Goldie - Stop Esso - Fri @ TBMC

by Alicia - (1 of the Critical Mass) Tue Jul 22, 2003 13:06

OK stopping Esso/ExxonMobil is a good cause - but you have to present an alternative for people to use also. By just campaigning to Stop Esso, are you legitimising buying petrol from BP, Shell, Statoil, or even TOP Oil? Its not an accusation, its just a question...

The Stop Esso campaign is good - but it should cut a deeper swathe. It should be a Stop Cars campaign. The problem generally isnt Esso - its ALL petrol manufacturers and distributors. They are all scum. Cars are destroying the world; it doesnt really matter what petrol gets put in the tank.

Cars are part of the auto-eroticism of the advertising/capitalist hydra. They cost a fortune, both to the person who buys them and to the earth. What happens when they start selling cars to China and India? An extra 30% more cars on the planet? Open up the windows and I'm breathing in petrol.

And as for the likes of MIJAG.. that's another day's debate. Or is it?

by jinxed Tue Jul 22, 2003 13:16

are there tickets left?

by Lola Tue Jul 22, 2003 13:35

Sounds like a positive idea for Friday night shenanigans alright and I’m hoping to be there.
A suggestion though, maybe a little short notice but rather than the night focusing primarily on what’s wrong with the world why not (as Alicia suggested) try to incorporate an alternative:
PROBLEM + ANSWER = EQUALIBRIUM
Maybe have representative’s of Hydro electric power plants or Wind farms (air-tricity etc) there to provide information; leaflets, internet links etc. A couple of cyclists from the critical mass crew and perhaps even details on how to create better public transport.
Again this is short notice I know.. maybe to keep in mind for future multi-media & multi agenda gigs?

by another Critical Masser Tue Jul 22, 2003 13:58

Dublin Critical Mass is on this Friday. Meeting up at the Garden of Remembrance at Parnell Square at 6pm.

Maybe someone from the Stop Esso gig could come along to it? Or maybe we could hook up beforehand, and organise to give some info out at your gig?

Post up here if you are interested.

by Spitfire Mk III Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:11

Alicia,
a world without cars would be great, but we'd still have buses / trains which burn dirty fossil fuels.

There will be petrol cars on our roads for the forseeable future (whether you or I like it or not), so trying to get the petrol companies to clean up their act is a worthwhile exercise.

In the long term we need less cars and more alternate forms of transport with better / cleaner / safer fuels.

As for MIJAG, insurance costs in this country are a total ripoff, small business are closing due to obscene employer & public liability insurance costs. Many people need cars to do their jobs, they should expect to be able to obtain insurance for their cars at a reasonable rate (yes even young male drivers).

MIJAG are campaigning for fair insurance costs for all (but particularly young drivers, who are being ripped off the most). I support them in their efforts. (just as I would support any consumer group campaigning for fairer prices)

jinxed,
http://www.ticketmaster.ie/cgi/asp_events/byid.asp?event_id=180036d7cc922ff2&category=CONCERTS

or TBMC 01 6709202

P.S. Critical Mass looks like great fun, one of these days will have to borrow / steal a bike just to take part!

by pat c Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:12

mijag is todays debate as well!

even the name is designed to appeal to the boyracers. young males are responsible for most road accidents and deaths. they should pay higher premiums.

why should female drivers who act responsibly have to sudsidise the boyracers?

thats what mijag wants. no spin please, mijag wants to stop insurance companies from charging young males extra.

now of course, some trot is going to accuse me of supporting the insurance companies, just wait for it.

by Spitfire Mk III Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:46

Not even MIJAG are saying that boyracers should pay the same insurance rates as mature drivers.

Young drivers cost nearly twice as much as older drivers in claims costs.

They should pay higher premiums, but not nearly 5 times the average premium which they currently pay!

Most insurance companies will not even quote for young drivers (or older drivers with little or no no claims history) This is a total scandal and allows the few who do quote to operate a cosy cartel arrangement.

Nearly half of all insurance premiums go to legal and administration costs. The government is unwilling to seriously tackle this issue due to the vested interests involved.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Details contained in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) Working Group Report on Personal Injury Compensation just released graphically illustrates the extent to which the Irish motorist are being ripped off for car insurance. "Less than half of the money collected in premiums actually find its way back to injured parties. The rest is eaten up by the insurance companies in administration charges, legal costs and other "experts" who are making a tidy living of the backs of people misery" said Mick Murphy the National Organiser of MIJAG, the Motor Insurance Justice Action Group.

Highest Insurance in the World
The report shows that in the case of the majority of claims, those under £15,000 that two thirds (64%) of the cost of these claims is taken by the various professionals and experts and in larger claims just under half (47%) is eaten up in this way. The norm throughout Europe is 10% and in Sweden it runs as low as 2%. In Sweden the vast majority of cases are settled following one written submission to a Government Board. The report shows that motorists in Ireland pay more for insurance than anywhere else in the world. Relative to earnings we pay 4 times more than Swedish drivers. "The report recommends the setting up of a Personal Injury Assessment Board similar to the system used in Sweden, which MIJAG would welcome" said Mr Murphy. "However the Swedish system is in existence since 1936 and grew up with the car. The same system here would have to prove itself before people will move away from using the courts and would need to be kept simple like the Swedish system" Mr Murphy added.

"The situation for young drivers has no close comparison anywhere else in the world. All New Zealand drivers pay £40 per year extra for car tax and 2% on the cost of a gallon of petrol to cover the cost of Insurance. Young men in Ireland are being asked to pay over £4,000 and most simply do not pay and do not drive cars. The Government must introduce a scheme here for young drivers. They should be charged the average premium of £480 and until they have proven safety related driving offences that should not change". Mr Murphy said.

