Question 1
Take these detailed local election results for the County Council elections across all the divisions in Norwich North:
June 2009
Con 9102 38.2%
Lab 4682 19.6%
Grn 3917 16.4%
LD 3809 16.0%
Create an accurate bar chart, drawn to scale, that educates the reader about the results in that election.
[5 marks awarded for correctly copying the figures]
[5 marks awarded for drawing the chart to scale]
Answer 1 from the Lib Dems
Marks for the Lib Dems
[0 for copying the figures - mysteriously they seem to have chosen national statistics...]
[0 for drawing the chart to scale - the Tories got this half of the question right]
03 July 2009
26 June 2009
A Load of Bull
Great news for the Green campaign in Brighton Pavilion. Dr David Bull, celebrity candidate for the Conservatives, has announced he won't be standing. The comments on Conservative Home don't really buy the story, so in the words of some of the posters on there:
"I suspect the Greens may have polled very well in the Euros around this area. May be worth a bet"
"Green gain Brighton Pavilion?"
"In other words, he didn't want to fight the seat any more and the Tories have concocted this "review" so he can bow out without it looking like he's just bogging off."
"This policy review smells like a fig leaf"
"I suspect the Greens may have polled very well in the Euros around this area. May be worth a bet"
"Green gain Brighton Pavilion?"
"In other words, he didn't want to fight the seat any more and the Tories have concocted this "review" so he can bow out without it looking like he's just bogging off."
"This policy review smells like a fig leaf"
Nasty Nick?
We are very familiar with Lib Dem smear leaflets here in Liverpool, so much so that we keep a tally chart on our own newsletter to keep count. Unfortunately the smear tactic is part of the Lib Dem tactical hierarchy in dealing with a Green electoral challenge.
In St Michaels that has taken the following pattern:
2007 - Green Cllr John Coyne stands for re-election. The Lib Dems try to completely ignore us and pretend we don't exist, to the extent that they reproduce the 2006 result with the Lib Dem and Labour totals, but omitting the Greens who actually finished 2nd. Greens win.
2008 - Largely, the Lib Dems again ignored us, but acknowledged this was between the Greens and the Lib Dems for the seat. They instead emphasised that voting was about who ran the council after 2008. Greens win with an increased share of the vote.
2009 - In the Euro Elections, smear leaflets were delivered in St Michaels, which were rapidly rebutted by us. We keep a record online.
2010? - I think it is fair to say that we are expecting the smearing to continue right up to polling day. We won't get sucked into tit for tat, but every time the Lib Dems go negative, we'll work out a response to be delivered in Wavertree, where a great deal more is at stake for the Lib Dems than just a council seat.
One could be forgiven for thinking this is just the Liverpool Lib Dems, who don't exactly have a glowing reputation even with their colleagues elsewhere. But now we have the Lib Dems opening up a smear campaign against the Greens in Norwich, although clearly they haven't really thought this through.
Lib Dem candidate April Pond sends a letter to the Tory candidate promising to "run a positive campaign", which is subsequently published by the Lib Dem campaign team. Just hours later, the Lib Dems smear the Green candidate - they simply just can't help themselves.
These unfortunate actions coincide with another Nick Clegg visit to Norwich, with Nick (who usually wants to present the Lib Dems in a positive way) forced to say:
"We should and we will run this as a positive campaign, but we also need to be plain and straightforward in explaining the differences between the Liberal Democrats and the other parties."
I think Clegg is embarrassed by the reality of his party's campaign tactics, but he sets the tone. If you tolerate this kind of stuff around the country as acceptable, then you can't be "Nice Nick Clegg".
And why are the Lib Dems so worried? This really isn't about Norwich North, but it is about Norwich South and Brighton Pavilion. Just look at this poll for the byelection:
Tories 34%
Labour 30%
Lib Dems 15%
Greens 14%
This is now about whether the Lib Dems can hold onto third place. If the Greens beat the Lib Dems in a much weaker constituency for us, probably only spending 1/10th of the money, then come the General Election in Norwich South the Lib Dems are out of the running, increasing the prospects of a win for our Deputy Leader Adrian Ramsay.
Norwich South and Brighton Pavilion are both winnable seats for the Greens, and if we were to elect two MPs to Westminster, we would qualify for a fraction of public funding currently shared out between Westminster parties with more than two MPs. A Green group at Westminster is a long term strategic threat to the Lib Dems. Hence their willingness to plumb new political depths in the Norwich North byelection.
