Let's congratulate the students and all those out there brave enough to protest against the cuts, and the OK Magazine /Celebrity culture garbage, that many of us felt may have resulted in leaving us all comatose in recent years.
It is great to see yesterday the students protesting and writing things such as 'Revolution' on the walls in Whitehall. Yes the 'Evening Standard' and the rest of the mainstream media will protest against the 'violence' and 'destruction', whilst ignoring the 'violence' and 'destruction' caused by the Tories and Liberal Democrats on our society over the last few months. Still it is ok, from the media's perspective, for the rich to get their bonuses, and carry on the privileged lives regardless of the impact of the government's policies on ordinary people.
Hasn't the negative publicity against protest always been this way? The Elite / Ruling Class /Whatever they are, need to ensure the majority remain on the 'right' side of the barricades. (Well at least from the perspective of the Lab, LibDem Con's who basically all agree 'which side they are all on'.) For those old enough (Doesn't it seem like yesterday?) let us not forget the Miners' Strike-the mid 80's- when ordinary people, dared, the last time to crawl out of their shells and dare put their heads above the parapet. Again the media focused on the 'violence' and the 'extremists', and did not give a damn about the impact of pit closures on ordinary communities. The latter was true violence, and those communities have paid for it ever since-through no fault of their own.
In regard to the students, I hope they will make the connections between their 'grants' campaign and wider inequalities in society-particularly those inequalities, which are being actively encouraged by Cameron et al.
Cameron announced today that he wants government to measure how 'happy' we all are. It is only 'a shame' his and Clegg's government makes us so miserable-particularly if you frequent the lower echelons of society.
The Tories have not changed. They are ideologically committed to cuts-irrespective of how the economy is performing. The deficit caused by the banking crisis was just the excuse they needed to implement the Shock Doctrine much loved by the neo -Liberals whether in the Tory party or the 'liberal' economic wing of the Liberal Democrats (Clegg et al).
Still the words of the Tory peer-'elect'-Howard Flight today, provides much amusement- don't ya just love him! It is great to see them vocalise their true feelings- for those that missed it- he argued that cutting child benefit for the wealthy will deter them from 'breeding' whereas child benefit for the poor will only encourage them to 'breed' more! Who said there is now a 'class less' society when the Tories come out with stuff like that! Of course he was 'profoundly sorry' (once Cameron's minders got to him!)Always great when the wealthy let their guard slip and say stuff like that-Priceless!!
It is great to see ordinary people in Ireland, Portugal and Greece saying 'no' to cuts, the various international institutions (such as the IMF /EU etc.), and their own governments. (Shame however on the Irish Greens-just in case we thought it was just the lib dems who copped out in the lust for power! Well there are some doing it on our own side too! Green's attracted by sharp suits-God forbid!).
Great to see the increasing anger of our own people here too in the UK. As an active trade unionist, I am hoping for a big turn out against the cuts for the TUC demo. at the end of March.
It is however awful that we have to get to this point before people make the connections. When I hear of people fearing, and loosing their jobs, their homes, everything they have worked for; seeing the protests does not feel so great. Ordinary people should not have to suffer anywhere near that before they get up and protest.
I guess it is easy for the 'privileged' like myself to advocate for change, harder for those to be drawn to protest because their backs are to the wall and they see no other alternative.
A friend mildly criticised another for focusing on concerns about the rise in methane levels, stating we should focus on the bigger issues. I guess in reality the rise in methane is really a big, big issue, although the media, and the majority of us choose to ignore it, and see it as relatively unimportant for example compared to loosing your job or having to pay for a pension or a grant, when previously these benefits from society were deemed as 'free' and /or taken for granted.
Global warming=no future etc. if we did but know it.
However, the majority loosing their grants, loosing their jobs, loosing their homes here in the UK may not make the connection or realise the importance of so called 'Green Issues'. Lest we forget the effects of global warming are an every day reality for people for example in Bangladesh or Pakistan, and that does result in those people loosing homes, jobs, families,livelihoods etc. However people here in the UK do not see the IMMEDIATE impact of climate change(yet anyway).
As Greens we do have to focus on the stuff which is having an immediate impact on people here; to try and make the connections of the issues in the 'headlines' with the issues less in the public's consciousness; which are just, if not more important.
Radical change in our own society, as well as elsewhere, will not necessarily guarantee a Green society and one which will ensure a sustainable future for our earth. We do however have to make the links between 'Capitalism' (and indeed 'Socialism'-we cannot let Pol Pot, Stalin and Chairman Mao off the hook!),and the destruction of our planet. Continued consumption and economic growth, whether in a capitalist or socialist based society will necessitate the need to consume the earth's finite resources, which leads to environmental destruction, global warming etc. The failure to realise that, however society is organised, will lead to our extinction and our earth's destruction.
It is essential we provide a voice, and a clearly stated progressive and radical one about the key issues of today. This is particularly the case if ordinary people are to see us as an viable alternative-otherwise they will give up and return to planet Catatonia. At the very best they will return once more to Labour as the only solution-and we all know they are a complete waste of space from the limited effect they had in bringing about true change in their 13 wasted years in power.
We must state clear and genuine support for social movements whether that is fighting cuts, supporting students so they can have a decent, free education. We must make the linkages of those causes to wider inequality; the impact of how this society is currently organised; the impact of how we live on our earth. In doing so, we have some chance to raise Green issues, and bring in the various linkages to day to day problems ordinary people face, and hopefully in turn raise consciousness to the wider agenda which may, you never know, just may give us some chance of a future. (We must remain optimistic that our current analysis of the state of the planet is wrong-however unlikely that may be!)
Alas, as many of us feel, it may now be too late...but even if it is, at least we went down fighting, and did not consciously contribute to the problems we face. The more I read and the more I see, I conclude the Green alternative is the only valid way if there is to be any chance of a future. I only wish me and others had realised this 20 years ago.
Thursday 25 November 2010
Sunday 24 October 2010
A Pat on the Back
For me Nick Clegg patting George Osborne, on the back in congratulation, is the defining image of last week’s Coalition spending review announcement. To think thousands of people in Cornwall voted Lib Dem in the false belief they would defend the livelihoods of ordinary people, or at the very least keep the Tories out. A brief spat last week between Labour and the Tories regarding whether the announced 19% cuts were less or more than if Labour had been in power provided diversion from the horrors in the announcement. However none of the hot air will make a blind bit of difference to ordinary Cornish people who will suffer as a result of the supposedly ‘fair’ (to use that well worn ‘Coalition’ phrase) cuts in benefits and services. Lest we forget the 50% cut in the social housing budget, the 2000 jobs to go at Cornwall Council, or the thousands of disabled people in care homes who will now go out even less due to the government’s cut of their entitlement to mobility allowance. About as ‘fair’ as Wayne Rooney’s new pay deal at Man Utd I think.
During the election, when I stood for the Green Party, the other candidates as usual promised so much should they get elected. Better public transport, more social housing, improved services etc. etc. The Greens were the only honest party when we clearly said yes we would do this too, but sorry folks this will need to be paid for by a more progressive tax system. Those who are more wealthy paying more in order to create and nurture a civilised, more equal society. A society where there are decent public services, and ordinary Cornish people can afford a decent house in the community they were born and brought up in. Despite the Lib Dems and the Tories at the time bickering with each other; they are now patting each other on the back. As for Labour, it was them, who from 1997, got in bed with the City, and nurtured a deregulated financial system which resulted in the terrible crash that caused the financial problems we now have. No wonder there is so little trust in politicians and people believe politicians ‘are all the same’. Look at the evidence.
The Coalition may blame the few cases of benefit excess highlighted by their friends at the Telegraph and Mail to justify its cuts, but the Cameron-Clegg pact continues to see it less of a priority to combat tax evasion and avoidance. Why hurt your friends?
Yes, the deficit needs eradication. However while City bankers are again enjoying big bonuses, and will be relatively untouched by the government’s spending review, it should not be the poor who should be paying for problems caused by the City’s greed and excess. Should I have sat next to Mr Osborne last Wednesday the last thing I would have wished to offer him was a pat on the back.
During the election, when I stood for the Green Party, the other candidates as usual promised so much should they get elected. Better public transport, more social housing, improved services etc. etc. The Greens were the only honest party when we clearly said yes we would do this too, but sorry folks this will need to be paid for by a more progressive tax system. Those who are more wealthy paying more in order to create and nurture a civilised, more equal society. A society where there are decent public services, and ordinary Cornish people can afford a decent house in the community they were born and brought up in. Despite the Lib Dems and the Tories at the time bickering with each other; they are now patting each other on the back. As for Labour, it was them, who from 1997, got in bed with the City, and nurtured a deregulated financial system which resulted in the terrible crash that caused the financial problems we now have. No wonder there is so little trust in politicians and people believe politicians ‘are all the same’. Look at the evidence.
The Coalition may blame the few cases of benefit excess highlighted by their friends at the Telegraph and Mail to justify its cuts, but the Cameron-Clegg pact continues to see it less of a priority to combat tax evasion and avoidance. Why hurt your friends?
Yes, the deficit needs eradication. However while City bankers are again enjoying big bonuses, and will be relatively untouched by the government’s spending review, it should not be the poor who should be paying for problems caused by the City’s greed and excess. Should I have sat next to Mr Osborne last Wednesday the last thing I would have wished to offer him was a pat on the back.
Saturday 26 June 2010
Our Lib Dem MP's have let us down
I was disappointed by our Liberal Democrats MP’s reaction to the budget (West Briton 24/06/10). To describe the government’s action as a ‘step forward’ that will lead to a ‘fairer economy’ is a significant let down to ordinary people. This is particularly the case in Cornwall, which as we know is one of the poorest areas in Western Europe. The budget also failed to say anything about how we could develop a greener, fairer economic strategy away from greedy ‘boom and bust ‘ economics all three major parties clearly agree on. The ‘ostrich position’ was also clearly adopted in regard to the impending fundamental twin risks of energy crisis and climate change- just as if they do not exist. Still as long as the wealthy, the media, the markets and big business are happy-does it really matter?
Where now do ordinary people turn, let down by thirteen years of Labour, as well as now by the Lib Dems ?. The Lib Dems clearly said a vote for them was the only way to stop the Tories but now are only too keen to break so many promises in their pursuit for power.
The West Briton clearly reports the budget will result in a reduction of £3.8 million in grants to Cornwall Council which will undoubtly have a direct impact on its ability to provide vital services to ordinary people, which are clearly too stretched as it is.
It is not debatable that the national deficit needs significant reduction. Despite some good policy initiatives, the Labour government’s implementation of policy was often ill thought out and wasteful. It is not reasonable for the Labour Party to now carp about the coalition programme of cuts. They too planned a similar programme of cuts, albeit slower, if elected.
During the election campaign, the main parliamentary candidates in Truro and Falmouth promised, if elected, they would ensure many major improvements would occur, for example, regarding housing, our environment and to public transport etc.. They were disingenuous in order to win your vote. They all failed to claim how their promises would be funded, knowing once elected a ‘slash and burn‘ approach to public expenditure would be adopted.
I am pleased to say the Green MP for Brighton, Caroline Lucas, has along with the Welsh and Scottish nationalists been scornful of the current approach to deficit reduction. The Lib Dem- Conservative coalition is happy to allow public expenditure to be cut by a ratio of £4 to every £1 of tax rises. Cuts in public expenditure impacting vital services disproportionately negatively affects poorer people more than the wealthy. The budget will create a more unfair, unequal society despite the evidence that the more equal a society, the happier people, irrespective of wealth, generally are.
Our Lib Dem MP’s have clearly let us down, and I hope people will not trust them, the Conservatives or Labour in future elections. The Green Party would have cut waste, but we were the only party who said we would introduce a more progressive tax system to tackle the deficit yet maintain the public services we all need and benefit from.
I am afraid ordinary people in Cornwall will be disproportionately and negatively affected by the actions of this coalition. Despite being will trained in presentation skills we did not expect anything more from the Conservatives. However, happy in the ‘Westminster Bubble’ our Lib Dem MP’s have clearly forgotten their Cornish roots and the problems of Cornish people. There is a real risk that even more people will not bother to vote in future knowing that all the political parties really are ‘all the same’. However I try to be positive and hope next time people in Cornwall will follow the example of the people of Brighton in electing Green MP’s that will not let them down.
Where now do ordinary people turn, let down by thirteen years of Labour, as well as now by the Lib Dems ?. The Lib Dems clearly said a vote for them was the only way to stop the Tories but now are only too keen to break so many promises in their pursuit for power.
The West Briton clearly reports the budget will result in a reduction of £3.8 million in grants to Cornwall Council which will undoubtly have a direct impact on its ability to provide vital services to ordinary people, which are clearly too stretched as it is.
It is not debatable that the national deficit needs significant reduction. Despite some good policy initiatives, the Labour government’s implementation of policy was often ill thought out and wasteful. It is not reasonable for the Labour Party to now carp about the coalition programme of cuts. They too planned a similar programme of cuts, albeit slower, if elected.
During the election campaign, the main parliamentary candidates in Truro and Falmouth promised, if elected, they would ensure many major improvements would occur, for example, regarding housing, our environment and to public transport etc.. They were disingenuous in order to win your vote. They all failed to claim how their promises would be funded, knowing once elected a ‘slash and burn‘ approach to public expenditure would be adopted.
I am pleased to say the Green MP for Brighton, Caroline Lucas, has along with the Welsh and Scottish nationalists been scornful of the current approach to deficit reduction. The Lib Dem- Conservative coalition is happy to allow public expenditure to be cut by a ratio of £4 to every £1 of tax rises. Cuts in public expenditure impacting vital services disproportionately negatively affects poorer people more than the wealthy. The budget will create a more unfair, unequal society despite the evidence that the more equal a society, the happier people, irrespective of wealth, generally are.
Our Lib Dem MP’s have clearly let us down, and I hope people will not trust them, the Conservatives or Labour in future elections. The Green Party would have cut waste, but we were the only party who said we would introduce a more progressive tax system to tackle the deficit yet maintain the public services we all need and benefit from.
I am afraid ordinary people in Cornwall will be disproportionately and negatively affected by the actions of this coalition. Despite being will trained in presentation skills we did not expect anything more from the Conservatives. However, happy in the ‘Westminster Bubble’ our Lib Dem MP’s have clearly forgotten their Cornish roots and the problems of Cornish people. There is a real risk that even more people will not bother to vote in future knowing that all the political parties really are ‘all the same’. However I try to be positive and hope next time people in Cornwall will follow the example of the people of Brighton in electing Green MP’s that will not let them down.
Monday 31 May 2010
The Government must stand firm on Capital Gains Tax Proposals
Letter to West Briton 3/6/2010
Well done for your excellent analysis regarding the housing shortage in Cornwall (A home of their own will remain dream for most- West Briton 27/5/2010).Your articles summarised the history of failure of previous governments to address the issue. Our new MP’s must address the need for rented and affordable housing in Cornwall as ‘the key issue of our time’.
Your correspondent AG Rawlings also analysed the situation correctly in the letter ‘Work for the working man’ (Letters 27/5/2010) by linking rural depopulation, the resulting closure of local shops, the pursuit of national government over the years for free trade and profit at the expense of community. The Green Party is the only main party which does not accept the current economic model is sustainable or desirable. We believe in the need to rebalance our societal and economic priorities in favour of rebuilding our communities and supporting small business against sectional interest, large corporations and multinationals.
The new government’s initiative to raise Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the sale of second homes to 40% to reduce demand from speculators and investors is commendable. This measure would help ensure housing in our communities is more affordable, and there will be a subsequent demand for local shops and businesses to thrive once more.
However, after picking up discarded copies of the ‘Times’ and ‘Financial Times’ on the train this week, I am concerned at the backlash of the right wing press, the right wing of the Conservative Party and subsequent speculative talk from some members of the cabinet to water down the CGT proposals. There is already much grinding and gnashing of teeth from right wing commentators that the proposals to raise CGT are ‘unfair’. This makes my blood boil. What is unfair is that ordinary local people cannot have a decent, affordable roof over their heads, small Cornish communities are dying and that the Coalition proposals to slash public expenditure will have a disproportionate impact the poor and vulnerable.
We are all aware that many second homes have been purchased by those working in the City and in big business who actually have contributed significantly, through short term and selfish interest, to get our country in to the mess it is now in. However these people fail to accept their share of financial responsibility although are quite happy for ordinary people to pay more tax and have services cut, while the wealthy think they can carry on as normal.
I hope the government will stand firm regarding its CGT proposals. It must face off its opponents on this measure as it represents a key tool in helping to rebuild local communities, and enable local people to have a home in the communities where they are born and bred. Subsequently we can then begin to see local communities thrive once more for the benefit of ordinary people rather than the wealthy.
Well done for your excellent analysis regarding the housing shortage in Cornwall (A home of their own will remain dream for most- West Briton 27/5/2010).Your articles summarised the history of failure of previous governments to address the issue. Our new MP’s must address the need for rented and affordable housing in Cornwall as ‘the key issue of our time’.
Your correspondent AG Rawlings also analysed the situation correctly in the letter ‘Work for the working man’ (Letters 27/5/2010) by linking rural depopulation, the resulting closure of local shops, the pursuit of national government over the years for free trade and profit at the expense of community. The Green Party is the only main party which does not accept the current economic model is sustainable or desirable. We believe in the need to rebalance our societal and economic priorities in favour of rebuilding our communities and supporting small business against sectional interest, large corporations and multinationals.
The new government’s initiative to raise Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the sale of second homes to 40% to reduce demand from speculators and investors is commendable. This measure would help ensure housing in our communities is more affordable, and there will be a subsequent demand for local shops and businesses to thrive once more.
