Tuesday, 23 January, 2007

• Newsnight
• 23 Jan 07, 05:17 PM

It's just hours before President Bush delivers his State of the Union speech. But having seriously considered a u-turn on his previous opposition to compulsory carbon caps the president is reported to have changed his mind. But is he in danger of being wrong-footed on the green issue? Also: Catholics and gay adoption; alleged tube bombing attempt – the latest from the trial; and Chinese architecture.

Join Jeremy at 2230GMT on BBC Two and on the website and comment on Tuesday's programme below.

Going Solo

Monday, 14 October, 2002, 05:25 GMT 06:25 UK Going Solo

Breakfast and the BBC are reflecting the single experience.

Do you think Britain is turning into a nation of loners? Do you think living alone shows independence or is it just plain sad?

Tell us what you think. Click here to go straight to our email form

It seems that a majority of us want to be in relationships – but we would rather not share a house with them. That's according to a new BBC survey released today, known as "Going Solo".

The questionaire was available on the BBC's website, and it uncovers a snapshot of how people feel about being single. It reveals that on the whole women are much happier to be single than men – and that only one in five people would like to get married.

• Richard Scase is a professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Kent. He's studied the results of the survey.

  
  

• Jennie Bristow is a writer.

  To have your say, e-mail us at breakfasttv@bbc.co.uk

This week’s panel

Question Time, the BBC's premier political debate programme chaired by David Dimbleby, was in Aldershot on 21 June.

David Dimbleby was joined by Minister of State for Policing, Security and Community Safety Tony McNulty, shadow higher education spokesman Boris Johnson and veteran politician Baroness Williams.

Also appearing on the panel together for the first time were brothers and fellow journalists, Christopher and Peter Hitchens who have argued about everything from the war in Iraq to the existence of God.

TONY MCNULTY MP

Career: Tony McNulty is minister of state for policing, security and community safety, having formerly been the immigration minister.

Before his election to parliament in 1997, he was a lecturer in organisational behaviour.

Last month he was involved in a controversy over proposals to increase police powers to stop and question terror suspects, which led Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain to say: "We have got to be very careful that we do not create circumstances that are the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay."

BORIS JOHNSON MP

Career: Boris Johnson resigned as editor of The Spectator magazine to become David Cameron's shadow higher education spokesman. He continues to write for the Telegraph.

Former Tory leader Michael Howard sacked Mr Johnson as shadow arts minister in November 2004 after press reports that he had had an extramarital affair.

He was re-elected as MP for Henley at the 2005 general election, a seat he originally inherited from Michael Hestletine in 2001.

Aside from politics, he is well known as a columnist and TV personality, most notably for his appearances on the BBC programme Have I Got News For You.

BARONESS WILLIAMS

Career: Shirley Williams is a veteran politician who was leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords until November 2004.

Originally a Labour MP, she was one of the "gang of four" rebels who left the party to found the Social Democratic Party in 1981, which later merged with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats.

After retiring to the US for eight years, she re-entered British politics in 1993 when she was made a life peer in the House of Lords.

She is a committed Catholic, who explored the relationship between her faith and her public life in her book, God and Caesar: Personal Reflections on Politics and Religion.

She has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq since the coalition invasion and wrote in 2003: "The British government, with its American partner, must stop to think whether it is sowing the kind of resentment which is the seedbed of future terrorism."

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

Career: Christopher Hitchens is a celebrated author, journalist and critic who writes for a range of publications including Vanity Fair. His latest book, which has caused controversy on both sides of the Atlantic, is God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything.

He is an old friend of Salman Rushdie, whose knighthood, announced last week, has sparked an international row.

Christopher was an active Trotskyist at Oxford University and worked at the New Statesman before emigrating in his 20s to the US, where he established himself as a leading left-wing polemicist, targeting Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and even Mother Teresa.

After 11 September 2001, however, he has emerged as a leading advocate of the use of force against Islamic extremists, backing the "war on terror" and the Iraq conflict, turning his back on the left that, he claims, sees George W Bush as a greater threat than Osama bin Laden.

He invented the term "Islamo-fascist" – which was later used by President Bush himself – and in his book describes religion as: "A plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events".

PETER HITCHENS

Career: Peter Hitchens is a controversial columnist for the Mail on Sunday.

He is a former Moscow and Washington correspondent and has reported from many parts of the world.

He describes political correctness as the "biggest dictatorship of thought since the Reformation".

He recently reviewed his brother Christopher's book, God Is Not Great, calling it "wrong".

He went on: "If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W Bush. In which case, God help you."

What do you think of the campaign so far?

The main parties detailed various issues in their manifestos during the second full week of campaigning for the general election.

All three parties have been concentrating on how they would improve public services with Labour highlighting their plans to improve children's health and the Lib Dems expected to promise an extra £350m to cut waiting times.

The Conservatives will concentrate on their measures to tackle "yob" culture, including binge-drinking and anti-social behaviour.

Opinion polls conducted through the campaign suggest that the Tories are failing to make inroads into Labour's lead.

Have you been influenced by the parties' election campaigns so far? Are the parties addressing the most important issues? Have you made your mind up? What, if anything, would convince you to change your affiliation?

This debate has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we received:

Has anyone noticed the deafening silence from the three main parties on the issue of Europe? Considering that nearly 70% of the laws and directives governing our country originated from Brussels, and since these laws and directives directly impact upon all our lives, should it not, at the very least, be an issue worthy of note. Anyone would think that the big three must have something to hide? No? Must just be me then!
Ewen Jones, Shrewsbury

I voted Labour in the last election, but will not be voting for them this time. I am voting Conservative. I don't trust Blair anymore.
Drew, Edinburgh

There seems to have been an awful lot of mud slinging in the campaign so far. Don't the politicians release that "don't vote for the other party because.." is very negative. I want the candidates to say why I should vote for them, not why I shouldn't vote for someone else. The negativity is everywhere – take Gordon Brown's latest swipe at the Conservatives, saying that Margaret Thatcher would not approve of the current Conservative spending plans. That might be true but I doubt Callaghan or other previous Labour PMs would approve of what the current Labour government has done (ie privatise everything). It's all so negative and they should stop it right now.
Kirsty Sparkes, Bristol, UK

I live in a safe Conservative seat where the MP is standing down. Neither the Labour nor the Conservative party have campaigned in my area. The Liberal Democrats have called around, and I have had a Conservative leaflet for the county council elections. Does either of the two main parties care if I vote? I hear what the leaders say but I want to hear a bit more and to find out what they will do for my family. However, I am not sure I matter because I am one of the middle class.
Carol Edge, Huntingdon, Cambs

Well done Mr Kennedy! You had my vote in the bag until you decided to make the election a referendum on the Iraq War. I will now be voting Labour on May 5th.
Mark, London, England

It seems to me there is one key difference between Howard and Blair. Tony Blair may well have been wrong on Iraq, but he did what he believed to be the right thing at the time. What scares me about Michael Howard is he will say/do whatever he thinks will get him most votes, even if he knows what he is saying is wrong, such as his misleading use of statistics and his scaremongering on immigration. In my opinion he is less trustworthy than Tony Blair.
Simon, Birkenhead

Michael Howard's policies are related to fairness, common sense and experience. Blair's policies are a play on words and arrogance. If I had one wish this year it would be that people see Michael Howard for who he really is; a kind, considerate and achievable man. Sadly some people see him as a man who plays on peoples' fears purely because he as a politician has stood up for what is right instead of telling the British people what we want to hear. That is Blair and Brown's strategy.
Rosie Eldridge, Happisburgh, Norfolk

I am impressed by the fact that Mr Howard relishes a raw fight and he has the intelligence to handle it, even within the straightjacket of a campaign. The shameless audacity of Labour needs a dose of its own medicine in the cold stakes, where they dominate the endless shallow spin, lies and deceit, the Conservatives now dominating the jugular and not before time and the only way to get to the truth, a place where decent old world values have all but been disposed of by the current regime.
Richard, Essex

