Category Archives: Politics

Environmental politics London Politics

Somers Town area forum

A belated report from last month’s meeting, as I dig into my to-do pile.

We heard about the planned bicycle hire scheme for Zone 1 in London (along the line of Paris’s Velib). Although no contractor has yet been selected, it is planned to begin in May 2010.

There will be 400 sites in all, the majority in Westminster, with 39 in Camden. The main theory is to alleviate Tube congestion.

Camden has 4.24 suqare km in Zone 1, and there is to be 9 docking stations per square kilometre, and a total of 1064 bicycles.

The theory goes that space will not be taken from pedestrians or existing cycle parking, but will be “buildouts” into the road. (Except that we were then told that of the four proposed locations in Somers Town one was on an existing carriageway and three were on footway.)

Two are on St Pancras Road just north of St Pancras station, on either side of the footway, one in Doric Way and one near the top of Eversholt St.

We then heard a briefing about the demographics of Somers Town: 56% of local people are from ethnic minority backgrounds, (compared to 40% London and 13% England). A total of 120 languages are spoken in the ward. 25% of the population is under 16 (17% London, 20% England). 87% are under 65 (85, 67). 64% of men and 48% of women are economically active (London 75/60, England 74/60). 3.6% of people are longterm unemployed (Camden average 2%). 55% of Somers Town children get 5plus good GCSEs (Camden 50.7%).

Male life expectancy is 70.3, the lowest in London – 11 years younger than Hampstead. (Women 78 – London average 81.2).

Environmental politics Politics

Green Party conference panel: “The failure of the growth economy: towards new economic solutions”

I left this session with a very clear sense of where we need to go.

The highly practical point was made that what gets measured gets done. Need to two types of indicators – ecology side – how is the natural environment going? then on social side – measure the progress that we are achieving as a society? Then it is probably necessary to combine that (sensibly) into one number and make that the single goal of optimisation.

Sounds simple when you say it quickly…

Some of my notes from the session that help explain how I reached that conclusion…

Dan O’Neill
Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

What is wrong with the growth economy?
Biophysical limits on growth
Even if it could continue, no longer desirable, not making people given any happier
Growth is driven by increasing debt – no longer sustainable or desirable

Increasing production and consumption as measured by GDP (i.e. money spent) and seeking to maximise it is a. fairly recent policy goal. It was developed (as GNP) by the allies during WWII as way to maximise wartime production. Since then we have basically continued with model of wartime economy.

What this ignores is that the economy is a sub-system of the environment – as it grows have to put more resources, and there are more wastes that the environment has to absorb.

GDP depends strongly on energy supply – map 130 countries against each other, very close correlation. Still highly dependant on fossil fuels, but peak oil appears imminent.

The statistic of the ecological footprint depends on how much land society needs to produce resources and assimilate waste – grows with GDP. Up until now it has only dropped during recessions.
We, i.e. the human race, now have an ecological footprint greater than suitable land – we are using resources faster than can be generated and producing wastes faster than they can be absorbed.

Steady state economy: what does this mean?
Stable population
Stable consumption
Energy and material flows minimised within ecological limits
Constant stocks of human built and natural capital

Characteristics
Sustainable scale
Just distribution
Efficient allocation (still a role for markets, but careful not to apply to inappropriate things)
High quality of life

Policies need
1. Limit the range of inequality in income distribution
(Currently growth is used as an excuse to avoid dealing with poverty)
2. Shorten the working day, week and year
3. Reform monetary system
read more »

Feminism

Notes from the Green Party Spring Conference maternity services panel

Professor Wendy Savage
Birth is such an important matter and government policy has been extremely important in changing way give birth. A 1946 survey of births in one week found that 46% were at home. By 1956 one-third at home, more than 50% these were there or in GP-led units that were effectively run by midwives. By 1970 this had fallen to 12% home birth, one-third out of hospital. Sir John Peel, the queen’s obstetrician, wrote a report saying that all women should have opportunity to have “benefits” of hospital birth, although there was no definition what were.

By 1980 only 1 per cent of births were at home, half of these didn’t intended to. In 1982 a Commons committee on perinatal mortality found that it was safer to have baby in hospital but at home, but they weren’t comparing like with like, given that half of home births were unplanned. In 1979 a comparison that considered women who had booked for a home birth and they had extremely low perinatal mortality. Nevertheless the Commons study was used by obstetricians to further push women to have babies in hospital.

