If the number of articles about human population published in newspapers, magazines or blogs continues to increase at its present rate, we’ll soon be faced with an unsustainable media disaster. More and more population articles, will use more and more resources, leaving no room for any other news, poor standards of coverage and a global media disaster.
Excuse what is a parody about a serious issue – a bit of light relief can sometimes help when you are looking at an issue that flags up deep intellectual disagreements. I’ll be breaking my views into two posts.
To start with, I’m going to sum up the two different positions with Greek syllogisms. Those with a view that we should curb population growth can rightly posit:
- Every single person must consume a certain amount of resources to survive
- The world has only a finite amount of resources
Therefore:
- At some point the number of people in the world will outstrip the resources available to support them
Those who point at consumption as the problem, rather than population can rightly posit:
- There are unsustainable and sustainable populations around the globe
- The excessive consumption of individuals and societies has led to the current problems of environmental degradation and social inequality
Therefore:
- Excessive consumption is a much bigger problem than population
The starting point of any debate is to therefore acknowledge (philosophically) the fact that both sides have a point, and then to start being critical of both positions.
In reply to the Malthusian view of population. This argument has been with us for centuries, but in many societies, living standards have improved, and the concerns over population have never amounted to anything. In the industrialised world we have more food available than ever before. Here in Britain, as with many such societies, we waste food on an unprecedented scale, both individually and as a society.
In response to the consumptionist viewpoint, it is true that the analysis is right, but by all calculations, an average standard of living globally, based on our currently available resources, is well below the standards currently enjoyed by the majority of people in industrialised societies. Most industrialised societies are democracies, and the majority of people will not be persuaded to vote for a reduction in their standard of living.
So there is a crucial point of agreement on both sides, which is that the Earth’s resources are finite. We do have to allow that technological innovation has had a multiplier effect on how many people a given area can support. The emergence of agriculture 10,000 years ago and the mechanisation of farm equipment are just two examples. If we were to adopt permaculture and/or be forced to return to the system of agriculture production we had before our widespread dependence on oil, it is clear that the planet would struggle to support 7 billion people with the same standards of living.
The disagreement is what to do about it. Should we curb population, consumption or both? More soon…
28 August 2009
27 August 2009
Solidarity with the Greens in Norway
I'm writing to you as a candidate of the Norwegian Green Party for the general elections on 14 September. Inspired not at least by the progress made by our sister parties in Europe earlier this year, we've been running by far our best campaign ever, and are set to multiply our share of the vote by a considerable factor from the miserable 0.14% we got four years ago.
Yet fielding a full slate of candidates, tripling membership since 2005, and being part of the most successful progressive force in the European parliament is not enough to receive mention on public television, on which election campaigns in this country are completely dependent. While we have become quite visible in printed media, the national broadcasting corporation NRK has not given us as much as one minute of coverage during this campaign. We have no system of party political broadcasts like you have in the UK -- on the contrary, we wouldn't even be allowed to buy a spot if we had the money to.
To put focus on this issue we have set up a website, www.democracyinnorway.net , explaining the situation in some detail and letting people across the world send a message to Minister of Cultural and Church Affairs, Trond Giske, who is in a position to force the NRK to let the electorate know there is a Green alternative in this election.
Our goal is to get several thousand people from across the world to write messages to Minister Giske during the coming few days. If you'd be able to assist in promoting the website on your blog and otherwise, it would be a great help!
Sincerely,
Jarle Fagerheim
Green Party of Norway
Yet fielding a full slate of candidates, tripling membership since 2005, and being part of the most successful progressive force in the European parliament is not enough to receive mention on public television, on which election campaigns in this country are completely dependent. While we have become quite visible in printed media, the national broadcasting corporation NRK has not given us as much as one minute of coverage during this campaign. We have no system of party political broadcasts like you have in the UK -- on the contrary, we wouldn't even be allowed to buy a spot if we had the money to.
To put focus on this issue we have set up a website, www.democracyinnorway.net , explaining the situation in some detail and letting people across the world send a message to Minister of Cultural and Church Affairs, Trond Giske, who is in a position to force the NRK to let the electorate know there is a Green alternative in this election.
Our goal is to get several thousand people from across the world to write messages to Minister Giske during the coming few days. If you'd be able to assist in promoting the website on your blog and otherwise, it would be a great help!
Sincerely,
Jarle Fagerheim
Green Party of Norway
26 August 2009
Party Spending
The latest donation figures are published at the Electoral Commission website. It shows the huge imbalances in our political system, although the fact that the BNP didn't manage to get their return in on time (again) means we can't compare ourselves to them.
UKIP finished as the second largest party in terms of votes, despite only getting donations around 1/3rd of the level of the Liberal Democrats. They still had more than double the amount we had to spend but on this occasion UKIP have clearly got more bang for their buck - electing 13 MEPs - compared to our result of 2 MEPs getting re-elected and 4 near (or nearish) misses.
I'm sure questions will be asked at Conference about how much of this fundraising was received centrally (around £10,000 of that figure will be for the North West region), how effectively the additional sums raised were spent, and whether more could have been done to support our target regions?
