My internet connection has been down on and off for the last 3 weeks and I've had to go through the rigmarole of speaking to numerous technical advisers.
I'm with BT which is fortunate in one way as when your router is not working, for instance because of an exchange problem, you can re-route via BT's 'open space'. But one of the problems with BT, like all other providers, is that it's privatised with competition rampant and profit the god at which all worship (or so it seems) and this can cause real difficulties.
In the 'good old days' when BT was a state concern service to the consumer via accountability was the key. So the issue which I'm confronted with now probably wouldn't have occurred then.(Although maybe the developments that have occurred in the last 20 or so years couldn't have happened without companies like BT not going private but that's another issue!)
My problem according to a BT engineer (who's been out to see me) is primarily an exchange one. A card at the exchange which my service is routed through needs to be replaced (?) owing to the volume of traffic. But such replacement will costs thousands of pounds. So its a waiting game. When the volume of complaints reaches a certain height then change cometh I get a better service...until the next time. (Shades here of a problem we have in this region related to local railways ie overcrowded trains!!)
OK you might say I could change my provider but I'm told by my BT adviser they'd probably be using the same equipment so no change!
It brings to mind the global quest for development growth at all cost with profit the driving force. The difference between this macro situation and mine is that my short term problems will probably clear up until the next time. However in the global context there's a massive danger if unsustainable development (notwithstanding economic cycles) continues - it'll create difficulties for us all which will be catastrophic for our children and grandchildren which won't go away - until the next time!
I'm hoping to highlight international hotspots related to these problems that are a real cause for concern in this blog next year.
I wish all readers a happy and peaceful new year - thanks for reading. And hopefully this year more and more of us will be questioning the viability of the sort of global economic development that charges along with profit as the prime mover without much care for our precious humankind and other species.
Tuesday 28 December 2010
Saturday 20 November 2010
Headteacher top of the league!
I recently read in the local press about the response of a headteacher of a local primary school following the school being placed in the top 100 primary schools in the country.
She said that of course she was pleased with the achievement but questioned the value of such standardised testing and suggested that schools offer children so much more than the ability of the individual child to move from one standard level to another.
Her concern was optimising the individual child's positive accomplishments and experiences. Such attainments are not easy to discern in league table results.
Am not sure about the reaction of the local education authority to her comments but I say what a person of integrity and common sense.
There are so many variables in how one school performs against another not least the catchment areas children come from. A good school is one that caters fully to bring on the whole child not some narrow yardstick that can be misleading and open to manipulation.
She said that of course she was pleased with the achievement but questioned the value of such standardised testing and suggested that schools offer children so much more than the ability of the individual child to move from one standard level to another.
Her concern was optimising the individual child's positive accomplishments and experiences. Such attainments are not easy to discern in league table results.
Am not sure about the reaction of the local education authority to her comments but I say what a person of integrity and common sense.
There are so many variables in how one school performs against another not least the catchment areas children come from. A good school is one that caters fully to bring on the whole child not some narrow yardstick that can be misleading and open to manipulation.
Monday 8 November 2010
Lorry Watch - latest
At the last Lorry Watch session we observed 5 possible infringements of HGVs using Barrows Green lane and Moorfield Rd. These were passed on to the police and they have sent the following response:
"I have spoken to Jamie Simmons and he is following up the companies involved with these incidents. He will keep an eye on the situation and also ask our Roads Policing officers to pay attention to the area when they have the opportunity".
Although we are only able to provide cover for a minimal amount of time a week our experience has been that it does seem to have an effect on the number of infringements - presumably word gets round.
However in this vein we are still short of volunteers to help so if you are able to spare an hour or two a week please get in contact.
"I have spoken to Jamie Simmons and he is following up the companies involved with these incidents. He will keep an eye on the situation and also ask our Roads Policing officers to pay attention to the area when they have the opportunity".
Although we are only able to provide cover for a minimal amount of time a week our experience has been that it does seem to have an effect on the number of infringements - presumably word gets round.
However in this vein we are still short of volunteers to help so if you are able to spare an hour or two a week please get in contact.
Wednesday 27 October 2010
Green Campaigning - the Future
We're all stuck in the middle of the big cuts phenomenen. Its impossible to get away from it - we're all going to be affected. Given the coming shocks particularly to the poorest and most vulnerable, which we obviously must be very concerned about, what chance for continuing to keeping our eye on the ball of the biggest threat to future generations including our children and grandchildren - climate change.
Caroline Lucas MP has some interesting things to say,
" This is a challenging time for progressives. We have a coalition not only introducing savage cuts, but seeming to enjoy wielding the axe.
And that enthusiasm - with George Osborne and Danny Alexander competing to give the best impression of Freddie Kruger - gives the lie to the idea that these cuts are necessary because of the current recession.
We can see that they are ideologically driven. Many Tories, and some Liberal Democrats, want a smaller state and will use the financial crisis as the excuse to achieve it - even at the risk of plunging us back into recession.
And even at the risk of making the much greater environmental crisis that we face even worse, by slashing spending on green technology, on incentives for renewable, on the potential to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs.
I don't often find myself quoting Tim Yeo, but his comments over the weekend about this were spot on, when he pointed out that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. In the run up to the 2WW, we were running an even bigger deficit than today, but would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed.
The point he's making, of course, is that we won't win the battle against climate change if we slash spending on it now.
And we need to make the case that not only are these cuts socially divisive, and environmentally disastrous, they are also economically completely illiterate.
The Ed Balls Bloomberg speech is something around which many progressives can unify - the speech where Balls made the case that it's through getting people back to work that we stand the best chance of addressing the deficit, through keeping people paying their taxes, rather than seeing tax revenue drain out of the economy, followed by redundancy payments and benefits payments.
But there's almost no discussion about the kind of work we envisage them doing, no debate about the kind of growth we need to see.
Yesterday, I spoke at a TUC conference which was entitled, without irony, Alliances for Green Growth.
Something about the alliteration seems to trick people into thinking the two ideas are compatible - green growth - it's like trade ministers talking about "free and fair trade", with no apparent recognition that just because free and fair start with the same letter, they're not the same things. Most free trade certainly isn't fair.
And if there is a form of growth which is genuinely green, genuinely sustainable, I'm not sure we know what it looks like yet.
So I think the challenge for progressives when it comes to the environment is to accept that our current economic system is economically and morally unsustainable. In other words, it only works by cheating future generations out of their birthright and by exploiting the vulnerable here and abroad.
So when we talk of a green recovery, we're not talking about a traditional economic recovery boosted by selling some home insulation or building some windmills.
We're not talking about business as usual, with a few green trimmings.
It's not about finding new products to sell, and sticking a green label on them.
We're talking about a recovery based on green principles and insights; one that is rooted in social justice and which balances our needs, against those of the developing world, the natural world, and those of future generations.
There's a lot of talk about fairness at the moment. Not just by the coalition government, who have stretched it to mind-boggling new limits, but now by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and their new report.
Yet there's very little debate about intergenerational fairness.
I'd argue that one of the fundamental challenges for progressive politics in the opening years of the twenty first century is that we haven't not yet come to terms with the full meaning of equality.
We have not properly thought through what it means, or how we can make it a reality.
And the reason for this is the way we have gone about forging a progressive consensus for the last 2 centuries.
Progressive politics have depended on ever rising economic growth and prosperity in order to bring about a redistribution of power.
And as the economy has grown, so elites have been persuaded to give up a little bit of their wealth and power.
They have accepted a little more taxation and redistribution; they have allowed political power to be spread a little more thinly.
That's not surprising. It's easier to ask people to take a smaller percentage of an ever growing cake.
But it has two consequences.
First, it gives the illusion of greater equality, while allowing for greater concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.
And so Britain can, after 13 years of a Labour government, be more unequal than before they came to power.
Second, the prosperity itself may be built on rotten foundations. Already, we in Britain consume three times more than the world can sustain on an equitable basis.
The growth that has paid for our welfare state is built on the exploitation of natural resources and on the exploitation of people here and around the world.
And so often with the best intentions, the pursuit of increased national economic growth and wealth as a means to promote equality carries with it the seeds of its own failure.
The heart of the problem is a failure of imagination.
We are all equal.
And equality does not stop at the borders of the UK. Nor does it stop with the present generation.
And those whose world we are destroying, whose precious resources we are burning up, whose species we are making extinct, whose seas we are poisoning, and whose beauty and tranquillity we are sacrificing - those who are yet to be born - we owe them just as much as those around us today.
In business terms, we are treating our capital as income.
We use up our resources and say we are better off.
In the real world, if a business does this, it will go bust. In the parallel world of economics, we are supposed to carry on like this forever.
We haven't considered that by any rational measure, we are becoming not richer, but poorer. That economic growth is becoming uneconomic.
We don't think of the consequences of our actions in years to come.
This is seen most clearly in the approach to climate change.
And here I get to the crux of what I want to say.
The challenge for progressive politicians is to grasp that an incremental approach to tackling climate change is doomed to fail.
That the next 8-10 years are going to be absolutely critical in terms of getting our emissions in the industrialised world to peak, and start to come down, and that if we don't act within that briefest of windows of opportunity, then the chances of avoiding the worst of the climate crisis get very much slimmer.
And that means fundamentally challenging our current growth model.
Yet the number of politicians or civil society organisations focused primarily on the implications of today's growth model remains tiny. Worse, millions of environmental campaigners seem to seriously believe that we can address climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages and put an end to over fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst pursuing pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place.
In other words, the trade off appears to be to ignore the inevitable long-term consequences of business-as-usual growth in order to help to protect short term organisational effectiveness. It may make sense from a tactical point of view, but strategically it's unsustainable.
So how do we make this shift from incremental change to systemic reform?
How do we build that public and political momentum for change fast enough?
What chances are there for civil society organisations to coalesce around the challenge to make the case for a very different kind of economic model?
And what role for progressive politicians?
I look forward to the debate".
Caroline Lucas MP has some interesting things to say,
" This is a challenging time for progressives. We have a coalition not only introducing savage cuts, but seeming to enjoy wielding the axe.
And that enthusiasm - with George Osborne and Danny Alexander competing to give the best impression of Freddie Kruger - gives the lie to the idea that these cuts are necessary because of the current recession.
We can see that they are ideologically driven. Many Tories, and some Liberal Democrats, want a smaller state and will use the financial crisis as the excuse to achieve it - even at the risk of plunging us back into recession.
And even at the risk of making the much greater environmental crisis that we face even worse, by slashing spending on green technology, on incentives for renewable, on the potential to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs.
I don't often find myself quoting Tim Yeo, but his comments over the weekend about this were spot on, when he pointed out that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. In the run up to the 2WW, we were running an even bigger deficit than today, but would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed.
The point he's making, of course, is that we won't win the battle against climate change if we slash spending on it now.
And we need to make the case that not only are these cuts socially divisive, and environmentally disastrous, they are also economically completely illiterate.
The Ed Balls Bloomberg speech is something around which many progressives can unify - the speech where Balls made the case that it's through getting people back to work that we stand the best chance of addressing the deficit, through keeping people paying their taxes, rather than seeing tax revenue drain out of the economy, followed by redundancy payments and benefits payments.
But there's almost no discussion about the kind of work we envisage them doing, no debate about the kind of growth we need to see.
