Liberal lacerations

A recent Lib Dem leaflet promoting their mayoral candidate Cllr Jon Rogers says, 'Jon has taken a leading role [note - he's one of the people responsible then] in turning around the city's services...'. It goes on to say, 'The Lib Dems have protected local services from the kind of cuts we've seen in other cities.'. No mention whatsoever of the £28 million they/he cut from the budget last year or the £21 million they/he cut from the budget this year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17197392. These cuts are pretty liberal lacerations, so how does one square them with the claim to have 'turned around' and 'protected' local services? The Lib Dem interpretation of the whole truth here, is, well, very liberal - and loose!

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.    

Lord Mayor's limo

I see that Bristol's Lord Mayor may have to have his limo written off after an accident (see here). Er...why should Bristol's Lord Mayor be provided with a car in the first place? Or a chauffeur to drive it? And what about the expense of the Mansion House (pictured)? And any other expenses and trappings of Bristol's Lord Mayor...Why not sell the car and house, get rid of the Lord Mayor and use the money directly to help keep public services alive? No doubt some would point to the Lord Mayor's charity work or promotion of the city but there are too many unmeasurables to know whether having a Lord Mayor really pays its way - and we can easily see what the expenses are (see picture). Maybe having some other person from the council doing the basics of what the Lord Mayor now does without the frills would be better. These are hard times that will get harder in the coming years - and we are all supposed to be in it together!!

Fair pensions

..."I believe that fair pensions are worth fighting for, so I will be joining the picket lines in solidarity with my constituents who have been abandoned by the other main Westminster parties.

"This isn't something I do lightly. I regret the disruption caused by industrial action and think it must only be used in special circumstances - and would urge trade unions to work hard to ensure support from the wider public...

Caroline Lucas "Fair pensions are worth fighting for"

Voting Green: my ten reasons

1. Voting in another Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative person means supporting the status quo, politics as usual, big party domination or sometimes one party monopoly. Greens improve fairness, democracy and accountability, challenging the political status quo.



2. Fresh, innovative thinking and action is being initiated all over the country and further afield by hundreds of Greens elected as Members of the Westminster and European Parliaments, Members of the Scottish Parliament, London Assembly Members, and Councillors such as the large groups in Brighton and Norwich.



3. Greens are widely recognised for environmental leadership. Economic and social systems exist within the environment and are dependent upon it and Greens – being joined up thinkers – address all issues AND how they interrelate. This is essential if we are to solve problems, take opportunities, build equality and secure our wellbeing.



4. Greens work for strong local economies, keeping wealth circulating within communities, creating secure and stable jobs locally. This promotes wellbeing, fairness, self-reliance and sustainability, through greater local production, improved energy and food security. Greens believe small is beautiful and actively support small, locally owned businesses, local exchange and trading schemes and credit unions.



5. Local services and facilities of all kinds - health facilities, old folks homes, schools, libraries, swimming pools, buses and trains, pubs, corner shops, the local high street...should be maintained and enhanced not threatened and cut.



6. Green commitment to road traffic reduction is high. Traffic congestion causes multiple problems, especially in cities like Bristol – and yet the big parties have neglected to give transport the attention and investment it has long needed. Greens will enable people to access local jobs and facilities close to where they live and promote walking and cycling. They will invest in convenient, affordable, accessible and expanded public transport.



7. Greens believe health, wellbeing and equality should be the measure of progress in society. Public health issues are thus a high priority for Greens and above all favour the prevention of ill-health and the promotion of good health.



8. On environmental issues Greens are several decades ahead. They continue to lead the way: illustrating the interdependence of our economy and society with the environment.



9. Greens work to maximise efficiency, whether energy, water, transport use or other resources. It’s why they would insulate all homes free of charge - warming your homes, saving you money, efficiently and rapidly cutting fuel use and carbon emissions, creating thousands of local jobs.



