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.
Saturday 27 February 2010
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.
Letter to West Briton: News that muted savings from the formation of unitary authority fail to materialise
Most people are not surprised that the abolition of the district councils and the formation of Cornwall Council has not produced any savings (West Briton 25.2.2010). The Green Party, along with many groups and individuals always opposed the formation of the unitary council. We knew it would be expensive, and would not create any 'added value' for the people of Cornwall. We are sure the only people who have been beneficiaries are the host of consultants who were no doubt required, and the senior managers of the new council who seem to be 'doing very nicely thank you' on their new inflated salaries.
The Green Party have always opposed any moves to centralise power whether that is in regard to decisions being made by the increasing number of unelected regional and national quangos, moves to centralise control of our fire and ambulance services etc. etc. The people of Cornwall must have more rather than less say over how our lives our run, and where possible those decisions should be decentralised to local communities at town and parish level. With so much disinterest in politics the increasing move to centralise power only alienates people further and does not encourage people to get involved in decisions that serious affect their lives. The news that centralising Cornwall's services under the 'One Cornwall' banner has not saved any money either just adds to the folly of this policy decision. Had the people of Cornwall been consulted properly regarding the formation of Cornwall Council, the Green Party is sure they would have rejected the move, our local democracy would have remained more intact, and the council tax payer would have been 'quids in'. That would have been a 'win-win' for us all.
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Wrightian298@aol.com
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
The Green Party have always opposed any moves to centralise power whether that is in regard to decisions being made by the increasing number of unelected regional and national quangos, moves to centralise control of our fire and ambulance services etc. etc. The people of Cornwall must have more rather than less say over how our lives our run, and where possible those decisions should be decentralised to local communities at town and parish level. With so much disinterest in politics the increasing move to centralise power only alienates people further and does not encourage people to get involved in decisions that serious affect their lives. The news that centralising Cornwall's services under the 'One Cornwall' banner has not saved any money either just adds to the folly of this policy decision. Had the people of Cornwall been consulted properly regarding the formation of Cornwall Council, the Green Party is sure they would have rejected the move, our local democracy would have remained more intact, and the council tax payer would have been 'quids in'. That would have been a 'win-win' for us all.
Ian Wright
Green Party Candidate for Truro and Falmouth
01872 501374
Wrightian298@aol.com
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
www.ianwrightgreentrurofalmouth.blogspot.com
Thursday 18 February 2010
How should we deal with the deficit?
I am getting rather fed up with all this talk of cuts. It seems to be the mark of a 'serious politician' to be able to claim 'we will cut more than you', and failure to adopt a 'slash and burn' approach to public expenditure seems to be a sign of weakness in this national election campaign.
To make it worse the media seem to clamour for the politicians to promise to cut more and more, leading to something akin to some kind of 'virtuous circle' or 'vicious circle' depending on one's point of view.
At the moment we have the Tories and Lib Dems competing at the top of the savagery scale. The Tories plan to have an 'emergency budget' within 'six months' of the election to announce their wide swathe of cuts. (Well that was until 'public opinion' appeared to waver abit, and now the Tories appear to be wobbling abit and not wanting to cut too much in their first year) God spare us anyway. Nick Clegg also appeared to be talking tough for a while too, stating cuts needed to be 'savage'. However, his voice too has been moderated recently by the more 'liberal' elements of his party, and trusty 'Vince' Cable has been stuck back in front of the microphone to show how reasonable the Lib Dems are. Meanwhile Labour appear to be keeping its cards to its chest on the 'cuts' front. They promise to cut,and cut they will over the next five years, but we have to wait for a while for the detail. Should they not win the election we will no doubt be spared the detail. I expect, at some level, that is what they are hoping.
Can't wait for whoever wins!
However, does anyone seriously stop for one minute to ask two questions. What does this all really mean for us? and who the hell caused these problems anyway?
Firstly let us deal with the latter question of who is to blame. We cannot just blame the bankers. I do not particularly like bankers, and therefore I am quite happy to sit back and let them suffer the public's wrath. Let's all support the 'Robin Hood Tax' campaign. Sign the petition. Google it now.
