Spurious spin

The recent survey of mayoral voting intentions showed Conservative Geoff Gollop in 3rd place not second and a very, very large number of undecided people. The Tories now have just 14 councillors across Bristol compared to 32 Lib Dem, 22 Labour and 2 Green. The Tory led Coalition Government is hardly popular at the moment...and yet it is said (here by Kerry McCarthy MP) that there is a real threat from the Tories!! The facts have shown right from the start of this campaign that in an all-Bristol election the Tories cannot win or get close to winning and that's one reason why the bookies have never rated them as having a realistic chance. Labour have an electoral interest in talking down the chances of Bristol 1sts George Ferguson the person who IS a real threat to them because of the breadth of his appeal and thus his ability to pick up lots of second preference votes in the second round of counting. Tribalism from Labour may well get them lots of first preference votes but restricts their ability to attract the second preferences needed.

Misleading mulling

We have an erroneous way of thinking about land and using figures relating to it. This erroneous thinking is used to 'justify' unsustainable building over green spaces, the green belt, parks and playing fields, allotments, farmland...In Bristol, despite the fact that our eco footprint is several times the land area available, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on the council all orginally backed a policy of flogging off our green spaces. This was despite widespread public opposition across the whole city. The Lib Dem council adminstration are still incentivising flogging local green spaces now and several Mayoral candidates have plans that will cut city green spaces and green belt land. We need a Mayor who will listen to public opinion, genuinely involve people in decision making and not bow down to any party political line.

On the Daily Politics a while back Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (who you'd think should know better) attempted to justify the liberalisation of planning laws by saying that only 10% of land in England is developed. A New Statesman leader said this back in March this year:  

‘Only 10 per cent of England (and 6 per cent of Britain) is developed... The UK is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "natural wast­age" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned by institutions such as the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence, and four million are the "urban plot", the densely congested land on which most of the 62 million people of these islands live...’ http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2012/04/land-government-million

In terms of whether to build on green land or not crude land area is not really the way to consider this issue. Look at these figures: average biologically productive area per person globally was approx 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita in 2006. Average ecological footprint in the UK is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). This means that not only have we used up all the available biologically productive land in the UK we are actually drawing greatly on large amounts of land from abroad as well as allowing carbon levels to build up in the atmosphere because there is insufficient productive land and water to absorb it fast enough. Our 5.45 gha/person ecological footprint is three times greater than the average productive land per person available worldwide.

Halfbaked Hopkins

In the ongoing online discussions on this Post story about the mayoral election Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle, Gary Hopkins chips in this spin,

by gary_hopkins ...Polling shows
1 Non voters and genuinely undecided in a clear lead.
2 Mr Rees in a narrow first preference vote in front of Jon Rogers.
3 The Tories nowhere with their voters either giving Jon First or second preference to keep out Labour.
The other overwhelming stat that comes back is that, liked or not ,George Ferguson is known to that tiny % of the chattering politically active classes but 95% + are completely unaware of him...__________________________________________

My reply: What polling is this? Who is it conducted by? Please give actual figures and the source(s) - otherwise what you say is not backed by facts we can check out. Its quite a common practice for Lib Dems to state a so called 'fact' or a quote in the 'Focus'  newsletters without giving the source for it. Lib Dem materials very often skew figures via very dodgy bar charts and illustrations. If its deliberate its unethical if its not its very poor and sloppy thinking and communication.

By choosing to have a dig at George Ferguson the Lib Dems, a) show they have something to be concerned about and, b) reinforce Ferguson's credentials as a candidate independent from party politics.

[Update 14 Oct: Cllr Hopkins has been challanged three times to produce figures and sources but has not done so - in fact he's made things worse through more party politics and attempted point scoring. No surprise there then.]

Predictable unpredictable?

If the result of the Bristol mayoral election is really 'completely unpredictable' (as this Post story says) how come the bookies can come up with betting odds? Or is it that we know from past voting patterns and current polls and political developments that the most likely outcome is a Labour or liberal-minded independent candidate winning? In other words Marvin Rees vs George Ferguson because both are broadly progressive and not being blamed for current problems. Surely we can count out Tories and Lib Dems because of the ongoing recession and the cuts/austerity program. The Tories dont have the votes needed across the whole city in any case and the Lib Dems are taking the brunt of the criticism of the coalition govt (thus they are at 10% or so in the polls). Hard to predict the final result between two particular candidates: yes. Completely unpredictable: no. 