I can't see how Howard expects to win this election when he is so out of touch. He hasn't got the spark that a leader of the opposition needs and therefore Labour will once again whitewash this election. And could I please ask why the Labour and Conservative candidates are from more than 100 miles away from our constituency? What ever happened to local MPs?
Phil Lowe, Chesterfield

The Labour Party believes they have already done enough to win the election. Their arrogance is breathtaking. They certainly haven't done enough for my vote.
Tony, London

I am currently a university student at Durham and have so far been quite amused by the Lib Dems trying to win my vote – I am not going to be a student forever and would personally prefer to leave university with the debt I will than have tuition fees scrapped only for my parents and myself to be taxed into the ground. On another note, Michael Howard was superb with Jeremy Paxman on Friday. I watched all three interviews and Howard was the only candidate to hold his own and actually answer the questions.
Naomi, Durham, UK

How can an economy whose trade deficit risen has risen from zero to an all time high ,whose house prices have rocketed whose people are in debt to record one trillion pounds, and whose bank fears that an increase in oil prices might cause house prices to fall, be called stable?
Tom Bolger, Oldham

Here where I live in St. Helens, it's hard to imagine there is an election taking place. I've not seen any posters in windows and I've had no leaflets through my letterbox. Is this because it's not a marginal seat?
Derek, St Helens

Having seen the three Paxman interviews, Tony Blair is definitely my choice for Prime Minister. However for a party, I'm choosing the Liberal Democrats because I agree with more of their policies.
Adam Drummond, Leicester, UK

What's happened to Europe? The referendum on Europe will be the single biggest issue to resolve that any government has had to deal with since World War II. Not one debate, not one mention.
Jim Cooper, Bromsgrove, England

So far, I've heard a lot about what the various political parties will do to benefit "hard working families". I have heard nothing about any policies aimed at improving the lot of another large group in society – "hard working single people". Taxes paid by the single and childless help to fund all these wonderful things for "hard working families". While I personally do not begrudge them this, I feel that I am being taken for granted. I am in my mid 30's, single, childless, a homeowner, a motorist, and in full time employment. To the government, I feel that I am nothing but a cash cow. What policies do any of the main parties have that are targeted to appeal to my segment of society?
Melanie, Northamptonshire

Why are the Liberals fighting such a poor campaign. They were the party that opposed the war. Why aren't they pushing that point?
Tony Passarelli, Nottingham, UK

I have been extremely impressed during the campaign by Michael Howard. I think his no nonsense, tough talking as been a breath of fresh air from the usual political waffle.
Jack Stone, Southend on Sea

One thing is clear, the polls are much, much closer than last time. I have checked back and Labour had a lead of between 19 & 23% at the same stage of the campaign in 2001. Now it is down to just 6 or 7%. The polls were wrong by 10% last time. Who says the Tories are written off?
Dave Bridger, Hackney, London, UK

Amongst all the arguments I just want to ask one thing – what about the silent majority in this country? As a childless white couple, physically able, working 45 hours a week, we have little money to do anything apart from pay bills. There are no buses, local services are poor and the NHS has let me down at the first time of asking in my adult life. I have yet to be "targeted" by any of the campaign literature, as everything coming through my letterbox has no relevance to someone like me.
Paul, Thetford, Norfolk

I would like to see more coverage on other parties as an alternative to the main three political parties; they too deserve some media attention, just like all the others. I would like to find out more on the others, so I can see all the issues of their manifestos, and make a decision with my vote.
Jane, Surrey, UK

It seems if you aren't in a target seat the candidates take the result for granted. I have seen one party's paperwork, very few posters, not even posters in people's windows. It isn't inspiring people to get out and vote. Turnout will be depressingly low. Democracy is dependant on participation.
Gennie Holmes, Coventry, UK

I hope Jeremy Paxman will be tackling Mr Howard about his plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (of which the UK is a founding member). What a shameful policy! What will the rest of the world think of us if he is allowed to do this? Why is he keeping so quiet about it during this campaign?
Nick Dixey, Cayman Islands, (ex-pat Brit)

I sincerely hope that Labour voters who are despairing of Tony Blair, and Tories who have no faith in Michael Howard, will vote tactically to give the Lib Dems a bunch more seats and some real clout. They are the only party with any imagination, and they seem like decent people, too.
Steve, Melbourne, Australia

I find it hard to accept that we have had eight years of a Labour government of loads of promises which haven't materialised and the people of this country according to the polls are still backing them. Wake up everybody as we are going to get taxed again immediately after the election council taxes are going up, interest rates will be going up. I don't particularly like any party but I think the Labour party have had eight years and it's time for a change.
Rob Martin, Southampton

I think the media should have more from UKIP and the Greens. If people had more information about the other parties maybe more people would vote.
David Holland, London, UK

The range of debate in this election is frustratingly narrow. We should be examining environmental sustainability, economic and social justice and all the other problems that urgently require solutions. So, why are we distracting ourselves with bogus accusations merely designed to discredit people and divide the country? The 3 main parties will never solve the problems we face if we continue to allow them to ignore them. For the sake of progress, leave the 3 main parties to finish where they did in 2001, and support one of the 'Four Left': Greens, Respect, Plaid Cymru or the Scottish Socialists. We have the opportunity, finally, to empower people with the ability to make a difference to this country. If we support them this time, maybe the next election will debate the issues that matter.
James Weston, Cardiff, Wales

I think it's obvious that Michael Howard is using racism by targeting immigration. He needs prayers so he maybe have a warmer than cold heart.
Sonxey, Wigan

It's a shame there aren't general elections every year! I have no interest in politics however; I do enjoy the Tories and Labour behaving like children with one another. Very amusing.
Keir, Sheffield

Sadly some Labour voters are so misled about 'facts' in regard to their slating of the Tories and defence of Labour; they make me laugh more than Peter Kay! Check out the facts if you vote Labour and don't believe them.
Andrew, Daventry

Members of the electorate who wish to make the correct choice of which party to vote for must do one thing: not just take the word of the government or any party, but check out facts for themselves. Most of the interesting facts are not widely publicised. Using my own formula based on what issues people have rated as most important to them and the more accurate facts and figures to go with them, I predict that this would lead to a result of somewhere between a hung parliament and a Conservative majority of up to 35.
Andrew Whitehead, Daventry

I think that the Conservative billboards and their campaign in general is pathetic. If you look on the polls you will see that their popularity has steadily decreased since the dissolution of parliament. Maybe this is because of their pathetic attempt to win votes, or maybe its just because of the Tories ridiculous policies. Either way, people are sick of negative campaigning, hence the Lib Dems popularity has increased.
Giuseppe D'Amone, Rowley Regis

Sadly I see this as an election without hope. There was such hope when Labour first came into power. People are now so sick of Labour because of broken promises and bullying. Blair seems such a nice guy but then goes and hires bullies such as Prescott, Campbell, Reid to do his dirty work. Unfortunately, the Tories just don't seem like a credible alternative. It's the Michael Howard show with his side-kick Oliver Letwin who pops up like a little puppet occasionally. Ultimately, Labour will win and people won't care because they don't believe their lives will improve and they do believe they will be lied to again.
Adrian Pritchard, London

Why does everyone refer to education and health care as free? It's not; we pay for it in our taxes or national insurance contributions. I wish someone would put this straight with the electorate.
Martin Riley, Twickenham

When are all 3 party leaders going to stop squabbling and trying to get the better of each other and deal with the real issues instead? They tell us what we can and cannot do in terms of bringing up our children, yet they don't exactly lead by example. They should try seeing the world from the voters' point of view, their position in life and their salary gives them a totally different outlook to most of us. If they want a better turnout, try being more realistic about I am not disappointed by the politicians so much, but more the electorate. How can they re-elect a party, which has reduced the equality of wealth? In 1997 the top 1% of British had 20% of the country's wealth and by 2002 it increased to 23%. Furthermore in 1997 the bottom 50% of British had 7% of the country's wealth and by 2002 it reduced to 5%. In my view the Tories have learnt from their previous mistakes, stand for better social justice than Labour and should be re-elected. Remember how much worse Britain was under a Labour government in the 1970s to a Conservative government in the 1980s.
Gus Eldridge, Norwich