"The one thing that is very clear from the report is the system in any one of the many other countries studied would be a big improvement on the system here with the Swedish, Quebec or New Zealand models being far superior in every way. If the Government is serious about tackling this issue it has no shortage of options to choose from" Mr Murphy added.


The DETE Report is available at the Department web site http://www.entemp.ie/publications.htm. The Report is also available from the Department at 01-6312724.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Irish Insurance Federation says the relative claims cost for young drivers (17 to 24) are less than twice what they are for the 36 to 40 age group. (Source: Irish Insurance Federation Factfile, 1998)

42% of insurance premium is spent on legal and administration costs in Ireland. Across Europe the average is 10%. In Sweden where very few cases go to the courts, it costs 2%. ( Source: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) Working Group Report on Personal Injury Compensation )

Irish People pay a higher percentage of their earnings on motor insurance than any other country in the world. On top of that young drivers in Ireland pay 4.8 times the average insurance premium paid here. (Source :- DETE Report page 19 and MIJAG e-mail research of its supporters).

Only three motor insurance companies based in Ireland will insure young drivers (Usually under 27) (Source: MIJAG )

by pat c Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:56

things to campaign about or worry about. i dont stay awake at night thinking - oh dear some poor boyracer is off the road because he cant afford the insurance premium.

anything that makes life more difficult for the boyracers makes me sleep easier at night.

the very name - MIJAG - is offensive. it reeks of speed.

by critic Tue Jul 22, 2003 14:57

Fair play I wish all every sucess in the campaign but did you have to invite that wanker Goldie? He portrays himself as a gangsta and has bought into that idiotic bullshit that has brought misery to people living in inner city gettos. BTW, I saw him being interviewed on the subject of legalising drugs with Ben Elton. Elton (another wanker) was arguing for the legalising of drugs and the best Gouldie could respond was to argue for more community police as an alternative. Maybe there is a vested interest that he isnt declaring?

by Cleaver Tue Jul 22, 2003 15:16

Since the turnout for last months Critical Mass was pretty small (only about 20-30 riders) I'd urge everyone to come out and support it this month.
Since all you indymedia heads have been sitting indoors bringing down the WEF, slagging off fringe leftwing groups, not so fringe not so leftwing groups and each other. Its time to get outside, get some fresh air & exercise.
(Who knows you might even have fun)

Garden of Rememebrance Parnell Sq 6pm Friday.
Everyone welcome (even Joe 'I beat the WEF single handed Carolan)

by Bela - NEAR fm Tue Jul 22, 2003 15:39 john.reilly4 at mail dot dcu dot ie 0878266281

I would like to promote the event at the TBMC this Friday, i present a programme on development issues from a community radio station at 4:30pm Thursdays and would like to speak to someone connected with "StopEsso"; any ideas?

by pat c Tue Jul 22, 2003 15:57

heres another comment from a MIJAG fan. he says MIJAG wants to get rid of "age discrimination". so who is correct? do MIJAG want the boyracers to only pay as much as safer mature drivers?

"Motor Insurance
by Young Male Worker Thursday, Jul 10 2003, 3:03pm
I was involved in MIJAG, and I voted for the SP in the last election and would buy their paper whenever they're selling it in my area.

I think it's wrong to say MIJAG is about boyracers! The fact is we live in a city with bad public transport. There are also jobs where a car is needed to do the job. Are young men not allowed work?

If you look at the car insurace situation you will find it's a clear example of age discrimination. Yes, young drivers are more likely to crash (twice as likely-due to experience) But does that justify 8 times the averege premium?

MIJAG is against age discrimination and the profitering of the large insurance companies.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60345&results_offset=100 "

by Yossarian Tue Jul 22, 2003 16:20

Airtricity are 50% owned by National Toll Roads. They have a major interest in promoting private motor transport. There was also some previous thread which raised a few questions about the way wind power is being introduced here (although most comments were derisive of the arguements).. Still, I agree that it would be a good idea to promote realistic alternatives at the gig.

by Spitfire Mk III Tue Jul 22, 2003 16:54

Pat, you're missing the point. If young drivers cost twice as much in claims (and they do) then it's perfectly reasonable that their premiums should be double the average premium.

There is however no justification for them to be paying 5, 8 or even 10 times what others are paying.

That is discrimination and that is what MIJAG are campaigning against.

They're also campaigning to try and change the situation where Irish Drivers are paying the highest car insurance in the world.

http://www.mijag.com/other/personal_injury01.asp

"Less than half of the money collected in premiums actually find its way back to injured parties. The rest is eaten up by the insurance companies in administration charges, legal costs and other "experts" who are making a tidy living of the backs of people misery" said Mick Murphy the National Organiser of MIJAG, the Motor Insurance Justice Action Group.

Personally I've no sympathy for boyracers in souped up cars with spoilers, underskirts and massive boom boxes (probably pumpin out DnB like Goldie), but I do believe that a young man should be able do afford to drive his 1 Litre car to / from his place of employment, without having to ask his parents to take out a second mortgage to cover his insurance.

by pat c Tue Jul 22, 2003 17:07

but, perhaps a seperate point, all cars could be fitted with a governor which would prevent them from going at more than 90kph.

i am a bit cynical about these boyracers just needing the cars for work. perhaps there is a need for a an insurance policy which would just cover this and if abused would be voided. or one wherby the insuree undertakes ot to break speed limits - again it would be voided if the insuree broke any speed limit.

not all young male motorists are boyracers but a significant proportion are.

by Spitfire Mk III Tue Jul 22, 2003 17:50

Why should young male drivers have to undertake to keep within the speed limit or have a speed regulator fitted to their car?
Shouldn't all drivers (even government ministers) be keeping to the speed limit?