For members standing for re-election to GPEx and new candidates, it is crucial to look at our targeting strategy:
- Did we get it right this time? (Apparently not if you compare our result relative to UKIP and their resources this time round)
- What lessons are there to be learned for the General Election and resources for Target Constituencies?
- In long term planning for the next Euro Elections, should we be supporting target Euro regions with national funding?
UKIP finished as the second largest party in terms of votes, despite only getting donations around 1/3rd of the level of the Liberal Democrats. They still had more than double the amount we had to spend but on this occasion UKIP have clearly got more bang for their buck - electing 13 MEPs - compared to our result of 2 MEPs getting re-elected and 4 near (or nearish) misses.
I'm sure questions will be asked at Conference about how much of this fundraising was received centrally (around £10,000 of that figure will be for the North West region), how effectively the additional sums raised were spent, and whether more could have been done to support our target regions?
For members standing for re-election to GPEx and new candidates, it is crucial to look at our targeting strategy:
- Did we get it right this time? (Apparently not if you compare our result relative to UKIP and their resources this time round)
- What lessons are there to be learned for the General Election and resources for Target Constituencies?
- In long term planning for the next Euro Elections, should we be supporting target Euro regions with national funding?
23 August 2009
Greens, Lib Dems and the Next General Election - 2
Nothing like a bit of political trainspotting when you've been away for a while, so I'll share a few more thoughts to follow on from my pre-Norwich North posting.
It does seem to me as a Green that in areas where we are growing increasingly strong, the Lib Dems are increasingly taking an aggressive approach towards us. Read the previous titled post on this subject for other links, but the latest example of this is in Hackney, where the Greens were the 2nd largest party in votes in both the London Assembly elections last year, and the 2006 local elections.
The Liberal Democrats are themselves debating whether or not going negative on the Greens is the right tactic. This is something we should really pay attention to, because there is clearly a view amongst some Lib Dems that they should employ spoiler tactics against us in Brighton Pavilion:
"I don’t understand why the party isn’t pumping resources into the few seats the greens are fighting seriously. For example stopping Caroline Lucas winning in Brighton Pavilion is absolutely crucial to the party – otherwise we’ll find it harder and harder to get our environmental messages out in the media and in parliament because she’ll constantly get in the way because she’s so agreesive [sic]."
and
"given in Brighton they are not a side-line concern, but a much bigger concern, here’s hoping someone is doing something positive,and constructive, and going after ‘em."
There is the usual knockabout, with Green stereotypes wheeled out, and a bit of glee over our own internal shenanigans in the Ex Comms election to GPEx, but a discussion clearly worth having. As many of you will know, having cut my Green political teeth in Liverpool, we are fairly used to the worst of all of this.
So indulge me for a minute, I'm going to explore how we might in theory work with the Lib Dems, or at least avoid a head on collision next year.
Firstly, there has to be a rationale why we would want to have some form of electoral "arrangement" with the Lib Dems. That won't be based on our opinion of their politicians or their record in government, but would be on some cold hard political reasoning about us being able to deliver on our core issues.
Arguably if Labour mounted some form of fightback in the next 6 to 9months, making a hung parliament a possible outcome once again, it would be in our interests to do what we could to avoid an outright Tory majority coming about. A coalition government, with a third party insisting on some form of electoral reform would be good for British politics, particularly at this time of very low confidence in elected politicians.
We should remember that the fact we have Green Euro MPs, Green London Assembly members and Green MSPs is down to the very limited reforms carried out in the first term of this Labour government. I think the Greens we have elected to these positions have done well for the people they represent and for our political development. Greens at Westminster as a result of further reforms would see a similar step forward.
The second consideration is our own contribution towards any electoral understanding with the Lib Dems. A national level analysis would point to a strategy that would see the Greens avoid standing candidates in Lib Dem / Tory marginals. In the unlikely event that a majority Labour government was a possibility, it would also mean that we should avoid Lib Dem / Labour marginals, such as the constituency I live in, Liverpool Wavertree.
As Greens know, and non-Greens often don't, the selection of candidates is done at the most local level. So here in Liverpool we opened nominations for all 5 constituencies, and voted on selecting two parliamentary candidates. Tom Crone (Liverpool Riverside) and Rob Smith (Liverpool Wavertree) were selected by local members. The same is true for most candidate selections around the country.
Given that we are likely to stand closer to 400 candidates out of 650 this time, where we stand is going to have an impact on the result. Many of us are frustrated by the fact that Birmingham Greens have a candidate in place to stand against Salma Yaqoob at the General Election, although there are discussions that are ongoing about this. Locally some Greens may even be worried that a Green candidate will see a hard working Lib Dem or Labour incumbent replaced by a Conservative. That might also have an impact on local selection policy.
These decisions take place at a local level, with occasional regional party involvement, but it misses one obvious crucial factor. Green candidates are more likely to stand where there are Green members and Green voters. More often than not, this is where the two party monopoly has already been to an extent broken open by the Lib Dems. Where you have a lot of Lib Dem voters, you tend to also get more Green voters.
So any national decision making or attempt to discuss electoral arrangements must devolve down to the local level to stand a chance of success. That would involve considerable internal communication and discussion within the Greens, and would have to start very soon.