If Gordon Brown's raid on the pension funds was the sole reason for the collapse of confidence, why can't the dividends be paid again and the pension crisis would go away wouldn't it? Also, no party ever mentions single working people, who seem to support everybody and get nothing in return. As to the yob culture, bring back the national service which it seems to me would solve several large social problems in one go. I am serious!
Rona Goodwin, Hythe, Kent

I'm doing an election project at school, and I'm finding very confusing, we have to pretend to be a campaign party and we have no idea what we're doing!
Louise, London

Tony Blair can be frustrating, irritating, boring and annoying! But he is honest and puts Britain and its economy first. For years we have not had it so good!!! THINK BACK, doubters. The Tory party sure made a great job of it last time…NOT! NHS on its knees, mortgage interest rates etc Thatcher, Tebbit, Major…Hague? Nothing has changed! Still a party for the super rich and privileged!
Angie, London

With regards to the war at least Mr Blair has the courage to stand by his ideals and convictions. Anybody who has read the Butler Report and the Iraqi Survey Groups findings can't fail to agree with what the PM has done. We all have the chance to really see if Tony was telling the truth. If anybody is at all interested in the Iraq, and wants to hear it from the "horse's mouth", then go to the internet and read for yourselves.
Anon, UK

The smaller the issue the more Labour and the Conservatives fixate on it. If I were a visitor from another planet, I'd be wondering why climate change and the way we are fouling our own nest had somehow slipped from most politicians' notice.
Dave Hampton, Marlow

How strange that a right-wing tabloid is now running Tony Blair's election campaign. I'm sure that we'll see Blair plan new policies after the election based on what The Sun tells him to do as a thank you to that tabloid for helping him win a third term.
Nick, UK

It's very easy when you are in opposition to criticise people and I can't believe people are actually listening to the rubbish that is coming out of Michael Howard's mouth. I still maintain that Tony Blair and this government have done a great job since 1997, and I would like to see it continue.
Richard Green, Cannock, Staffordshire

It's nice to see Labour asking us to "move on" while still bringing up inglorious Tory history. Never mind the fact that Labour has taken one of the most insidious of Tory ideas (PFI) to new shambolic depths. That's forward not back, is it Tony?
Andrew, Slough

So it's now only 14 days to the Election. Have I had any candidates knocking on my door asking if they have my vote? No I haven't. What a pity, because I have so many questions. Instead all I get are leaflets shoved through my door! If they want my vote they have to earn it. None of the parties have made any effort to show their faces in my area. I don't even know what any of them look like.
Jayne, Blackpool

Surely it isn't healthy for any of us to have another Labour government. I voted Labour in the last election, but will not be voting for them this time. I am voting Conservative as I feel some of the issues that they wish to tackle are just those that I want to address, immigration in particular. In my opinion Tony Blair has forgotten that he is there to listen to us, and to act for us. We seem to have been caught up in his need to please European and American counterparts. He has had his successes but the Labour engine is losing steam. Perhaps he has lost touch with people after such a long term as PM. Time for some new blood I think.
Lindsey, UK

I can't understand anyone wanting another five years of Labour government with its wealth redistribution policies paid for by taxing everything that moves. For me, the Tories are the only ones addressing the issues that really concern people. However I feel that Labour will still be elected simply because no one can stand the sight of the Conservatives with their outdated "men in suits" look, and the impression they give of looking down their noses at everyone else but themselves.
Alistair Laing, Inverbervie

True to form, when the Conservatives speak out on issues such as immigration, the left-wing liberal element pounces, denouncing Michael Howard as 'racist'. It's about time someone spoke out and took a stance. I think the Conservatives are running a fantastic campaign, covering all issues that matter. They will get my vote for certain.
Steve, Leicester

Sadly we no longer seem to live in a democracy. Blair's behaviour over the Iraq fiasco has totally destroyed what remaining faith the electorate has in politicians in general. None of they can be trusted to do what they say they will any more.
J Taylor, Newcastle UK

I would like to see Tony Blair in a television debate alongside his opponents. Maybe this would show the boys from the men but also give the public a chance to see the differences, if indeed there are any, between the parties.
Lynn, Herts, UK

I cannot see that the election campaigns make as big a difference as people often suggest. I have voted Conservative all my life and always will but I know that all my friends vote Labour. The campaign makes no difference to any of us.
Albert Stone, Banbury, England

As an employer and the owner of a small business, I have been interested in and have followed politics for many years now and always look forward to a good fight at election time. Quite frankly, I'm bored with all this – it's not interesting, The media win and lose elections, not the party campaigns. The ridiculous system of allotting airtime in proportion to the number of seats that a party won last time kind of makes it undemocratic for the parties that can't get a foot hold 'cos they get no coverage!
Alastair, Taunton

About two weeks ago I emailed Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy and Tony Blair with my situation and asked them what they are going to do to make life better for low paid council workers such as myself. Labour replied saying 'See the website' – Lib Dems and Tories? Not a whisper from them. So much for Howard understanding the working people.
Richard Hawley, Essex, UK

Not a lot, the smaller the 'issue' the more Labour and the Conservatives fixate on it. If I were a visitor from another planet, I'd be wondering why climate change and the way we are fouling our own nest (spaceship earth) had somehow slipped most politicians notice.
Dave Hampton, Marlow, UK

I think the Conservative campaigning is inciting racial discrimination, the facts are being distorted and I am fed up of the 'slagging off' of Labour at every given opportunity. I will be voting Lib Dems as they are the only party talking sense. The others are too busy with their playground politics.
Kate Wolk, Faringdon, Oxon

When politicians can tell me why they can always find money to fight wars that have nothing to do with the UK, whilst at the same time ignoring our pensioners, NHS and other 'home' issues, then I will listen to them.
Ken Thompson, UK

Confused. Therefore, I suggest they stop slagging each other off and get down to real efforts to make a better life for us all. Perhaps all the candidates would benefit from a so-called conclave? At least they would reach a decision within 24 hours without all this hassle, confusion and boredom.
Elizabeth, UK

I just saw Jeremy Paxman interviewing Tony Blair. Blair was squirming in his chair as he struggled to answer a single question with honesty and dignity. I would vote for Jeremy Paxman if he ever stood for Parliament.
Nick, UK

Why can't we have a televised debate the way they do in the USA? Is it because the party leaders are frightened witless at the prospect of having to answer questions in public instead of dishing out soundbites and platitudes? Why should we vote for these cowards?
John, London

I have been a Labour supporter for a long while, but as a protest vote against Tony Blair on a number of points, the main one, the war, I will be voting Lib Dem this time around. Hopefully the Labour Party will see sense and get rid of him as leader.
John Scott, Worksop Notts

I think the Tories are running an appalling campaign and have turned themselves into the political equivalent of a red top tabloid scare mongering campaign. They won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Keith Bridle, Tavistock, Devon

Instead of the farce of the current electoral process we should have a conclave where all the candidates are locked in the House of Commons until a government is decided. The only difference being they would probably never come to a decision, but then at least we don't have to listen to a pack of lies.
Jake, Cardiff, Wales

How can Tony Blair ask us to forget about the Iraq war and move on, when he is always talking about the history of Tory government? Can both parties stop talking about the past and tell us their current policies so that we can decide our vote?
Ramesh, Telord, England

I think the Conservatives have had the best campaign. They have focused on things that matter. Its the press, Labour and Lib Dems, who focus on immigration etc to try discredit them. The way Labour go… they think they are in opposition!
Mark , Notts

Time was when politicians had real discussions with voters. Now they read out soundbites in front of their own supporters. Apart from boring and alienating most of us, this means that the party leaders get a distorted idea of the public mood. They are the new royalty: adulation is laid on wherever they go.
Andrew Hawker, Birmingham

To me the most important issue is cracking down severely on rising crime and if the Conservatives will really deal with this and yob culture they'll get my vote.
Christine Stockley, Nailsworth

