Peter Cranie is a contender for the Green Party leadership contest which will follow the standing down of Caroline Lucas in September (the Green Party is the only political party in the UK that has a policy of rotating its leader).
Peter was really instrumental here in Halton in our achieving our best results when we nearly took seats off Labour and Lib Dems(Halton View ward (130 votes short) and Kingsway ward (114 votes short).
It's going to be quite a challenge for the next leader of the Green Party to follow Caroline Lucas's act but I consider Peter is up to it.
He is a down to earth, genuine person who has the gift of being able to put people at their ease. But also he has the political acumen to deal with the challenges he's likely to face and the vision and strength to see the party through its current developmental stage.
And it won't be such a bad thing, if he is successful, to have as a leader someone who has their roots in the north west here.
I wish him all the best in the contest.
Friday 8 June 2012
Thursday 27 October 2011
Green's Position on EU Referendum
Thought this might be of interest - a recent statement made by Caroline Lucas Green MP in the recent debate on the EU and holding a referundum:-
"My starting point is that there are good democratic reasons for those in favour of our continued membership of the EU, albeit a reformed EU, to support a referendum. I believe that it is precisely the refusal to give people a say on the EU that is leading to greater public disillusionment with it. It is precisely that that leads people to think that the EU is an elitist project which is done to them and which is not in the interests of the majority. I do not agree with that position, but I think it right that it should be debated.
I believe that the EU has enormous potential to spread peace, freedom and security, to promote and protect democracy and human rights—at home and throughout the world. It has the potential to be a true pioneer in the transition to low-carbon economies and living more rightly on the planet. I believe that to fulfil that potential, however, it has to change direction and put greater democracy and greater sustainability at the heart of its objectives. I think having a referendum would enable us to debate the end-goal or purpose of the EU. At the moment we have lots of debates about whether we want more or less EU without answering the question, “To what purpose the EU?”
For many Conservative Members, the answer will be that they want the EU, if they want it at all, to have far more of a free trade focus. For my party, we think it has too much of a free trade focus, but that is not the issue. The issue here is the right of the people to say what they want, the right to have that debate and the right for us to differ, as necessary, but none the less to have that debate about the advantages and, indeed, some disadvantages of the EU.
In my experience, many of today’s European citizens are simply no longer sure what the EU is for. In my view, the ambitious free trade project at the heart of its original treatise has become an end in itself. Debates about the future of the EU have been dominated by the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged in terms of economic growth and the removal of market barriers alone. As a result, the EU has failed to address fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has therefore also failed to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of enthusiasm and common cause, thus calling into question its own legitimacy.
In order to tackle the new threats and challenges we face today and to deliver a fair, sustainable and peaceful Europe into the 21st century and beyond, the EU must undergo radical reform. It must become more democratic and accountable, less bureaucratic and remote. It also needs to have a more compelling vision of its role and purpose, and a referendum would provide an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. To try to shut down that opportunity is, I think, very dangerous. It is possible to be pro a reformed EU and in favour of a referendum.
I agree that there are plenty of areas where the EU needs reform. The common agricultural policy is in many respects an environmental disaster. The common fisheries policy ends up with enormous over-fishing and the scandal of discards. Unaccountable corporate influence over decision making skews the outcome of many decisions. There is an extraordinary arrogance, for example, in dressing up the Lisbon treaty as something different from the repackaging of the constitution that it really was.
I believe that, more urgently than ever, we need the EU to fulfil its potential for strong environmental policy and for securing energy policy and energy security into the future. If it is to do that, however, it must have the consent of the British people. We need to make the case for a reformed EU. We should not be afraid of making that case. I believe that if we make it strongly, we will win it, which is why I support tonight’s proposal for a referendum".
Saturday 16 July 2011
Help the fight against the incinerator!
Sorry that this is such a long meandering blog but it is important so please bear with us. The proposed INEOS incinerator development at Runcorn is now coming to a head. If the Application to vary Condition 57 is accepted it will not just mean an increase in the dangerous emissions that will affect the local area but also a boost to the numbers of HGV's operating in Halton.
