to reprocess plutonium, as required for weaponry, this development will be causing headaches in high places. The Telegraph quote Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US State Department official at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, as suggesting that Iran might acquire the required reprocessing technology from North Korea.

If Mr Fitzpatrick had any evidence as to why a reclusive totalitarian regime, communist in all but name, would ably assist an Islamic Republic almost 4000 miles away, he was not letting on. However, the implication is that people we don’t like must all know each other. Worryingly reminiscent of when we were told that Saddam Hussein was best mates with al-Qaeda, so we should attack him, or them, or preferably everybody, and we all remember how that one turned out.

Back home, it seems likely the Labour Party will echo Conservative commitments to support a like-for-like replacement for Trident. The Independent report that Ed Miliband will include the maintenance of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent in his election pledges, leaving just the Liberal Democrats ploughing a lonely furrow of cheaper alternatives.

Robust rhetoric about defence of the realm will play well in the shires, but may not be music to every ear in times of austerity. With the UK losing its AAA credit rating, national debts of £1,111 billion and counting, stalling growth and a flat-lining economy, can we really afford to spend £25 billion replacing something we never used in the first place? Germany has no nukes, but has retained its AAA rating, has a higher GDP per capita than us and a significantly more successful football team.  

Granted, with rogue states doggedly pursuing a nuclear narrative, we need major players on the world stage with suitably armed sabres to rattle when required. That is what America is for, that and the West Wing. Only nine out of 195 sovereign states on the planet have nuclear weapons, and one of them is an island just 500km across, ranked just 23^rd richest in the world by the IMF, who really can’t afford them. It’s time to have a serious conversation about whether we really need an independent nuclear arsenal. Britain isn’t a bulldog anymore, it’s a Jack Russell, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s lower maintenance.

One Billion Rising

As 109 balloons rose up into the skies above Parliament Square on Valentine’s Day morning, a billion people across the planet prepared to rise up to oppose violence against women. The brainchild of the playwright Eve Ensler, of The Vagina Monologues fame, ‘One Billion Rising’ saw women, men, and children across 203 countries take to the streets to dance in protest, in unity, and support. Statistically, one in three women will be subjected to sexual or physical violence at some time in their lives, which constitutes a billion global victims.  

The international day of action was the culmination of a project coordinated by Ensler’s ‘V-Day’ organisation, which has raised over $85 million in the last 15 years to fund education and anti-violence initiatives across the world. In addition to messages of support from world leaders including David Cameron and his Australian counterpart Julia Gillard, a sprinkling of celebrity activists like Thandie Newton and Anne Hathaway, folk of every creed and colour were galvanised into a potent display of people power, performing Debbie Allen’s spirited choreography. 

600 Egyptians danced together in western Cairo, others on the shore of The Red Sea. Human chains stretched across Dhaka, as Polish women danced inside the Warsaw Central train station. Similar scenes were witnessed in Ethiopia, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Afghanistan, along with most major cities across the western world. Eve Ensler was among the hundreds dancing in the City of Joy, the refuge for rape victims she established in the Democratic Republic of Congo, still regarded as the rape capital of the world.

Ensler described the global response to One Billion Rising as “beyond her wildest dreams,” and she is a woman who can certainly dream big. But now the dancers’ blisters are better, and the press releases have wrapped last week’s fish and chips, what should a worldwide refocusing on the issue actually look like?  

Despite warm words and admirable intentions, the pursuit of progress faces substantial stumbling blocks on both a personal and parliamentary level. In the United States, the Guardian reports Republican resistance to the Violence Against Women’s Act, because its proposed legal protections would extend to undocumented immigrants. Would that equate to an essential economic adjustment in times of austerity? Or proof that only in a puppet democracy do human rights come with strings attached?

Our political representatives have long had an ability to water down a bit of people power into policy impasse. Just as appalling, however, were the unpublishable utterings of a knuckle dragging minority on twitter, poignantly proving the need for the project they so poisonously opposed. 

