Wednesday, March 29, 2023

WITHOUT THE LEFT 
LABOUR ARE RED TORIES

Corbyn Expected to Run as Independent After Starmer's Move to Bar Him From Labour

"Blocking Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate is an affront to decency and a declaration of civil war within a party about to metamorphose from a broad church to a toxic sect," said Yanis Varoufakis.


Jeremy Corbyn, a member of U.K. Parliament for Islington North, prepares to address anti-war demonstrators on February 25 2023 in London.
(Photo: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)
COMMONDREAMS
Mar 28, 2023

Former U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn is expected to seek reelection as an independent next year after current Leader Keir Starmer and his establishment allies on Tuesday made good on their pledge to formally block the leftist member of Parliament from running under the party's banner.

After Starmer publicly declared last month that "Jeremy Corbyn will not stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election," the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) voted 22-12 on Starmer's motion to not endorse Corbyn's candidacy.

The Timesreported that Corbyn's allies say the MP has already decided to run as an independent, with one source telling the London newspaper: "It's become personal. There will be an announcement by the end of the week."

Our message is clear: We are not going anywhere. Neither is our determination to stand up for a better world.

Corbyn has represented the Greater London constituency Islington North for four decades and served as an independent MP since he was suspended from Labour in 2020 due to a battle over allegations of antisemitism in the party.

After news broke of Starmer's motion on Monday, Corbyn charged that the party leader "has broken his commitment to respect the rights of Labour members and denigrated the democratic foundation of the party."

Noting that Islington North voters have elected him as a Labour MP 10 consecutive times since 1983, Corbyn said that "I am proud to represent a community that supports vulnerable people, joins workers on the picket line, and fights for transformative change."

Also calling out the ruling Conservative Party, Corbyn continued:
This latest move represents a leadership increasingly unwilling to offer solutions that meet the scale of the crises facing us all. As the government plunges millions into poverty and demonizes refugees, Keir Starmer has focused his opposition on those demanding a more progressive and humane alternative.

I joined the Labour Party when I was 16 years old because, like millions of others, I believed in a redistribution of wealth and power. Our message is clear: We are not going anywhere. Neither is our determination to stand up for a better world.

Some other MPs, constituents, journalists, and leftists from around the world have, since Monday, blasted Starmer's "disgraceful" move and expressed solidarity with Corbyn.

Greek leftist MP Yanis Varoufakis warned that "Starmer's Labour Party is close to the point of no return. Blocking Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate is an affront to decency and a declaration of civil war within a party about to metamorphose from a broad church to a toxic sect."

Critics have highlighted that in February 2020, Starmer said: "The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local party members should select their candidates for every election."

In a joint statement Tuesday, officers from the Islington North Constituency Labour Party (CLP) denounced the move by Starmer and the NEC.

"We believe in the democratic right of all constituency parties to choose their prospective parliamentary candidate," the CLP leaders from Corbyn's area said. "Therefore, we reject the NEC's undue interference in Islington North, which undermines our goal of defeating the Conservatives and working with our communities for social justice."

Noting the CLP's statement in a series of tweets Tuesday, Guardian columnist Owen Jones, who identifies as a socialist and a longtime Labour voter, also took aim at Starmer:

While Starmer was seeking his leadership role, "I think he said a lot of things he didn't believe at all, because he thought that if he didn't, then he wouldn't be elected leader of the Labour Party. And he was absolutely right in that calculation," Jones asserted.

"A lot of Starmer's cheerleaders see themselves as upstanding liberals who believe in decency, honesty, and integrity in politics. They don't," he said. "They disregard the colossal deceit of Starmer because they hate the left, and they believe anything done to crush the left is a good thing."

"Anyway, I don't think it will end well for a Labour leadership which is founded on a load of lies, essentially believes in nothing, and is ahead in the polls solely because of Tory self-destruction," Jones added. "They'll win the election by default, then political reality will intrude."

The grassroots group Momentum, which has supported Corbyn since his successful 2015 campaign to lead the Labour Party, called Tuesday "a dark day for democracy."

While there was previously no appeals process for anyone blocked by the NEC, Sky Newsrevealed Tuesday as the party faces "accusations of fixing parliamentary selections for candidates who are preferred by the leadership," those "who wish to stand for Labour at the next election will be given the right to appeal if the party rejects their bid to become an MP."

According to the outlet, "Candidates will be provided with written feedback as to why they 'fell below the standards expected of a Westminster parliamentary candidate,' while an appeals panel will be convened to hear the claim."

Welcoming the development on Twitter, Momentum said that "socialists and trade unionists have been wrongly excluded in favor of those favored by a narrow London clique. The result has been a cohort of prospective MPs dominated by the professional political classes, making Labour less representative of the communities we seek to serve."

"This new process should mark an end to the Labour right's factional abuses of selections process," the group added. "In Islington North as everywhere else—let local members decide."

Corbyn gives strong hint he will stand against Labour as independent

Ex-Labour leader says he has ‘no intention of stopping the fight’ as Keir Starmer faces fierce criticism from left


Aletha Adu
THE GUARDIAN
Tue 28 Mar 2023 

Jeremy Corbyn has given his strongest hint yet that he will stand as an independent candidate, saying he has “no intention of stopping the fight” to represent his north London constituents.