However, after picking up discarded copies of the ‘Times’ and ‘Financial Times’ on the train this week, I am concerned at the backlash of the right wing press, the right wing of the Conservative Party and subsequent speculative talk from some members of the cabinet to water down the CGT proposals. There is already much grinding and gnashing of teeth from right wing commentators that the proposals to raise CGT are ‘unfair’. This makes my blood boil. What is unfair is that ordinary local people cannot have a decent, affordable roof over their heads, small Cornish communities are dying and that the Coalition proposals to slash public expenditure will have a disproportionate impact the poor and vulnerable.
We are all aware that many second homes have been purchased by those working in the City and in big business who actually have contributed significantly, through short term and selfish interest, to get our country in to the mess it is now in. However these people fail to accept their share of financial responsibility although are quite happy for ordinary people to pay more tax and have services cut, while the wealthy think they can carry on as normal.
I hope the government will stand firm regarding its CGT proposals. It must face off its opponents on this measure as it represents a key tool in helping to rebuild local communities, and enable local people to have a home in the communities where they are born and bred. Subsequently we can then begin to see local communities thrive once more for the benefit of ordinary people rather than the wealthy.
Towards building a local consensus
Published Letter to West Briton 20/5/2010
Many of us are obviously intrigued at the Lib Dem- Conservative Coalition that is now in place. It is not a decision the Green Party would have ever wished to have been involved in, but I am sure, what ever our political persuasions, we can all hope it is no worse than the Labour Government which got us embroiled in two wars and disappointed the expectations of many progressive people.
Anyway the idea of trying to build a political consensus among people who have disparate opinions got me thinking about issues raised at the various ‘hustings’ events to which all of the candidates generally agreed, and the audiences seemed to generally support. I therefore very much hope our new MP Sarah Newton will remember those discussions, and as appears to be the spirit of these times, will take up the following matters-in the hope of building a local consensus:
1. Lobby Cornwall Council and our parish councils to build more rented and affordable housing for local people. Sarah said she understood parish councils could take action to stop the increasing numbers of second homes. I hope she will now use her position to lobby Cornwall Council, and our Parish Councils-to take action to prevent any more houses becoming any thing other than people’s primary homes, to increase council tax for second homes, and help rebuild these communities.
2. Ensure action is taken to stop green field development-where it can be avoided- to protect Cornwall becoming overdeveloped and our local environment being ruined. There are plenty of brown field sites which can be used.
3. Support the development of a local low carbon and eco-friendly economy, with particular emphasis of obtaining additional funding for Cornwall for this because of our poverty and long standing disproportionate lack of investment. Investment should include further development of renewable energy such as on and off shore wind power, and looking at how we can use wave power to generate electricity.
4. Further develop better bus and rail links within and to Cornwall
5. Lobby central government to refuse permission to build the St Dennis Incinerator, and look at alternative waste disposal strategies; for example with an increased emphasis on recycling and waste conversion to energy e.g through anaerobic digestion.
6. Sarah said she was in favour of electoral reform. Although many would prefer proportional representation, I hope she will vote ‘Yes’ in the promised free vote on the ‘Alternative Vote’ government proposal.
7. Sarah supported a ‘free vote’ regarding the fox hunting ban, and said she would be persuaded by the views of her constituents. She said she did not hunt. Should the new government be distracted to reopen this matter, I hope she will be persuaded by many of us to support keeping the ban in place and support greater enforcement.
I hope Sarah with her Lib Dem- Conservative colleagues will promote the above issues as some of the key issues for Cornwall, and in the spirit of consensus building remember that these matters had broad support of most if not all the candidates and the audience at pre election hustings events. If she is able to ensure these matters are addressed this can only be good news for the environment and people of Cornwall.
Many of us are obviously intrigued at the Lib Dem- Conservative Coalition that is now in place. It is not a decision the Green Party would have ever wished to have been involved in, but I am sure, what ever our political persuasions, we can all hope it is no worse than the Labour Government which got us embroiled in two wars and disappointed the expectations of many progressive people.
Anyway the idea of trying to build a political consensus among people who have disparate opinions got me thinking about issues raised at the various ‘hustings’ events to which all of the candidates generally agreed, and the audiences seemed to generally support. I therefore very much hope our new MP Sarah Newton will remember those discussions, and as appears to be the spirit of these times, will take up the following matters-in the hope of building a local consensus:
1. Lobby Cornwall Council and our parish councils to build more rented and affordable housing for local people. Sarah said she understood parish councils could take action to stop the increasing numbers of second homes. I hope she will now use her position to lobby Cornwall Council, and our Parish Councils-to take action to prevent any more houses becoming any thing other than people’s primary homes, to increase council tax for second homes, and help rebuild these communities.
2. Ensure action is taken to stop green field development-where it can be avoided- to protect Cornwall becoming overdeveloped and our local environment being ruined. There are plenty of brown field sites which can be used.
3. Support the development of a local low carbon and eco-friendly economy, with particular emphasis of obtaining additional funding for Cornwall for this because of our poverty and long standing disproportionate lack of investment. Investment should include further development of renewable energy such as on and off shore wind power, and looking at how we can use wave power to generate electricity.
4. Further develop better bus and rail links within and to Cornwall
5. Lobby central government to refuse permission to build the St Dennis Incinerator, and look at alternative waste disposal strategies; for example with an increased emphasis on recycling and waste conversion to energy e.g through anaerobic digestion.
6. Sarah said she was in favour of electoral reform. Although many would prefer proportional representation, I hope she will vote ‘Yes’ in the promised free vote on the ‘Alternative Vote’ government proposal.
7. Sarah supported a ‘free vote’ regarding the fox hunting ban, and said she would be persuaded by the views of her constituents. She said she did not hunt. Should the new government be distracted to reopen this matter, I hope she will be persuaded by many of us to support keeping the ban in place and support greater enforcement.
I hope Sarah with her Lib Dem- Conservative colleagues will promote the above issues as some of the key issues for Cornwall, and in the spirit of consensus building remember that these matters had broad support of most if not all the candidates and the audience at pre election hustings events. If she is able to ensure these matters are addressed this can only be good news for the environment and people of Cornwall.
Thursday 13 May 2010
Electoral Reform must begin with the ‘rights’ of second home owners
This letter was published in the West Briton today (13/5/10) I have written to the electoral officer and await a response:
I note with dismay the tiny Tory majorities obtained in the Redruth-Camborne Constituency (66) and Truro-Falmouth (435). I have no evidence (yet) that second home owners have voted at their primary home, as well as at their second home. After discussing the matter with the electoral officer, readers must realise there is nothing-apart from a call to be honest- to prevent them from doing so, or choosing to vote in an address in Cornwall rather than their substantive address to vote . Presumably if they own several homes they could-if they wished-vote on multiple occasions. I am sure the Tory party has not instituted such a campaign, but we all know the moneyed tends to vote Tory.
The rules-as they exist- state people must only vote in the national elections at the address where they spend the majority of their time. In local elections people can vote wherever they are on the register. I am concerned that after assessing the electoral register for my village, there are at least 15 people who are registered to vote here, but I have either never or seldom seen. To leave it to second home owner’s ‘honesty’ not to get a postal vote, as well as vote at another address is not good enough. I am sure many of them are honest, but I also note many second home owners (some who do spend a lot of time here) have chosen not to register here.
I, for one, thought the link between the right to vote and property ownership was long dead. Not necessarily true. The Greens, Lib Dems and Mebyon Kernow were all totally united in the need to do more about affordable housing and taking strong action against second home ownership. We all fought a strong campaign on this issue, while the Tories sat very much on the fence.
Although, as yet, I have no evidence that second home owners had an impact on the election result in Cornwall, as well as other areas where second home ownership is prevalent, I urge other concerned people to write to the electoral officer, under a Freedom of Information Act request, for them to investigate the use of postal votes, and whether second home owners voted twice. If that is the case, and if that had an impact on the final result, MP’s must be recalled and by-elections take place. I remember vividly the Tories stating if there was any impropriety voters should have the right to recall their MP’s. If there is a need, let us put it to the test.
I note with dismay the tiny Tory majorities obtained in the Redruth-Camborne Constituency (66) and Truro-Falmouth (435). I have no evidence (yet) that second home owners have voted at their primary home, as well as at their second home. After discussing the matter with the electoral officer, readers must realise there is nothing-apart from a call to be honest- to prevent them from doing so, or choosing to vote in an address in Cornwall rather than their substantive address to vote . Presumably if they own several homes they could-if they wished-vote on multiple occasions. I am sure the Tory party has not instituted such a campaign, but we all know the moneyed tends to vote Tory.
The rules-as they exist- state people must only vote in the national elections at the address where they spend the majority of their time. In local elections people can vote wherever they are on the register. I am concerned that after assessing the electoral register for my village, there are at least 15 people who are registered to vote here, but I have either never or seldom seen. To leave it to second home owner’s ‘honesty’ not to get a postal vote, as well as vote at another address is not good enough. I am sure many of them are honest, but I also note many second home owners (some who do spend a lot of time here) have chosen not to register here.
I, for one, thought the link between the right to vote and property ownership was long dead. Not necessarily true. The Greens, Lib Dems and Mebyon Kernow were all totally united in the need to do more about affordable housing and taking strong action against second home ownership. We all fought a strong campaign on this issue, while the Tories sat very much on the fence.
Although, as yet, I have no evidence that second home owners had an impact on the election result in Cornwall, as well as other areas where second home ownership is prevalent, I urge other concerned people to write to the electoral officer, under a Freedom of Information Act request, for them to investigate the use of postal votes, and whether second home owners voted twice. If that is the case, and if that had an impact on the final result, MP’s must be recalled and by-elections take place. I remember vividly the Tories stating if there was any impropriety voters should have the right to recall their MP’s. If there is a need, let us put it to the test.
Post Election Fallout and Changes
I was asked by the website 'Truro People' to comment on my feelings of the new coalition government, and what people feel about the outcome of the general election:
What do you feel is the opinion of the public, as you have seen it over the last few days?
I think people are probably very disheartened by the election result. All that happened is the Tories and Labour swapped 100 seats. The lib dems lost seats yet they are now in government! I do not think people who support the ‘right’ wing of the Tory party or those who are Liberal (with a capital L) in the lib dems will be happy about the partnership.
It will be interesting to see how the two parties try to work together rather than in an adversarial way. That may lead for a change in our political culture-essential if we are to have proportional representation in future.
The best thing is we now have our first Green MP-Caroline Lucas in Brighton. I think she will communicate some new, fresh and interesting ideas to the British public about how we can deal with the three crises we currently face; climate change, the economic problems we have, and the energy crisis (peak oil, and our new dependence on foreign gas)
Could you please sum up your personal feelings on the Liberal Democrat / Conservative coalition?
It is interesting, as I have said above, to see how the parties will work together. However, I would have preferred to see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of nationalists, people in the Labour and Lib Dem parties, our Green MP. This may have been difficult to form, and hold together, but it would have been preferable to the Lib Dems forming a government with the Conservatives. I think many Lib Dem supporters will feel betrayed by their party; many activists could see no possible scenario where they would form a coalition with the Tories, yet that has happened. Many voters also voted tactically Lib Dem to ‘keep the Tories out’, yet they now find that their vote is assisting supporting a Tory led government. As a Green, I share Alex Salmond’s view (leader of the Scottish Nationalists) that I could never be involved with a Tory led government. Memories are too long (i.e. of the Tory government 79-97) and their reign of cuts, fostering poor employment relations, high unemployment, and how their policies decimated Britain’s industrial and manufacturing base.
The Liberal Democrats were seen to be campaigning, at least to some degree, on the idea that they were the party for change and that vote for Labour would guarantee a Conservative government. What is your thought on this now?
If it was not so upsetting that they are responsible for propping up a minority Tory Government, it would all be darkly amusing! The Tories said ‘Vote Orange and Get Brown’, and the Lib Dems said ‘Vote Green, Labour or MK and get the Tories’. Despite this we now have a Lib Dem-Con government! I think people will think twice about trusting the Lib Dems again- and people will not forget what the Labour Government did (Afghanistan, massive Debt, Iraq, sleazy politics, and a retreat from traditional labour policies to move closer to the right). Progressives will find a good home with the Greens. We would not form a coalition with the Tories, and we believe passionately that only a radical progressive, but realistic, basket of policies can ensure we develop a really new (as opposed to the veneer of new politics promised by the Lib Dems) radical political agenda to form a happier, Greener society.
Do you think Gordon Brown was right to step down when he did?
No he should have gone a year ago. The arguments within the Labour Party made him loose credibility as its leader. As writers such as Polly Toynbee argued if he had gone then Labour may have been in a position to form a minority government with centre left partners under a new leader. His own ego prevented him from throwing in the towel, and now we have a Tory government which will cut public expenditure and subsequently public services.
As Cornwall is split evenly between Conservative and Lib Dem MP's, how will this affect our constituencies as a whole?
Whether they are lib dem or Tory they are still the government! If the coalition is successful, that may be good for them, but I do not think it will be. Already there is talk of cutting public expenditure and putting up VAT. Both measures will hurt the poor and vulnerable disproportionately compared to the wealthy; so both parties will be tarnished by measures such as this. In Cornwall is unclear. People will not vote Labour as they have little credibility, with people here, for what they have done since 1997. I hope progressive people will listen to what the Green’s have to say and see us as the credible progressive alternative.
The other argument is having MP’s of the government will result in them having an ear to government. I hope that is the case. However, Cornwall is a very poor region of the UK, and what we need is investment in housing, public services and transport. In what is a cost cutting environment I do not think the Lib Dem Con Coalition will be too keen to provide additional income for Cornwall. However, I hope I am proved wrong-the issues we face in Cornwall are too serious.
Moreover, how do you think this will impact Truro & Falmouth specifically?
Sarah Newton seems a pleasant woman. I was surprised she is in the Tory Party! Her article in the West Briton this week (13/5/10) of her vision for Cornwall was very positive, and there was little she wrote which I disagree with. I wish her well, and hope she is able to have some influence on the government to improve the situation in our constituency. However, as I said above I remain concerned that the government will not wish to give the investment that we need here. I hope the Tory Party has changed, but I will take a lot of convincing, and proof will be their actions in government. I cannot believe the party of Gove, Hague, and Osborne etc. is really going to care much about ordinary people. Sarah Newton gave commitments in the hustings to supporting electoral reform, support for a Cornish Assembly, improving affordable housing provision, and supporting local communities (via parishes) to take action to deter more second home ownership. She also said she did not hunt, and I hope she will be convinced by the electorate to vote against reintroducing hunting, if that is proposed. We will watch how she votes on all matters, and judge her by her actions.
What is the 'Green party central' standing on the alliance? Would you have been more in favour of a rainbow Lib Lab coalition, which may have included some Green?
We very much wanted to see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of the Centre Left. There was even a Facebook page dedicated to saying Caroline Lucas should be PM! However, the Lib Dems wanted to work with the Tories, and there was also disquiet in the Labour ranks about forming a coalition with the Lib Dems. However, it would have been great we think if we could have had a centre left national coalition of which Caroline Lucas was part.
What gains/sacrifices do you feel were most important for either side?
The Lib Dems have wanted power for some time. I think they have compromised themselves and their values by being part of the Tory led government. Obviously the Tories would have loved to have gone it alone, and despite the last few years of the Labour Government they still could not convince the British Public they could be trusted to form a majority government. They have however been very, very clever by appointing David Laws at the Treasury and Vince Cable at Business. They will have responsibility of cutting budgets and therefore services, making it difficult for the Lib Dems to criticize the government for cutting public services, because their ministers are at the helm . Similarly Chris Hulme will have responsibility for commissioning new nuclear power stations. So the Lib Dems seem to have got power, but will pay a big price with their core voters.
What do you see as the future for this alliance?
As I said at the beginning it will be interesting to see if our new leaders can step back from confrontational politics and whether they can work together. I expect there will be pressures within both parties due to their differing ideologies when difficult decisions need to be made about Europe, Immigration, Defence, renewal of Trident, supporting poorer people. Many core supporters will not be happy with the results if pragmatism rules and it seems we have a right wing or centre right government. Those Lib Dems on the Centre Left however will be very welcome to join the Green Party. We share many Liberal values-although we have a more radical edge; focusing on the environment and equality as our key priorities. As I have said- I can see no scenario’s where supporting a Tory Government would be on our political agenda.
Have you decided on what your plans are now that the government is formed? Has this changed given the new alliance?
I am looking forward nationally to following how the government, and its policies develop. I really hope my pessimism is misguided. Nobody wants to see the worst happen-because that always involves ordinary people suffering as the result of cuts and poor services. We need to watch, criticize and confront when that is necessary, and continue to show why the Green Party should develop as a progressive and credible force nationally and locally. Certainly if the government is unsuccessful, I think many will be attracted to our alternative vision for the future, and how we will deal with the problems we currently face and will confront over the next few years. I think Caroline will offer an interesting perspective on events, and our alternative view will be of great interest from that of the three main grey parties.
Locally, especially after the Lib Dems decision to be part of the coalition, I would have no hesitation in standing for the general election again. However, that decision is up to our party and members. I know we have more support than the 845 votes showed we got. Many of our supporters voted tactically Lib Dem to keep the Tories out! So I hope they and others disaffected with the main parties will vote for us next time around. We intend to remain active locally, and show our presence via our street stall and by engaging with the media. We do not have the big business and trade union support of the other parties, and most of our supporters are not wealthy people who can give us thousands of pounds. I hope however we can put up six candidates in the next general election and we can ensure we have some women candidates. I think the only way is up for the Green Party-particularly now we have a national MP, and I think people will become increasingly attracted to our alternative vision of society and how our policies would solve our local, national and international problems.