Eco-expansion???

It turns out that Tory candidate for elected Mayor of Bristol Geoff Gollop is in favour of expanding Bristol Airport (The Post inaccurately reported his views, see correction here). However, he's only in favour, he says, if it is '...controlled, is sustainable and is done in an environmentally-friendly way.' Come back to reality Mr Gollop because there is currently no such thing as sustainable, environmentally-friendly airport expansion, nor is there likely to be for some time to come.

Political possibilities

My response to the view, expressed in an online debate here, that there will only ever be two political parties (ie either Labour or Tory) running the country: Given the huge and interwoven economic, social and environmental problems the country and the world has, new political thinking is now more needed than ever. New political movements, like the Green Movement, do come along and new parties do get into government at a range of levels. Liberals have a share in govt now and they currently run Bristol City Council and other councils - and Liberals have been in govt in the past, albeit a long time ago.The labour movement developed over the last 100 yrs, so there is no reason why other movements and parties cant do the same or better. 

The Green Party addresses the real world where other parties wish 'for exponential economic growth and endless population growth on a finite planet with dwindling resources' (see online comments here). Greens are making political progress - they have their first MP in Caroline Lucas in addition to Green members of the Scottish Parliament, they are now runnning the council in Brighton and Hove, have two MEPs (Jean Lambert in London and Keith Taylor in the South East), and have two councillors in Bristol (Gus Hoyt in Ashley and Tess Green in Southville) in addition to hundreds more on other councils around the country

Conservative = no change

Three top Tories have been shortlisted for the nomination to become the party candidate to fight in the mayoral election in November (story here). Selecting either Peter Abrahams or Geoff Gollop or Barbara Lewis as Conservative mayoral candidate would not be offering Bristol anything different. These are people who have been part of the council and local party political establishment for some time now. Bristolians clearly want change. The current council system was rejected by voting to have an Elected Mayor. Criticism of the council, low voter turnouts and general lack of enthusiasm has become the norm. With coalition govt unpopularity and failures on top of all this no Conservative stands much chance of becoming our first elected Mayor.

Drugs discussion

Tory MP Michael Ellis has, as reported in this story, reacted to Danny Kushlik in the way many politicians - across political parties - have reacted on the issue of illegal drugs over many years. Its a shame that he's not more open to new thinking on this matter. Does he not realise that continuing on with more or less the same old, failed attitudes and polices, throwing a lot of - misdirected - money at the problem, is irrational? Politicians need to base their policies on drugs on the evidence, such as this research comparing legal and illegal drugs: http://tinyurl.com/3ao562j

Budget below the belt

Wouldn't it have been fairer, more just and better economics to keep the 50% tax rate and bring in additional measures to make sure that people could not avoid paying it so easily, if that's what is happening on a large scale? I thought we had debts to pay off and that the Govt needed the money for this.

There will be many well-off high rate tax payers who have circumstances such that they wont be liable to pay the additional wealth taxes in the budget, who will thus get a large net tax cut. Its a budget that George Osbourne's mates will like and benefit from I'm sure.

More on the budget here and here.

Council cuts

Cuts in services locally and nationally have originally and primarily come about through gross errors and greed in the private sector, enabled and encouraged by a corrupt political system. Public money still props part of the banking arm of the private sector up. Money can be found for banks but not a whole range of public services - and meanwhile the rich in the banking system continue to be rewarded with high pay plus a bonus.

Despite the tough economic situation Bristol City Council need not have gone for a council tax freeze, resulting in spending cuts in health care and children and young people's services - and yet more job losses. This is not only wrong but will continue to help our economy to stagnate. There is, in effect, a local Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition that matches the national one it seems. 

Bristol's Council tax will be frozen for another year after Bristol City Council approved its budget for 2012.

An average band D homeowner will still pay £1,569.75 from April – the same as they did in 2011 and 2010.