Yesterday, I spoke at a TUC conference which was entitled, without irony, Alliances for Green Growth.
Something about the alliteration seems to trick people into thinking the two ideas are compatible - green growth - it's like trade ministers talking about "free and fair trade", with no apparent recognition that just because free and fair start with the same letter, they're not the same things. Most free trade certainly isn't fair.
And if there is a form of growth which is genuinely green, genuinely sustainable, I'm not sure we know what it looks like yet.
So I think the challenge for progressives when it comes to the environment is to accept that our current economic system is economically and morally unsustainable. In other words, it only works by cheating future generations out of their birthright and by exploiting the vulnerable here and abroad.
So when we talk of a green recovery, we're not talking about a traditional economic recovery boosted by selling some home insulation or building some windmills.
We're not talking about business as usual, with a few green trimmings.
It's not about finding new products to sell, and sticking a green label on them.
We're talking about a recovery based on green principles and insights; one that is rooted in social justice and which balances our needs, against those of the developing world, the natural world, and those of future generations.
There's a lot of talk about fairness at the moment. Not just by the coalition government, who have stretched it to mind-boggling new limits, but now by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and their new report.
Yet there's very little debate about intergenerational fairness.
I'd argue that one of the fundamental challenges for progressive politics in the opening years of the twenty first century is that we haven't not yet come to terms with the full meaning of equality.
We have not properly thought through what it means, or how we can make it a reality.
And the reason for this is the way we have gone about forging a progressive consensus for the last 2 centuries.
Progressive politics have depended on ever rising economic growth and prosperity in order to bring about a redistribution of power.
And as the economy has grown, so elites have been persuaded to give up a little bit of their wealth and power.
They have accepted a little more taxation and redistribution; they have allowed political power to be spread a little more thinly.
That's not surprising. It's easier to ask people to take a smaller percentage of an ever growing cake.
But it has two consequences.
First, it gives the illusion of greater equality, while allowing for greater concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.
And so Britain can, after 13 years of a Labour government, be more unequal than before they came to power.
Second, the prosperity itself may be built on rotten foundations. Already, we in Britain consume three times more than the world can sustain on an equitable basis.
The growth that has paid for our welfare state is built on the exploitation of natural resources and on the exploitation of people here and around the world.
And so often with the best intentions, the pursuit of increased national economic growth and wealth as a means to promote equality carries with it the seeds of its own failure.
The heart of the problem is a failure of imagination.
We are all equal.
And equality does not stop at the borders of the UK. Nor does it stop with the present generation.
And those whose world we are destroying, whose precious resources we are burning up, whose species we are making extinct, whose seas we are poisoning, and whose beauty and tranquillity we are sacrificing - those who are yet to be born - we owe them just as much as those around us today.
In business terms, we are treating our capital as income.
We use up our resources and say we are better off.
In the real world, if a business does this, it will go bust. In the parallel world of economics, we are supposed to carry on like this forever.
We haven't considered that by any rational measure, we are becoming not richer, but poorer. That economic growth is becoming uneconomic.
We don't think of the consequences of our actions in years to come.
This is seen most clearly in the approach to climate change.
And here I get to the crux of what I want to say.
The challenge for progressive politicians is to grasp that an incremental approach to tackling climate change is doomed to fail.
That the next 8-10 years are going to be absolutely critical in terms of getting our emissions in the industrialised world to peak, and start to come down, and that if we don't act within that briefest of windows of opportunity, then the chances of avoiding the worst of the climate crisis get very much slimmer.
And that means fundamentally challenging our current growth model.
Yet the number of politicians or civil society organisations focused primarily on the implications of today's growth model remains tiny. Worse, millions of environmental campaigners seem to seriously believe that we can address climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages and put an end to over fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst pursuing pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place.
In other words, the trade off appears to be to ignore the inevitable long-term consequences of business-as-usual growth in order to help to protect short term organisational effectiveness. It may make sense from a tactical point of view, but strategically it's unsustainable.
So how do we make this shift from incremental change to systemic reform?
How do we build that public and political momentum for change fast enough?
What chances are there for civil society organisations to coalesce around the challenge to make the case for a very different kind of economic model?
And what role for progressive politicians?
I look forward to the debate".
Sunday 17 October 2010
Second Crossing Gets the Go Ahead!
Well the Mersey Gateway finally has been given the green light. I don't think anyone will be surprised and of course it's the Tory Party's beneficiaries that will be gaining the most ie big business.
I believe that we should be investing to create jobs in infrastructure but not of this variety. Whatever anyone says it will increase air borne pollution in the long term. Pollution that will contribute to climate change. Climate Change is the biggest challenge we face. The monies being spent on a second crossing should be being spent on industries that are likely to counter climate change directly.
Speaking selfishly and locally the majority of Halton's residents will not benefit at all from a second crossing. There will undoubtedly be costs - tolls on the new bridge which will have to reflect the likely soaring costs, tolls on the existing bridge and many environmental negatives.
But in this blog I'd like to highlight local health. We are blighted here by much higher than average rates of morbidity and mortality. No doubt lifestyle factors come into this and also that the borough has some areas of high social and economic deprivation.
Against this background the council is forging ahead (no doubt with the good intention of attracting industry here) of making Halton THE Freight Distribution hub of the north west. (See other blog material in archive regading this subject). The second crossing would seem to be an integral part of these plans.
According to council figures if all the planned freight distribution projects in the pipeline come to fruition there will be an increase in HGV traffic on Halton's roads of at least 500 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. This is a very conservative estimate. My calculations suggest double this amount. Now keep these figures in your head and consider the following.
Earlier this year (February 2010) the House of Commons Environmental Audit cttee considered research evidence that looked at what the most recent studies were indicating about the effects of increasing levels of traffic diesel emissions in the UK. (see 23.3.10 blog for further information on this research). It suggested that we have completely underestimated the health consequences of these emissions
Incidences of cardiovascular and lung disease related to mainly traffic emissions has increased dramatically in the UK. Of specific concern is the increase in childhood lung disease and complications in pregnancy in areas where there is high exposure near (within 500 metres of) major roads. According to research this applies to 12 million homes in England alone.
Giving evidence Prof Frank Kelly, Kings College stated,
“that the govt …and local councils had to act decisively in the same way as they had over obesity and smoking…we need to reduce the number of diesel vehicles on roads by 20 – 30%".
The second crossing, which is very much the cornerstone of the council's economic development plans for Halton, is certainly not going to be of assistance in tackling this particular problem here in Halton.
I believe that we should be investing to create jobs in infrastructure but not of this variety. Whatever anyone says it will increase air borne pollution in the long term. Pollution that will contribute to climate change. Climate Change is the biggest challenge we face. The monies being spent on a second crossing should be being spent on industries that are likely to counter climate change directly.
Speaking selfishly and locally the majority of Halton's residents will not benefit at all from a second crossing. There will undoubtedly be costs - tolls on the new bridge which will have to reflect the likely soaring costs, tolls on the existing bridge and many environmental negatives.
But in this blog I'd like to highlight local health. We are blighted here by much higher than average rates of morbidity and mortality. No doubt lifestyle factors come into this and also that the borough has some areas of high social and economic deprivation.
Against this background the council is forging ahead (no doubt with the good intention of attracting industry here) of making Halton THE Freight Distribution hub of the north west. (See other blog material in archive regading this subject). The second crossing would seem to be an integral part of these plans.
According to council figures if all the planned freight distribution projects in the pipeline come to fruition there will be an increase in HGV traffic on Halton's roads of at least 500 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. This is a very conservative estimate. My calculations suggest double this amount. Now keep these figures in your head and consider the following.
Earlier this year (February 2010) the House of Commons Environmental Audit cttee considered research evidence that looked at what the most recent studies were indicating about the effects of increasing levels of traffic diesel emissions in the UK. (see 23.3.10 blog for further information on this research). It suggested that we have completely underestimated the health consequences of these emissions
Incidences of cardiovascular and lung disease related to mainly traffic emissions has increased dramatically in the UK. Of specific concern is the increase in childhood lung disease and complications in pregnancy in areas where there is high exposure near (within 500 metres of) major roads. According to research this applies to 12 million homes in England alone.
Giving evidence Prof Frank Kelly, Kings College stated,
“that the govt …and local councils had to act decisively in the same way as they had over obesity and smoking…we need to reduce the number of diesel vehicles on roads by 20 – 30%".
The second crossing, which is very much the cornerstone of the council's economic development plans for Halton, is certainly not going to be of assistance in tackling this particular problem here in Halton.
Friday 15 October 2010
Lorry Watch Coming Up...!
Been rather busy of late with one thing and another. The nicest bit of the busy- ness has been the birth of our fourth grandchild a boy on 13th October - Name maybe Alex or Jake not yet confirmed. Now we're one short of a five a side team!!
This and other happenings have stalled our planned Lorry watch campaign for September. Hopefully in the next few weeks we can do a limited watch. It does have an effect as the word swiftly passes round to HGV drivers about the observations.
Initially we had been contacting the HGV companies ourselves but it turned out to be more effective passing them on directly to the police who have cooperated very well.
Watch this space...
This and other happenings have stalled our planned Lorry watch campaign for September. Hopefully in the next few weeks we can do a limited watch. It does have an effect as the word swiftly passes round to HGV drivers about the observations.
Initially we had been contacting the HGV companies ourselves but it turned out to be more effective passing them on directly to the police who have cooperated very well.
Watch this space...
Thursday 2 September 2010
Second Mersey Crossing Poll - Only 1.89% of Halton Residents Sign Petition for New Crossing
I'm unsure just how many signatures the pro new crossing lobby considered they would obtain when their petition went public several weeks ago. But the total number of signatories (2252 ie 1.89% of the approx.118,700 residents of Halton) announced today must surely be considered a tad disappointing for supporters of a second crossing.
Our poll (a total of 13 votes) giving respondents the chance to vote for a new crossing, on the other hand, showed that 77% wanted better and cheaper public transport and congestion reduced now on the existing Silver Jubilee bridge rather than an expensive new bridge.
Now, as mentioned briefly in the last blog the biased slant of the statements in our poll might have tended to push people into either voting for better public transport and getting to grips with the congestion on the existing crossing or ignoring the exercise completely and not voting at all. If I were a betting man I'd go for the latter explanation without even thinking about it.
But I'm not going to pull the wool over my own eyes and for one moment believe that people have been accessing our poll in their droves. We have apathy and both the Weekly New's petition and our meagre poll surely indicates this.
Take notice of these words Phil Hammond, George Osbourne and Danny Alexander in London and the various business and political interest groups here on Merseyside the majority of people in this area are not interested in a new crossing, it doesn't figure or come come into their lives one shred. The people of Halton have other more pressing concerns. So why, oh why spend all that money especially at this time?!
Its proponents no doubt I can see will be pointing their differently motivated fingers to, in their words '...the economic and social benefits to the region'. But I would suggest that this has never been a convincing argument especially in view of the longer term ramifications of climate change for instance and its possible effects of making us look more radically at the economic paths we might be taking in the future.
Given the strong showing on local public apathy about this topic and the incredible costs involved of the project I would suggest we drop the idea of a new crossing and get to grips with planning a more realistic approach to our social and economic well being locally and globally. And I would hope that this would factor in more equitable solutions at both these levels.