The third factor would be the cost / benefit analysis of what might come out of dialogue between the Greens and Lib Dems. What is clear is that in some cases (such as Oxford) negative Lib Dem tactics have been successful when deployed against the Greens. In other places such as Liverpool, we've been very prepared to deal with such attacks and turn them round very quickly - and they have so far been unsuccessful. So one argument is that an end to the negative attacks on the Greens in our target areas by the Lib Dems would potentially give us the opportunity to win more seats at Westminster.
A second potential benefit is that you would have a much less off-putting debate if Greens and Lib Dems could acknowledge that whatever our differences, there are genuine attempts within both parties to address social and environmental issues. This more consensual (European) style of political discourse might appeal to the public during an election where Labour and the Tories will be knocking the stuffing out of each other.
Finally, the benefit to the Liberal Democrats would be local Green parties actively avoiding the selection of candidates in Lib Dem / Tory marginals, or perhaps choosing to redeploy selected candidates elsewhere. That would mean losing less seats overall, and perhaps even gaining some. It might mean a hung parliament and a chance to make good on one of the key campaigning issues of the Liberal Democrats, real electoral reform.
As many of you know, I am personally sceptical about any dealings with the Lib Dems, and for a variety of internal and external reasons, I think it is highly unlikely that anything like this can come about. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and treated with all seriousness because there are Lib Dems like Chris Davies, their MEP in North West. I might disagree with him strongly on some issues, but it must be acknowledged that he shares many of our concerns and is trying to do something about them.
It does seem to me as a Green that in areas where we are growing increasingly strong, the Lib Dems are increasingly taking an aggressive approach towards us. Read the previous titled post on this subject for other links, but the latest example of this is in Hackney, where the Greens were the 2nd largest party in votes in both the London Assembly elections last year, and the 2006 local elections.
The Liberal Democrats are themselves debating whether or not going negative on the Greens is the right tactic. This is something we should really pay attention to, because there is clearly a view amongst some Lib Dems that they should employ spoiler tactics against us in Brighton Pavilion:
"I don’t understand why the party isn’t pumping resources into the few seats the greens are fighting seriously. For example stopping Caroline Lucas winning in Brighton Pavilion is absolutely crucial to the party – otherwise we’ll find it harder and harder to get our environmental messages out in the media and in parliament because she’ll constantly get in the way because she’s so agreesive [sic]."
and
"given in Brighton they are not a side-line concern, but a much bigger concern, here’s hoping someone is doing something positive,and constructive, and going after ‘em."
There is the usual knockabout, with Green stereotypes wheeled out, and a bit of glee over our own internal shenanigans in the Ex Comms election to GPEx, but a discussion clearly worth having. As many of you will know, having cut my Green political teeth in Liverpool, we are fairly used to the worst of all of this.
So indulge me for a minute, I'm going to explore how we might in theory work with the Lib Dems, or at least avoid a head on collision next year.
Firstly, there has to be a rationale why we would want to have some form of electoral "arrangement" with the Lib Dems. That won't be based on our opinion of their politicians or their record in government, but would be on some cold hard political reasoning about us being able to deliver on our core issues.
Arguably if Labour mounted some form of fightback in the next 6 to 9months, making a hung parliament a possible outcome once again, it would be in our interests to do what we could to avoid an outright Tory majority coming about. A coalition government, with a third party insisting on some form of electoral reform would be good for British politics, particularly at this time of very low confidence in elected politicians.
We should remember that the fact we have Green Euro MPs, Green London Assembly members and Green MSPs is down to the very limited reforms carried out in the first term of this Labour government. I think the Greens we have elected to these positions have done well for the people they represent and for our political development. Greens at Westminster as a result of further reforms would see a similar step forward.
The second consideration is our own contribution towards any electoral understanding with the Lib Dems. A national level analysis would point to a strategy that would see the Greens avoid standing candidates in Lib Dem / Tory marginals. In the unlikely event that a majority Labour government was a possibility, it would also mean that we should avoid Lib Dem / Labour marginals, such as the constituency I live in, Liverpool Wavertree.
As Greens know, and non-Greens often don't, the selection of candidates is done at the most local level. So here in Liverpool we opened nominations for all 5 constituencies, and voted on selecting two parliamentary candidates. Tom Crone (Liverpool Riverside) and Rob Smith (Liverpool Wavertree) were selected by local members. The same is true for most candidate selections around the country.
Given that we are likely to stand closer to 400 candidates out of 650 this time, where we stand is going to have an impact on the result. Many of us are frustrated by the fact that Birmingham Greens have a candidate in place to stand against Salma Yaqoob at the General Election, although there are discussions that are ongoing about this. Locally some Greens may even be worried that a Green candidate will see a hard working Lib Dem or Labour incumbent replaced by a Conservative. That might also have an impact on local selection policy.
These decisions take place at a local level, with occasional regional party involvement, but it misses one obvious crucial factor. Green candidates are more likely to stand where there are Green members and Green voters. More often than not, this is where the two party monopoly has already been to an extent broken open by the Lib Dems. Where you have a lot of Lib Dem voters, you tend to also get more Green voters.
So any national decision making or attempt to discuss electoral arrangements must devolve down to the local level to stand a chance of success. That would involve considerable internal communication and discussion within the Greens, and would have to start very soon.