As a result...there will be £27million of cuts to services and around 350 jobs are set to go, after an amended budget was agreed at a meeting last night.

A large chunk of the cuts – £8 million – will come from making savings in the council's "back office" operations.

There will be around £5 million less for health care, which includes moving increasingly towards privatisation, and another £5 million less for children and young people's services. A range of charges are also set to go up, including parking and pest control...(full story)

Swedish sameness

So, David Cameron is off to Sweden to attend the Nordic-Baltic Summit. Great place to go to learn a fair bit about equality. Sweden has much lower income equality than the UK (see here). Its gender equality is also much better: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/.

I doubt very much that our PM will be adopting the Swedish approach though. They redistribute wealth using taxes and benefits. Public services are provided by a very well developed welfare state. Sweden's state is large. Public services are well developed and there is effective legislation to ensure that both men and women can have reasonably balanced work and family lives and good prospects for fair involvement at all levels of society. This is the opposite of Cameron's Conservatism.    

Caring, compassionate capitalism...contradiction

Capitalism, favouring private ownership, maximising private profit, decisions made by a free market, economic growth as the primary aim – is currently the subject of many party leader speeches. Reference has been made by Tory PM Cameron, Lib Dem Deputy PM Clegg and Labour Opposition Leader Miliband to making capitalism, as it currently works, more: responsible; moral; compassionate; caring – and thus popular and acceptable. This, at least, is an acknowledgement that capitalism is now operating: irresponsibly; immorally; uncaringly; without compassion – and that its popularity and public acceptability has suffered. However, along comes a chance for action that would send out a strong signal that significant change in the whole system is coming – and absolutely nothing is done, just as nothing was done by previous governments.The already very wealthy RBS boss Stephen Hester is allowed by the Govt to receive a bonus of about £1 million on top of his £1.2 million annual salary. RBS was saved using many billions of taxpayers money and is 82% publicly owned, the PM has said we are all in difficult economic times together, has said he wants to tackle excessive pay and bonuses...words, words, only words. See here, here and here for more.

The solutions offered up by the Tory/Liberal Govt, previous Tory and Labour Governments and the current Labour Opposition are those of capitalism – the very thing they have all described as deficient in some way. Coalition Ministers talk of: the importance of finance; the deficit and its ‘correction’ through cuts and freezing public sector pay; economic growth as essential; how we must remove obstacles to growth; how growth should be led by private enterprise; their pro-market, pro-business, pro-competition agenda. They say high taxes on rich people and companies could send them abroad. Private, market incentives are to operate in Royal Mail, the NHS and Higher Education. Has it occurred to them that solving the problems of capitalism with more capitalism may well be like solving the problems of alcoholism with more alcohol? Show me a version of capitalism that is or can be developed to be socially sustainable because it shares wealth fairly and environmentally sustainable because it does not rely on and run down finite resources and you will get my attention!!   

More posts on capitalism:

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-will-bankers-like-this-get-their.html

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/697599

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/10/capitalist-ideology-dominates-cuts.html  

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2008/09/cabot-circus-consumerism-capitalism.html
http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/house-of-cards-economics.html

Lib Dem discussions with Labour, Tory AND Green groups on the council

Interesting update on goings on at Bristol City Council in this* Post report, particularly on the town green and on green spaces. One correction: it says
'Her [Barbara Janke's] statement comes after discussions with the Labour and Tory groups after the Lib Dems lost their majority in this month's local elections.' when discussions were in fact held with Labour, Tory AND Green groups - we do exist y'know - and in larger numbers than before - though you'd rarely know it given the Post's coverage.

*http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Janke-Ashton-Vale-stadium-decision-month-green-spaces-sell-halted/article-3564838-detail/article.html

Very rich to make frequent use of the term green in her statement I thought. There is little evidence at all that Bristol has in general become a greener city over the decades - and plenty of evidence that we've become less green eg much larger total carbon footprint per person and per city, just like the UK on average, larger divsions of wealth between rich and poor... Plus of course conventional politics barely seems to recognise the economic and social dimensions of being green much of the time - it still needs to make the jump that green is far beyond trees, cuddly animals and recycling... (one of the reasons conventional politics has failed to really address deep rooted interconnected problems).