Ian Wright
13/5/10
What do you feel is the opinion of the public, as you have seen it over the last few days?
I think people are probably very disheartened by the election result. All that happened is the Tories and Labour swapped 100 seats. The lib dems lost seats yet they are now in government! I do not think people who support the ‘right’ wing of the Tory party or those who are Liberal (with a capital L) in the lib dems will be happy about the partnership.
It will be interesting to see how the two parties try to work together rather than in an adversarial way. That may lead for a change in our political culture-essential if we are to have proportional representation in future.
The best thing is we now have our first Green MP-Caroline Lucas in Brighton. I think she will communicate some new, fresh and interesting ideas to the British public about how we can deal with the three crises we currently face; climate change, the economic problems we have, and the energy crisis (peak oil, and our new dependence on foreign gas)
Could you please sum up your personal feelings on the Liberal Democrat / Conservative coalition?
It is interesting, as I have said above, to see how the parties will work together. However, I would have preferred to see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of nationalists, people in the Labour and Lib Dem parties, our Green MP. This may have been difficult to form, and hold together, but it would have been preferable to the Lib Dems forming a government with the Conservatives. I think many Lib Dem supporters will feel betrayed by their party; many activists could see no possible scenario where they would form a coalition with the Tories, yet that has happened. Many voters also voted tactically Lib Dem to ‘keep the Tories out’, yet they now find that their vote is assisting supporting a Tory led government. As a Green, I share Alex Salmond’s view (leader of the Scottish Nationalists) that I could never be involved with a Tory led government. Memories are too long (i.e. of the Tory government 79-97) and their reign of cuts, fostering poor employment relations, high unemployment, and how their policies decimated Britain’s industrial and manufacturing base.
The Liberal Democrats were seen to be campaigning, at least to some degree, on the idea that they were the party for change and that vote for Labour would guarantee a Conservative government. What is your thought on this now?
If it was not so upsetting that they are responsible for propping up a minority Tory Government, it would all be darkly amusing! The Tories said ‘Vote Orange and Get Brown’, and the Lib Dems said ‘Vote Green, Labour or MK and get the Tories’. Despite this we now have a Lib Dem-Con government! I think people will think twice about trusting the Lib Dems again- and people will not forget what the Labour Government did (Afghanistan, massive Debt, Iraq, sleazy politics, and a retreat from traditional labour policies to move closer to the right). Progressives will find a good home with the Greens. We would not form a coalition with the Tories, and we believe passionately that only a radical progressive, but realistic, basket of policies can ensure we develop a really new (as opposed to the veneer of new politics promised by the Lib Dems) radical political agenda to form a happier, Greener society.
Do you think Gordon Brown was right to step down when he did?
No he should have gone a year ago. The arguments within the Labour Party made him loose credibility as its leader. As writers such as Polly Toynbee argued if he had gone then Labour may have been in a position to form a minority government with centre left partners under a new leader. His own ego prevented him from throwing in the towel, and now we have a Tory government which will cut public expenditure and subsequently public services.
As Cornwall is split evenly between Conservative and Lib Dem MP's, how will this affect our constituencies as a whole?
Whether they are lib dem or Tory they are still the government! If the coalition is successful, that may be good for them, but I do not think it will be. Already there is talk of cutting public expenditure and putting up VAT. Both measures will hurt the poor and vulnerable disproportionately compared to the wealthy; so both parties will be tarnished by measures such as this. In Cornwall is unclear. People will not vote Labour as they have little credibility, with people here, for what they have done since 1997. I hope progressive people will listen to what the Green’s have to say and see us as the credible progressive alternative.
The other argument is having MP’s of the government will result in them having an ear to government. I hope that is the case. However, Cornwall is a very poor region of the UK, and what we need is investment in housing, public services and transport. In what is a cost cutting environment I do not think the Lib Dem Con Coalition will be too keen to provide additional income for Cornwall. However, I hope I am proved wrong-the issues we face in Cornwall are too serious.
Moreover, how do you think this will impact Truro & Falmouth specifically?
Sarah Newton seems a pleasant woman. I was surprised she is in the Tory Party! Her article in the West Briton this week (13/5/10) of her vision for Cornwall was very positive, and there was little she wrote which I disagree with. I wish her well, and hope she is able to have some influence on the government to improve the situation in our constituency. However, as I said above I remain concerned that the government will not wish to give the investment that we need here. I hope the Tory Party has changed, but I will take a lot of convincing, and proof will be their actions in government. I cannot believe the party of Gove, Hague, and Osborne etc. is really going to care much about ordinary people. Sarah Newton gave commitments in the hustings to supporting electoral reform, support for a Cornish Assembly, improving affordable housing provision, and supporting local communities (via parishes) to take action to deter more second home ownership. She also said she did not hunt, and I hope she will be convinced by the electorate to vote against reintroducing hunting, if that is proposed. We will watch how she votes on all matters, and judge her by her actions.
What is the 'Green party central' standing on the alliance? Would you have been more in favour of a rainbow Lib Lab coalition, which may have included some Green?
We very much wanted to see a ‘rainbow coalition’ of the Centre Left. There was even a Facebook page dedicated to saying Caroline Lucas should be PM! However, the Lib Dems wanted to work with the Tories, and there was also disquiet in the Labour ranks about forming a coalition with the Lib Dems. However, it would have been great we think if we could have had a centre left national coalition of which Caroline Lucas was part.
What gains/sacrifices do you feel were most important for either side?
The Lib Dems have wanted power for some time. I think they have compromised themselves and their values by being part of the Tory led government. Obviously the Tories would have loved to have gone it alone, and despite the last few years of the Labour Government they still could not convince the British Public they could be trusted to form a majority government. They have however been very, very clever by appointing David Laws at the Treasury and Vince Cable at Business. They will have responsibility of cutting budgets and therefore services, making it difficult for the Lib Dems to criticize the government for cutting public services, because their ministers are at the helm . Similarly Chris Hulme will have responsibility for commissioning new nuclear power stations. So the Lib Dems seem to have got power, but will pay a big price with their core voters.
What do you see as the future for this alliance?
As I said at the beginning it will be interesting to see if our new leaders can step back from confrontational politics and whether they can work together. I expect there will be pressures within both parties due to their differing ideologies when difficult decisions need to be made about Europe, Immigration, Defence, renewal of Trident, supporting poorer people. Many core supporters will not be happy with the results if pragmatism rules and it seems we have a right wing or centre right government. Those Lib Dems on the Centre Left however will be very welcome to join the Green Party. We share many Liberal values-although we have a more radical edge; focusing on the environment and equality as our key priorities. As I have said- I can see no scenario’s where supporting a Tory Government would be on our political agenda.
Have you decided on what your plans are now that the government is formed? Has this changed given the new alliance?
I am looking forward nationally to following how the government, and its policies develop. I really hope my pessimism is misguided. Nobody wants to see the worst happen-because that always involves ordinary people suffering as the result of cuts and poor services. We need to watch, criticize and confront when that is necessary, and continue to show why the Green Party should develop as a progressive and credible force nationally and locally. Certainly if the government is unsuccessful, I think many will be attracted to our alternative vision for the future, and how we will deal with the problems we currently face and will confront over the next few years. I think Caroline will offer an interesting perspective on events, and our alternative view will be of great interest from that of the three main grey parties.
Locally, especially after the Lib Dems decision to be part of the coalition, I would have no hesitation in standing for the general election again. However, that decision is up to our party and members. I know we have more support than the 845 votes showed we got. Many of our supporters voted tactically Lib Dem to keep the Tories out! So I hope they and others disaffected with the main parties will vote for us next time around. We intend to remain active locally, and show our presence via our street stall and by engaging with the media. We do not have the big business and trade union support of the other parties, and most of our supporters are not wealthy people who can give us thousands of pounds. I hope however we can put up six candidates in the next general election and we can ensure we have some women candidates. I think the only way is up for the Green Party-particularly now we have a national MP, and I think people will become increasingly attracted to our alternative vision of society and how our policies would solve our local, national and international problems.
Ian Wright
13/5/10
Sunday 2 May 2010
Email to Friends etc etc. asking them to vote Green
I hope you do not mind me writing to you to ask you to Vote Green on May 6th. I thought I would write, so you can delete now rather than read on. Much harder just for you to walk away if some politician walks up to you and tries to engage you in debate.
Well I am glad you did not press the 'delete' button and are still reading on!
I hope I can help to persuade you to help the Green Party grow and gain momentum so we may win power. At the very least, with your help we can get a good proportion of the vote, and gain the momentum we need for next time when we can be in government at least as part of a ruling coalition. Unless all our sympathisers vote for us, put their faith in us, we will always be stuck with a three party system- and that will be more of the same as we have had for the last 100 years. The lib dems claim they represent the 'new' politics- they try to pretend they have never been in power. Gladstone and Lloyd George have been air brushed from history. Their misrule of Cornwall County Council , many of their MP's with high expenses claims, and their dodgy £2m donation from the fugitive Michael Brown is forgotten.
The Green's biggest challenge is not that people do not think our arguments are sound, but they are frightened the Tories will win if they vote for us. This is not going to happen. The polls (and bookies) show in Cornwall a clear LD win in all seats. For the Tories to gain the Cornish seats they would need a much larger 'swing' than is nationally and locally predicted. It may happen-polls are wrong at times, and we live in a 'new' constituency without an encumber ant MP, but it still looks unlikely. If you don't live in Cornwall- the same really applies; we are getting Clegg-Brown, or Clegg-Cameron. The polls show that has been decided, so why not make a real difference and vote for real change, and a fairer, green society??
I would argue that I could not vote 'tactically' this time around. I have done it before to keep the Tories out. However it looks like they are 'in' this time around, with Nick Clegg providing the support act, holding the machete to cut public services. Two public school boys for the price of one, telling us what to do, cutting our services while they can always go private. I cannot agree with the public expenditure cuts proposed by all the main parties. With that will come the cuts in essential public services; schools; hospitals, social services etc. Whatever is said about 'ring fencing' respected economic think tanks such as the Institute of Fiscal Studies say the main parties figures do not add up. Nick Clegg is happy to form a government with the Tories as with Labour. I cannot support that even if I was not standing for the Greens. I remember well the Tory Government of 79-97 -the cuts, the industrial conflict, the rearmament. Labour promised much,but has led us into two wars and the sleaze under the last Tory Government has got worse not better.
I also have to ask why should the vulnerable suffer through cuts when it is not their fault for the mess we are in? Both Tory and Labour administrations have failed to support our manufacturing base. Why are we so dependent on services and finance as a country? We cannot live by Latte Cafes alone. The Tories and Labour squandered the oil revenues; when Norway invested it in the future- a liberal, fair society there with no deficit, and real respect for the environment. Surely that is what we deserve here?
There are now numerous tax loop holes for big business-encouraged by the Tories and Labour. Many wealthy people and big business pay little if any tax in the UK (eg Murdoch, Arcadia Group-Topshop etc etc.) No wonder there is a £176bn annual deficit between what we get in income in tax to spend on services. The banks, and finance industry have not been held to account despite the massive structural deficit we now have following the bail outs over the last couple of years. They have not been told to give the profits back to the country, and their chiefs are still getting massive bonuses on you and me. All three parties support the status quo. The Lib-Lab -Cons however are prepared to make us pay through service cuts, while the wealthy won't pay their share (See National Insurance Debate which only equated to £4 per employee). However some programmes are protected. The Lib Dems will cancel Trident, but their policy is to have an alternative nuclear weapon system which will still cost billions. Such a system will not help solve our international disputes, will be unusable in most conflict situations, and will still cost us billions. Similarly the major parties all pledge to stay in Afghanistan, and protect the £40billion pa spent on defence.
So what would the Green's do:
* Have a progressive tax system. The poor would be taken out of tax or pay no more than they do, yet there would be more steps in what is taxable so the wealthier people are, the more they would pay. Any earnings over £100k pa would be taxed at 50%. We would close tax loopholes exploited by big business and the wealthy. This would generate the income required to pay off the structural deficit, and close the revenue deficit. This is a fair system. Research shows equal societies are fairer societies, more happiness, less crime, less 'status anxiety', less conflict-See the recent Equality Trust report if you do not believe me.
* We would work towards a 'new' sustainable economy based on new technology, renewables, sturdy manufacturing goods etc. We would reduce Corporation Tax for small businesses to 20%. We would prevent big business suffocating small firms. Thousands of small businesses would bloom.
* Environment; minimise building on green field sites, proper action against climate change (The Government's own Stern Report states Govt. Carbon targets will still result in a +50% chance of irreversible climate change) , move towards a zero carbon economy, introduce a 'carbon credits' scheme, invest heavily in public transport by using monies set aside for road building, positive action against peak oil and depleting gas supplies through the developing renewable rather than nuclear energies.
* Improved animal welfare standards, No hunting; tax breaks for organic farms; better food standards. A level playing field for small producers, suppliers and shops against the supermarkets. No GM crops.
* Education; less testing, less bureaucracy, free tuition fees and maintenance grants for students. Life long learning as a right so we can develop a more equal and happier society
* Health; more preventative health, support a publicly funded and provided NHS, free social and health care.
* Build more public and affordable housing, revitalise our village communities, higher taxes and planning restrictions on second homes and investment properties.Make towns and cities nice places to live again.
* Crime; Restorative justice, more police on the streets, less bureaucracy.
* Defence; lower spending to fund a defensive armed force only, an independent and ethical foreign policy. Support a strengthened UN to solve international conflict.
* Europe; Radical reform of the EU. Less conformity, rules and regulations; less bureaucracy and waste; more co-operation than compliance between members on a local, regional rather than a pan European basis. No to the Lisbon Treaty.
* Development; support the developing world to build Green sustainable economies and fight climate change. Make developing countries good places to live, support democratic regimes to develop , and less tolerance of dictatorship to encourage change. This would result over time in there being less pull for people to migrate to Europe.
* Cornwall; Housing on Brown field sights and limit development in our countryside, support our natural environment against unfettered development, more devolved powers to a Cornish Assembly to control our services rather than through unelected quangos, and central control. More trust in local people to make their own decisions rather than centralisation.
Want to know even more:
Podcast of introductory speeches for West Briton debates:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Parliamentary-Candidates-Camborne-Redruth-Hayle-PODCAST-DEBATE/article-2009874-detail/article.html
BBC Radio Cornwall Hustings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cornwall/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8621000/8621911.stm
And if you still want more look at our manifesto on www.greenparty.org.uk
and our party political broadcast on http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
I am more than happy for you to contact me to discuss our policies and my candidature. Please do not hesitate to give me a ring.
PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES AND ASK THEM TO PASS IT ON
Best wishes and I hope you will vote Green on May 6th
Podcast of introductory speeches for West Briton debates:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Parliamentary-Candidates-Camborne-Redruth-Hayle-PODCAST-DEBATE/article-2009874-detail/article.html
BBC Radio Cornwall Hustings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cornwall/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8621000/8621911.stm
And if you still want more look at our manifesto on www.greenparty.org.uk
and our party political broadcast on http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
I am more than happy for you to contact me to discuss our policies and my candidature. Please do not hesitate to give me a ring.
PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES AND ASK THEM TO PASS IT ON
Best wishes and I hope you will vote Green on May 6th
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Wrightian298@aol.com
http://www.greensarecoming.org.uk
http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
Well I am glad you did not press the 'delete' button and are still reading on!
I hope I can help to persuade you to help the Green Party grow and gain momentum so we may win power. At the very least, with your help we can get a good proportion of the vote, and gain the momentum we need for next time when we can be in government at least as part of a ruling coalition. Unless all our sympathisers vote for us, put their faith in us, we will always be stuck with a three party system- and that will be more of the same as we have had for the last 100 years. The lib dems claim they represent the 'new' politics- they try to pretend they have never been in power. Gladstone and Lloyd George have been air brushed from history. Their misrule of Cornwall County Council , many of their MP's with high expenses claims, and their dodgy £2m donation from the fugitive Michael Brown is forgotten.
The Green's biggest challenge is not that people do not think our arguments are sound, but they are frightened the Tories will win if they vote for us. This is not going to happen. The polls (and bookies) show in Cornwall a clear LD win in all seats. For the Tories to gain the Cornish seats they would need a much larger 'swing' than is nationally and locally predicted. It may happen-polls are wrong at times, and we live in a 'new' constituency without an encumber ant MP, but it still looks unlikely. If you don't live in Cornwall- the same really applies; we are getting Clegg-Brown, or Clegg-Cameron. The polls show that has been decided, so why not make a real difference and vote for real change, and a fairer, green society??
I would argue that I could not vote 'tactically' this time around. I have done it before to keep the Tories out. However it looks like they are 'in' this time around, with Nick Clegg providing the support act, holding the machete to cut public services. Two public school boys for the price of one, telling us what to do, cutting our services while they can always go private. I cannot agree with the public expenditure cuts proposed by all the main parties. With that will come the cuts in essential public services; schools; hospitals, social services etc. Whatever is said about 'ring fencing' respected economic think tanks such as the Institute of Fiscal Studies say the main parties figures do not add up. Nick Clegg is happy to form a government with the Tories as with Labour. I cannot support that even if I was not standing for the Greens. I remember well the Tory Government of 79-97 -the cuts, the industrial conflict, the rearmament. Labour promised much,but has led us into two wars and the sleaze under the last Tory Government has got worse not better.