Since Thatcher's days Tory strategy has been to promise improvements while cutting taxes. They still seem to think we will fall for their dodgy maths. I am unimpressed by their policy to allow the better-off to take money from state schools and NHS to subsidise the private sector.
Malcolm James, Hereford

What short term memories the electorate have. Much of the ills of today stem from the privatisation policies of the last Tory government – which included Michael Howard. Privatisation of hospital cleaning is one such policy coming home to roost now. Why don't the media and the Tories stop trying to wreck the image of Tony Blair and concentrate on real issues? I think it is because they appreciate that despite the propaganda, people do trust Blair – because his party's policies have impacted on our lives over the last eight years.
Sandra Seldon, Devizes, Wiltshire

I detest the way the parties are going after the "grey vote". Pensioners are constantly paid more money, while young people are leaving university with thousands of pounds of debt. Young people also have to take out mortgages at five times their salary and contribute to private pensions as well as National Insurance. Then they are told that they are more able to pay council tax. Get real. If you want to get young people out to vote then give them some respect and stop treating them as a cash cow.
Ross, Warwickshire

The election is being fought over issues that I do not care about. Take asylum, for example. Who cares? It is not an important factor in my life and, in any case, it is more a case of bungling civil service bureaucracy than an issue of policy. Healthcare is more of the same. Any party should be able to give the public sector a boot up the backside as a matter of course: it should not require a manifesto.
William Payne, Rochester, Kent

Why don't the media ask more from politicians about the environment in the lead up to this election? I would have thought this was a crucial issue given the headlines we have had over the past year about global warming. Are we really not going to debate this until people are dying under our noses from the effects of climate change?
Philippa Smith, Brighton, England

I have found this whole election a complete turn off. All the parties' manifestos are big on words and thin on substance. Maybe manifestos should be binding in law, and then we won't get such wild promises. What we need is a radical reform of the political system in this country; more than reform of the NHS etc. A system that truly represents all people and encourages positive debate is what is needed.
Chris, England

My main observation of the campaign so far is that people are judging each party not on what they say, but on what the other parties claim they say. People should take the time to read the manifestos, listen to what the parties have to say and then make up their own minds.
Richard Atkins, Wortham

A lot of accusations have been made about making political capital out of people's fears. But it is just as dangerous to ignore a difficult issue.
N Worthington, Cardiff, Wales

Having spent eight years at university, eight years of not earning, why should I then be taxed for all my hard work when my earnings hopefully reach the higher bracket? People who work hard for a better future for themselves and their families should not be punished in this way. It makes me think why did I bother, especially as my education is of benefit to the members of the public who will one day rely upon medication.
Gayle, Manchester

Gayle, Manchester: remember you've spent eight years at university largely at the tax payers expense. The final clinical years of a medical degree cost in the region of £30-£40,000 a year. Your £1,000 a year fee (if you even had to pay it) doesn't come close to covering the cost. You've benefited greatly from our taxes, and our taxes will pay your salary as a doctor. We need medicine, but we also need road sweepers, policemen, solicitors and bus drivers. The only thing that makes you special is your unusually high earning potential which should be taxed the same as the rest of us.
Peter, Nottingham

The parties on the whole seem to be bereft of really good ideas. But what the voters do not need are smears and the Conservatives are not succeeding in making any impression at all. The forthcoming elections seem to be going Labour's way.
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

People are so concerned about hurting Tony Blair, it seems they have forgotten we are voting for the well being of the country. All Politicians mislead, even the saintly Lib Dems! You have to look beyond that to see who really will be best for the UK. I will be voting Labour because the memory of 18 years of hurt under the Tories outweighs eight years of half finished policies from Labour.
Barry, London

The thing that has disappointed me about this campaign is that many of the public won't vote in terms of policy. Many will vote based on media presentation and tactical voting. I urge the public to look at the details then make up their minds.
Adam C, England

Who can I vote for? I normally call myself a Liberal Democrat but this nonsensical notion of raising taxes ever more as sticking plaster for all the nation's ills just smacks of intellectual laziness and an absence of political courage. I am desperate to give Blair a bloody nose over Iraq, but this seems futile in a safe Labour seat. The Tories seem to make the right noises on crime, but upon closer inspection their policies seem superficial and opportunist. Where are the radicals and conviction politicians? Your country needs you.
Grahame Cullinan, Newcastle

I am already bored of the mud-slinging and constant bickering between parties. I want detailed and realistic policies. The vagueness of statements made in these campaigns is infuriating. Michael Howard's cleaner hospitals and more discipline in schools just sounds like they don't know how to tackle it to me. Let's change the law so that everything a politician commits to before an election they have to go through with.
Cat, Cambridge UK

I'm generally fed up of Labour's authoritarian policies, although the economy has been relatively successful (thanks to the Bank of England mainly). I want to vote for the Tories, as I am a firm believer in individual responsibility, as well as the fact they aren't amazingly pro-Europe. However, their immigration policies and attitudes to crime put me off, as I am socially liberal.
Nathan James, Liverpool

West Berkshire has an independent candidate (Barry Singleton) standing on a 'None of the Above' ticket for those disillusioned with party politics. Given the negative campaigning and lack of detail on any policies by the main parties he can currently count me among his supporters.
Chris, Thatcham, Berkshire

It's looking good for Blair, but only by default. I personally believe that he's barely competent and quite untrustworthy. However, Howard is a nasty opportunist who'll promise anything for a vote (and most of his real policies seem to be reversing the mistakes he made as Tory Home secretary). Charles Kennedy seems intent on bankrupting me to fund his policies. As for Kilroy, Galloway etc, the least said the better.
Peter, Nottingham

There doesn't seem to be a party that thinks like I do. All the coverage is about the three parties with the most support. I think the clear way forward is to have more parties and to give coverage to their policies. More often than not it's a case of choosing the lesser of three evils – it's not fair that some people feel they'd rather not vote.
Craig Mullins, London

Mr Howard has made a great play on integrity and lack of trust in Tony Blair. So far we have had a campaign based upon highly misleading use of anecdotal and statistical evidence. Howard has also raised fears where there were none. He seems to lack vision. This accusation we cannot level at Blair. His last four years can hardly be called an exercise in vote grabbing. He has courted unpopularity by sticking to his principles over Iraq and the remodelling public services.
Vince, Coventry

The campaign inevitably concentrates on crime, tax, schools and hospitals because almost every other area is covered by legislation dictated by the EU. All of the parties, apart from UKIP, have agreed not to mention this to the electorate. Less and less of UK law is now set by the politicians we are asked to elect. So why bother with the election at all when the unelected politicians of the EU are really the ones dictating the law in the UK?
Mike Wood, Ashford, Kent

The saddest legacy of the Blair administration will be the way that the face of British politics has been changed. As a result of New Labour's tactics of paying lips service to whatever the focus groups show to be topical, none of the parties can compete without pandering to the tabloid mentality themselves. While the electorate remain happy to be kept in the dark and fed on the proverbial, we are condemned to "character assassination" politics and "sound bite" governance.
SH, Nottingham

I am desperately looking for a reason to vote Conservative to give Tony Blair the slap across the face that is deserved after the Iraq debacle. But Mr Howard is simply giving me every excuse not to. Going on about yobs, immigration and intimating tax cuts just isn't enough. The core issues are the economy, health care and education. Mr Howard seems to offer no policies but simply scaremongering on immigration, MRSA, gypsies and other supposedly hot single issues. It really is a depressing choice for voters.
Andrew Walker, St Albans

I would like just one party to have positive policies designed to help people. All the parties seem to want to do is make restrictive laws and policies, until we all feel as if we live in government controlled cages, only there but for the grace of Mr Blair or Mr Howard or Mr Kennedy – who would all really prefer to lock us all up in a great big prison and control what we eat, drink, smoke and watch on TV. It may be 20 years late, but we seem to be in Orwellian world now.
Phil, London

I hate the way all the parties try dodgy tactics to undermine the other parties' campaigns. I'm sick of seeing leaflets and adverts saying how bad the "other side" are. How about, instead of bad mouthing each other, the parties try and tell us the positive things they want to introduce?
Louise, Durham