As parents, we are patently aware that whilst our offspring may not always adhere to what we tell them, all too often they hear what we say. Whether we like it or not, that puts fathers in the frontline when it comes to instilling in our sons an ingrained acceptance and respect for the women and girls around us, which endures no matter how bad your day, or how much you drink. When that respect becomes as deep and dependable in our young men's lives as the very blood in their veins, then a lot less will be spilled.

One MP, Two Partners, and Those Pesky Penalty Points.

Note to self, Mr Huhne, when involving ones wife in a minor criminal cover-up, greater care should be taken not to leave her afterwards.

Having given up his cabinet post, and resigned as MP for Eastleigh, Chris Huhne’s diary must be about as empty as his laundry basket, now the contents have received a thorough airing in court. With hindsight, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change may wish he had just taken the penalty points himself, when caught speeding on the M11 back in 2003. Such was the crowded nature of his driving licence at the time, however, that it would likely have meant him losing it. Achieving his parliamentary ambitions may have proved improbable from the back of a taxpayer funded taxi, granted, but swapping Her Majesty’s Government for staying at Her Majesty’s pleasure would kick his goal of being Lib Dem party leader into considerably longer grass.

Having changed his plea to guilty, for perverting the course of justice, Mr Huhne has now popped home to pack his pyjamas. He will be sentenced at a later date, the judge having told him to “have no illusions” regarding what awaits him.  His ex-wife, meanwhile, former joint head of the UK Government Economic Service, Vicky Pryce, is pleading not guilty to a similar charge, citing marital coercion. The couple divorced in January 2011, when details came to light of an affair between Chris Huhne and PR adviser Carina Trimingham, his current partner.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court has heard recorded phone conversations between the former couple, secretly set up with the able assistance of Sunday Times Political Editor Isabel Oakeshott. The expletive ridden excerpts appear to chart Ms Pryce’s attempts to entice her ex-husband into admitting to their driving deception, albeit with limited success.

Whatever the outcome in court, they will be not be the first couple to have played pass the penalty points, nor the last to break up due to a husband’s unreliable underpants. But the fact that the former Secretary of State apparently got right through Westminster School and Oxford University without learning the phrase; “hell hath no furry like a woman scorned”, may be as big a mystery as how he thought he could possibly get away with it all.  

The case continues, his political career may not.

UK Toddlers Tea-Time Tantrums

If I had a pound for every time I’ve had to explain to my four year old that biscuits are not a vegetable, I could probably afford someone else to feed him. However, I am now mildly relieved to learn that we are by no means alone in our daily dinner time dogfight, but merely part of a national nutritional nightmare.

Research by the European Toddler Nutrition Index, as reported by Sky News, reveals that 43% of UK parents end up allowing their offspring to veto certain food groups, whereas in France the figure is a more modest 33%. And 26% of our under fives apparently refuse meals at least once a day, their continental cousins declining just 15%.

Maybe French food just tastes better, so toddlers don’t complain, or it may be that our processes and not our products are at fault. Perhaps in current culture, our approach to all things culinary leaves us increasingly in need of a crash course in meal-time management for our minors. In her book ‘French Kids Eat Everything’, Karen Le Billon transplants her two picky-eating kids from North America, to a small town in France. After initial resistance, the family embraced the complex culture of French cuisine and emerged a healthier herd for it, so maybe we should all follow suit?

Now, the hardest hurdle for parents on this side of the channel may be the strict ‘no-snacking rule’. It turns out French kids are far less likely to refuse their food because they are famished. It makes sense. If your nippers are full of crisps and cookies by the time they get to the table at tea-time, it’s no surprise they give their carrots the cold shoulder.

Le Billon was also banned from providing a packed lunch for her school aged offspring, a source of major sinning on this side of La Manche. Certainly, my daughter delights in dishing the dining dirt on those classmates whose packed lunches are clearly prepared with no more effort than the hurling together of a collection of coloured packets. A daily duty we both secretly regard with thinly veiled envy.