In St Michaels that has taken the following pattern:
2007 - Green Cllr John Coyne stands for re-election. The Lib Dems try to completely ignore us and pretend we don't exist, to the extent that they reproduce the 2006 result with the Lib Dem and Labour totals, but omitting the Greens who actually finished 2nd. Greens win.
2008 - Largely, the Lib Dems again ignored us, but acknowledged this was between the Greens and the Lib Dems for the seat. They instead emphasised that voting was about who ran the council after 2008. Greens win with an increased share of the vote.
2009 - In the Euro Elections, smear leaflets were delivered in St Michaels, which were rapidly rebutted by us. We keep a record online.
2010? - I think it is fair to say that we are expecting the smearing to continue right up to polling day. We won't get sucked into tit for tat, but every time the Lib Dems go negative, we'll work out a response to be delivered in Wavertree, where a great deal more is at stake for the Lib Dems than just a council seat.
One could be forgiven for thinking this is just the Liverpool Lib Dems, who don't exactly have a glowing reputation even with their colleagues elsewhere. But now we have the Lib Dems opening up a smear campaign against the Greens in Norwich, although clearly they haven't really thought this through.
Lib Dem candidate April Pond sends a letter to the Tory candidate promising to "run a positive campaign", which is subsequently published by the Lib Dem campaign team. Just hours later, the Lib Dems smear the Green candidate - they simply just can't help themselves.
These unfortunate actions coincide with another Nick Clegg visit to Norwich, with Nick (who usually wants to present the Lib Dems in a positive way) forced to say:
"We should and we will run this as a positive campaign, but we also need to be plain and straightforward in explaining the differences between the Liberal Democrats and the other parties."
I think Clegg is embarrassed by the reality of his party's campaign tactics, but he sets the tone. If you tolerate this kind of stuff around the country as acceptable, then you can't be "Nice Nick Clegg".
And why are the Lib Dems so worried? This really isn't about Norwich North, but it is about Norwich South and Brighton Pavilion. Just look at this poll for the byelection:
Tories 34%
Labour 30%
Lib Dems 15%
Greens 14%
This is now about whether the Lib Dems can hold onto third place. If the Greens beat the Lib Dems in a much weaker constituency for us, probably only spending 1/10th of the money, then come the General Election in Norwich South the Lib Dems are out of the running, increasing the prospects of a win for our Deputy Leader Adrian Ramsay.
Norwich South and Brighton Pavilion are both winnable seats for the Greens, and if we were to elect two MPs to Westminster, we would qualify for a fraction of public funding currently shared out between Westminster parties with more than two MPs. A Green group at Westminster is a long term strategic threat to the Lib Dems. Hence their willingness to plumb new political depths in the Norwich North byelection.
23 June 2009
Interesting Development
This has been talked about for some time, but not actioned.
I'm sure it will provide a suitable headache for a party that relies on a core of racist support.
I'm sure it will provide a suitable headache for a party that relies on a core of racist support.
22 June 2009
Moats, Duck Ponds and Bigoted MEPs
Brighton’s Tories have a cheek. They go on the attack about matters of public record, but have today announced they are sitting down in a Euro Parliamentary group with the Law and Justice Party, who ban gay marches in Poland.
So despite the appalling abuses of the expense system by Tory MPs, Douglas Hogg and Sir Peter Viggers, who respectively put in taxpayer claims for clearing a moat and creating a duck pond island, they have decided to go on the offensive about Green MEP Caroline Lucas’s transparent accounting about what she is paid, what she pays her staff and what she claims as a Euro MP.
You'll also note that Caroline Lucas tops the league table of British MEPs for transparency and amongst other things, attempting to reform the corrupt Brussels system.
They ask if Caroline really needs to employ seven members of staff. Some of these people are part time, and yes, if you want to do a good job of representing people in an area as big as the South East, you need the staff.
The note of the release is almost apologetic, as though they just had to put this on their site. They say much lower down the release that:
“To be fair to Caroline Lucas, all MEPs are entitled to the same amounts and some claim more.”
So which Conservative MEPs opted in to claim a second Euro pension at an exorbitant cost to EU taxpayers? That would be, er, all of them, with the possible exception of Christopher Beazley, who for some reason scores 1 out 3, when 3 out of 3 indicates that you have opted out.
If the Conservatives really do think this line is going to help them win Brighton seats, please do continue. I think what will be much more relevant to the electorate not just in Pavilion where I once lived, but also Kemp Town and Hove, despite a more gay friendly image, when it comes down to the crunch and political manuoevring, they have still been willing to form a political group with homophobes.