However, a significant part of the problem is Britain's general economic decline over the last century which has continued into this one. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I hate all this pretence we are still some sort of world power. Similarly, as a Green I cannot support the wealth of a nation built on colonialism and empire (political as well as economic) or an industrial base built on the 'rape and pillage' of the poor and our earth. However the decline of our industrial base has led to lower tax receipts, a decline in economic well being and the general wealth of our nation. This was exacerbated to the 'free market,' 'laissez faire' approach to economics which was introduced by Thatcher and the Tories, and continued by New Labour to a greater / lesser extent by Blair and then Brown.
The 'free marketeers' (whether Tory or New Labour) argued their approach would create 'opportunity for all' and lead to a 'trickle down' of the wealth. However that was not to be. Recent research by the government appointed National Equality Panel has shown the richest 10% are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%of society. The research shows the Tories presided over the dramatic divisions of the 1980's and 1990's, and this change continued under Labour. By 2007-08 Britain had reached the highest level of income inequality since shortly after World War Two. Subsequently the top 10% of households amass wealth of £2.2. million (including property and pension assets), by their retirement, compared with the bottom 10% of households who have assets of less than £8000. Meanwhile the top dogs in business and banking take 'super star' salaries, such as the new CEO at Marks and Spencer Marc Bolland, who will receive a 'Golden Hello' from May 1 2010 of £15m. The rest of us meanwhile just have to tighten our belts and pay the price of the economic chaos the 'high flyers' in the banking industry have caused.
So what does all this talk of cuts mean to us? Well we know the bankers and the likes of chief execs such as Mr Bolland will not suffer. Even if the government does try to take some action against them (unlikely), they will just move abroad. Despite the current machismo of the debate of who can cut the most, and the public's belief in the propaganda that this is necessary if 'economic competence' is to be restored, no body is looking (or appearing even to care) at what this will mean for the poor and the vulnerable.
Author Richard Wilkinson has recently argued that the UK is one of the most unequal societies in Europe. He also argues that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them – the well-off as well as the poor. His book The Spirit Level makes clear inequality has a detrimental effect on health, education, behaviour, life chances, community cohesion and social mobility. Subsequently unequal societies have more social problems such as violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations etc. So much for the 'benefits' of the free market. Surely it is time to bring this thirty year 'experiment' to an end-if those in power will allow it.
We all know that cuts in public services will not lead to a decrease in inequality, and will most likely exacerbate the problem. Whatever your views of Labour, they turned round the years of cuts and underinvestment in the NHS that the Tories inflicted on us between 1979 and 1997. I am not uncritical how Labour did this, but that is another blog for the future. More cuts will cause more chaos, what ever the promises to protect 'health' and 'education'. The reality of the cuts will mean the closure of your local day centre for the elderly, an estimated cut of up to 20,000 jobs in local government nationally, cuts in family tax credits, maybe equipment and training for the troops in the Middle East or Afghanistan. Take your pick, what ever your political perspective you will not like the cuts when they come. However no doubt those at the top will protect themselves and sit pretty as usual.
However, I think there is an alternative. And it it about honesty. I also believe we can minimise the impact on the poor and vulnerable i.e. those that really need the help.
We do need to sort out the problems we currently have, then move towards a more sustainable way of living. Although not perfect, the Scandinavian countries may provide us with some guidance. Societies here are more equal, there is more sustainable use of people's skills and talent, and less national clamour to be head of the international 'club'.
There are two ways of dealing with the deficit; taxation and public expenditure. So what should Green's do?
Firstly lets use the 'T' word. The more you earn the more you should pay. The research is clear that once we have 'enough' (goods, money etc.) the happiness we feel as a consequence of getting even more does not continue to rise. The clinical psychologist Oliver James, among others, has researched and written brilliantly on this subject. Therefore it is totally reasonable to say those earning over £100,000 should pay 50% tax. This is what the Green Party unapologetically proposes.
The trade union Unison recently estimated that £4.7bn could be raised every year by introducing a 50% tax rate. Taxing the wealthy will put an end to the superstar salaries. Yes some of the bankers and the CEO's will leave the UK, but who needs them anyway. I personally do not believe they 'add value' to our society. The chaos they have caused in the last few years is clear evidence of that. Anyway, why does anyone (including me) have to justify the argument? Surely to tax the wealthy is better than to attack the poor and vulnerable through the closure of day centres, cuts in benefits etc.
