I’m appalled at the damage being done to our society; the Government’s assault on our cultural life with the closure of libraries and cuts to art and film funding, and the way a whole generation of young people are having their ambitions squashed by a combination of cuts to EMA, a reduction in university places and rising tuition fees, is all quite terrifying and unfair.

Above all on the cuts agenda, I’m horrified at the perfect storm that the Government is about to unleash in London, with poorer Londoners suffering the consequences of housing shortages, a guillotine-like execution of housing benefit provision, and the drying up of funds to build social, rented housing for people earning below the average wage. This could result in the social cleansing of London, driving poorer residents out of their homes, away from their friends and relations, and into outer London boroughs that won’t want them.

I couldn’t agree more. I also couldn’t agree more with her further point:

I’m marching because I believe that the deficit is being used as an excuse for the coalition to do what Conservative governments always enjoy doing – creating small government by cutting and privatising public services.

There is money to bail out Ireland. There has been no action taken against the bankers who got us into this mess in the first place. There is a narrative being pushed that although they were responsible, they can’t under any circumstances be pressed into taking responsibility for it – the poor can and should. After all the Big Society will take care of them (except the funding needed for that is being forcibly removed too). As of yesterday small businesses can fire pregnant women or gay men and get away with it, and hey – like movies like ‘The King’s Speech’ or the excellent indie production ‘Submarine’? No more UK Film Council either – regulations and government agencies are all ‘wasteful’, as apparently is spending money on teaching in universities.

It’s time to start standing up against this assault on the economy and British public life – Jenny Jones is right when she says what the coalition is doing is ideological. Fight back, and enjoy this satirical take on just this point:

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Coalition plans to sell off swathes of England’s publicly-owned forests have been published in the face of widespread public opposition and questions over the economic case for the proposals.

Private owners could be allowed to take over management of nearly half a million acres of land previously owned by the Forestry Commission. Some 15% of the forest estate, worth an estimated £100m, is already being sold. This latest consultation could lead to the sale of the remaining 85%.

Caroline Lucas, Brighton Pavilion’s MP, will try to amend the Public Bodies Bill – which would enable the sell off – when it comes to the Commons. She said:

“There was a public consultation on the Public Forest Estate less than 18 months ago. We don’t need another one.

“The public have already made it clear that they want to maintain public forests – and many are now concerned that the Government’s misjudged and short-sighted plans pose a serious threat to whole swathes of our much loved woodlands.

“Despite Caroline Spelman’s belief that the Government should not involve itself in forest management, there are very good reasons for our woodlands and forests to remain under public ownership.

“The Forestry Commission has a proven record in environmental protection and managing sites of special scientific interest. It is highly unlikely that the same kind of long term care and protection would be afforded to the land once in private hands.

“Furthermore, access rights on Forestry Commission land go far beyond the basic rights of access that the law offers.

“And if the Government’s claims about environmental protection are true, the sell-off makes no economic sense either. Who will want to buy this land unless they can develop it into a profit making enterprise?

“The fact is, the plans are unlikely to make any money and may even cost the taxpayer extra, as those who take our forests apply for Government grants that may match or even exceed the value of the sale.”

Caroline added: “The Government is now on the back foot as a result of the public campaign against their ill judged plans. But we still have a fight on our hands to resist the legislative changes that would make the sell off a reality – which is why I will be seeking to amend the Public Bodies Bill in the Commons.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Conservatives don’t want to change the current system, and are allowing the referendum to shore up the coalition in the hope that the country will vote No. To them, AV is more acceptable than a genuinely proportional system because it minimises the risk of Ukip winning any seats at their expense. The Liberal Democrats have dropped STV, comforted by the fact that AV will benefit them more than anyone else. And Labour can drop its commitment to reform while blaming the government.

And it’s a joke. Labour went into the general election promising the alternative vote (AV) system at the very least in a referendum next year, the Lib Dems seemed pretty much fixated on STV as their price for entering any coalition and the Tories…the Tories of course are conservative and don’t like anyone messing with the status quo. Especially if it’s to their advantage. Now we have the Lib Dems abandoning all their core principles, the Tories trying to stab them in the back (with Clegg letting them know they can) and Labour using the debate to try to put them both on the back foot. It’s boring, it’s tedious and it’s robbing people of the enthusiasm which got sparked after the first televised election debate.

My own party, the Greens, supports the Additional Member System – a system which is more proportional but which maintains a constituency link. We’ll be deciding our position on AV at our forthcoming conference. But I believe that the most important priority is to give the public a real choice. Otherwise, people will remain cynical and disengaged. That is why I will be tabling an amendment in Parliament to rewrite the question to allow people to choose between AV, AMS, STV and the party list system, or to stick with first past the post.