Our poll (a total of 13 votes) giving respondents the chance to vote for a new crossing, on the other hand, showed that 77% wanted better and cheaper public transport and congestion reduced now on the existing Silver Jubilee bridge rather than an expensive new bridge.
Now, as mentioned briefly in the last blog the biased slant of the statements in our poll might have tended to push people into either voting for better public transport and getting to grips with the congestion on the existing crossing or ignoring the exercise completely and not voting at all. If I were a betting man I'd go for the latter explanation without even thinking about it.
But I'm not going to pull the wool over my own eyes and for one moment believe that people have been accessing our poll in their droves. We have apathy and both the Weekly New's petition and our meagre poll surely indicates this.
Take notice of these words Phil Hammond, George Osbourne and Danny Alexander in London and the various business and political interest groups here on Merseyside the majority of people in this area are not interested in a new crossing, it doesn't figure or come come into their lives one shred. The people of Halton have other more pressing concerns. So why, oh why spend all that money especially at this time?!
Its proponents no doubt I can see will be pointing their differently motivated fingers to, in their words '...the economic and social benefits to the region'. But I would suggest that this has never been a convincing argument especially in view of the longer term ramifications of climate change for instance and its possible effects of making us look more radically at the economic paths we might be taking in the future.
Given the strong showing on local public apathy about this topic and the incredible costs involved of the project I would suggest we drop the idea of a new crossing and get to grips with planning a more realistic approach to our social and economic well being locally and globally. And I would hope that this would factor in more equitable solutions at both these levels.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
Clear Majority Against New Crossing
The results of a recent Green Party poll on this blogsite which closed today has shown that a majority are against a second mersey crossing (77% against).
The poll asked whether people supported better public transport in the area and less congestion on the present bridge now OR a new crossing which would not benefit the majority of Halton residents and would be very costly.
The outcome of this poll might seem a surprise given the assumptions of Halton Borough Council and the very biased Weekly News petition. The result makes it clear that the way questions are worded makes a difference to the result.
Given that the Weekly News petition gave no possibility of being against a proposed second crossing any results from it will be useless as an indicator of real support.
I hope decision makers will take note!
The poll asked whether people supported better public transport in the area and less congestion on the present bridge now OR a new crossing which would not benefit the majority of Halton residents and would be very costly.
The outcome of this poll might seem a surprise given the assumptions of Halton Borough Council and the very biased Weekly News petition. The result makes it clear that the way questions are worded makes a difference to the result.
Given that the Weekly News petition gave no possibility of being against a proposed second crossing any results from it will be useless as an indicator of real support.
I hope decision makers will take note!
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Poll on second Mersey Crossing
The bridge issue has been an extremely one sided affair with the council (£500,000 spent on promotion by the council to date) media and businesses supporting it to the hilt with, until recently, limited objective public debate on the matter.
A couple of weeks ago following the postponement of the decision regarding a second crossing the Widnes Weekly News started a campaign for residents to back the bridge and part of this relates to encouraging people to sign a petition.
In order for a little balance in the matter I've started a poll on this blog for people to consider and respond to - please consider participating in this but before you do, particularly if you feel strongly about having a second crossing, I'd suggest that you take a look at the verbal evidence the Green Party presented to the recent public inquiry (see this blog 26/6/08) then vote - thanks.
A couple of weeks ago following the postponement of the decision regarding a second crossing the Widnes Weekly News started a campaign for residents to back the bridge and part of this relates to encouraging people to sign a petition.
In order for a little balance in the matter I've started a poll on this blog for people to consider and respond to - please consider participating in this but before you do, particularly if you feel strongly about having a second crossing, I'd suggest that you take a look at the verbal evidence the Green Party presented to the recent public inquiry (see this blog 26/6/08) then vote - thanks.
Thursday 1 July 2010
Record Artic Ice Melt
The ice melt on the Arctic Sea continues apace. Latest information is suggesting that 2010 is sizing up to be a record breaking year. It seems that the ice melt will be higher than the record levels observed in 2007. (See,http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png)
We are a party with policies on nearly every area, but we came into existence to do something about the long term future for our society. On a day when the Independent reports that we are not really making any underlying dent on our CO2 emissions, it truly is a worrying future not just for generations unborn, but for all the people that share this planet today.
Thanks to Peter Cranie for this alert
We are a party with policies on nearly every area, but we came into existence to do something about the long term future for our society. On a day when the Independent reports that we are not really making any underlying dent on our CO2 emissions, it truly is a worrying future not just for generations unborn, but for all the people that share this planet today.
Thanks to Peter Cranie for this alert
Tuesday 29 June 2010
Abusive comments
Have had to take off the comment facility on the blog owing to semi abusive personal responses related to my family.
Sorry to all the genuine people who've responded over the past couple of years. I hope normal service will be resumed asap.
Sorry to all the genuine people who've responded over the past couple of years. I hope normal service will be resumed asap.
Wednesday 16 June 2010
Alternative Queens Speech
A little late but... as reported by Channel 4:
My government's overriding priority is to modernise the British economy for a low-carbon future, to create an economy more balanced between manufacturing and services, more resilient in the face of financial crises, where wealth is more equitably distributed and the more vulnerable in society are offered greater protection.
My government will bring forward a bill to initiate an emergency investment package, to cost £44bn, which will be intended to create over one million new jobs and training places.
This investment programme will result in significant improvements to public transport, including fare reductions of up to ten per cent. It will provide free insulation for all British homes. It will transform Britain's renewable energy sector into a world leader, which in turn will support the restoration of domestic manufacturing industry. It will also set our country firmly on the road to a zero waste economy.
In parallel with this bill, my government will continue the previous government's efforts to tackle Britain's budget deficit by 2014, but with greater emphasis on raising tax levels on the wealthiest thirteen per cent of earners.
The redistributive tax measures will ensure that a non-means-tested citizen's pension may be introduced at the level of £170 for individual pensioners and £300 for couples. This will ensure that no British pensioner is living below the poverty line.
My government will cancel new road building plans and transfer £30bn from the road building budget towards public transport and measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking, including safe routes to school programmes.
Other fiscal measures my government will bring forward will include measures to ensure that the costs of high-carbon modes of transport better reflect their costs to society.
My government will introduce a bill to prevent any further private finance initiatives, and to keep the Royal Mail in public ownership, as the first step towards reversing the privatisation of public services.
My government will seek effective global and European collaboration to combat climate change, in a globally equitable manner, which will involve 90 per cent cut in UK CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2030, starting with a ten per cent cut in the coming year and following with successive year-on-year cuts to ensure the overall target is met.
My government will complete the reform of regulation of the financial services industry to ensure greater protection for savers and taxpayers, but will bring forward further legislation for the establishment of a nationwide network of not-for-profit community banks, and to separate retail from investment banking. Those banks which are wholly or partly state-owned will pay no bonuses above £25,000, and a permanent tax on bonuses will be introduced. A "Robin Hood tax", a tax on financial transactions, will also be established.
Recognising the international nature of the problems in financial services, my government will actively pursue with our European partners regulation at an EU level.
My government will introduce legislation to bring about wide-ranging political and electoral reform, including a fair and inclusive voting system which will be extended to a fully-elected second chamber.
My government is committed to making Britain a fairer and more inclusive society, and to this end will bring forward legislation to promote this. This will include a requirement for all companies to have at least 40 per cent of their boards of directors made up of women, and to penalise employers who implement unequal pay. The same legislation will strengthen the protection of disabled people and those with mental health problems against discrimination.
My government will bring forward plans for a very early withdrawal of British forces from Afghanistan. At the same time it will seek international support for the establishment of a peace conference involving all Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, and measures to enhance economic and political stability in Afghanistan.
Legislation will be brought forward to decommission Britain's nuclear weapons.
Other measures will be laid before you.
I pray that the blessing of almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
My government's overriding priority is to modernise the British economy for a low-carbon future, to create an economy more balanced between manufacturing and services, more resilient in the face of financial crises, where wealth is more equitably distributed and the more vulnerable in society are offered greater protection.
My government will bring forward a bill to initiate an emergency investment package, to cost £44bn, which will be intended to create over one million new jobs and training places.
This investment programme will result in significant improvements to public transport, including fare reductions of up to ten per cent. It will provide free insulation for all British homes. It will transform Britain's renewable energy sector into a world leader, which in turn will support the restoration of domestic manufacturing industry. It will also set our country firmly on the road to a zero waste economy.
In parallel with this bill, my government will continue the previous government's efforts to tackle Britain's budget deficit by 2014, but with greater emphasis on raising tax levels on the wealthiest thirteen per cent of earners.
The redistributive tax measures will ensure that a non-means-tested citizen's pension may be introduced at the level of £170 for individual pensioners and £300 for couples. This will ensure that no British pensioner is living below the poverty line.
My government will cancel new road building plans and transfer £30bn from the road building budget towards public transport and measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking, including safe routes to school programmes.
Other fiscal measures my government will bring forward will include measures to ensure that the costs of high-carbon modes of transport better reflect their costs to society.
My government will introduce a bill to prevent any further private finance initiatives, and to keep the Royal Mail in public ownership, as the first step towards reversing the privatisation of public services.
My government will seek effective global and European collaboration to combat climate change, in a globally equitable manner, which will involve 90 per cent cut in UK CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2030, starting with a ten per cent cut in the coming year and following with successive year-on-year cuts to ensure the overall target is met.
My government will complete the reform of regulation of the financial services industry to ensure greater protection for savers and taxpayers, but will bring forward further legislation for the establishment of a nationwide network of not-for-profit community banks, and to separate retail from investment banking. Those banks which are wholly or partly state-owned will pay no bonuses above £25,000, and a permanent tax on bonuses will be introduced. A "Robin Hood tax", a tax on financial transactions, will also be established.
Recognising the international nature of the problems in financial services, my government will actively pursue with our European partners regulation at an EU level.
My government will introduce legislation to bring about wide-ranging political and electoral reform, including a fair and inclusive voting system which will be extended to a fully-elected second chamber.
My government is committed to making Britain a fairer and more inclusive society, and to this end will bring forward legislation to promote this. This will include a requirement for all companies to have at least 40 per cent of their boards of directors made up of women, and to penalise employers who implement unequal pay. The same legislation will strengthen the protection of disabled people and those with mental health problems against discrimination.
My government will bring forward plans for a very early withdrawal of British forces from Afghanistan. At the same time it will seek international support for the establishment of a peace conference involving all Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, and measures to enhance economic and political stability in Afghanistan.
Legislation will be brought forward to decommission Britain's nuclear weapons.
Other measures will be laid before you.
I pray that the blessing of almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
Thursday 10 June 2010
Austerity not the way out of recession
"Austerity is not the way out of recession" - Caroline Lucas gives speech at Conway Hall rally
27 MAY 2010
Austerity measures are not the way to build a more stable economy or a fairer society, said Caroline Lucas last night.
The Green Party leader and Britain's first Green MP told a packed public meeting at Conway Hall that "the government's cuts programme will result in greater unfairness, fail to tackle inequality and do little to build the kind of strong and thriving public sector needed to provide a steady and genuinely sustainable economy."