Similarly we should introduce carbon taxes and carbon allowances as the Green Party proposes. Global warming is a significant threat to our very existence. Nobody to date has reached a consensus regarding international action. We must strive for this, but this does not stop us taking unilateral action. Carbon taxes and allowances will also play their part in cutting unnecessary consumption and waste. These will assist in building a new low carbon economy. However, if the financial deficit really is such a problem, let us utilise the receipts of all forms of taxation-in the short term- to get rid of the deficit-so then real investment can then begin to create a more sustainable society.
Despite the nationalisation of most of the banks, we seem to be getting little in return for our bail out. The bail out has cost each family thousands of pounds, yet we are asked to have our services cut, while the bankers and bigwigs continue to get their bonuses.
Let us use our ownership of the banks to reform the way the banking system works-including introducing 'ethics' in to the industry. We should have the power to stop investment in unethical industries overnight through our ownership of the banks. We can use the banks deposits to invest in building low carbon industries, and supporting growth within a fair trade, high ethical framework. Importantly, although a side effect, we can utilise the banks profits to pay back the billions as a country we owe. It is our asset after all, therefore we should have the profits, not the bankers, for the benefit of us all. Once the debt is repaid, we can then break the banks up, form mutual, co operative and friendly societies once more, with clear rules to stop the 'carpet baggers' demutualising them again. Our banking can then serve the interests of the community along ethical lines. Yes the bankers will not like it. Let them go to Switzerland or the USA, but if they do, we must ensure they too pay their fair share before they go.
Despite the emphasis on introducing a fairer taxation system here, we do need to look at some 'cuts'. The 'C' word will never be popular, but we can start by looking at how we can save public expenditure with no impact to the ordinary citizen.
Waste in both local and national government is well documented. Too much is spent on management structures, useless marketing and PR departments, rubbish IT systems,and unwieldy and self serving 'Human Resources' departments. Under the current zeitgeist it is seldom these areas that suffer in the cuts that occur. The self perpetuating parasites that are in charge seldom attack themselves-much easier to cut the front line through privatisation, outsourcing and endless reorganisations for whom the only beneficiaries include an army of consultants and advisers. I would argue public services must focus on their core task-of delivering decent public services- and we need to cut out the dead wood.
In terms of revenue raising £5bn could be raised every year with an empty property tax on vacant dwellings. £14.9bn could be raised every year by stopping tax reliefs being used to disproportionately subsidise the wealthy. (Source Unison alternative budget). Cutting a replacement for the Trident nuclear system. This useless system does not serve any purpose, and we have no control over its use-the Americans hold the keys to this one, we just pay the bill. It is immoral and will save us at least £20 billion. Further cuts in defence expenditure will save us many more billions in capital and revenue expenditure, as well as the prevention of our lovely young people (and lovely people of all ages in other countries) from getting killed in these pointless conflicts. It is time to stop getting embroiled (and also save more money) in these pointless wars.
These are the kind of cuts we need to be looking at adopting. Our key criteria should be not to hurt the poor, the vulnerable, the elderly and those who really need government help. Too long has this debate been left to the hands, the keyboards and the voices of the rich and powerful. It is time to seize back the initiative.
The views above are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect Green Party policy
See some alternative economic views:
www.new economics foundation
www.unison.org.uk. Look for 'Million Voices Budget'
See the Green Party's Economic Policy at:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/. Have a look at our excellent New Deal document.
To make it worse the media seem to clamour for the politicians to promise to cut more and more, leading to something akin to some kind of 'virtuous circle' or 'vicious circle' depending on one's point of view.