I love politics, but I have to say I have found this campaign a real turn-off. It is so negative. Can we please have some real debate about policies?
Adam, London, UK

Dismal and made even more so by an electoral system that looks set to hand the Labour Party yet another large majority on a 35% share of the vote on a turnout of about 70%. As a Tory living in a safe-ish Labour seat I feel unrepresented and the only tactical vote option I have is to vote for Respect, who are almost as uninspiring as this authoritarian left wing government.
Tom, London

What exactly is Labour's campaign? It seems to consist solely of inaccurately detailing the Tory campaign. Either that or he harps on about the past, a little odd given he oft states it is 'time to move on' from the Iraq war when pressed in PMQs.
Dave, Cheshire, UK

I have no children at home and earn above average earnings by working hard for a living. None of the parties are connecting with me in a positive way. I get the impression I will be worse off whoever gets in as they all plan to tax me more to buy off "pensioners and hard working families". If I'm not to be considered in their policies then I have no interest in voting for them.
Mark, Southport, UK

Which party is going to stop discriminating against single people? Why should I pay for other people's children's funds, or tax credits?
Wendy, Manchester, UK

A predictable start. I would like to see Labour talking a bit more about their own record over the last seven years rather than them talking about the history of the Tories. It is getting a bit boring now. Perhaps the Tories should concentrate on the record of the last Labour government of the 1970s. I'm still waiting for the big issues to come up: Iraq and the EU. Then the fun will begin. I predict Iraq in the last week of the campaign with some really bad news coming the way of Labour. I'm sure someone will have something to slip to the media. On the EU there will probably be a big falling out in the Tories. Perhaps all the parties are hoping to keep these issues quiet?
Kev, Cheshire

The Lib Dems locally are campaigning hard, about twenty were handing out leaflets in the high street last Saturday, as were the local Labour Party, all three of them! And the Tories are so popular that no one wants to deliver their leaflets, they are all sent out via the Royal Mail!! All our main party candidates have however united over one thing… they all condemned the BNP candidate for having racist views.
Ian, Maidenhead

As a first time voter, I have taken great interest in the election from all parties. I am still undecided however, I think my vote will go to the party who can beat Labour in my constituency. I believe it is wrong and undemocratic for a party to have such a huge majority in Parliament.
Kelvin Edwards, Birmingham

This campaign is serving to highlight the need for reform at Westminster. Whilst I recognise that residents in NE England have rejected the idea of a regional parliament is there not still a case for a devolved English parliament? As a resident of Scotland I have had to endure long debates about English public services. I thought this was supposed to be a UK election. When are the parties going to highlight/debate UK wide issues such as international policy?
Catherine , Dollar, Scotland

A better use of the campaign time would be to put all the party leaders in a 'crystal maze' style enclosure full of postal votes, switch on the fans, and see who can pick the most votes out of the air.
Franchesca Mullin, Belfast

What campaign? It seems fairly low key on a local level – the local party (Community Action) were out in Warrington on Saturday but the main parties seem to be notable by their absence.
Jonathan Miller, Lowton, Warrington

The Tories campaign makes me extremely worried. No good economic manifesto, scary immigration policies and not sure what scary things that the Tories will come up with. It merely helps us to decide that we will never vote for the Tories. In fact, we are more determined now to get more votes for Labour.
Christina Spybey, London, UK

I think the funniest image of the campaign has to be the Lib Dems' press conference when Charles Kennedy could not explain how the local income tax would work!
Dameon Brown, Halifax, Yorkshire

I feel like a bystander in this election. I live in a safe Conservative seat and so feel that however I vote, it won't affect the result one iota. Furthermore I can't believe anything the parties are promising – especially Labour who are making a big deal about a £35bn cut in public spending which is clearly nothing of the sort. In short, the campaigning leaves me utterly cold and just wishing for a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper.
Ian, UK

For the first time ever, I am so dead cynical about the parties that I don't want to vote for any of them. Labour have ripped us off straight for eight years with little to show (the economy is driven by external forces not by the Government); the Conservatives are led by a man whose past track record is the opposite of what he is now promising; the Lib Dems will have you all riding bicycles and eating couscous. What I really liked was the Looney's idea of a 99p coin so that shops won't have to give change!
David Ball, Wokingham, UK

Typically childish behaviour on all counts. If you believe what they all say about their opposition and opposition manifestos one can only deduce they are all liars and crooks. Not that we'd expect anything less from our prospective leaders.
Tim Walker, London

Class discipline still a concern

Too much low-level indiscipline in Scottish classrooms is preventing pupils from learning, according to the top schools inspector.

The senior chief inspector of education said there was room for improvement in the country's discipline policy.

Graham Donaldson found about one in 12 secondary schools and one in 30 primary schools had weaknesses in behaviour.

He made the comments as part of his review of the Scottish Executive's disciplinary policy.

Mr Donaldson's report looked at the progress of the official Better Behaviour, Better Learning initiative developed by Jack McConnell in 2001 when he was education minister.

The plan was intended to encourage better behaviour and better learning across the country's schools.

However, research conducted by Edinburgh University has revealed more than a third of secondary staff and half of all primary staff had never even heard of the campaign.

Mr Donaldson's independent Inspectorate of Education review outlines how schools and education authorities have implemented the Scottish Executive's disciplinary action plan.

He launched A Climate for Learning: A Review of the implementation of The Better Behaviour, Better Learning report during his visit to Trinity Academy in Edinburgh on Wednesday.

Mr Donaldson described how many schools and authorities were implementing the policy with evidence of positive change across the country but added that discipline is still an issue for staff, pupils and local authorities.

He said: "In too many schools low-level disruptive behaviour is a significant problem that prevents children from learning as much as they could.

"Very challenging behaviour from a few pupils also continues to cause concern.

Working together

"It is not down to teachers alone to deal with discipline. At an individual and organisational level we all have a role to play.

"Parents, school management and children's support and care services must all work together to ensure that our children get the most from their education.

"I hope by highlighting good practice, and identifying those areas where improvements can still be made, schools and authorities can achieve further significant progress in the coming years."

Evidence for the inspectorate's report was gathered over a two-year period from routine inspections, with the views of teachers and local councils were also sought.

A similar survey last year found most headteachers reported that much misbehaviour took place outside the classroom, both at lunch and break times.

In a typical day, most teachers would experience low-level indiscipline – but by the end of a working week, some teachers will have suffered verbal abuse and "a very small minority" may have experienced some physical aggression, last year's survey said.

Former assistant rector at Perth Academy, George MacMillan, said the lack of a suitable sanction is central to the problem.

He told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: "All the methods of punishment they've substituted for corporal punishment since it was abolished have been unsuitable, too time-consuming and more of a punishment for the teacher than for the pupil.

"What we applied was zero-tolerance, we refused to accept any kind of misbehaviour."

Ronnie Smith, general secretary of education union the EIS, said one problem was the time and resources needed to retain problem pupils in mainstream education.

He said: "We need to bring a variety of professionals in to assist and make their contribution to make it possible for some very challenged youngsters to behave adequately and that's high cost.

"There has to be a commitment not only to the introduction of mainstreaming, but the maintenance of it."

Mr Smith said it was vital to keep all options open, instead of adopting an "orthodoxy" of only mainstreaming or only excluding pupils.

Exclusion figures

Brian Cooklin of the Headteachers' Association of Scotland said the policy would still take time to work.

He said: "We're talking about a policy recently introduced, although it was announced three years ago, more recently it has received funding but it doesn't operate in the same way right across the country.

"It would be wrong to suggest that if we just did one thing we would get rid of indiscipline – it's going to take time and it's going to take co-operation."

And local government body Cosla said the study would prove useful in identifying a way forward.

Cosla said it recognised the need for improvements but also stressed the good work and practice existing in schools throughout the country.

The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association said it was "a significant under-assessment" to say that a third of secondary teachers thought indiscipline was a problem.

General secretary David Eaglesham said: "Our own surveys have indicated a level of over 80% in recent years."

