Massive mudslinger

Believe me I'm no fan of elites but this is a non-story, saying, One of Bristol's leading musicians has claimed mayoral candidate George Ferguson's membership of Bristol's elite Society of Merchant Venturers is a conflict of interests. Massive Attack's lead singer Robert Del Naja... (here). There is no substance to it at all. Its all pure supposition and mere accusation, in this instance by just one 'famous' person throwing mud. So a candidate(Ferguson, pictured) belongs to a society (Merchant Venturers) and even if he resigned from the society he would still have friends in it. So what? There must be many, many candidates who are members of various organisations and who would retain friends if/when they left in the event of getting elected. Now, it really would be a story if there was any evidence of undue and unjustifiable influence or unethical practices - but there is no such thing! Or can someone provide evidence....?

Come to think of it aren't members of political parties members of a selective society, with a lot of friends etc etc...

Conference coverage

Some local press coverage of the Green Party Conference taking place in Bristol this weekend, here and here in The Post. Also coverage here on Bristol 24-7 and a variety of BBC stories listed here (including new leader Natalie Bennett's conference speech on iPlayer). Interesting video clips here on You Tube. There's substance to Green Mayoral candidate Daniella Radice's newly launched manifesto, which is more than can be said for some other mayoral candidates and indeed more than can be said for some online commenters http://tinyurl.com/8csopk4.  Green principles and policies and Daniella Radice's manifesto deserve genuine and widespread debate. People need to get past traditional allegiances, preconceived ideas and prejudices and look at all the evidence that strongly supports green social, economic and environmental policies.

Daniella debate

Debate about Green Mayoral Candidate Daniella Radice on this post story eg by FOX_Joe - “Out to lunch bunch of daydreamers! Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't. The most out of sync with reality 'political' party; in short communists with a slightly better education.”

My response: @ FOX_Joe - "Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't."

Actually we do live in a bubble of sorts - the biosphere on our planet that provides all the resources that sustain our economy and society, has to take in all our wastes and pollutants and is the basis of our lives. Why call the people who plan to live sustainably and fairly in this bubble 'daydreamers' and unrealistic and not those who are squandering finite resources, blighting the world for future generations, building an economy that mainly benefits super-rich, corrupt and unethical bankers and their establishment politician and media friends and not general wellbeing...Your assessement is upside down FOX_Joe. Obviously I'm a green and so support Daniella and her policies but can you deny their rationale?
______________________________________________________

Copies of some further contributions I've made to the debate, which is pretty lively:

@ Richard34 - Daniella is proposing to go much further with devolving power than the current Neighbourhood Partnerships. She advocates creating - and Mayoral working with - democratically elected neighbourhood councils, which of course we dont currently have.

Current transport plans are hardly revolutionary and many aspects of the 'Greater Bristol Bus Network' and bus rapid transit - especially using bendy buses - have rightly been heavily critcised. There's been a lot of talk about public transport improvements in Bristol for decades and we have still got a lot of problems and a long way to go - thus the Greens proposals to create a major transport hub for local bus and train interchange at Plot 6 next to Temple Meads station and to develop the local economy in such a way as to improve local job creation, local shops and community facilities such that the need to travel long distances is cut.

On education Daniella will lobby the government to transfer the secretary of state's powers over free schools and academies to the Mayor, not to the council ie central government dictates are being opposed and local democracy favoured.
______________________________________________________

@ BCFC Finker - ok, still nothing on policies or principles, so no genuine substance to your comments. And dont forget that people will have two votes in the Mayoral election, one for first and one for second preference. People can therefore vote both with their heart and with their head. This may cause some interesting voting patterns, especially with the Lib Dems and Tories struggling due to the persistent failures of the Coalition Govt.
______________________________________________________

“@SouthvilleDav - Greens like Daniella and I have long been campaigning aginst biofuels - they simply aren't green at all - see http://tinyurl.com/88tf85o As for what you say on solar energy, you are absolutely right - and I'd go further and say that we should be investing in solar to grow the industry in this country so we can supply as much as we can for ourselves.
______________________________________________________

@ Richard34 - you are arguing against greater democracy and against democracy being closer to people instead of remote and in the hands of a few eg a single individual as Mayor. Its partly because democracy is not in people's hands in their neighbourhoods that voters have become disillusioned and politicians self-serving and unethical. There's nothing woolly about what Greens are proposing on this as neither you or anyone else have been unclear on what the plans are.