At the moment we have the Tories and Lib Dems competing at the top of the savagery scale. The Tories plan to have an 'emergency budget' within 'six months' of the election to announce their wide swathe of cuts. (Well that was until 'public opinion' appeared to waver abit, and now the Tories appear to be wobbling abit and not wanting to cut too much in their first year) God spare us anyway. Nick Clegg also appeared to be talking tough for a while too, stating cuts needed to be 'savage'. However, his voice too has been moderated recently by the more 'liberal' elements of his party, and trusty 'Vince' Cable has been stuck back in front of the microphone to show how reasonable the Lib Dems are. Meanwhile Labour appear to be keeping its cards to its chest on the 'cuts' front. They promise to cut,and cut they will over the next five years, but we have to wait for a while for the detail. Should they not win the election we will no doubt be spared the detail. I expect, at some level, that is what they are hoping.
Can't wait for whoever wins!
However, does anyone seriously stop for one minute to ask two questions. What does this all really mean for us? and who the hell caused these problems anyway?
Firstly let us deal with the latter question of who is to blame. We cannot just blame the bankers. I do not particularly like bankers, and therefore I am quite happy to sit back and let them suffer the public's wrath. Let's all support the 'Robin Hood Tax' campaign. Sign the petition. Google it now.
However, a significant part of the problem is Britain's general economic decline over the last century which has continued into this one. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I hate all this pretence we are still some sort of world power. Similarly, as a Green I cannot support the wealth of a nation built on colonialism and empire (political as well as economic) or an industrial base built on the 'rape and pillage' of the poor and our earth. However the decline of our industrial base has led to lower tax receipts, a decline in economic well being and the general wealth of our nation. This was exacerbated to the 'free market,' 'laissez faire' approach to economics which was introduced by Thatcher and the Tories, and continued by New Labour to a greater / lesser extent by Blair and then Brown.
The 'free marketeers' (whether Tory or New Labour) argued their approach would create 'opportunity for all' and lead to a 'trickle down' of the wealth. However that was not to be. Recent research by the government appointed National Equality Panel has shown the richest 10% are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%of society. The research shows the Tories presided over the dramatic divisions of the 1980's and 1990's, and this change continued under Labour. By 2007-08 Britain had reached the highest level of income inequality since shortly after World War Two. Subsequently the top 10% of households amass wealth of £2.2. million (including property and pension assets), by their retirement, compared with the bottom 10% of households who have assets of less than £8000. Meanwhile the top dogs in business and banking take 'super star' salaries, such as the new CEO at Marks and Spencer Marc Bolland, who will receive a 'Golden Hello' from May 1 2010 of £15m. The rest of us meanwhile just have to tighten our belts and pay the price of the economic chaos the 'high flyers' in the banking industry have caused.
So what does all this talk of cuts mean to us? Well we know the bankers and the likes of chief execs such as Mr Bolland will not suffer. Even if the government does try to take some action against them (unlikely), they will just move abroad. Despite the current machismo of the debate of who can cut the most, and the public's belief in the propaganda that this is necessary if 'economic competence' is to be restored, no body is looking (or appearing even to care) at what this will mean for the poor and the vulnerable.
Author Richard Wilkinson has recently argued that the UK is one of the most unequal societies in Europe. He also argues that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them – the well-off as well as the poor. His book The Spirit Level makes clear inequality has a detrimental effect on health, education, behaviour, life chances, community cohesion and social mobility. Subsequently unequal societies have more social problems such as violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations etc. So much for the 'benefits' of the free market. Surely it is time to bring this thirty year 'experiment' to an end-if those in power will allow it.
We all know that cuts in public services will not lead to a decrease in inequality, and will most likely exacerbate the problem. Whatever your views of Labour, they turned round the years of cuts and underinvestment in the NHS that the Tories inflicted on us between 1979 and 1997. I am not uncritical how Labour did this, but that is another blog for the future. More cuts will cause more chaos, what ever the promises to protect 'health' and 'education'. The reality of the cuts will mean the closure of your local day centre for the elderly, an estimated cut of up to 20,000 jobs in local government nationally, cuts in family tax credits, maybe equipment and training for the troops in the Middle East or Afghanistan. Take your pick, what ever your political perspective you will not like the cuts when they come. However no doubt those at the top will protect themselves and sit pretty as usual.
However, I think there is an alternative. And it it about honesty. I also believe we can minimise the impact on the poor and vulnerable i.e. those that really need the help.