French school dinners are dished out on higher budgets, and often in conjunction with nutritionists, making them much more balanced than merely a collection of ways to clog your arteries. Whereas, it is the very fervour with which my kids crave their canteen’s culinary offerings, that makes me doubt the quality of their contents. If Jamie Oliver is to be believed, many school dinners are little more than a production line of low-budget homages to saturated fats. If that’s the case, then the preparation of a packed lunch represents the last vestige of parental control in a world of self-destructive snacking.

Perhaps the problem boils down to the fact that unhealthy parents rarely breed healthy kids. If Donna from Doncaster thinks a Wagon Wheel is a dietary supplement, then sooner or later her kids will need elasticated waistlines.

Personally, I don’t keep cashew nuts in the house because I lack any restraint in their presence. Perhaps if kids are offered no option apart from healthy home-cooked grub, they would eventually cave in and eat it. In a world obsessed with choice, maybe one of the least learnt lessons is when not to offer any. Bon apettit.  

R.I.P HMV?

‘His Master’s Voice’ has been hoarse for a while, but may not be silenced yet, as HMV’s administrators, Deloitte, say that 50 potential buyers have emerged for the stricken retailer. Restructuring specialists Hilco look the most likely to salvage something from the 223 stores, giving a glimmer of hope to its 4000 staff. Welcome news too for those previously told their Christmas HMV vouchers were now purely of historical value. Deloitte have confirmed they are legal tender again, sending torrents of teenagers to rummage through the recycling.  

After the news broke last week of HMV’s impending demise, Andy Heath, the chair of UK Music said that “going into administration gives HMV an opportunity for a substantial and decent rebirth.” Whilst it sounded as glass-half-full as viewing imminent redundancy as an exciting chance to reconnect with daytime telly and poor personal hygiene, it seems HMV may yet arise phoenix-like from the advancing ashtray.

The company had been effectively drowning in Amazon’s wake for ages, and the opportunity for genuine rebirth is long overdue. Like the camera retailer Jessops, whose 187 stores have shut up shop with the loss of over 1,300 jobs, HMV have failed to find a new niche in the face of increased competition. Aside from the inexorable move towards on-line offerings, supermarkets popped the price bubble with bargain chart CDs through the checkouts, forcing record stores to keep up or be boarded up.  

Like many, I admit to a modest wave of nostalgia when I remember gleefully trawling through the record racks, my HMV voucher in hand. But then I recall grabbing charts CDs from Tesco for under a tenner, which would have got you about three verses and a chorus on the high street. Bingo, the wave was broken.

           

HMV’s like-for-like sales in 2011 were down 11.6% on the previous year, but they still turned in a profit of £17.6 million. By 2012, as the company attempted its last rigorous restructure, shifting focus to live music, ticketing and digital, profits for the “HMV Live” wing of the business did increase, but it was a tourniquet against a tidal wave. 2011/12 produced an overall loss before tax of £16.2 million.

News of restructure and potential purchasers may indeed indicate a legitimate lifeline, and last week the BBC reported that HMV Chief Executive Trevor Moore was “working tirelessly” to save the chain. But bearing in mind he joined the company last April, from Jessops, I’d spend those vouchers swiftly if you can find them.

Downing Street Dave's Referendum Dilemma.

Friday, 11 January 2013

 

They say you can’t please everyone, but when the Prime Minster finally makes his eagerly anticipated and allegedly imminent speech on Europe, he’s unlikely to please anyone at all. Too far right for the left, too left for the right, and if he plays it down the middle he becomes his own deputy. And now it seems the latest candidate queuing up to be potentially displeased with the PM, is US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, one Philip H Gordon. Amid the mutinous mumblings from this corner of Europe, Mr Gordon has decreed that if the UK left the EU, the ‘special relationship’ might need counselling.