The former party leader was on Tuesday formally blocked from standing for Labour at the next election, prompting leftwingers to fiercely criticise Keir Starmer’s “authoritarian” and “divisive” move.

Corbyn is unable to put himself forward for selection in his Islington North constituency Labour party (CLP), where he still has a solid support base, because the party’s national executive committee (NEC) signs off on all candidate lists.

He released a statement hours after the NEC backed Starmer’s motion to block him from standing as a party candidate, with 22 votes to 12.

“The NEC’s decision to block my candidacy for Islington North is a shameful attack on party democracy, party members and natural justice,” Corbyn said. “Now, more than ever, we should be offering a bold alternative to the government’s programme of poverty, division and repression. Keir Starmer has instead launched an assault on the rights of his own Labour members, breaking his pledge to build a united and democratic party that advances social, economic and climate justice.

“I will not be intimidated into silence. I have spent my life fighting for a fairer society on behalf of the people of Islington North, and I have no intention of stopping now.”

The Momentum founder, Jon Lansman, who was once one of Corbyn’s closest allies, said Starmer was “behaving like some kind of Putin of the Labour party” who had failed to fulfil his leadership promise of ending factionalism.

Corbyn was suspended from Labour in October 2020 for suggesting complaints of antisemitism had been “dramatically overstated” for political reasons. His membership was later reinstated but Starmer refused to restore the party whip, meaning he sits as an independent MP.

The NEC motion did not explicitly mention the issue of antisemitism. Instead, it said Labour’s electoral prospects in the seats it needed to win at the next election would be “significantly diminished” should Corbyn be a Labour candidate.


“We’ve got to recognise that the radical policies that we had under Jeremy Corbyn … were not the problem,” Lansman told Times Radio. “The party still supports them. I think we should be campaigning still for radical policy … We have to demand. We’re a democratic party. This is not an authoritarian party. Keir Starmer unfortunately is behaving as if he was some kind of Putin of the Labour party. That is not the way we do politics.”

The Islington North CLP has publicly rejected Starmer’s move to block Corbyn, saying north London voters “deserve a free and fair vote on who gets to represent them”. Many leftwing MPs have resorted to sharing the CLP’s statement, instead of outrightly condemning Starmer’s leadership.

A large number of leftwingers believe there is little point in “incriminating themselves” on broadcast media if they want to stay in the Labour party. “We’re not scared, but who wants to follow Corbyn out the door? We have constituents to represent here in parliament,” one leftwing MP said.skip past newsletter promotion

Corbyn’s allies told the Guardian last month he was likely to run as an independent, with one friend saying he would do so once all the routes to the Labour nomination had been exhausted.

The former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “With [an] election in 18 months we need a united party to win a Labour government. This decision will be seen as divisive and brutal, victimising someone who has given his life to our movement. We need a campaign in CLPs and affiliates to reverse this decision.”

Nadia Whittome, the MP for Nottingham East, added: “It should be up to local members in Islington North to decide who represents them. The motion to ban Jeremy Corbyn from restanding is divisive, an attack on party democracy and a distraction from the vital task of getting the Tories out. I hope it’s withdrawn or rejected.”

Momentum called the decision an “anti-democratic stitch-up” and said Starmer had expressed support for the local membership selecting their candidates “for every election” while he was running to become Labour leader.

Jeremy Corbyn: The left-wing veteran outcast by his party

  • PublishedShare
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

A Labour member since his teenage years, Jeremy Corbyn has been a devotee to the party he led through one of the most turbulent periods in British political history.

But he is now facing the end of his long political marriage with the Labour Party.

His successor, Sir Keir Starmer, has told him he will not be a Labour candidate at the next election.

Now Labour's governing body has voted to approve a proposal to officially ban Mr Corbyn from standing for Labour.

The decision had been hanging over Mr Corbyn since he was suspended as a Labour MP in a row over antisemitism.

His political future now hangs in the balance as he considers whether to stand against Labour as an independent candidate in his Islington North constituency.

Whatever he decides, Mr Corbyn has already left an indelible mark on British politics.

A fixture on the left-wing political scene for more than four decades, Mr Corbyn was schooled in radicalism by his parents, who met as activists in London during the Spanish Civil War.

He grew up in Shropshire and became politically active early on in his life, joining Labour and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) while at school in the 1960s.

A stint as a trade union official and a councillor in London followed in the 1970s, before he was elected MP for the Labour stronghold of Islington in 1983.

Through the 1980s and subsequent decades, he devoted himself to various socialist causes, railing against the policies of the Thatcher, Major and Blair governments from the backbenches.

A committed pacifist, Mr Corbyn was a thorn in the side of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, repeatedly rebelling against his government, most notably over the Iraq War.

At that point, few would have predicted Mr Corbyn's rise to Labour's top job.

IMAGE SOURCE,PA
Image caption,
Mr Corbyn has been a stalwart of the British left for more than 40 years

Mr Corbyn's election in September 2015 as Labour leader, at the age of 66, counted as one of the biggest upsets in British political history.