I also have to ask why should the vulnerable suffer through cuts when it is not their fault for the mess we are in? Both Tory and Labour administrations have failed to support our manufacturing base. Why are we so dependent on services and finance as a country? We cannot live by Latte Cafes alone. The Tories and Labour squandered the oil revenues; when Norway invested it in the future- a liberal, fair society there with no deficit, and real respect for the environment. Surely that is what we deserve here?
There are now numerous tax loop holes for big business-encouraged by the Tories and Labour. Many wealthy people and big business pay little if any tax in the UK (eg Murdoch, Arcadia Group-Topshop etc etc.) No wonder there is a £176bn annual deficit between what we get in income in tax to spend on services. The banks, and finance industry have not been held to account despite the massive structural deficit we now have following the bail outs over the last couple of years. They have not been told to give the profits back to the country, and their chiefs are still getting massive bonuses on you and me. All three parties support the status quo. The Lib-Lab -Cons however are prepared to make us pay through service cuts, while the wealthy won't pay their share (See National Insurance Debate which only equated to £4 per employee). However some programmes are protected. The Lib Dems will cancel Trident, but their policy is to have an alternative nuclear weapon system which will still cost billions. Such a system will not help solve our international disputes, will be unusable in most conflict situations, and will still cost us billions. Similarly the major parties all pledge to stay in Afghanistan, and protect the £40billion pa spent on defence.
So what would the Green's do:
* Have a progressive tax system. The poor would be taken out of tax or pay no more than they do, yet there would be more steps in what is taxable so the wealthier people are, the more they would pay. Any earnings over £100k pa would be taxed at 50%. We would close tax loopholes exploited by big business and the wealthy. This would generate the income required to pay off the structural deficit, and close the revenue deficit. This is a fair system. Research shows equal societies are fairer societies, more happiness, less crime, less 'status anxiety', less conflict-See the recent Equality Trust report if you do not believe me.
* We would work towards a 'new' sustainable economy based on new technology, renewables, sturdy manufacturing goods etc. We would reduce Corporation Tax for small businesses to 20%. We would prevent big business suffocating small firms. Thousands of small businesses would bloom.
* Environment; minimise building on green field sites, proper action against climate change (The Government's own Stern Report states Govt. Carbon targets will still result in a +50% chance of irreversible climate change) , move towards a zero carbon economy, introduce a 'carbon credits' scheme, invest heavily in public transport by using monies set aside for road building, positive action against peak oil and depleting gas supplies through the developing renewable rather than nuclear energies.
* Improved animal welfare standards, No hunting; tax breaks for organic farms; better food standards. A level playing field for small producers, suppliers and shops against the supermarkets. No GM crops.
* Education; less testing, less bureaucracy, free tuition fees and maintenance grants for students. Life long learning as a right so we can develop a more equal and happier society
* Health; more preventative health, support a publicly funded and provided NHS, free social and health care.
* Build more public and affordable housing, revitalise our village communities, higher taxes and planning restrictions on second homes and investment properties.Make towns and cities nice places to live again.
* Crime; Restorative justice, more police on the streets, less bureaucracy.
* Defence; lower spending to fund a defensive armed force only, an independent and ethical foreign policy. Support a strengthened UN to solve international conflict.
* Europe; Radical reform of the EU. Less conformity, rules and regulations; less bureaucracy and waste; more co-operation than compliance between members on a local, regional rather than a pan European basis. No to the Lisbon Treaty.
* Development; support the developing world to build Green sustainable economies and fight climate change. Make developing countries good places to live, support democratic regimes to develop , and less tolerance of dictatorship to encourage change. This would result over time in there being less pull for people to migrate to Europe.
* Cornwall; Housing on Brown field sights and limit development in our countryside, support our natural environment against unfettered development, more devolved powers to a Cornish Assembly to control our services rather than through unelected quangos, and central control. More trust in local people to make their own decisions rather than centralisation.
Want to know even more:
Podcast of introductory speeches for West Briton debates:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Parliamentary-Candidates-Camborne-Redruth-Hayle-PODCAST-DEBATE/article-2009874-detail/article.html
BBC Radio Cornwall Hustings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cornwall/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8621000/8621911.stm
And if you still want more look at our manifesto on www.greenparty.org.uk
and our party political broadcast on http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
I am more than happy for you to contact me to discuss our policies and my candidature. Please do not hesitate to give me a ring.
PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES AND ASK THEM TO PASS IT ON
Best wishes and I hope you will vote Green on May 6th
Podcast of introductory speeches for West Briton debates:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Parliamentary-Candidates-Camborne-Redruth-Hayle-PODCAST-DEBATE/article-2009874-detail/article.html
BBC Radio Cornwall Hustings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cornwall/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8621000/8621911.stm
And if you still want more look at our manifesto on www.greenparty.org.uk
and our party political broadcast on http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
I am more than happy for you to contact me to discuss our policies and my candidature. Please do not hesitate to give me a ring.
PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES AND ASK THEM TO PASS IT ON
Best wishes and I hope you will vote Green on May 6th
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Wrightian298@aol.com
http://www.greensarecoming.org.uk
http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
Views on housing, tourism, NHS; most important issue for the constituency; submissions to West Briton
The candidates for Truro and Falmouth were asked by the West Briton and Falmouth Packet , over several weeks, to write about their views on a range of issues affecting the constituency. These are my published submissions:
Introduction: ProfileI am standing for this election as I believe the Green Party alone can make a real difference. I live on the Roseland, I am married with two children.
For several weeks the Green Party have run a Saturday street stall on alternate weeks in Truro and Falmouth. We leaflet shoppers about our campaign, and have been truly overwhelmed by the positive response.
People are sick of the main ‘grey’ parties, their corruption, and the dull predictable answers to the major issues of the day. We worry about the rise of the right through UKIP and BNP-their answers too simplistic, based on ignorance, racism and xenophobia. No wonder nearly 50% fail to vote.
We propose to protect public services from cuts. The deficit must be paid by the wealthy paying more and closing tax loopholes exploited by big business. We have a new economic strategy based on sustainable economics not unsustainable growth and massive debt. We will build affordable rentable homes for locals, but have higher taxes on second and investment homes. We will invest in education and public transport. We are the only party serious about combating climate change by developing a low carbon economy. We will withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, and believe in a truly ethical foreign policy. We support greater autonomy for Cornwall and keeping our fire, ambulance and NHS services local.
Greens promise a refreshing and credible alternative. A vote for us is a vote for a positive future for Cornwall and our country.'
A well-kept environment is vital to the people of Cornwall and the tourism industry. What can be done to protect it from over-development?
'Cornwall has a unique culture and environment. Ill thought out development threatens to destroy Cornwall, and seldom benefits local people. The current ‘creep’ of development threatens Cornwall becoming little different from elsewhere.
Truro is becoming an urban sprawl. Large private housing developments are not intended for local people. New superstores destroy local businesses in our communities. Anti social behaviour of some tourists, visiting towns like Newquay, make life miserable. Excessive house prices in our villages caused by second and holiday home ownership are equally damaging.
It is not too late. As your MP I would work to ensure there are strict planning controls to limit development which threatens our natural environment. Similar controls must ensure housing is affordable for local people. We must reverse the trend that threatens villages such as Portloe becoming middle class theme parks-open and occupied for school and bank holidays only.
Cornwall must put the needs of local people first, not the needs of developers and big business. We must preserve the attributes that make Cornwall special. That is Cornwall’s attraction and why many come to visit. Everyone is welcome to come in their thousands as long as they treat Cornwall with the reverence it deserves'.
In view of the issues over the planned transfer of upper GI cancer services to Devon, what do you see as the biggest challenges and priorities for the NHS in Cornwall?
Cornwall is angry about loosing our cancer services. Only health service managers are happy; mesmerised by management fashion of centralising services into ‘hubs’ and ‘centres of excellence.’ Nobody thought about the impact on patients travelling from Truro or Penzance. Travelling to Derriford is not easy by car, bus or train- especially for distressed patients undergoing treatments for potentially life threatening illnesses.
The NHS is a great achievement. It must be protected and cherished. Labour reversed eighteen years of Tory misrule of under investment and neglect. We must not forget what the Tories did to our country and public services. The Tories have not changed-despite the new image and rhetoric. Labour isn’t innocent either; there are now 40,000 managers in the NHS. Labour wasted millions on failed computer systems, and expensive ‘Private Finance Initiative’ projects.
We must reduce the national deficit but must protect local public services. We can cut bureaucracy and waste, but must maintain good public services through a more progressive tax system. Patients and medical staff must have more say how the NHS is run. NHS services must be delivered locally, and democratically controlled by the people of Cornwall. A Green government, and myself would deliver this promise.
What should be done to help normal working people afford to live in the places where they grew up?Cornish house prices are scandalous and unaffordable. Development must focus on the needs of local people. Many developments aim at existing homeowners, and those moving here. Many local people don’t wish to pay high rents for substandard housing, but cannot afford to buy.
As your MP I would ensure housing:
1. Is affordable. Where possible housing is built on ‘brown field sites' to protect our countryside.
2. Rebuilds local communities. Small scale developments in local communities are much better than large developments that do not focus on local needs.
3. Development focuses on affordable part-rent/part buy, and 100% rentable accommodation. Tenancies are secure to minimise the uncertainty of regular eviction.
4. In tourist areas housing is more affordable for locals. Planning permission restrictions; additional purchase and land taxes are introduced for investment/ second home/ holiday let property. This would deflate house prices and be a deterrent to property speculators.
5. Is prioritised for locals. As in the Channel Islands some housing should be restricted for locals-again reducing price inflation.
A key priority for me would be for everyone to have a decent home and to reduce the migration of our young people. This would ensure a sustainable future for Cornwall.
What would you and your party do to secure high quality sustainable employment opportunities for people in Cornwall ?In the 1980’s Conservative policies decimated heavy and manufacturing industry. Labour has provided some help during this recession, but there are still two and a half million people unemployed. Our country has too high a dependence on the service and finance sectors.
We would reduce corporation tax to 20% for small businesses to help them blossom. Our Green New Deal would provide financial stimulus to create a million new jobs in a range of Green and NewTech industries, renewable energy, as well as building social housing and proper waste management. We would support the manufacturing and engineering sector to make long lasting, useful sustainable goods people need. We would support Falmouth docks to provide world class shipbuilding and repair facilities. Our talented people will benefit from Green investment to ensure Cornwall has a sustainable future, not one based on the boom and bust cycles of free market economics.
What do you believe is the single most important issue facing your constituency today?
Truro and Falmouth needs an MP with honesty, integrity and independence. The expenses scandal, double standards, and Ashcroft’s dodgy Tory donations make us furious. Camborne rots while Julia Goldsworthy has a £1000 rocking chair on us. The ‘grey’ parties are all the same, fighting to say who will cut expenditure the most, while we will all suffer when public services are cut. Meanwhile big businesses pay little or no tax, and the bankers, who caused the mess, continue to receive get big bonuses. The ‘grey’ parties MP’s vote with their leaderships; few MP’s would do otherwise- they don’t want to damage their ‘careers’.
It’s time for real change, not some Tory PR exercise of ‘change’. Greens have a progressive alternative. We will be totally honest what we think and do. We have radical but realistic plans to solve the environmental and financial crises. We stand up for ordinary people. We have no links with business or other groups. We recently gained a council seat in Suffolk with a 33% swing from the Tories, a vote for us counts. We need change, and the Green Party and I are the real deal. We deserve a chance and won’t let you down.
Introduction: ProfileI am standing for this election as I believe the Green Party alone can make a real difference. I live on the Roseland, I am married with two children.
For several weeks the Green Party have run a Saturday street stall on alternate weeks in Truro and Falmouth. We leaflet shoppers about our campaign, and have been truly overwhelmed by the positive response.
People are sick of the main ‘grey’ parties, their corruption, and the dull predictable answers to the major issues of the day. We worry about the rise of the right through UKIP and BNP-their answers too simplistic, based on ignorance, racism and xenophobia. No wonder nearly 50% fail to vote.
We propose to protect public services from cuts. The deficit must be paid by the wealthy paying more and closing tax loopholes exploited by big business. We have a new economic strategy based on sustainable economics not unsustainable growth and massive debt. We will build affordable rentable homes for locals, but have higher taxes on second and investment homes. We will invest in education and public transport. We are the only party serious about combating climate change by developing a low carbon economy. We will withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, and believe in a truly ethical foreign policy. We support greater autonomy for Cornwall and keeping our fire, ambulance and NHS services local.
Greens promise a refreshing and credible alternative. A vote for us is a vote for a positive future for Cornwall and our country.'
A well-kept environment is vital to the people of Cornwall and the tourism industry. What can be done to protect it from over-development?
'Cornwall has a unique culture and environment. Ill thought out development threatens to destroy Cornwall, and seldom benefits local people. The current ‘creep’ of development threatens Cornwall becoming little different from elsewhere.
Truro is becoming an urban sprawl. Large private housing developments are not intended for local people. New superstores destroy local businesses in our communities. Anti social behaviour of some tourists, visiting towns like Newquay, make life miserable. Excessive house prices in our villages caused by second and holiday home ownership are equally damaging.
It is not too late. As your MP I would work to ensure there are strict planning controls to limit development which threatens our natural environment. Similar controls must ensure housing is affordable for local people. We must reverse the trend that threatens villages such as Portloe becoming middle class theme parks-open and occupied for school and bank holidays only.
Cornwall must put the needs of local people first, not the needs of developers and big business. We must preserve the attributes that make Cornwall special. That is Cornwall’s attraction and why many come to visit. Everyone is welcome to come in their thousands as long as they treat Cornwall with the reverence it deserves'.
In view of the issues over the planned transfer of upper GI cancer services to Devon, what do you see as the biggest challenges and priorities for the NHS in Cornwall?
Cornwall is angry about loosing our cancer services. Only health service managers are happy; mesmerised by management fashion of centralising services into ‘hubs’ and ‘centres of excellence.’ Nobody thought about the impact on patients travelling from Truro or Penzance. Travelling to Derriford is not easy by car, bus or train- especially for distressed patients undergoing treatments for potentially life threatening illnesses.
The NHS is a great achievement. It must be protected and cherished. Labour reversed eighteen years of Tory misrule of under investment and neglect. We must not forget what the Tories did to our country and public services. The Tories have not changed-despite the new image and rhetoric. Labour isn’t innocent either; there are now 40,000 managers in the NHS. Labour wasted millions on failed computer systems, and expensive ‘Private Finance Initiative’ projects.
We must reduce the national deficit but must protect local public services. We can cut bureaucracy and waste, but must maintain good public services through a more progressive tax system. Patients and medical staff must have more say how the NHS is run. NHS services must be delivered locally, and democratically controlled by the people of Cornwall. A Green government, and myself would deliver this promise.
What should be done to help normal working people afford to live in the places where they grew up?Cornish house prices are scandalous and unaffordable. Development must focus on the needs of local people. Many developments aim at existing homeowners, and those moving here. Many local people don’t wish to pay high rents for substandard housing, but cannot afford to buy.
As your MP I would ensure housing:
1. Is affordable. Where possible housing is built on ‘brown field sites' to protect our countryside.
2. Rebuilds local communities. Small scale developments in local communities are much better than large developments that do not focus on local needs.
3. Development focuses on affordable part-rent/part buy, and 100% rentable accommodation. Tenancies are secure to minimise the uncertainty of regular eviction.
4. In tourist areas housing is more affordable for locals. Planning permission restrictions; additional purchase and land taxes are introduced for investment/ second home/ holiday let property. This would deflate house prices and be a deterrent to property speculators.
5. Is prioritised for locals. As in the Channel Islands some housing should be restricted for locals-again reducing price inflation.
A key priority for me would be for everyone to have a decent home and to reduce the migration of our young people. This would ensure a sustainable future for Cornwall.
What would you and your party do to secure high quality sustainable employment opportunities for people in Cornwall ?In the 1980’s Conservative policies decimated heavy and manufacturing industry. Labour has provided some help during this recession, but there are still two and a half million people unemployed. Our country has too high a dependence on the service and finance sectors.
We would reduce corporation tax to 20% for small businesses to help them blossom. Our Green New Deal would provide financial stimulus to create a million new jobs in a range of Green and NewTech industries, renewable energy, as well as building social housing and proper waste management. We would support the manufacturing and engineering sector to make long lasting, useful sustainable goods people need. We would support Falmouth docks to provide world class shipbuilding and repair facilities. Our talented people will benefit from Green investment to ensure Cornwall has a sustainable future, not one based on the boom and bust cycles of free market economics.
What do you believe is the single most important issue facing your constituency today?
Truro and Falmouth needs an MP with honesty, integrity and independence. The expenses scandal, double standards, and Ashcroft’s dodgy Tory donations make us furious. Camborne rots while Julia Goldsworthy has a £1000 rocking chair on us. The ‘grey’ parties are all the same, fighting to say who will cut expenditure the most, while we will all suffer when public services are cut. Meanwhile big businesses pay little or no tax, and the bankers, who caused the mess, continue to receive get big bonuses. The ‘grey’ parties MP’s vote with their leaderships; few MP’s would do otherwise- they don’t want to damage their ‘careers’.
It’s time for real change, not some Tory PR exercise of ‘change’. Greens have a progressive alternative. We will be totally honest what we think and do. We have radical but realistic plans to solve the environmental and financial crises. We stand up for ordinary people. We have no links with business or other groups. We recently gained a council seat in Suffolk with a 33% swing from the Tories, a vote for us counts. We need change, and the Green Party and I are the real deal. We deserve a chance and won’t let you down.
