A little after 4pm I steped out into a thick atmosphere and made my way to Mare Street. I got as far as St Johns church yard garden before seeing a big group of police surrounded by a big group of people. Someone else in the park said that the police had got all the shops to shut and were stopping and searching people. Tensions grew. One person didn’t cooperate and they may have tried to arrest them. The riot police then pushed everyone out of the church yard and away from the Narrow Way. Luckily I’d bumped into a friend and we ended up being pushed out towards Clarence Road. Everyone in the park was mocking the police, shouting over exagerated comedy orders and refering to them as storm troopers. Not many people have got much time for them round here, and that’s not for no reason.

From the top of the Narrow Way we looked up Clarence Road and could see a street filled with young people in hoods and with face masks. Police pushed us away as rocked started flying in their direction. Me and a few others went to Clapton Square and cut onto Clarence Road further up. People were building barricades, the atmosphere was electric but not threatening at all. They were scaring away people with cameras but appart from that, there were loads of people just milling about, watching what was happening.

Some shops in Hackney did get looted or got their wondows smashed. A JD sport, a phone shop, an off license, several bookies, several banks. The focus, however was here on Clarence Road. The aim was a fight with the police.

Terrible things happened over those few days. People got killed, houses and small shops burned. Anger is an ugly thing.

Since the Tottenham riots a few days before, I could feel the tension in myself. The phrase ‘mindless thuggery’ kept going round and round in my head. And the backlash in the media and in the opinions of people who seemed to know little and care even less about finding out about the areas affected. I knew where the anger came from. I’ve watched as the police stop and search young people time and time again. I’ve seen the dispersal zone notifications that prevent young people from being on the streets in greater numbers than pairs, including in parks. On the way to work I go past the site of the death of  Godwin Lawson, stabbed to death in gang violence in March 2010. 1 of 19 teenagers murdered in 2010. I’ve heard young teenagers refuse to leave their neighbourhood for fear of walking down the wrong street. I’ve spoken to youth workers in Hackney fighting to save their own jobs from being cut. I’ve talked to mums about cuts in children’s services. I’ve lost work from cuts to school holiday playschemes. I’ve been on JSA and been treated like scum by job centre staff. I struggle to get and keep work despite good a-levels, a good university degree, 2 NVQs and my best efforts and I certainly struggle to pay rent.

The day after the Hackney riots I went to Clarence Road again and spoke to some people who were out and about there. Loads of people were around. Neighbours talking together. The message was pretty much universal. This wasn’t a supprise. The government had to start listening to young people who now have no future. People pointing to the scrapping of EMA, the closure of youth centres, the cutting of youth workers, the rise in uni fees and police harassment. Lots thought the police had it coming. All of them said that they understood why young people were angry, but that they couldn’t burn up their own communities.

I dug around online to try to get to grips with how the media were reporting it. I found some but few useful, meaningful things. Things from before the riots that gave an indication of what was to come:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/29/young-people-gangs-youth-clubs-close
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/07/nick-cohen-recession-misery?CMP=twt_gu

In the aftermath of Tottenham:
http://www.channel4.com/news/police-cars-set-on-fire-in-north-london-street-clashes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/tottenham-riots-not-unexpected

In the aftermath of Crydon:
http://digg.com/news/world_news/london_riot_truth_the_bbc_will_never_replay_this

In the aftermath of Hackney:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189161741876869.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial5&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zmo8DG1gno4

That last video says a lot. A bit that particularly strikes me:

I’ll tell you a quick story. Two dogs dies in a car that was owned by the police. They started an enquiry there and then, it was announced that was what they were going to do. They suspended the officers that was involved. That’s what they did. This guy that got shot, for whatever reason it was, nothing got said. They didn’t even go and see the family. And that told everybody in this environment that we’re nobody. The youngsters are the ones really that are more braver than the people of my age, because they reacted. Because they’ve got nothing to lose. And you know what, that’s a sad indictment on the society that we live in at the moment.