It heralded a remarkable revival in fortunes for a brand of left-wing politics that Mr Blair made a point of departing from under the New Labour banner.

His unvarnished and unabashed commitment to socialism - that made him an irrelevant throwback in the eyes of his critics - struck a powerful chord with many Labour activists.

According to research conducted by the British Election Study after each election, Labour's vote share rose by more than 20% among 18 to 25-year-olds between 2015 and 2017 but actually fell among voters aged 66 and over.

The high watermark of Corbynism came at the 2017 year's general election, which saw Labour exceed all expectations by winning 40% of votes nationally.

Even though it was a loss, Mr Corbyn deprived the prime minister at the time - Theresa May - of her majority.

A crowd of tens of thousands at that year's Glastonbury Festival chanted "Oh Jeremy Corbyn", as the Labour leader took to the stage.

The enthusiasm he generated among his supporters was not enough to win Labour the next election in 2019, though.

With Parliament in deadlock over Brexit, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson won a landslide victory, sweeping aside Labour strongholds across northern England, the Midlands and Wales in areas which backed leaving the EU in the 2016 referendum.

Mr Corbyn stood down as leader, saying Brexit had "polarised and divided debate in this country".

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Mr Corbyn said he was dedicated to overturning the "rigged" system that favoured elites over ordinary working people

Under his leadership, Labour had been plagued by allegations of anti-Jewish racism by some of its supporters. Recriminations over how complaints about these allegations were handled by the party continued once Mr Corbyn had quit as leader.

In October 2020, a report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission's found Labour to have been responsible for "unlawful" acts of harassment and discrimination during Mr Corbyn's four-and a-half years as party leader.

Its investigation identified serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process of handling antisemitism complaints.

Mr Corbyn said the scale of antisemitism within Labour had been "dramatically overstated" by his opponents and that he had always been "determined to eliminate all forms of racism".

He was suspended from the party and was readmitted a month later.

But Mr Corbyn was not readmitted to Labour's parliamentary party and continues to sit in the House of Commons as an independent MP.

Labour, under Sir Keir's leadership, pledged to rid party of antisemitism and the Equality and Human Rights Commission said last month it was satisfied that enough changes had now been made.

As Labour turns the page on project Corbyn, its chief architect has returned to a position of familiarity on the margins of politics.

A rank outsider, Mr Corbyn will need to beat the odds yet again to add new chapters to his colourful political career.


Bernie Sanders accuses ex-Starbucks chief of unprecedented union-busting

Howard Schultz defends company’s practices before Senate committee, while Republicans condemn Sanders’ ‘witch-hunt’

Michael Sainato
THE GUARDIAN
Wed 29 Mar 2023


Starbucks’ former chief executive Howard Schultz was accused at a Senate hearing on Wednesday of running “the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country”.

The hearing, “No Company is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks,” was chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders, a longtime critic of Starbucks’ anti-union activities.


Starbucks had initially resisted calls for Schultz to appear. He agreed after the committee threatened to subpoena him.

Nearly 300 Starbucks stores around the US have won union elections since the first Starbucks stores unionized in December 2021, though the rate of election filings slowed after an initial surge. Since that time, Starbucks has fought hard to stop the unionization drive and faces more unfair labor practice allegations than any other private employer in the US.

Sanders said: “Over the last 18 months Starbucks has waged the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country.”

Schultz responded by saying to Sanders: “These are allegations, and Starbucks has not broken the law.”

He defended the company’s record and said the company gave workers better wages and benefits than its competitors.

The Starbucks boss was defended by Republicans on the committee. Senator Rand Paul called the hearing a “witch-hunt” and Senator Bill Cassidy said it was a “smear campaign”.

Cassidy said no one is above the law, “but let’s not kid ourselves: this is not a fair and impartial hearing.”

Before the hearing, Sanders released a report by the committee’s majority staff outlining Starbucks’ record of unfair labor practice charges.

The report found Starbucks broke the law 130 times in six states and is facing an additional 70 cases. Misconduct ranged from firing workers in retaliation for union organizing to shutting down stores, withholding pay and benefits, and comments made by Schultz himself.

“There is mounting evidence that the $113bn company’s anti-union efforts include a pattern of flagrant violations of federal labor law,” the report claims. “Starbucks has engaged in the most significant union-busting campaign in modern history. It has been led by Howard Schultz.”

Naomi Martinez, a shift supervisor at a unionized Starbucks in Phoenix, Arizona, said she wanted to hear Schultz publicly explain Starbucks’ response to the union campaign and the numerous labor law violations that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and judges have affirmed in complaints and rulings.

“I always see the company state that they are continuing to respect the law, respect legal processes, respect the rights to organize, and we see a different story on the worker side of things,” said Martinez.

“I just want to hear from Howard’s mouth himself whether or not he thinks that Starbucks has continuously, really respected rights to organize, fully adhering to the law at every turn. Every time that they have their spokespeople say something like that it really is just, to me at least, a slap in the face, because they are abusing these legal processes at every turn.”

Starbucks has denied all allegations of labor law violations and appealed all National Labor Relations Board rulings and court rulings against the company.

