Behind the facade of “Big Society” consultation exercises, the devolving of decision-making and power-to-the-people democracy the Conservatives are still seeking ways of handing over as many money-making opportunities to private companies as possible.

Idea (1). Take the health of our nation. Reduce the power of the Food Standards Agency, but increase the influence of food manufacturers in the “Change4Life” campaign.

Idea (2) The environment? Give decision-making powers to local communities. A great idea in principle, allowing local people votes on regional planning policies. This could lead to more affordable homes in your area But amidst the publicity for this policy is the mention of permitting the building on green belts – if the local people want that, of course. The difficulty with this is that green belts are there for the good of the many, not just a small community. And will local people really end up with “affordable homes”? Instead, I suspect this is a very canny way of allowing building firms to finally encroach onto the precious green spaces around London and other large cities; a way of giving back to those very same firms what was taken away from them in the first few weeks of this government, when they were pandering to the NIMBYs of Richmond by making it more difficult to build on “brown” land.

Idea (3) The “Big Society”?  Oh dear. Let’s face it, who will actually get involved in these great debates? Will there really be a wide cross-section of people interested in community and town life, or will it simply be the same old busy-bodies and fuss-pots that already run the local councils? The vast majority of us would rather write a blog article, send a Tweet, update our Facebook profile or send an email than go down to the village hall. Unless this sort of participation is taken into account, a large chunk of us will miss out.

These are just three recent moves which, to my mind, are very cunning, very cynical; ways which make out that this government is all for openness and innovative policies; but, behind this front, they are as much in favour of opening up British life to those out to make quick profits, or stemming progress where it doesn’t match conservative (small ‘c’) values as any previous bunch of Tories would have done.

Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, wake up. Charles Kennedy, Simon Hughes, speak up.

The question is, if western academics and inventors have hogged the limelight  since the Renaissance, where did the greats of the middle east go? Is this simply the Western world being selective over what information we soak up and pass on to our children? I dare say it is. Although, in the past 50 years there may be another reason.

If you were a brilliant bio-engineer or chemist with controversial theories up your sleeve; or a businessman with a new concept that you feel could make you a mint – would you really choose to stay in Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia? How about an innovative film director wishing to tackle provocative subjects?

Take Jafar Panahi and his fellow film-maker  Mohammad Ali Shirzadi, imprisoned earlier this year, essentially as prisoners of conscience; take Shirin Neshat, Iranian artist, photographer and film-maker, living in New York, but who tackles subjects that means she fears imprisonment back in Iran. The growing number of academics, medical practitioners and artists in exile from their mother countries is to the advantage of their adoptive countries, but what must the leaders back home think?

Indeed, will there ever come a time when a new leader in one of the Arab nations will be enlightened enough to surround themselves with modern day al-birunis, Avicennas and Ibn Khalduns, thereby sparking a new renaissance in the Muslim world?

For instance, many a time I have used arnica to hasten the demise of a bad bruise. ‘Nonsense’ he would no doubt claim. Likewise, half my friends believe in reiki – one is a practitioner of it. I know for sure Ben doesn’t believe in this, as per an entry on his site. The thing is, when his opinion differs from mine, Goldacre will have a valid point, very much backed up by facts.

Take the benefits of organic food, for instance. Last year he wrote against the benefits of organic food, following a couple of negative reports from the Food Standards Agency which caused outrage amongst the organic food producers. Again, you can read his response on his blog. If I’d solely read his article, I’d have been outraged myself; but having heard various supporters of organic produce I was more annoyed at them. Instead of agreeing that there is no definitive way to prove, right now, that organic food is healthier than that reliant on pesticides and insecticides, the producers tried to defend their position without much real evidence.  Had they been more astute, they would simply have emphasised that, surely, the point of organic food is to make things better for Nature. The benefits to humankind come in the long-run, with a healthier planet.

Arguments against genetically modified foods are equally difficult to sustain – although I’m not so sure there is sufficient evidence for or against this technology just yet, no matter what people say. Some advocates of GMOs – here and here, for example – are fairly persuasive, whilst the case against GMOs is not always so cogently presented. It is often along the lines of ‘stop the Frankenstein crops!’ and without any facts to back up such concerns.

Thankfully, the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Avaaz are calling for more scientific trials to prove the technology whilst also campaigning from the angle that the bio-tech industry is very much led by companies eager to exploit the poorer or less-developed nations around the world. Cries from those companies of ‘you’re stopping us from helping the starving’ don’t quite ring true, especially when, as a whole, we are already growing more than enough to feed the global population – it’s just that a disproportionate amount of food is going to waste or to feed livestock so we can eat meat.

So whilst I feel uncomfortable at emotive expressions about Frankenstein crops, I do believe strongly there is a need for better, more open trials concerning GM crops; and more importantly, I don’t want companies like Monsanto walking over the poorer nations, such that their scarce resources are unnecessarily spent on expensive GMOs. That’s why I signed the Avaaz petition calling on the European Union to place a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops into Europe.

If a miracle does occur and those transparent and independent trials take place, I’ll happily go with the results. I am not anti progress; I am not anti technology. Indeed, given the will and the resources I believe most of our current troubles – pollution, disease, climate change  – could be resolved by technology and international co-operation. But I do not put my trust in big corporations or governments will ever willingly sort things out unless there are big profits to be made. That’s why I’m happier to trust my own judgement. Even if it does mean believing in the powers of arnica.

No. Of course not. However, if they all went to pop off and see the Pet Shop Boys at KB Hallen then it might make just as much difference as them all staying up through the night and debating the various ways of  stemming the earth’s pending environmental disasters. Unlike with the economic crisis that has been consuming their time over the past 2 years, politicians the world over enjoy talking about the environment but seem petrified of making any seriously momentous decisions.

Gordon Brown made radical decisions to prop up the economy and I applaud him for doing so. Thank goodness Cameron and Osborne weren’t in power, otherwise we’d be sinking ever deeper into an economic depression. Yet Brown and Ed Miliband not only need to help get an agreement in Copenhagen; when they get back to the UK they must confront the car and air lobby groups head on and tell them their time has come. People who wish to pollute the world in such a direct way – me included, because the trains are so awful and expensive over long journies – should pay for it, because otherwise, come 2050, the human race will be heading towards oblivion.

Success at Copenhagen could provide the necessary springboard for implementing sufficiently important policies and without such a momentum the media will shred to pieces any politicians brave enough to make tough decisions. Of course, the chances of all this happening are practically zero. Hopefully I’m wrong when I predict that nothing of great significance will come of COP15, as the summit is so romantically known. Nor will Brown have any chance of implementing anything on climate change before the next election. But they’re both lovely pipe-dreams, aren’t they?