At the Can't Pay, Won't Pay rally, Caroline said that "Being part of [the] fight for fairness means looking at how we have arrived at where we are today - with rising unemployment and rising home repossessions, dwindling wage levels and dwindling aspirations, an unequal society riddled with unfairness.
"All of this hasn't happened by accident.
"It is a direct and inevitable result of years of financial deregulation overseen first by Margaret Thatcher, then by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And now Cameron and Clegg have taken charge - and do we expect anything different? Not if they have their way."
The MP for Brighton Pavilion continued, "I think we need to be very clear that it's precisely business as usual that has created this crisis - and that we need a very different model as we go forward. A model that is fair and sustainable, and which is based on a steady-state economy, rather than chasing ever more economic growth for its own sake.
"Because of course we don't only face an economic crisis - we face a triple crunch, which includes the accelerating climate crisis, as well as the impending crisis of peak oil. And unless we address them together, we'll miss a vital opportunity to shift the economy in a truly sustainable direction, and we'll risk simply storing up an even bigger collapse in the future."
Instead of a programme of cuts, Caroline called for "programme of green spending that kick-starts the shift to green energy" which, she said, "will produce countless new jobs, and keep money circulating in the economy where it is needed most, when it is needed most."
The Green Party's 2010 general election manifesto contained a proposed £44bn investment package intended to slash CO2 emissions while creating over one million new jobs and training places in the UK. The investment would be funded by a package of measures to include scrapping such things as Trident and ID cards, switching £30bn from the roadbuilding budget to public transport investment, and a number of radical financial changes - including a redistributive tax reform that the Greens say would leave 87% of Britons better off.
27 MAY 2010
Austerity measures are not the way to build a more stable economy or a fairer society, said Caroline Lucas last night.
The Green Party leader and Britain's first Green MP told a packed public meeting at Conway Hall that "the government's cuts programme will result in greater unfairness, fail to tackle inequality and do little to build the kind of strong and thriving public sector needed to provide a steady and genuinely sustainable economy."
At the Can't Pay, Won't Pay rally, Caroline said that "Being part of [the] fight for fairness means looking at how we have arrived at where we are today - with rising unemployment and rising home repossessions, dwindling wage levels and dwindling aspirations, an unequal society riddled with unfairness.
"All of this hasn't happened by accident.
"It is a direct and inevitable result of years of financial deregulation overseen first by Margaret Thatcher, then by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. And now Cameron and Clegg have taken charge - and do we expect anything different? Not if they have their way."
The MP for Brighton Pavilion continued, "I think we need to be very clear that it's precisely business as usual that has created this crisis - and that we need a very different model as we go forward. A model that is fair and sustainable, and which is based on a steady-state economy, rather than chasing ever more economic growth for its own sake.
"Because of course we don't only face an economic crisis - we face a triple crunch, which includes the accelerating climate crisis, as well as the impending crisis of peak oil. And unless we address them together, we'll miss a vital opportunity to shift the economy in a truly sustainable direction, and we'll risk simply storing up an even bigger collapse in the future."
Instead of a programme of cuts, Caroline called for "programme of green spending that kick-starts the shift to green energy" which, she said, "will produce countless new jobs, and keep money circulating in the economy where it is needed most, when it is needed most."
The Green Party's 2010 general election manifesto contained a proposed £44bn investment package intended to slash CO2 emissions while creating over one million new jobs and training places in the UK. The investment would be funded by a package of measures to include scrapping such things as Trident and ID cards, switching £30bn from the roadbuilding budget to public transport investment, and a number of radical financial changes - including a redistributive tax reform that the Greens say would leave 87% of Britons better off.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Lib Dem Let Down on Electoral Reform
Something Caroline Lucas had to say recently about Nick Clegg's reneging on Lib Dem policy on electoral reform:
'Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP today condemned Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg for reneging on his "absolute precondition" of making electoral reform a centrepiece of any hung parliament deal.
Only a week ago, Clegg gave his assurance to an electorate crying out for the kind of change that will rejuvenate the political process. Electoral reform would be "a first step which any government of any composition needs to introduce to start restoring public trust in the political system ... Electoral reform is an absolute precondition for renewal in this country."[1]
The Greens say this commitment to progressive reform of British democracy led in part to the poll boost that has seen the Lib Dems regularly placed higher than a moribund Labour Party.
Now, with what the Greens say is "breathtaking disregard for the voters who have been calling for an honest approach to politics," Mr Clegg "has allowed himself to be swayed by the promise of power and has backtracked on his pledge to stay tough in the event of a Lib Dem-Conservative government.
Speaking on Monday 4 May to the Financial Times, Clegg said: "I've never talked about preconditions. What I've said is it's unavoidable. Of course it's a vital element to the renewal of politics that we need in broad terms. That's all I've said."[2]
The party of change - or of changing its mind?
Responding to what the Greens see as Nick Clegg's "astonishing flip-flop," Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP said: "The Liberal Democrats have made a huge noise about being the party of change but when it comes down to it all they really are is the party of changing their minds."
"It's common knowledge that the Tories don't want electoral reform. Any coalition negotiations that don't set out electoral reform as a deal breaker will lead to five more years of the same old system and it's the voters who will suffer," added Lucas, who has been tipped by pollsters YouGov and ICM to win the Brighton Pavilion seat in tomorrow's election.
"Green Party MPs will not compromise on the issues that are essential to giving every voter a voice, whatever their party of preference," concluded Ms Lucas.
Green Party members have been consistent advocates of wide-ranging electoral and constitutional reform for years and it is again a central element of this year's election manifesto.[3]
Notes
[1] Press Association report as published in the Independent newspaper on Monday 26 April 2010
[2] As reported by the Financial Times in their interview with Nick Clegg on Monday 4 May 2010
[3] The Green Party is committed to introducing PR for parliamentary elections. The Greens would also introduce fixed parliamentary terms and a fully elected House of Lords'.
Share
'Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP today condemned Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg for reneging on his "absolute precondition" of making electoral reform a centrepiece of any hung parliament deal.
Only a week ago, Clegg gave his assurance to an electorate crying out for the kind of change that will rejuvenate the political process. Electoral reform would be "a first step which any government of any composition needs to introduce to start restoring public trust in the political system ... Electoral reform is an absolute precondition for renewal in this country."[1]
The Greens say this commitment to progressive reform of British democracy led in part to the poll boost that has seen the Lib Dems regularly placed higher than a moribund Labour Party.
Now, with what the Greens say is "breathtaking disregard for the voters who have been calling for an honest approach to politics," Mr Clegg "has allowed himself to be swayed by the promise of power and has backtracked on his pledge to stay tough in the event of a Lib Dem-Conservative government.
Speaking on Monday 4 May to the Financial Times, Clegg said: "I've never talked about preconditions. What I've said is it's unavoidable. Of course it's a vital element to the renewal of politics that we need in broad terms. That's all I've said."[2]
The party of change - or of changing its mind?
Responding to what the Greens see as Nick Clegg's "astonishing flip-flop," Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP said: "The Liberal Democrats have made a huge noise about being the party of change but when it comes down to it all they really are is the party of changing their minds."
"It's common knowledge that the Tories don't want electoral reform. Any coalition negotiations that don't set out electoral reform as a deal breaker will lead to five more years of the same old system and it's the voters who will suffer," added Lucas, who has been tipped by pollsters YouGov and ICM to win the Brighton Pavilion seat in tomorrow's election.
"Green Party MPs will not compromise on the issues that are essential to giving every voter a voice, whatever their party of preference," concluded Ms Lucas.
Green Party members have been consistent advocates of wide-ranging electoral and constitutional reform for years and it is again a central element of this year's election manifesto.[3]
Notes
[1] Press Association report as published in the Independent newspaper on Monday 26 April 2010
[2] As reported by the Financial Times in their interview with Nick Clegg on Monday 4 May 2010
[3] The Green Party is committed to introducing PR for parliamentary elections. The Greens would also introduce fixed parliamentary terms and a fully elected House of Lords'.
Share
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Message from Caroline Lucas
Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, last night wished outgoing prime minister Gordon Brown well - and once again drew attention to the urgent need for electoral reform.
In a statement issued yesterday evening the newly-elected Green MP for Brighton Pavilion said:
"Tonight, Gordon Brown has laid down the burdens of the office of Prime Minister with good grace and I wish him well for the future. David Cameron now takes up those responsibilities and faces four challenges.
"First, bringing in comprehensive political reform, including letting the public choose how politicians are elected, that will help restore people's faith in politics. If the Lib Dems have failed to secure a genuine commitment on this, this is the biggest betrayal of the British electorate in a generation.
"Second, dealing with the crisis in our public finances while protecting those in the greatest need.
"Third, replacing rhetoric with real action on climate change.
"Fourthly, and finally, for Britain to become a force for good in the world, and to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to an end.
"We do not underestimate the difficulties ahead. We will support where we can; and always provide a principled and progressive alternative."
In a statement issued yesterday evening the newly-elected Green MP for Brighton Pavilion said:
"Tonight, Gordon Brown has laid down the burdens of the office of Prime Minister with good grace and I wish him well for the future. David Cameron now takes up those responsibilities and faces four challenges.
"First, bringing in comprehensive political reform, including letting the public choose how politicians are elected, that will help restore people's faith in politics. If the Lib Dems have failed to secure a genuine commitment on this, this is the biggest betrayal of the British electorate in a generation.
"Second, dealing with the crisis in our public finances while protecting those in the greatest need.
"Third, replacing rhetoric with real action on climate change.
"Fourthly, and finally, for Britain to become a force for good in the world, and to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to an end.
"We do not underestimate the difficulties ahead. We will support where we can; and always provide a principled and progressive alternative."
Monday 10 May 2010
Elections how we got on - disappointment and hope
Local Election results in wards in Halton that the Greens were contesting:
Birchfield - Jane Fitzpatrick - Green - 122, Lab - 1539, Con - 1190, Lib Dems - 546 (Labour gain from Con)
Farnworth - Peter Stead - Green - 193 (120)*, Lab 1532 (391), Con - 1392 (992), Lib Dems - 563 (185) (Labour gain from Con)
Grange - Jim Craig Green - 118, Lab - 1375, Lib Dem - 764, Con - 418
Halton View - Derek Mellor - Green - 622 (528), Lab - 2121 (658), Con - 538 (213)
Hough Green - Miriam Hodgson - Green -114 (107), Labour - 2002 (630), Con - 601 (403), Lib Dem - 411 (148)
Kingsway - Linda Mellor - Green - 793 (92) Lib Dem - 907 (87), Con 480 (217)
(* Figures in brackets 2008 election results)
Overall a disappointing result and in hindsight (and I suppose its always easy to say this sort of thing after the event but...) the results of the election were inevitable given our lack of resources here compared with the other parties and other significant factors eg general and local elections held on the same day. This tends to favour the main parties but particularly the Labour Party in areas like Merseyside. With the Labour Party seen increasingly as the underdog in a very competitive and different general election than recent ones, possibly had the effect of galvanising Labour voters even more.
The disappointment felt has been hightened by our perception that we were in with a good chance in Halton View because of the result in 2008.
Our candidate in Kingsway ward did extremely well considering this special general election and its affects on votes cast. Although Labour were not standing the Lib Dems had the advantage in the fact that they were a main party, had the resources and they had been on a roll following the televised debates - well done Linda!