Tory education spokesman Lord James Douglas Hamilton said the executive should admit that there was a "discipline crisis" in schools.

"The executive has stuck its head in the sand and thinks that by ignoring the figures the problem will go away," he said.

Scottish National Party education spokeswoman Fiona Hyslop said: "The executive have once again failed to produce their annual statistics on indiscipline in schools.

"Peter Peacock (education minister) can run but he can't hide from his record forever."

But Mr Peacock said: "Tackling indiscipline in Scotland's classrooms is a top priority for me and this report shows good progress is being made.

"It also clearly shows that our schools are not chaotic battlegrounds as some would have us believe."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Begging for more than small change

VIEWPOINT
Tom Crompton

Small changes to the way we live our lives are not enough to tackle the environmental challenges facing the planet, argues Tom Crompton. In this week's Green Room, he says the stark reality is that the only option is to cut the unsustainable consumption of the Earth's finite resources.

Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on their laurels

Almost daily, it seems, scientists' prognoses about the state of our planet grow evermore dire.

Take climate change, for example. Just last week, a new study suggested that sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half metres by the end of this century, with catastrophic impacts for low-lying countries.

This is more than three times as high as the most pessimistic projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yet some climatologists are suggesting that even this is a huge under-estimate of the likely extent of sea level rise.

In the face of mounting evidence of profound environmental challenges, the insistence that we can tackle these by embracing a few simple and painless changes – switching to low-energy light bulbs or buying a hybrid car – feels increasingly unrealistic.

'Simple and painless'

This is leading to heated debate among environmental organisations about the best response; a debate that WWF believes should be opened up to a wider audience.

Some measures make us feel better but do they make a difference?

Most approaches to encourage behavioural change rely on techniques borrowed from the marketing industry, such as "selling" these changes by linking them to a desirable product.

Those who practise these approaches often insist that, having made simple changes in their purchasing habitats, people will be led up a "virtuous ladder" towards ever more significant behavioural choices.

Marketing approaches may well work for promoting specific changes, where these are small and painless, and where they are the focus of a targeted campaign.

Unfortunately, as a response to problems of the scale that confront us, it seems that they are shot full of holes.

Of course, it's helpful for people to switch to energy-efficient light bulbs, or turn their central heating down; cumulatively, such changes will have a beneficial impact.

However, these sorts of campaigns may well be a poor use of scant communication resources, and may even serve to undermine prospects for generating the more fundamental changes that are needed.

There is little evidence to show that using such an approach increases the probability of people embarking upon more effective – and more difficult – changes.

In fact, some research shows that, for a significant number of people, the opposite is true. Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on their laurels and be less likely to engage in other more significant changes.

If I save money by repairing my old car rather than buying a new one, I could spend the savings on cheap flights abroad

But there's also another, more fundamental limitation on the usefulness of marketing approaches to creating behavioural change.

Environmental problems can often be traced to our appetite for "stuff", items that demand resources and energy in their manufacture, sale, use and disposal.

The problem is that we seem to have an in-built tendency not just to consume a lot of things, but to consume ever more things.

As a result, "green consumption" can only get us so far. I may buy this year's top-of-the-range hybrid car, only to want to replace it for a newer model next year, and the year after that.

It doesn't necessarily help if I'm encouraged that the best thing to do is to keep my car until it eventually falls apart.

If I save money by repairing my old car rather than buying a new one, I could spend the savings on cheap flights abroad. The net environmental impact will probably be negative.

Even selling my vehicle and joining a car-share scheme may backfire in this way, unless I am careful about how I spend the money that I've saved.

Less is more

As long as campaigns to encourage us to change our behaviour are based on appeals to self-interest or financial incentive, they will be fraught with difficulties.

Endless sales and bargains could be costing the Earth

We need a different approach to motivating people to change; one which stems from a re-examination of the values upon which this change is built.

Studies find that people who engage in behaviour in pursuit of "intrinsic" goals – such as personal growth, community involvement, or a sense of connection with nature – tend to be more highly motivated and more likely to engage in environmentally friendly behaviour than individuals who are motivated by "extrinsic" goals – that is, financial success, image and the acquisition of material goods.

This seems to be the case particularly for more difficult behaviours – those that require greater effort or entail more inconvenience.

There is a lot that governments can do to make environmentally friendly choices easier. But many of these things will cost taxpayers money, and governments will be reluctant to embark on these things without pressure from their electorates.

As in the case of individual behaviour change, if this pressure is to emerge, the values underlying this change in electoral demand will be critically important.

Bringing intrinsic values to the fore in public debate is not going to be easy. So we need to start trying to do so right away.

Environmental organisations might start by unequivocally reflecting the intrinsic values that underpin the environment movement itself.

They should also work with leading businesses and forward-thinking political leaders to think beyond the opportunities offered by green consumerism; preparing for a world where we will inevitably need to consume not just differently, but less.

Environmental organisations can then help to embolden business and political leaders to begin to inject public debate with values that move far beyond self-interest and materialism.

To attempt less is increasingly looking like burying our heads in the sand.

Dr Tom Crompton is a change strategist for conservation charity WWF-UK

WWF's new report Weathercocks and Signposts: The Environment Movement at a Cross Roads can be downloaded from the WWF website

The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with Dr Tom Crompton? Do we need to reduce the amount we consume? Is the problem facing us too big just to be solved by small behavioural changes? Or does every little help when it comes to saving the planet?

About time people started focusing on excessive and unnecessary consumption. Do we need a new wardrobe every time the fasion industry dictates when our wardrobes have perfectly good clothes still in them. Do we need a new mobile phone wehn the old one is still in perfect order. Do we need 2, three TVs in the house? Do we need more and more flights?
MP, London

We have to admit that we are greedy and wasteful. They are many things we can do small and big to improve median (not average) quality of life for all human. House : Part of USA I am living 4 bedroom house is a norm (2400+ sq ft). I still believe 3 bedroom (1500 sq ft) is good enough for family of 4 (please retrict your family size to 4 for better sustaince of world in days to come). Food : Do not buy the food you do not need. Avoid buy food travelled long distance (I am culpable for not strictly follwoing this). Dress: You do not have to dress to kill. You do not need 50 pairs of shoes (do you?). Government also along with businesses also have to cut down execessive greed. There is not public transport around my neiborhood that can be relied upon. We commute 100 miles everyday for our job. With a good, reliable transport we never need a second car. Or does our govenment want all of us to move to NYC or other big cities, where you have good public transport.
NS, West Chester, OH, expat India

While I agree with the thrust of the article, Crompton's distinction between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" goals is not valid. Both environment-friendly and non-enviroment-friendly behaviours can have both intrinsic (I feel good) and extrinsic (other people think I'm great) rewards. Ultimately ALL our behaviour can be explained by "selfish" drives (seeking to feel good) – including altruistic and environmental action, and "spiritual growth" activities. Crompton doesn't mention overpopulation, which is the basic problem. No species lives "sustainably" once it gets too successful – humanity isn't uniquely bad, just uniquely successful! "Sustainability" is mostly a question of appropriate population level. Behaviour modification can help a bit, but not much.
Phil, Bradford

"Almost daily, it seems, scientists' prognoses about the state of our planet grow evermore dire" And none of it based on anything as substantial as evidence, of course. Like many other people, I've lost interest in these plainly exaggerated claims, as I know full well that NONE of the data supports the discredited climate models on which the alarmists rely. It's been a stupid and unscientific approach that has now become counter productive.
Jon Anderson, Guildford

So, environmentalists need to work with business leaders and politicians to persuade us to consume less and to encourage us to put pressure on governments so that they will make environmentally choices easier – if more expensive – for us. Sounds like chicken and egg to me. Governments won't move unless they get pressurised by the people. People won't act unless the government insists that they do. The trouble is that we are all hooked into the more growth, more consumption, more profit way of life – and damn the social and environmental consequences. If we actually started consuming less (perhaps because we realised we had enough, heaven forbid!) business leaders and governments would wet themselves and would cut interest rates to get 'the economy' going again.
Peter Jenner, OTLEY, West Yorkshire.

