International Women's Day: United Nations Association meeting

More information at www.unaputneyandroehampton.org.uk

Humanity First

Last week I was pleased to take a delegation from the charity Humanity First to Parliament to meet with international development minister, Gareth Thomas MP.

Humanity First is an international aid agency that provides aid and assistance to those in need irrespective of race, religion or politics from registered offices in 29 countries. HF has active projects in 35 countries across 6 continents, including a team working on disaster relief in Haiti.

I was approached by Humanity First because they wanted to raise the profile of their work and wished in particular to take their first hand experience of aid and development issues from across the globe to the Government. I was pleased to be able to help and, following his visit to Putney last year, was delighted when Gareth Thomas agreed to my request for a meeting. The meeting was very productive and looks likely to have opened a useful dialogue between the Government, DFID and a well regarded aid agency.

For more details about Humanity First, visit their website www.humanityfirst.org.uk

Pictured above, from left to right next to me are: Mansoor Shah, Chairman of Humanity First; development minister Gareth Thomas MP; Dr Rashid Shahnawaz, Medical Director; and Masood Lone, Director of Fundraising.

United Nations Association meeting on Human Rights

Brokenhagen

Back in September I wrote that I thought Copenhagen was in trouble.

It was obvious that the "COP-15" summit was becoming the COP-OUT summit weeks ago; arguably months and years ago. And it was because of mistakes by those evangelising on climate change that have been repeated and compounded.

Talking up the challenges, the costs and the sacrifices doesn't make most people want to buy-in to a solution. And getting the public to recognise the problem and buy-in to the solution isn't some irritating optional extra we can pick and choose whether to bother with. It's inseparable from dealing effectively with the problem.

It has been treating the public this way that's caused the problem. It prompted scientists to foolishly fiddle the facts, conceal information and treat us as too stupid to be able to understand the very thing scientists are supposed to do: challenge orthodoxy.

It prompted politicians to offload difficult, expensive decisions onto unelected bureaucrats who were never going to be able to deliver the answers - because the answers demand the accountability they lack.

It prompted middle-class, affluent environmental activists for whom fixing a wind turbine on their roof or paying a carbon offset after a quick holiday jaunt to the carribbean is pocket-change, to lecture families on fixed incomes about what they will have to sacrifice. And each of these groups got exactly what they deserved at Copenhagen.

How about going down a different path now?

Here are the four ways I think a substantive deal on climate change could be rescued, which can resonate with the public and which doesn?t require us to retreat into caves to bring about.

First, let?s learn from history. When I was growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the big environmental threat was something called Acid Rain. It?s not talked about very much in the West now (although it's a growing problem in China, India and Brazil) because action was taken to combat it, raise environmental standards and improve technology to tackle the problem. In the 1990s the problem was the hole in the ozone layer ? again a problem caused by the emission of damaging gasses and chemicals. It?s not talked about much because action was taken to combat it, raise environmental standards, ban CFCs ? Chlorofluorocarbons ? in fridges and technology tackled the problem.

I know that climate change is an immensely bigger problem, but in these two examples we can see that huge amounts of change can be made without scaring people that their world is going to end. And by putting investment in technology at the forefront of the battle we'll be creating new, long-term jobs in manufacturing and research, which will help our economy as we seek to come out of recession.

Second, we need to seriously challenge the way we have until now gone about tackling climate change to date. The carbon ?cap and trade? system doesn?t provide a single incentive to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels, which remain the cheapest available. We should look instead at a means of fees and dividends: fees for those choosing to stick with carbon-based fuels; dividends to those who switch.

And when I talk about dividends, I?m not talking about rewarding everyone who consumes energy - this won't be an impenetrable scheme like cap-and-trade that only multinationals dabble in above the heads of the rest of us: it will pay cash into your bank account if you go green. Click here to read an eloquent explanation by James Hansen, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. As I've written about before, incentives are far more effective than taxes in producing change - and one of the reasons Britain is so tired of green issues is because green taxes have been abused by politicians.

Third, instead of just writing developing nations blank cheques to insure them against climate change, let?s make sure that a large part of the developed world?s response is the establishment of an international trust to safeguard the world?s forests and reverse deforestation. While one half of the climate change threat has been the increase carbon emissions since the industrial revolution, the other half has been massive deforestation, and as we know forests are critical carbon absorbers.

And finally, let's put an end to top-down lecturing by government and do-gooders. Back at the time of the first Earth Summit, a project called Local Agenda 21 was set up. It was supposed to enable individuals, communities and groups to make their own contribution on the environment. It never worked: councils half-heartedly seized responsibility for LA21 and whereas these groups were supposed to be about people telling their representatives what to do, the reverse happened.

But the principle of LA21 is sound. Understanding and explaining the science of climate change needs to start at the bottom - with small groups being shown in clear and unequivocal ways what greenhouse gases do to temperature; the consequence that has on polar ice and the consequences that will have on water levels, currents and weather. Just like Newsnight did fantastically well in December, in fact.

Talk about what we can do together, not what sacrifices must be imposed upon us from on high. Give us some confidence that what we?re being asked to do will address the concerns ? that the goalposts won?t suddenly be moved once those targets are met. Invest much more in stuff that works and produces clear, visible achievements. And who knows, we might actually get not only a deal to reduce temperatures by 2 degrees or more - but a deal that governments can actually deliver because they will have the buy-in of their citizens.

World AIDS Day

World AIDS Day, which is today, always provides an important opportunity for reflection.

As we look back over the last quarter of a century, the speed at which AIDS has spread across the world is astonishing and horrifying. As people of conscience and concern we are called to act; to halt and reverse the spread of HIV and AIDS at home and abroad.

I am proud of Labour?s history of international leadership in on HIV and AIDS. Through our Presidencies of the G8 and EU in 2005, the UK led the way in galvanising international commitment, increasing funding, and achieving better results in the global response to HIV and AIDS.

Since 2004, 20 times more people have access to life-saving treatment. Since 2003 the price of first line AIDS drugs has halved. And there are now more than 4 million people on anti-retroviral treatment, compared to just 100,000 people who received it back in 2001.

This is important progress. However, with more than 33 million people around the world living with HIV and most prevention strategies available to fewer than 1 in 5 people who need them, the scale of the challenge remains vast. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the region most affected, where AIDS is its leading cause of death and 14 million children across the region have been orphaned by AIDS.

With Labour, the UK is the second largest contributor to HIV and AIDS globally, having commited £6 billion, to strengthen health systems and services in developing countries, on top of our £1 billion commitment to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Labour?s investment will help meet the urgent shortfall of health workers in the worst-hit African countries and will enable developing countries to improve antenatal care to prevent HIV from being passed on to babies in the womb.

The truly terrible spread of AIDS shows just how interconnected our lives are. It has reached every corner of the globe, bringing destruction to lives and communities on all continents. In response to the challenge we can?t walk by on the other side. On World AIDS Day we recommit to ensuring that the goal of universal access to prevention, treatment and care is achieved.

Yesterday's International Development meeting

The public meeting I held last night with International Development Minister Gareth Thomas MP was a big success. Despite the blustery weather dozens of Putney residents ventured out to listen and contribute on this issue which means a lot to me.

A cross section of the Putney community turned up to hear Gareth field a series of questions spanning the globe - from the piracy problems in Somalia; the Israel/Palestine conflict; Kosovo; resolving the Doha trade round in order to bring greater prosperity to developing nations - and, as Gareth freely admitted, the first ever question he has been asked about the Turks & Caicos islands!

In closing the meeting, I thanked Gareth for attending, Revd. Jim McKinney - the vicar of Holy Trinity church Roehampton for chairing and Mo Smith and Regenerate RISE for the kind use of their premises at The Platt Christian Centre in Felsham Road. It was also nice to see some of our Liberal Democrat friends in the audience - this was a public meeting open to all; they were most welcome, and they contributed to the discussion.

Here are some of the pictures from the meeting:

TONIGHT: Our duty to the developing world

A final reminder that International Development Minister Gareth Thomas is coming to Putney later today to contribute to a public meeting on how the government needs to continue committing resources to the developing world.

The meeting takes place at the Platt Christian Centre, 22 Felsham Road, across the road from Putney Labour Party HQ from 7.30pm. This is a free event but there are only a handful of places remaining, so please arrive on time.

The meeting's being chaired by Revd. Jim McKinney, the vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Roehampton.

Public meeting next week

One week to go
This event is open to all members of the public and is free to attend. There are, however, only fifty places, so please reserve your place by phoning my office on 020 8788 8961 or emailing agent@putneylabour.org.uk.

Public meeting: our duty to the developing world

This event is open to all members of the public and is free to attend. There are, however, only fifty places, so please reserve your place by phoning my office on 020 8788 8961 or emailing agent@putneylabour.org.uk.

Labour: making Britain a low carbon world leader

The global verdict on investing to end the recession

The Pittsburgh G20 Summit of the twenty largest global economies ended yesterday. One of the big issues on the table was whether the world should continue what has become known as a "global stimulus" - government spending public money when the private sector is struggling -to bring the recession to a quicker end; or to follow the path the Conservatives say they want to take: immediate, savage cuts.

Well, the table below shows how the world's biggest economies split on this issue. On the left are the countries that think Labour's leadership is the right way to go, and on the right those who decided that the Conservatives know best on this issue. Really close split, wasn't it?

"So what?" you may ask. Well, I suppose it's possible that the Conservatives - alone - are right and everyone else, from left of centre governments like the US, Brazil, India, Japan, China and Australia; to right of centre governments like France, Germany, Italy and Canada; is wrong.

But it's not very likely, is it? If the Conservatives have got this - monumentally the biggest issue of the 21st century so far - completely, utterly, devastatingly wrong, how can they be trusted to get right the other big issues our government will need to address in the next five years?

Norman Borlaug

What an amazing epitaph: "saving more lives than anyone in human history". That is how Professor Norman Borlaug, who died on Saturday, has been described: and it's not the usual hyperbole that comes at such times: conservatively he is estimated to have saved a billion lives through his agricultural advances.

Borlaug created Dwarf Wheat, which dramatically increased crop yields of cereals in the developing world. He spent his life helping peasant farmers in Mexico, Pakistan and India, not only saving countless individual lives but bringing much greater food security to these countries. It was work that won him the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal: the only person in history to win all three prizes.

I'm writing about Norman Borlaug to ponder this question: if he had attempted to undertake his vital work today, would he have been able to complete it, or would the so-called environmental lobby - that misguidedly campaigns against genetic modification research - have drummed up more "Frankenstein Food" scare-stories to stop him?

Because spot the difference between Borlaug's work and GM foods today: Dwarf Wheat is, after all, nothing more than genetically modified wheat. Borlaug's life's work was about producing more bountiful, more robust harvests in less hospitable climes - and that's exactly the same potential GM foods have, if only they could be properly developed without eco campaigners raiding fields to destroy them or terrifying consumers with distortions and often blatant lies about the safety of GM products.

Borlaug was not immune from attack by GM activists, about which he said this:

"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things"

If Labour is on the lookout for bold radical policies for a fourth term of government let me suggest one right now: make the case for GM food boldly and bravely, and in so doing we will be following in the great footsteps of Norman Borlaug.

If that's not a worthy aspiration, I don't know what is.

UN Association astronomy meeting

Labour's manifesto for Europe

I had a survey back yesterday asking for more information on what Labour was standing for in the forthcomign European elections.

Sadly, this was a first in this election campaign: the big issues dividing the political parties and, indeed, our country, have been completely subsumed by the MPs' expenses scandal. I understand that; the scandal is a massive and incredibly serious issue, and it is also a far clearer issue - and one it is easy to reach an opinion on very quickly.

But all that said, it is not the only issue - and there remain substantial challenges for our country that are at stake in the European elections.

So I thought I'd post Labour's European Election manifesto - it's only fifteen pages long, so you won't be overwhelmed by it. It sets out what Labour, and our allies across Europe have achieved over the past five years and the challenges we're going to be working on these next five.

Worth a read if you're interested in making an informed choice on the specific issues the European elections will actually determine.

100 days of "No"

US politics is conducted very differently than in the UK. For one thing, political advertising is banned over here, whereas over there ad firms are probably weathering the recession better than most because of the near $1 billion spent in last year's election campaign, principally on what they call ad-buys.

I just wanted to post a short example of a US ad that's just been produced by President Obama's Democratic Party - because all too easily could it reflect how the Conservatives are behaving over here.

It highlights how, 100 days into President Obama's term of office, the Republican opposition - and remember George Bush's Republicans are the sister party of UK Conservatives - have behaved: no ideas, no consistency, no grasp of the problems being faced. Just 100 days of saying "no" to everything. You don't need to recognise the faces - just as most people can't recognise the Tory shadow cabinet: just know that they represent the leadership of the opposition over there.

I know it's perhaps a quaint and outdated idea, but I believe politicians should set out their ideas openly and honestly - and that shouldn't change whether they're in power or opposition. Evidently George Bush's Republicans, and their sister party the Conservatives, think differently.

Why we're Labour

Labour MP Nick Palmer represents Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire, and today wrote an article for the Political Betting website explaining why he - and so many others around the country - remain passionate about getting Labour re-elected at the next General Election.

Although I don't agree with every single point he makes below, I thought this was an excellent piece and so I'm reproducing it. If you're a Labour supporter I hope it inspires you; and if you're not, well, I hope the way he sets out the case gives you some pause for thought:


What do we expect of governments? We expect that they give us protection at time of crisis (military, economic or social) and pursue a coherent long-term agenda to make the country better.

First, then, is the Government offering protection at time of crisis? We certainly have an economic crisis on our hands, and I?d contend that it?s being dealt with more competently and with more attention to protection of the vulnerable than people originally expected when it first blew up.

We?ve seen predictions here that companies would fall like ninepins, unemployment would head straight for four million, the FTSE would plunge to 2500, the recession would last for years, mass repossessions would devastate the housing market, full recovery could take a generation. All those predictions are starting to look exaggerated.

Can we be sure? No. But it?s noticeable that the main Conservative critique has not been ?Why are you doing X and not Y?? but ?You shouldn?t have got us here in the first place?. And as for that, I wouldn?t try to maintain the claim that we?re uniquely well-placed to withstand the crisis, but it?s also obviously not true that it?s peculiar to us. Internationally, we?re all very much in the same boat.

That brings us to the second aspect: internationalism. Labour has usually been an internationalist party (with atavistic exceptions such as our anti-EEC stance in 1983, which I supported at the time and was wrong to support), and it comes naturally to a Labour government to seek international agreements without obsessing about national sovereignty: global problems need global solutions.

Gordon Brown has surprised his critics on this: after an apparently frustrating series of visits to the US, the EU and developing countries, he was able to get the G20 agreement which even the harshest critics struggled to call a flop. We are actively keen on international financial regulation, to an extent that makes the nationalist and City-linked wings of the Tories queasy. A Brown-led Labour government is clearly going to pursue this agenda, making life harder for tax havens (which many Tories half-think should be left alone as healthy competition) and limiting the wild speculation which triggered the current crisis. If we had an inward-looking government, preoccupied with tinkering with the domestic levers and arguing peevishly with the EU, we would be part of the global problem and not the solution.

Third, we are midway through five projects that are central to most Labour supporters? hearts:

? reducing both absolute and relative child poverty
? increasing overseas aid to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP
? tackling climate change seriously
? making the education system competitive with the private sector
? making the NHS genuinely comparable to best European practice

All have made considerable headway under this government. The Child Poverty Action Group acknowledges the rapid progress until the current crisis on poverty; third world charities are enthusiastic about the progress on overseas aid (including the quiet delinking from trade conditions like the Pergau-arms linkage that disgraced the Tory government), we are the first country in the world to impose binding carbon reduction targets on ourselves, and although there?s no shortage of Daily Mail readers who?ll claim that we have a Third World school and hospital system, you won?t find many head teachers or consultants who don?t acknowledge the progress. There?s a reasonable argument about whether the extra money could have been used even more effectively, but there isn?t one state school or medical facility in my area which hasn?t improved very noticeably.

Would a Tory government abandon all these efforts? No ? they?re obviously desirable (pace the fringe of climate change sceptics), and any conceivable government would think them a jolly good thing to pursue. But they are Labour priorities and they don?t seem to be the Tory priorities. Mr Cameron hastens to reassure us that he?d work towards the aid target, that he wants the best for the NHS (albeit without specific targets), and so on, but what was it that really got the Conservative backbenches restless? The suggestion by Ken Clarke that reducing inheritance tax for estates worth £2 million might not be a top priority.

I want a government that sees the five objectives above as the central long-term priorities, not a government harried by its backbenchers into being preoccupied with reducing Inheritance Tax, reshaping the group within which Conservative Euro-MPs affiliate at Stasbourg and other things that seem to me at best peripheral and at worst undesirable. It may well be that the Tories will in due course unveil a more compelling agenda, and I absolutely accept that there are plenty of decent Tories who want the best for Britain. As a party, though, they are so far relying very heavily on the ?time for change? argument, and if Mr Cameron has any particular priorities of his own, he?s kept them under wraps so far.

But what about freedom ? the libertarian-Conservative/David Davis agenda? Well, leaving aside the puzzling worry about CCTV (if I go into a public place I may be observed by real humans, never mind just cameras), I do think that all governments tend to lean on the side of authority, and it?s an ever-present danger that needs to be watched whoever is in power.

But the strongest defence against an encroaching state is legally-entrenched powers for the individual, and Labour has introduced two of them, the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. Both have repeatedly been a nuisance to ministers, but despite wriggling on specific issues, there?s been no move to water down either of them. What would the freedom-loving Conservatives do with the Human Rights Act? Abolish it, and replace it by a British Rights Act which would say?er?what? We don?t know, as it?s seemingly not a priority for them to tell us.

Finally, what about specific things that go wrong? The McBride/Draper disgrace, the various resigning Ministers over the years, the slowness to tighten MPs? allowances? Sure. I?m not arguing that the Government is perfect. But party loyalty comes down to a shared sense of priorities.

I want a government that is internationalist, handles the current crisis competently, and sets poverty (at home and abroad) and public services as its priorities. I?m horrified when a Labour MP or party official does something disgraceful, but at root I think the party is the same noble cause that I joined 38 years ago. I?m proud to be part of it, and I?ll work to get it re-elected with the same energy and enthusiasm that I had in 1997.

Dr Nick Palmer MP

Here's what about Rotherham...and Putney, Matthew

Since the successful G20 summit last week, Conservatives - both MPs and commentators - have been struggling to come up with a vaguely credible response. One that David Cameron, and former Tory MP and now Times columnist Matthew Parris have been floating is to, through gritted teeth, concede that the Prime Minister succeeded in achieving results for the world, but somehow not for our own country.

Mr Parris, in an article on Saturday called The world is saved. But what about Rotherham - and presumably he didn't pick Rotherham because it's the hometown of Putney's Conservative MP - attempted to make this case.

This is either a really dumb, or a really obtuse line of argument. There is no-one credible who does not recognise:

1) that this is a global recession and
2) that its origin was the US not the UK

That being so, anyone who tries to then claim that sorting out the problem the world is in will somehow not benefit our own economy is ridiculous. The Conservatives want you to believe that Gordon Brown's international leadership is responsible for making our own economic difficulties worse.

To me, that's a strange argument to attempt when at the same time the Conservative response to the recession is to stand aloof, do nothing to shore-up our economy, keep people in jobs and their homes while at the same time cutting taxes, as Labour has done in a big way only this week.

I send out hundreds and hundreds of surveys to local people every month and recently I've added a question about whether Putney, Roehampton and Southfields prefer Labour's intervention or the Conservatives' argument that we should avoid spending in order to keep future public debt lower.

I have to say that - overwhelmingly - people are telling me that they prefer the government not to walk by on the other side when British people are in trouble. And these surveys are from a representative sample of Putney voters: it's not just Labour voters who are telling me this. The Conservatives have got it catastrophically wrong on this issue - and this issue is THE issue people will be voting on at the next General Election.

If you want to learn more about why the G20 Summit was a success there's a 1-sided A4 briefing here.

Petition in support of Ahmadi muslims

There is - and has been for many years - a large community of Ahmadi Muslims living in Southfields and West Hill. They have a Mosque in Gressenhall Road in Southfields, which boasts being London's first Mosque having been built in 1926.

The Ahmadiyya are a worldwide community with many members living in Pakistan. They are regularly the subject of persecution and, in an attempt to highlight this, members of their community have established a petition on the 10 Downing Street e-petition website. The terms of the petition are as follows:

"The Government of Pakistan is currently keen on moving towards becoming a truly democratic and secular state. It is keen on promoting religious tolerance and rights of minorities in order to remove religious extremism. Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have faced for decades hatred and persecution in Pakistan.

We call upon the Prime Minister and Foreign Office to actively and urgently engage in mediating an end to the persecution suffered by Ahmadi Muslims in order to save thousands of innocent people including many children and women."

I have added my signature to the e-petition and encourage others to do likewise. At the time of writing this over 1,400 people have signalled their support. You can sign the petition online at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Ahmadi/


More information about the Ahmadiyya community can be found at http://www.alislam.org/

The global economic "power cut"

"A global power cut" was how Prime Minister Gordon Brown accurately characterised the financial crisis when he met with President Obama yesterday.

British political media coverage has become so trite these days that journalists now seem much more interested on whether Gordon Brown was the first European Leader to meet President Obama (he was) or if a press call in the Oval Office is a snub compared to one in the grounds of the White House (it isn't).

What actually matters is that you'd be hard-pressed to slot a piece of paper between the leadership Gordon Brown is providing on the economy here and in Europe, and the leadership President Obama is providing in the US.

The content of the speech President Obama gave to the joint session of Congress a few days ago will be identical to the content Prime Minister Brown will give today.

The criticisms the marginalised, out of touch and right-wing Republicans are being ridiculed for in America are the same criticisms the do nothing Conservatives keep spouting here.

All you need to do when considering which position is more sensible: the Gordon Brown-Barack Obama economic leadership or the Conservative do-nothing approach is simply to ask whether a single economy of any significance is following the path the Tories are advocating. They're not. There's a very good reason for that.

It's because the Tories are catastrophically wrong on this. And the whole world knows it.

Freedom fries

What a shame that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has allowed his critical views on the UK Government's economic stimulus package to become known. However, the real embarassment would appear to be that of the occupant of the Elysee Palace rather than Downing Street, in light of the former's failure to grasp the facts.

Contrary to President Sarkozy's belief that the VAT cut hasn't worked, the reality is that it is one of the two initiatives the Government took last Autumn that have already borne results, as the independent and respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed.

The first of the two was the first bank bailout. It worked because the banks did not go to the wall: they continue to survive, even if some amongst them have so spectacularly failed to grasp that they're no longer going to be able to continue rewarding themselves for abject failure as before.

And the second was the VAT cut. Not just because it put on average £5 a week in the pockets of everyone. But because the sole sector of the economy that didn't shrink in the last quarter of 2008 was retail. A coincidence? Hardly.

So why might the French Government pour scorn on tax cuts?

A more credible reason is that France believes in the European high-tax social model. They believe that the state is the engine of the economy; that big bureaucracies are the order of the day; that people should pay huge taxes in order to subsidise inefficient nationalised industries and a grossly wasteful state. It's why strikes continue to cripple France two decades after they ceased being an effective means of protest in the UK. It's why unemployment is so much higher in France than the UK. It's why the UK has overtaken France as a larger economy. And it's why tax cutting is anathema - even to a politician supposedly of the right, like Nicolas Sarkozy.

Over in the USA, Republicans are criticising President Obama's stimulus package for not providing enough tax cuts. It seems to me that if we're being criticised from the US hard right for not cutting taxes enough, and from Europe for cutting them at all, then we're in the mainstream and are getting it just about right.

Act or do nothing - in President Obama's words

Yesterday President Obama gave his first weekly video address to America - you can watch it here. I thought I reproduce the text of that address, because the subject was the one that affects the UK as much as the US: the global economic crisis.

President Obama makes exactly the same case to his country as Labour is making here. The only difference is that while President Obama enjoys cross-party support for his recovery, the Conservatives choose to play politics and worse - peddle the absolutely absurd idea that doing nothing is what this country needs. Here's the President's Address:

We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action. Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last twenty-six years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.

In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.

That is why I have proposed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to immediately jumpstart job creation as well as long-term economic growth. I am pleased to say that both parties in Congress are already hard at work on this plan, and I hope to sign it into law in less than a month.

It?s a plan that will save or create three to four million jobs over the next few years, and one that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there?s so much work to be done. That?s why this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It?s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century.

Continue reading this post >

The BBC is wrong on Gaza appeal

I watched Newsnight on Friday when Caroline Thomson, Chief Operating Officer at the BBC attempted to justify the broadcaster's decision not to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for humanitarian aid to Gaza. She didn't do so well.

This is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel's invasion of Gaza or the rocket attacks on Israel that provoked it. That intervention is thankfully now over and innocent civilians need help.

The DEC is not some fly-by-night partisan organisation: it's the international body that co-ordinated help after the Pakistan and Iranian earthquakes, the Burma hurricane, and the Thailand tsunami. In several - if not all - of these natural disasters, the BBC has broadcast appeals by the DEC.

Of course the situation in Gaza is not a natural disaster - nor was Darfur, yet they broadcast DEC appeals for help with that crisis.

This is not about taking sides - it would take an exceptionally blinkered person to misinterpret a broadcast for aid on behalf of Gaza's civilians as BBC partiality on behalf of Hamas.

The Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, has urged the BBC to rethink this mistake. He is right to do so. Our Labour Government has already agreed to £30 million in additional aid going to Gaza since the crisis began after Christmas. If that aid can be doubled, trebled or quadrupled by an appeal on the BBC then isn't that exactly the sort of public service we should expect of a public service broadcaster?

UPDATE: BBC Director General Mark Thompson sets out his reasons for rejecting the DEC request here. This is the strongest defence of the BBC position I've seen, but I personally would still have taken the opposite decision.

Should you wish to make a donation to the DEC appeal, please use the following link: http://www.dec.org.uk/item/200

Grown-up opposition

I follow American politics quite closely. Over in the States, political leaders are grappling with exactly the same economic issues we in Britain face: how to respond positively and effectively to the downturn.

I thought I'd share excerpts of a review from the independent US government publication Congress Daily with you, just to highlight how, over there, the opposition Republicans (the sister party to the Conservatives) are working with the government; whereas over here, the Tories just want to play politics, pretend this is a problem unique to and caused by Britain, and do nothing about the massive threat it represents. Here's the release:

President-elect Obama and Democratic leaders Monday pledged to work with Republicans to pass an economic stimulus package as soon as possible that could provide as much as $1.3 trillion over two years.

"We all recognize that the country is in a financial difficulty that we have never seen - maybe in the history of the country," Senate Majority [Democrat] Leader Reid said after the meeting. "And what we did at the meeting with President-elect Obama just a few minutes ago is to say that we would jointogether and try to move some economic recovery relief for the American people as quickly as possible."

"We have not received, of course, the exact package from the president-elect and his folks, but he has indicated that there are at least 20 economists he has talked with and all but one of those believe it should be from $800 [billion] to $1.2 or [$1.3] trillion," Reid said.

Obama said at a photo opportunity with [House of Representatives Speaker] Pelosi that "The reason we're here today is because the people's business can't wait. We've got an extraordinary economic challenge ahead of us; we're expecting a sobering job report at the end of the week."

At a briefing after the Democratic leaders spoke, Senate Minority [Republican] Leader McConnell and House Minority Leader Boehner, who also attended the meeting, said that they believe Obama's bipartisan gestures to be sincere.

"I think [Obama] would like to have a large bipartisan vote in favor of this package," McConnell said. " I think this bill is going to start out and hopefully end as an example of very significant bipartisan cooperation."

Wouldn't it be nice for the opposition on this side of the pond to behave so maturely, responsibly and constructively, instead of isolating themselves by arguing for the same do-nothing economic approach that did so much damage in the two Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s?

Is FairTrade really immoral? Tories say "yes"

During an extraordinary debate a couple of weeks ago, Conservative Councillors removed any reference to teaching children about what Fairtrade is, why it exists or why it is a good thing. They also struck from their Children & Young People's Plan the need to teach local kids about the importance of reducing our carbon footprint. The suggestion to include these two important issues came from members of the public during a consultation on what should be included in the plan.

In the midst of it, one of their supposedly "rising stars", Russell King (no relation!) apparently described Fairtrade, which ensures some of the poorest farmers in the world get a fair price for their goods and access to international markets, as "immoral".

I don't know why it is that a fairly large part of those on the right-wing of politics have difficulty with common sense ideas like Fairtrade, or reducing carbon emissions; or even recognising that human-accelerated climate change is a reality. Scarily, such people are heavily represented among Putney and Wandsworth Conservatives.

Wasting less food

Gordon Brown was right yesterday to talk about the amount of food wasted in Britain, especially at a summit where the western world is again being shamed by its lack of progress in honouring promises to the developing world. The amount of perfectly good food we waste is shameful given the starvation and drought that still plagues so much of Africa in particular.

We throw away over 400 million tonnes of food every year - apparently the equivalent of £420 on every household's annual shopping bill (though how they know this without knowing exactly which food we throw out, and where we got it from escapes me!).

But it's politicians, not the public who must take a lead in reducing food waste, because while most of us could probably buy more sensibly there are two big wasters that need national or international action to rectify.

The first is to scrap the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): the biggest waster of food there is in Europe. Not only does the CAP encourage - actually demand - inefficient farming practices and scandalous food mountains but it is one of the biggest barriers against free and fair trade in the world. It actively prevents African farmers from competing with their EU counterparts by subsidising inefficient farming methods in the EU at the expense of far cheaper goods from developing nations.

The CAP is unjustifiable, and rather than French President Nicholas Sarkozy spending his time trying to bully Ireland into reversing its referendum vote against the Lisbon Treaty of a few weeks ago, he really should be telling his countrymen straight that there can be no such thing as a free lunch anymore.

The second initiative we need is to persuade the huge supermarket chains to end their "buy one get one free" deals and instead cut the item cost of goods, especially food staples. It's good that some supermarkets are already focussing more on discounting these key items but they can do far more.

Buy one get one free deals (or BOGOFs!) are one of the main reasons why food waste is increasing; they also don't help with Britain's obesity problem as we try to consume the extra freebies we get in our shopping trolley to avoid throwing this unneeded food away.

The more significant figure that emerged from the government's food waste report today was not the tonnage thrown away, or some notional estimate of how much that adds to our weekly shop - it's this: that the wealthiest families spend 7% of their (far larger) household income on food, whereas it consumes more than twice that - 15% - of the poorest.

It isn't, predominantly, the poorest households that waste food: they don't have that luxury and they also shop more carefully. But it is they who will benefit most from a switch to cheaper overall prices away from two-for-one deals, and the cheaper produce we would be able to buy were Europe to scrap the CAP.

Vigil for Zimbabwe this Friday

This Friday, 27 June, a vigil will be held outside the Zimbabwe Embassy at 429 The Strand, from 10am to 4pm to mark the death of democracy in Zimbabwe.

There will also be a 'funeral procession' to the South African High Commission in South Africa House, Trafalgar Square between 1pm and 2pm.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) have come out today against the survival of the defeated Mugabe regime and I was heartened by the more vociferous comments yesterday of Jacob Zuma, the ANC President in South Africa. Britain's TUC has also been urging a more interventionist approach by the South African Development Community (SADC): the group that has most clout with Zimbabwe and which, if they were minded to, could probably bring about the downfall of the Mugabe tyranny.

The Zimbabwe Vigil Coalition holds a vigil outside the Zimbabwe Embassy every Saturday between 2pm and 8pm.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe's opposition leader - and the first-round winner of the Presidential election - Morgan Tsvangirai has withdrawn from the run-off election because what should have been a celebration of independent Africa has become a horror show of murder and terrorism.

It remains to be seen whether this move will end the campaign of terror that has led to the assault, torture and murder of many of his officials, MPs and candidates - it seems unlikely given that Zanu PF has said the election will still go ahead, and will want a huge vote on the pretext that this will somehow make them Zimbabwe's legitimate rulers.

What criticism and approbrium has been left unsaid about Robert Mugabe's terrorist, criminal regime that is stopping at nothing to prop up this octanagarian tyrant?

The breadbasket of Africa has become the basketcase of Africa.

The totally unacceptable situation in Zimbabwe is the second challenge to the international community in recent months (the other being Burma). Finally, finally, African leaders are beginning to speak out against the murders, torture, terrorism and vote-stealing that Mugabe is so blatantly carrying out. What a shame it took so many deaths, so much devastation, so shameless a rigging of the election before they stood up to be counted.

The West seems cowed by the imperialist ghosts Mugabe absurdly throws around, as if regaining control of his devastated country is a prospect any vaguely competently-run state would want.

South African Premier Thabo Mbeki has shamefully abrogated his responsibility as just about the only remaining Head of State with any influence over the madman destroying Zimbabwe.

And even the media - who I accept are hardly uncritical in their coverage of the elections - still cede too much to Mugabe. Why, for example, is the BBC still asserting that Tsvangirai did not win a majority of the votes cast in the first round: as copies of the statements from outside each polling station showed he did? Especially when the Mugabe controlled Electoral Commission spent three weeks sitting on (and opening up, illegally) the ballot boxes.

There should not even be a second round to this election, let alone one which Mugabe would have "won" even if he received not a single vote. If the international community does not take action to rid the world - and more importantly, Zimbabwe - of Mugabe it is not fit for purpose.

Burma

If you didn't see the report on last night's Newsnight by Dr Chris van Talluken; the first British aid worker given access to the Irrawaddy Delta, I'd strongly recommend it.

A small clip of the report can be viewed on the BBC website here. But you can watch the whole thing - which runs to about ten minutes, by watching the Newsnight programme: the report's about 31 minutes in, if you want to skip the other reports.

I should warn that some of the report is pretty unpleasant viewing as there remain bodies still not reclaimed two months after the hurricane. Among other extraordinary sights, Dr van Talluken meets someone who sustained extensive injuries to his back caused by nothing other than the sheer force of rain water driving into him.

This really is an extraordinary report that is not simply an attack on the Burmese junta, but is actually all the more damning for that.

Time to act on fuel speculation

I've written before about some of the reasons why fuel prices are currently at record levels, causing some hardship and considerable anger here and around the world.

For me, the least acceptable reason fuel costs so much is that oil is currently the focus of some of the most cynical speculation on the financial markets. Without speculation, oil would be trading at somewhere around $99 a barrel, as opposed to around $140 a barrel at the moment. In other words, some of the richest people in the world are getting even richer speculating on oil prices, driving them up, while we pay for their greed at the petrol stations.

There have already been stirrings in the US Government about clamping down on speculating on oil prices in their NYMEX market, but of course the financial markets are global so for any move to restrict or ban oil speculation we'd need simultaneous action from Tokyo and the London Stock Exchange among others. And even if we could get a global governmental pact to regulate the markets, e-trading could simply move speculation to other, unregulated channels - even e-Bay!

That, however, is not a reason we should not try to sort this out. Let's be clear: nation states need to prove that they are still relevant in tackling problems like fuel scarcity, the credit crunch or environmental degradation.

If they don't we will face a choice between further seepage of power (with or without the consent of we, the people) towards far less accountable pan-national bodies like the European Union, the G8, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank because only these bodies have the muscle to exercise control over the markets.

The even less appealing alternative is a democratic vaccuum where the market does what it wants unfettered with any issues of social justice, fairness or equity. That's utopia for the money men, but it's the nightmare scenario for the rest of us.

Burma: enough's enough

I've been outspoken in my criticism of the Burmese junta that has abused, maligned, imprisoned and attacked its own people for far too long.

The evidence exposed on Wednesday by the BBC that the military regime is actively stopping aid reaching those suffering from the ravages of the hurricane almost two weeks after the tragedy struck is despicable.

On Tuesday I was elected Vice President of Putney United Nations Association (UNA). The UN has a clause within its Charter that allows it to intervene when a regime fails to protect its own people. If that clause was written to apply anywhere and at any time it is in Burma, now.

The UN Security Council is set up so that any one of the permanent members: the UK, US, Russia, China and France has a veto on action, and at least one of these five has an interest in (or alliance with) pretty much all of the non-permanent members.

The permanent member associated with Burma is China and we could normally expect strong opposition from them to any UN active intervention in this country. There are two reasons why China may not intervene in this case.

The first is that they're preoccupied with the response (and doing far more, far better) to their own earthquake disaster. The second is that the worldwide outrage that will be provoked by the actions of the Burmese Junta will - I hope - make it almost impossible for the Chinese government to block international action, especially as it would be doing so just weeks before the start of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

What does intervention mean? Well, at the very least, it is now time to commence humanitarian aid drops. We may need to go further, depending on how the junta reacts to UN intervention. But the only point of action now is humanitarian relief. And let's be clear: the UN struggled to deliver anything substantive when the junta attacked its people and jailed its monks last Autumn. Its argument then, that greater intervention was beyone its mandate, does not and should not apply today given the humanitarian crisis that is engulfing the people of Burma.

The world, through the UN, must act Burma. Now.

The Burma Cyclone

So, barely two years after the tsunami that devastated Thailand and the Indian coast in particular, Asia is again struggling to recover from another natural disaster; this time Cyclone Nargis in Burma.

As if the cyclone is not challenging enough to respond to, Burma has one of the most stifling, bureaucratic, secretive and oppressive political regimes anywhere in the world.

Twice last year I wrote about this regime and criticised the rapidly-moving news agenda that too quickly lost interest in the supression of the democracy protests there.

The military junta is doing all it can to give the impression that it is more concerned that the cyclone has re-focussed international attention on their country rather than the horrific loss of life of their citizenry.

There can be no other reason why their Government is dragging its feet on letting aid agencies into the country, why it continues to prevent the media from adequately reporting the tragedy and persists in forging ahead with ludicrous plans to hold a so-called constitutional "referendum" this weekend.

The world must assist the devastated people of Burma: we cannot play politics with international aid.

But Burma's two main exports - paddy fields and offshore natural gas fields - have been absolutely devastated by the Cyclone and in the long term the international community would be absolutely within its rights to explain in categorical terms to the military junta that reconstruction aid and assistance must be coupled with political reform.

And that means the release and reinstatement of Aung Sun Su Kyi, the nation's democratic, elected leader.

Boycotting the Beijing Olympics

There seem to be two camps in the row over whether Britain should boycott this year's Beijing Olympics: those who believe British participation in them condones China's utterly attrocious record on human rights, especially in respect of Tibet; and those who argue that Politics should not interfere with sport.

Although I'm strongly critical of China in respect of Tibet and their human rights (lack of) record, I can see the difficulty facing the Government. Matters are also complicated by the fact that the UK is going to be the next host of the Olympics - something that traditionally incurs additional public responsibilities at the preceding games.