We do need to sort out the problems we currently have, then move towards a more sustainable way of living. Although not perfect, the Scandinavian countries may provide us with some guidance. Societies here are more equal, there is more sustainable use of people's skills and talent, and less national clamour to be head of the international 'club'.
There are two ways of dealing with the deficit; taxation and public expenditure. So what should Green's do?
Firstly lets use the 'T' word. The more you earn the more you should pay. The research is clear that once we have 'enough' (goods, money etc.) the happiness we feel as a consequence of getting even more does not continue to rise. The clinical psychologist Oliver James, among others, has researched and written brilliantly on this subject. Therefore it is totally reasonable to say those earning over £100,000 should pay 50% tax. This is what the Green Party unapologetically proposes.
The trade union Unison recently estimated that £4.7bn could be raised every year by introducing a 50% tax rate. Taxing the wealthy will put an end to the superstar salaries. Yes some of the bankers and the CEO's will leave the UK, but who needs them anyway. I personally do not believe they 'add value' to our society. The chaos they have caused in the last few years is clear evidence of that. Anyway, why does anyone (including me) have to justify the argument? Surely to tax the wealthy is better than to attack the poor and vulnerable through the closure of day centres, cuts in benefits etc.
Similarly we should introduce carbon taxes and carbon allowances as the Green Party proposes. Global warming is a significant threat to our very existence. Nobody to date has reached a consensus regarding international action. We must strive for this, but this does not stop us taking unilateral action. Carbon taxes and allowances will also play their part in cutting unnecessary consumption and waste. These will assist in building a new low carbon economy. However, if the financial deficit really is such a problem, let us utilise the receipts of all forms of taxation-in the short term- to get rid of the deficit-so then real investment can then begin to create a more sustainable society.
Despite the nationalisation of most of the banks, we seem to be getting little in return for our bail out. The bail out has cost each family thousands of pounds, yet we are asked to have our services cut, while the bankers and bigwigs continue to get their bonuses.
Let us use our ownership of the banks to reform the way the banking system works-including introducing 'ethics' in to the industry. We should have the power to stop investment in unethical industries overnight through our ownership of the banks. We can use the banks deposits to invest in building low carbon industries, and supporting growth within a fair trade, high ethical framework. Importantly, although a side effect, we can utilise the banks profits to pay back the billions as a country we owe. It is our asset after all, therefore we should have the profits, not the bankers, for the benefit of us all. Once the debt is repaid, we can then break the banks up, form mutual, co operative and friendly societies once more, with clear rules to stop the 'carpet baggers' demutualising them again. Our banking can then serve the interests of the community along ethical lines. Yes the bankers will not like it. Let them go to Switzerland or the USA, but if they do, we must ensure they too pay their fair share before they go.
Despite the emphasis on introducing a fairer taxation system here, we do need to look at some 'cuts'. The 'C' word will never be popular, but we can start by looking at how we can save public expenditure with no impact to the ordinary citizen.
Waste in both local and national government is well documented. Too much is spent on management structures, useless marketing and PR departments, rubbish IT systems,and unwieldy and self serving 'Human Resources' departments. Under the current zeitgeist it is seldom these areas that suffer in the cuts that occur. The self perpetuating parasites that are in charge seldom attack themselves-much easier to cut the front line through privatisation, outsourcing and endless reorganisations for whom the only beneficiaries include an army of consultants and advisers. I would argue public services must focus on their core task-of delivering decent public services- and we need to cut out the dead wood.
In terms of revenue raising £5bn could be raised every year with an empty property tax on vacant dwellings. £14.9bn could be raised every year by stopping tax reliefs being used to disproportionately subsidise the wealthy. (Source Unison alternative budget). Cutting a replacement for the Trident nuclear system. This useless system does not serve any purpose, and we have no control over its use-the Americans hold the keys to this one, we just pay the bill. It is immoral and will save us at least £20 billion. Further cuts in defence expenditure will save us many more billions in capital and revenue expenditure, as well as the prevention of our lovely young people (and lovely people of all ages in other countries) from getting killed in these pointless conflicts. It is time to stop getting embroiled (and also save more money) in these pointless wars.