10. The Green plan for rebuilding the economy - the Green New Deal – is a £45 billion investment to create 1 million jobs. It will begin to build a fair, sustainable economy and society by redesigning the financial system so that it serves the ‘real' economy and local communities.

Support your local library 5 Feb

BBC News - Lollipop patrols axed by council

What! Lollipop patrols protect our kids and in any case cost only a very small amount of money. Lollipop men and women aren't exactly overpaid - get rid of the Chief Executives on extortion salaries and stop using all those consultants that cost a fortune instead! I hope this suggestion is not made in Bristol or elsewhere.

BBC News - Lollipop patrols axed by council

With councils in England facing big cuts to their funding from central government, some jobs and services are likely to be axed.
The need to save money has led to Suffolk County Council to propose getting rid of its lollipop men and women to save £174,000, a move that's upset some parents.

BRISTOL City Council has admitted it may have to make up to £70 mil- lion of spending cuts over the next four years – £20m higher than previously announced.

I'm worried about the implications of this for vital services eg care for the elderly. Aren't we supposed to be remembering the contributions people made in the world wars? Many of these people are now in care homes or in need of care support to remain in their homes - we should be looking after them well.

BRISTOL City Council has admitted it may have to make up to £70 mil- lion of spending cuts over the next four years – £20m higher than previously announced.

Poor suffer most from spending review cuts

Deputy PM Nick Clegg is very unwise and unmeasured indeed to launch such an outspoken attack on the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - using words like 'frightening people' and 'airbrushing' - because it is very widely respected for its expertise, independence and authority. This is not good leadership and in fact both Nick Clegg and Chancellor George Osbourne praised the IFS highly during the summer general election! Take a look at why the IFS regard the spending review as on the whole affecting poorer people more than richer people here. For me it makes very good sense to conclude that the poor will suffer most because they are the ones most reliant on the public services and benefits that have been savagely cut - and even the government's own figures (see image), calculated in their own way, show that the bottom 10% are hit hard. Government attempts at making the cuts 'fair' are far too small.

Spending review: Clegg attacks "nonsense" IFS warning - Channel4 News

More on this issue from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11598234

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6397563/ifs-the-spending-review-was-regressive-sorta.thtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9113000/9113265.stm

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2010/10/spending-review-progressive-or-regressive

Countering the cuts myths - Red Pepper

Excellent piece in Red Pepper: Countering the cuts myths

The government and the press say we are in the grip of a debt crisis caused by the ‘bloated’ public sector. Here, Red Pepper debunks the myths used to push cuts to jobs and public services...

Thanks to Charlie Bolton for pointing me in the direction of this article - its a good read with important information.

What public spending cuts will mean for you

JOB losses, service cuts and more expensive public transport are all on the way for the Bristol area as part of the government plan to slash the country's £109 billion deficit

For me yesterdays spending review announcements are a direct assault on most things that involve the concept 'public' - including the general public themselves.

Green view on today's spending review

Budget to destroy a million jobs

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP has called George Osborne's comprehensive spending review a "budget to destroy a million jobs" - and has again argued that the worst cuts could have been avoided by an alternative policy based on a fairer tax regime.

Caroline Lucas said immediately after the budget statement:

"This is a budget to destroy half a million jobs in the public sector, according to the government's own estimates. And the knock-on effects will be at least as many jobs lost in the private sector."

The Brighton Pavilion MP added:

"When those public sector workers find themselves out of work they will, along with disabled people, feel the full force of the additional £7 billion worth of cuts in welfare spending, on top of the £11 billion of cuts announced in June. The housing benefit regime will become much more harsh, risking a rise in homelessness.

"They will also find that the loss of public services that this budget represents will massively disadvantage them, and all the most vulnerable people in society who rely on those services."

She asked:

"Where's the fairness in a budget that lets vital public services go to the wall, hitting the poorest hardest?"