In the general election our candidate Jim Craig obtained more than the national average Green % of the vote for a first time general election candidate (and even more than some longstanding candidates.
For the Greens the sort of disappointing results we’ve had up and down the country have been balanced by what the Independent newspaper described as a “...shining moment” for the Green Party (and the country) as Caroline Lucas was elected as the country’s first Green MP.
The Commons now has a much needed true Green voice and a female leader of a political party.
As Caroline remarked in her post election address the Greens in parliament will be promoting the politics of hope rather than fear.
Thank you for voting Green in last weeks general and local elections.
Birchfield - Jane Fitzpatrick - Green - 122, Lab - 1539, Con - 1190, Lib Dems - 546 (Labour gain from Con)
Farnworth - Peter Stead - Green - 193 (120)*, Lab 1532 (391), Con - 1392 (992), Lib Dems - 563 (185) (Labour gain from Con)
Grange - Jim Craig Green - 118, Lab - 1375, Lib Dem - 764, Con - 418
Halton View - Derek Mellor - Green - 622 (528), Lab - 2121 (658), Con - 538 (213)
Hough Green - Miriam Hodgson - Green -114 (107), Labour - 2002 (630), Con - 601 (403), Lib Dem - 411 (148)
Kingsway - Linda Mellor - Green - 793 (92) Lib Dem - 907 (87), Con 480 (217)
(* Figures in brackets 2008 election results)
Overall a disappointing result and in hindsight (and I suppose its always easy to say this sort of thing after the event but...) the results of the election were inevitable given our lack of resources here compared with the other parties and other significant factors eg general and local elections held on the same day. This tends to favour the main parties but particularly the Labour Party in areas like Merseyside. With the Labour Party seen increasingly as the underdog in a very competitive and different general election than recent ones, possibly had the effect of galvanising Labour voters even more.
The disappointment felt has been hightened by our perception that we were in with a good chance in Halton View because of the result in 2008.
Our candidate in Kingsway ward did extremely well considering this special general election and its affects on votes cast. Although Labour were not standing the Lib Dems had the advantage in the fact that they were a main party, had the resources and they had been on a roll following the televised debates - well done Linda!
In the general election our candidate Jim Craig obtained more than the national average Green % of the vote for a first time general election candidate (and even more than some longstanding candidates.
For the Greens the sort of disappointing results we’ve had up and down the country have been balanced by what the Independent newspaper described as a “...shining moment” for the Green Party (and the country) as Caroline Lucas was elected as the country’s first Green MP.
The Commons now has a much needed true Green voice and a female leader of a political party.
As Caroline remarked in her post election address the Greens in parliament will be promoting the politics of hope rather than fear.
Thank you for voting Green in last weeks general and local elections.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
Battle Lines - two sword blades length
I didn't know this until recently that the government and opposiion benches facing each other in the House of Commons are separated by two sword blade lengths. Lines are drawn in red to indicate the distances. This harks back apparantly to the times when gentleman, inhabiting Parliament, wore swords and it was considered reasonable to keep govenment members and opposition members at least two sword blades length away from each other.
It's an indication that from earliest times the chamber has been adversarial, combatant and very much a male domain with no quarter given. And political parties need sufficient majorities to ensure that they rule. Any movement away from this seems to create all sorts of anxieties about system collapse and inability to get things done from the we know best all the time parties. And hung parliaments therefore are really not good to be hanging around for any length of time or are they?
Ok its a crude analysis. Parties do perhaps work together more behind the scenes in the Commons but not to the same extent that balanced (Alex Salmond's term for hung which I think is better) parliaments do. The SNP have run a minority government relatively successfully for the last three years. They have wheeled and dealed themselves around the Scottish Parliament offering collaboration and compromise to all parties. They've carried through legislation by offering concessions to the other parties including minority parties like the Greens (they got concessions on energy efficiency projects) and the Lib Dems (on student funding).
An article today in The Guardian (Saverin Carrell) suggests that it has worked because the Scottish parliament is designed to promote collaboration unlike the confrontation which the Westminster model exudes.
It uses proportional representation so that in a country with four major parties and a number of minority parties it's not very likely that there will be a government with an overall majority. It has bipartisan committees to work out legislation a fixed budget and fixed term parliaments.
We need change, electoral reform, more working together - lets get rid of those red lines of demarcation in the House of Commons - lets go for balance.
It's an indication that from earliest times the chamber has been adversarial, combatant and very much a male domain with no quarter given. And political parties need sufficient majorities to ensure that they rule. Any movement away from this seems to create all sorts of anxieties about system collapse and inability to get things done from the we know best all the time parties. And hung parliaments therefore are really not good to be hanging around for any length of time or are they?
Ok its a crude analysis. Parties do perhaps work together more behind the scenes in the Commons but not to the same extent that balanced (Alex Salmond's term for hung which I think is better) parliaments do. The SNP have run a minority government relatively successfully for the last three years. They have wheeled and dealed themselves around the Scottish Parliament offering collaboration and compromise to all parties. They've carried through legislation by offering concessions to the other parties including minority parties like the Greens (they got concessions on energy efficiency projects) and the Lib Dems (on student funding).
An article today in The Guardian (Saverin Carrell) suggests that it has worked because the Scottish parliament is designed to promote collaboration unlike the confrontation which the Westminster model exudes.
It uses proportional representation so that in a country with four major parties and a number of minority parties it's not very likely that there will be a government with an overall majority. It has bipartisan committees to work out legislation a fixed budget and fixed term parliaments.
We need change, electoral reform, more working together - lets get rid of those red lines of demarcation in the House of Commons - lets go for balance.
Sunday 11 April 2010
General Election and the need for change in the real sense!
I've not yet in this blog mentioned the general election. I think there are very few of us who aren't turned off by the competitive banter of all the main parties. Each attempting to show the electorate what they'll individually gain by voting for their party.
I know the parties have to do this to present their policies and show the political acumen and personality strengths of their main actors. It's an expectation driven by the media. But we all are aware that it's all a bit of a game that's very much related to point scoring.
With this in mind it was refreshing to hear on BBC 4's programme 'Saturday Live' the candid views of Lib Dems Matthew Taylor one of the MP's who'll be leaving the Commons after 23 years.
He wasn't leaving because of any particular scandals but partly owing to his perceptions of how backbenchers ability to scrutinise legislation in the last couple of decades had declined. And again his perception of how overt cabinet rule, owing to large majorities and changes in the organisation of the legislative process in recent years, had produced negative consequences. To him the House of Commons was not fulfilling its necessary scrutinising role.
Another interviewee, Claire Short, who's also leaving this year thought that a hung Parliament would actually be beneficial in relation to combatting these recent developments. It would mean that the party that managed to form the government would have to listen to other positions more readily and as a matter of course.
It seems to me though that obviously a more fundamental change in the system is necessary to promote a consensual base to politics in the UK.
Greens consider that if we want a fairer political set up were the electorate's voting patterns were echoed in the make up of the Commons we must move to a form of proportional representation that would produce this. Such a system would not provide huge majorities. Governance would have to be more consensual. There are many examples of really effective PR systems in Europe eg Germany.
With faith in our political system at a low ebb such changes would seem to be much overdue.
I know the parties have to do this to present their policies and show the political acumen and personality strengths of their main actors. It's an expectation driven by the media. But we all are aware that it's all a bit of a game that's very much related to point scoring.
With this in mind it was refreshing to hear on BBC 4's programme 'Saturday Live' the candid views of Lib Dems Matthew Taylor one of the MP's who'll be leaving the Commons after 23 years.
He wasn't leaving because of any particular scandals but partly owing to his perceptions of how backbenchers ability to scrutinise legislation in the last couple of decades had declined. And again his perception of how overt cabinet rule, owing to large majorities and changes in the organisation of the legislative process in recent years, had produced negative consequences. To him the House of Commons was not fulfilling its necessary scrutinising role.
Another interviewee, Claire Short, who's also leaving this year thought that a hung Parliament would actually be beneficial in relation to combatting these recent developments. It would mean that the party that managed to form the government would have to listen to other positions more readily and as a matter of course.
It seems to me though that obviously a more fundamental change in the system is necessary to promote a consensual base to politics in the UK.
Greens consider that if we want a fairer political set up were the electorate's voting patterns were echoed in the make up of the Commons we must move to a form of proportional representation that would produce this. Such a system would not provide huge majorities. Governance would have to be more consensual. There are many examples of really effective PR systems in Europe eg Germany.
With faith in our political system at a low ebb such changes would seem to be much overdue.
Wednesday 7 April 2010
Nine hours later...
After my experiences on the busathon (Tuesday) I think that we should have a national, 'Use the bus day'. (perhaps we already have one!)I can almost hear people saying I knew he'd say that. And I must admit that I thought I would be saying positive things about the experience before I even put my foot onto the Arriva 110 service Widnes to Warrington. But the whole experience was really an eye opener. More about this later.
I managed to visit 9 towns in nine hours. Warrington, St Helens, Ashton in Makerfield, Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, Southport and Liverpool. Now I do use the bus when I can so it wasn't such a culture shock to spend 9 hours on them.
Was I surprised about who bus users were? Not really mums and young children, older people using their passes (after 9.30) and what I can only describe as poorer people especially in the old industrial towns - St Helens, Wigan and Bolton. And the friendliest and most considerate people? (this could be a bit subjective, coincidentalist and bordering on the patronising) those poorer people, particularly from Wigan.
I felt more relaxed in the Wigan part of the trip than anywhere else. Not that the trip I was taking was anything like skirting down the Amazon avoiding dangerous exotic tribes. But it was just the reassuring 'Are you awreet?' banter and the spirit of this phrase which seemed to be everywhere.
What was really interesting was meeting a man at St Helens who got on the bus I was getting. He was travelling to Ashton and told me he'd lived there all his life. He was the same age as me. His family had been bakers for generations and had a bakery in Violet Street Ashton.
One of the reasons I'd chosen Ashton as a stop was that I'd been born there. My family moved to Liverpool when I was 5 or 6. So it was great meeting him. He stayed on the bus longer than he'd intended showing me the sights. Filling me in on details about the infant school I'd attended (British School Bolton Rd - hadn't known that it was called that - now no longer there, a swish private older persons home stood in its place - is that significant in some way?)
If your not into sad statitics then avoid this paragraph. All the buses were on time and there were no hold ups. There were lots of pot holes on the urban routes which the older buses didn't like but the smoothie new double deckers (Stagecoach) which run from Preston to Southport took everything in their stride, much more leg room as well.
This effecient running of the buses I encountered reminded me of industrial action I'd taken as a social worker in Ormskirk/Skelmersdale in the 1990's. There was a dispute about car expenses so we refused to use our cars and used public transport. (Used taxis for urgent work but buses normally for other stuff) We assumed or at least I assumed it would really impact on our work - but it didn't at least the relatively short distance travel didn't.
People are put off using public transport because of time factors. My experiences in the 1990's and on Tuesday reminded me it isn't necessarily so. Which brings me onto something maybe a bit more important in terms of the positives. Bus travel offers - another world experience.
Like, in a car there's normally just you or if there's someone else with you, you probably know them. On a bus it's maybe someone you know but also other interesting people you just don't know. Conversations are easily overheard and you get a snapshot of real people's lives.