The third factor would be the cost / benefit analysis of what might come out of dialogue between the Greens and Lib Dems. What is clear is that in some cases (such as Oxford) negative Lib Dem tactics have been successful when deployed against the Greens. In other places such as Liverpool, we've been very prepared to deal with such attacks and turn them round very quickly - and they have so far been unsuccessful. So one argument is that an end to the negative attacks on the Greens in our target areas by the Lib Dems would potentially give us the opportunity to win more seats at Westminster.
A second potential benefit is that you would have a much less off-putting debate if Greens and Lib Dems could acknowledge that whatever our differences, there are genuine attempts within both parties to address social and environmental issues. This more consensual (European) style of political discourse might appeal to the public during an election where Labour and the Tories will be knocking the stuffing out of each other.
Finally, the benefit to the Liberal Democrats would be local Green parties actively avoiding the selection of candidates in Lib Dem / Tory marginals, or perhaps choosing to redeploy selected candidates elsewhere. That would mean losing less seats overall, and perhaps even gaining some. It might mean a hung parliament and a chance to make good on one of the key campaigning issues of the Liberal Democrats, real electoral reform.
As many of you know, I am personally sceptical about any dealings with the Lib Dems, and for a variety of internal and external reasons, I think it is highly unlikely that anything like this can come about. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and treated with all seriousness because there are Lib Dems like Chris Davies, their MEP in North West. I might disagree with him strongly on some issues, but it must be acknowledged that he shares many of our concerns and is trying to do something about them.
Thank You
I've been away for a long weekend and away from the internet most of the time. It's nice to return to some good news. I'd like to thank everyone who voted for this blog in the Total Politics poll. Apparently out of 1500 votes, this blog finished 3rd after the excellent Daily Maybe and Two Doctors blogs.
I'll try and catch up with everything I've missed in the next 48 hours. To everyone that reads the blog and voted for it, thank you. I'm not particularly good at the bells and whistles (or even images), so my response will be to up my skills in that department in the coming year. Some interesting news for readers will be coming soon.
I'll try and catch up with everything I've missed in the next 48 hours. To everyone that reads the blog and voted for it, thank you. I'm not particularly good at the bells and whistles (or even images), so my response will be to up my skills in that department in the coming year. Some interesting news for readers will be coming soon.
19 August 2009
The People's Alliance
This Saturday in Wigan, a new loosely formed left of centre grouping, called The People’s Alliance, will launch to cover Wigan, Leigh and Makerfield. It brings together the well established Community Action Party (CAP), groups on the left such as Respect and the Socialist Party. I was also invited to speak.
Some background to this is crucial, so indulge me for a little bit. In the North West region during the European Elections, the Respect Party and the CAP were not standing. Rather than sit on the sidelines, they judged that campaigning to increase the number of Green votes would be the best way to stop the BNP, rather than advocating a vote for *anyone*, or (reluctantly) backing Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
The results showed they were right, but unfortunately we fell short of stopping the BNP by less than 5,000 votes. Other socialist parties made a different judgement, and there were candidate lists from the Socialist Labour Party and NO2EU, who attracted nearly 50,000 votes between them.
I’ve made clear my position. If other parties run in an election, it is up to the Greens to gain sufficient votes to win a seat, whether on a PR basis or First Past the Post. We’d be hypocritical to suggest otherwise, as the Liberal Democrats are often quick to “blame” a Green candidate when they lose a seat by a marginal amount.
But there is a continuing election post mortem debate going on and multiple discussions within the left of British poltics. Monday’s feature piece in the Guardian is one such example. John Nicholson, a sympathetic fellow traveller on the left, has argued that the left failed because it did not offer more backing to the Greens:
“The fascists could have been stopped, in the two particular regions where local left activists had identified that the arithmetic and the politics added up to uniting in a vote for the Greens. If all left activists had used their energies not just to put out “hope not hate” literature or to go on anti-fascist bashes but to encourage, personally, individually and collectively, a vote for the Greens, then we would not have the BNP in power.”
It is an interesting debate and here in the North West the key arguments boil down to three principle areas of discussion:
1. Respect and the CAP actively encouraged their members and supporters to back the Greens in the North West and the Midlands. This clearly had an impact, as can be seen if you look at the ward by ward breakdown of the Birmingham results, where the Green vote was massively up in the areas where Respect are strong
2. If SLP / NO2EU had not stood and instead had actively campaigned for a tactical vote for the Greens to stop the BNP, would at least 1 in 10 of the people who voted SLP / NO2EU have been willing to back the Greens instead?
3. If SLP / NO2EU had not stood, would 5,000 more of their voters switched to the Greens than to the BNP, assuming that the SLP and NO2EU had not backed any other party?
No one can prove that in the last scenario, giving the North West Greens a “clear run”, there would have been enough extra Green votes to beat the BNP, but it is clear that in scenario 2, more active backing for the Greens would have enabled us to beat the far right. I have an email from a NO2EU candidate who was considering voting for us, and if that was the case, undoubtedly many of their supporters would have similar views.
Elsewhere Ian Donovan and others have made the case that NO2EU voters would not have supported anyone else, and may not have voted at all without a socialist alternative.