Poor economics, poor politics

Unemployment is up by 35,000 to 2.5 million. At the same time inflation has risen to a six month high of 3.3%. More unemployment and more inflation is forecast in 2011 as the cuts in public spending and the VAT rise make their damaging economic and social impacts. Its crazy not to be stimulating key parts of the economy at this time - very poor economics from the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition. Despite this situation Labour leader Ed Miliband only asked very briefly about the economy in today's questions to the Prime Minister. Ed and his team are weak on the economy, weak on defending Labour's record and the need for economic stimulus and weak on political strategy and tactics.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11998364 on unemployment
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11996631 on inflation.

THE Conservatives have tabled a motion calling for the £87 million plan to sell off up to 62 green spaces across Bristol to be scrapped.

Its not often that I have cause to praise the Conservative Party in Bristol but on this occasion I have to say well done to them for changing their minds and calling for the councils plans to sell green spaces to be abandoned, especially given the strength of the widespread public opposition. I hope that Labour and maybe even some Lib Dems will support the Tories on this - and respect local people's wishes.

THE Conservatives have tabled a motion calling for the £87 million plan to sell off up to 62 green spaces across Bristol to be scrapped.

The group has also launched an online petition for people to support the motion [click here to sign]

Councillor Mark Weston (Henbury, Conservative) said: "Public consultation has clearly shown that Bristolians simply do not want to lose any more of their recreational space.
"The area green space plans are fundamentally dishonest, in that many potential plots of land suggested for sale are not, as previously promised, of low value or quality.
"This version of the strategy has also proved itself to be extremely divisive, in that it requires some wards in the city to make land sacrifices not shared by others."

Labour group leader Helen Holland told the Evening Post she didn't want to pre-empt her group's response to the Tory motion, but she criticised the consultation process.
She said: "The consultation has been flawed, with a lack of information.
"The one thing you need to do if you want major change is have absolute transparency."

Councillor Tess Green (Southville, Green) said: "The Green Party has always opposed selling any green space which is valued by local people, although we could see the logic of selling off space that is not valued in order to improve green space more generally.
"The voice of local people has been very strong on this issue and needs to be taken seriously."

Q and A on the huge green spaces sell off that's backed by Lib Dem, Labour and Tory Cllrs

Q THERE has been vocal opposition to a quarter of the areas put forward for sale at the very least – is that an acceptable number?

Just added the comment below to this Evening Post article on green space flogging (link above) to correct the errors made by two 'conveniently forgetful' Lib Dem Cllrs...

This statement in the article is incorrect 'The whole point of the strategy, which all parties signed up for..' because the Green Party opposed the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy sell off plans from the very beginning and are still opposing them now.

Cllr Rogers comment 'The Area Green Space Strategy was supported by all three parties on the council' is wrong because there are four parties with councillors in Bristol - and one of them, the Greens, opposes the large scale green space flogging. Cllr Rogers is right to indicate that Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem Parties all backed this extremely unpopular and short-sighted green spaces sell-off.

*

Update: Just added a further comment (below) because Cllrs Rogers has replied saying, 'There remain only three parties on Bristol City council - the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Labour Party.The Green Party do have a councillor on the council, but one person is not regarded as a party! The Green Party councillor did, as Mr Vowles suggests, vote against a proper green space strategy for Bristol.'

*

Cllr Rogers - its clearly ridiculous and absurd to say that there are three parties on the council. The Greens have an elected Cllr - fact. Because it is one person does not mean the party does not exist it simply means that Green Party GROUP STATUS is not recognised (until there are at least two Cllrs ie next May!). If you were fully open and honest here you would tell the whole truth ie that there is a Cllr representing a party on the council that opposes these green space sell-off plans. The Greens do not recognise the current approach as a proper green spaces strategy because of its flog off plans - and looking at the scale of opposition it appears that Bristol's public agree with us not the Lib Dem, Tory and Labour Cllrs that all endorse it.