These are the kind of cuts we need to be looking at adopting. Our key criteria should be not to hurt the poor, the vulnerable, the elderly and those who really need government help. Too long has this debate been left to the hands, the keyboards and the voices of the rich and powerful. It is time to seize back the initiative.
The views above are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect Green Party policy
See some alternative economic views:
www.new economics foundation
www.unison.org.uk. Look for 'Million Voices Budget'
See the Green Party's Economic Policy at:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/. Have a look at our excellent New Deal document.
Monday 15 February 2010
Greens in the USA
Greens in the USA:
Have a look at this really good YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO4Al2mMs9I&feature=related
Have a look at this really good YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO4Al2mMs9I&feature=related
Sunday 14 February 2010
We must do something about affordable housing in Cornwall
All politicians are agreed there is a real problem of affordable housing in Cornwall. There is a lot of talk, enough hot air to accelerate climate change alone. But there is little effective action, despite the forest worth of paper consumed in strategies developed by government at various levels.
A large majority of our people live on the minimum wage. In the current situation they have absolutely no chance of owning a house of their own, or even obtaining a decent rented property with long term security of tenure at an affordable price. Properties for rent are all priced well over £500pcm, and paying £800-900 pcm for a three bedroomed house is not unusual. Looking in the West Briton any week will confirm that.
This situation is further amplified by people wanting to move to Cornwall to either retire here or get away from the 'madness' of life 'up country'. Who can blame them. Large company bonuses have also resulted in wealthy people using their money to buy up property in small villages for second, third or fourth home ownership. Some of these people never visit, or if they do; visit once or twice a year. Sometimes the properties are rented out for more income, sometimes they remain empty. There are many properties in the village I live who I have no idea who the owner is. Just to add further insult, when the price goes up, the property gets sold for a big profit. No body locally benefits, except the estate agent, and his/her tailor. It is now not uncommon for modest sized property on the Roseland, where I live, to be well over £500,000. What young person, however good a job, who wants to stay in Cornwall, can afford that? It is totally obscene.
The Green Party does have specific policies about housing i.e. new housing needs to be affordable, be environmentally friendly as possible, and where possible is built on 'brown field sites' so the countryside is not destroyed any further. This is all sensible, and it is essential for housing to be about 'need' not about profit. Our policies are outlined on our websites, for which there is a link below.
We do need a clear strategy and importantly Action for Cornwall. There has been alot of talk and very little follow up. Matthew Taylor the Lib Dem MP for Truro and Falmouth has done some good work on behalf of the government to look at this problem. There needs to be a cross party consensus to do something whoever wins power. Whether whatever is agreed will be enough remains to be seen. However, why should our young people (and our more maturely aged people!) have to pay such high rents, have lack of security of tenure, and have no chance of saving for a deposit? Why too should current housing development continue to concrete over our beautiful countryside, destroy our towns, and change Cornwall forever so that it will become no different from other areas of the UK?
That is why we need a 'Green' and progressive solution to the problem.
So what is to be done?
My view is that we should aim at housing the people who currently live in Cornwall, rather than aim to house further people who would like to move here. This does not mean people cannot move here, but we should not plan to build for them and thus aim at not destroying Cornwall's natural beauty any further. Too many developments aim to building for people with money and usually the 'upwardly mobile'.
Such a policy would mean:
1.Checking what the housing need is for the local people who live here, not who plan to come and live here. We need to know the projected need of our local population, and plan to meet that with minimal damage to the environment. This can be done, for example, by building on brownfield sites where we can. Where this is not possible we should aim at building small scale developments in our communities where our people want and need to live.
2. Any development needs to focus on affordable part-rent/part buy housing, and 100% rentable accommodation. Where there is a rentable element we need to give the tenant security of tenure so they do not risk being thrown out, as long as the property is looked after, the rent paid unless there are financial problems, and the tenancy agreement is maintained by both parties. This accommodation would be primarily 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. Having restriction on further housing in tourist areas being purchased for investment/ second home/ holiday let use. This may be achieved by ensuring there are planning permission restrictions; additional purchase taxes for non residential property use, and increases in 'council tax' for such property. The objective would be to reduce house price inflation in these areas. We have too many 'Hampstead on Sea's', where the local heart has been ripped out, and 'Chelsea tractors' congest the lanes (and usually cannot reverse back down them when necessary) from Easter through to September.