Green sympathy with the public's disillusionment with main parties
I completely understand many of the views expressed in your Voxpop
‘What the people on the street are thinking’ (22/4/2010) over the
disillusionment of the current political campaign. My motivation for
standing was fuelled by similar feelings towards the main political
parties.
It is amusing the Libdems are ‘marketing’ themselves as bastions of a
‘new politics’ when their roots go back to the nineteenth century.
Certainly their tenure as leaders of Cornwall Council showed that,
until they were kicked out, there was nothing ‘new’ about the various
cock ups they caused, including signing away our millions in the
incinerator contract.
The Tories should be walking this one, with Gordon Brown and Labour so
discredited after thirteen years of disappointment; particularly after
initial optimism in 1997 that ordinary people’s interests would be
prioritised. People have long memories, and even David Cameron’s PR
smile does not make us forget eighteen years of Tory misrule. We should
not forget the record so far of our now Tory controlled council, which
has spent £11 million since April 2009 alone, on consultants (West
Briton 22/4/10). Is that really a template to cut waste and what the
Tories mean when they ask us to ‘Vote for Change’?
The current ‘X factor’ style ‘beauty contest’ of the leader’s debate on
TV, particularly with the exclusion of the ‘small’ parties, has shown
that despite the bickering, there is a broad consensus to cut public
services, do little to protect the environment, stay in Afghanistan,
and keep nuclear weapons of one sort or another. Hardly a manifesto
from the ‘Big Three’ for a sustainable future, but more of the ‘same
old, same old’, that we are used to.
If I had a pound for everybody who said they won’t vote with their
conscience and vote Green, I would be a wealthy man. Once people read
the Green Party manifesto they know it makes sense. In Brighton, the
bookies have the Green’s odds on favourite to win, and the LibDems in
last place. Our leader, Caroline Lucas, unlike Nick Clegg, is truly
inspiring. Voting Green is a vote for the future and we are starting to
gain momentum. People should not vote tactically but vote for real,
genuine change. 'Change' and 'Fairness' are just mere buzzwords as far as
the 'Big Three' are concerned.
We offer a progressive alternative where there would be real change to
our political and economic system for the better. Our policies would
tackle climate change, the current financial deficit and close the tax
loopholes exploited by big business and the very wealthy. By developing
a progressive tax system, where every one pays their fair share, we
would ensure there is enough money not to cut public services but
create a sustainable future with ordinary people and the environment at
its core. The leaders’ debates are a turn off. Green’s want to
inspire those who don’t vote, or are disillusioned by the main parties.
Just like the people in your article. Subsequently we want to ensure
there is an alternative where the future is not grey but green.
‘What the people on the street are thinking’ (22/4/2010) over the
disillusionment of the current political campaign. My motivation for
standing was fuelled by similar feelings towards the main political
parties.
It is amusing the Libdems are ‘marketing’ themselves as bastions of a
‘new politics’ when their roots go back to the nineteenth century.
Certainly their tenure as leaders of Cornwall Council showed that,
until they were kicked out, there was nothing ‘new’ about the various
cock ups they caused, including signing away our millions in the
incinerator contract.
The Tories should be walking this one, with Gordon Brown and Labour so
discredited after thirteen years of disappointment; particularly after
initial optimism in 1997 that ordinary people’s interests would be
prioritised. People have long memories, and even David Cameron’s PR
smile does not make us forget eighteen years of Tory misrule. We should
not forget the record so far of our now Tory controlled council, which
has spent £11 million since April 2009 alone, on consultants (West
Briton 22/4/10). Is that really a template to cut waste and what the
Tories mean when they ask us to ‘Vote for Change’?
The current ‘X factor’ style ‘beauty contest’ of the leader’s debate on
TV, particularly with the exclusion of the ‘small’ parties, has shown
that despite the bickering, there is a broad consensus to cut public
services, do little to protect the environment, stay in Afghanistan,
and keep nuclear weapons of one sort or another. Hardly a manifesto
from the ‘Big Three’ for a sustainable future, but more of the ‘same
old, same old’, that we are used to.
If I had a pound for everybody who said they won’t vote with their
conscience and vote Green, I would be a wealthy man. Once people read
the Green Party manifesto they know it makes sense. In Brighton, the
bookies have the Green’s odds on favourite to win, and the LibDems in
last place. Our leader, Caroline Lucas, unlike Nick Clegg, is truly
inspiring. Voting Green is a vote for the future and we are starting to
gain momentum. People should not vote tactically but vote for real,
genuine change. 'Change' and 'Fairness' are just mere buzzwords as far as
the 'Big Three' are concerned.
We offer a progressive alternative where there would be real change to
our political and economic system for the better. Our policies would
tackle climate change, the current financial deficit and close the tax
loopholes exploited by big business and the very wealthy. By developing
a progressive tax system, where every one pays their fair share, we
would ensure there is enough money not to cut public services but
create a sustainable future with ordinary people and the environment at
its core. The leaders’ debates are a turn off. Green’s want to
inspire those who don’t vote, or are disillusioned by the main parties.
Just like the people in your article. Subsequently we want to ensure
there is an alternative where the future is not grey but green.
More Shock at Council's use of Consultants
24.4 Consultants
I was intrigued by your article ‘Shock as council’s £11m consultants’ fees revealed’ (West Briton 22/4/10). It is good that even in such times of recession that one industry is doing well. Sorry, I should remember sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I seem to remember a small minority of your correspondents defending the current Council CEO-Kevin Lavery’s salary. The defence-if I remember rightly- was something along the lines of the council has to pay top dollar to get the best.
Taking that line as factual (which personally I don’t), why then has the council had to supplement its top talent by paying an additional £11 million to consultants, on top of these senior managers’ salaries? And that is just in a year! Surely Mr Lavery et al should bring such talent themselves to the table, without the extra expense of paying consultants? .
To top it all, and to add further insult to injury, Mr Lavery’s own Chief Executive’s Department top the council’s consultant’s league table-by almost double- with expenditure of £2.36m. Human Resources-who are supposed to advise managers on personnel matters, thought they needed further advisors at a cost of £1.1m. Private Finance Initiative schemes required consultancy of just under £0.5n ( I thought such outsourcing was meant to be cheaper than in house provision; so why did they need to ‘outsource’ advice to decide to ‘outsource’. (If you can follow that- which sounds straight out of Yes Minister!)
The current Conservative led administration of the council promised to cut waste, so frontline services could be protected in such times of austerity. Despite encouraging us to ‘Vote For Change,’ the Tories are clearly following the New Labour template of being too frightened to make up their own minds, and to outsource advice. However we must remember they themselves are elected to make decisions, and to employ officers of high calibre to advise them. This will not do, and does not bode well if the Tories are elected on 6th May, with Mr Cameron (ex PR Consultant) at their helm. We need real change. We must protect and develop public services and cut unnecessary waste such as this.
I must go now I have an election to fight.
I was intrigued by your article ‘Shock as council’s £11m consultants’ fees revealed’ (West Briton 22/4/10). It is good that even in such times of recession that one industry is doing well. Sorry, I should remember sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I seem to remember a small minority of your correspondents defending the current Council CEO-Kevin Lavery’s salary. The defence-if I remember rightly- was something along the lines of the council has to pay top dollar to get the best.
Taking that line as factual (which personally I don’t), why then has the council had to supplement its top talent by paying an additional £11 million to consultants, on top of these senior managers’ salaries? And that is just in a year! Surely Mr Lavery et al should bring such talent themselves to the table, without the extra expense of paying consultants? .
To top it all, and to add further insult to injury, Mr Lavery’s own Chief Executive’s Department top the council’s consultant’s league table-by almost double- with expenditure of £2.36m. Human Resources-who are supposed to advise managers on personnel matters, thought they needed further advisors at a cost of £1.1m. Private Finance Initiative schemes required consultancy of just under £0.5n ( I thought such outsourcing was meant to be cheaper than in house provision; so why did they need to ‘outsource’ advice to decide to ‘outsource’. (If you can follow that- which sounds straight out of Yes Minister!)
The current Conservative led administration of the council promised to cut waste, so frontline services could be protected in such times of austerity. Despite encouraging us to ‘Vote For Change,’ the Tories are clearly following the New Labour template of being too frightened to make up their own minds, and to outsource advice. However we must remember they themselves are elected to make decisions, and to employ officers of high calibre to advise them. This will not do, and does not bode well if the Tories are elected on 6th May, with Mr Cameron (ex PR Consultant) at their helm. We need real change. We must protect and develop public services and cut unnecessary waste such as this.
I must go now I have an election to fight.
Friday 16 April 2010
Plans to scrap developments to south of Truro possibly to be scrapped
Dear Letter's editor,
I was pleased to hear that proposals to build 6400 houses, and a new bypass south of Truro may be scrapped (West Briton 8.4.2010). This was a great birthday present for me last Thursday, as well as pleasing news to all of us who do not want to see the environment of Cornwall ruined by excessive development. Let us hope that the council and the new national government cannot find any reasons for implementing the plan. Any development, where possible, must be carried out on ‘brown field sites’, and new housing is built primarily for the local population i.e. affordable, and preferably for rent for the thousands on the housing waiting list.
I was shocked, as indeed many other readers were, by the cost of the plan. It would be quite funny at how public servants get taken for a ride by various
con sultants (sic) if it not so gravely concerning that the bill is paid by us as taxpayers.
While we read that St Julia’s Hospice has to go out shaking tins to find £1 million to provide services for terminally ill people, the tax payer has to fork out over £400,000 for a bunch of con sultants to draw up the Threemilestone Area Action Plan. A straw poll of West Briton readers could easily have told the council that actually local people did not want this development, and subsequently we could have given the money, and similar wasteful expenditure, to Cornwall Hospice Care, other worthwhile causes, and/or at the very least built some affordable homes in our villages and towns.
The misuse of con sultants is well documented in Private Eye and other worthy journals. I am not sure if the excessive use of con sultants has been primarily a New Labour phenomenon (although the financial crunch has forced them to pledge to cut back on this habit–well we’ll see!) or purely a trend of modern management theory (i.e. pass the buck to avoid the blame when it all goes pear shaped). Whichever, or whether it is a mixture of the two, let us hope the council is now shamed into not using consultants anymore, and using its (often highly paid) officers and elected councillors to use their skills, knowledge and experience to make decisions (i.e. what they are paid and/or elected for). We can then use the decreasing amount of public money available to fund useful and sustainable projects which benefit ordinary local people. Anyway…. as your Green MP-that would be what I would tell them they should do!
I was pleased to hear that proposals to build 6400 houses, and a new bypass south of Truro may be scrapped (West Briton 8.4.2010). This was a great birthday present for me last Thursday, as well as pleasing news to all of us who do not want to see the environment of Cornwall ruined by excessive development. Let us hope that the council and the new national government cannot find any reasons for implementing the plan. Any development, where possible, must be carried out on ‘brown field sites’, and new housing is built primarily for the local population i.e. affordable, and preferably for rent for the thousands on the housing waiting list.
I was shocked, as indeed many other readers were, by the cost of the plan. It would be quite funny at how public servants get taken for a ride by various
con sultants (sic) if it not so gravely concerning that the bill is paid by us as taxpayers.
While we read that St Julia’s Hospice has to go out shaking tins to find £1 million to provide services for terminally ill people, the tax payer has to fork out over £400,000 for a bunch of con sultants to draw up the Threemilestone Area Action Plan. A straw poll of West Briton readers could easily have told the council that actually local people did not want this development, and subsequently we could have given the money, and similar wasteful expenditure, to Cornwall Hospice Care, other worthwhile causes, and/or at the very least built some affordable homes in our villages and towns.
The misuse of con sultants is well documented in Private Eye and other worthy journals. I am not sure if the excessive use of con sultants has been primarily a New Labour phenomenon (although the financial crunch has forced them to pledge to cut back on this habit–well we’ll see!) or purely a trend of modern management theory (i.e. pass the buck to avoid the blame when it all goes pear shaped). Whichever, or whether it is a mixture of the two, let us hope the council is now shamed into not using consultants anymore, and using its (often highly paid) officers and elected councillors to use their skills, knowledge and experience to make decisions (i.e. what they are paid and/or elected for). We can then use the decreasing amount of public money available to fund useful and sustainable projects which benefit ordinary local people. Anyway…. as your Green MP-that would be what I would tell them they should do!
Letter to Western Morning News and West Briton regarding public expenditure and the 'National Insurance' Debate
As a parliamentary candidate I really looked forward to the actual start of the campaign. However, despite a keen interest in current affairs I find the tone of the campaign to date a fundamentally depressing experience.
To illustrate this I will provide the example of the debate over the deficit and national insurance.
The three main parties only seem to vie to be the champion of who can cut public expenditure the most. ‘When’ and ‘How quickly’ are the only questions. No consideration is given to the impact of cuts on ordinary people. Similarly no consideration is given regarding apportioning the blame to those responsible.
What happened is deeply irresponsible. Successive Labour and Tory governments both must share responsibility for the current problems. The Tories failed to support our manufacturing sector in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Its subsequent contraction helped cause the widening gap between tax receipts and money to fund public services. The Tories then sold the ‘family silver’ through privatisation of our assets. The political diaries of politicians on both sides demonstrate it was politically unpalatable to cut public expenditure to pay off the deficit that then accrued. Therefore-despite some efforts by the incoming Labour government in 1997-government metaphorically chose not only to sell the roof over our head through privatisation, but then ‘max out’ on a walletful of credit cards, then carry out expensive balance transfers to keep things ticking over. They allowed the banks and big business to not pay their share of tax through various loopholes and lax regulation. Despite ordinary people paying what tax they could, there is now a gaping hole in the accounts.
There is now a ridiculous debate over National Insurance. As a way of collecting revenue NI contributions, unlike corporation tax, leave big business less ‘wriggle room.’ It is difficult for business leaders to use various creative accounting practices and off shore tax havens to minimise their payments of this tax. No wonder they all are now complaining. Ok for you and me to pay via cuts in public services, as long as they can continue to keep their profits off shore, pay themselves as much as possible and pay as little tax as than can be got away with. The Tories and big business are disingenuous to say this is about jobs. Like the fears spread about the introduction of the minimum wage-they time will show they can absorb the cost.
James Caan- the dragon from the den (or should it be the lair?) stated that the Labour plan would only add £4 to the cost of each employee-hardly enough to cause mass layoffs. The cost to Marks and Spencer of the change(whom Sir Stuart Rose was won of the signatories of the recent much publicised letter against the national insurance rise) would be £10m pa- when they have just paid £15 million as a 'golden hello' to their new boss. The Tory signatories are therefore hardly being honest about their real reasons for their oppostion to the national insurance rise.
Therefore let us have an honest debate not the current misleading tabloid arguments that dominate the discussion. Cutting the deficit should be the responsibility of those who got us into this mess. Banks, the financial sector and big business must pay their share. Those who earn more, have to pay more. There is some room to cut waste in the public sector, but we must protect public services. As the candidate for the Green Party I believe the Green’s are alone in stating this is the real answer to the current situation. Let us be honest about the way forward.
To illustrate this I will provide the example of the debate over the deficit and national insurance.
The three main parties only seem to vie to be the champion of who can cut public expenditure the most. ‘When’ and ‘How quickly’ are the only questions. No consideration is given to the impact of cuts on ordinary people. Similarly no consideration is given regarding apportioning the blame to those responsible.
What happened is deeply irresponsible. Successive Labour and Tory governments both must share responsibility for the current problems. The Tories failed to support our manufacturing sector in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Its subsequent contraction helped cause the widening gap between tax receipts and money to fund public services. The Tories then sold the ‘family silver’ through privatisation of our assets. The political diaries of politicians on both sides demonstrate it was politically unpalatable to cut public expenditure to pay off the deficit that then accrued. Therefore-despite some efforts by the incoming Labour government in 1997-government metaphorically chose not only to sell the roof over our head through privatisation, but then ‘max out’ on a walletful of credit cards, then carry out expensive balance transfers to keep things ticking over. They allowed the banks and big business to not pay their share of tax through various loopholes and lax regulation. Despite ordinary people paying what tax they could, there is now a gaping hole in the accounts.
There is now a ridiculous debate over National Insurance. As a way of collecting revenue NI contributions, unlike corporation tax, leave big business less ‘wriggle room.’ It is difficult for business leaders to use various creative accounting practices and off shore tax havens to minimise their payments of this tax. No wonder they all are now complaining. Ok for you and me to pay via cuts in public services, as long as they can continue to keep their profits off shore, pay themselves as much as possible and pay as little tax as than can be got away with. The Tories and big business are disingenuous to say this is about jobs. Like the fears spread about the introduction of the minimum wage-they time will show they can absorb the cost.
James Caan- the dragon from the den (or should it be the lair?) stated that the Labour plan would only add £4 to the cost of each employee-hardly enough to cause mass layoffs. The cost to Marks and Spencer of the change(whom Sir Stuart Rose was won of the signatories of the recent much publicised letter against the national insurance rise) would be £10m pa- when they have just paid £15 million as a 'golden hello' to their new boss. The Tory signatories are therefore hardly being honest about their real reasons for their oppostion to the national insurance rise.
Therefore let us have an honest debate not the current misleading tabloid arguments that dominate the discussion. Cutting the deficit should be the responsibility of those who got us into this mess. Banks, the financial sector and big business must pay their share. Those who earn more, have to pay more. There is some room to cut waste in the public sector, but we must protect public services. As the candidate for the Green Party I believe the Green’s are alone in stating this is the real answer to the current situation. Let us be honest about the way forward.