“…To mobilise these people politically, a working class party and clearly working class politics are necessary. That is the only kind of ‘progressive’ politics that can be effective on this political terrain.”
Ian clearly still holds a stereotypical view of the Greens and includes various denouncements such as, “middle class arrogance” and “shrill”, but his key point is valid - some socialist voters with a class based analysis, just don’t see us as an acceptable ideological option. This is probably a fair representation of a proportion of NO2EU’s supporters.
But the political reality in the North West is that while 10.7% of voters backed the Greens or socialist in the Euro Elections, only 10.4% backed the BNP and English Democrats - and it is the BNP who now hold a seat and the resources that seat brings with it.
So bringing this back to the People’s Alliance project, what is important is the future and not the past. I’ll work with anyone who wants to see the BNP lose their Euro seat in 2014, and given the realities of the D’Hondt electoral system, I hope that others will work with the Greens.
Working together with anti-racists, whether green, socialist or liberal, is going to be essential for the future of British politics. While I respect the right of Ian Donovan and others to make their case, I hope that the arguments made by Salma Yaqoob and John Nicholson are going to be the ones that prevail in the coming four years.
Some background to this is crucial, so indulge me for a little bit. In the North West region during the European Elections, the Respect Party and the CAP were not standing. Rather than sit on the sidelines, they judged that campaigning to increase the number of Green votes would be the best way to stop the BNP, rather than advocating a vote for *anyone*, or (reluctantly) backing Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
The results showed they were right, but unfortunately we fell short of stopping the BNP by less than 5,000 votes. Other socialist parties made a different judgement, and there were candidate lists from the Socialist Labour Party and NO2EU, who attracted nearly 50,000 votes between them.
I’ve made clear my position. If other parties run in an election, it is up to the Greens to gain sufficient votes to win a seat, whether on a PR basis or First Past the Post. We’d be hypocritical to suggest otherwise, as the Liberal Democrats are often quick to “blame” a Green candidate when they lose a seat by a marginal amount.
But there is a continuing election post mortem debate going on and multiple discussions within the left of British poltics. Monday’s feature piece in the Guardian is one such example. John Nicholson, a sympathetic fellow traveller on the left, has argued that the left failed because it did not offer more backing to the Greens:
“The fascists could have been stopped, in the two particular regions where local left activists had identified that the arithmetic and the politics added up to uniting in a vote for the Greens. If all left activists had used their energies not just to put out “hope not hate” literature or to go on anti-fascist bashes but to encourage, personally, individually and collectively, a vote for the Greens, then we would not have the BNP in power.”
It is an interesting debate and here in the North West the key arguments boil down to three principle areas of discussion:
1. Respect and the CAP actively encouraged their members and supporters to back the Greens in the North West and the Midlands. This clearly had an impact, as can be seen if you look at the ward by ward breakdown of the Birmingham results, where the Green vote was massively up in the areas where Respect are strong
2. If SLP / NO2EU had not stood and instead had actively campaigned for a tactical vote for the Greens to stop the BNP, would at least 1 in 10 of the people who voted SLP / NO2EU have been willing to back the Greens instead?
3. If SLP / NO2EU had not stood, would 5,000 more of their voters switched to the Greens than to the BNP, assuming that the SLP and NO2EU had not backed any other party?
No one can prove that in the last scenario, giving the North West Greens a “clear run”, there would have been enough extra Green votes to beat the BNP, but it is clear that in scenario 2, more active backing for the Greens would have enabled us to beat the far right. I have an email from a NO2EU candidate who was considering voting for us, and if that was the case, undoubtedly many of their supporters would have similar views.
Elsewhere Ian Donovan and others have made the case that NO2EU voters would not have supported anyone else, and may not have voted at all without a socialist alternative.
“…To mobilise these people politically, a working class party and clearly working class politics are necessary. That is the only kind of ‘progressive’ politics that can be effective on this political terrain.”
Ian clearly still holds a stereotypical view of the Greens and includes various denouncements such as, “middle class arrogance” and “shrill”, but his key point is valid - some socialist voters with a class based analysis, just don’t see us as an acceptable ideological option. This is probably a fair representation of a proportion of NO2EU’s supporters.
But the political reality in the North West is that while 10.7% of voters backed the Greens or socialist in the Euro Elections, only 10.4% backed the BNP and English Democrats - and it is the BNP who now hold a seat and the resources that seat brings with it.
So bringing this back to the People’s Alliance project, what is important is the future and not the past. I’ll work with anyone who wants to see the BNP lose their Euro seat in 2014, and given the realities of the D’Hondt electoral system, I hope that others will work with the Greens.
Working together with anti-racists, whether green, socialist or liberal, is going to be essential for the future of British politics. While I respect the right of Ian Donovan and others to make their case, I hope that the arguments made by Salma Yaqoob and John Nicholson are going to be the ones that prevail in the coming four years.
17 August 2009
David Bartlett's Blog
Local journalist David Bartlett runs a good blog that keeps you up to date on the Liverpool political scene. He has two interesting stories up at the moment.
There is a survey looking at who is to blame for the increased costs to redevelop Edge Lane. Green party candidate Elizabeth Pascoe fought for five years to defend her own home from developers, ultimately losing, but still able to make the point that there is still no viable development scheme after her perfectly good house is knocked down.