So despite the appalling abuses of the expense system by Tory MPs, Douglas Hogg and Sir Peter Viggers, who respectively put in taxpayer claims for clearing a moat and creating a duck pond island, they have decided to go on the offensive about Green MEP Caroline Lucas’s transparent accounting about what she is paid, what she pays her staff and what she claims as a Euro MP.
You'll also note that Caroline Lucas tops the league table of British MEPs for transparency and amongst other things, attempting to reform the corrupt Brussels system.
They ask if Caroline really needs to employ seven members of staff. Some of these people are part time, and yes, if you want to do a good job of representing people in an area as big as the South East, you need the staff.
The note of the release is almost apologetic, as though they just had to put this on their site. They say much lower down the release that:
“To be fair to Caroline Lucas, all MEPs are entitled to the same amounts and some claim more.”
So which Conservative MEPs opted in to claim a second Euro pension at an exorbitant cost to EU taxpayers? That would be, er, all of them, with the possible exception of Christopher Beazley, who for some reason scores 1 out 3, when 3 out of 3 indicates that you have opted out.
If the Conservatives really do think this line is going to help them win Brighton seats, please do continue. I think what will be much more relevant to the electorate not just in Pavilion where I once lived, but also Kemp Town and Hove, despite a more gay friendly image, when it comes down to the crunch and political manuoevring, they have still been willing to form a political group with homophobes.
18 June 2009
Some Good News
There doesn't seem to be much time for the BNP even amongst the other far right groups in the European Parliament. They have failed to get enough support to form a group. This is good news as it means they won't get access to a share of additional funds worth up to a million euros a year.
The Green group in the European Parliament will, on the other hand, be bigger and stronger than it was before the Euro Elections.
The Green group in the European Parliament will, on the other hand, be bigger and stronger than it was before the Euro Elections.
16 June 2009
Migration - Leading the Debate
Quite rightly, the Greens have a liberal policy on migration. You would expect nothing else and it fits with our ethics and our global outlook. We can point to a truly internationalist perspective on this issue, but here in Britain we continue to suffer because of media scaremongering.
I have to highlight this excellent piece from Liberal Conspiracy. Look at the coverage from the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph about “immigration”. It is no surprise that their readerships will be concerned about the issue.
Is Britain a culturally richer and better place today because of migration? Yes. There isn’t a debate on this. We need leadership to challenge the current framing of the media coverage of migration, and as usual it will be up to the Greens to show how it is done. We have an internationalist outlook for climate, for trade and for sport, so why does a section of our international media obsess with a narrow and nationalist view of migration?
You have international cuisine competing with the best of traditional British food. Our steak and ale pies are not under threat because of Mongolian barbeques or vegetable korma. Where do the BNP stand on bananas? I think we need to know. These yellow fruits have been coming to our land for hundreds of years.
This is a business reality, it is international trade, and how those bananas end up on our shelves is an international story. It is often a story of exploitation and misery, with producers unable to afford to send their children to school when international prices drop.
As a Green I’ll argue for Fair Trade ahead of unfettered free marketeering, which records its wealth only in terms of balance sheets, and ignores the human costs of the transactions. We do have to recognise the reality of international trade – people are going to continue to eat bananas. What we must advocate is a respect for all people involved in the supply chain, from producer to consumer, not a narrow nationalism that demands we have the lowest possible cost to British consumers, but screw the consequences for people elsewhere in the world.
We can’t implement global legislation to demand Fair Trade. What we can do is level the playing field a little, in giving European consumers the real story behind the goods they buy. Given the choice, more people will pay a little extra for goods that were not produced in sweat shop conditions. If you really start to think about it, if all that is on offer in the rest of the world is sweat shop working conditions, people will then be more likely to try to migrate to countries with better terms and conditions. The dots join up if you take the time to look at them.
I’ll bring sport as another example. In the English football leagues in the 1970s and 1980s, international players were unusual. A lot of the migrating talent was from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. A brief look at the dominant (and all White) Liverpool side of the early 1980s is revealing:
Clemence, Kennedy, Hansen (S), Lawrenson (I), Neal, Kennedy, Lee, Souness (S), McDermott, Dalgleish (S), Rush (W)
Within a decade, the Liverpool team includes Craig Johnson (Australia) and a Black player, John Barnes.