Britain's first Green Party MP concluded:

"This was a budget of false economies, undermining the economy and hitting the most vulnerable - and all, incredibly, under the banner of fairness."

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.

Cut Trident, dont replace, save £97 billion

From Greenpeace UK: Right now the government is discussing exactly what to cut from national budgets. Over the next few weeks final decisions will be made - in the firing line are schools, hospitals, housing and disability benefits and essential support for renewable energy.

At the same time they seem determined to green light spending £97bn on a new generation of nuclear weapons. Spending which is due to start at the end of this year.

How can it be that spending on building weapons of mass destruction is protected while investment in the 20 year Schools for the Future programme is scrapped?

And how can they justify giving the nuclear weapons factory at Aldermaston an extra £1billion funding every year to build new nuclear warheads - while scientific research funding is cut?

Again and again polls show that the public don't want new nuclear weapons. Weapons that the international community is working to eliminate.

Meantime senior military figures are warning against spending billions on Cold War weapons that are irrelevant to our military needs, while troop numbers face sharp cuts.

Please make your voice heard. Write to Chancellor George Osborne today. Let him know that you want to protect essential public services and cut Trident.

Louise Edge
Greenpeace Peace campaign

Please pass this message on.

More Greenpeace...on the web
We're also on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, del.icio.us and twitter

Elections and coalition government

I’d just like to put on public record my thanks to the many hundreds of people who supported my views and campaigning for economic wellbeing, social justice and environmental protection by voting for me as the Green candidate for Bristol East in the general election and for Knowle in the local elections. I’m finding the coalition government election outcome a fascinating one to see developing and unfolding. I have mixed feelings about the coalition because whilst I support the principle and practice of cooperation and consensus decision making between all parties it is very clear that the Liberal-Conservative Government is far from progressive and modern: it is planning both huge cuts in public services and large tax rises; the AV voting system we are to have a referendum on is no more fair and proportional than the current system and just tends to reinforce the status quo power of centre-ground politics; the new Cabinet does not fairly reflect our population eg 83% are male and 65% went to either Oxford or Cambridge; it has no more idea on how to reconcile our economy and society with the environment to build a fair, green and sustainable future than the Blair or Brown Governments.

Meet my reasonable needs to do the job of MP - no more, no less

Spoke at a very interesting meeting organised by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) last night in Whitehall. I'm grateful to the meeting organisers and to all those who attended and asked a wide range of searching questions. I'm already on record as supporting PCS campaigning to protect and promote public services, jobs, equality, those on low pay and unfair conditions of employment, and to fight fascism (see here and here). What I said went down well I think. There was good agreement in many respects between myself and TUSC candidate Rae Lynch (http://www.tusc.org.uk/) - not that this post constitutes a total endorsement of course!!

One of the most striking questions was on MPs pay and expenses. It was very powerfully put and reminded me of the commitment given now and whilst he was a Labour MP by socialist Dave Nellist to take 'only the wage of a skilled factory worker (40% of what he could have earned), less than half that which other MPs took for themselves, the rest he donated back to the Labour movement and to charities'. It also reminded me of the commitment I made on the issue of MPs pay and expenses all the way back in July 2008 (before the MPs expenses scandal) here (relevant extract below*). I am personally committed to making no net financial gain in any way, shape or form from being an MP and have always believed that only my needs to do the job of MP and should be met, no more and no less. I also believe very strongly in the merits of MPs living on income similar to that of people in general.

_________________________________________________

*Extract from July 2008 post: I recently posted about the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who looked at what various categories of people need in order to live at an acceptable standard and participate in UK society. I propose that this sort of method should be applied to all MPs, including members of the Government - get a fair, independent body to examine what is needed for MPs to do their jobs well and also live decent, reasonably rounded lives and pay them and/or provide them with appropriate facilities as required.If I was ever elected as an MP (I wish!!) I would certainly work on this basis, whether or not this kind of system was the official one. Are any local MPs willing to have an independent body go over what their actual needs are?

