Labour’s Winds Of Change: It’s Time To Nationalise The Vestas Isle Of Wight Turbine Factory

The red-green dissent and action over the imminent closure of the Vestas’ turbine manufacturing factory on the Isle of Wight is brightly gathering momentum, and from whatever way you look at it, there are legitimate reasons to nationalise Vestas’ Isle of Wight factory.

In the short-term, this moment not only represents significant ideological crossroads for the party, but a chance to save 600 preciously skilled jobs. At a time when the party is staring down the barrel of a gun and New Labourism is drawing to its natural close, nationalisation of the plant could be the platform Labour needs for a dramatic late reversal of its fortunes – a seminal, telling moment of vision, clarity and innovation. In the longer-term, this red-green chorus may well be a glimpse at the future.

The truth is that despite rising profits, Vestas as a Danish company and corporate profiteers, do not have sufficient orders and are closing the factory to make the turbines more cheaply in the US, where there is greater demand. As Ed Miliband points out in his piece at Comment is Free:

"We are unlikely to be a centre for onshore wind production, if up and down the country, and on the Isle of Wight, onshore wind applications are consistently turned down."

It should be noted that SERA had previously flagged up the fact that Conservative-run councils had opposed 80% of wind farm applications submitted to them since David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative party, whereas Labour councils had approved 70%.

The UK is the windiest country in Europe, so much so that we could power parts of our country several times over using this free fuel. The fact is we will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to work towards the targets on climate change and the UK’s energy security.

To overlook wind energy or put too high a reliance on offshore wind generation and fledgling micro-generation technology would condemn the UK to: missing our renewable energy targets; falling short of our commitment to tackle climate change; drifting away from energy independence at a time when it is essential; and contributing to a significant deficit in the country’s short-term energy supply. At this stage, it is unclear as to whether David Cameron appreciates or even fully understands this.

Glancing over our shoulders, many members of the Labour party will have been deeply affected by the impact of coal-pit closures, and also the pernicious influence of the West’s oil addiction on global foreign policy. For these reasons, there is a genuine sense of hope and optimism when the UK’s renewable energy potential is cited as the "Saudi Arabia of green energy". As an island, Britain has 40% of Europe’s wind resource, with strong winds both on and offshore – this is a position we should maximise as a country. Most promising of all is the glittering potential that exists for green collar jobs.

It is clear that the previous tensions between trade unionists protecting energy industry and jobs, and green campaigners protecting the environment, represent a fractious relationship of the past. At a time when there 60 applicants for every vacancy on the Isle of Wight, this growing red-green consensus recognises that to endanger 600 jobs and disperse a skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry would be disastrous for the country, its manufacturing base and the climate change agenda as a whole.

Although Ed Miliband has met with the sit-in protestors, offered assistance in re-training those made unemployed, awarded £6m to the wind turbine firm's research centre to create some new jobs and promised to shake up the planning system to speed up wind projects, if Labour is seriously committed to preserving the skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry, and also providing UK industry with an accessible source of turbines (as opposed UK firms shipping over turbines from Germany and Denmark), the substantive solution is nationalisation of the plant. This outcome would also inevitably see Ed Miliband graduate from activists' favourite to the party’s new best hope.

In electoral terms, nationalisation would surely claw back some of Labour’s disillusioned, dejected and dispersed masses - after Norwich, Labour activists need some hope. But looking ahead, I think this current red-green resonance may be a prophetic allegiance and a natural consensus to build the future foundations of the party, regardless of whether or not this happens in the political wilderness.

Ehud Barak Will Not Take Iran strike off the Table

I would like to see the peace process in the Middle East come to some agreement but given that both sides can not get even give an inch to come close tells you something about the peace process in the Middle East my only hope to all my brothers & sisters is not to give hope and contiune with the struggle in a peaceful way.

Israel has dug in its heels in a disagreement with the US over a potential military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to halt its alleged progress towards nuclear weapons capacity.

"We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table," Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak insisted, following discussions with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

"This is our policy and we mean it," Mr Barak blustered. "We recommend to others to take the same position but we cannot dictate it to anyone."

While the United States also reserves the right to use force if need be, the Obama administration has been playing down that possibility while it tries to draw Iran into talks about its disputed nuclear programme.

Mr Gates urged patience and said that Washington still hoped to have an initial answer about negotiations in the Autumn.

Israeli leaders fear that the US is prizing contact with Iran over its ties to Israel.

The issue of how to deal with Iran's advancement toward nuclear proficiency has become one of the most public differences between the new administrations in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Mr Gates's visit to Israel was believed to be aimed at dissuading Israel from a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

But Mr Barak's comment seemed to indicate that Mr Gates made no visible headway in getting Israel to soften its line.

President Obama pledged a new initiative towards Iran during his presidential campaign.

Mr Obama argues that a strike would upset the fragile security balance in the Middle East, perhaps triggering a new nuclear arms race and leaving everyone, including Israel and Iran, worse off.

Israel is also under pressure to freeze construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, land the Palestinians want for their eventual state and capital. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has so far resisted and the issue is a growing sore point between the US and Israel.

The US says continued Israeli construction on lands claimed by the Palestinians threatens to undermine future peace talks.

Israel insists that some expansion must be permitted to accommodate the "natural growth" of settler families.

The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank is now 304,569, a 2.3 per cent increase since January.

Gaza War Crimes Case Rejected by the Court

The High Court has thrown out a legal bid by a Palestinian human rights group to hold the British government to account for its "complicity" in Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Ramallah-based Al-Haq accused the government of failing in its international legal obligations to stop "aid and trade" with Israel, including supplying arms, following Israeli incursions into Gaza in December and January which led to the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians.

The government argued that, were it to condemn Israel for its actions, it would sour relations between the two states.

This is despite Britain being accused last week at the United Nations, along with other UN members states, of silence over Israel's continued blockade of the ravaged West Bank region.

Addressing a UN meeting in Geneva last week, general assembly president Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann accused Britain and other member states of "standing silent" while Israel breached UN resolutions calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza.

"With governments and the UN standing mute, unwilling or unable to provide assistance or protection to the people of Gaza," he said, "international civil society had taken the lead."

Referring to civilian convoys which deliver aid to the besieged region, often in the face of hostile opposition from the Israeli military, he stated: "The UN would do well to follow that example in bringing pressure to bear on the occupying power."

He also reminded UN members states of their obligation "to protect any civilian population facing violations of international humanitarian law."

But today at the High Court in London, a judge ruled that the court was "not competent" to deal with what was an issue involving the government's foreign policy.

Lord Justice Pill, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston, said that Al-Haq's claim sought condemnation of Israel and for the courts of England and Wales to decide whether Israel was in breach of its international obligations.

The judge said this was "beyond the competence" of the domestic courts and ruled: "While there may exceptionally be situations in which the court will intervene in foreign policy issues, this case is far from being one of them."

In his written judgement, Justice Cranston cited Foreign Office claims that granting the application would "imperil amicable relations between states" and that "compelling the government to take a public position on the matters in the claim would risk hindering the UK's engagement with peace efforts in the Middle East."

He further concurred with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who argued that, to allow the case, would mean that any non-governmental organisation anywhere in the world would be able to bring a claim for judicial review in similar circumstances.

But Palestine Solidarity Campaign director of campaigns Sarah Colbourne said: "This ruling does not negate the complicity of the British government in the crimes against the Palestinian people.

"In international law, the government is bound to uphold the rights of the Palestinian people whenever they are violated."

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: "The UK takes its domestic and international legal obligations very seriously. We vigorously defended the proceedings and are pleased that the court has agreed with us that the case was wholly inappropriate for resolution by the domestic courts."