By car its the same old thing, in a bus well it's up to you. It can certainly be mind expanding seeing how the other half lives. If you have to get a couple of buses the chances are you'll have to wait for a short while. There's no real opportunity to be carrying out some contrived task to pass the time away (apart from maybe mindless texting which we all do sometimes.) But what bus queues do offer, and its not rocket science to work out, is the sort of close proximity to people you don't know, who you could actually talk to.
So buses can equal: getting more exercise, slowing your life down just a notch or two, potentially meeting interesting people and moving ourselves away from our self centred lives and getting a smattering of understanding about other peoples experiences and problems. And that's before we start talking about reducing our carbon footprints.
Now to me that sounds quite valuable, but maybe that's just me?! If you want to view all the other bus photos (to show that I really did visit all those towns) email me at haltongreenparty@hotmail.com and thanks for your support.
Wigan bus station
Monday 5 April 2010
Bus a thon!
Tomorrow I'll be on several buses for about 12 hours. Why? - well although I do like buses - for 12 hours! But, needs must and doesn't must need!? I want to see how many towns I can visit in one day using buses and am asking people to sponsor me per town to a maximum of £10.
I'm hoping to raise money for the forthcoming election campaigns. This year in Halton residents will be able to vote Green for the first time in a general election and also we're standing a candidate in over a third of the wards .
All this needs extra money compared with other years. As the Green Party only accepts funding from ethically screened organisations and its supporters compared to other minority parties, like UKIP etc, our funding is really, really limited.
Although the first few sentences of this blog might sound a little negative I'm secretly looking forward to having a go. It's an adventure. Intend to take photos of places visited and produce a sort of quirky diary of events.
It'll be interesting to see what you can do in one day on a bus, how do buses and everything to do with them perform (could be nerdish this!) What are bus users up to etc. It could be a damp squib in more ways than one but you won't know unless you check out this blog in the next couple of days.
My daughter Clare has kindly placed an item on Facebook about the event so anyone reading this after picking it up on Facebook I particularly challenge you to comment.
Anything goes, within reason - it would be good to see peoples views about things like local politics - how relevant are they to you? or about buses (buried feelings about public transport do you have something burning to say?) or anything that matters to you - the subject matter could be endless its up to you! (email me if you prefer - haltongreenparty@hotmail.com)
I personally don't think anyone will respond, prove me wrong if you dare!
I'm hoping to raise money for the forthcoming election campaigns. This year in Halton residents will be able to vote Green for the first time in a general election and also we're standing a candidate in over a third of the wards .
All this needs extra money compared with other years. As the Green Party only accepts funding from ethically screened organisations and its supporters compared to other minority parties, like UKIP etc, our funding is really, really limited.
Although the first few sentences of this blog might sound a little negative I'm secretly looking forward to having a go. It's an adventure. Intend to take photos of places visited and produce a sort of quirky diary of events.
It'll be interesting to see what you can do in one day on a bus, how do buses and everything to do with them perform (could be nerdish this!) What are bus users up to etc. It could be a damp squib in more ways than one but you won't know unless you check out this blog in the next couple of days.
My daughter Clare has kindly placed an item on Facebook about the event so anyone reading this after picking it up on Facebook I particularly challenge you to comment.
Anything goes, within reason - it would be good to see peoples views about things like local politics - how relevant are they to you? or about buses (buried feelings about public transport do you have something burning to say?) or anything that matters to you - the subject matter could be endless its up to you! (email me if you prefer - haltongreenparty@hotmail.com)
I personally don't think anyone will respond, prove me wrong if you dare!
Monday 29 March 2010
Rebuttal: Labour's unjoined up thinking!
I found Labour's piece about HGV's in their latest "Talking Points" both welcome and interesting.
Welcome as it indicates that Labour do really sense that we could take the seat from them in May. I cannot remember a 'Talking Point' in the last 6 years that has carried as much about the Green Party as the present issue does.
Interesting in that reading the item you would think that the Labour group of councillors in Halton View are against HGV's travelling unecessarily on the roads in Halton.
Not so if Labour's plans for making Halton a distribution hub in the northwest go ahead as planned. The borough will find itself faced with an increase of up to an estimated 1000 HGV's every 24 hour cycle.
The 'Talking Point' article suggests that the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (3MG) development will reduce HGV traffic but this reduction only relates to long haul national travel. It will in fact increase local traffic on Halton's roads. HGV's from neighbouring areas will be accessing the road/rail head etc.
The Green Party, for several years, has been objecting to planning proposals to a range of developments which relate to this plan of creating in Halton one of the most important distribution hubs in the region, whereas Labour have seen such developments as economically important to the bourough. This is questionable if we are talking specifically about the economic gains of residents living in Halton and does not take into account other important factors like health and safety.
Welcome as it indicates that Labour do really sense that we could take the seat from them in May. I cannot remember a 'Talking Point' in the last 6 years that has carried as much about the Green Party as the present issue does.
Interesting in that reading the item you would think that the Labour group of councillors in Halton View are against HGV's travelling unecessarily on the roads in Halton.
Not so if Labour's plans for making Halton a distribution hub in the northwest go ahead as planned. The borough will find itself faced with an increase of up to an estimated 1000 HGV's every 24 hour cycle.
The 'Talking Point' article suggests that the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (3MG) development will reduce HGV traffic but this reduction only relates to long haul national travel. It will in fact increase local traffic on Halton's roads. HGV's from neighbouring areas will be accessing the road/rail head etc.
The Green Party, for several years, has been objecting to planning proposals to a range of developments which relate to this plan of creating in Halton one of the most important distribution hubs in the region, whereas Labour have seen such developments as economically important to the bourough. This is questionable if we are talking specifically about the economic gains of residents living in Halton and does not take into account other important factors like health and safety.
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Air pollution in Halton
Evidence given at a Commons Environmental Audit committee meeting in February this year would suggest that we are underestimating the adverse health effects that particulates emitted by diesel traffic and pollution from power stations like Fiddlers Ferry is having on the population, particularly in urban areas.
The report was critical of Government action in failing to tackle the issue suggesting that up to between 35,000 to 50,000 early deaths per year nationwide are caused by such emissions. Responding to this latest research Professor Kelly Kings College London giving evidence to the environmental audit committee suggested that in areas that have high concentrations of particulates emitted there should be reductions in the movement of diesel powered traffic( HGV's etc) by between 20% to 30%.
This latest research is relevant to Halton council's position on the Mersey Multimodal Gateway. Although Halton Council maintain that their plans for the Multimodal Gateway would reduce HGV road traffic this reduction only relates to long haul travel. In fact HGV movements in Halton would increase dramatically in an area which has high incidences of chest related problems. I am all in favour of moving HGV traffic onto rail but I would question actually using Halton as a hub for such a distribution link because of its health related problems.
Its reckoned, in fact, that developments like the Multimodal Gateway in Halton along with other proposals will create a situation where there will be a possible increase of up to at least 600 vehicles (this figure has been obtained from information provided by Halton Borough Council and estimates from other sources) but more likely 1000 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. Maybe there will be employment for some but it is not going to have a beneficial effect on the majority of residents here when health is factored in.
It's important that the council has joined up thinking with regard to their strategic planning in the health and economic development fields.
The Lancaster University's 'Health in Halton study 2003' recommended that,"...all reasonable efforts should be made to work with industry and other organisations...to further reduce levels of pollution within the borough".
In view of the most recent research this adoption of the precautionary principle would seem to be even more relevant. The council has a duty of care to ensure that its economic development plans don't take precedence over other issues of legitimate concern to the citizens of Halton.
The report was critical of Government action in failing to tackle the issue suggesting that up to between 35,000 to 50,000 early deaths per year nationwide are caused by such emissions. Responding to this latest research Professor Kelly Kings College London giving evidence to the environmental audit committee suggested that in areas that have high concentrations of particulates emitted there should be reductions in the movement of diesel powered traffic( HGV's etc) by between 20% to 30%.
This latest research is relevant to Halton council's position on the Mersey Multimodal Gateway. Although Halton Council maintain that their plans for the Multimodal Gateway would reduce HGV road traffic this reduction only relates to long haul travel. In fact HGV movements in Halton would increase dramatically in an area which has high incidences of chest related problems. I am all in favour of moving HGV traffic onto rail but I would question actually using Halton as a hub for such a distribution link because of its health related problems.
Its reckoned, in fact, that developments like the Multimodal Gateway in Halton along with other proposals will create a situation where there will be a possible increase of up to at least 600 vehicles (this figure has been obtained from information provided by Halton Borough Council and estimates from other sources) but more likely 1000 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. Maybe there will be employment for some but it is not going to have a beneficial effect on the majority of residents here when health is factored in.
It's important that the council has joined up thinking with regard to their strategic planning in the health and economic development fields.
The Lancaster University's 'Health in Halton study 2003' recommended that,"...all reasonable efforts should be made to work with industry and other organisations...to further reduce levels of pollution within the borough".
In view of the most recent research this adoption of the precautionary principle would seem to be even more relevant. The council has a duty of care to ensure that its economic development plans don't take precedence over other issues of legitimate concern to the citizens of Halton.
Tuesday 9 March 2010
Earth Hour 2010
The WWF are arranging an earth hour on Saturday March 27th at 8.30pm (its second earth hour). This is a world event aimed at publicising their activities in relation to climate change and have the world act together in one big gesture to reduce carbon emissions for one hour or more.
So if you're inclined/able please switch off all unnecessary electrical appliances get those romantic candles out and invite friends around for a drink. For further info check out their site wwf.org.uk/earthhour
WWF blurb sums it up:
'Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing people and nature, and demands urgent global action. Unless we prevent average temperatures rising 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we face a high risk of severe and irreversible changes in the planet’s natural systems'.
So if you're inclined/able please switch off all unnecessary electrical appliances get those romantic candles out and invite friends around for a drink. For further info check out their site wwf.org.uk/earthhour
WWF blurb sums it up:
'Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing people and nature, and demands urgent global action. Unless we prevent average temperatures rising 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we face a high risk of severe and irreversible changes in the planet’s natural systems'.
Thursday 4 March 2010
Dog Fouling - the answers?!
I got a response from the Environment Dept about my email to them. But it was not in the form that I'd expected.
It was a card through my door. An environmental operative had called when I was out and had left his calling card. For a split second I thought - what has my dog been up to? My dementia hasn't gone that far has it?
I later found a letter he'd dropped in at the same time which contained info about what to do if you're affected by dog owners acting irresponsibly. I summarise some of the contents of the letter below:
There's a fixed penalty of £50 for dog owners concerned and failure to comply with this carries a maximum fine of £1000.
If you observe dog fouling or have noticed an area where dog fouling is a problem you can report it to the dog warden - phone 0303 333 4300 (24 hour line).
You need to provide details of where the offence occurred, address of dog owner if known, the time of day the offence usually occurs, a description of the dog if the owner is not known.
All the information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I haven't had a chance to talk to the environment dept about the other issues I raised but I'll keep you informed. Also check out in the previous blog what to do about getting the mess clearded up.
It was a card through my door. An environmental operative had called when I was out and had left his calling card. For a split second I thought - what has my dog been up to? My dementia hasn't gone that far has it?