Insurance premiums should be based upon the risks posed by the particular driver / car combo.

i.e. faster car = higher premium.

If a car has a speed regulator or even a tachograph or other technology fitted, then it should be cheaper to insure. (cheaper for all drivers not just young males)

If a driver does an advanced driving test they should get a discount (e.g. http://www.dir.ie/discount.htm)

If a driver has caused an accident, or convicted of a road traffic offence, or got penalty points for speeding then they should pay more.
(regardless of whether they're a young male or not)

It's wrong to categorise all young males as boyracers, if they've got penalty points etc... they should pay more (as should older drivers)

I could be cynical about the boyracers too, some of them have probably only got jobs as an excuse to drive their cars (probably work far from home in areas not served by busses) - sneaky bastards!

by mi-F15 Tue Jul 22, 2003 17:56

You could choose a better name for yourself. I'd guess that boy racers are also the types who like the old military planes too. Why not try to call yourself something less incriminating, like twin exhausts, airfoils, or purple neon strips?

by patc Tue Jul 22, 2003 18:00

"Why should young male drivers have to undertake to keep within the speed limit or have a speed regulator fitted to their car?
Shouldn't all drivers (even government ministers) be keeping to the speed limit?"

All vehicles other than emergency ones should be so fitted. i never suggested otherwise.

"Insurance premiums should be based upon the risks posed by the particular driver / car combo.

i.e. faster car = higher premium."

agreed

"If a car has a speed regulator or even a tachograph or other technology fitted, then it should be cheaper to insure. (cheaper for all drivers not just young males)

If a driver does an advanced driving test they should get a discount (e.g. http://www.dir.ie/discount.htm)"

makes sense.

"If a driver has caused an accident, or convicted of a road traffic offence, or got penalty points for speeding then they should pay more.
(regardless of whether they're a young male or not)"

agreed

"It's wrong to categorise all young males as boyracers, if they've got penalty points etc... they should pay more (as should older drivers)"

older drivers also pay extra if they have convictions. but insurance companies WORLDWIDE operate on the basis of a statistical universe. as a category younger males cause more accidents so they should pay more.

"I could be cynical about the boyracers too, some of them have probably only got jobs as an excuse to drive their cars (probably work far from home in areas not served by busses) - sneaky bastards! "

that sort of sarcasm must be a great comfort to the relatives of those who are mowed down by the boyracers.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Jul 22, 2003 18:16

Everyone can have the unsavoury practice, behaviour or entitlement extended to them as their right or everyone can have it removed from them.

Sexism can become the preserve of all and women can extend it to men, men to women and then we're all equally discriminating against each other.

In this case, young male drivers can be facilitated in their consumption of fossil fuels (which drives wars and occupations such as the recent one in Iraq, causes the disproportionate death and injury of working class children due to both vehicular impact and respiratory problems). Or the alternative exists: the private motor car can be made so prohibitively expensive that nearly no one can drive them and the money goes into creating safer, cleaner and more efficient public transport. (The point raised above that buses and trains still need a fuel source neglects that fact that they consume less fuel per passenger and that in the case of electric light railway the power source can originate in wind or wave power).

To campaign now for more drivers to be enabled to drive on the roads is to campaign for the destruction of the environment of the working class and to campaign for their deaths.

MIJAG's campaign is a short-sighted, ill-conceived and callous attempt to harness the self-righteous indignation of the jackasses that think they have a right to private motor cars.

by Jonno Tue Jul 22, 2003 19:06

I sympathise with the basic sentiments expressed above - that we need to replace the private motor car with a cheap (or free!) and comprehensive public transport system. I suspect that most of the people involved in MIJAG would sympathise with that too.

The problem is that we don't have a cheap and comprehansive public transport system but people need to get from one place to another.

To suggest that we should try to fix the problem by only allowing the rich to drive (as with Phuq Head's proposals) is to come at the problem from exactly the wrong angle. Instead of seeking to bar working class people or young people from driving, something which I hope nobody here would really support, and then hoping that eventually a decent public transport system will come about we need to start by arguing for a decent public transport system. Once that decent public transport system is in place, car usage ceases being a necessity for most of us and will fall.

More generally, it is always a mistake to seek short cuts to necessary environmental goals by victimising working class people. Big business often likes to portray environmental concern as damaging to ordinary people's jobs and living standards (as if the likes of Shell cared about anything except profit). We shouldn't help those business interests to do so.

This issue ties in with the present drive to break up and privatise the limited public transport system we already have. I hope that everyone here realises that privatisation will lead to a worse public transport system as well as worse pay and conditions for drivers and other public transport workers. Private operators will cherry pick the most profitable routes and leave others with a skeleton service or none at all.

Everybody should oppose the break up and privatisation. I hope that everybody here will get actively involved in campaigning against it. As part of that campaign we should make it clear that we aren't just in favour of preserving the CIE status quo, but that we NEED a fully comprehensive publically owned and democratically controlled public transport system.