All of us in Widnes and Runcorn will be affected. This is of course in an area which has the highest tonnage and widest range of chemicals emitted to the atmosphere. And with the council's plans to make Halton one of the largest distributive hubs in the region the present proposals are going to mean a substantial increase to the numbers of HGV's on Halton's roads already in the pipeline. None of the other political parties are making any fuss about the health dangers inherent in the current schemes. Take a look at the 1/02/11 blog here for a background to the dangers of HGV particulate emissions.
Currently the main group campaigning about the issue HAGATI have recently begun legal proceedings. Jeff Meehan one of the campaigners has recently sent me a couple of e-mails related to the situation.
Jeff says,
"As you will be aware the decision to decide on the Application by Ineos to vary Condition 57 has been deferred until the 15th August, we are working hard to try and hopefully put together a compelling case for the Councillors to refuse the application.
The current major issue is that INEOS have applied for a variation on Condition 57 which Halton Borough Council laid down to ensure the protection and safety of residents. INEOS now want to increase the amount of waste being delivered by road, from 85,000 tonnes per year to a whopping 480,000 tonnes per year. This will result in 384 Heavy Goods Vehicle movements per day to and from the INEOS site alone, (not to mention the traffic for their personnel) contributing to the exceptionally high amount of traffic using the Runcorn Expressway, Westfield Interchange, and the Silver Jubilee Bridge not only affecting congestion and nuisance, but will increase the very high levels of traffic pollution.
It beggars belief that the Widnes Councillors now see this as a purely parochial problem for Weston Point residents. If any of your members could lobby the Widnes Councillors, if only to remind them that the 384 lorries a day, if they are bringing waste from Warrington or anywhere North of the Mersey will in fact pass through Widnes and will certainly not make the situation on the Silver Jubilee Bridge any better, it would be a great help".
THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
HAGATI NEEDS YOUR HELP
HAGATI has now begun legal proceedings
and we need everyone's financial help
PLEASE SUPPORT HAGATI
by donating £5 towards our legal battle against the Incinerator
The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) to which we have previously referred, has agreed to take on our case. Our QC, Mr Stephen Tromans, one of the most distinguished men in his area of specialization is acting on our behalf together with solicitors Richard Buxton. Obviously, we cannot reveal the full details but we can tell you that we and our legal team are confident that our case will be heard favourably.
Legal proceedings do not come cheap, and although we are subject to some legal aid, we have to make a contribution towards the costs. The amount required to initiate proceedings is reachable if everyone who is supportive of our aim contributes at least £5. If you can give more to substitute those who are less able, then please do so. Any amount will help tremendously but please act quickly – we have a deadline to meet !
You can donate in different ways:-
By cash:-
Telephone a Committee Member and we will collect
Jeff Meehan - Chairman 01928 581171
Sue Bowden - Secretary 01928 572311
By cheque / postal order (made payable to HAGATI) to:-
Alan Gorry, Treasurer, 81 Moughland Lane, Runcorn, WA7 4SG
Tel:- -01928 572298By direct transfer to our Bank:-
Nat West, 53 High Street, Runcorn, WA7 1AW
Payee Halton Action Group Against The IncineratorSort Code 60-18-06
Account 15547809
This may be the last chance to save Runcorn from this terrible mistake
Help keep the environment clean for our children
THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER
Tuesday 26 April 2011
The Alternative Vote - why YES!
I thought Peter Cranie's views on AV ought to be given an airing here:
"This is a choice between a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can vote once, and a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can express your preferences. The latter is preferable in my opinion, and I will be voting in favour of the change. I think the outlook for an increase on our single MP in the next parliament will be increased by the switch to AV, but my reason for voting in favour will be to keep pushing the door for genuine reform.
AV will show that increasingly people want to cast their vote for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives. In the face of this evidence, further electoral reform will follow. Under FPTP, preferences will remain masked by tactical voting considerations and instead of further reform, the failure of this referendum will be used by Labour and Conservative politicians alike to keep reform off the agenda for another generation. I believe it will be a very close vote and that it will be narrowly won by those arguing in favour of reform, but we shall see".
Please consider voting YES next week.
"This is a choice between a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can vote once, and a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can express your preferences. The latter is preferable in my opinion, and I will be voting in favour of the change. I think the outlook for an increase on our single MP in the next parliament will be increased by the switch to AV, but my reason for voting in favour will be to keep pushing the door for genuine reform.
AV will show that increasingly people want to cast their vote for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives. In the face of this evidence, further electoral reform will follow. Under FPTP, preferences will remain masked by tactical voting considerations and instead of further reform, the failure of this referendum will be used by Labour and Conservative politicians alike to keep reform off the agenda for another generation. I believe it will be a very close vote and that it will be narrowly won by those arguing in favour of reform, but we shall see".
Please consider voting YES next week.
Wednesday 23 March 2011
Budget is "betrayal of our future"
Caroline Lucas's response to todays budget:
"In his determination to balance the nation's finances, George Osborne has forgotten that living within our means is also about natural resources. This budget is an attempt to return us to the failed policies of the past - unsustainable growth based on dwindling and ever-more expensive resources.
"The Chancellor had five opportunities to deliver a budget for the future, that could have turned the growing crisis over energy resources and climate change into a catalyst for creating much-needed jobs and wealth in new energy efficiency and renewable industries."
The Green Party, with leading environmental and conservation groups, had identified five key areas where the Chancellor could act to help tackle climate change and boost jobs and sustainable growth.
* The Green Investment Bank: this should have been the key to unlocking the £450 billion in finance for renewable energy needed in the next fifteen years. Instead, by creating a bank that cannot borrow, its impact will be limited to the original £3 billion funding.
* Carbon Floor Prices: at £30 a ton, the new levy on carbon will not be high enough to promote low-carbon energy. But it will give nuclear power companies a windfall subsidy of anything from £1.3 billion to £3 billion - paid for by the "hard-pressed families" George Osborne claims to want to help.(1)
* Transport: taxing the excess profits of North Sea oil companies is welcome; but it would have been better spent on protecting rural bus services, which are even more crucial to isolated communities and the poorest in society than the cost of fuel. Instead, by cutting fuel duty the Government is pretending that high fuel prices are temporary, rather than an inevitable consequence of dwindling supplies and unchecked demand.
* Environmental taxes: though George Osborne claims the proportion of revenue raised from green taxes will rise, the decision to postpone the rise in the Aggregates Levy and to scrap the planned rise in Air Passenger Duty will reduce revenue from environmental taxes by £160 million. It will also encourage more people to holiday abroad, hitting UK resorts.
* Zero Carbon Homes: property developers were expecting to have to contribute towards community renewable energy generation in order to offset the remainder of the emissions from new homes, which, from 2016, have to be zero carbon. In the budget, the Chancellor has changed the rules to exclude emissions from appliances, which means that supposedly ‘zero-carbon' homes would in fact create carbon emissions for years to come. It will also undermine many community energy schemes.(2)
In addition, the Chancellor announced a weakening in the protection for the countryside and green space with changes to the planning system, putting precious landscapes and habitats in even greater risk. Caroline said:
"In Opposition, George Osborne pledged that "If I become Chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe."(1). Now he is power, we see the reality. This budget contains nothing to shift us away from our dependency on oil and gas, nothing to take advantage of the potential of new technologies such as wind, wave and tide, and precious little to encourage investment in renewable industries.
"Instead, he has gone for the gesture of a penny off fuel duty. It gives drivers the false comfort that as fuel prices rise, the government will cut fuel duty. The reality is that petrol is a dwindling resource and we need to help people with alternatives, such as public transport. But while Osborne could find £2 billion for petrol, there was not a penny today for buses or trains.
"The depressing truth is that, rather than being the greenest government ever, this Conservative-led coalition is less green that John Major's administration, who introduced the fuel duty escalator, boosted energy efficiency and protection for threatened habitats. That this should be a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is doubly shocking."
NOTES
1) The Government's own analysis (by Redpoint for HMT and DECC) is that the subsidy will be £1.33 billion; WWF estimate it at £3 billion.
2) http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf (p.117)
"In his determination to balance the nation's finances, George Osborne has forgotten that living within our means is also about natural resources. This budget is an attempt to return us to the failed policies of the past - unsustainable growth based on dwindling and ever-more expensive resources.
"The Chancellor had five opportunities to deliver a budget for the future, that could have turned the growing crisis over energy resources and climate change into a catalyst for creating much-needed jobs and wealth in new energy efficiency and renewable industries."
The Green Party, with leading environmental and conservation groups, had identified five key areas where the Chancellor could act to help tackle climate change and boost jobs and sustainable growth.
* The Green Investment Bank: this should have been the key to unlocking the £450 billion in finance for renewable energy needed in the next fifteen years. Instead, by creating a bank that cannot borrow, its impact will be limited to the original £3 billion funding.
* Carbon Floor Prices: at £30 a ton, the new levy on carbon will not be high enough to promote low-carbon energy. But it will give nuclear power companies a windfall subsidy of anything from £1.3 billion to £3 billion - paid for by the "hard-pressed families" George Osborne claims to want to help.(1)
* Transport: taxing the excess profits of North Sea oil companies is welcome; but it would have been better spent on protecting rural bus services, which are even more crucial to isolated communities and the poorest in society than the cost of fuel. Instead, by cutting fuel duty the Government is pretending that high fuel prices are temporary, rather than an inevitable consequence of dwindling supplies and unchecked demand.
* Environmental taxes: though George Osborne claims the proportion of revenue raised from green taxes will rise, the decision to postpone the rise in the Aggregates Levy and to scrap the planned rise in Air Passenger Duty will reduce revenue from environmental taxes by £160 million. It will also encourage more people to holiday abroad, hitting UK resorts.
* Zero Carbon Homes: property developers were expecting to have to contribute towards community renewable energy generation in order to offset the remainder of the emissions from new homes, which, from 2016, have to be zero carbon. In the budget, the Chancellor has changed the rules to exclude emissions from appliances, which means that supposedly ‘zero-carbon' homes would in fact create carbon emissions for years to come. It will also undermine many community energy schemes.(2)
In addition, the Chancellor announced a weakening in the protection for the countryside and green space with changes to the planning system, putting precious landscapes and habitats in even greater risk. Caroline said:
"In Opposition, George Osborne pledged that "If I become Chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe."(1). Now he is power, we see the reality. This budget contains nothing to shift us away from our dependency on oil and gas, nothing to take advantage of the potential of new technologies such as wind, wave and tide, and precious little to encourage investment in renewable industries.
"Instead, he has gone for the gesture of a penny off fuel duty. It gives drivers the false comfort that as fuel prices rise, the government will cut fuel duty. The reality is that petrol is a dwindling resource and we need to help people with alternatives, such as public transport. But while Osborne could find £2 billion for petrol, there was not a penny today for buses or trains.
"The depressing truth is that, rather than being the greenest government ever, this Conservative-led coalition is less green that John Major's administration, who introduced the fuel duty escalator, boosted energy efficiency and protection for threatened habitats. That this should be a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is doubly shocking."
NOTES
1) The Government's own analysis (by Redpoint for HMT and DECC) is that the subsidy will be £1.33 billion; WWF estimate it at £3 billion.
2) http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf (p.117)
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Will Libya be Cameron's Shot in the Arm?
I’m pleased Caroline Lucas, our one and only Green MP, voted against continuing Britain's military involvement in Libya.
There are so many valid arguments for not getting involved in the conflict even when it’s just about protecting innocent civilians i.e. hypocrisy,what about similar situations in other countries; the costs of involvement at a time when we’re all tightening our belts; the possible opened ended nature of the involvement; the tricky nature of the tasks involved, and so on.
Also the majority of us see regime change as the ultimate goal. Here I think caution needs to be exercised. For the simple reason that Gaddafi, irrespective of the tyrannical figure he presents, probably has a lot more support in Libya than we want to believe.
A couple of years ago I had some contact with a Libyan family who were staying in Widnes as the father was on a technical course at Halton College (now Riverside). The family had a meal with us and during our conversation I talked to them about Gaddafi and what they thought about his regime.
They seemed to accept the status quo in Libya – as long as they didn’t step out of line they were OK. They had community meetings were any problems they had could be thrashed out in a communal way. They were not particularly pro Gaddafi and were aware of his many faults but they were doing all right - no reason to rock the boat.
Being an extreme liberal with socialist and Green tendencies I found this incredible. But their calm response was that it was an imbedded cultural phenomenon. They kept saying that people were reasonably well off in Libya and Gaddafi was canny enough to exploit this.
A couple of issues – first, revolutions that are successful have to be overwhelmingly popular – is this the case with this revolution? I don’t know. Second - a population which presumes itself to be under assault from foreign forces, even though it might not be particularly supportive of its ruler, will rally to his call in such circumstances.
Anyway, Maggie Thatcher had her Falklands in the early 1980’s to provide her with a new lease of life - will Libya be David Cameron’s and the coalitions shot in the arm given its current stormy passage, or not? Only time will tell.
There are so many valid arguments for not getting involved in the conflict even when it’s just about protecting innocent civilians i.e. hypocrisy,what about similar situations in other countries; the costs of involvement at a time when we’re all tightening our belts; the possible opened ended nature of the involvement; the tricky nature of the tasks involved, and so on.
Also the majority of us see regime change as the ultimate goal. Here I think caution needs to be exercised. For the simple reason that Gaddafi, irrespective of the tyrannical figure he presents, probably has a lot more support in Libya than we want to believe.
A couple of years ago I had some contact with a Libyan family who were staying in Widnes as the father was on a technical course at Halton College (now Riverside). The family had a meal with us and during our conversation I talked to them about Gaddafi and what they thought about his regime.
They seemed to accept the status quo in Libya – as long as they didn’t step out of line they were OK. They had community meetings were any problems they had could be thrashed out in a communal way. They were not particularly pro Gaddafi and were aware of his many faults but they were doing all right - no reason to rock the boat.
Being an extreme liberal with socialist and Green tendencies I found this incredible. But their calm response was that it was an imbedded cultural phenomenon. They kept saying that people were reasonably well off in Libya and Gaddafi was canny enough to exploit this.
A couple of issues – first, revolutions that are successful have to be overwhelmingly popular – is this the case with this revolution? I don’t know. Second - a population which presumes itself to be under assault from foreign forces, even though it might not be particularly supportive of its ruler, will rally to his call in such circumstances.
Anyway, Maggie Thatcher had her Falklands in the early 1980’s to provide her with a new lease of life - will Libya be David Cameron’s and the coalitions shot in the arm given its current stormy passage, or not? Only time will tell.
Sunday 20 March 2011
Halton's Poor Position on Microgeneration.
Halton has come third from bottom out of 38 council areas in the north west in relation to the amount of energy microgeneration produced in its locality. Microgeneration is energy generated from solar and wind sources (including domestically) linked to the feed in tariff scheme. Have a look at Ofgem data on the 'AEA Energy Consultants' website here for further details: http://www.aeat.com/microgenerationindex/ .
Like in all the other areas in the region Halton's residents have not recieved much help in such endeavours in the form of government grants compared with other European countries ( we're near the bottom of the European league here) from the previous Labour government and I wouldn't hold your breath about what the Coalition is going to do about microgeneration but perhaps I'll be proved wrong. It's a shame really there would be many advantages.
For instance Halton could emulate a scheme that Green councillors championed in Huddersfield (Kirklees) that enabled residents to obtain financial help in the form of loans to assist people in purchasing solar energy panels. This stimulated the local green economy and lowered energy bills for residents in the longer term and helped lower the carbon footprint of the area.
Like in all the other areas in the region Halton's residents have not recieved much help in such endeavours in the form of government grants compared with other European countries ( we're near the bottom of the European league here) from the previous Labour government and I wouldn't hold your breath about what the Coalition is going to do about microgeneration but perhaps I'll be proved wrong. It's a shame really there would be many advantages.
For instance Halton could emulate a scheme that Green councillors championed in Huddersfield (Kirklees) that enabled residents to obtain financial help in the form of loans to assist people in purchasing solar energy panels. This stimulated the local green economy and lowered energy bills for residents in the longer term and helped lower the carbon footprint of the area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)