Nick Clegg speaks during the launch of the Lib Dems' European election campaign at Colchester United's Weston Homes Community Stadium. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour's election broadcast shows it fears a Lib Dem revival

The party is determined to deny Clegg the chance to make a fresh appeal.

After yesterday's volley of attacks on the Lib Dems, Labour has continued the theme with its new party election broadcast, which depicts Nick Clegg as the "un-credible shrinking man". In the black and white film, the Lib Dem leader is shown diminishing in size as his Tory superiors overrule him and triple tuition fees, raise VAT  introduce the bedroom tax and cut taxes for millionaires.

Opinion on the broadcast's artistic merits is divided (it's not the best PEB I've seen, but far from the worst), but what about the politics? My former NS colleague Mehdi Hasan asks why Labour is bothering to attack a party that currently sits in fifth place in the European election polls. But a year away from the general election, the film is a signal that Labour recognises the importance of retaining the support of the electorally crucial group of Lib Dem defectors.

With around 25 per cent of 2010 Lib Dems currently supporting the opposition, it can't risk going soft on Clegg and handing them "permission" to return (as some already have). In addition to those seats that Labour can hope to win directly from the Lib Dems, strategists point out that in 86 of the party's 87 Tory targets, the Lib Dem vote share in 2010 was larger than the Conservative majority. In 37, it is more than twice as large. Even if Clegg's party partially recovers before 2015, Labour stands to make sweeping gains.

The Lib Dems' decision not to replace Clegg with a more left-wing figure such as Vince Cable or Tim Farron has limited the potential for the party to make a fresh appeal to the electorate. But with both coalition parties increasingly obsessed with differentation, Labour clearly recognises the potential for the Lib Dems to recover ground as May 2015 approaches. With two polls today putting them just a point ahead, they can't afford to allow Clegg the opportunity to do so.

A third of 2010 Lib Dems are undecided, with one in five considering UKIP. Which side they come down on will be crucial to determining whether Labour wins.

In his conference speech last year, Clegg memorably listed 16 "heartless" Conservative policies he had blocked. Labour's mission is to remind voters of those he has enabled (one party source ridiculed his claim to be "equidistant"). When you study the numbers, it's not hard to work out why.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.