Anyway, this whole discussion is getting a bit off the point so I'll finish by wishing the Srop Esso campaigners success.

by hs - sp Tue Jul 22, 2003 19:14

you just have to compare insurance costs in ireland to the rest of europe. Not to mention the service, how many people do you know who have fixed their car themselves after someone bashed it rather than watch the premium go up. It is a blatant rip off, and if the gov. and industry was really interested in preventing boy racers it can be done cheaply by installing alarms which will ring in the car if you go over a certain limit. Public transport companies use them already.
But as someone who has never owned a car I would much prefer a decent public transport system. But I don't think its contradictory to be against rip offs at the same time.

by pat c Tue Jul 22, 2003 19:15

I dont think phuq hedd wants to make private motoring the preservr of the rich BUT private motoring is to a large extent anti-social and unnescessary.

i know we ccould argue about this until the cows come home but surely we could agree that the name of the campaign is offensive?

the sp are involved in this campaign , why not suggest a name other than mijag?

To a lot of people MIJAG summons up the image of a boyracer who doesnt give a fuck about spped limits, road safety or the enviornment.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Jul 22, 2003 22:14

Jonno -

1. By concentrating on campaigning for the introduction of new motorists onto the road MIJAG is ensuring that there will never be decent public transport. The interests of car owners are fundamentally opposed to those of us that use public transport or bike or walk. They (the car owners) have spent a huge amount of their own money on the car, on insurance and on the sundries. It becomes economic madness for the young worker to then also vote for politicians that are promising that they're going to tax his/her wages more in order to pay for a bus or train that s/he doesn't use: the private car will be an unused asset at best and a financial drain at worst. At present there are no campaigns to facilitate non-car transport, especially in Dublin apart from Critical Mass. MIJAG, apart from the points raised above, will also make it harder for cyclists and pedestrians to make _their_ way into work, without the risk of being killed or maimed.

2. MIJAG's last poster boy that I remember was an Aer Lingus pilot that was incensed that he was able to drive a plane, but that his insurance was high. Not the average lad trying to get into work. Check it out here http://www.mijag.com/other/facts.asp
"A fully qualified 21 year old Aer Lingus Airline Pilot is paying €6,602 to insure his Audi A3 1.6l. He is trusted to fly an Airbus jet aircraft but not to drive a car!"

Well, I can't afford an Audi A3 and I doubt a lot of other workers can. There's a high chance that MIJAG is representing an elitist group of workers that are insisting on their right to have private transport to the exclusion of my public transport. No thanks. That's a shameful position redolent of Thatcherism, privatisation and selfishness.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Jul 22, 2003 22:18

QUOTE: "But as someone who has never owned a car I would much prefer a decent public transport system. But I don't think its contradictory to be against rip offs at the same time."

ANSWER: No, it certainly isn't. But as I pointed out to Jonno there is no concerted effort similar to MIJAG to ensure that public transportation meets the needs of ordinary workers. To throw oneself into a campaign which panders to the needs of a privileged minority when there is a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure safe cycling and rapid bus and train transport is questionable.

by Jonno Wed Jul 23, 2003 00:35

I think that you are reducing your argument to absurdity here, PH.

The interests of workers who use cars and workers who use public transport aren't "fundamentally opposed". All of us have an interest in getting where we need to go. All of us have an interest in a decent environment which means an interest in a proper public transport system. Loads of people who presently use cars or have to use cars would love to use a cheap and comprehensive public transport system.

At present that's not a real option for many people, including many people on low incomes. Now the answer to that isn't to condemn people for wanting a car and it certainly isn't an argument that it would be fair or advisable to stop workers on lower incomes or young people from owning cars.

The real answer is to campaign for better public transport. The struggles around the break up and privatisation of CIE will give all of us a great opportunity to do have an impact on the issue.

Personally I've never been involved in MIJAG as the issue of car insurance just isn't a priority for me. Still, I wish them well as (like Spitfire above)I would wish any group campaigning against a big business rip off well.

Anyway, I suspect that we are talking past each other a bit here, so I'll leave it with a reiteration of a general point: the way to win support for environmental issues isn't to help big business to portray "green" concerns as being damaging to ordinary people's jobs and living standards. That's just playing into the hands of the Exxon's of this world.

by Red 1913 - SY Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:33

Under Socialism, everyone will have their own car. The means of production will no longer be misused to produce cars that fall apart after a few years. With safer roads (more investment), no tolls, speed limits can increase and there will be no need for insurance as everyone will be automatically covered by the Workers State.

Energy costs would also decrease under Socialism, under Workers Control Nuclear Poer would be a viable option. Corners would not be cut in Health and Safety so it would be a completely different situation. Energy companies would not be competing with eachother. There would be one State Conglomerate to lokk after Electricity, Gas etc.

This will not please the Greens but they want to return to the Middle Ages.

by *$* Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:09

As for Phuq Hedd - if I live out in the sprawling suburbs of the Metropolis - and work in a Greenfield development on the far side of the Metropolis should I sit on your 'utopian public transport system of the future' or try to buy some banger that will just about pass the NCT & pay insurance through the nose to commute top a poxy job that just about pays my bills?
Anything that tackles high insurance in this country has my support. As for cycling there you must be joking.

Not sure where you people live - but if you ever want your ideas to appeal to an audience beyond this quaint community of discussion threads - you are going to have to find a point of connection with those of us who grapple with the quagmire reality of this poxy Banana Repubbalic!

If you are happy hanging with the converted then enjoy life in your elitist ivory tower.

Thats my 50c worth.

by Jonno - Socialist Youth Wed Jul 23, 2003 17:42

Just to make this absolutely clear:

I don't know who "Red 1913" is. I don't know if he or she is somebody trying to stir up trouble or if he or she really is a confused member of Socialist Youth.