Saturday 3 April 2010
Truro and Falmouth Campaign Update (3.4.10)
The fashion seems these days to 'big' up everything. Everyone is doing well, all is on target, the 'positive' is accentuated and the 'negative' is eliminated. So much so it is hard to ever find out the truth.
I do not wish to speak too soon, but we are doing really well here. Our campaign is run on a shoe string budget, and there are a handful of people active in doing things. I do not have any money from Lord Ashcroft or Lord or Lady anyone else for that matter, but so far I can assure supporters the £120 we have invested in leaflets, and the £27 we have raised via selling second hand books on our street stall, has been used to the optimum.
The campaign thus far as consisted of our weekly street stall in either Truro or Falmouth, participating in every hustings event with the other candidates, and writing to the press and participating in the occasional radio interview.
When I got out of bed this morning, and looked outside I really did not feel like driving to Falmouth to stand in the rain and give out leaflets. Yet I summoned up the energy and somehow made it. I keep waiting for the enthusiasm to die down, but people happily take our leaflet, smile, and wish us good luck. When we have the hustings event, there is always a round of applause for at least one response to a question answered. That is often one more than the other candidates-And I do not load the audience with my supporters or Green Party members (We should be so lucky!).It is all very inspiring, and I really hope the message is getting through.
There needs to be a major change in this country. Indeed on this earth if we are to survive. The current situation is unsustainable, the answers offered by the major parties will solve nothing-tinkering around the edges at the most, totally screwing everything up even more at worst. How can they all want to cut public services to death? Why have they all forgotten that the bankers have taken us all to the cleaners? (News today: Bob Diamond at Barclays denies getting £6m a year...it was only £250,000 pa he says)! Why is there still this urge to make the vast majority of us suffer for the financial collapse yet nobody is saying that tax loopholes for big business cost the revenue millions and millions a year in lost revenue?
I do however think the ordinary people walking through Falmouth this morning do realise it. I am ever grateful for the thanks I have received for my letters to the West Briton, and the strong belief that the messages of the main political parties are all the same and that people may..just may vote Green this time around. Let us hope that is the case.
Hustings events:
Truro Town Hall Boscawen Street 6pm 20/4/10 (If you show up say I invited you!)
Hall For Cornwall 7pm 22/4/2010 (contact West Briton for tickets)
All Saints Church, Higher Town Truro 25/4/2010
Any Questions Radio Cornwall 28?/4/2010
Possible date for Election 6/5/2010-please vote in your 1000's!
There are weekly articles by all the candidates in the West Briton.Please read and show your support.
I do not wish to speak too soon, but we are doing really well here. Our campaign is run on a shoe string budget, and there are a handful of people active in doing things. I do not have any money from Lord Ashcroft or Lord or Lady anyone else for that matter, but so far I can assure supporters the £120 we have invested in leaflets, and the £27 we have raised via selling second hand books on our street stall, has been used to the optimum.
The campaign thus far as consisted of our weekly street stall in either Truro or Falmouth, participating in every hustings event with the other candidates, and writing to the press and participating in the occasional radio interview.
When I got out of bed this morning, and looked outside I really did not feel like driving to Falmouth to stand in the rain and give out leaflets. Yet I summoned up the energy and somehow made it. I keep waiting for the enthusiasm to die down, but people happily take our leaflet, smile, and wish us good luck. When we have the hustings event, there is always a round of applause for at least one response to a question answered. That is often one more than the other candidates-And I do not load the audience with my supporters or Green Party members (We should be so lucky!).It is all very inspiring, and I really hope the message is getting through.
There needs to be a major change in this country. Indeed on this earth if we are to survive. The current situation is unsustainable, the answers offered by the major parties will solve nothing-tinkering around the edges at the most, totally screwing everything up even more at worst. How can they all want to cut public services to death? Why have they all forgotten that the bankers have taken us all to the cleaners? (News today: Bob Diamond at Barclays denies getting £6m a year...it was only £250,000 pa he says)! Why is there still this urge to make the vast majority of us suffer for the financial collapse yet nobody is saying that tax loopholes for big business cost the revenue millions and millions a year in lost revenue?
I do however think the ordinary people walking through Falmouth this morning do realise it. I am ever grateful for the thanks I have received for my letters to the West Briton, and the strong belief that the messages of the main political parties are all the same and that people may..just may vote Green this time around. Let us hope that is the case.
Hustings events:
Truro Town Hall Boscawen Street 6pm 20/4/10 (If you show up say I invited you!)
Hall For Cornwall 7pm 22/4/2010 (contact West Briton for tickets)
All Saints Church, Higher Town Truro 25/4/2010
Any Questions Radio Cornwall 28?/4/2010
Possible date for Election 6/5/2010-please vote in your 1000's!
There are weekly articles by all the candidates in the West Briton.Please read and show your support.
Discust at Cornwall Council and Diocese of Truro Decision to sell Devoran Old School to Private Developer
Letter to West Briton Re: Village Anger as old school sale proceeds
It is appalling that the Diocese of Truro and Cornwall Council have accepted a private bid to purchase Devoran Old School against the wishes of the people of Devoran. The authority’s decision is made even more disgraceful because the building was originally gifted to the village for educational purposes, and this is specifically noted in the property's deeds (West Briton 25.3.2010).
I always thought Cornwall Council’s purpose was to serve the people of Cornwall. I also understood the Tory led administration made their intentions clear to improve our lives according to what people wanted, after four years of Liberal Democrat control? Seems this is an example of politics as usual.? I hope the people of Cornwall will remember this latest let down, when they are asked to vote shortly.
As for the Diocese they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Has it forgotten what is written in the Bible? What would Jesus think of this decision? I seem to remember the Bible story of Jesus turning the traders and money lenders out of the temple. Here the church has clearly put profit before the needs of the local community, has totally ignored the wishes of the benefactors, and gone against what is legally outlined in the deeds of the property. If there is a God, may these decision makers be judged come their time.
This decision again highlights what we have seen time and time again. Our villages and towns are having their souls ripped out by those looking for a quick buck and there is a complete lack of planning controls to protect local communities. This is a clear case of the needs of the local population being ignored-even with the consequence that Devoran may become no more than a dormitory for the commuters to work in Truro.
It does not look like this latest ‘property deal’ is yet complete. This building should be used for the local people at least as a community space, and preferably according to the wishes of the family which originally donated it. We should all show our support to this community. All parishioners of the Church of England should write to the Bishop in protest, and if necessary boycott church services. I will personally be writing to the Bishop, and we should all do the same. The church must ensure this decision is reversed before it is too late. As electors we must remember the Tories have not changed despite the spin, image change and the public relations work Cameron is trained in. We all need to remember this as another example why not to vote for them in the general election. If I am elected as your MP I would do my utmost to protect our village and town communities from those who are only too keen to put profit before the needs of the community.
If you feel strongly about this issue please email your local councillor via Cornwall Council's website (cornwall.gov.uk) Also email the Bishop of Truro via (www.trurodiocese.org.uk). Information on the issues can also be found via the Devoran Village Website at http://www.devoran.org.uk/Devoran/index.htm
It is appalling that the Diocese of Truro and Cornwall Council have accepted a private bid to purchase Devoran Old School against the wishes of the people of Devoran. The authority’s decision is made even more disgraceful because the building was originally gifted to the village for educational purposes, and this is specifically noted in the property's deeds (West Briton 25.3.2010).
I always thought Cornwall Council’s purpose was to serve the people of Cornwall. I also understood the Tory led administration made their intentions clear to improve our lives according to what people wanted, after four years of Liberal Democrat control? Seems this is an example of politics as usual.? I hope the people of Cornwall will remember this latest let down, when they are asked to vote shortly.
As for the Diocese they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Has it forgotten what is written in the Bible? What would Jesus think of this decision? I seem to remember the Bible story of Jesus turning the traders and money lenders out of the temple. Here the church has clearly put profit before the needs of the local community, has totally ignored the wishes of the benefactors, and gone against what is legally outlined in the deeds of the property. If there is a God, may these decision makers be judged come their time.
This decision again highlights what we have seen time and time again. Our villages and towns are having their souls ripped out by those looking for a quick buck and there is a complete lack of planning controls to protect local communities. This is a clear case of the needs of the local population being ignored-even with the consequence that Devoran may become no more than a dormitory for the commuters to work in Truro.
It does not look like this latest ‘property deal’ is yet complete. This building should be used for the local people at least as a community space, and preferably according to the wishes of the family which originally donated it. We should all show our support to this community. All parishioners of the Church of England should write to the Bishop in protest, and if necessary boycott church services. I will personally be writing to the Bishop, and we should all do the same. The church must ensure this decision is reversed before it is too late. As electors we must remember the Tories have not changed despite the spin, image change and the public relations work Cameron is trained in. We all need to remember this as another example why not to vote for them in the general election. If I am elected as your MP I would do my utmost to protect our village and town communities from those who are only too keen to put profit before the needs of the community.
If you feel strongly about this issue please email your local councillor via Cornwall Council's website (cornwall.gov.uk) Also email the Bishop of Truro via (www.trurodiocese.org.uk). Information on the issues can also be found via the Devoran Village Website at http://www.devoran.org.uk/Devoran/index.htm
Green research jobs for Cornwall is good news
I was pleased to read your article ‘Scientists will help to boost local economy’ (West Briton April 1 2010). The news that Cornwall is to become Europe’s first research hub to examine the relationship between human health and the environment is just what Cornwall needs. The new high skilled jobs, with hopefully a ‘knock on’ effect for local business, will help to stimulate our economy and hopefully ensure there are highly skilled jobs for local (and particularly our young) people.
The Green Party totally supports initiatives such as this, and the funding from the European Union shows how EU membership can be (sometimes) a force for the good. The Green Party’s ‘Green Party New Deal’ would provide investment and jobs in the ‘new economy’ such as these. Britain has the potential to become the leader in environmental research, research and development of renewable energy, and other ‘new’ industries. This would be a much better use of government investment and support rather than the UK’s current reliance on banking, the financial and service sectors- a reliance that has got us into our current financial troubles. Anyway well done Cornwall for getting this investment, and nice to read some good news for once!
The Green Party totally supports initiatives such as this, and the funding from the European Union shows how EU membership can be (sometimes) a force for the good. The Green Party’s ‘Green Party New Deal’ would provide investment and jobs in the ‘new economy’ such as these. Britain has the potential to become the leader in environmental research, research and development of renewable energy, and other ‘new’ industries. This would be a much better use of government investment and support rather than the UK’s current reliance on banking, the financial and service sectors- a reliance that has got us into our current financial troubles. Anyway well done Cornwall for getting this investment, and nice to read some good news for once!
Not even a Waitrose for Truro PLEASE!!
When I read your article ‘Duchy of Cornwall working with Waitrose to open Store’ (West Briton April 1) I thought I had finally spotted your April Fool’s joke on your readers. I am still not totally convinced it is not a joke, but thought to write just in case……..!
If the article is not a hoax, it looks like Waitrose and the Duchy’s PR departments have gone into overdrive since your article on March 4th. I know Waitrose is every middle class, liberal minded person’s favourite supermarket (including mine even though it is rather expensive). Their community minded, profit sharing ethos, sale of Fair Trade and organic goods etc. is all rather appealing . However all the right press release buzz words and phrases such as ‘sustainable’, ‘affordable homes’, ‘unique and innovative’, ‘recycling’ ‘unique and innovative scheme to boost Cornish Farmers and producers’ etcetera is not going to convince this Green minded person that this is A Good Idea. They can put a windmill on the roof, have charging points for electric cars, and even a system to recycle waste water and heat, and it still will not convince me and many others, although they are obviously doing their best to get a few minds wavering.
So let us remember the facts. New supermarkets whether they are Waitrose, Tesco or Asda tend to have the effect of killing local businesses and reducing consumer’s choices. Building on this site will cause significant ongoing traffic congestion. To build on green field land when we already have more than enough supermarkets in Truro is wrong, wrong, wrong.
So Prince Charles, if you are reading this, remember if you do have a green conscience tell the managers of your estate this decision is wrong and must not go ahead. Support local business rather than large corporations, plant some trees on the land and let nature get on with it. Truro is big enough and even a Waitrose does not convince many of us that this land should be developed.
If the article is not a hoax, it looks like Waitrose and the Duchy’s PR departments have gone into overdrive since your article on March 4th. I know Waitrose is every middle class, liberal minded person’s favourite supermarket (including mine even though it is rather expensive). Their community minded, profit sharing ethos, sale of Fair Trade and organic goods etc. is all rather appealing . However all the right press release buzz words and phrases such as ‘sustainable’, ‘affordable homes’, ‘unique and innovative’, ‘recycling’ ‘unique and innovative scheme to boost Cornish Farmers and producers’ etcetera is not going to convince this Green minded person that this is A Good Idea. They can put a windmill on the roof, have charging points for electric cars, and even a system to recycle waste water and heat, and it still will not convince me and many others, although they are obviously doing their best to get a few minds wavering.
So let us remember the facts. New supermarkets whether they are Waitrose, Tesco or Asda tend to have the effect of killing local businesses and reducing consumer’s choices. Building on this site will cause significant ongoing traffic congestion. To build on green field land when we already have more than enough supermarkets in Truro is wrong, wrong, wrong.
So Prince Charles, if you are reading this, remember if you do have a green conscience tell the managers of your estate this decision is wrong and must not go ahead. Support local business rather than large corporations, plant some trees on the land and let nature get on with it. Truro is big enough and even a Waitrose does not convince many of us that this land should be developed.
Monday 22 March 2010
No let up in the sleeze (quick rant)
On the back of Lord Ashcroft and his dodgy funding of Tory candidates in key marginals, it was utterly disgraceful watching Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt and Steven Byers, as well as the rest of the Westminster riff raff, from both sides of the house, attempting to sell themselves for £3000-£5000 a day for their 'contacts' (See C4'Dispatches' via their website).
When found out they seek to back pedal and claim they are making it up. Therefore either complete liars and bullshitters, or completely without morals.
And of course it is all 'within the parliamentary rules' as if that is any excuse.
Appalling, appalling, appalling.
Blair and his ilk were only too keen to give up the beautiful poetry of Clause 4 'By hand and by brain....' and with it the soul of the Labour movement. Keen to embrace big business and loose any ethics the Labour Party had.
These people should have the parliamentary whip immediately removed, and face disciplinary action from the Labour Party and parliament. They should then be dismissed, loose their pension entitlements and any payoffs they would normally get leaving parliament.
There must be an end put to any lobbying by MP's. Now as I write there is news just breaking about how other MP's have also accepted holiday freebees return for asking a question in parliament.
These people never learn, despite everything over the past year, and they are the first people to call for legal action when some single mother over claims her benefit to feed her kids.
We need radical and progressive change (reform is too weak a word) of our 'democratic' system. None of the main parties can do this. They are all too corrupt. It is only for the Green Party to make this change, and ensure we too never become corrupted by power and privilege.
When found out they seek to back pedal and claim they are making it up. Therefore either complete liars and bullshitters, or completely without morals.
And of course it is all 'within the parliamentary rules' as if that is any excuse.
Appalling, appalling, appalling.
Blair and his ilk were only too keen to give up the beautiful poetry of Clause 4 'By hand and by brain....' and with it the soul of the Labour movement. Keen to embrace big business and loose any ethics the Labour Party had.
These people should have the parliamentary whip immediately removed, and face disciplinary action from the Labour Party and parliament. They should then be dismissed, loose their pension entitlements and any payoffs they would normally get leaving parliament.
There must be an end put to any lobbying by MP's. Now as I write there is news just breaking about how other MP's have also accepted holiday freebees return for asking a question in parliament.
These people never learn, despite everything over the past year, and they are the first people to call for legal action when some single mother over claims her benefit to feed her kids.
We need radical and progressive change (reform is too weak a word) of our 'democratic' system. None of the main parties can do this. They are all too corrupt. It is only for the Green Party to make this change, and ensure we too never become corrupted by power and privilege.
Sunday 14 March 2010
Horror at top council officials' salaries (reprise)
Letter to West Briton 11/3/2010
Re: Council criticised for money spent on staff after national newspaper reveals the figures’ (West Briton 11/3/10)
I am sure the article in the West Briton 11/3/10 ‘Council criticised for money spent on staff after national newspaper reveals the figures’ grated ever so slightly the emotions of the good people of Cornwall. Sheila Healy (ex CEO of Cornwall County Council ) receiving a pay off of between £400-£500,000 is no less than an utter disgrace. I am sure that Cornwall Council will be quick to reassure us that there was ‘nothing that could be done due to contractual obligations’ etc etc. Still, fortunately, I am sure we were all pleased to hear , Ms Healy did not have to spend her redundancy as she was able to pick another job up in Shropshire, alas did not like it, and has since returned to Cornwall. Let us hope the taxpayers of Shropshire were not similarly relieved of their council tax on her departure, and we will not get skimmed again for her services again.
I trust it was editorial decision to juxtapose this article with news that hard working ‘shop floor’ civil servants are being relieved of their redundancy rights. I for one noted the irony. It was reassuring of course to hear that Tessa Jowell, minister of the former bastion of ordinary folk- the Labour Government- described ripping up these people’s contractual rights as ‘fair’, and previous obligations were not ‘appropriate for a modern civil service’. I trust similar rationale was just not deemed appropriate in regard to Ms Healy’s payoff.
We are then treated later in the paper to a Mr McGahan’s defence of the £200,000 salary of Kevin Lavery,the current chief executive of Cornwall Council. Those of us who previously complained are deemed by Mr McGahan-whom I note is in Financial Planning-as writing ‘drivel’, and our views should be treated with ‘contempt’. I know, ordinary folk cannot be trusted to have an opinion of any validity, and we should keep our heads down and not complain. However, I look forward to Mr McGahan’s defence of the ordinary civil servants actions about their more humble grievances. I guess however I may be waiting a long time.