The current bus station is clearly badly located and our whole public transport system needs a redesign, including creating a proper integrated transport hub at Termple Meads, which is beginning to go through a redesign process anyway. We need to be much more ambitious with our integrated transport planning or we will never make a dent in serious problems of congestion, delay, air pollution, carbon emissions...Current plans wont make a dent in these problems and in fact will make some of them worse!!

Thinking that the current education system is 'wonderful' is a very big mistake. Conservatives once told us we needed GCSEs for instance and now have gone full circle to tell us we dont need them we need the old O'levels or similar!! Greens are not just talking about a transfer of power from central government to the Mayor but to the Mayor working in a partnership with neighbourhood councils and the parents, teachers, governors and pupils/students themselves given that the system is for them and their community not for ideologues in any political party, certainly in a remote central government. Lets have some parent, pupil and people power in the system.

Mother suckers

This story, on some breast-feeding mums 'flash-mob' protest at a Bristol cafe recently has generated significant online debate - including some wildy sexist and discriminatory rubbish from some readers of The Post. Breast milk is cheap, organic and local food - and it is what is best for babies and their mums. Our society should be doing all it can to encourage more breastfeeding of babies - including countering the ignorant and immature comments posted by some on this story who focus their criticism on stereotypes of people rather than on the facts and arguments. If you've got a decent argument why would you resort to unfair tactics instead??

The key, function of breasts is to provide milk for babies (believe it or not!). For tens of thousands of years there was no udder alternative - and those available now are really no match the amazing stuff they provide. See here for more:

http://www.lactivist.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding_in_public

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast

NIMBY?

People far too often resort to unjustified labelling in debate. Accusations of being a NIMBY (not in my back yard) are common in discussions for and against development for instance. Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way usually dont hold such views and often have a developed case with a range of reasons so, whatever the rights and wrongs of the instance, the label is unfairly applied.

Here's one example, involving  plans to redevelop a Network Rail site by building nine three story homes at Bellevue Terrace, Totterdown, Bristol. Just down the road from me. One commenter on the story thinks objecting to this development is '...the purest example of NIMBYism I've seen in weeks..' even though one resident, backed by her local councillor, describes how the space is green and good for wildlife. Suzanne Ferris said: "The former allotment site was a verdant space bright with nature in a heavily built-up area. The urbanisation of this wildlife pocket will remove forever part of the green corridor from the railway line to Arnos Vale Cemetery.”

You can have a look for yourself at the place here (and in the photos above). Its hardly the Amazon (!) but if we are serious about issues such as: the value of green spaces to our relaxation and health; obtaining and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife eg garden birds like sparrows and starlings; the value of green spaces as a temporary 'store and release' mechanism for water when it rains heavily; green spaces as carbon absorbing...then at some point we surely have to stop concreting over every bit of local, small-scale greenery?      

Opposing development that would change a space from pollution absorbing and biodiversity providing to pollution producing and biodiversity cutting is perfectly reasonable. Its not NIMBYism because all that would say is 'not here' in a narrow, selfish and short-sighted way and people in this area clearly have more reasons than that! If you are going to use the tactic of labelling people you need to give justification for doing so.

Marriage menace???