But what (s)he is arguing is NOT the view of Socialist Youth.

by Magneto Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:17

Johnboy, you could clarify by telling us if the SP believe that everyone should have their own car. You already believe that young motorists should pay less insurance. Surely under Socialism, insurance would be facilitated by the State.

When did the CWI change its position on Nuclear Power? They used to say it was ok Under Workers Control.

In England and Wales the Socialist Party seem more worried about Nuclear Power Station workers than the general public. Their line on Sellafield always blathers on about the 12,000 working in the plant.

by Jonno Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:45

Magnus I have no intention of getting into a lengthy discussion with you on any topic. You are a troll with nothing better to do than spend your time spewing bile at the Socialist Party on Irish Indymedia.

In case anybody here is mislead by Magnus:

1) No, we obviously don't argue that in a socialist society that everyone would have a car. In a society which was really run in ordinary people's interests there would be a free and comprehensive public transport system. That would mean that most of us won't need to have a car.

Some people, particularly those in isolated areas would probably still need some form of private transport but more environmentally friendly forms of power than the internal combustion engine will hopefully be available.

The Socialist Party and Socialist Youth argues that the nuclear industry should be closed down. We don't leave it at that though. For all Magnus' sneering at the people who work in Sellafield, thousands of people, their families and whole regions are dependent on those jobs.

As I was arguing earlier, we don't want to do BNFL's press officers job for them by dismissing the legitimate concerns of working people in those areas. How are environmentalists supposed to win their support if we take the attitude that we don't care about their jobs or their families?

Instead socialists argue that the workers in nuclear plants should be retrained so that their highly technical skills can be used for socially useful production.

Below is an article produced by Socialist Youth on Sellafield. I will also post an article by the English and Welsh Socialist Party on the same subject:

The pills are in the post. Any day now our readers in the south will be receiving their free iodine tablets from the government of Bertie Ahern. These tablets are to help you in the event of a nuclear emergency such as an explosion at Sellafield. Please don't feed them to the cat. Believe me, in the event of a nuclear emergency, you're going to need all the help you can get.

Tony Blair obviously doesn't believe in 'decommissioning' when it comes to nuclear power plants. British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) has almost 1,600 cubic metres of extremely dangerous liquid, high level waste which has to be constantly cool stored in tanks at the Sellafield site. An accident or malicious act, which say caused just 50% of the radioactive material to escape, would be the equivalent of 44 Chernobyls!

BNFL's main business is to separate plutonium from spent nuclear waste fuel. Sellafield has a stockpile of around 70 tonnes of weapons-usable plutonium and this could increase to 150 tonnes over the next decade or so. Blair's defence of Sellafield is entirely linked to British establishment participation in the arms trade.

The Observer reported (30 June) that 90% of Britain's hazardous nuclear waste stockpile is so badly stored it could explode or leak with devastating results at any time. The report stated that medium-level radioactive waste with the equivalent mass of 725 double-decker buses is being stored in a dangerous state. A source at Nirex, the firm in charge of disposing of Britain's nuclear waste, admitted the situation was "outrageous".


The recent "postcard campaign" organised by Ali Hewson showed the huge numbers of people seriously concerned about the nuclear threat and the role of Blair's government. Blair and Co. however can tough out any number of "postcard campaigns", even if ten million cards were to be sent. Instead, what is needed is a mass movement of ordinary people throughout Ireland and indeed Britain to force the British government to cease the production of nuclear energy and the waste it creates, with the provision of jobs for the former workers. However, because of the role of British imperialism in asserting its dominance throughout the world, we cannot rely on them to disarm.

Only by fundamentally removing the causes of war and the drive for profits and the building of a new society free from the chains of imperialism can our environment, our health and our future be guaranteed. Therefore, the campaign against nuclear energy and nuclear weapons must also oppose the capitalist system and put forward a real alternative, a socialist alternative. Unrealistic? Maybe you'd prefer the iodine tablet strategy then…

by Alistair McConnell Wed Jul 23, 2003 18:49

BRITISH NUCLEAR Fuels Ltd (BNFL) has been constantly releasing the radioactive gas krypton 85 from its THORP reprocessing facility at Sellafield in Cumbria, since its opening in 1994.

They were ordered to capture rather than release the gas as far back as 1977 by the original enquiry into the then proposed plant. BNFL, however, always openly defied this ruling. They released the gas, a by-product of nuclear fission, by venting it through chimneys.

The National Radiological Protection Board says the level of radioactivity of the gas emissions is sufficient to cause over 100 human cancers per year, including two fatal skin cancers.

Yet BNFL claim that the £50 million cost of capturing and storing the gas is unjustifiable. No doubt West Cumbrians, who also recently found out that over 1,000 depleted uranium shells were fired at Eskmeals, will be reassured to know the value which BNFL and successive governments - Tory and New Labour - place on their lives.

After all, the miserable farce of the Millennium Dome only cost 17 times as much as it would to prevent this criminal environmental calamity.

Amazingly, BNFL prevented Japanese Nuclear Fuels Ltd from fitting equipment to capture krypton 85 to a plant currently under construction in Japan, which will instead release similar levels of krypton 85 into the environment as THORP.

BNFL was desperate to prevent the Japanese from recapturing krypton 85 as this would show up BNFL's own scandalous activity. They believe that they can, literally, get away with murder in West Cumbria because of the area's total economic dependence on Sellafield, which directly employs one in seven of the area's working population.

The area was devastated by the total closure of the steel and coal industries in the early 1980s, and has recently been hit hard again by the closure of the Corus rail-producing plant at Workington.

Closure of Sellafield would be the final nail in the coffin of West Cumbria, but the health and environmental impacts of the plant, and the risk of another serious nuclear accident on the scale of the 1957 Windscale fire or even worse, are totally unacceptable.