Starbucks Tarnishes Its Progressive Brand by Denying Workers' Rights | Opinion

SARAH PAPPIN ,
STARBUCKS WORKER
NEWSWEEK
ON 3/29/23 
01:52
Starbucks Workers Begin 3-Day Strike: 'Howard Schultz, Quit Your Whining'


Starbucks has long claimed to be a "different kind of company"—one that cares about the health, safety, and well being of its workers nationwide. It doesn't even call us workers, it call us "partners," saying that we're all in this together. Starbucks executives go so far as to claim that we're a family. But if that's the case, this is the most dysfunctional family I've ever seen.

I started working at Starbucks over nine years ago as a day job to support my theater career. Little did I know, I would fall in love with this job. I thrive in the fast-paced environment, adore my colleagues, and genuinely appreciate the human connection I have with the hundreds of people who walk through our doors every day.

What I didn't realize is that this job would also bring me a lifetime of medical bills and surgeries. While working in 2018, I started experiencing a sharp pain in my hip. Due to short staffing and the fact that I didn't "look sick," my manager rejected my request for time off to heal.


I continued working through the pain for two weeks before it became too much to bear. One morning, I called an ambulance from work to take me to the ER, where I was diagnosed with a serious fracture and rushed into emergency surgery. What had started as a minor stress fracture escalated to a clean break through the bone, due to the continual physical demands of my job and my inability to take time off to rest. I was out of work for four months, but the chronic pain and medical bills endured.

In 2021, I started hearing about my coworkers' organizing nationwide, and watched their fight for fair treatment on TV and in the papers. I thought back to the day of my emergency surgery and about how much I needed a voice on the job through a union. I thought to myself, "that's exactly what I want to do here in Seattle."

Starbucks workers are the heart and soul of this company. We're the ones who keep our stores running. We remember our customers' regular orders, make the lattes, clean up spills, and are often the bright spot of our customers' days. That's why I was so disappointed to see leadership's response to our union drive.

Management is out of touch with the needs of workers, which is why we want to join them at the bargaining table to discuss our demands. Starbucks has only tarnished its brand as a progressive company with its unprecedented union-busting campaign. I witnessed it myself, having been unfairly targeted with frivolous write-ups and seeing partners I worked with get fired for organizing their stores.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 17: Signs sit on a table as striking Starbucks workers picket outside of a Starbucks coffee shop during a national strike on November 17, 2022 in San Francisco, California. Thousands of members of the Starbucks Workers Union are striking at over one hundred Starbucks stores across the country as workers try to negotiate a contract with Starbucks. The one day strike is taking place on Red Cup Day, when Starbucks gives customers limited-edition reusable red holiday cups, one of the company's most profitable days of the year.
JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES

In all the corporate talking points and posturing, the core of our fight has gotten lost: we are asking for the bare minimum. We are on the front lines fighting for basic human rights, including the ability to work in a safe, secure, and respectful workplace; a living wage with consistent scheduling; fairness, equity, and the right to organize free from fear, intimidation, or coercion.

No worker deserves the treatment I endured on the job. I know that the challenges I faced could have been mitigated with adequate staffing and collective action. I was talking to my manager as soon as I hung up the phone with 911, fighting through my tears and the pain in my hip to ask for additional support. With a voice on the job, I would have been able to advocate for myself at a higher level in order to prevent this crisis from happening.

My experience is not unique. The more connected I became with workers nationwide, the more I understood these challenges are systemic. I've heard stories of homeless coworkers being late to work because they were unable to charge their phones while sleeping at the bus stop, only to be fired on the spot. We give so much to this company, and we deserve better.

READ MORE


We're Finally Reshoring Manufacturing and They're Giving the Jobs Away

I joined hundreds of Starbucks workers in protest last week—the day before the company's shareholder meeting—because I know a brighter future for this company is possible. My coworkers know it too. Since December 2021, more than 7,500 Starbucks partners have organized 285 stores, calling for Starbucks to uphold the forward-thinking values it claims to stand for, respect our fundamental right to organize, and bargain a fair contract.

I love Starbucks, but I am so disheartened to see how hard leadership has fought against our efforts to join a union. Starbucks' union-busting campaign is breaking the law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued dozens of official complaints against Starbucks, encompassing more than 215 charges and 1,300 alleged violations of labor law. Six times, NLRB judges have found the company committed more than a hundred violations against workers. I thought the company was better than this.

The recent actions of this corporation don't embody our values, but as partners at Starbucks we live those values every day. We need better treatment from a company to which we give so much. Starbucks should respect our right to organize and meet us at the bargaining table.

And to our new CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, I say this: we the workers, we the partners, we are Starbucks. You have an opportunity to join us and make Starbucks the company we know it can be.

Sarah Pappin is a Starbucks worker from Seattle, Washington.

Sugar traps force cockroaches to adapt new sex 'gifts'

cockroach
Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Humans using sugar in cockroach traps has inadvertently led to female roaches being turned off by the sugary "gifts" males use to entice them into mating.

But don't celebrate the demise of cockroaches just yet—some males have adapted new ways to continue wooing , including by shortening the length of foreplay, a study said on Wednesday.

The small but stubborn German cockroach is the most common species of the insect, lurking in kitchens and bathrooms across the world.