More unreasonable rubbish is today being spoken against gay marriage with this: The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is stepping up its campaign against the government's plan to legalise same-sex marriage. In a letter being read in thousands of parish churches, the two most senior archbishops say the change would reduce the significance of marriage, and that Catholics have a duty to make sure it doesn't happen. Archbishop Peter Smith told the BBC a married couple and their children "forms the basic building block of a healthy society". (more here and here)
Why on Earth would allowing gay men and women to get married be any threat to heterosexual marriage? How would it or could it hinder the Catholic view of marriage as being between a man and a woman who want to procreate? Our society is more than big enough to accomodate different perspectives on marriage though apparently some religions and religious figures are not. It seems to me that their overreaction is much more of a threat to the institutions they say they value than gay marriage is. Take a look at some of the arguments on this issue:

Overpaid Ormondroyd

Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates.Why have so many comments on this story simply attacked those asking the questions? Its the issue that counts and tactical rather than fair argument is a distraction from the very important matter of who is paid what and why - and whether its fair and deserved. The current Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd (pictured) is paid £107,000 per year more now than in 1998 - 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago. This £7600 a year rise every year for ten years, way above inflation and bearing no relation to the performance of Bristol City Council, cannot be right. Less than 10% a year says one person - but this sort of level of sustained increase has only been given to those already well paid and wealthy. Where's the justice in that?

Talking teaching

I've been following the debate today about Education Secretary Michael Gove's  'plans to simplify and shorten the procedure for handling inadequate teachers' (see here). Whilst I would not take Gove's line exactly I do think we need to take tough action on the general competence and contribution to school-life of teachers. Before moving on to the higher education sector I spent ten yrs as a full time secondary school sciences and maths teacher and five yrs part-time followed by a spell teaching part-time in a sixth form college. I've seen some very poor teaching in each workplace, including some from those who'd been in the profession for many years and some who were new. I'd say the numbers were a single figure percentage of the hundreds of teachers I've worked with. As it happens my view on the numbers is reasonably consistent with controversial former chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead's estimate of 15,000 teachers - less  than 5% - not up to the job (see here). 

As a parent I've now seen my daughter go through primary, secondary and college education (she's now applying to uni's) - and my view on teacher competence has hardened. I dont think we have more than a single figure percentage of incompetent teachers BUT when the incompentent teacher or two or three in the school is the one impacting on your child and their school you really experience the huge and wide-ranging effects it has (I withdrew and then home schooled my daughter through seven IGCSE's for the last fourteen months of her key stage four ie age 14-16).

The secondary headteacher emerged as largely a windbag who did not actually listen and respond to you. A few teachers impacted very negatively on my daughter. The local college also had a small number of bad teachers. Most of the school/college teachers were competent though and there were a few gems too - but every school/college I've worked in and every one I've experienced as a parent has had a high ability to close ranks and protect itself as an institution. They have had strong conservative (small c) attitude to change. This has allowed problems to persist and has in some cases magnified them. We thus desperately need genuine, open argument on this issue - but we aren't getting it and there's not much prospect of it because of entrenched attitudes and widespread deployment of a range of argument tactics on both sides (see screencast below).

The Daily Politics debated the issue today for instance - but based discussion largely on the fact that only a very small number of teachers have been struck off for incompetence over several decades (see here). Much better and more complete to consider this figure and that fact that 40% of teachers have abandoned the profession within three years, not all but some of this due to competence issues in addition to low pay, low status, the poor behaviour of pupils, high house prices and the prospects of easier and better paid alternatives for graduates (see here) . This raises issues of who is training to teach and then entering the profession and why. Many of them should never have taken the step to begin with. Maybe some of the teacher training is not up to the job either. The job can be a tough one, especially early on and this makes early support and action from good school management and leadership crucial - and it should come from all in the organisation, Heads, Deputies, senior and less senior teachers, other school staff, unions, pupils, governors, parents....though especially Heads.

Here's a screencast on genuine argument vs tactics used in arguments. You find these tactics and others everywhere but politics in particular is absolutely loaded with them for much of the time.