Socialists advocate an end to the unsafe and lethal nuclear industry and the retraining of workers at Sellafield and other nuclear plants to use their extensive technical skills to produce socially useful products.

However, capitalism won't close nuclear plants on this basis. It thinks nothing about destroying an area economically or environmentally. A socialist society would be the only society capable of preventing both economic and environmental ruin.

(taken from "The Socialist" Issue 193, the newspaper of the English and Welsh Socialist Party).

by Acid Wed Jul 23, 2003 19:00

hohoho muther f*#kers!! Guess who has a bike this month!! See you there!!!!

by Magneto Wed Jul 23, 2003 19:03

The CWI and Militant in Ireland and 'Britain' used to have the line Nuclear Power - Ok Under Workers Control. When did this change?

Your concern for the BNFL workers is laudable. People who dont give a fuck about their own families let alone anyone else. Fuck them. I dont care what happens to these mercenaries.

I suppose you call for retraining programmes for Concentration Camp guards as well?

BTW The name is Magneto not Magnus.

by Jonno - Socialist Youth Wed Jul 23, 2003 20:02

This is the last post from me in response to Magnus here. He is in no way interested in what Socialist Youth or the Socialist Party actually say, only in throwing abuse.

1) I don't know if the Socialist Party used to have a different approach to the issue of nuclear power, although I certainly wouldn't take Magnus' word on the issue. I'm a relatively new member and I wasn't around in the dim and distant past.

It is entirely possible that our understanding of nuclear power has evolved over the years. Our understanding of a whole range of issues has altered and improved through democratic discussion and the sharing of our ideas and experiences. If nuclear power is one of those issues, then well and good.

Our view on the subject in recent times (all I can really comment on) is that nuclear power is unsafe and dangerous and should be shut down. As explained above though, we don't leave it at that.

Tens of thousands of people and entire regions are dependent on the nuclear power industry for their livelihoods. We have to address those people's needs too.

2) Magnus' vitriol for the thousands of people who work for BNFL is all too typical of a certain strand of right wing environmentalism. That part of Cumbria is hugely dependent on the employment provided by Sellafield. One in seven employees in the area - already devestated by the destruction of mining and manufacturing - are directly employed at the plant. Many more have job's dependent on the money that brings into the area.

Part of the reason why I'm a socialist is that I care about people. It's the same reason why I'm an environmentalist. I'm opposed to the nuclear industry but I'm also opposed to completely destroying employment in a whole region. How are we supposed to win over any significant number of local people to our environmental concerns if all we have to say to them is "fuck them", you are the same as "concentration camp guards"?

How useful is it to lecture them about "not caring about their families" if all we are proposing is that they and their families are thrown on the dole? Along with most other people in that part of Cumbria.

We call for the shutting down of the nuclear power industry because it is unsafe and environmentally damaging. We call for the highly skilled workers employed in the industry to be retrained so that their skills can be used for something socially useful.

I think that's a much more effective way to approach the problem then giving out about how evil the workers there are for taking the only chance of employment that most of them have.

This is fundamentally the same argument I was having with Phuq Hedd earlier up this thread, although PH wasn't as crass as Magnus.

Big business, from Exxon to BNFL, wants to portray environmental concerns as callous attacks on the jobs and living standards of ordinary people. We shouldn't help them prove their point. We need to argue for our environmental concerns in a way that attacks capitalism (the real driving force behind environmental destruction) rather than workers and young people.

3) While I am wasting my time on Magnus' trolling, I can't resist asking him how he feels about his own party, Labour, touting for big business support in this weeks Sunday newspapers? Are Labour's business backers going to lead a campaign to clean up the environment?

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jul 23, 2003 21:04

You are completely ignoring reality. Specifically you are ignoring the reality that the effort and activism that you and others dedictate to supporting those who are rich enough to travel by private cars instead of public buses creates a problem for those of us that bus, walk or cycle.

Your facilitation of extra drivers on the road means that my bus will be later, my cycle will be more dangerous, my air will be more toxic. You then completely ignore the point that most people do not support increasing investment in buses, the sequestering of road space for buses etc for the very good reason that it is against their individual, selfish immediate interest _as_a_driver_ paying exorbitant road, vehicle, petrol and insurance costs. Yes, they are being bilked, but even more than them are those that don't use a car. Where is your campaign for those people?

It is true as you, and HS above, have pointed out that this doesn't have to be so if there's a concerted effort to provide decent public transport.

But there ISN'T.

So, the logical result of all this effort and activism will be to make public transport less attractive and less likely to come about.

This can be rectified if you are actually applying huge amounts of pressure to improve public transport now. There is no evidence of this and an airy "we support public transport" is not the same as a concerted campaign similar to MIJAG.

Essentially your position is reminiscent of the debates that surrounded universal suffrage: the reformist carrot was to lower the necessary property entitlements, then to extend it only to all men, then only to all white people, then only to people not in gaols. In this situation the parallel position to yours was to acknowledge the call for universal suffrage and then dismiss it as utopian, pointing out that right now there were hundreds of propertyless white workers being discriminated against. Don't be afraid of Revolution -- if you are then it'll never happen, you'll just get (small) Reform.

The cant that you've delivered about the workers in THORPE or Windscale is quite shocking. Again these are a priveleged elite that are willing to exploit and endanger the rest of us: similar to the airport police at Shannon. Fetishizing a small minority of us as "workers" every time there's a chance of job cuts is a divisive and non-rational response.

by Jonno Wed Jul 23, 2003 22:05

PH, I've already pointed out that I am not involved in MIJAG. I never have been and I am highly unlikely to ever be. I am generally supportive of the aims of MIJAG, as I would be supportive of any campaign against a big business rip off, but I just don't see motor insurance as a big priority.