I later found a letter he'd dropped in at the same time which contained info about what to do if you're affected by dog owners acting irresponsibly. I summarise some of the contents of the letter below:
There's a fixed penalty of £50 for dog owners concerned and failure to comply with this carries a maximum fine of £1000.
If you observe dog fouling or have noticed an area where dog fouling is a problem you can report it to the dog warden - phone 0303 333 4300 (24 hour line).
You need to provide details of where the offence occurred, address of dog owner if known, the time of day the offence usually occurs, a description of the dog if the owner is not known.
All the information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I haven't had a chance to talk to the environment dept about the other issues I raised but I'll keep you informed. Also check out in the previous blog what to do about getting the mess clearded up.
Wednesday 24 February 2010
Dog Fouling - again
I was indirectly accosted by an irrate resident when I was out walking my dog today. An awful mess had been deposited by a dog owner on someones pavement and as I passed with my dog she shouted something like 'I wish they'd walk their dogs elsewhere'. I always feel a bit guilty in such situations even though I am a responsible dog owner.
We've been here with this one before and its a very annoying problem for most of us although I'm sure there are only a few offenders. We did contact the Dog wardens a couple of years ago and they stepped up their patrols at the time. But the problem remains and the incidents seem to be increasing.
So I've contacted the dog warden again with a question about the possibility of getting the community more involved with dealing with the problem - see below.
"There seems to have been an increase in dog fouling in the Barrows Green Lane and Moorfield Rd area. I wonder whether it would be possible for patrols to be increased.
Is there any such scheme as 'Dog Watch'? You could leaflet an area with a particularly high incident of fouling and get people to report incidents type of dog, description of owner date time of incident etc.
I'm sure you'd build up a picture of the offending owners which could be pursued by yourselves and the CPO's in the local community. Perhaps residents associations could help in the organising of such schemes".
What do you think - any (sensible) ideas? Don't forget that if the pavement outside your home is subjected to fouling contact the Highways Dept at the council (Council's general inquiry number - 0303 333 4300) and they should have it cleaned up. This will also act as a survey for the council in relation to fouling hotspots with such information being passed to the dog warden - hopefully!
We've been here with this one before and its a very annoying problem for most of us although I'm sure there are only a few offenders. We did contact the Dog wardens a couple of years ago and they stepped up their patrols at the time. But the problem remains and the incidents seem to be increasing.
So I've contacted the dog warden again with a question about the possibility of getting the community more involved with dealing with the problem - see below.
"There seems to have been an increase in dog fouling in the Barrows Green Lane and Moorfield Rd area. I wonder whether it would be possible for patrols to be increased.
Is there any such scheme as 'Dog Watch'? You could leaflet an area with a particularly high incident of fouling and get people to report incidents type of dog, description of owner date time of incident etc.
I'm sure you'd build up a picture of the offending owners which could be pursued by yourselves and the CPO's in the local community. Perhaps residents associations could help in the organising of such schemes".
What do you think - any (sensible) ideas? Don't forget that if the pavement outside your home is subjected to fouling contact the Highways Dept at the council (Council's general inquiry number - 0303 333 4300) and they should have it cleaned up. This will also act as a survey for the council in relation to fouling hotspots with such information being passed to the dog warden - hopefully!
Friday 19 February 2010
Housing Development on ‘Wildlife’ area
There’s a proposal to build up to five houses in Moorfield Rd Widnes on land that was understood by local residents to have had a covenant placed on it by the previous owner to ensure the site remained a wildlife and natural habitat area.
It seems that the housing planned will be private rather than social housing - so somebody will be making huge profits at the expense of this local amenity.
Letters of objection should be sent to Pauline Shearer, Planning Dept.,(Re Planning Application 10/00052FUL) Rutland House, Third Floor, Halton Lea, Runcorn. If you need any help with such letters please contact the Green Party.
It seems that the housing planned will be private rather than social housing - so somebody will be making huge profits at the expense of this local amenity.
Letters of objection should be sent to Pauline Shearer, Planning Dept.,(Re Planning Application 10/00052FUL) Rutland House, Third Floor, Halton Lea, Runcorn. If you need any help with such letters please contact the Green Party.
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Derby Rd Residents meeting
Attended the Derby Rd Residents meeting last night. The DRRA is now an official group but have changed their title to Widnes North Residents Association (WNRA) to broaden their catchment area. They elected a committee during the evening which is to be chaired by Peter Brewin.
There were about 40 people there - quite a few of them I hadn't seen before. Phil Drakely the Conservative councillor for Farnworth was present and he was eager to let residents know, as far as he was able, the up to date situation in terms of the council's position.
He stated that as the proposals had been passed by the council's planning committee and the work was to start in 12 days time that there was unfortunately little the group could do about the matter. This was unless the appeal that Friends of the Earth (FoE) are involved with actually went ahead. He thought it would be appropriate for the group to meet with the developers and the council to discuss the remediation process.
Peter Brewin and some other members of the newly formed committee were not too happy about this. They considered that not very much could be achieved at such meetings. It would be a case of the "wool being pulled over their eyes". A vote followed and it was agreed that residents would meet with council officials and the developers to discuss the remediation process. The consensus was that there would be no harm in having such a meeting to clarify issues.
There was a great deal of heated discussion about the fact that any movement of asbestos would carry risks and that although the developers and council would be following stringent health and safety procedures there was always the chance of dangerous particles escaping to the atmosphere. Linked to this was the matter that no environmental impact assessments had been produced by the developers.
Had a quick chat with Peter after the meeting and got the impression that an appeal would be mounted by FoE and that the planned work on the site wouldn't be commencing in 12 days.
We shall see. I remain uneasy about developers plans. As far as I'm aware the sort of specific plans proposed for the work are relatively new and there are few examples of such remedial work.
Check earlier blogs for further discussion about the issues involved.
There were about 40 people there - quite a few of them I hadn't seen before. Phil Drakely the Conservative councillor for Farnworth was present and he was eager to let residents know, as far as he was able, the up to date situation in terms of the council's position.
He stated that as the proposals had been passed by the council's planning committee and the work was to start in 12 days time that there was unfortunately little the group could do about the matter. This was unless the appeal that Friends of the Earth (FoE) are involved with actually went ahead. He thought it would be appropriate for the group to meet with the developers and the council to discuss the remediation process.
Peter Brewin and some other members of the newly formed committee were not too happy about this. They considered that not very much could be achieved at such meetings. It would be a case of the "wool being pulled over their eyes". A vote followed and it was agreed that residents would meet with council officials and the developers to discuss the remediation process. The consensus was that there would be no harm in having such a meeting to clarify issues.
There was a great deal of heated discussion about the fact that any movement of asbestos would carry risks and that although the developers and council would be following stringent health and safety procedures there was always the chance of dangerous particles escaping to the atmosphere. Linked to this was the matter that no environmental impact assessments had been produced by the developers.
Had a quick chat with Peter after the meeting and got the impression that an appeal would be mounted by FoE and that the planned work on the site wouldn't be commencing in 12 days.
We shall see. I remain uneasy about developers plans. As far as I'm aware the sort of specific plans proposed for the work are relatively new and there are few examples of such remedial work.
Check earlier blogs for further discussion about the issues involved.
Monday 8 February 2010
Nuclear Weapons - the Green response
There was a letter recently in one of the local papers asking for the general election candidates views on nuclear weapons, particularly the replacement of Britain's 'Trident' system.
I think the Green response to the issue would take as its starting point the reasons for certain nations in the world arming themselves with such devastating weapons. Putting it simply these seem to be linked to foreign policy agendas which invariably places the interests of the particular nations first and foremost.
Such interests do not directly relate to those of the average citizen but more to the differing vested interests groups within these nations, political or economic.
In terms of foreign policy the Green's stand is internationalist that is it starts from a position of cooperation between states rather than concentrating on national self interest, looking for equitable solutions to world problems. Considering that in the end only solutions that take into account the needs of all parties are viable and enduring.
Here's a quote from a recent Green Party policy document which sums this up:
"International organisations today reflect power rather than democracy. The Green Party will work towards democratising the international community, sharing power, influnce and wealth more fairly more widely. These are the foundations of peace and security for all. And secure peoples at ease with themselves seek peace rather than war".
Given this position the continuing possession of such expensive and immoral weapons is unacceptable. There would be no concievable circumstances in which they would be used.
I think the Green response to the issue would take as its starting point the reasons for certain nations in the world arming themselves with such devastating weapons. Putting it simply these seem to be linked to foreign policy agendas which invariably places the interests of the particular nations first and foremost.
Such interests do not directly relate to those of the average citizen but more to the differing vested interests groups within these nations, political or economic.
In terms of foreign policy the Green's stand is internationalist that is it starts from a position of cooperation between states rather than concentrating on national self interest, looking for equitable solutions to world problems. Considering that in the end only solutions that take into account the needs of all parties are viable and enduring.
Here's a quote from a recent Green Party policy document which sums this up:
"International organisations today reflect power rather than democracy. The Green Party will work towards democratising the international community, sharing power, influnce and wealth more fairly more widely. These are the foundations of peace and security for all. And secure peoples at ease with themselves seek peace rather than war".
Given this position the continuing possession of such expensive and immoral weapons is unacceptable. There would be no concievable circumstances in which they would be used.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Sure Start Challenges
I heard via the radio recently that Sure Start does not appear to be reaching the children and families it needs to be reaching.
Research is indicating that children accessing Sure Start programmes tend to have already received a 'sure start' owing to their family's encouragement.
Apparently it's ethnic minorities and families from low income/deprived groups who are loosing out. They are not taking up Sure Start provision because of low self esteem and not feeling comfortable in the percieved 'middle class' provision that Sure Start might represent. It's these particular groups though that such schemes were primarily designed for.
I know from personal experience that the different schemes in Halton have been beneficial to large numbers of children and families including low income/deprived groups. But perhaps now we ought to be looking at how we can target more the groups that are missing out - this might be happening in Halton I'm not sure.
I remember in the 1970's similar schemes ("Portage" and others) being run in the United States to improve educational attainment/access to community resources for particularly poor black families. They were quite succussful.
A main difference between our Sure Start programmes and these schemes was the focus in the Portage scheme for instance on providing educational and social support within the family's home. It was not so much the throwing of money in the direction of infra structure but more directing such funding to workers/teachers on the ground assisting directly with the family within the family home. Portage also tended to employ people from these communities directly in their programmes
I'm sure both centre focussed and work within families have a role to play but following this latest piece of research on accessibility to Sure Start schemes there seems to be a need for more emphasis to be placed on educational/social help within the family.
The other issue is income levels. If you are in relative poverty you have that much more of an uphill climb in all areas of living. It's obviously important to consider this factor in any attempt at improving educational attainments in low income/socially disadvantaged groups.
Research is indicating that children accessing Sure Start programmes tend to have already received a 'sure start' owing to their family's encouragement.
Apparently it's ethnic minorities and families from low income/deprived groups who are loosing out. They are not taking up Sure Start provision because of low self esteem and not feeling comfortable in the percieved 'middle class' provision that Sure Start might represent. It's these particular groups though that such schemes were primarily designed for.