And for every piece of media that talked to anyone involved, that asked questions and that took a minute to think, there’s been a million ignorant, racist thoughtless and useless articles, discussions and interviews. At the end of the day, it’s happening, there are reasons and whether or not someone in Surrey or Westminster thinks they are reason enough is completely irrelevent.

We had the mainstream media giving David Starkey plenty of broadcasting time to tell everyone that he thinks Enoch Powel was right and that ‘the whites are turning black’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH5HAg7RTKk

I’ve watched that clip and was pretty disturbed. I recomend watching these rap remixes for some light relief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4GaKCBMNs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah-9T2b5GlA&feature=related

But it’s not just Starkey that’s stuck in the dark ages. We’ve had journalists asking why weren’t the police “clubbing these looters like baby seals, which is what they deserved”? which sounds bad enough but try reading the whole article…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2025021/UK-riots-2011-The-politics-envy-bound-end-flames.html

There was also anti-Europe Tory Member of the European Union, Roger Helmer who Tweeted “Time to get tough. Bring in the army. Shoot the rioters.”

And don’t forget Mr Cameron, Prime Minister with a grand total of 23% of people in the country supporting him at the polls (that calculation is including those that did not vote) with his speechs outside number 10 and in parliamant which both mearly nod towards his plans for law changes, removal of civil liberties and further attacks on communities that have been bearing the brunt of someone elses bad choices for years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDCxoi-S4EE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTlEI-H7wAE
And while you’re watching Dave talk about responsibile youth, take a minute to reflect upon how responsible he was in his younger days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club

In the wake of the riots we’ve seen councils threaten to evict whole families off the back of 1 individuals involvement in the riots. The first council to announce their plans and serve the notice was Wandsworth. It looks like other councils are set to follow. Westminster, for example, has made the pledge but as yet not served the notices. A group of 20-30 people went along to a protest outside the house of the leader of Wandswoth Council. It was a calm but vocal protest until officers decided it was all a bit too calm for them. They intimidated the crowd and then arrested 1 person for swearing.

People have been handed down extreme sentences for minor crimes, or things that previously weren’t crimes at all. Nicholas Robinson will be in prison for 6 months for stealing water costing £3.50. Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan were given 4 years each for posting stuff on Facebook. Ursula Nevin was given 6 months in prison for just acceptng a pair of looted shorts. At appeal this got revised to 75 hours community service.

Police and courts have also refused bail to a lot of people. People that have not been found guilty of anything and many who are only charged with minor crimes may be held in prison for months before they’ve even had a trial. It seems now, after the leak of the Met Police’s ‘Prisoner Processing Strategy’ this was planned. A friend of mine happens to be one of those being held. We have no idea when he might be bailed. Some suggestions it might not be until December.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2011/aug/22/operation-withern-prisoner-processing-strategy

And, since the riots, there have been a spate of people dying in police custody or operations, 3 in 1 week.

So here we are. Many are cheering on the government’s moves to further kurb civil liberties and have little interest in admititng that it might not be mindless and that there are causes other than ‘lack of responsibility’ and ‘bad parenting’. As I said before, at the end of the day it doesn’t much matter how many people condem what happened. While the underlying issues are still there, there will be more riots.

To finish, while rap is one of the many things being wrongly pointed to as a cause of riots, it’s musicians continue to tell it like it is on the streets. This is Lethal Bizzle’s Babylon’s Burning the Ghetto, released in 2007. This is the way the streets have felt since before then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbf83rLG2mQ

Lib Dem Chris Huhne orders inquiry into Tory MEPs, where does this idiot get off?

Chris Huhne has really excelled this time, following on from the pathetically desperate statement that “Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler”, Huhne has now ordered an inquiry into the Tory MEPs in the European Parliament.

Huhne is still smarting from the major defeat EU Climate Religion suffered on July 5th 2011 when the EU voted against the economic suicide pact proposed by Huhne and Hedegaard.