There are plenty of other campaigns I feel the same way about. I'm generally supportive of the idea of banning fox hunting for instance and I welcome the activities of people who go out sabbing or whatever, but I don't see campaigning against it as a big priority.

I have my own priorities but I don't attack people with have different priorities for their campaigning if I generally agree with what they are doing.

The answer isn't to complain that there is an organised campaign on something that I don't feel all that strongly about. The answer is to build an organised campaign around the things I do feel strongly about.

As I said on a couple of occasions above, the government's attacks on CIE provide us with an opportunity to do just that as far as public transport is concerned. And you know what, I bet that the people involved in MIJAG will be supportive.

Socialist Youth and the Socialist Party will be campaigning vigorously against the break up and privatisation of CIE. We won't just be saying that CIE as it stands is what we want though. We'll be arguing for a cheap, comprehensive public transport system, controlled by the people who work on it and the people who use it.

There is going to be a lot of campaigning around the CIE issue over the next while, from organisations like the Socialist Party and Socialist Youth, from unions like SIPTU and the NBRU and from organisations like the Busworkers Action Group. Some of the campaigns will be arguing for the status quo. Those of us who think that the status quo just isn't good enough need to get our message out.

You never really addressed the fundamental point I've been making to you. Environmentalists shouldn't play into the hands of the big capitalists by allowing ourselves to be drawn into demanding the destruction of the jobs or living conditions of ordinary people. Demanding that cars be reserved only for those rich enough to pay punitive fees and costs does just that. We have to point to the real enemy, the people really responsible for environmental destruction, for the shoddy public transport system and for bad pay and conditions - big business and the government it controls.

by Jonno Wed Jul 23, 2003 22:40

I actually didn't notice the end of your post when I was responding to it.

Sellafield employs thousands of people, from nuclear scientists to cleaners. Some of these people are well paid. Many more of them are not, including people with very technical skills. It is by a huge distance the main employer in the entire region.

Employment in that region has already been devestated by the destruction of manufacturing industry and mining. Much of what other employment there is in the region is dependent on the cash the jobs in Sellafield bring in.

There is no chance of getting local people's support for environmental issues - even on something as hugely dangerous as nuclear power - if the attitude environmentalists take to those people is that they are "concentration camp guards" or that they are a privileged elite who don't care about anyone else. People have a right to want to earn a living. People have a right to want to be able to support their families.

That doesn't mean that we compromise on the issue of clsing down the nuclear industry. It's a danger to everyone and it has to go. It does mean that we have to argue that when Sellafield and the rest of the nuclear industry is shut down that those workers should be retrained to do socially useful things with their skills.

To argue otherwise - to dismiss those thousands of people as a privileged elite who don't matter - is to argue for following the Thatcherite devestation of a region with an "environmentalist" devestation of that region and for obvious reasons that isn't going to gain environmentalist ideas any support. It's exactly what BNFL want us to be arguing.

And as I said above, it's a point which can be generalised. Environmentalists shouldn't be targeting the living conditions of ordinary people. It's the very same mistake the Green Party makes when it comes to support the bin tax. We should be aiming at the real destroyers of the environment, big business.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jul 23, 2003 22:50

I'm confused as to whether your speaking personally, or for SY or for the SP. You seem to switch between those voices several times. For someone "not involved" in the MIJAG campaign you're devoting a good deal of effort to support and defend it on indymedia.ie. Given that you're supporting it in this manner and arguing for it's correctness then you get to take a little bit of responsibility for it. (If you disupte this then imagine someone arguing in favour of X, which is revolting and wrong in some way, and then that person saying that they're not involved with it. Extend that further to the person being a member of party Y whose other members actively support X). However, that's really all beside the point.


QUOTE:You never really addressed the fundamental point I've been making to you. Environmentalists shouldn't play into the hands of the big capitalists by allowing ourselves to be drawn into demanding the destruction of the jobs or living conditions of ordinary people.

ANSWER: This is true. However environmentalists should also not insist that jobs trump the environment at all stages, or even accept that that tradeoff has to happen. I'll put it to you as simply as I can:

MIJAG should be dropped and replaced by a campaign that calls for extra buses to be provided on the routes where the current membership of MIJAG finds that there are no buses that they can take to their jobs.


QUOTE: Demanding that cars be reserved only for those rich enough to pay punitive fees and costs does just that.

ANSWER: And demanding that more people be allowed to segregate themselves from their fellow citizens in expensive private automobiles merely expands the size of the privileged class and further penalises those that are not in it.

QUOTE:We have to point to the real enemy, the people really responsible for environmental destruction, for the shoddy public transport system and for bad pay and conditions - big business and the government it controls.

ANSWER: And an electorate that choses to travel by private transport when it has other options. Unless Ireland is VASTLY different from the rest of Europe (and the USA) most trips carried out in cars are unneccessary.

Again, the answer is not, as you yourself have pointed out, to pit environment vs. job, but instead to insist on both. MIJAG (and you in your defence of them) have accepted that division and have opted for the job. The logical result of that is that those doing the jobs are going to have a degraded environment (they'll be getting fat, unhealthy and sick sitting in stressful traffic which moves ever more slowly).

I applaud your intention to get involved in supporting the CIE workers and to defend their jobs and that organisation.