Fast forward thirty years, and you have a multi ethnic dominant Manchester United team at the end of the 2009 season, with the following internationals:
Van der Saar (Dutch), O’Shea (Ireland), Ferdinand (England), Vidic (Serbia), Park (Korea), Giggs (Wales), Carrick (England), Ronaldo (Portugal), Rooney (England), Berbatov (Bulgaria), Tevez (Argentina)
Does this mean that the English national team is under threat, or that England has somehow been lost? No. We fully accept international player transfers. The Bosman ruling has tipped the scales in favour of bigger and longer contracts for the top players. I’m as appalled as anyone by the huge disparity in wealth between the footballing elite and the working class supporters, but in terms of communicating an alternative to “immigration is bad” attitude that prevails, sport has a key role to play.
The key to understanding migration and challenging the attitudes on the doorstep is connecting with people in terms they understand. During the 2009 European Election campaign on a busy high street, one of our activists was surrounded by five young lads, all first time voters, who were going to vote BNP. I stepped in to talk with them.
The language used by these young men was racist. They said they were voting BNP because of all the “pakis” that walked round their town acting as if they owned it, and the fact that white English people couldn’t get jobs because of all the people coming into the country. I wasn’t going to get a vote out of this conversation, nor would I want to given the language they used, which I challenged each time.
It would have been wrong not to try to at least get some movement or small change to their thinking and let them walk away without something to give them pause for thought. My question to them was a simple one, “Is Amir Khan British?” Even these young men, despite their clearly racist attitudes, would not go as far as the BNP. They said, yes, Amir Khan is British, because he picks up the union flag and fights for Britain.
Their attitude to Asian British people living in their area is not unusual. Communities are often divided, with schools and geography reinforcing those divisions, not breaking them down. These men felt they had something in common with Amir Khan, someone they had never met, because of the way he conducts himself and reaches across racial barriers. But their racist attitudes and pro-BNP views come from what they perceive as injustice against their community.
If you visit Derry in Northern Ireland, you can see the logical conclusion of divided and segregated communities by walking around the city walls. Enclaves of unionist and nationalist communities still exist, divided by huge fences. We don’t want that to ever be repeated in Britain. We cannot allow the hatred and the bitterness that divided communities in Northern Ireland for generations to become a reality in England. The divisions in Northern Ireland are better described as sectarian, rather than racist, but the root causes are the same – a sense of injustice.
So at a root level, challenging and tackling racism means challenging and tackling this sense of injustice. It means that the facts are given about what it means to be Asian, Black or White in terms of your job prospects. It means Green councillors being willing to challenge assertions that one or other community is getting preferential treatment. At the same time we need sporting role models such as Amir Khan, Joleon Lescott or Rio Ferdinand to be there in the public debate to challenge the lies that the BNP peddle about who is or isn’t British.
At a national level, the debate must be moved on. Whenever we talk about “immigration” to Britain, we must do so in the context of global population movements. How many thousands are being forced off land in Bangladesh, how many ten of thousands are fleeing from extremists in Pakistan and how many hundreds of thousands are escaping from genocide in Darfur? We need a global picture of population movements, and we need global stability as a solution to what has so far been painted as an “immigration” problem.
Without a truly international perspective, addressing human rights, environmental degradation and extreme poverty, humans will continue to be pushed around the globe in ever increasing numbers. And without Green leadership on this debate, we are going to be forced to endure ever increasing knee jerk coverage.
Today’s Guardian reports that globally 42 million people had been forced to uproot and move last year. How many more are on the move because of poverty or to escape persecution? How much longer will our national media ignore the reality of the debate on migration and pretend this is an issue that can be stopped at the British border?
I have to highlight this excellent piece from Liberal Conspiracy. Look at the coverage from the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph about “immigration”. It is no surprise that their readerships will be concerned about the issue.
Is Britain a culturally richer and better place today because of migration? Yes. There isn’t a debate on this. We need leadership to challenge the current framing of the media coverage of migration, and as usual it will be up to the Greens to show how it is done. We have an internationalist outlook for climate, for trade and for sport, so why does a section of our international media obsess with a narrow and nationalist view of migration?
You have international cuisine competing with the best of traditional British food. Our steak and ale pies are not under threat because of Mongolian barbeques or vegetable korma. Where do the BNP stand on bananas? I think we need to know. These yellow fruits have been coming to our land for hundreds of years.
This is a business reality, it is international trade, and how those bananas end up on our shelves is an international story. It is often a story of exploitation and misery, with producers unable to afford to send their children to school when international prices drop.
As a Green I’ll argue for Fair Trade ahead of unfettered free marketeering, which records its wealth only in terms of balance sheets, and ignores the human costs of the transactions. We do have to recognise the reality of international trade – people are going to continue to eat bananas. What we must advocate is a respect for all people involved in the supply chain, from producer to consumer, not a narrow nationalism that demands we have the lowest possible cost to British consumers, but screw the consequences for people elsewhere in the world.