Capitalist ideology dominates cuts decisions

Excellent piece by George Monbiot (see quote below). The spending cuts process is dominated by Tory capitalist ideology more than practical necessity. The Lib Dems are backing the Tories to the hilt - so much for Vince Cable's concerns about capitalism (this never did have substance anyway especially given that he is privatising the Royal Mail and backs the establishment of a free market in tuition fees...ie he is extending capitalism!! More on this issue soon.).

Monbiot.com » Britain’s Shock Doctrine

...Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business....

Choices and cuts

What are the merits of taxation? Are we about to learn of its merits when we hear about the huge cuts in public spending affecting many vital public services? There are choices but to listen to the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government one would think not. There's the balance between raising more in taxation vs cutting spending. There's the speed and scale of spending cuts (and tax rises). There are the areas or people to tax more and areas to cut spending on. Already I believe a serious error has been made by not cutting defence spending more, when they are so bad at controlling their costs and getting value for money. And why those child benefit changes that dont take account of the whole of a household's income? Universality for child benefit has very clear advantages. I heard on the local news about Bristol City Council's plans to cut the amount spent on dealing with homelessness by hundreds of thousands - wrong because a roof over your head is a basic need and also counterproductive in my view because this spending helps people to become settled, working, productive, tax paying people who might otherwise be a big cost society in many ways.

Wealth: water or diamonds? What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry?

Ed Miliband drew on the well known Oscar Wilde quote ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’ in his first conference speech as Labour leader. Strange coming from a man who directly equates ever increasing money flow through our economy (GDP growth) with progress and wellbeing. Ed, along with Tory David Cameron and Lib Dem Nick Clegg, supports and advocates a corrupted notion of wealth which is narrow, materialist and cash-value centred.

Wealth creation has come to mean the stockpiling of affluence, running down finite natural resources, wasting and mismanaging potentially renewable resources like water such that many people around the globe struggle even to get enough to drink and wash. What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry – water or diamonds?

‘Value’ is largely what can be bought and sold if you have Ed’s (and Dave’s and Nick’s) view. The rich continue to hoard, deny the poor, and build for their leisure, recreation and luxury. The poorest around the globe continue to be unable to meet their basic needs such as decent public clean water supply and healthy sewage disposal systems. In fact the rich (and relatively speaking that’s most of us living in the Western hemisphere) are rich precisely because others are poor – GDP growth, Ed’s, Dave’s and Nick’s primary focus, has been very large over many decades and in many countries but numbers unable to meet basic needs are also very high!

We are GDP growing out of proportion to the proper, healthy working of life support systems. These systems include: those that can continually supply rainwater; those that keep our climate in a reasonably stable balance; those that process our soils, keeping them productive; many that keep ecosystems in a diverse state. Furthermore, we are sapping the energies and threatening the existence of the whole interconnected water, air, soil and biodiversity system – yet this is the source of our resources and the basis of our lives and thus is our true wealth.

We are also GDP growing out of proportion to the healthy working of socio-economic systems. Acting on the notion of wealth creation as increasing money flow through our economy has resulted in relatively small numbers of individuals and institutions with inordinate, concentrated cash and property. This inequality and unfairness decreases quality of life and as time passes is increasingly destabilising. Very strange, then, that Ed – and Dave and Nick – talk so much about building a fair society.

To benefit people and planet, GDP growth needs to pass tests of: efficiency; renewability; respecting environmental limits; building stronger local communities; meeting needs now and in the future; local and global fairness; health, wellbeing and quality of life. This means taking a very different view of wealth.

For more on water and related issues see: http://blogactionday.change.org/

Cameron's speech: little/nothing green

Some very perceptive comments on the Prime Minister's speech here - especially from George Monbiot (see extract below):

Cameron's speech: Guardian columnists' verdict Comment is free guardian.co.uk

So that's it, is it? Twenty-five words; 0.4% of the speech in which the leader of the "greenest government ever" lays out his vision for Britain. Here they are: "more green", "a new green investment bank, so the technologies of the future are developed, jobs created and our environment protected", and "carbon capture and storage". That, dear reader, is your lot. Even when Cameron recited a long list of his government's achievements, there wasn't a word about the environment.

That's not surprising, for its achievements to date are hard to detect.