In 1981-2 it was the first time voices of women heard by any government enquiry; this study said that there was no reason not to have home birth. But the programme had to be cost-neutral to change to midwifery services. Lots of pilots showed women have better deal, but no money, so nothing much changed.

I still remember the euphoria of that night in 1997, bitterly now, when I look at what New Labour has done. But birth wasn’t one of their priorities.

Home births rose slightly 1-2pc – some parts of country up to 10 or 12pc. It is a woman’s right to have her baby at home. Such an important thing – you are in your own home with the professional as a visitor. For most people hospitals are associated with death and dying, and the way midwifery is organised in NHS is just hopeless. There is no continuity of care. I find it really tragic that the only way for many women have a proper birth is by having an independent midwife. Tears come to my eyes when see videos of births at home; we have made such a mess of birth in the NHS.

Health care commission did huge study in 1997 – 89pc of women happy antenatal care, 90 happy in care, only about 60pc happy with postnatal care.

My solution change the way to midwives organised. Think of it arranged just as doctors: there are GPs and hospital doctors. We should have midwives in community who look after the majority of women – only refer to obstetrician if necessary.: obstetricians are a risk factor for caesarean section.

Choice is supposed to be being provided, but there are endless e-bulletins say nothing, piffling amounts of money. In 2008 the government said 360m pounds would be put in, but it hasn’t reached the midwives. I had a look to today at the latest ebulletins. Absolutely nothing about midwives, only about the tariffs, part of this govt trying to turn the NHS into business.

Sarah Davies, senior lecturer in midwifery at the University of Salford
In 1980 I started training as a student midwife – just at the beginning against the fight back of extremes of medicalisation. I went on a march demonstrating against an obstetrician insisting women lie down to give birth. As a feminist I was very keen on idea of normal birth – knew instinctively right thing. Since then had more and more evidence that right. Normality is best supported by midwives: medicalisation doesn’t improve outcomes for women and doesn’t make for happy midwives.

There is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality at the moment. It is very difficult for student midwives learning about what should be happening – they see harassed midwives in huge hospitals trying to deal with heaps of bureaucracy. At the same time you have got policy saying midwife-led care is way forward. Currently there is a reconfiguratioin in Greater Manchester – closing five out of 12 maternity hospitals. The scheme is called “making it better” – this is typical of the doublespeak that goes on at moment. There are no plans for higher rates of home births and birth centres and the whole scheme is driven more by neonatologists than people in a community midwifery.

Birth is about relationships – current New Labour project is about moving to fragmentation of care. All these reports about safety – teamwork about relationships essential, yet all getting more and more fragmented.

Britain has the most centralised medical service in Europe – hospitals like Liverpool with 8,000 births a year. Women when they get to choose, they chose small, private places.

And we now have more evidence than we ever had – in 2008 there was a big review of midwifery-led care and it is clear that all women should be offered it. This is not up for debate – the question is how do we implement it?
read more »

Feminism

Credit where its due, and not

Full marks to Kevin Rudd, who’s brought the Australian Labour government out of the dark ages (and the shadow of George Bush), by removing the ban on foreign aid for abortions. “the historic shift was lauded by a wide array of aid agencies, women’s groups, family planning experts and many cross-party federal politicians, who said it would save the lives of thousands of women who would otherwise die in botched backyard operations.”
Indeed!

But British female politicians aren’t doing well in getting young women engaged, a study has found. (Or indeed nor are the men!)

“More than a quarter of girls are put off by a lack of information about how they should take part, while 17 per cent believe it cannot make a difference.”

(And of course, sadly, given the electoral system, for most of them, unless they live in a marginal Westminster seat, that’s broadly true.)

There’s an interesting idea in there: every party’s every shortlist should contain one person under 25. Not at all a bad idea…

Books Feminism Science

Women and men and thinking straight about emotions

Sometimes irony can be so sharp it is agonising. And so it is with the case of the dichotomy that’s been at the heart of Western thought for around two and a half millennium: man equals rational; woman equals emotional (and no prizes for identifying which was good and which bad). Its a trope that’s battled with Eve and the apple as the primary cause by which to do women down, to oppress and repress them.