Within hours an embarrassingly bad damage limitation program was in place, and now Huhne a member of a different political party is now ordering an inquiry in to which fossil fuel lobbyists “got to” the Tory MEPs, even for Huhne this is a new high water mark of hypocrisy, the Chris Huhne who when asked to jump by NGOs like WWF, Friends of The Earth and Greenpeace meekly asks “How High?“:

Chris Huhne has ordered a private inquiry into which fossil fuel lobbyists “got to” the Conservative MEPs who defied David Cameron and voted down an ambitious carbon emissions target in the European parliament on 5 July.

“I have asked for a full analysis of what happened,” said the energy and climate change minister, speaking at an event in parliament. “We thought the vote was going to be close, but it was not close. We want to see which lobby groups managed to get to the MEPs.”

New research by the Guardian and Greenpeace into lobby groups and businesses seen by Tory MEPs in 2010 reveals there were more than four times as many meetings with fossil fuel companies, carmakers and others against stronger action on global warming than with green businesses and those pushing for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, has caused a storm by comparing Tory campaigning tactics on the AV referendum to those of the Nazis and by repeatedly challenging Cameron at a cabinet meeting on the issue. By investigating the EU climate vote, he risks further increasing tensions within the coalition.

This is absolutely priceless we now have an NGO and lobbyist for the Church of Climatology, Greenpeace, saying how wrong and unfair that there are other lobbyists who have made a better case than they have.

The big question is what are Huhne’s motives for ordering an inquiry?

Contrary to what Huhne would have us all believe the Tory MEPs who voted against the 30% emissions cut were not decisive in defeating the proposed bill.

The inquiry has rightly caused anger in the Conservative Party and the only likely outcome of a coalition Cabinet Minister pointing the finger at Tory MEPs, is to put further strain on the Coalition Government, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it like Huhne needs to be gone, soon as.

Tory MEP Roger Helmer had this to say:

“I’m happy for Huhne to investigate whatever the hell he likes. I just wish he’d spend more time investigating the huge economic damage that his green policies will do,” He added: “The prime minister is in no position to ‘bring Conservative MEPs into line’. I vote in what I conceive to be the best interests of my country and my constituents: the party whip comes a poor third.”

Martin Callanan, leader of the Conservatives in Europe and an environment spokesman:

“Our position on [deeper emission cuts] has not been influenced by lobbyists and has remained unchanged since the idea was first mooted.

“Europe already has the world’s most ambitious targets and, in the absence of a worldwide agreement, forcing business and industry to pay more for their CO2 emissions in Europe will merely result in them relocating outside of the EU.”

“The Conservative party in Europe is in the pocket of big oil,” said Berger. “The prime minister needs to get a grip of his party and start leading a government that is serious about tackling climate change.”

Martyn Williams of Friends of the Earth said: “There is a huge list of major companies who have told Conservative MEPs that getting serious about tackling climate change</a> will give a boost to the European economy. The MEPs should stop listening to special pleadings and examine the big picture.”

There are doubtless a huge list of companies that stand to make billions out of the Green Energy scam, what FoE wont tell you of course, is that the list of companies against Climate Religion is many times larger than those that are for it.

Yet another  Hat/Tip to @aliegorey , if you dont follow @aliegorey on Twitter you should.

There’s nothing particular I can add, except to comment that Roger Helmer is an excellent example of the drawbacks of electing politicians through a closed party list.

This is a good policy, although Huhne’s been lambasted from the right for it. We’re shutting down a lot of old plant – both nuclear and fossil fuelled – over the next ten years, and we have an energy deficit coming up. DECC’s Pathways document, released at the same time as Huhne’s Energy Statement, attempts to map out our options to overcome this, while ensuring that we reach our 2020 carbon reduction targets.