Glucose, a form of sugar, has long been used to bait these cockroaches into deadly traps.

Thirty years ago, researchers first noticed that some German cockroaches had developed an aversion to glucose and were avoiding the traps.

This distaste for glucose may save them from death, but it has also put a damper on their sex life, according to the study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Male cockroaches have a very particular maneuver to attract females into mating.

They lift their wings and expose a special gland that secretes a "nuptial gift," a cocktail which includes the sugar maltose.

The female jumps on the male's back to lap up the treat, which keeps her occupied "long enough for the male to extend his abdomen under the female and engage her genitalia," the study said.

However the saliva of the females quickly converts the maltose into glucose


Some German cockroaches have changed their mating strategy

Females who have developed an aversion to glucose jump off "before the male can grasp the female genitalia," potentially affecting the future reproduction of the species, the study said.

But never fear: male cockroaches who have also evolved an aversion to glucose can now get around the problem.

These males have changed the composition of their nuptial gift, slashing the glucose content and more than doubling the amount of maltotriose.

This  is both hugely popular with females and converts into glucose much more slowly than maltose.

The males also shortened the courtship process, allowing less times for the glucose conversion to take place.

Glucose-averse  start mating in an average of 2.2 seconds—almost twice the speed of other cockroaches, the study said.

The big losers are ordinary male cockroaches, who now secrete a gift too rich in glucose and take too long to start mating for the taste of many females.

The authors of the study from the North Carolina State University emphasized it was important to understand glucose  in cockroaches to develop new ways to control their numbers.

Some scientists have recommended  no longer be used in  traps.

More information: Ayako Wada-Katsumata et al, Gustatory polymorphism mediates a new adaptive courtship strategy, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2023). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.2337

Journal information: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

© 2023 AFP

Sugar aversion hampers cockroach coupling



Cockroach Sex Took a Strange Turn. Now More Mutations Have Emerged.

Evolution has saved roach reproduction from an earlier mutation that interfered with how males court females.

When a male roach wants to mate with a female roach, he will back up to her, secreting a solution called a nuptial gift from a gland under his wings. In this case, the gift was rejected.
Credit...Ayako Wada-Katsumata

By Bethany Brookshire
March 28, 2023

Cockroaches are changing up their sex lives, and it’s all our fault. Faced with sweet poisoned bait, roaches first ended up with a mutation that made them hate sweets, hindering their mating strategies. Now, more roach mutations are emerging, showing you can’t keep a good pest down.

Like many animals, cockroaches have a sweet tooth, and that preference for sugar plays a central role in their reproductive activities. When a male roach targets a female roach, he will back up to her, secreting a solution called a nuptial gift from the tergal gland under his wings. The solution is full of proteins, fats and sugars, what some researchers call the chocolate of roach food. The female cockroach will crawl up on his back to take a sample, and while she is occupied, the male will whip out a hooked penis to latch onto her reproductive tract. They will then turn back to back and do the deed for about 90 minutes.

Humans have aimed to exploit this love of sweet stuff to push cockroaches — particularly the German cockroaches that turn up in American homes — out of our spaces. For decades, people used poisoned roach baits baited with solutions containing glucose.

Cockroaches took the bait. But some time in the late 20th century, a new mutation arose — glucose aversion. No one knows how many roaches now hate the sweet stuff, but Coby Schal, an evolutionary biologist at North Carolina State University, suspects the mutation is very common. “There are more and more papers being published on the fact that a whole suite of baits don’t work so well,” he said.

This lack of a sweet tooth saved cockroaches from death, but it hurt their sex lives. The gift that normal males secrete contains maltose, a sugar that cockroach saliva transforms into glucose. But if females had the glucose averse mutation, they did not find the male secretions sexy and turned away before the male could hook on.

But Dr. Schal and his colleagues could not help but notice that males with glucose aversion were still getting lucky with glucose-averse females. They took a close look, comparing mating between sweets-loving roaches and the sugar-free variety.

The male tergal gland (left reservoir occluded).Credit...Ayako Wada-Katsumata

In a study published on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the scientists showed that the glucose-averse males had accumulated additional mutations. Instead of producing nuptial gifts containing more maltose, they produced ones that contained a more complex sugar, maltotriose. That substance takes longer to break down into glucose in a female roach’s saliva, Dr. Schal said, and “it’s actually preferred by females.”

But even with a sweeter gift, the glucose-averse roaches were taking no chances. Sugar-loving males took a lengthy 3.3 seconds to begin mating with a female while she dined, Dr. Schal said, which meant they only succeeded about half the time. Sugar-free males leaped into action in 2.1 seconds, succeeding 60 percent of the time.


Marlene Zuk, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities who was not involved in the study, praised it, saying it was interesting to “people who don’t care about cockroaches qua cockroaches” and that it revealed facets of how mating behaviors evolve.

“It illustrates really well that there’s this constant balance,” between the pressures of survival and the pressure to mate as much as possible, she said.

But the latest mutations emerged among lab-reared roaches, noted Richard ffrench-Constant, who studies the molecular biology of insects at the University of Exeter in England.