When are all these people going to get it?
In the last year we have been through the public’s outrage regarding MP’s and bankers misappropriation of our money. More quietly, but still seething, we are all outraged at the salaries of chief executives in the public and private sector, as well as the monies paid to sport ‘personalities’ and the obscenity of payments to so called ‘celebrities’ such as Cheryl Cole. Yet after the outrage, nothing really changes. We continue to experience ourselves getting ripped off by the ‘deserving rich’ while the rest of us have to subsist on barely the minimum wage, unable to afford a house in our local communities, and constantly being threatened with redundancy due to ‘modernisation’, ‘outsourcing’ etc. Of course these ‘improvements’ are implemented by the said same above chief executives, on their large salaries, who not doubt receive a bonus for putting us out of work.
No doubt I will be accused of ‘the politics of envy’ which is the fashionable phrase to describe those of us who will speak out against these obscenities on behalf of the majority. However we really do need to take action against those in their ivory towers, who seem keen to protect their own status and salaries, but are only too prepared to do so at the expense of the rest of us. It is time to act, but the major political parties will do nothing once in power apart from their pledges, varying in degrees of urgency, to cut public expenditure, and therefore the public services used by you and me.
I am afraid Mr Lavery, Ms Healy, et al. are absolutely nothing special. Many of us will do their jobs for a tenth of what they are paid, and I am sure even without the army of consultants, advisors etc. they are all provided with, we would do equally as good a job. So here’s is a challenge: give me a couple of weeks in Mr Lavery’s job; and I will report back on the dark secrets of his trade.
The Green Party is the only major party that promises, if we are elected, to challenge big pay outs to these people. We would develop a truly fairer progressive tax system introducing a 50% tax rate for those on £100,000 a year. This would raise £2.3 bn a year, and do a lot to decrease the wide discrepancies in pay that exist in this country. We will also introduce an increased ‘Citizens Pension’ for the elderly . We will ensure the majority rather than the few are considered ‘worth it’ for the hard work they put in for building this society. Yes, some of those in their Ivory Towers may ‘up sticks’ and go to Switzerland and the United States where the obscenity of large salaries may continue. However when those societies realise nothing terrible happens here as a result of this policy change, they will soon catch on they have been taken for a ride too.
I may be writing ‘drivel,’ as far as Mr McGahan is concerned, but I am sure the reinvestment of these obscene salaries into basic public services for ordinary people will go down well with the people of Cornwall and the rest of this country.
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Trevarrick,Portloe, Truro. TR2 5RE
Wrightian298@aol.com
www.cornishgreenparty.org.ukto
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
Re: Council criticised for money spent on staff after national newspaper reveals the figures’ (West Briton 11/3/10)
I am sure the article in the West Briton 11/3/10 ‘Council criticised for money spent on staff after national newspaper reveals the figures’ grated ever so slightly the emotions of the good people of Cornwall. Sheila Healy (ex CEO of Cornwall County Council ) receiving a pay off of between £400-£500,000 is no less than an utter disgrace. I am sure that Cornwall Council will be quick to reassure us that there was ‘nothing that could be done due to contractual obligations’ etc etc. Still, fortunately, I am sure we were all pleased to hear , Ms Healy did not have to spend her redundancy as she was able to pick another job up in Shropshire, alas did not like it, and has since returned to Cornwall. Let us hope the taxpayers of Shropshire were not similarly relieved of their council tax on her departure, and we will not get skimmed again for her services again.
I trust it was editorial decision to juxtapose this article with news that hard working ‘shop floor’ civil servants are being relieved of their redundancy rights. I for one noted the irony. It was reassuring of course to hear that Tessa Jowell, minister of the former bastion of ordinary folk- the Labour Government- described ripping up these people’s contractual rights as ‘fair’, and previous obligations were not ‘appropriate for a modern civil service’. I trust similar rationale was just not deemed appropriate in regard to Ms Healy’s payoff.
We are then treated later in the paper to a Mr McGahan’s defence of the £200,000 salary of Kevin Lavery,the current chief executive of Cornwall Council. Those of us who previously complained are deemed by Mr McGahan-whom I note is in Financial Planning-as writing ‘drivel’, and our views should be treated with ‘contempt’. I know, ordinary folk cannot be trusted to have an opinion of any validity, and we should keep our heads down and not complain. However, I look forward to Mr McGahan’s defence of the ordinary civil servants actions about their more humble grievances. I guess however I may be waiting a long time.
When are all these people going to get it?
In the last year we have been through the public’s outrage regarding MP’s and bankers misappropriation of our money. More quietly, but still seething, we are all outraged at the salaries of chief executives in the public and private sector, as well as the monies paid to sport ‘personalities’ and the obscenity of payments to so called ‘celebrities’ such as Cheryl Cole. Yet after the outrage, nothing really changes. We continue to experience ourselves getting ripped off by the ‘deserving rich’ while the rest of us have to subsist on barely the minimum wage, unable to afford a house in our local communities, and constantly being threatened with redundancy due to ‘modernisation’, ‘outsourcing’ etc. Of course these ‘improvements’ are implemented by the said same above chief executives, on their large salaries, who not doubt receive a bonus for putting us out of work.
No doubt I will be accused of ‘the politics of envy’ which is the fashionable phrase to describe those of us who will speak out against these obscenities on behalf of the majority. However we really do need to take action against those in their ivory towers, who seem keen to protect their own status and salaries, but are only too prepared to do so at the expense of the rest of us. It is time to act, but the major political parties will do nothing once in power apart from their pledges, varying in degrees of urgency, to cut public expenditure, and therefore the public services used by you and me.
I am afraid Mr Lavery, Ms Healy, et al. are absolutely nothing special. Many of us will do their jobs for a tenth of what they are paid, and I am sure even without the army of consultants, advisors etc. they are all provided with, we would do equally as good a job. So here’s is a challenge: give me a couple of weeks in Mr Lavery’s job; and I will report back on the dark secrets of his trade.
The Green Party is the only major party that promises, if we are elected, to challenge big pay outs to these people. We would develop a truly fairer progressive tax system introducing a 50% tax rate for those on £100,000 a year. This would raise £2.3 bn a year, and do a lot to decrease the wide discrepancies in pay that exist in this country. We will also introduce an increased ‘Citizens Pension’ for the elderly . We will ensure the majority rather than the few are considered ‘worth it’ for the hard work they put in for building this society. Yes, some of those in their Ivory Towers may ‘up sticks’ and go to Switzerland and the United States where the obscenity of large salaries may continue. However when those societies realise nothing terrible happens here as a result of this policy change, they will soon catch on they have been taken for a ride too.
I may be writing ‘drivel,’ as far as Mr McGahan is concerned, but I am sure the reinvestment of these obscene salaries into basic public services for ordinary people will go down well with the people of Cornwall and the rest of this country.
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Trevarrick,Portloe, Truro. TR2 5RE
Wrightian298@aol.com
www.cornishgreenparty.org.ukto
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
Sunday 7 March 2010
Time to have a Green Belt: Horror of proposals to expand Truro's City Limits
Letter to West Briton dated 7/3/2010 in regard to further proposed developments around Truro
Dear Editor,
Like many readers, I am horrified at the prospect of the proposed development of a supermarket and new housing on the eastern side of Truro ('Duchy is slammed over bid for superstore on city site' WB 4/3/10). The Green Party is totally opposed to this development, as well as other proposed developments in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor, and further commercial development further along the Fal at Newham.
I hope I am not alone in coming to the conclusion that it is totally unsatisfactory that the Duchy of Cornwall is insisting on a 'trade off' to develop more housing and commercial property, in return for a Park and Ride scheme on the eastern side of the city. I believe it is incorrect to 'sell' the park and ride site as an environmentally friendly scheme to ease traffic congestion. The Duchy's proposal represents total hypocrisy compared with the fine sentiments of Prince Charles's recent Richard Dimbleby lecture (among other statements in a similar vein) where he argued the need to restrict development and protect the countryside.
In my view the development of a Park and Ride scheme on the east of the city will not solve the current traffic problems. Since I moved to the area fifteen years ago, I have witnessed the significant increase in traffic build up every morning, which now starts at Tresilian towards the city. If the scheme is developed, why would people want to park at this proposed site, after suffering the majority of the congestion, rather than continue to travel the extra mile or so to the centre of the city? Secondly, the development of housing and a supermarket, on the proposed site will only add to the existing congestion problems. The housing will no doubt be unaffordable to most local people, and the last thing Truro needs is another supermarket; which will undoubtedly destroy the trade of city shop keepers even further, and possibly lead to further closures of local business in the city centre.
The Green Party believes we must work to rebuild sustainable communities in our villages and towns. People must be given the opportunity to work near to where they live. We must not continue to promote and encourage people to commute to Truro, St Austell and Plymouth. Modern information and communications technology makes it possible for more administrative work to be completed at home, which in turn helps individuals improve their work /life balance. The Green Party would also redistribute finance from roadbuilding programmes to reopen many branch rail lines closed by government since the end of the last world war. We would also improve other public transport, to enable those who have to commute to view buses and trains as an affordable and reliable alternative to using private cars.
Importantly I propose a green belt around the existing city limits of Truro, and this is designed and implemented by Cornwall Council as a top priority. No developer should be allowed to make Truro into yet another urban sprall with suburbs spreading out to Threemilestone, Shortlanesend, Ladock and Playing Place. Unless we act now, there is a real danger of Cornwall becoming another anonymous county, with no specific character, and our lives becoming synonymous with the 'hustle and bustle' of people's lives 'up country'.
A green belt around Truro would ensure development only occurs on existing 'brown field' sites rather than destroy the countryside further. Where development is necessary, it should be, where possible, be in areas needing regeneration and where jobs are crucially needed. Lastly I would say shame on Prince Charles for allowing the Duchy to promote this proposal which is completely at odds with his other statements about protecting our culture and natural environment.
Dear Editor,
Like many readers, I am horrified at the prospect of the proposed development of a supermarket and new housing on the eastern side of Truro ('Duchy is slammed over bid for superstore on city site' WB 4/3/10). The Green Party is totally opposed to this development, as well as other proposed developments in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor, and further commercial development further along the Fal at Newham.
I hope I am not alone in coming to the conclusion that it is totally unsatisfactory that the Duchy of Cornwall is insisting on a 'trade off' to develop more housing and commercial property, in return for a Park and Ride scheme on the eastern side of the city. I believe it is incorrect to 'sell' the park and ride site as an environmentally friendly scheme to ease traffic congestion. The Duchy's proposal represents total hypocrisy compared with the fine sentiments of Prince Charles's recent Richard Dimbleby lecture (among other statements in a similar vein) where he argued the need to restrict development and protect the countryside.
In my view the development of a Park and Ride scheme on the east of the city will not solve the current traffic problems. Since I moved to the area fifteen years ago, I have witnessed the significant increase in traffic build up every morning, which now starts at Tresilian towards the city. If the scheme is developed, why would people want to park at this proposed site, after suffering the majority of the congestion, rather than continue to travel the extra mile or so to the centre of the city? Secondly, the development of housing and a supermarket, on the proposed site will only add to the existing congestion problems. The housing will no doubt be unaffordable to most local people, and the last thing Truro needs is another supermarket; which will undoubtedly destroy the trade of city shop keepers even further, and possibly lead to further closures of local business in the city centre.
The Green Party believes we must work to rebuild sustainable communities in our villages and towns. People must be given the opportunity to work near to where they live. We must not continue to promote and encourage people to commute to Truro, St Austell and Plymouth. Modern information and communications technology makes it possible for more administrative work to be completed at home, which in turn helps individuals improve their work /life balance. The Green Party would also redistribute finance from roadbuilding programmes to reopen many branch rail lines closed by government since the end of the last world war. We would also improve other public transport, to enable those who have to commute to view buses and trains as an affordable and reliable alternative to using private cars.
Importantly I propose a green belt around the existing city limits of Truro, and this is designed and implemented by Cornwall Council as a top priority. No developer should be allowed to make Truro into yet another urban sprall with suburbs spreading out to Threemilestone, Shortlanesend, Ladock and Playing Place. Unless we act now, there is a real danger of Cornwall becoming another anonymous county, with no specific character, and our lives becoming synonymous with the 'hustle and bustle' of people's lives 'up country'.
A green belt around Truro would ensure development only occurs on existing 'brown field' sites rather than destroy the countryside further. Where development is necessary, it should be, where possible, be in areas needing regeneration and where jobs are crucially needed. Lastly I would say shame on Prince Charles for allowing the Duchy to promote this proposal which is completely at odds with his other statements about protecting our culture and natural environment.
Saturday 27 February 2010
Still the Elephant in the Room; Climate Change must be at the Top of the Political Agenda
The debacle regarding academics using selective data to 'prove' climate change is occurring, has not been helpful to the Green Movement and others concerned about climate change. The fiddling of research statistics has however proved highly useful to the usual suspects of climate change denial such as Nigel Lawson, Jeremy Clarkson, UKIP, Terry Wogan and the rest of that ilk. Evidence that it is ok to run the Bentley, and plunder the earth further, because the earth's temperature will correct itself, is always the best stance on climate change for some in big business, the rich, influential and powerful, so they can carry on as normal.
I do not pretend to be an expert regarding the science of climate change. Despite this particular cold winter, the significant changes in weather patterns since I was a boy, the impact of rising sea levels in many parts of the world, the melting ice shelves,and the extreme weather events such as the regular floods that seem to occur annually here in the UK, are enough evidence for me. I would love this not to be the case. I love cars and travel, but I have had to change my behaviour due to the real dangers we are threatened with and are beginning to experience. None of us wants to worry about the future for ourselves, our children and grand children, let alone the earth's flora and fauna which hold no responsibility for the mess we are now in.
I am disgusted by the academic shenanigans at East Anglia University. Academics, what ever their discipline, have a duty to collect the evidence to prove or disprove their hypotheses, and not to fiddle the evidence when it is convenient for them. However it is clear the vast, vast majority of the scientific community accept that climate change is occurring, and unless we do something about it very soon, it will be irreversible.
The UK government's own Stern Report summarises the scientific consensus, and states it is essential that action is taken if irreversible climate change is to be avoided. Many people had great hopes that the Copenhagen Summit would come up with a workable solution, but disputes about who needed to take most action, and who must pay scuppered a deal. Let us hope the international community come back together soon and realise the need for an urgent solution to the problems we face.
The UK government's own position is that despite the rise in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from 270 parts per million (ppm)in the 19th century to 440ppm CO2 equivalent today (including other greenhouse gases such as methane), we can aim to stabilise the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 550ppm CO2. The current target is for an 80% reduction by 2050 or a 2.5% reduction a year. However the Stern report states that at this level there is still a 75-99% chance of global warming exceeding two degrees Celsius. The Green Party,among others, believe that if that happens there is a high chance of runaway and disastrous climate change. Subsequently we believe it is essential to lower this risk, and stabilise the level of carbon dioxide at around 450ppm. To achieve this, global emissions need to drop by about 60% by 2030, and in industrialised countries, who can afford and need to, by 90% by 2030 i.e. 10% per year.
We realise this is a 'big ask' but the alternative is unthinkable, but probable unless we take action.
The major political parties all agree something has to be done about climate change but their commitment is, I believe, only lukewarm. The issue of climate change to them remains in the second division of policy priorities. They believe we can tinker around the edges, that technology will provide the solutions, and that it is still possible to maintain our existing life styles.
The big political parties all maintain that economic policy must focus on restoring economic growth. They believe it is essential to continue to increase our 'Gross Domestic Product' if we are to progress, even if that is at the expense of developing nations. They fail to see the linkage between economic growth, by producing more and more, even if there is a finite amount of natural resources which will one day run out; destroying our earth's natural beauty and eco system in the process. They fail to understand that this position risks irreversible climate change.
Despite the warm words about developing what Greens would view as 'pseudo' or at best 'light' green policies, the big parties fall at the first hurdle-even with their compromised stance-after they have been lobbied by the large corporations such as the oil companies and the airlines, who maintain their demand for'business as usual'. Meanwhile these corporations try to convince us all, through their public relations departments, that they have gone 'green' as if they have had some form of epiphany.
It is not surprising in the face of such an unthinkable crisis; that the easy option is to justify the status quo. For many, aiming to maintain their privilege and current lifestyle, 'Climate Change Denial' is a more palatable, if 'ostrich like' position. If you are greedy, self centred or just plain frightened, better to ignore the truth and hope it just does not happen.
So what if climate change is a myth? Unlikely, the vast majority of us know. But let us face that argument head on. Despite the scientific consensus, even if we are wrong; decarbonising the economy would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and renewable energy manufacturing. Thousands of people, through the use of solar, wave and wind power would be released from fuel poverty. We would also still reduce the shock of Peak Oil (the time when oil production will soon 'peak' and then decrease), reduce the acidification of the oceans, and reduce our energy security problems (e.g. by not having to rely on imports of gas and coal from overseas). And if things do turn out that the deniers are wrong (the most likely scenario considering the evidence,) through our proposed actions, we will have saved millions from loosing their homes through rising sea levels, and prevented catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease and war. Whatever the validity of the climate change deniers arguments it makes complete sense to work now, before it is too late and too expensive, to decarbonise our economy.
So lastly how do we make a start?