4. We may also consider what they have done in the Channel Is. where there is property reserved for the local population so prices are kept reasonable for them. I have seen some of this in Cornwall already where some property is restricted for people with a 'local connection'. This is a good initiative.
I am not an expert in this field, and there is always a danger of designing a policy which results in the opposite of the intention. So it would be interesting to see what other people think, particularly those with greater expertise in this area than me. However, I would suggest the overriding considerations for our policy in this area are:
1, Prioritising affordable housing for local people
2, Ensuring there is no further mass developments such as is proposed in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor, and what has already happened in Helston and St Austell.
I hope this helps and promotes further discussion. 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 our people.
Our websites:
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
All politicians are agreed there is a real problem of affordable housing in Cornwall. There is a lot of talk, enough hot air to accelerate climate change alone. But there is little effective action, despite the forest worth of paper consumed in strategies developed by government at various levels.
A large majority of our people live on the minimum wage. In the current situation they have absolutely no chance of owning a house of their own, or even obtaining a decent rented property with long term security of tenure at an affordable price. Properties for rent are all priced well over £500pcm, and paying £800-900 pcm for a three bedroomed house is not unusual. Looking in the West Briton any week will confirm that.
This situation is further amplified by people wanting to move to Cornwall to either retire here or get away from the 'madness' of life 'up country'. Who can blame them. Large company bonuses have also resulted in wealthy people using their money to buy up property in small villages for second, third or fourth home ownership. Some of these people never visit, or if they do; visit once or twice a year. Sometimes the properties are rented out for more income, sometimes they remain empty. There are many properties in the village I live who I have no idea who the owner is. Just to add further insult, when the price goes up, the property gets sold for a big profit. No body locally benefits, except the estate agent, and his/her tailor. It is now not uncommon for modest sized property on the Roseland, where I live, to be well over £500,000. What young person, however good a job, who wants to stay in Cornwall, can afford that? It is totally obscene.
The Green Party does have specific policies about housing i.e. new housing needs to be affordable, be environmentally friendly as possible, and where possible is built on 'brown field sites' so the countryside is not destroyed any further. This is all sensible, and it is essential for housing to be about 'need' not about profit. Our policies are outlined on our websites, for which there is a link below.
We do need a clear strategy and importantly Action for Cornwall. There has been alot of talk and very little follow up. Matthew Taylor the Lib Dem MP for Truro and Falmouth has done some good work on behalf of the government to look at this problem. There needs to be a cross party consensus to do something whoever wins power. Whether whatever is agreed will be enough remains to be seen. However, why should our young people (and our more maturely aged people!) have to pay such high rents, have lack of security of tenure, and have no chance of saving for a deposit? Why too should current housing development continue to concrete over our beautiful countryside, destroy our towns, and change Cornwall forever so that it will become no different from other areas of the UK?
That is why we need a 'Green' and progressive solution to the problem.
So what is to be done?
My view is that we should aim at housing the people who currently live in Cornwall, rather than aim to house further people who would like to move here. This does not mean people cannot move here, but we should not plan to build for them and thus aim at not destroying Cornwall's natural beauty any further. Too many developments aim to building for people with money and usually the 'upwardly mobile'.
Such a policy would mean:
1.Checking what the housing need is for the local people who live here, not who plan to come and live here. We need to know the projected need of our local population, and plan to meet that with minimal damage to the environment. This can be done, for example, by building on brownfield sites where we can. Where this is not possible we should aim at building small scale developments in our communities where our people want and need to live.
2. Any development needs to focus on affordable part-rent/part buy housing, and 100% rentable accommodation. Where there is a rentable element we need to give the tenant security of tenure so they do not risk being thrown out, as long as the property is looked after, the rent paid unless there are financial problems, and the tenancy agreement is maintained by both parties. This accommodation would be primarily 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. Having restriction on further housing in tourist areas being purchased for investment/ second home/ holiday let use. This may be achieved by ensuring there are planning permission restrictions; additional purchase taxes for non residential property use, and increases in 'council tax' for such property. The objective would be to reduce house price inflation in these areas. We have too many 'Hampstead on Sea's', where the local heart has been ripped out, and 'Chelsea tractors' congest the lanes (and usually cannot reverse back down them when necessary) from Easter through to September.