Politics: the Right on Energy

The right tends to love nuclear as a solution to carbon targets and the power gap – read the rantings of Roger Helmer MEP for a surprising instance of a Conservative praising the French way of doing things. The reasons given are typically economic – they believe nuclear is cheaper than any of the alternatives. The problem is that this nonsense – as I discuss on the Embrace blog. The cost of installing new nuclear capacity is above onshore wind, and comparable to offshore once the financing costs for nuclear are factored in. It’s therefore not clear that nuclear is cheaper – especially as the taxpayer is liable under treaty for the costs of a nuclear accident.

Sorry, let me say that again: the taxpayer is liable under treaty for the costs of a nuclear accident.

That’s quite a subsidy you’ve got going on there. I’m fairly sure the taxpayer wouldn’t have to pay the costs for a wind turbine falling over.

On that subject, the right loath wind turbines in particular, largely because they’re a totemic symbol of the green movement intruding on their rural idylls where they’ve been consuming resources happily for decades without reality intruding at all. Nuclear allows them to shove all that dirty ‘production’ somewhere out of site, so they can continue pretending that an economy based on ever-expanding consumption has no impact on the world. James Delingpole in particular has a weird pathological obsession with them, viewing them as some sort of Martian intruder into the Arcadian landscapes of his youth. In the north, we’ve been digging up our landscapes for centuries to power our industry. To me, views like Delingpole’s are several centuries out of date.

Mechanics of Energy

If we’re looking for the most economic solution to cross the power gap and reach our emissions targets, you can’t just say ‘Wind Turbines!’ or ‘Nukes!’. This is because powering the UK is an incredibly complicated business presided over by the unsung heroes of our day-to-day life, the National Grid. They have to deal with daily fluctuations in power demand of between 20-25GW (to put that in perspective, the biggest generator in the UK, Sizewell B, produces about 1.2GW). To do this, they need two broad types of power stations: baseload plants and ‘peaker’ plants. The baseload supply the electricity that’s constantly demanded – around 40GW. The ‘peaker’ plants supply electricity to meet peak demand – around 20-25GW, as mentioned. Different types of plant are easier to ramp up and down than others – for example, gas can be switched on and off very fast, while it’s unsurprisingly difficult to tone down a nuclear reactor. The French model Roger Helmer advocates uses 80% nuclear, requiring some of their nuclear plants to run in ‘load-following’ mode, which is difficult and expensive to achieve. They have to do this because putting too much power into the grid at once would produce an effect analogous to a power surge in your house, except across the entire country. It has to be carefully balanced – which is why I said National Grid really were unsung heroes.

Even with load-following nuclear plant, the French regularly dump a lot of their excess electricity onto international markets to avoid overloading the grid – there’s a 1.2GW pipe under the Channel they use to give us electricity. They can do this because they’re heavily interconnected with their neighbours, reducing the risk of overload. We’re not. No-one serious is taking Roger Helmers’ position.

Wind turbines are good for peak power – their seasonal & daily output broadly follows demand trends, with a significant amount of variability. However, because they’re variable, they’re less good at satisfying peak demand. Typically they’re balanced with fast reserve plant, like gas.

You should be able to see the outline of a future energy mix from the above, and this is what I suspect Huhne’s policy is aiming at. Nuclear will receive a subsidy in the form of a carbon tax that will make all low carbon sources of electricity competitive. It will receive the mammoth public liability subsidy that no-one likes to talk about. It probably won’t get an additional subsidy along the lines of renewable energy. If it’s economic after all this, it will be built – but those building it will probably be required to set up a special bond for decommissioning, to pay the eventual clear-up costs. Something similar is required of mining projects, and constitutes a good model for dealing with economically useful but environmentally damaging projects.

How then should I vote?

Go for the top option on the poll – nuclear has enough subsidy to be built with the carbon tax and liabilities factored in. Reserve the right to change your mind if a privately-funded decommissioning bond isn’t required. In that event, a massive expansion of renewables is the most cost-effective option.

Isn’t telling people how to vote on a poll illiberal?

Yes. But so are blackouts. They constrain your ability to choose to have the lights on.