We can’t implement global legislation to demand Fair Trade. What we can do is level the playing field a little, in giving European consumers the real story behind the goods they buy. Given the choice, more people will pay a little extra for goods that were not produced in sweat shop conditions. If you really start to think about it, if all that is on offer in the rest of the world is sweat shop working conditions, people will then be more likely to try to migrate to countries with better terms and conditions. The dots join up if you take the time to look at them.
I’ll bring sport as another example. In the English football leagues in the 1970s and 1980s, international players were unusual. A lot of the migrating talent was from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. A brief look at the dominant (and all White) Liverpool side of the early 1980s is revealing:
Clemence, Kennedy, Hansen (S), Lawrenson (I), Neal, Kennedy, Lee, Souness (S), McDermott, Dalgleish (S), Rush (W)
Within a decade, the Liverpool team includes Craig Johnson (Australia) and a Black player, John Barnes.
Fast forward thirty years, and you have a multi ethnic dominant Manchester United team at the end of the 2009 season, with the following internationals:
Van der Saar (Dutch), O’Shea (Ireland), Ferdinand (England), Vidic (Serbia), Park (Korea), Giggs (Wales), Carrick (England), Ronaldo (Portugal), Rooney (England), Berbatov (Bulgaria), Tevez (Argentina)
Does this mean that the English national team is under threat, or that England has somehow been lost? No. We fully accept international player transfers. The Bosman ruling has tipped the scales in favour of bigger and longer contracts for the top players. I’m as appalled as anyone by the huge disparity in wealth between the footballing elite and the working class supporters, but in terms of communicating an alternative to “immigration is bad” attitude that prevails, sport has a key role to play.
The key to understanding migration and challenging the attitudes on the doorstep is connecting with people in terms they understand. During the 2009 European Election campaign on a busy high street, one of our activists was surrounded by five young lads, all first time voters, who were going to vote BNP. I stepped in to talk with them.
The language used by these young men was racist. They said they were voting BNP because of all the “pakis” that walked round their town acting as if they owned it, and the fact that white English people couldn’t get jobs because of all the people coming into the country. I wasn’t going to get a vote out of this conversation, nor would I want to given the language they used, which I challenged each time.
It would have been wrong not to try to at least get some movement or small change to their thinking and let them walk away without something to give them pause for thought. My question to them was a simple one, “Is Amir Khan British?” Even these young men, despite their clearly racist attitudes, would not go as far as the BNP. They said, yes, Amir Khan is British, because he picks up the union flag and fights for Britain.
Their attitude to Asian British people living in their area is not unusual. Communities are often divided, with schools and geography reinforcing those divisions, not breaking them down. These men felt they had something in common with Amir Khan, someone they had never met, because of the way he conducts himself and reaches across racial barriers. But their racist attitudes and pro-BNP views come from what they perceive as injustice against their community.
If you visit Derry in Northern Ireland, you can see the logical conclusion of divided and segregated communities by walking around the city walls. Enclaves of unionist and nationalist communities still exist, divided by huge fences. We don’t want that to ever be repeated in Britain. We cannot allow the hatred and the bitterness that divided communities in Northern Ireland for generations to become a reality in England. The divisions in Northern Ireland are better described as sectarian, rather than racist, but the root causes are the same – a sense of injustice.
So at a root level, challenging and tackling racism means challenging and tackling this sense of injustice. It means that the facts are given about what it means to be Asian, Black or White in terms of your job prospects. It means Green councillors being willing to challenge assertions that one or other community is getting preferential treatment. At the same time we need sporting role models such as Amir Khan, Joleon Lescott or Rio Ferdinand to be there in the public debate to challenge the lies that the BNP peddle about who is or isn’t British.
At a national level, the debate must be moved on. Whenever we talk about “immigration” to Britain, we must do so in the context of global population movements. How many thousands are being forced off land in Bangladesh, how many ten of thousands are fleeing from extremists in Pakistan and how many hundreds of thousands are escaping from genocide in Darfur? We need a global picture of population movements, and we need global stability as a solution to what has so far been painted as an “immigration” problem.
Without a truly international perspective, addressing human rights, environmental degradation and extreme poverty, humans will continue to be pushed around the globe in ever increasing numbers. And without Green leadership on this debate, we are going to be forced to endure ever increasing knee jerk coverage.
Today’s Guardian reports that globally 42 million people had been forced to uproot and move last year. How many more are on the move because of poverty or to escape persecution? How much longer will our national media ignore the reality of the debate on migration and pretend this is an issue that can be stopped at the British border?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