Whilst simultaneously stressing that “what is in the UK’s interests is up to the UK”, Mr Gordon has affirmed that the Obama administration would “welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it”, and, as reported on Sky News, that “referendums have often turned countries inward.” He need not lose much sleep over that, setting aside the sabre-rattling, we are as yet no nearer to holding one.

Some would say that inward looking is not all bad. After September 11^th, Blair stood “shoulder to shoulder” with Bush and a great big target rubbed off onto all of us. Now, standing downwind of two foreign wars we couldn’t afford, it might have been better to just send flowers.

With business leaders briefing against anti-EU action, the current rumours rule out a referendum this side of the next election. While that will not quieten the clamour from the Conservative back benches, from the Downing Street direction, the long grass would no doubt look much greener if this political hot potato could be comfortably kicked into it. Although repatriating powers from Brussels is patriotic rhetoric, it’s not a meeting the Prime Minister can have on his own, and no-one else wants to play.

 

Those Tories tiptoeing towards UKIP might be tempted back to the table if the referendum carrot found its way onto the election manifesto menu. But if the vote went against EU membership, the Prime Minister would be left holding the baby, a hero to those on the hardwood behind him, but persona non grata almost anywhere south of Dover.

 

The trouble with a referendum, as Mr Cameron might privately concede, is that a large number of those invested with the right to vote, will have no clear comprehension of the potential economic consequences. If given the chance, my kids would vote against eating vegetables, as they don’t like them. Buoyed by bullish resistance to the dictates forced previously upon them, they would feel empowered and vindicated, but soon develop scurvy.

The Great Rail Rip-Off

How do you ease pressure on over-crowded rail services? Simple, you make tickets so expensive that folks can’t afford them. It may seem facile and potentially self-defeating, but that was the sledgehammer government solution suspected by the House of Commons Transport Committee, and they should know. Labour MP and Committee Chairman Louise Ellman today cautioned against “ramping up fares” to regulate demand at peak times, as the government ponders over a menu of potential options in the wake of Sir Roy McNulty’s recent report into rail costs.

In fact, it seems the only factor making UK petrol prices feel even remotely reasonable, is the comparative cost of rail travel. Commuters careering cheerfully towards ticket machines this week, eagerly anticipating a return to work after the Christmas festivities, are already facing fare increases of up to 9.2%, according to Shadow Transport Minister Maria Eagle.

But those blinking blearily at their soaring seat prices should perhaps be partially grateful. The government were set to allow train companies price rises in regulated fares of 6.2%, but relented at the last, capping the increase at 4.2%. Cold comfort perhaps for those condemned to standing room only, gazing into someone else’s armpit, and paying steadily more for the daily privilege. In addition, the cap only covers the so-called “regulated fares”, leaving rail companies free to cash in on other unsuspecting customers.

The above inflation formula of Retail Price Index +1% has been used to set the rise in most rail fares since 2004, meaning commuter’s costs increasing by 54% in 10 years. The Campaign for Better Transport equates this to a fare rise of more than 20% above wage increases, and have initiated an on-line petition, calling on the government to end above inflation increments.

Perhaps the West Coast Main Line palaver perfectly illustrated the pitfalls of privatised rail provision. Virgin lost the franchise in favour of a First Group offer, which, whilst tantalisingly tempting to a cash-strapped treasury, seemed ever destined to become too good to be true, right up until it was. To add sodium to the sore, Virgin will now need reimbursing for their bid in a franchise process that appears decidedly dodgy. If it didn’t work for the East Coast Mainline, why would a few hundred miles make any discernable difference?  

Personally, I fail to see the fun in paying £6 billion in subsidies to rail companies who will have to satisfy shareholders, pay undeserved bonuses, and are patently aware that if the whole sorry shambles comes crashing round their ears, the taxpayer will pick up the tab. If they ask me, public ownership is the only responsible platform for running public services, but it’s reassuringly unlikely they will.