“Whether these are the traits that are really going to emerge in nature I think is open to discussion,” said Dr. ffrench-Constant, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Zuk added that these mutations did not emerge purposefully. Glucose aversion solved one problem and created another, but male roaches were not going around trying to make sweeter nuptial gifts. For every mutation that helps a roach get lucky, another might achieve the opposite.

“Stuff just happens,” she said. “There’s no guarantee that says you’re going to make it somehow.”

But this time, roach romance has come out on top.
Shoveling Money Into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Make Their Electricity Cheap

Wrights Law isn’t going to save the deep inefficiencies of SMRs. As I pointed out two years ago, the world tried tiny commercial nuclear reactors in the 1960s and 1970s, they were too expensive.

DALL·E generated image of shoveling money into a nuclear reactor, digital art

By Michael Barnard
CLEANTECHNICA.COM
Published19 hours ago

Data on the current costs of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) is starting to roll in. As a result, it’s now possible to make some projections of how long it would take for their costs to drop to the level of renewables today. The results aren’t good for SMRs.

Who are our contestants? NuScale and Last Energy have signed contracts, definite in the case of the former and of unknown quality in the case of the latter. As a result, we know their current costs, long before they actually deliver any electricity anywhere. I’m going to give them massive benefits of the doubt that their costs won’t multiply further, a very conservative concession given that they are both first of a kind technologies which have no working, deployed units yet.

Both are American firms. Per crunchbase, one of my go-to sources for funding insights, NuScale has raised about $470 million and is based in Oregon. Per LinkedIn, they have about 570 employees and are in the oil and gas sector. I assume the first is mostly accurate, but that the second isn’t. Last Energy is based in Washington, DC, has raised $3 million, and has about 40 employees.

What are they claiming in terms of contracts and deliveries? Well, NuScale is way behind schedule and over budget on delivering six 77 MW units to an Idaho National Laboratory site. Even with direct government funding of $1.4 billion from the US DOE and a $30 per MWh tax break from the Inflation Reduction Act, it’s still coming in at $89 per MWh wholesale cost of electricity. Unsubsidized, lets generously call it $120 per MWh, approaching the average retail price of electricity in the US.

As for Last Energy, with its $3 million in funding, Beltway location, and <50 employees, it recently announced deals in Poland and the UK for 34 reactors, each 20 MW in capacity, for an eye watering $19 billion. That works out to about $161 per MWh wholesale at best, above the retail price of electricity in those countries, and remarkably even above the cost per MWh of the far behind schedule and far over budget Hinkley Point C project. Let’s pretend that a firm with $3 million in funding and <50 employees have signed deals worth $19 billion and we should believe these deals are remotely firm. We are, after all, giving SMRs every benefit of the doubt in order to see what might happen.

The premise of small modular reactors is that the observed reality of economies of scale due to mass manufacturing will kick in. It was first observed in the 1930s by an efficiency expert, and is often referred to as Wright’s Law after him. The Boston Consulting Group stole the idea, called it the experience curve and sold it to their clients along with a strong recommendation to create monopolies with it. Sometimes it’s called the learning curve.

At heart, all it says is that manufacturing experience is an s-curve of cheaper costs per unit. Costs stay level for a bit at the beginning, then drop by 20% to 27% with every doubling of numbers, and then after a bunch of doublings flatten out again. Stuff like screws, nuts, and toaster elements are as cheap as they are going to get because we’ve made millions of them and they are in flat part of the curve at the end. Things like small modular reactors are still in the flat part of the curve at the beginning.

I put a question to Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, a global expert on modularity and megaprojects, a year or so ago about SMRs and Wright’s Law. He’d asked if he could include some of my material on the natural experiment of wind and solar vs nuclear in China in his book, How Big Things Get Done, which was published a month or so ago. That gave me the opportunity to ask his deeply informed opinion on the subject. The question I asked was about the number of units in the initial flat part of the s-curve. He said dozens. I took that to mean perhaps 60 or 70 units before the doubling cost reduction really kicked in. Someone commented on a post of mine on LinkedIn that Rolls Royce expected it would have to manufacture and sell 50 of its proposed units before prices fell, but I haven’t validated that statement, and as its SMRs are 470 MW capacity that’s about 24 GW of sales regardless.

So I had a starting point for two SMR technologies, a doubling ratio, and could create a couple of scenarios, one for each. Doubling would have different effects, since NuScale was starting at a lower cost point per MWh — and remember I’m giving both of them the huge benefit of the doubt that either will come in at current costs — but had units about 4 times the capacity, so doubling of volume would be slower. Last Energy purports to have tiny units and is asserting that it has deals for a lot more of them numerically, but is starting at a much higher cost point. Once again, to give SMRs every benefit of the doubt, I’m going to pick a high learning curve value of 25%, not halfway between 20% and 27%.

I decided to go with an aggressive sales profile for both companies through 2040, with both experiencing massive successes in selling more of their very expensive, unproven, first of a kind products. Like assuming that their current costs wouldn’t rise radically, this was once again a very conservative option that was very much in their favor in terms of the analysis.



NuScale and Last Energy Wright’s Law Analysis, chart by author

Selling lots more units every couple of years through 2040 would lead to these companies which have delivered nothing so far having sold about 500 units with a capacity around 40 GW for NuScale and about 2,500 units with a capacity of around 50 GW for Last Energy.