I know from personal experience that the different schemes in Halton have been beneficial to large numbers of children and families including low income/deprived groups. But perhaps now we ought to be looking at how we can target more the groups that are missing out - this might be happening in Halton I'm not sure.
I remember in the 1970's similar schemes ("Portage" and others) being run in the United States to improve educational attainment/access to community resources for particularly poor black families. They were quite succussful.
A main difference between our Sure Start programmes and these schemes was the focus in the Portage scheme for instance on providing educational and social support within the family's home. It was not so much the throwing of money in the direction of infra structure but more directing such funding to workers/teachers on the ground assisting directly with the family within the family home. Portage also tended to employ people from these communities directly in their programmes
I'm sure both centre focussed and work within families have a role to play but following this latest piece of research on accessibility to Sure Start schemes there seems to be a need for more emphasis to be placed on educational/social help within the family.
The other issue is income levels. If you are in relative poverty you have that much more of an uphill climb in all areas of living. It's obviously important to consider this factor in any attempt at improving educational attainments in low income/socially disadvantaged groups.
The Green Party X Factor
Just heard that residents at Hargreaves Court have received blue bins a few days ago.
This is great news. We wrote to the council (see previous blog) when the problem had been picked up from residents during recent leafleting of the area. Was it coincidence or was it the ever encroaching Green Party X factor effect!! The bins have been produced just like that!
It seems that whenever there is a whiff of the expression of Green Party's legitimate concerns about anything in Halton View ward weird things start happening like the council doing something right away. There have been other incidences, Fiddlers Ferry fallout a few years ago, HGV traffic etc
Although it could all be my wishful thinking - but it's great that its happening and I suspect that this particular X factor effect will become even more significant when we get our first Green councillor on the council and not just in Halton View ward.
Roll on that May day!!
This is great news. We wrote to the council (see previous blog) when the problem had been picked up from residents during recent leafleting of the area. Was it coincidence or was it the ever encroaching Green Party X factor effect!! The bins have been produced just like that!
It seems that whenever there is a whiff of the expression of Green Party's legitimate concerns about anything in Halton View ward weird things start happening like the council doing something right away. There have been other incidences, Fiddlers Ferry fallout a few years ago, HGV traffic etc
Although it could all be my wishful thinking - but it's great that its happening and I suspect that this particular X factor effect will become even more significant when we get our first Green councillor on the council and not just in Halton View ward.
Roll on that May day!!
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Blue Bins Needed
I was asked by a resident of Hargreaves Court about blue bag recycling collections recently. Theirs had not been collected since the beginning of December and they wondered what was happening.
It also is the case that currently Hargreaves Court residents have not been provided with blue bins which obviously are much easier to use and less messy than bin bags.
I contacted the council about these matters and received this response:
"Thank you for your enquiry regarding the blue bag collections at Hargreaves Court. All blue bag paper collections have been suspended until Monday 25th January. After this date the bags will be collected on the usual day- weather permitting. The next paper bag collections for Hargreaves Court are Monday 25th January, Monday 8th February and Monday 22nd February. Once again these collections are dependent on the weather conditions at the time. Despite our best efforts, it may not be possible to collect all bins and bags in some parts of the borough, due to risk of injury to refuse collectors and members of the public. Please bear with us during these exceptional circumstances.
In answer to your other question, for the time being, Hargreaves Court will remain on a paper bag collection. However, it is our intention to work towards multi-material recycling bins throughout the borough.
I hope that this information is helpful".
I'd suggest that residents keep contacting their local councillors about the provision of such bins.
It also is the case that currently Hargreaves Court residents have not been provided with blue bins which obviously are much easier to use and less messy than bin bags.
I contacted the council about these matters and received this response:
"Thank you for your enquiry regarding the blue bag collections at Hargreaves Court. All blue bag paper collections have been suspended until Monday 25th January. After this date the bags will be collected on the usual day- weather permitting. The next paper bag collections for Hargreaves Court are Monday 25th January, Monday 8th February and Monday 22nd February. Once again these collections are dependent on the weather conditions at the time. Despite our best efforts, it may not be possible to collect all bins and bags in some parts of the borough, due to risk of injury to refuse collectors and members of the public. Please bear with us during these exceptional circumstances.
In answer to your other question, for the time being, Hargreaves Court will remain on a paper bag collection. However, it is our intention to work towards multi-material recycling bins throughout the borough.
I hope that this information is helpful".
I'd suggest that residents keep contacting their local councillors about the provision of such bins.
Tuesday 12 January 2010
Eternit Planning Meeting
As you might have heard via BBC local news the council has given the green light to the Eternit proposals.
I attended the meeting and it seemed to me that such a result was a forgone conclusion. There were a couple councillors who asked questions about the remediation work but both were in favour of the projects.
Jason Addy the spokesperson for the residents (DRRA) had the usual five minutes to represent the residents position. He concentrated on requesting that the matter be deferred and that an environmental impact assessment should be carried out prior to the proposal coming before the committee again. This, he maintained, would be a win win situation for all parties.
He suggested that the planning expertise, UK wide, in relation to asbestos remediation work and its consequences were not very developed and that current practice relating to assessing types of asbestos concentrations on sites was inadequate.
One conservative councillor who was not on the planning committee and spoke in favour of two of the proposals praised council officers for their diligent work concerning the matter. He generally could not fault the detailed plans that had been drawn up to ensure the projects safety and felt that residents had had access to the detailed planning involved in the proposal. He suggested that the capping option favoured by the DRRA was not viable. I understood this to mean that it would be too costly.
The councillor went over the 5 minute time limit and several residents complained about this but were informed that councillors were allocated more time than the general public.
I think it was useful for everyone that the councillor was provided with this time and was enabled to finish what he wanted to say. Unfortunately this contrasted with the way Jason Addy was dealt with in that he was unable to finish his presentation. This seemed to me to fly in the face of natural justice.
A minor point perhaps particularly as it seems unlikely that whatever he had said in his conclusions would have made any difference to the outcome of the meeting. Also perhaps it was a situation that was unavoidable given the council's protocol. But it did not add to residents feelings that their views had been properly considered. I suspect they came away from this meeting very disillusioned with local democracy.
I don't know whether the proposals that have been accepted by the council are the most viable and safest way, given the circumstances, of dealing with the site - perhaps they are. What I do feel though is that in situations were health and safety is an important factor, particularly in dealing with the emotive issue of abestos material, that an environmental impact assessment on each of the three proposals should have been carried out - for the sake of everybody.
I understand that the DRRA are considering to appeal against the decision.
I attended the meeting and it seemed to me that such a result was a forgone conclusion. There were a couple councillors who asked questions about the remediation work but both were in favour of the projects.
Jason Addy the spokesperson for the residents (DRRA) had the usual five minutes to represent the residents position. He concentrated on requesting that the matter be deferred and that an environmental impact assessment should be carried out prior to the proposal coming before the committee again. This, he maintained, would be a win win situation for all parties.
He suggested that the planning expertise, UK wide, in relation to asbestos remediation work and its consequences were not very developed and that current practice relating to assessing types of asbestos concentrations on sites was inadequate.
One conservative councillor who was not on the planning committee and spoke in favour of two of the proposals praised council officers for their diligent work concerning the matter. He generally could not fault the detailed plans that had been drawn up to ensure the projects safety and felt that residents had had access to the detailed planning involved in the proposal. He suggested that the capping option favoured by the DRRA was not viable. I understood this to mean that it would be too costly.
The councillor went over the 5 minute time limit and several residents complained about this but were informed that councillors were allocated more time than the general public.
I think it was useful for everyone that the councillor was provided with this time and was enabled to finish what he wanted to say. Unfortunately this contrasted with the way Jason Addy was dealt with in that he was unable to finish his presentation. This seemed to me to fly in the face of natural justice.
A minor point perhaps particularly as it seems unlikely that whatever he had said in his conclusions would have made any difference to the outcome of the meeting. Also perhaps it was a situation that was unavoidable given the council's protocol. But it did not add to residents feelings that their views had been properly considered. I suspect they came away from this meeting very disillusioned with local democracy.
I don't know whether the proposals that have been accepted by the council are the most viable and safest way, given the circumstances, of dealing with the site - perhaps they are. What I do feel though is that in situations were health and safety is an important factor, particularly in dealing with the emotive issue of abestos material, that an environmental impact assessment on each of the three proposals should have been carried out - for the sake of everybody.
I understand that the DRRA are considering to appeal against the decision.
Monday 11 January 2010
Eternit and the Council - is it Fair?
The council's planning development committee will be meeting tonight to discuss the Eternit proposal.
Council officers have considered the proposal and will be recommending it goes through given that certain conditions are accepted by the developers.
The Derby Road Residents Association (DRRA) is very concermed that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) has not taken place prior to a decision being made about the proposal. The DRRA has been questioning the council about the reasons why it is going ahead without carrying out such an assessment. The council has to date not responded to these requests.
The Green Party too has been in contact with the council about it's concerns regarding the proposal and has requested that among other things an EIA ought be carried out before any decisions are made regarding the matter.
I am unsure of council procedures but think it unfair that the council have not been able to provide the DRRA with their reasoning regarding it not being necessary for an EIA to be carried out before the proposal is considered. If they had provided such information the DRRA would have been in a better position at tonight's council meeting to argue their case.
It could well be that on balance the council's arguments outweigh those of the DRRA's and that taking everything into consideration that the proposal provides the safest way to deal with the asbestos contamination. Let's face it this proposal, if it goes ahead, will cost the council tax payer less than it would if the council had to deal with the site in the future. But Derby Road residents should be given the opportunity to argue their case fairly for their sakes and our's.
The meeting tonight is at Runcorn Town Hall at 6.30pm - please attend if you can. Its important that the council are made aware of people's concerns about the issue. It could well be that the DRRA might legally challenge a decision for the proposal to go ahead if such were made tonight - so its important for local democracy that as many people go along to the meeting to show the extent of feeling about the matter.
Council officers have considered the proposal and will be recommending it goes through given that certain conditions are accepted by the developers.
The Derby Road Residents Association (DRRA) is very concermed that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) has not taken place prior to a decision being made about the proposal. The DRRA has been questioning the council about the reasons why it is going ahead without carrying out such an assessment. The council has to date not responded to these requests.
The Green Party too has been in contact with the council about it's concerns regarding the proposal and has requested that among other things an EIA ought be carried out before any decisions are made regarding the matter.
I am unsure of council procedures but think it unfair that the council have not been able to provide the DRRA with their reasoning regarding it not being necessary for an EIA to be carried out before the proposal is considered. If they had provided such information the DRRA would have been in a better position at tonight's council meeting to argue their case.
It could well be that on balance the council's arguments outweigh those of the DRRA's and that taking everything into consideration that the proposal provides the safest way to deal with the asbestos contamination. Let's face it this proposal, if it goes ahead, will cost the council tax payer less than it would if the council had to deal with the site in the future. But Derby Road residents should be given the opportunity to argue their case fairly for their sakes and our's.
The meeting tonight is at Runcorn Town Hall at 6.30pm - please attend if you can. Its important that the council are made aware of people's concerns about the issue. It could well be that the DRRA might legally challenge a decision for the proposal to go ahead if such were made tonight - so its important for local democracy that as many people go along to the meeting to show the extent of feeling about the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)