A second piece is on local Green Cllr John Coyne's bold and controversial proposal to cut the number of councillors in Liverpool and/or switch to elections once every four years, in order to save the city council money. I've made one comment myself, but I'd expect more - proposals to reduce the amount of money paid to politicians tend to be popular in the current climate.
There is a survey looking at who is to blame for the increased costs to redevelop Edge Lane. Green party candidate Elizabeth Pascoe fought for five years to defend her own home from developers, ultimately losing, but still able to make the point that there is still no viable development scheme after her perfectly good house is knocked down.
A second piece is on local Green Cllr John Coyne's bold and controversial proposal to cut the number of councillors in Liverpool and/or switch to elections once every four years, in order to save the city council money. I've made one comment myself, but I'd expect more - proposals to reduce the amount of money paid to politicians tend to be popular in the current climate.
14 August 2009
Wow in Scarborough
Congratulations to Scarborough Greens on an astonishing result in yesterday's council byelection according to the Vote-2007.co.uk website. Well done Nick Harvey. The result for Hertford ward was:
Green 894 (66.5%)
Con 356 (26.5%)
Ind 94 (7.0%)
Green 894 (66.5%)
Con 356 (26.5%)
Ind 94 (7.0%)
13 August 2009
The Real Issue - Unemployment
We are back to the 1980s again. A generation of young people face a jobless future. Our politicians seem devoid of any real solution, and a projected increase in violence, anti-social behaviour and substance abuse is expected.
Right now, we need to be focusing on what the Green Party is going to do to create jobs. We need ideas. We need a real debate.
- How do we pay for job creation?
- What jobs are we going to create and what jobs do we save?
- What can we do to implement these ideas where Greens are already elected?
The fact that Vestas is closing, while Jaguar Land Rover and Vauxhall are in receipt of government assistance, should be reason enough for Greens to be debating the issue that really matters, right now, to your friends, your neighbours and to hundreds of thousands more families up and down the country each month.
Right now, we need to be focusing on what the Green Party is going to do to create jobs. We need ideas. We need a real debate.
- How do we pay for job creation?
- What jobs are we going to create and what jobs do we save?
- What can we do to implement these ideas where Greens are already elected?
The fact that Vestas is closing, while Jaguar Land Rover and Vauxhall are in receipt of government assistance, should be reason enough for Greens to be debating the issue that really matters, right now, to your friends, your neighbours and to hundreds of thousands more families up and down the country each month.
10 August 2009
A Pig's Ear on Tamiflu Stockpiles?
This probably needs further investigation by someone with more time, but a couple of GP blogs have pointed out that large numbers of the Tamiflu anti-viral dosages will expire this autumn. The Jobbing Doctor believes this is the reason why the government is so keen to get this out.
If we are in for a far more serious outbreak of Swine 'Flu later in the year, it would be shocking if large stocks of Tamiflu were by then out of date. However, given the comments on the Jobbing Doctor and NHS Blog Doctor, there is some question as to how many people are actually completing the prescribed Tamiflu doses, given the side effects being reported.
If we are in for a far more serious outbreak of Swine 'Flu later in the year, it would be shocking if large stocks of Tamiflu were by then out of date. However, given the comments on the Jobbing Doctor and NHS Blog Doctor, there is some question as to how many people are actually completing the prescribed Tamiflu doses, given the side effects being reported.
7 August 2009
GPEx Elections - The Postal Ballots
If you are not already aware of the impending elections for GPEx, you will be soon. I remember this time of year well from my spell on the Exec as Elections Co-ordinator. It is good that we are getting contested elections for some roles, but I am a little concerned that a number of positions look unlikely to be filled until Conference. I hope that the talented people we do have with available time in our party are willing to step up at that time.
Chair
Jayne Forbes is the favourite for this contest and has already attracted the backing of a number of Senior Party figures. She will be up against Rayyan Mirza.
External Communications
Tracy Dighton-Brown is standing for re-election and is being challenged by a job share between Rupert Read and Jason Kitcat.
I'm not endorsing candidates at this point and there are reasons why I may not end up endorsing any candidate in this election. I think it is vital we have elected internal contests, which will enable us to discuss the issues and the vision candidates have for the General Election campaign in the coming nine months.
Each of the candidates has already had two questions from me, although I know at least one person is still on holiday. I hope to get a full reply from everyone, and it is likely to be on that basis that I cast my vote. I'd urge all members to use this election as a chance to communicate with the candidates who will likely prove pivotal to the General Election campaign if elected this year.
Chair
Jayne Forbes is the favourite for this contest and has already attracted the backing of a number of Senior Party figures. She will be up against Rayyan Mirza.
External Communications
Tracy Dighton-Brown is standing for re-election and is being challenged by a job share between Rupert Read and Jason Kitcat.
I'm not endorsing candidates at this point and there are reasons why I may not end up endorsing any candidate in this election. I think it is vital we have elected internal contests, which will enable us to discuss the issues and the vision candidates have for the General Election campaign in the coming nine months.