And this I think is the issue. A referendum to decide on AV or not is a near-meaningless exercise. The chances of it being won are remote, the arguments behind voting reform are already getting lost once again, and the opportunities which were in our grasp last May could easily slip away, all because each of the main parties can’t see past their own short-term advantage. The broader argument over electoral reform should be available, with at least a major party articulating what the benefits would be to the political process itself. We continue to have the wrong people entering politics, and continuing to short up their professional careers and bank balances as the only regular outcome. That has to stop. AV won’t do it – Caroline Lucas is right, and her amendment should be given unconditional support. Maybe then we can return to political debate in this country rather than be led by the nose ever more by the Murdoch media and a still-supine BBC.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Caroline Lucas’ triumph in the Brighton Pavillion constituency was despite the first-past-the-post voting system, and really should be celebrated by anyone involved in progressive politics in the UK, particularly those who are looking for a genuine alternative to the neoliberal consensus offered by the three main parties. Sadly in my constituency the Green vote melted away – Joan Ruddock was returned as MP yet again, and the council went overwhelmingly back to Labour.

Elsewhere the Commons lost Dr Evan Harris, which quite frankly is a disaster, although you wouldn’t know it from the Torygraph:

A stranger to principle, Harris has coat-tailed some of the most vulnerable and weak people available to him to further his dogged, secularist campaign to have people of faith – any faith – swept from the public sphere. The Lib Dems served the purpose of providing him with a parliamentary seat, but his true love was the National Secular Society. For a doctor, he supported the strange idea that terminally ill people should be helped to kill themselves. He pretended to defend Roman Catholics by attacking the Act of Settlement, with the real aim of undermining the established Church of England. A drab, secular determinism was his sole motivation; his parliamentary career consequently a one-trick pony.

Now he’s gone to spend more time with his NSS pamphlets and the House of Commons is better for his passing. His political demise will be mourned only by those with a strange fascination for death, those euthanasia enthusiasts whose idea of care for the elderly and infirm is a one-way ticket to Switzerland. But now Dr Death cannot bring a malign influence to bear on the legislature any longer. Bye bye, Evan.

Nasty, nasty, just plain nasty, and that was written by an Anglican priest, who’s supposed to believe in charity. Evan Harris’ parliamentary career (which will surely resume after the next election in 6-12 months) was marked by an emphasis on science, rationalism, evidence-based policy making, compassion and common sense. Whatever the issue you knew the moment he was interviewed about it you knew he would be the one, often the only Member of Parliament who would actually make complete sense. On parliamentary reform:

The recent Coroners and Justice Act – to mention just one of many – contained significant amendments to the law on murder, mercy killing, manslaughter and assisted suicide. While the media debates these matters and the public expects its MPs to, these weren’t even discussed in two days of debate because of the way the government organised the guillotines, as I protested, with no consultation and without regard to the lack of propriety involved in seeing the elected house passing laws “on the nod”. No other self-respecting democracy would tolerate this control of the agenda by the government.

On free speech:

On maintaining a secular NHS:

But maybe Ben Goldacre puts it best:

Recently we were comparing hate mail, and it occurred to me that you could only really pay tribute to the vital contribution Evan has made by listing all the groups who despise him, and the vicious hate campaigns they have mounted. The antivaccination conspiracy theorists hate him, because he drove for more and better evidence on the MMR and autism hoax, and helped expose it through the GMC. The animal rights protestors hate him, because he has dared to stand up for necessary and well-regulated animal experiments, an unpopular cause even among those who quietly benefit from their results. He is despised by fundamentalist christians, because he defends stem cell research and a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body when she is pregnant. Homophobic christians (not all christians, but the homophobic ones) despise him, because he is clear that if you run a B&B, you have to let a gay couple stay, the same as any other (and although nobody ever mentions it, if you’re gay and run a B&B, you have to let a christian stay too). He is despised by homeopaths because he dared to examine the evidence for their magic beans, he is despised by climate change denialists for the same reason, and alongside all of this, he has led the field on libel reform and on free speech, on disentangling church from state while remaining respectful on religion, he has stood up and been a clear thinker on the role of scientific advisors and evidence on policy, and much more.

But of course he was up against the likes of this:

@Nadine4mp: Do my eyes and ears deceive me? Has Dr Death really lost his seat ?