Using less resources per person, while admirable, will only work in the very short term, in the face of a rapidly increasing global population. We need fewer people. which is an uncomfortable thought, I know, but that doesn't stop it from being true. We have to have fewer children. Else we will expand till we have outstripped our resouces, like yeast in a jar. And nature will reduce our numbers for us.
Ruth, London

The basic nature of man is to want enough and then to want more. Until we stop this unstoppable instinct we will not succeed in our efforts to reverse the damage to the planet. No government will stay in power by suggesting or imposing effective limits to our greed. Only a totalitarian global ruling power could possible succeed in doing this, something which, I fear, is not achievable. My partner and I were reduced to tears at the end of the film "I Robot", when the computer that had nearly achieved global domination explained that it had taken over to save mankind from itself. 'Nuff said.
richard hunt, Southampton

I totally agree with 'Red' of Maidstone that we've got to stop talking about "Saving the Planet"! This makes it seem as though we've got a choice: either doing the 'noble thing' (ie. 'saving the planet') or the 'selfish thing' (carrying on as we are doing). In fact our selfish behaviour is putting the human race at risk and if we don't change our species will render itself extinct – that's the real choice! After we've gone the planet will, after a few million years, repair itself – as it has done before.
David Bishop, Manchester

I agree with Crompton, but even radical changes will not fix this problem for humanity, not at our present rate. The small changes we make now will only sooth individual consciousness. I'm inclined to agree with Red in Maidstone and I'm bracing myself. The saddest part of this whole situation is that it seems the most destitute of our global population will endure the worst suffering in the future.
Doug, Budoia, Italy

I think there are some valid arguments made here but there are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed first. Both DEFRA and MORI have, in the past year, come up with similar findings – the vast majority of the population actually do have an environmental conscience but do not know what to do about it. They are finding the available information too confusing. Until we have some consensus about the issue then this reluctance to take action amongst the bulk of the population will continue. No matter what hypotheses are proffered at what changes behaviour at an individual level it is at a macro level that we first need consensus.
Leo Pruneau, Dorset

The official line from the WWF tends to be more hard-core, and while the argument may be based on sound principles, it will not resonate with the majority of the population. I believe a phased approach based on incentives can work, but government will have to get involved. In addition, we have to look at both short-term as well as long-term solutions. The long term is making our children aware of the problem and get them engaged in the educational system. The short-term is to force businesses to be more accountable, such as switching off lights at night. The small steps will make a difference, but we have to start now and there has to be a clearer, more consistent message that everybody understands and buys into.
Christopher Bristow, London

I agree. And governments should make green values more visible. Meny people do not know how to act more green. For example, I was surprised to hear that throwing foodwaste to drywaste will be more farmfull to environment than using a pivate car. And there must be meny more things that common people do not know.
Teemu, Tampere, Finland

The article raises an interesting point about what saved money is spent on. Perhaps the least environmentally costly products are those that require nothing more than human effort and time. Implying that the more expenditure on high quality handmade goods/art, service, live entertainment, learning, etc. the better.
Pete, Exeter

I follow Ged's line of thinking. There are two aspects at play here, one is population growth the other is per capita resource demand. You can't fix the problem without adressing both issues. A "one child" policy looks distinctly attractive.
Colin Hamp, Marlborough, Wiltshire.

I agree on the whole with this article – we do need to make significant changes to our lifestyles. But how? I'm quite willing to give up driving to work every day for example – I hate it, but if I want a job that will pay my mortgage etc I have to drive to work every day. The actions we take now will not bother our planet one way or the other. It will continue to exist and support life. The problem is that life will become extremely difficult for humanity as we attempt to adjust to new coastlines, changing climate etc. Where will all of the refugees who currently live in low lying countries go? How will they integrate with their new neighbours. What will we all eat when crop yields continue to fall due to adverse weather? We are able to produce enough food on this planet for it's current population because of our farming techniques, but these are still largely at the mercy of local weather conditions.
Matt, Plymouth

I've been arguing for years that Government policy in this area is mis-guided. They've tried to palm off any responsibility to change behaviour onto the public by concentrating on such distractions at carrier bags and alternate bin collections, whilst avoiding making big business take on its responsibility. It seems absurd that luxury car makers are allowed to sell environmentally damaging vehicles whilst people are being fined and given a criminal record for not shutting their bin lid properly.
Jon, Nottingham

I agree with the comment that too much effort is being focussed on getting individuals to make the smaller efforts – they can help, but alone, they won't be enough. We need more done by buiness and governments. For example, my office leaves the lights on overnight burning more electricity in one night than I do in a year – why should I save if they don't? Big cultural decisions need to be made too – the biggest one is that no-one should have more than one child until our population is sustainable.
Nic Brough, London, UK

I agree with Tom's article, we need to focus on consuming less. The problem is that you don't realise that the pursuit of material gain is not fulfilling until you stop it and start doing more with your life. I hope more people can discover this, we'd all be happier.
Chris, Leeds

What we need is a new concept to create a level global playing field – the "World Edict", with every country that doesn't comply being ostracised in trading terms. The first 2 edicts should be 1) That within 3 years, all new private motor vehicles should be able to travel 60 miles on a gallon of fuel. 2) Within 2 years, all packaging must be 100% recyclable.
Colin Bell, Cockermouth, England

We absolutely need to reduce the amount the we consume in the interests of future sustainability. Even if population growth were to halt overnight, there are still serious consequences to our everyday actions that cannot continue long term. The problem then lies in convincing people that we can be just as happy when consuming less. We only have one life to live, so why shouldn't we take advantage of all the opportunities to enjoy it? The advertising industry has tentacles into every facet of modern existence and persuasively suggests that our lives would be inconsequential without the purchase of said product. We still base social prominence on the amount or expense of goods someone has rather than their contributions to society. Even our busy modern lifestyle encourages us to consume more disposable products rather than recycling and re-using. The problem facing us is simply too big to rely on people making small voluntary behavioral changes. What we need is long term s! ocial change accomplished by a clever mixture of legislation, education, and personal responsibility.
Anonymous, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Stop major shop trading on sunday, save for garages and small local shops. Ensure all lights are turned off when business' close. There is a "Powerhouse" in Chester which has been closed for 2-3 years, all that time the huge sign has been lit day and night! Why?. Or I walked past an estate agents in Chester at 6.30pm, it was closed, but all the the internal lights were on, showing nothing but desks and chairs to passers by? Do we really need 24 hour shopping? Did fine without it most of our lives! We can do our bit, but government(especially local) and business need to be the main instigators of change.
Gareth Symons, Mancot Wales

Small changes can add up a big effect if someone chooses to make these changes to every aspect of there life. However as many people simply can't be bothered to make even the simplest changes, let alone anything that might actually cost money or cause inconvenience it seems a change of approach will be needed. As unpleasant as it sounds some pretty draconian measures are likely to be needed in our lifetimes to make a real effect. Otherwise these changes will end up being forced upon us, probably by famine and war and possibly by extinction (ours this time).
Jon, Cambridge

Absolutely agree. No 'small' changes will make sufficient impact. We need to think and buy locally, necessities rather than luxuries, and teenage (and parents) peer pressure to 'keep up with the Jones' needs to be changed (how, I don't know). Perhaps a shortage of oil for transport will force people to grow their own food, and farmers be able to charge more realistic prices to people who shop on their doorstep.
Pam Lukeman, Rockchapel, County Cork, Republic of Ireland

What constitutes the elusive abstract noun "sustainability"? Chimpanzees in the wild are probably living sustainable lives but humans seem driven by their genes to consume, acquire, despoil and discard. It is hardly surprising. Our genes have given us a unique ability to imagine possible futures and the ability to make them happen, in a way that no other species can. Our primal strivings for food, warmth, comfort and procreation have encouraged a default behaviour which has mutated into capitalism – a philosophy of human society predicated on the assumption that things will get better and better as we all get wealthier and wealthier. But the stuff of capitalism – the wealth that it holds so dear – is just that; stuff. And there is only a finite amount of stuff to go round. What matters is how much of that stuff is used by any one individual, how much is available for the community of humankind as a whole – and how much is off-limits for our purposes, better left to other species – with our only involvement as observers, guardians and conservators.
Jonny Holt, Buntingford, UK