The Green Party works on the principle that where possible it is essential to avoid unnecessary consumption and waste (and therefore use less resources and energy.) We have to ensure that we use what we need rather than what we think we want. We have to understand that continual conspicuous consumption does not ever give us any sense of lasting satisfaction, only the desire for more and more. Like a dog chasing its tail, we only ever get (metaphorically speaking) 'dizzy' as a result of the way we currently live! What we do purchase should last and be repairable, and government must do what it can to deter business from building in 'obsolescence' to products and services we have to consume.
We need to ensure there is tax to reduce consumption and waste. Carbon quotas and taxes will go along way to reduce this. Action to reduce carbon emissions needs to be built in to all areas of government policy and action. There needs to be proper 'joined up thinking' (to use that well worn and hackneyed phrase.) Decent reliable and inexpensive public transport must be developed to ensure the use of buses and trains is a real viable alternative from car use. An end to the constant chasing of economic growth is necessary. This will help us create an economically and ecologically sustainable society where people realise happiness and affluence is to be found in having 'enough' once they have a reasonable income, a comfortable and affordable home, good food, and decent health and education systems. We need to create a society with different values based on the chance to develop a sense of spiritual well being, and the value of community, friends and family over those of financial gain and the continual lust for more and more.
Some of you may have read those last sentences and thought that is a pipe dream or at best naive. It is not a pipe dream or naive but what is essential to all of us if we are to feel a sense of wholeness and true value. Importantly with a change of society's priorities to aim for the common good, rather than the benefit of a few, it is obtainable. However, first we have to reevaluate the way we live, turn around and face the 'elephant in the room' that is climate change. We have to face the facts and do something now about them if the human race and our natural world is to survive. We can then work towards a positive and sustainable future; that is possible, if we put our minds and actions towards it.
I do not pretend to be an expert regarding the science of climate change. Despite this particular cold winter, the significant changes in weather patterns since I was a boy, the impact of rising sea levels in many parts of the world, the melting ice shelves,and the extreme weather events such as the regular floods that seem to occur annually here in the UK, are enough evidence for me. I would love this not to be the case. I love cars and travel, but I have had to change my behaviour due to the real dangers we are threatened with and are beginning to experience. None of us wants to worry about the future for ourselves, our children and grand children, let alone the earth's flora and fauna which hold no responsibility for the mess we are now in.
I am disgusted by the academic shenanigans at East Anglia University. Academics, what ever their discipline, have a duty to collect the evidence to prove or disprove their hypotheses, and not to fiddle the evidence when it is convenient for them. However it is clear the vast, vast majority of the scientific community accept that climate change is occurring, and unless we do something about it very soon, it will be irreversible.
The UK government's own Stern Report summarises the scientific consensus, and states it is essential that action is taken if irreversible climate change is to be avoided. Many people had great hopes that the Copenhagen Summit would come up with a workable solution, but disputes about who needed to take most action, and who must pay scuppered a deal. Let us hope the international community come back together soon and realise the need for an urgent solution to the problems we face.
The UK government's own position is that despite the rise in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from 270 parts per million (ppm)in the 19th century to 440ppm CO2 equivalent today (including other greenhouse gases such as methane), we can aim to stabilise the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 550ppm CO2. The current target is for an 80% reduction by 2050 or a 2.5% reduction a year. However the Stern report states that at this level there is still a 75-99% chance of global warming exceeding two degrees Celsius. The Green Party,among others, believe that if that happens there is a high chance of runaway and disastrous climate change. Subsequently we believe it is essential to lower this risk, and stabilise the level of carbon dioxide at around 450ppm. To achieve this, global emissions need to drop by about 60% by 2030, and in industrialised countries, who can afford and need to, by 90% by 2030 i.e. 10% per year.
We realise this is a 'big ask' but the alternative is unthinkable, but probable unless we take action.
The major political parties all agree something has to be done about climate change but their commitment is, I believe, only lukewarm. The issue of climate change to them remains in the second division of policy priorities. They believe we can tinker around the edges, that technology will provide the solutions, and that it is still possible to maintain our existing life styles.
The big political parties all maintain that economic policy must focus on restoring economic growth. They believe it is essential to continue to increase our 'Gross Domestic Product' if we are to progress, even if that is at the expense of developing nations. They fail to see the linkage between economic growth, by producing more and more, even if there is a finite amount of natural resources which will one day run out; destroying our earth's natural beauty and eco system in the process. They fail to understand that this position risks irreversible climate change.
Despite the warm words about developing what Greens would view as 'pseudo' or at best 'light' green policies, the big parties fall at the first hurdle-even with their compromised stance-after they have been lobbied by the large corporations such as the oil companies and the airlines, who maintain their demand for'business as usual'. Meanwhile these corporations try to convince us all, through their public relations departments, that they have gone 'green' as if they have had some form of epiphany.
It is not surprising in the face of such an unthinkable crisis; that the easy option is to justify the status quo. For many, aiming to maintain their privilege and current lifestyle, 'Climate Change Denial' is a more palatable, if 'ostrich like' position. If you are greedy, self centred or just plain frightened, better to ignore the truth and hope it just does not happen.
So what if climate change is a myth? Unlikely, the vast majority of us know. But let us face that argument head on. Despite the scientific consensus, even if we are wrong; decarbonising the economy would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and renewable energy manufacturing. Thousands of people, through the use of solar, wave and wind power would be released from fuel poverty. We would also still reduce the shock of Peak Oil (the time when oil production will soon 'peak' and then decrease), reduce the acidification of the oceans, and reduce our energy security problems (e.g. by not having to rely on imports of gas and coal from overseas). And if things do turn out that the deniers are wrong (the most likely scenario considering the evidence,) through our proposed actions, we will have saved millions from loosing their homes through rising sea levels, and prevented catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease and war. Whatever the validity of the climate change deniers arguments it makes complete sense to work now, before it is too late and too expensive, to decarbonise our economy.
So lastly how do we make a start?
The Green Party works on the principle that where possible it is essential to avoid unnecessary consumption and waste (and therefore use less resources and energy.) We have to ensure that we use what we need rather than what we think we want. We have to understand that continual conspicuous consumption does not ever give us any sense of lasting satisfaction, only the desire for more and more. Like a dog chasing its tail, we only ever get (metaphorically speaking) 'dizzy' as a result of the way we currently live! What we do purchase should last and be repairable, and government must do what it can to deter business from building in 'obsolescence' to products and services we have to consume.
We need to ensure there is tax to reduce consumption and waste. Carbon quotas and taxes will go along way to reduce this. Action to reduce carbon emissions needs to be built in to all areas of government policy and action. There needs to be proper 'joined up thinking' (to use that well worn and hackneyed phrase.) Decent reliable and inexpensive public transport must be developed to ensure the use of buses and trains is a real viable alternative from car use. An end to the constant chasing of economic growth is necessary. This will help us create an economically and ecologically sustainable society where people realise happiness and affluence is to be found in having 'enough' once they have a reasonable income, a comfortable and affordable home, good food, and decent health and education systems. We need to create a society with different values based on the chance to develop a sense of spiritual well being, and the value of community, friends and family over those of financial gain and the continual lust for more and more.
Some of you may have read those last sentences and thought that is a pipe dream or at best naive. It is not a pipe dream or naive but what is essential to all of us if we are to feel a sense of wholeness and true value. Importantly with a change of society's priorities to aim for the common good, rather than the benefit of a few, it is obtainable. However, first we have to reevaluate the way we live, turn around and face the 'elephant in the room' that is climate change. We have to face the facts and do something now about them if the human race and our natural world is to survive. We can then work towards a positive and sustainable future; that is possible, if we put our minds and actions towards it.
Published letter to West Briton (4/2/10): Council at war with itself over rubbish
It is admirable that some elements of the council are trying to extricate council taxpayers from building the St Dennis Incinerator. I wish them every success. The key lesson for the council is 'read the small print' before entering into any legal contracts. That is what legal departments are for, and counsellors must always ensure their officers are doing their jobs. Not only is the planned incinerator bad for the environment, it is also bad for local people's health, with the significant risk of people gaining respiratory problems and diseases. It is no surprise the council planned the monstrosity away from the tourist areas-instead they choose to let the largely indigenous population suffer.
The incinerator really will not solve the waste problem. The only way to do this is to solve the problem at source. Less waste packaging, and more incentives (and disincentives) for people not to dispose of their refuse via the refuse truck. Time and time again I see households throwing bags and bags of rubbish away for the bin truck. Why is it that our family of four manages with just one bag maximum a week? People must realise the necessity of not buying what they do not need, recycling what they can either via the council's scheme, encouraging reuse through giving to charity shops or through composting. Ultimately local and central government must tax excess waste-either to ensure business does not supply more than the minimum of packaging, and to ensure citizens do not throw away more than what is entirely necessary. That may not sound popular, but ultimately it is the only way we will solve the refuse crisis, and the clear links between waste disposal, environmental destruction and global warming. Waste incinerators are no more than the equivalent of a 'sticking plaster solution', and an undesirable and unhealthy one at that.
The incinerator really will not solve the waste problem. The only way to do this is to solve the problem at source. Less waste packaging, and more incentives (and disincentives) for people not to dispose of their refuse via the refuse truck. Time and time again I see households throwing bags and bags of rubbish away for the bin truck. Why is it that our family of four manages with just one bag maximum a week? People must realise the necessity of not buying what they do not need, recycling what they can either via the council's scheme, encouraging reuse through giving to charity shops or through composting. Ultimately local and central government must tax excess waste-either to ensure business does not supply more than the minimum of packaging, and to ensure citizens do not throw away more than what is entirely necessary. That may not sound popular, but ultimately it is the only way we will solve the refuse crisis, and the clear links between waste disposal, environmental destruction and global warming. Waste incinerators are no more than the equivalent of a 'sticking plaster solution', and an undesirable and unhealthy one at that.
Letters to West Briton (unpublished) 25.2.10 regarding Housing and Council Officer's expenses
Cornwall faces an Exodus of our young people unless something is done about unaffordable housing.
I totally support Kate Tregunna’s letter to the West Briton (House prices remain out of reach of average earners; WB 18/2/2010) House prices in Cornwall are nothing short of scandalous, and are totally unaffordable for many people living here, particularly the young and those who have to get by on the minimum wage.
Housing development in Cornwall must focus on the needs to the local population . Too many developments aim at people who already own their own homes, and/ or those moving down to Cornwall. Meanwhile too many local people have to pay high rents for substandard housing and /or cannot afford to get on to the housing ladder in the first place.
The Cornish Green Party believes new housing needs to be affordable and for the people of Cornwall. Housing needs to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and where possible is built on 'brown field sites' so our countryside is not destroyed , and our county‘s identity is not eroded any further.
As a priority I believe:
1. Housing must aim to rebuild our local communities . It is much better to reinvigorate our villages and towns with small scale developments, rather than for example the monstrous planned development in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor which does not serve local needs at all.
2. Housing development needs to focus on affordable part-rent/part buy housing, and 100% rentable accommodation. Tenancies need to be secure so people can build a stable homelife, rather than uncertainty about regular eviction. New housing should be aimed at those priced out of the current market (i.e the vast majority of young people or people paying exorbitant rents in the private sector).
3. We should restrict housing in tourist areas being purchased for investment/ second home/ holiday let purposes. This may be achieved by ensuring there are planning permission restrictions; additional purchase taxes for non permanent residential use, and increases in 'council tax' for such property. The objective would be to reduce house price inflation in these areas, and redevelop local communities.
4. We should consider what has occurred in the Channel Islands. where some property is reserved for the local population, and subsequently prices are kept reasonable for them. It is a good imitative where some property in Cornwall has already been restricted for people with a 'local connection', and this policy should be encouraged and expanded.
We need to look out for those who need to have a decent roof over their heads, and stop the migration of our young people from Cornwall so we can ensure a sustainable future for the people of Cornwall.
***********
Council staff disciplined by bosses / £200, 000pa council chief heads expenses list. One rule for one, and another for the rest of the staff..........?
I could not help but darkly chuckle when comparing the contents of two articles in last week's West Briton. On page 2 we read that 78 staff have been disciplined by Cornwall Council in the last year, and on page 4 we read of Kevin Lavery, the council's Chief Executive, who has claimed over £10,000 in expenses in his first 9 months, despite his £200,000 salary. Maybe I pick on Mr Lavery unfairly as other senior officers in the organisation do not fare too well in their expenses claims according to your report.
It is just a shame that your editorial staff did not decide to juxtapose the two articles to amplify the irony-particularly as you note there were no cases of disciplinary action taken in the Chief Executive's department.
Some of the cases of disciplinary action highlighted such as 'racist and inappropriate language', and 'inappropriate behaviour towards a child', are clearly deserving of firm disciplinary action. However it is odd that other matters such as 'failure to follow procedure', 'misuse of the internet' or 'breach of the smoking policy' could not be dealt with informally rather than using formal procedures, unless of course these were repeated offences regarding the people involved. It is worth noting that high use of disciplinary procedures by organisations, is often recognised in Human Resources / People Management circles as symptomatic of a dysfunctional organisation. I hope this is not the case here.
I would imagine many council staff must be seething to read Mr Lavery has claimed nearly £1000 for 'entertaining' and over £7000 in 'relocation costs', particularly as he has such a well paid job. It continues to anger me that senior management in local and central government, as well those in private sector organisations, are only too keen to reward themselves so well on 'super star' salaries, and get what they can on expenses as well. Meanwhile the rest of us-particularly many low paid people in Cornwall, are expected to just get by on less, as well as being constantly threatened with redundancy, and cuts to our public services in these troubled times.
I do hope councillors, and the council's Human Resources department are scrutinising the senior management's behaviour as closely as the behaviour of the rest of the staff of Cornwall Council. If not maybe it is time they do so, take some action against those at the top, rather than just focus on ordinary council staff, who work so hard, under difficult circumstances, to deliver under resourced council services to all of us.
I totally support Kate Tregunna’s letter to the West Briton (House prices remain out of reach of average earners; WB 18/2/2010) House prices in Cornwall are nothing short of scandalous, and are totally unaffordable for many people living here, particularly the young and those who have to get by on the minimum wage.
Housing development in Cornwall must focus on the needs to the local population . Too many developments aim at people who already own their own homes, and/ or those moving down to Cornwall. Meanwhile too many local people have to pay high rents for substandard housing and /or cannot afford to get on to the housing ladder in the first place.
The Cornish Green Party believes new housing needs to be affordable and for the people of Cornwall. Housing needs to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and where possible is built on 'brown field sites' so our countryside is not destroyed , and our county‘s identity is not eroded any further.
As a priority I believe:
1. Housing must aim to rebuild our local communities . It is much better to reinvigorate our villages and towns with small scale developments, rather than for example the monstrous planned development in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor which does not serve local needs at all.
2. Housing development needs to focus on affordable part-rent/part buy housing, and 100% rentable accommodation. Tenancies need to be secure so people can build a stable homelife, rather than uncertainty about regular eviction. New housing should be aimed at those priced out of the current market (i.e the vast majority of young people or people paying exorbitant rents in the private sector).
3. We should restrict housing in tourist areas being purchased for investment/ second home/ holiday let purposes. This may be achieved by ensuring there are planning permission restrictions; additional purchase taxes for non permanent residential use, and increases in 'council tax' for such property. The objective would be to reduce house price inflation in these areas, and redevelop local communities.
4. We should consider what has occurred in the Channel Islands. where some property is reserved for the local population, and subsequently prices are kept reasonable for them. It is a good imitative where some property in Cornwall has already been restricted for people with a 'local connection', and this policy should be encouraged and expanded.
We need to look out for those who need to have a decent roof over their heads, and stop the migration of our young people from Cornwall so we can ensure a sustainable future for the people of Cornwall.
***********
Council staff disciplined by bosses / £200, 000pa council chief heads expenses list. One rule for one, and another for the rest of the staff..........?
I could not help but darkly chuckle when comparing the contents of two articles in last week's West Briton. On page 2 we read that 78 staff have been disciplined by Cornwall Council in the last year, and on page 4 we read of Kevin Lavery, the council's Chief Executive, who has claimed over £10,000 in expenses in his first 9 months, despite his £200,000 salary. Maybe I pick on Mr Lavery unfairly as other senior officers in the organisation do not fare too well in their expenses claims according to your report.
It is just a shame that your editorial staff did not decide to juxtapose the two articles to amplify the irony-particularly as you note there were no cases of disciplinary action taken in the Chief Executive's department.
Some of the cases of disciplinary action highlighted such as 'racist and inappropriate language', and 'inappropriate behaviour towards a child', are clearly deserving of firm disciplinary action. However it is odd that other matters such as 'failure to follow procedure', 'misuse of the internet' or 'breach of the smoking policy' could not be dealt with informally rather than using formal procedures, unless of course these were repeated offences regarding the people involved. It is worth noting that high use of disciplinary procedures by organisations, is often recognised in Human Resources / People Management circles as symptomatic of a dysfunctional organisation. I hope this is not the case here.
I would imagine many council staff must be seething to read Mr Lavery has claimed nearly £1000 for 'entertaining' and over £7000 in 'relocation costs', particularly as he has such a well paid job. It continues to anger me that senior management in local and central government, as well those in private sector organisations, are only too keen to reward themselves so well on 'super star' salaries, and get what they can on expenses as well. Meanwhile the rest of us-particularly many low paid people in Cornwall, are expected to just get by on less, as well as being constantly threatened with redundancy, and cuts to our public services in these troubled times.
I do hope councillors, and the council's Human Resources department are scrutinising the senior management's behaviour as closely as the behaviour of the rest of the staff of Cornwall Council. If not maybe it is time they do so, take some action against those at the top, rather than just focus on ordinary council staff, who work so hard, under difficult circumstances, to deliver under resourced council services to all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