Doubt, questioning, evidence, reason...progress

As someone who very strongly believes in questioning, doubt, scepticism, naturalism and reasoning I was very interested to receive the email below* from the British Humanist Association (http://www.humanism.org.uk/home). I responded to the 'doorstep questions' in their manifesto as follows:

DOORSTEP QUESTIONS

1. Should government departments treat humanist, secular and religious organisations equally in policy making, funding decisions and consultations?

Yes

2. Should religious organisations be contracted to deliver public services?

No

3. What do you think the government's policy should be on faith schools?

No publicly-funded school should be run by a religious organisation. Schools should teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but should not deliver religious instruction in any form or encourage adherence to any particular religious belief.

Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations should reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach should be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

4. What do you think about exemptions for religious organisations from aspects of antidiscrimination and equality legislation?

There should be no religious exemptions from equality and anti-discrimination legislation

5. Would you vote to retain or remove bishops from the House of Lords?

Remove!!

6. How would you vote on abortion / assisted dying for the terminally ill?

In favour of both

7. Will you defend the Human Rights Act?

Yes

8. Do you think dialogue work that doesn't include non-religious people (e.g. 'interfaith' work) is desirable?

No - dialogue should include non-religious people.

9. Do you think that religious leaders should have privileged access to policy and decision makers?

No!!

10. Do you think that publicly funded faith schools should be allowed to discriminate in their admissions and employment?

No

________________________________________________

*I am delighted to enclose the British Humanist Association’s (BHA) General Election Manifesto. The BHA is the national charity representing the interests of the large and growing population of ethically concerned non-religious people living in the UK. It exists to support and represent people who seek to live good and responsible lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.

The numbers of such people are undoubtedly growing and current figures (from the British Social Attitudes survey of January 2010) suggest that 43% of the population is happy to self-identify as non-religious, with the numbers of those not practising or affiliated to a religion much higher.

The BHA is deeply committed to human rights, equality, democracy, and an end to irrelevant discrimination, and has a long history of active engagement in work for an open and inclusive society. In such a society, people of all beliefs would have equal treatment before the law, and the rights of those with all beliefs to hold and live by them would be reasonably accommodated within a legal framework setting minimum common legal standards.

The Manifesto set out the BHA’s vision on a number of core areas of work, from human rights to faith schools to free speech. These are all important issues for the millions of non-religious people in the UK.

We have included a number of questions in the Manifesto for your consideration and we would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to consider the questions and email us your answers to pepper@humanism.org.uk. We will use collate the answers for information and may pass them on to another organisation who is mapping the views of PPC’s on various issues.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Copson
Chief Executive
BHA

Green commitment to public services

Just signed up to all statements in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) pledge and will be speaking on how Green policies are consistent with them at a candidates question time meeting organised by PCS tomorrow night, 6pm, at The Rose Green Centre, Gordon Rd, Whitehall (had several of the emails below*). I have pledged to: work to ensure that public services are properly resourced and delivered by the public sector and that there are no further local office closures, public sector job cuts or privatisations; support measures aimed at closing the UK tax gap including recruiting HMRC staff and ensuring tax loopholes are closed; support civil service national pay bargaining and to press the government to offer pay increases to public sector workers at least in line with inflation; honour the 2005 commitment on public sector pensions and defend the rights of existing members of the civil service compensation scheme; campaign to ensure any changes to public services are only made after proper equality impact assessments have been conducted and their findings implemented. I've previously expressed my strong support for the campaigns of the PCS on pay, jobs, office closures, privatisation, tax staff and fighting fascism here.