A really good article. Common sense from an umlikely source. Resource intensity in modern lifestyles is more important than CO2. Similarly people will need to change their lifestyles very quickly as energy (electricity, gas and petrol)become expensive. These have been very cheap for so long that people no longer value them, so make no effort to conserve them. Once energy costs go up people will struggle to meet those costs; energy (and resource) poverty will be a real issue.
Dr.M.W.Pharaoh, Cov. UK

I agree. And the solution is not to use biofuels. If this food crisis follows through over here we're going to need the space to grow our own food, and we don't have space to support the 60 million inhabitants we have. I have to say I agree with Lovelock – open the nuclear power stations. We have to make drastic changes. The earth is being continually degraded. The glaciers and still melting; the rainforest is still being destroyed; 4×4s are still being sold; airports are still being built. There is absolutely no desire amongst the majority to change their way of life and until something drastic happens, I don't foresee any change happening. Kyoto was 10 years ago. Show me something effective it has resulted in.
Midas, Oxford

Too much talk. The only way we can get out of this mess is to reduce the population. As a starting point we should be looking at fifty percent. If we don't do it ourselves, it will be done for us. That will be very painful indeed.
Ged Haywood, Alfreton, England.

I would have thought that in the current climate any money saved goes onto paying off the mortgage… and once that's paid off, saving for retirement/nursing in old age.
Nadine Hengen, Luxembourg

What's the best way to reduce consumption of goods and energy, reduce waste for landfill, reduce pollution, reduce traffic congestion, etc.? Simple, really: Reduce the population. Every country should have a maximum limit of two children per family. True, that will result in steady growth of the population, but nothing like the growth we'd suffer from if we all followed the example of green hypocrites like Blair.
Robert, Slough

Save the planet? Seriously? Stop being so arrogant. The planet will be fine. Humans may be in trouble, but the planet isn't. It's a selfish desire yo save your home, so stop pretending to working towards something noble. Add to that the fact that 500 years ago it was so hot they were growing grapes in Scotland, and 30 years ago everyone was terrified about the impending ice age, and you might see that climate change is normal. You'd think that science and history would have quietened the voices that through history have always proclaimed "The end is nigh!"
Red, Maidstone

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Bookmark with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these? <!– var bm = new BookMark({site:'News',storyid:7359018,sectionid:45309,url:'/2/hi/science/nature/7359018.stm',edition:'International'}); //–> BBC.adverts.write("mpu");BBC.adverts.show("mpu");
THE GREEN ROOM
A series of thought-provoking environmental opinion pieces

Thursday, 6 March, 2008

• Newsnight
• 6 Mar 08, 05:51 PM

British, White and Working Class
Tonight a Newsnight Special ahead of tomorrow's launch of BBC Two's White Season, a series of programmes exploring the white working class experiences of 21st Century Britain.
We have a specially commissioned poll from the polling organisation Populus to gauge white working class attitudes across a range of issues including the vexed subject of immigration. We'll debate the polls findings in the studio with among others the Culture Minister Margaret Hodge, the Talk Sport presenter Jon Gaunt, the RMT union leader Bob Crow and Shaun Bailey a youth worker and prospective Tory parliamentary candidate. We'll also be speaking to the BNP leader Nick Griffin.
Read Jackie Long's article here.

Seroxat – GlaxoSmithKline Accused
Also in the programme tonight a Government review has strongly criticised the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline for not passing on crucial information to regulators about a link between the anti depressant Seroxat and suicidal tendencies in young people. The BBC reporter Shelley Joffre who first broke the story of the problems with Seroxat for Panorama, revisits the controversy and asks what if anything the Government can do.

Gaza Crisis
Our Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban has just been inside Gaza and we'll ask him about the humanitarian impact of the sanctions there and the attempts by Egypt to broker a truce between the Palestinian militants and Israel.
See you later Kirsty

CBBC Newsround | Specials | Christmas | Facts: Santa

The modern Father Christmas is based on loads of different people.

One of the most important was a Turkish bishop called St Nicholas who lived around 280AD, and was especially kind to children.

He became so popular that nuns decided to honour him by giving gifts on St Nicholas's Day, on 6 December.

By the 12th century, lots of Europeans were doing this, so it was decided to join St Nicholas's Day with Christmas Day.

Around the world

Different countries have other ideas about Father Christmas.

French children call him Pere Noel, and the Dutch refer to him as an elf called Sinta Klaas or Kris Kringle, who drops down chimneys. Some believe Santa arrives on Christmas Eve, others on Christmas Day.

Another important figure was Wodin, a Norse who lived in the icy North. He rode from roof to roof on a white stag.

From this, Santa and his reindeer developed. Many people think he lived in the North Pole, Greenland or Finland.

BBC World Service | World Update with Dan Damon | Happy Holiday

Happy Holiday

It's a bit like a holiday not getting up before 5am, as I usually do.

I'm working on a special project today which means a 9.30am start! Woohoo…

But I feel your pain. I know that more and more Americans are getting up at 5am or earlier. The Wall Street Journal says more people need to get up earlier to get ahead of the curve, to get work done without distractions, or to beat the traffic.

If that means you are a new listener to World Update, welcome!

Or maybe you found this blog before you found the radio programme.

We provide an early morning briefing of news that's broken overnight, and analysis of the issues that matter.

We cover global stories more than US, although if a US story has global impact, that's on our list.

And we talk to those who can explain the complexities of the news events that matter to the security, prosperity and liveability of our world.

You'll find us on NPR stations in many towns and cities. An Internet search for BBC World Update will find us.

And you can listen to the programme on our website, too.

And I hope you find, like me (who once used to present late night programmes) that in the early morning, our cities are kinder and more interesting.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Exclusive Gibbs interview

Monday, 13 January, 2003, 05:56 GMT Exclusive Gibbs interview
Maurice Gibb (left) with his brothers
The brothers of Bee Gee Maurice Gibb say they want answers from the hospital in Miami where he was being treated and where he died.

The hospital has declined to comment but in an exclusive interview with the BBC, Robin and Barry Gibb said it's highly questionable that doctors should have operated on him while he was in shock from having a heart attack.

The brothers also paid tribute to Maurice. They described him as "one of the world's greatest recording artists" who, though gifted, was "just an average guy".

• Less than 24 hours after the death of their brother, Barry and Robin Gibb met the BBC's Fergal Parkinson in Miami to talk about Maurice. During the exclusive and emotional interview they paid tribute to their brother. But they also questioned the treatment he was given by the hospital, which is declining to comment.

• Breakfast also heard from DJ David Jensen and and Blue Weaver, who played keyboard for the band during the seventies and eighties.

  Tributes have poured in to the BBC for Bee Gee Maurice Gibb, after the pop star died in Miami at the age of 53 from a heart attack.

  Condolences arrived by e-mail to BBC News Online at the rate of more than five-a-minute from Bee Gees fans around the world.

  More than 1000 had arrived by Sunday afternoon.

  Fans expressed their sadness at the singer's death.

  One fan from the US, Diana Embry, said: "He will truly be missed but his music and memory will be in our hearts forever."

  Another, from Em in the UK said: "Thanks for giving me the fever every Saturday night! You'll be missed greatly."

  Click here for more tributes

  Maurice Gibb had been poorly since Friday afternoon, after he had suffered a heart attack while undergoing surgery for a blocked intestine in a Miami hospital.

  The singer's death came as a shock to his friends and family.

  His twin brother Robin had flown from the UK to be at his bedside.

  More tributes are expected to be paid over the coming days from the music world.

  His death is the second tragedy to hit the musical Gibb family.

  The Bee Gees' younger brother Andy, a star in his own right, died in 1988 after battling cocaine addiction.

Internet links:

Bee Gees official site
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites