Monthly Archives: March 2013

We Need to Talk about Democracy

DemocracyThis year’s County Council elections take place against a background of deep cuts to funding that are restricting the ability of all Councils to carry out their functions. One of the purposes of the cuts is to force Councils to look for different ways of discharging their responsibilities, compelling them to look for private providers. They are also a brutal reminder of the political power structure in this country. Despite all the Tories talk about localism, this structure is strictly top down; local government being little more than an agent of central government. What little power remains at the local level is being deliberately eroded by this Government with its policy of cutting council budgets. Eric Pickles, the minister responsible for Local Government has a simplistic vision of the role of Councils, which is to be no more than a commissioning authority. In his ideal world, they would meet just once a year to allocate contracts to private companies that would provide all public services - this meeting to be followed no doubt by a lavish celebratory meal.

Our system of local government has its origins in Saxon England when the Shires were established, each divided in to Hundreds that took responsibility for the management of day to day affairs. Since then we have seen the growth in power of the nation state, and the domination of local affairs by the interests of central Government. Now we are seeing this process take a new direction with the functions of Councils being handed to private companies. We are seeing the interests of the community secondary to the drive to cut costs and make profits. These are profound changes that are happening without any serious debate or understanding as to where they will lead. Opposition to Government cuts is missing the bigger question of the role of Local Government in a modern democracy. This Government is effectively destroying local Government that has its traditions in Saxon England, and replacing it with private interests that have more in common with the Norman Barons’ feudal system of the total subordination of communities to the interests and desires of the Feudal Lord.

Just as Greens deplore the emasculation of local democracy by private and unaccountable interests, so do we oppose the increasing centralisation of political power within the Whitehall machine that has been going on since the Second World War. We are a democratic party and see this concentration of power and the growth of the associated bureaucracy as a threat to democracy. The concentration of power takes us along the road that ends in dictatorship, where the interests of the few transcend those of the many. We support the devolution of power, not only to the British Nations, and not only from Europe, but most significantly from Westminster down to Local Government. For us, nothing should be done at a higher level of government that could be done equally well or better at a lower level.

For Greens, the highest form of democracy is direct participation. This principle has been all but eroded by the centralisation of power encouraged by both right and left wing governments. However, we find it most encouraging that the desire for people to be involved in decision making and to make their voice heard is far from dead. The growth and popularity of electronic campaigning coupled with direct action is forcing central government and even powerful corporations to take note of the views of ordinary people. The numerous U turns by this Government, from the climb-down on the sale of the public forest estate to its dropping the forced tendering Orders for the NHS is testimony to people power.

It follows therefore that for us, the heart of democratic power should lie in the communities where people live. Representative Community Councils should then delegate up to higher levels those functions that are better coordinated over a wider area, and finance would follow that delegation of function. The dog would take back control of its tail; higher levels of Government would be required to attend to the needs and interests of the collective communities. Idealistic yes, but this is the model on which we approach government. It is the complete opposite of the present structure of top down authoritarian finger wagging that treats us so badly and with such contempt. With a clear vision, we can then identify the steps necessary take us on our way, and promote policies that will help not hinder our progress towards a participatory democracy.

For this reason we support freedom of information and transparent government since democratic participation requires citizens to be able to access the information they need in order to be able to take part in decision-making. This is why authoritarian government is secretive. The best form of democratic involvement for large-scale activity is voting, in elections and referenda, in such a way that the outcome reflects the pattern of voting which itself represents peoples considered wishes, and where no vote is wasted. This is why we want electoral reform.

Democracy requires cooperation across communities and between different political structures so that the interests of one group don’t violate the legitimate interests of another. We know that divisions, intolerance, prejudice, wide inequalities and failures in communication all weaken communities and preclude such co-operation. For this reason we campaign for a Bill of Rights and a written Constitution so that citizens are aware of both their rights and their responsibilities and those of their fellow citizens. This is why we will work to build a more equal and tolerant society.

The rampant inequalities that both Labour, Conservative and now the ConDem Coalition have allowed to build up in our society are counter to functional democracy. Their collective refusal to address social inequality demonstrates their disdain for the ordinary citizen, and leaves the Green as the only Party for Democracy. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Democracy.

[Mike Shipley March 2013]

Poverty and Climate Change: Can we afford not to vote Green?

Originally posted on East Midlands Green Party Blog:

please sir I want some more cartoon

The government chief scientist recently warned of climate change causing massive problems in our life-times. Local Green Party candidate Katharina Bottege answered “Look out of your window, it is happening now.” With chief scientist of present government warning of increased extremes in weather and problems with food, water and energy security, this post looks at how this is happening here, now and how we recognise it in increasing poverty and social injustice. Our government says we cannot afford to take action against climate change despite their wasting of billions on failing systems. The Green Party says we cannot afford not to deal with climate change. Positive action against climate change can limit poverty and increase economic and social stability.

Climate change creeps into our lives in a million different ways, poverty is one of them. On one icy day last week I spoke with two ‘strangers’ about the effect of climate…

View original 1,007 more words

TIME FOR ‘PLAN G’: STOP FAILED AUSTERITY AND INVEST IN THE BILLION POUND GREEN ECONOMY

Originally posted on Northants Green Party's Blog:

CarolineRESPONDING TO THE BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENT, GREEN MP CAROLINE LUCAS (BRIGHTON PAVILION) SAID: “Amidst the tax breaks for shale gas and boastful roadbuilding pledges, there is one huge green economy-shaped hole in this flailing Chancellor’s Budget.

“With the UK’s green economy now worth over £120bn – 9% of GDP – providing nearly a million jobs and generating a third of our most recent economic growth according to the CBI, it is completely inexplicable that George Osborne keeps pretending it doesn’t exist.

“Given the huge potential of green industries and clean energy generation to provide British jobs and prosperity, as well as the obvious environmental benefits they will deliver, it’s time to drop austerity and go for Plan G.

“There’s no doubt that the cuts have failed – now we need urgent investment in nationwide green infrastructure to stabilise the economy, tackle the environmental crisis and deliver clean and secure energy for…

View original 486 more words

A Policy for Youth

Portrait of a young boy crossing guard standing on the road holding a stop signIn a remarkable piece of Orwellian ‘Newspeak’ the Tories running DCC are trying to claim that their proposed budget cuts to the County Youth Service were in fact part of an ambitious plan to make youth provision in the County ‘Bigger and Better’. Their original plan to axe all youth clubs and to scale back its professional youth workers met with such an outcry of opposition that the Council has been forced into a rapid rethink, which they are trying to dress up as the product of a consultation. One is forced to wonder why they didn’t think to consult first and avoid all the uncertainty for young people, parents and workers.

Adults have a moral responsibility to ensure there is adequate provision for young people in society, enabling them to develop and mature into citizens who are able, in time to take over the running of society. It is wrong to think that we can cut and privatise youth services, leaving them to the whims of ‘the market’, as if youth provision was some sort of expendable luxury. It is not. It is a necessity, never more so than in times of economic hardship and high youth unemployment.

Young people face the same range of problems that adults do, but of course they can lack the experience of knowing how to handle them. It is in our collective interest to ensure that they are able to find and implement solutions to these problems before they become deep seated and built in to the fabric of the emerging adult. Of course some of these problems can be properly handled by parents or by close relatives, some can be addressed at school, but in many instances this is not enough. A young person may feel unable to approach a parent or simply doesn’t have the opportunity to do so and teachers might seem too remote. In the absence of any other provision, they will turn to friends, who also lack experience, to the internet, that may give poor advice, or fall into a fantasy world making up strategies that have no basis in reality.

??????????????????????????????????????To give structure to a youth service, the Green Party supports the introduction of ‘youth schools’ in every community, as found in some European countries such as Denmark. These are informal, but professionally managed providing a safe place for young people to go and meet out of school hours. They are like an enhanced youth club but offering a much wider range of activities, and free at the point of use. In addition to structured courses along the lines of adult evening classes, they offer the opportunity for socialising and for finding informal but informed advice, attendance is voluntary and the management aims to be inclusive.

Green education policy recognises the importance of involving young people in the design and content of their education. This is taken from article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any policy relating to youth provision must closely involve young people themselves. It is not enough to ask them what they want, often they will not know. Why should they? It is adults who have the understanding of what works and of what is possible, and who hold the purse strings. But they must ensure that what is being provided does meet young people’s needs and not the needs and wishes of the older generation. We want to see ‘youth schools’ develop as a partnership between the users and the providers, not tied to an imposed curriculum with targets, but meeting the needs brought by the young people involved.

While we want to see a properly financed and managed structure to youth provision, we also recognise the importance of the voluntary sector. The enthusiasm and energy that volunteers bring to youth activities is inspiring and so important in firing the young imagination and sense of belief. To hand over youth provision to voluntary groups as the Tories want to do under their ‘Big Society’ banner will overwhelm this volunteer enthusiasm with the day to day demands of management, financing and insurance regulations. We believe that the Local Authority has to back up the volunteer sector with professional management, help and advice, training and secure finance.

The idea of the ‘youth school’ is not meant to be some stand alone solution to the ‘problem of youth’. We do not see young people as a problem, however we do see that too often their ability to grow and develop their own potential is frustrated by the constraints of adult society, and too often by the policies of Government fixated by the demands of the avaricious market. Too often politicians, who talk of the ‘problem of youth’ rather than the ‘opportunity of youth’, seem incapable of making any other provision than organised activity that usually centres on sport. Providing properly funded and universally accessible sporting opportunity is good, but it is not a complete youth policy. Of greater importance is developing the means by which young people can become active members of their society, including becoming economically active. Green economic policy recognises the importance of fostering the often dismissed informal economy and self employment. Often crudely dismissed as the black economy, this sector makes a significant contribution to the local economy and can provide a route into employment. Helping young people into self employment would be another function of the ‘youth school’, giving help and advice on converting their ideas into a viable business proposition.

Greens therefore want to see increased provision for young people away from formal education. We accept that this has cost implications but we regard these costs as an investment not a waste. It is our responsibility to make this provision, it is not some ‘bolt on’ extra. The fact that Government does not do this is symptomatic of their priorities, set by powerful vested interests. Despite the so called ‘economic crisis, we can afford to give a £160 million tax break to the oil industry, the richest business on the planet, with a visceral aversion to paying tax. We can afford to spend a similar amount on a decade long programme of weapons procurement for the Ministry of Defence. Spending £5 billion on refitting the Aldermaston nuclear weapons facility passes ministers without even an announcement. The Treasury is defrauded annually out of £30 billion on unpaid tax that is legally due to it, and of course we can’t even begin to discuss the £37 billion bonus pot paid out by business, most of which will disappear off shore. So it’s not a matter of what we can afford, it is where we choose to spend - and in a democracy, that should be down to us. It is time for the people to speak.

It is in our collective interest to provide a nurturing and enabling environment for each emerging generation, they after all will inherit the Earth.

© Mike Shipley

Fighting for Fair, Green Party are there

Originally posted on East Midlands Green Party Blog:

GP EM at Anti Bedroom tax demo

Councillor Richard Mallander and candidate Katharina Boettge are among the Green Party people in this photo taken at Nottingham’s Anti-Bedroom Tax protest yesterday. Other party members were circulating, mingling and sharing leaflets about real alternatives to the cuts. Simon Hales and myself were stewards for the event, helping to ensure safety for those taking part. As this tax targets children and those with disabilities, young families and people with mobility and sight problems were in the crowds. People came in support of others. One little girl told me proudly that her Sylvanian family bunnies were ready to protest with banners against the bedroom tax she made for them herself. Nottingham Pensioners Action Group (NPAG) were out in force as people from different organisations and none joined to say ‘no’ to those least able to pay and least to blame for the financial troubles being expected to pay most. From the far…

View original 1,065 more words

Seen to be Green!

Originally posted on East Midlands Green Party Blog:

We Greens are often getting involved in action and campaigns for social justice and environment, but we are not always so good at waving the Green Party banner when we do. It might not always be appropriate. Never-the-less, in many ways we have a shared understanding that needs to be shared more broadly. In mainstream politics so far important things like human rights and climate change are being pushed into the background in favour of a ‘there is no alternative’ approach which, put simply, does not work. One of the Young Greens, Lisa Camps, has created an e-petition aiming to get the Greens on the TV General Election debates. Signing and sharing this petition is one way to help spread the word. A government e-petition is a way to highlight the issue. Find the petition and add your voice at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46764. There are other ways to be seen to be green…

View original 397 more words

Let’s Get Greens on the TV

One of the Young Greens, Lisa Camps, has created an e-petition aiming to get the Greens on the TV General Election debates.

A government e-petition was chosen as it’s a really effective way to highlight the issue.

She’s asking people to share the petition which is at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46764

Thunderclap

In addition, most excitingly, she’s asking people to be part of a so-called ‘Thunderclap’. Please read here and take the action. It could go viral!

THUNDERCLAP! If you haven’t heard of it, you sign up to a cause you support and then when 100 people have done so, a message is sent from all those people’s Twitter/Facebook accounts at once; creating a trend and getting your message viral. Don’t worry, you can see the message that will be sent from your account before you sign up, and it will only ever be that one message.

If you’d like to be part of the Thunderclap team that get the government epetition demanding that the Green Party of England and Wales be on the general election TV debates trending- sign up now!

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/1567-green-party-on-the-tv-debates

Thanks all

Matthew

Matthew Butcher, Media Officer
Office of Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

Cloud_over_Sellafield_(non_radioactive)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_335287I am very concerned about the problem of the storage of nuclear waste. The government wants to build new nuclear power stations. If their plan succeeds, it will be at the cost of blocking the real solutions to climate change and a reliable future energy supply. It will also result in the continued production of dangerous nuclear waste and an increased risk from terrorism, radioactive accident and nuclear proliferation.

Some environmentalists, faced with the urgent need to combat climate change, have reluctantly decided that nuclear power will have to be part of the energy mix. However, climate change itself also threatens the safety of nuclear power stations; many reactors are built on coastal sites vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise, including flooding and erosion.

I am pleased that Cumbria County Council’s Cabinet decided on 30th January 2013 that West Cumbria should no longer be considered as a potential location for a deep geological repository. However, the problem of what to do with radioactive waste already in storage will not go away.

One of the fundamental problems of nuclear power is the hazard posed by the radioactive materials it produces. No one can guarantee that this highly radioactive waste won’t leak back into the environment, contaminating water supplies and the food chain.

To me, the government’s plans to allow ten new reactors to be built are shortsighted to say the least. This would add threefold to the amount of highly radioactive waste we already have to deal with.

The nuclear industry is hugely expensive. The construction and generating costs of nuclear power are greater than most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Added to these are the costs associated with dismantling nuclear stations and waste disposal.

Green Party policy is that nuclear power should be phased out and we should not consider building new plants.

This quote from Clean Technica sums up my view: “Essentially, renewable clean energy technologies are a better choice than nuclear in every way. They are cheaper, faster to build, don’t create radioactive waste, aren’t as susceptible to environmental disasters, don’t require the same level of safety measures, and have far more public support. At current rates of growth, renewables are predicted to generate more electricity in the UK than nuclear by 2018, and expected to power 1 in every 10 homes in the UK by 2015.”

This is a much more encouraging picture than we are led to believe by the government. They want us to believe that we cannot do without nuclear power. It is ironic that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has the responsibility for the legacy of decommissioning nuclear reactors, roughly £1billion per reactor (averaged international figures). The expenditure on decommissioning in 2012-13 is £1.5 billion which is 42% of DECC’s budget.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change is, of course, having its budget cut by Chancellor George Osborne, and it, in turn, has cut funding to a range of energy conservation and renewable energy schemes. This is the legacy of nuclear power; every year from now to eternity, the government of these islands, whether Green, Red, Yellow, Blue, Purple or Pink, will have to find funds to safeguard the legacy of the long-ago nuclear power programmes. This is why I believe the Green Party’s policy to phase out the use of nuclear energy makes sense.

© Jean Macdonald

Information taken from:

Green Party Policy http://greenparty.org.uk/policies.html

Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

Clean Technica http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/14/new-nuclear-power-in-the-uk-looking-increasingly-unlikely/#GXJY9Zi7HREGT86c.99

Green Party Action to Save NHS Continues

derbyshiregreens:

Last minute ‘prayer’ to save the NHS

Originally posted on East Midlands Green Party Blog:

GP NHS placard photo

Derbyshire Green Party people are among our many members taking action against the undermining of the NHS. Nationally our action includes our clear voice in Westminster and, at the end of this post is a link to a press statement from the office of Caroline Lucas detailing proactive actions taken by the party to safeguard a just healthcare system long worked for, protecting health, jobs and services for all. It is now people, together, each using our voice and calling for action from MPs that is urgently needed. We share a letter from Derbyshire Green Party being shared across different media, written to you all. We ask that you read, share and respond. We must continue because, as we Greens say, Fair is worth fighting for!

Before the last election the Conservative Party said ‘The NHS is safe in our hands.’ …and promised no radical review. Since forming a government, they have…

View original 400 more words

Time to Look Again at Defined Benefit Pension Schemes

Fair_Pensions

During my working life all my roles have been in the private sector. I have always contributed to the company pension scheme, where ever I have worked, but this has always been a defined contribution scheme; i.e. the money I put in is invested and supposedly builds up a pot to invest in a pension at the end. I have worked for around 20 years and if I bought an annuity (annual pension) today, with the money I have contributed, I would probably get about £1,000 per year – not really enough to live on. OK the value of my pot may go up over the next 20 years but if the last 10 years are anything to go by, it may not. If I had worked in the public sector for all of this time I would probably have a guaranteed pension of about £6,500 (I know this because my sister is a nurse who is paid a little bit less than me and is of a similar age).

This does not seem fair to me.

I am not advocating a race to the bottom and Green Party policy seems enlightened in this area. EC806 would introduce publicly administered pension schemes which would enable people voluntarily to provide for their retirement without recourse to the current private pension providers. People would be able to contribute to a national additional scheme in which they would get fixed rate pension investment bonds in return for their contributions. They would also be able to invest in Local Community Pension Schemes.

These Schemes would be administered by local authorities/community banks and would re-invest the money paid into them within the local community. These could offer the options of either fixed rate local bonds, or an equity-based scheme which would give variable returns from investment in appropriate local businesses which satisfied various criteria concerning environmental and social standards. Those who have contributed to such publicly administered pension schemes should receive an annual statement detailing the current value of their pension fund, and an estimate of the future level of an annuity purchased by that fund on retirement.

So the Green Party is suggesting the public sector type of pension for all individuals. You would get Fixed Rate Bonds when you make contributions. These bonds would pay a fixed rate of interest which would be the income on retirement.

Perhaps a further policy to consider would be a reduction in Employers National Insurance for those larger companies that offered their own defined benefit scheme to ALL employees (and an increase for those that do not) as they would be taking the burden off the Government for administering such a scheme and providing employees with a reasonable income in retirement. The companies (particularly large corporates) would hold their hands up in horror and say they could not afford such a scheme. This is what they are doing at the moment. They are using this excuse to close defined benefit schemes to new employees. I believe this is just another example of these companies abdicating responsibility for helping to create a civil society, as is happening with the living wage and tax avoidance.

I work in corporate treasury (which can’t be all bad as the new Archbishop of Canterbury was a corporate treasurer) and in 2011 there was an article in The Treasurer (a riveting read!) which argued that defined benefit schemes can be afforded and are good for society at large. So there is no reason why this Green Party policy could not work.

Now the public sector, why do different occupations in the public sector pay in different amounts of their salary and get out different pensions? For example my sister (the nurse) pays in 8% of her salary and will receive 1/80th for each year worked. MP’s can choose to pay in 7.9% of their salary and they will get 1/50th. Why aren’t all public sector pensions the same?

In summary, it’s time to make pensions fair, defined benefit schemes for all public and private sector workers. The same type of scheme with the same deductions and the same percentage of salary for all public sector workers. Rather like the Green Party policy suggests.

© Katherine Cheatham