Greens are committed to high investment in public services and to opposing cuts. We have a £44 billion Green New Deal investment plan designed to begin the creation of a fair and sustainable society ie one that has health and wellbeing as the measure of progress in place of ‘growth’ and
which reconciles the economic and social with our environment such that we can all lead decent lives now and on into the future. Greens are arguing very strongly for: redistribution of wealth; closing the equality gap; resource efficiency; renewability; staying within environmental limits;
strong and empowered local communities; quality of life (see the Greens policies/manifesto at: http://www.onlygreen.org.uk/ )

______________________________________________________

*Dear Mr Vowles,
>
>I am writing to you as a prospective constituent to let you know about my
>union’s election campaign, Make Your Vote Count and to ask you to respond
>to our five election pledges.
>
>My union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, represents almost
>300,000 members in the civil service, non departmental public bodies and
>the private sector right across the country.
>
>As you know, public services are a particularly pertinent issue in this
>election and I am keen to find out where you stand on our key campaign
>issues (see below). Once you have responded to our election pledges this
>information will be distributed to PCS members locally and also published
>on the PCS website.
>
>1) I pledge to work to ensure that public services are properly resourced
>and delivered by the public sector and that there are no further local
>office closures, public sector job cuts or privatisations.
>2) I pledge to support measures aimed at closing the UK tax gap including
>recruiting HMRC staff and ensuring tax loopholes are closed.
>3) I pledge to support civil service national pay bargaining and to press
>the government to offer pay increases to public sector works at least in
>line with inflation.
>4) I pledge to honour the 2005 commitment on public sector pensions and
>defend the rights of existing members of the civil service compensation
>scheme.
>5) I pledge to campaign to ensure any changes to public services are only
>made after proper equality impact assessments have been conducted and
>their findings implemented.
>
>I would therefore be very grateful if you could outline your position on
>each of our pledges above in 150 words or less and send your response to
>.....or myvc@pcs.org.uk by 26 April.
>
>This offers you a unique opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to
>public services to me and other PCS members in your constituency. If you
>have any questions about this request or would like further information
>on our campaigns please visit www.pcs.org.uk/myvc .
>
>Yours sincerely

Action on women's equality

Email below received from the Fawcett Society. Just sent my responses, saying yes to: tackling the gender pay gap; increasing support services for victims of rape; addressing the low level of rapes that end in a conviction; working to assess the impact of any cuts on women's income and public services.

________________________________________________

Subject: Will you pledge to support action on women’s inequality in Bristol East and the wider UK?

Dear Mr Vowles,

I am writing on behalf of Fawcett Society members in Bristol East and across the UK to ask, if you are elected as an MP on May 6th, will you support action on women’s inequality in Bristol East and the wider UK?

In the South West Region region the pay gap between men and women is still a scandalous 18.8% and only 4.6% of reported rapes lead to a conviction. There is also mounting concern that action to tackle the UK’s deficit, in particular public service’s cuts, may well disproportionably disadvantage women if more consideration is not taken into how tax and spending policies may impact men and women differently.

In this context we are keen to hear whether if elected as MP for Bristol East you would:

Support local and national action to tackle the gender pay gap?

Yes

Increase support services for women victims of rape as well as address the low level of rapes that end in a conviction?

Yes

Work with Fawcett and others to ensure that both local and national deficit cutting proposals are assessed in terms of how they would impact on women – both regarding access to public services and women’s income’s?

Yes

We would be grateful if you could please respond by reply to the questions above as soon as possible and no later than 12 noon on Wednesday 28th April when the responses of all the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate’s in Bristol East will be published both on our web and in local and national media for the information of voters.

Links to answers given by your party nationally can be accessed here:

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1068

Since 1860, when our founder Millicent Fawcett led the campaign for the women’s vote, Fawcett has a proud record of working with parliamentarians to continue to progress equality between men and women.

If elected as the next MP for Bristol East we hope very much to be able to rely on your support.

With best wishes,

Ceri Goddard
CEO
__ _____________________________________________________
Fawcett produces a regular supporters’ e-bulletin, and briefings on key issues affecting women’s equality in the UK, please indicate here if you would like to receive these updates:

Yes