Finally, you're not the only one getting tired with this -- disagreement doesn't mean that the other person is stupid (although I make no guarantees there).

by Magneto Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:17

Its amazing, if you disagree with the SP position on the North you are a Nationalist or Anti Protestant. Now if you disagree with the SP position on Sellafield you are a Rightwing Environmentalist!

Sellafield is poisoning the Irish Sea and the Cumbrian countryside. People are dying and children are being born with disabilities because of the Sellafield plant. But of course the SP are more worried about the Sellafield "workers".

I dont care what happens to these criminals, (I wish they could be tried for crimes against humanity) I am worried about the Irish, English, Welsh and Scottish people who are suffering due to leaks from nuclear plants. Yes, once again the SP are backing a pribileged minority against the interests of the Working Class as a whole.

by Spitfire Mk III Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:52

Next time your toilet gets blocked and you call a plumber, you won't mind at all that the young lad who calls around is hours late cos he had to get two busses, was waiting ages for the bus, then it was full etc...

And you won't mind either that he charges you double cos he has to employ a helper cos he can't carry all his tools, rods etc... on and off busses by himself.

Don't dare suggest to him that he should get a car / small van to transport himself and his tools / materials cos he can't afford the insurance.

Maybe he should get a horse and cart. Maybe we should embrace the Amish lifestyle. Maybe some people on here should grow up and talk politics / policies that apply to the real world and not some Utopia.

Seriously though

I think we're all agreed that:-

1. Less cars and more alternative transport is a good thing
2. Motor insurance & insurance in general in this country is a ripoff
3. Young male drivers are paying the most insurance (and being ripped off the most)
4. Young male drivers cause the most insurance claims (the figures would indicate they cost twice as much to insure)
5. All drivers are paying too much due to the fact that nearly half of all insurance premiums go on legal & professional fees involved in claims processing. (N.B. that's not including the cost of the claim itself. i.e. any personal injury costs or vehicle repair costs)

We appear to have wildly differing views on on MIJAG (Motor Insurance Justice Action Group)

Some object to them merely because their acronym can be pronounced MI JAG "My Jag", try MIJ AG "Midge agg". seriously though email them at info@mijag.com if the acronym really bothers you.

Others misunderstand their fight against age discrimination (several cases currently pending under the Equality Status Act)

MIJAG (to the best of my knowledge) are not saying that young drivers should pay the same as everyone else. They are saying all drivers should be insured on the basis of their risk.

i.e. if young male drivers cost twice as much to insure they should pay twice the premium. (but not 5, 8 or even 10 times the average)

The fact that MIJAG are campaigning about the vested interests and inefficiencies in the insurance system is ignored by many. (maybe they need to get their point across better)

i.e. MIJAG are campaigning for cheaper (fairer) insurance costs for all.

If you don't drive and think this doesn't affect you, then think again. Dublin Bus spend massive amounts of money on claims processing. The percentage of their insurance costs that are wasted on legal and expert fees is probably worse that for ordinary drivers.

You are paying for this via bus fares and government subsidy (out of general taxation)

So even if you don't use the bus you're subsidising the insurance industry through your taxes.

And if you don't pay tax just remember that the more tax money wasted in this fashion, the less there is for health, education and even dole money.

Fight the insurance industry, do it for the workers who have to drive (builders, plumbers, electricians), do it for Dublin Bus (& it's workers), do it for those who don't live on a bus route, do it for those who can't afford to live in town and are forced into the drudgery of commuting miles every day.

Don't do it for the boyracers - Fuck them they deserve all the penalty points that they will get!

And if you have to use a car don't put E$$o into it.

P.S. to "Mi-F15" you don't like my name "Spitfire Mk III", you don't really know cars, that's a vintage car (I'm a believer in reusing & recycling), have you ever seen a boyracer in a vintage car? As for me I'm no boyracer (being older that the car, though both of us are of the sixties)

by John - ISN Thu Jul 24, 2003 14:12

Hundreds of thousands of American workers are employed making nuclear bombs,missiles, weapons of mass destruction that murder innocent civilians. The logic of your position would argue that these workers too deserve our concern as they would be unemployed if the arms industry was to be dismantled.

On the issue of Sellafield and nuclear power, when I was in the Workers Party, many moons ago, Eamon Smullen argued the same position; Nuclear power under socialism would not skimp on health and safety as there was no profit motive involved. I think Chernobyl trashed that concept. Socialists should argue for sustainable forms of energy. Forget about nuclear power. We still have not seen the environmental damage that sellafield has caused to the Irish Sea. Some damage is already showing, but, a lot worse is tey to come.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jul 24, 2003 22:07

Next time your toilet gets blocked and you call a plumber, you won't mind at all that the young lass who calls around is hours late cos she had to get petrol, was waiting ages in the traffic jam, then knocked down a little kiddie when she was speeding to get to your toilet...

And you won't mind either that she charges you double cos she has to in order to make a living because the center of the city is congested with people that don't need to carry all her tools, rods etc... but are too selfish and stuck-up and plain lazy to travel on public transport.

And you won't mind either that the number of people killed on the roads is going up and up and that every weekend some poor ould bastard coming home from the pub is knocked down by young plumbers speeding down the country to get back to the only housing that they can afford (because all the rich bastards with cars are driving up the prices and people don't live near their work areas but instead segregate into ever more class-based neighbourhoods and drive for hours to get to work).

Don't dare suggest to her that you deserve a car cos you're a disadvantaged young worker too cos it affects her a lot more than it does you. It's just adding insult to her injury and ignores the point that most people _do_not_need_cars_ and that adding more of them makes the situation worse.