But this doesn't have to be an "either/or" choice. We should try to keep politics and sport separate as far as possible. So our athletes should go to Beijing, without any criticism, pressure or censure from their fellow countrymen and women. But I'm struggling to see why politicians should attend - albeit that many of them have been looking forward to this junket for some time. I hope it won't come as too much of a devastation to our leaders that their presence will make little difference to the performance of those competing for Olympic honours.

However, it is naive to argue that never the twain shall meet between politics and sport. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to be more aware of the political regimes of the countries that bid for the Olympics. This is not playing politics - the IOC has a charter setting out the Olympic ideals, and it must pay more than just lip-service to measuring whether bidder nations share those ideals. I struggle to see how China can reasonably claim to.

That, of course, cuts both ways. It has been mantra in the West for getting on for two decades at least that "bringing in" China and trading with them is far more likely to bring reform than isolation and criticism. As part of this process of inclusion Western governments strongly encouraged the IOC to look favourably on China's Olympic bid. The IOC must retain independence - because I can see very little reciprocity from China during this time that the West has been turning a blind eye to its misconduct.

Tibet

History doesn't usually repeat itself, but the parallels between the conduct of the Chinese Government in cracking down on Tibetans, and that of the Burmese dictatorship attacking the protests led by that country's monks are alarming.

When I wrote about the Burmese protests here and here, the international consensus was that China's opposition to Burma's behaviour was crucial because they are the regional power and carry greater influence with the ruling junta.

I was always somewhat concerned about this line of argument for the reasons that have become self-evident here: how can a regime that behaves in exactly the same way over Tibet be expected to be taken seriously by countries with equally dubious human rights records.

Of course there are differences between China's relationship with Tibet and Burma's with its own people; and the real politic of dealing with Asia's main superpower will lead many to treat it differently. But I for one was proud to see Gordon Brown offer to meet with the Dalai Lama the other day, and if that causes "dismay" within the Chinese government, so be it.

A billion trees planted in 2007

During the UN's Bali Conference on Climate Change late last year, I wrote here about the critical importance of halting deforestation as one of the main ways to reverse global warming.

As you may have picked-up from my posts on such matters, I'm someone who prefers talking about what we can achieve rather then bemoaning the hopelessness of the problem and then urging a draconian, unreasonable and unfair response - and here's a great example.

In the year 2007 alone, more than one and a half billion trees were planted around the world - and more importantly, areas which have suffered deforestation - usually developing nations - are leading the way.

700 million were planted in Ethiopia and 217 million in Mexico alone. Ethiopia's tree planting is particularly significant because trees will help prevent the horrific famines that have beset this country in the recent past - sheltering the land, binding soils to make them more fertile and sustainable and providing wood for homes and fuel. This country has experienced the percentage of its landmass covered by forest falling from 35% at the turn of the 20th century to just 4% by 2000.

Turkey has planted 150 million trees, Kenya 100 million, Cuba 97 million, Rwanda 50 million, South Korea 43 million, Tunisia 21 million, Morocco 20 million, Burma 20 million and Brazil 16 million. Other countries that have planted millions of trees include China, Guatemala and Spain.

UN Environment Programme Chief Achim Steiner has described this phenomenal success as "a further sign of the breathtaking momentum witnessed this year on the challenge for this generation - climate change" and in this case it's hard to dispute the magnitude of that statement.

The great thing about this programme is that tree planting is easy and affordable - and has a hugely disproportionate impact on climate change. On top of the 1.57 billion trees planted already, the UN has received pledges to plant over 2 billion trees.

It's good to be able to report an unqualified success for the UN and for the battle against climate change, as well as one that has such positive benefits in other aspects of sustainable development - especially in the developing world.

Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007

It is extraordinary how frequently major events occur during the Christmas period. In 1989, Romanian President Nikolai Chauchesku was overthrown - beginning the collapse of Communist Eastern Europe. Three years ago large tracts of South Asia were devastated by the Tsunami - and still haven't recovered.

Today the shocking news is that Benazir Bhutto, the Leader of the main opposition party in Pakistan has been murdered in a bomb attack.

The consequences of this terrorism should not be understated: the future of Pakistan as a democracy and of President Musharaf is now seriously in question. But today is a time to reflect on the contribution - and sacrifice - of Benazir Bhutto and her family (her father Ali was a previous Prime Minister and President of the country, overthrown and executed by the military in a coup in 1979).

What is clear is that Benazir Butto represented the single most significant opportunity Pakistan had for entrenching democratic values in the country. Pakistan is poised at a crossroads defined by two of its neighbours. It can either follow the path towards growing economic prosperity and democratic security that India is pursuing, or the far more troubled - and troubling - road that Afghanistan has suffered.

Benazir personified everything Afghanistan's former al Qaida-backed, Islamist-terrorist Taliban regime despised - elements of which are surely behind this bomb attack: a confident, imposing, articulate woman leader, a democrat, the separation of religion and government, optimism, economic growth, and unflinching, active opposition to terrorism.

Some are now calling for the Pakistan elections, scheduled for the New Year, to be called off as a mark of respect. While her party - the Pakistan People's Party - clearly needs space to regroup, it seems to me that the greatest mark of respect that could be paid to everything Mrs Bhutto stood for is for democratic, free and fair elections to go ahead.

Burma

Today the news agenda moves so fast that when stories stop getting coverage we often forget about them very easily. It's almost as though by losing interest in a story, the media are saying that the issue is resolved, or it no more of importance.

The fate of Burma is just such a story. In September, there was almost blanket coverage of the Monks' protest and the Military Dictatorship's draconian, outrageous and - I maintain - ultimately futile supression of that protest. In October I set out my views of the crisis, and how I would have liked the international community to respond here.

When it started, we had hopes that because it was led by Monks the regime would not dare crack down as they had in the past. We were sadly wrong. Today, the monasteries remain abandoned. Monks remain either imprisoned, or dispersed to rural communities where they are unable to foment trouble, as the regime would see it.

We need to keep the pressure up, even though there is little coverage of the problems. It isn't as though we have no leverage - China, the critical international player in this crisis is of course host of next year's Olympics which it doesn't want to be embarrassed over; so there is a real opportunity for the UN and individual countries to bring real pressure to bear.

There are three absolute priorities: all prisoners held as a result of this uprising must be released. The Monks must be allowed to return to their monasteries. And a roadmap to sincere political reform in Burma has to be drawn up, culminating in the release of Aung San Su Kyi - the democratically elected leader of that country.

The signs are the exact opposite. The UN envoy has been expelled. This has gone largely unreported, though it is a major concern. Without the media coverage, the international community will not feel any urgency to force change. And yet again the Burmese people will be left to stand alone against a regime they despise. Now is the time for the UN to demonstrate leadership, and show the world why it can be trusted to resolve today's diplomatic and human rights challenges.