4. We may also consider what they have done in the Channel Is. where there is property reserved for the local population so prices are kept reasonable for them. I have seen some of this in Cornwall already where some property is restricted for people with a 'local connection'. This is a good initiative.
I am not an expert in this field, and there is always a danger of designing a policy which results in the opposite of the intention. So it would be interesting to see what other people think, particularly those with greater expertise in this area than me. However, I would suggest the overriding considerations for our policy in this area are:
1, Prioritising affordable housing for local people
2, Ensuring there is no further mass developments such as is proposed in the Truro-Threemilestone corridor, and what has already happened in Helston and St Austell.
I hope this helps and promotes further discussion. 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 our people.
Our websites:
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
www.greenparty.org.uk
Saturday 13 February 2010
Making a start
Stream of consciousness..........
It is really good to be able to start this campaign. I am just an ordinary bloke, but I want to make a difference. I have sat in my arm chair moaning about the world situation for years, but have gradually realised that if I do not get up and do something, 'My Generation' will never make any real difference, and my little kids really are not going to have any chance.
I have been a Green Party member for I think about 5 years. I have attended a few meetings, I stood for the council in Mevagissey, and along with the gradual realisation that I really had to get off my bum, I said to the rest of the party we had to get someone to stand for our seat. As everyone (including me) looked at the floor I realised that, that had to be me, so with a gulp, I put my hand up and it has really gone from there.
So off we go. We have hardly any money, but there are about 10 of us with lots of enthusiasm to make the best of our skills, get ourselves known and hope we can enthuse the population of Truro and Falmouth to support the Greens.
We have contacted the media, we have a community radio interview lined up, we have taken part with the other candidates of the other parties in a hustings event in Falmouth. Though I felt rather panicky as I drove to the event-it went really well. I really enjoyed myself and managed to get our totally credible philosophy and policies across. So here we go. I have never stood in a major election before, and I have never blogged either. I hope you will follow our campaign, and give us all your support. Maybe the little people can win (well I am 6 ft 2), maybe without a party machine, very little money, and poor computer skills we can make a difference and make a dent in the political establishment. Well someone has got to do it, so let us say 'no' to fiddling MP'expenses, maintaining the status quo (with a few minor tweeks here and there), and try to work towards a fairer, greener world........
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
It is really good to be able to start this campaign. I am just an ordinary bloke, but I want to make a difference. I have sat in my arm chair moaning about the world situation for years, but have gradually realised that if I do not get up and do something, 'My Generation' will never make any real difference, and my little kids really are not going to have any chance.
I have been a Green Party member for I think about 5 years. I have attended a few meetings, I stood for the council in Mevagissey, and along with the gradual realisation that I really had to get off my bum, I said to the rest of the party we had to get someone to stand for our seat. As everyone (including me) looked at the floor I realised that, that had to be me, so with a gulp, I put my hand up and it has really gone from there.
So off we go. We have hardly any money, but there are about 10 of us with lots of enthusiasm to make the best of our skills, get ourselves known and hope we can enthuse the population of Truro and Falmouth to support the Greens.
We have contacted the media, we have a community radio interview lined up, we have taken part with the other candidates of the other parties in a hustings event in Falmouth. Though I felt rather panicky as I drove to the event-it went really well. I really enjoyed myself and managed to get our totally credible philosophy and policies across. So here we go. I have never stood in a major election before, and I have never blogged either. I hope you will follow our campaign, and give us all your support. Maybe the little people can win (well I am 6 ft 2), maybe without a party machine, very little money, and poor computer skills we can make a difference and make a dent in the political establishment. Well someone has got to do it, so let us say 'no' to fiddling MP'expenses, maintaining the status quo (with a few minor tweeks here and there), and try to work towards a fairer, greener world........
www.cornishgreenparty.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