Each of the candidates has already had two questions from me, although I know at least one person is still on holiday. I hope to get a full reply from everyone, and it is likely to be on that basis that I cast my vote. I'd urge all members to use this election as a chance to communicate with the candidates who will likely prove pivotal to the General Election campaign if elected this year.
6 August 2009
# Ridiculous Dream
In a departure from my usual blog postings, I'll share with you a recent, and highly unusual dream I had.
# I found myself shopping in Iran, where I purchased some badges and a flag to show my support for the Green protesters. I then walked into an official Iranian function with them in my back pocket, and suddenly realised I could quickly get arrested or worse.
Having made it into a local shop, I ended up in a random meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came across as a bit of comedy figure with a serious attitude problem.
The dream ended when I suddenly realised, in a very disturbing moment, that I was in fact Dara O'Brien (from Mock the Week) and I was relaying this story to a studio audience. #
Who says television doesn't have an impact on the brain? I just found the way these two things combined as quite unbelievable.
Whatever next? I even had a waking dream that Celtic won an away game in Europe. Seriously - did that really happen?
# I found myself shopping in Iran, where I purchased some badges and a flag to show my support for the Green protesters. I then walked into an official Iranian function with them in my back pocket, and suddenly realised I could quickly get arrested or worse.
Having made it into a local shop, I ended up in a random meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came across as a bit of comedy figure with a serious attitude problem.
The dream ended when I suddenly realised, in a very disturbing moment, that I was in fact Dara O'Brien (from Mock the Week) and I was relaying this story to a studio audience. #
Who says television doesn't have an impact on the brain? I just found the way these two things combined as quite unbelievable.
Whatever next? I even had a waking dream that Celtic won an away game in Europe. Seriously - did that really happen?
5 August 2009
Publishing Expenses
Liverpool's Greens believe in accountability. On the Liverpool Council website you can get a link to the city council's own publication of the allowances paid out in the last year. However a recent request by Green councillors to a session of full council for a complete disclosure of expenses was voted down by the other parties.
So instead, Liverpool Green Party brings you, courtesy of a Freedom of Information request, the redacted details (certain sensitive data was blacked out in the FoI information we were given) of Liverpool councillor expenses in the last year. Nothing spectacular, or particularly scandalous, but you'll note the serious failure of most Liverpool councillors (excepting our excellent Green representatives) to use public transport to attend meetings despite this being Liverpool's Year of the Environment.
The local media have failed to bite on this so far, but we can only hope they've got a bit of research time to go through and check things like mileage claims and distances travelled. They may even unearth something we've missed. Given we've managed this in Liverpool, an FoI request on expenses in your own council area is an obvious step towards real open government.
While this might not make us that popular with the other parties, I thing it is right and proper that those paying council tax have a right to see what expenses are being claimed by their elected representatives.
So instead, Liverpool Green Party brings you, courtesy of a Freedom of Information request, the redacted details (certain sensitive data was blacked out in the FoI information we were given) of Liverpool councillor expenses in the last year. Nothing spectacular, or particularly scandalous, but you'll note the serious failure of most Liverpool councillors (excepting our excellent Green representatives) to use public transport to attend meetings despite this being Liverpool's Year of the Environment.
The local media have failed to bite on this so far, but we can only hope they've got a bit of research time to go through and check things like mileage claims and distances travelled. They may even unearth something we've missed. Given we've managed this in Liverpool, an FoI request on expenses in your own council area is an obvious step towards real open government.
While this might not make us that popular with the other parties, I thing it is right and proper that those paying council tax have a right to see what expenses are being claimed by their elected representatives.
4 August 2009
Party Funding - UK Government for Hire
The Observer carried this report on Sunday:
"A much-publicised law designed to stop wealthy tax exiles bankrolling political parties has been quietly dropped until after a general election, the Observer has learned.
The disclosure means that key Labour donors such as Lakshmi Mittal as well as Tory donor Lord Ashcroft will still be able to pump millions of pounds into the forthcoming election campaign, despite promises to curb the influence of wealthy backers. It has prompted accusations that the government has "nobbled" an act of parliament by failing to ask the electoral commission to enforce the rule."
We should continue to point out that party funding in this party remains open to abuse and that all three main parliamentary parties are involved. Fair play to the Observer, despite the Guardian group newspapers increasingly nudging towards the Lib Dems, they do remind us at the end of the article that the Lib Dems accept these donations as well:
"The Liberal Democrats have also received funds from donors domiciled abroad. Bhanu and Dhruv Choudhrie, businessmen who originate from India, have given more than £475,000 through their companies. Bhanu's father Sudhir Choudhrie is also domiciled abroad and has given the party £95,000."
There should be a maximum donation of £200 from any individual living abroad or paying tax abroad, donating to a British political party. To have anything other than this system falls short of the better standards we need in public life.
"A much-publicised law designed to stop wealthy tax exiles bankrolling political parties has been quietly dropped until after a general election, the Observer has learned.
The disclosure means that key Labour donors such as Lakshmi Mittal as well as Tory donor Lord Ashcroft will still be able to pump millions of pounds into the forthcoming election campaign, despite promises to curb the influence of wealthy backers. It has prompted accusations that the government has "nobbled" an act of parliament by failing to ask the electoral commission to enforce the rule."