Halting deforestation

My post earlier this week on the UN Bali Conference on the next steps to tackle climate change proved popular, so I thought I'd talk about another subject that has been hotly debated at the Conference this week: deforestation.

Deforestation is the other side of the coin of increased carbon emissions - because at the same time as carbon emissions are increasing, the proportion of trees that can absorb the greenhouse gases is declining - in some cases, alarmingly. This again goes to my preference for initiatives that encourage, incentivise and innovate to tackle climate change: simply by reversing deforestation we can make a significant, and relatively affordable contribution to the fight.

On Thursday, Channel 4 News noted that Indonesia - with 10% of the world's rainforests - produces 25,000 cubic metres of wood pulp every single day at the loss of a staggering 2 million hectares of forest every year. Not that long ago an area of the Brazilian Rainforests the size of Wales was year-after-year being hacked down - a problem that has declined significantly under President Lula da Silva but remains a problem in part because of the world-wide demand for Soya.

The mooted solution to this is for wealthy countries to effectively pay these developing nations (and economies) to not cut down their forests. Indonesia's government is keen on this idea, perhaps unsurprisingly: it gets paid handsomely for doing not very much! The sticking points are many, however - not least how can donor nations be guaranteed that the forests won't be felled after the cash has been handed over: after all, 80% of the logging in that country is illegal.

I also personally feel slightly uneasy about rich countries effectively "buying up" swathes of the developing world - it has echoes of colonialism about it even if it is consensual.

My solution would be to create an International Trust, mirroring our own National Trust, which is of course the biggest landowner we have - and one of our most trusted institutions to boot.
The cash-for-land arrangement would still go ahead - albeit that rather than the government getting 100% of the money a share would go to the Trust for security and forestry management; but instead of the sovereign government being responsible for honoring and enforcing the preservation of forests they would have to covenant the land over to the Trust; so that there is a guarantee to the donor nations that our agreement will be honoured over the long term; not subject to the whim of changing governments, elected or otherwise.

If you're interested in reading more about the RED - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation programme, you can do so at the UN Environmental Programme website here. And a reminder that the UN Bali Conference site is http://unfccc.int/. The Conference runs until 14 December.

Bali must find practical ways to tackle climate change

One of the emerging divides in the debate about Climate Change is between those who believe that the problem should principally be addressed by draconian changes in the way we live, and those who believe incentives are far more likely to achieve the goals both sides seek.

Both sides are on display for all to see at this week's Bali Conference, which is the first step on a United Nations path to update the Kyoto Protocol.

I'm much more interested in practical ideas to tackle climate change than Domesday predictions from the fringe who only set back their own cause by overselling their case. So, for example, the news that the European Union is working on plans to provide billions of watts of solar power by building a string of solar "fields" in a ring across north Africa is exactly the sort of focus we should be providing.

Before anyone raises the spectre of EU Imperialism exploiting Africa, the plan is for two thirds of the electricity generated to be used in that continent with the added bonus that the process desalinates sea water. In other words, as well as power, Africa will also get clean drinking water. The solar fields will be in uninhabitable desert areas. And Europe will get something like 30 billion watts of power - for context Britain's entire electricity generating capacity today is 12 billion watts.

If all this sounds too good to be true, then the catch is that at the moment this clean, sustainable energy is hugely expensive - twice the cost of coal-power. It's no good for the Green movement to dismiss cost: most people are already stretched too thinly to be able to afford a doubling of their power bills, which will hit the poorest the most.

Nor should they have to - this isn't an insurmountable problem. Again, technology is the answer: more efficient means of storing and transporting the power and more powerful solar cells will bring the cost down and I'd far rather the government invest in and subsidise clean fuel than oil producers in order to level the playing field.

You can follow the Bali Conference via the UN's official website at www.unfcccbali.org.

United Nations Day Service

At the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the United Nations Day Service at the Shree Ghanapathy Hindu Temple in Effra Road, Wimbledon. I am a member of the Putney branch of the United Nations Association and joined fellow members and the Mayor of Wandsworth in marking UN Day.

The Service took place in the week that saw the launch of the UK United Nations Association?s ?Lobby for the UN? - a campaign to promote dialogue between voters and MPs about the UK?s contribution to the UN?s work in maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights and promoting sustainable development. In 2007-08 the lobby will focus on the UN's role in:

• Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
• Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Banning cluster munitions
• Combating climate change
• Implementing the responsibility to protect

In these changing times so many of the threats to our peace and security are global ? whether it is international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to climate change and the continuing scar of world poverty. The UN ? despite its imperfections, remains the principal route through which Governments must come together to tackle these challenges.

Burma

There is as I write growing concern about the fate of the brave Monks who last week took a stand against the ruling junta that is misgoverning Burma.

I want Britain, the EU and the world to take a firm stand on the unacceptable human rights abuses that have been tolerated for far too long. I know I'm not alone in this.

Although these are effortless and possibly inconsequential measures, a facebook group supporting the monks' protest had about 70,000 subscribers last Thursday. By Friday it was over 100,000; by the end of the weekend over 200,000 and earlier today the total passed 330,000. Just one of many online petitions to the UN has amassed over 36,000 signatures.

The biggest contribution Britain can make is pushing for much tougher EU action: the French oil giant Mobil is one of the biggest investors in Burma. Their involvement in the country must end. Britain itself has virtually no remaining major trade links with Burma but there are plenty of small businesses who do.

We have seen strong leadership from the ASEAN nations: every single member other than Burma itself has criticised the military response to peaceful protests. China, which can do more than any other nation has gone further than it ever has before to criticise the military junta, but it must go further: it remains the break on the UN Security Council taking far tougher action than it has been able to so far.

It's often hard to see any tangible results brought about by diplomacy. But international pressure is bringing results - far too slowly, but the regime would not have even countenanced meeting the UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari without such universal condemnation. We should not be grateful for this - but nor should we dismiss it as inconsequential either.

We in Britain must appreciate that as the former colonial power in this part of Asia, we cannot be seen to be reasserting our Imperialist tendencies, however just the cause. It must be the region that takes the lead on Burma: that means China, Japan and ASEAN. Britain's role must be to lead the UN Security Council towards unremitting, crystal clear opposition to the Burmese Junta.

What we need - and we rarely get - are sanctions to be observed by everyone. The reason Saddam Hussain piled up reserves while Iraqis starved is that too many multi-national corporations - and I'm afraid to say, nations - felt that sanctions applied to everyone else but them. If we can bring about a genuine embargo enforeced and abided by, then the chance of Aung Sun Suu Kyi being reinstated as Burma's rightful leader will be massively advanced.