For context, there are only about 440 operating commercial nuclear reactors in the world with a combined capacity of about 400 GW, so these numbers would represent a massive increase in the number of reactors and 10% and 13% of global nuclear generation capacity increases in 17 years. Once again, this is an absurdly optimistic forecast for this technology, and is incredibly favorable to their price decreases.

And what are the results?

Well, with massive increases in numbers in both cases and with the assumption that they’ll hit current cost projections, neither gets close to the current global averages for wind or solar. Neither gets below $50 per MWh in 2023 dollars. Coincidentally, both get to $51 per MWh, which wasn’t something I gamed, just something that fell out the bottom of my really aggressive success scenarios for both of them.

When I did the analysis of the SMR space initially about two years ago, I found that there were about 18 designs extant at the time. They are all competing with one another. They have different governmental backers. As I pointed out in discussions of the space, the only chance any has of becoming a cheap form of generation is if a major geographical region like the US or EU picks a winning design, forces it down everyone’s throats, and as a result maybe reaps the benefits of Wright’s Law.

But these two scenarios would already add 23% to global nuclear capacity when it’s been pretty flat for a couple of decades. And nine times as many firms would double current nuclear capacity. That’s really unlikely when all of this SMR electricity would be so expensive and wind, solar, transmission, and storage are so cheap.

What’s more likely to happen is pretty obvious. The odds that Last Energy delivers anything approaches zero, and its deals are mostly likely of the same quality as a lot of SPAC MOUs and LOIs that have riddled the space. It wouldn’t surprise me if they are looking for a SPAC reverse takeover right now. As a result, the company getting to 2,500 delivered units and achieving not terribly expensive energy in 2040 (when we need lots of it by 2030) is something I would find extraordinarily surprising.

As for NuScale, municipal partners in the deal keep leaving it, costs keep rising, the first connection to the grid has been pushed back to 2029 with the current unrealistic schedule, and it has MOUs and design contracts in a few places around the world with the faint hope that it will deliver something somewhere before 2030. Most of its target customers in the US and elsewhere don’t have nuclear generation in their portfolios today and most of the countries aren’t integrated into the IAEA for commercial generation. The seven overlapping rings of security requirements for commercial nuclear generation I describe in my assessment space for SMRs have only started to be put in place, and they are non-trivial. The odds that NuScale realizes deployment of even 50 of its reactors are low, so the odds that it will get the first increment of value from Wright’s Law approaches zero. They’ll remain expensive, if indeed they ever get grid connections anywhere.

Wright’s Law isn’t going to save the deep inefficiencies of SMRs. As I pointed out two years ago, the world tried tiny commercial nuclear reactors in the 1960s and 1970s, they were too expensive due to the physics of thermal generation, and SMRs wouldn’t be successful in overcoming that with massive numbers of units.

UPDATE: We reached out to Last Energy with the following questions:

Q: What is the actual contractual status of the Last Energy European SMR deal reported in Bloomberg — an MOU, LOI, or firm contract?

A: Last Energy has signed term sheets outlining major terms (price, duration, etc) for 4 PPAs (3 physical, 1 virtual PPA).

Q: Is the Last Energy deal reported in Bloomberg really $19 billion USD for 680 MW of capacity of SMRs?

A: The $19Bn represents the total value of electricity to be sold under those PPAs over their lifetimes (typically 20-24 year agreements)

Q: What is the projected wholesale cost per MWh of the Last Energy European SMR deal reported in Bloomberg?

A: Our target cost per reactor for our initial run of units is under USD $100M. Each plant is 20 MWe.

Tax return delays possible if CRA workers strike

Jennifer K. Baker
CTV News Kitchener Writer-Reporter

Colton Wiens
CTV News Kitchener Videographer

 March 27, 2023 

Thousands of Canada Revenue Agency workers are threatening strike action, and it could cause a delay for Canadians trying to file their 2022 taxes by the May 1 deadline.

In January, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Union of Taxation Employees announced a strike vote.

They represent more than 35,000 workers nationwide.

The union’s most recent collective agreement expired on Oct. 31, 2021.

The workers are asking for “a fair compensation package, protections in the context of access to remote work, new protections for union jobs and new scheduling rights, including years of service protections where there is evening and weekend work.”

“It’s just been accumulating, years of frustration, so we do not need to convince them,” said Marc Briere, national president of the Union of Taxation Employees. “They are all in favour of voting for a strike.”

He explained that members feel ignored and they haven’t received a wage offer since the agreement ended.

“That, and a slap in the face, feels pretty much the same,” he said. “We’re still hoping that we’ll avoid a strike, but if people think that we’re going to just hesitate, we will not.”

The federal government can pass legislation to force employees back to work, but Briere hopes the two sides can reach an agreement before it gets to that point.

IMPACT ON TAX RETURNS


Voting on strike action, which began back in January, will end on April 7.

As that comes just weeks before the filing deadline, Canadians could experience delays in accessing CRA services.

“Hopefully it doesn’t happen because it could be a real nightmare if it does,” said Lars Jorgensen, the president of EJ Tax Service in Kitchener.