The irony comes from our growing knowledge of brain function, and the fact that this dichotomy is entirely false, and, moreover that emotion is the dominant factor in the great majority of decisions that we, human beings, make.

The simplest proof comes from brain injury. People who have lost a tiny section of their brain, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which sits just behind the eyes, as a result of malignancy or injury, can apparently fully recover, score at the same level on IQ tests as before, show no obvious sign of disability. But what they lose is all emotional reaction to anything. And what’s more, they find making decisions about the simplest things – what time to arrange an appointment, what to choose from a restaurant menu – almost impossible to make.

This is reported in Jonah Lehrer’s The Decisive Moment: How the Brain Makes Up Its Mind. This is a decisively, self-consciously, sometimes annoyingly popular science book – the actual science being so heavily interweaved with entertaining anecdote, some illuminating and relevant, some less so, that you’d really like to find a pure science alternative. But still, the science is lucidly explained in the gaps between anecdotes, and the story it tells is compelling.

Lehrer explains that the OFC is “response for integrating visceral emotions into the decisionmaking process. It connects the feelings generated by the ‘primitive’ brain – areas like the brain stem and the amygdala, which is in the limbic system – with the stream of conscious thought”. And it is one of the few cortical regions noticeably bigger in humans than other primates. As Lehrer concludes, Plato and Freud were wrong, “Homo sapiens is the most emotional animal of all”.

How well this can work is illustrated with a case from the Iraq war, when a radar operator on a British destroyer decide to shot down a blip on his radar screen heading for an American battleship. It could have been an Iraqi missile, or an American jet; no rational analysis at that time could determine which, yet something about the blip filled him with cold, dreadful fear, although he couldn’t explain what. It was travelling at 550 miles an hour, and he had 40 seconds to decide what to do. He fired his ship’s missiles, and they brought do the Silkworm just short of the American battleship. He still didn’t know why, and it was only years after that intense analysis showed that the missiles appeared on the radar screen a little later than American jets: the radar man’s emotions knew this, but his conscious mind didn’t.

Lehrer explains how experts develop their expertise by training the emotional system – they practice and practice, which produce learned patterns of dopamine release in a part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Then, if something deviates from the pattern, the ACC sends an immediate signal to the hypothalmus. In serious cases that produces what we know as the fright or flight response – pure “gut feeling” or emotion.

The Decisive Brain goes on to get highly topical, by exploring how the human desire to find patterns has fed into the current financial crisis, and this emotional decisionmaking also has its weaknesses. The stock market is a random system in statistic terms. But when an investor randomly makes some money, instead of being happy, they tend to feel regret, that they hadn’t gambled more money. So they dive in further, as do many of their compatriots. So the market surges, and keeps surging. Until bust point. Then people start to despair, and sell out “because the brain doesn’t want to regret staying in”.

And it looks at other situations where emotional thinking only may produce bad results (such as buying with credit cards, where the normal emotional weighting of the value of the good to you versus the loss of the lightening of your wallet is shortcircuited).

So in the end too this is also a self-help book, concluding with the advice:

“Whenever you make a decision, be aware of the kind of decision you are making and the kind of thought process that it requires. … The best way to make sure you are using your brain properly is to study your brain at work, to listen to the argument inside your head.”
Further: “The best decisionmakers don’t despair [at mistakes]. Instead, they become students of error, determined to learn from what went wrong. They think about what they could have done differently so that the next time their neurons will know what to do.”

Good advice. Now all we’ve got to do is employ it to abolish all those errors arising from the false “women equals emotional decisionmaking equals bad”.

Feminism

For international women’s day

* You can read this as half-full or half-empty. The number of women parliamentarians has risen in the past year, and is up 60% since 1995. But that number is now just 18.3% of the total. In only 39 legislatures (not, of course, including Westminster) have women reach 30% of the total.

* The global gender pay gap has been recalculated, and is worse than previously thought – latest calculation: 22%. (And the gap is actually higher for women with higher levels of education.)

* The global unemployment rate for women is predicted to be 7.4% in 2009, compared to men’s 7%. That means an extra 22 million more women unemployed.