We should continue to point out that party funding in this party remains open to abuse and that all three main parliamentary parties are involved. Fair play to the Observer, despite the Guardian group newspapers increasingly nudging towards the Lib Dems, they do remind us at the end of the article that the Lib Dems accept these donations as well:
"The Liberal Democrats have also received funds from donors domiciled abroad. Bhanu and Dhruv Choudhrie, businessmen who originate from India, have given more than £475,000 through their companies. Bhanu's father Sudhir Choudhrie is also domiciled abroad and has given the party £95,000."
There should be a maximum donation of £200 from any individual living abroad or paying tax abroad, donating to a British political party. To have anything other than this system falls short of the better standards we need in public life.
2 August 2009
Don't Knock It
If you are a small underfunded party, competing against better financed opponents, what is the key to success? You must rely on your party working harder than the other parties and getting your message across effectively. For a long time we were good at the first part, but not so good at the second.
Then a man called Chris Rose and a few brilliant others came up with an effective strategy, which involved knocking on doors to communicate directly with the public, helping us to identify common problems and then tackling them for the good of the community. This enabled us to be better at working harder than our opponents, and overcame the difficulty in always being at a financial disadvantage in terms of the number of leaflets our opponents can dish out.
Two and a half years ago, while door knocking in St Michaels in Liverpool (not at election time) I got an angry man at the door. He informed me in a very hostile manner that all politicians were the same, and should be lined up against the wall and shot, along with all the social workers (while briefly tempted, I didn't say I was a social worker as well at that time). When someone is aggressive, or verbally abusive as in this case, we make a point of not calling again. Green door knockers, who are volunteers giving up their own personal time, should not be subject to verbal abuse or aggressive behaviour.
That experience is an occasional one - maybe one in a thousand door knocks by a Green person will be met with verbal abuse. Actually people are pleased to get a chance to talk about the issues that concern them. They probably haven't ever had a politician call round, and it does change how people see politics. But if someone verbally abuses me or another volunteer door knocker, then we don't need to call at that address again. If we already have elected councillors in that ward, then there are other ways to communicate with that constituent, without volunteers being subjected to further abuse.
However, inevitably you do catch people at inconvenient times. Someone might be feeding the baby, in bed ill or in the middle of their favourite tv programme (although we schedule door knocking in Liverpool to avoid the football matches). Seldom does this result in abuse for the door knocker, but it is clear it is inconvenient timing. Norfolk Blogger reports a rather embarrassing encounter in this post during the Norwich North byelection.
The mechanics are fairly simple. Knock too quietly and people don't hear you. If we do catch someone at an inconvenient time, we should try and leave a survey or contact details. If a householder isn't in, we should ask for the survey to be passed onto the householder. We should do this in a polite way and use common sense as much as possible.
The vast majority of people do want real representation from their local politicians once again. Greens should continue to door knock to show exactly why we are different from the other parties. If I inconvenience someone, I apologise and move on. Misunderstandings do occur in life but common courtesy from both parties will resolve most of these. Door knocking means a better deal for local residents, and should be common practice from all political parties, not just us.
Then a man called Chris Rose and a few brilliant others came up with an effective strategy, which involved knocking on doors to communicate directly with the public, helping us to identify common problems and then tackling them for the good of the community. This enabled us to be better at working harder than our opponents, and overcame the difficulty in always being at a financial disadvantage in terms of the number of leaflets our opponents can dish out.
Two and a half years ago, while door knocking in St Michaels in Liverpool (not at election time) I got an angry man at the door. He informed me in a very hostile manner that all politicians were the same, and should be lined up against the wall and shot, along with all the social workers (while briefly tempted, I didn't say I was a social worker as well at that time). When someone is aggressive, or verbally abusive as in this case, we make a point of not calling again. Green door knockers, who are volunteers giving up their own personal time, should not be subject to verbal abuse or aggressive behaviour.
That experience is an occasional one - maybe one in a thousand door knocks by a Green person will be met with verbal abuse. Actually people are pleased to get a chance to talk about the issues that concern them. They probably haven't ever had a politician call round, and it does change how people see politics. But if someone verbally abuses me or another volunteer door knocker, then we don't need to call at that address again. If we already have elected councillors in that ward, then there are other ways to communicate with that constituent, without volunteers being subjected to further abuse.
However, inevitably you do catch people at inconvenient times. Someone might be feeding the baby, in bed ill or in the middle of their favourite tv programme (although we schedule door knocking in Liverpool to avoid the football matches). Seldom does this result in abuse for the door knocker, but it is clear it is inconvenient timing. Norfolk Blogger reports a rather embarrassing encounter in this post during the Norwich North byelection.
The mechanics are fairly simple. Knock too quietly and people don't hear you. If we do catch someone at an inconvenient time, we should try and leave a survey or contact details. If a householder isn't in, we should ask for the survey to be passed onto the householder. We should do this in a polite way and use common sense as much as possible.
The vast majority of people do want real representation from their local politicians once again. Greens should continue to door knock to show exactly why we are different from the other parties. If I inconvenience someone, I apologise and move on. Misunderstandings do occur in life but common courtesy from both parties will resolve most of these. Door knocking means a better deal for local residents, and should be common practice from all political parties, not just us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)