Most tax returns are automated but the strike could cause major delays for some.

“You file a tax return and it just gets processed instantly in most cases, but the call centres are a valuable tool to a lot of people,” explained Jorgensen. “If they’re not able to access that information it could really cause some major headaches.”

Jorgensen said the CRA could extend the May 1 deadline in response to prolonged strike action but his advice is to file sooner rather than later.

CLAIMING PERSONAL TAX CREDITS


Before you file your 2022 taxes, make sure you know what personal credits you qualify for.

The province is offering a Staycation Tax Credit which allows Ontarians to claim 20 per cent of eligible accommodation expenses between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2022. You can find out more about the credit, and how to claim it on your return, here.

There is also the Ontario Seniors Care at Home tax credit,which aims to help low to moderate-income seniors with their medical expenses, and the Childcare Access and Relief from Expenses (CARE) tax credit. To find out more about those and other tax tips, click here.




Tax forms from the Canada Revenue Agency.
DEMOCRATIZE WORKERS CAPITAL
Here’s how Canada’s big pensions can earn the word ‘public’


DAVID MILSTEAD


Mark Machin, President and CEO, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, speaks at the 2019 Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, on April 29, 2019.
LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS

Canada’s securities regulators are being told they should impose a far more rigorous disclosure regime on short-sellers that would require they provide daily updates of their short positions.

Spurred by this, I’ve previously offered some thoughts on improving disclosure requirements for institutional investors’ stock ownership. Here’s another place we should reassess disclosure rules: Canada’s major public pension funds.

We don’t know a whole lot about the public-company holdings of institutional investors, both in the private and public sectors. Those regulatory shortcomings contribute to the lack of information about the holdings of Canadian public pension funds.

With no universal regulation or requirement that applies to these funds, it’s up to them what they say about the investments they hold. Members of the plans, who participate in them as a condition of their work, have less knowledge about what their plans are investing in than the typical mutual-fund investor, who gets a full list of holdings twice a year.

All of The “Maple Eight” large pensions, of course, follow regulatory requirements in the countries where they invest – such as in the United States, for example, where they file their 13F lists of holdings. But once those rules are followed, they’re all over the place in their discretionary policies.

Three – Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and British Columbia Investment Management Corp. – produce an annual list of investments, including real estate and most of their other private investments. All three ascribe a market value to each of their stock holdings as of year-end.

CPPIB updates its real-estate list quarterly, but like the Caisse and BCI, it does not provide any real-estate values in the disclosure. CPPIB and the Caisse provide additional valuation data on private-equity investments. The Caisse also lists mortgages of $5-million or more and details on its ownership interests in subsidiaries and joint ventures.

From there, it’s a drop-off. Once a year, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan lists public and private investments that exceed $200-million in value – but not lesser ones.

Teachers, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System and Alberta Investment Management Co. have investment departments that list a selection of large private holdings, but not typically the amount invested. But OMERS and AIMCo don’t list any of the stocks they own.

If a new private deal is big enough, like one pumping tens or even a few hundred million dollars into the purchase of a new company, a Canadian pension plan will likely issue a press release. Maybe they will disclose the amount committed, maybe not.

The federal Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan provide no regular, meaningful disclosure of holdings to the public.

HOOPP spokesperson James Geuzebroek says “HOOPP is singularly focused on our mission and fiduciary duty of delivering pensions to the health care workers of Ontario, and we do not believe revealing our investment holdings and strategies beyond what is required will support that mission.”

AIMCo manages money for multiple pensions and government funds in its home province. Spokesperson Sabrina Bhangoo says AIMCo’s commitment “is to its clients, with whom it provides visibility into its holdings in both public and private asset class portfolios.” As for the public or ordinary members who might not get that information, AIMCo “regularly highlights” private investments in press releases and its annual report.

I’d argue that all Canadian public pension plans have a commitment to the public – hence the phrase, “public pensions.” But the Canadian pension industry isn’t quite wired that way.

It is, to be certain, a global success story that arguably doesn’t get enough love in its home country for being well-governed and well-funded, unlike public pensions in the United States. But part of the Canadian industry’s mindset is that the openness and transparency of the U.S. pension industry makes it subject to political meddling and other distasteful interference from the hoi-polloi.

“Can you imagine,” I was once told by a Canadian pension executive, that one of the large California public pensions “actually televises its board meetings!” Well, yes, I can – and I have rarely flummoxed a person as much as I did when I asked Mark Machin, former CEO of CPPIB, when his next board meeting was, so that I could attend.

I could not, of course. Much as I, and you, cannot figure out what the plans are regularly investing in. At the risk of opening a few scabs, it would have been nice to know how much the Caisse had invested in Celsius, and Teachers had invested in FTX, before the crypto scandals forced them to offer up some details. Or all the plans’ Russian investments. Or their investments in certain Chinese enterprises.

So here’s the proposal: The provincial and federal regulators should agree that plans with $100-billion or more in assets – these Maple Eight – should do annual disclosures similar to CPPIB, Caisse and BCI. Then all can work on placing both a book value and market value on all the investments, as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System does each year. (CalPERS also publishes an estimate of its total assets every single trading day of the year.)

That would truly put the “public” into Canada’s public pensions.