Evangelical Christianists are on the march, demanding special rights in employment, and now in politics seek to supplant progress, equality and reason with myth, superstition, fear and hatred. That’s not the politics I recognise in this country, that’s not even the way I see this country at all. Make no mistake it’s a triumph that the BNP had such a catastrophically bad night on Thursday night, and that the Green Party is now represented in Westminster, but that chamber is not the place for those who seek to turn the clock back on modernity itself. I myself will continue to argue against religious extremism in any area of civic life, and for the diversity agenda to continue to operate against bigotry and discrimination, not to uphold rights to discriminate. I’ve long been a fan of Dr Harris and hope very much for his political career as an MP to resume with as short a gap as humanly possible. I hope my readers who agree that the principles of the Enlightenment should be fought for at all costs will join with me in making sure we get this vital asset to our lives back in parliament soon.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The government the signatories are asking us to elect (and to vote for with enthusiasm) will continue the war in Afghanistan, the subordinate relationship with the US, and the international and domestic “war on terror” with its terrible human toll. It will continue to harass immigrants and pander to xenophobia and racism. It will implement public sector cuts on a vast scale, to the detriment of the living standards of the majority and in obeisance to the global financial elite. By adhering to the neoliberal dogma that unites Clegg with Cameron and Brown, it will exacerbate the inequalities that have already reached obscene dimensions. And in the unlikely event that it takes anything like the steps needed on climate change, that will only be because a popular movement has dragged it by the scruff of the neck.

I really wish this weren’t such a strong analysis. Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems want a proportional voting system to – continue more of the same. They offer a complete departure from governmental obsession with databases and surveillance, from rejigging the relationship between the individual and state, but they’re still tied into the same neoliberal nonsense as the Labservatives. Where’s the talk about social housing? Where’s the substantive talk on climate change? Why are they talking about ‘savage’ cuts to public services, instead of a Tobin/Robin Hood tax?

The Green Party offers a living wage, the removal of market forces from the health service, a Robin Hood tax, a high pay commission and an end to the privileged status of faith schools. They’re against destituting asylum seekers, don’t agree Trident should be replaced and would cut tuition fees and City Academies. It may not be perfect, there may be flaws but it’s sure a start and tomorrow I shall be voting enthusiastically for Darren Johnson.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s a good party election broadcast, and in addition to Darren Johnson’s video in the earlier post I couldn’t agree more about the High Pay Commission. The Greens have some excellent policies, and I hope they get at least one MP this election. If I didn’t think the Freedom Bill and PR were so fundamentally important ahead of everything else, I’d vote for them like a shot.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s a difficult one for me. Darren Johnson’s a nice guy, and an effective local councillor. I totally support a @RobinHood tax, building more social housing, a living wage, and the NHS not being run according to marketised principles. Yet the Lib Dems are offering the Freedom Bill and a proportional voting system (without which little else of value is likely to follow). So do I vote Tam Langley instead? It’s a difficult choice this election. I’d be delighted with either of them winning.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When French immigration minister Eric Besson calls the Calais “jungle” camp clearance a “dignified” success, Alan Johnson expresses his “delight” and immigration minister Phil Woolas questions whether these refugees deserve sanctuary, they expose the asylum system as profoundly broken.

What I saw at 8am on Tuesday was not dignified or humane. Men were wrestled and thrown to the ground, others head-locked and throttled. One boy collapsed and was removed. Not by the police, but by protesters.

As Parkinson points out, EU law says that asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first country they land in. But it’s an horrific cop out to suggest to people genuinely fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq or Eritrea (few of whom will do so by air) can only claim asylum in member states which are essentially the closest to them. Italy? With its current persecution of Roma? Greece? With its treatment of refugees? That system has resulted in:

illegal push-backs of migrants at the Turkish border, the puncturing of boats in the Aegean Sea, deplorable conditions of detention, police brutality, and various legal and administrative tricks to keep asylum seekers from lodging a claim, all of which Human Rights Watch exhaustively documented in two reports published late last year.

The Dublin Convention is clearly a failure, yet Britain and France express delight at the prospect of sending refugees back to the first EU country they entered, which in many cases for refugees formerly living in the Calais ‘jungle’ was Greece. This is particularly alarming considering many fellow EU governments have stopped transferring asylum seekers back there. Yet immigration minister Phil Woolas:

rejected suggestions that (even) those (merely) with family links should be allowed to come to Britain to claim asylum: “If they were asylum seekers they would have claimed asylum in France or in the first country they came to,” he said. The home secretary said “genuine refugees” would be offered protection if they claimed asylum in the first safe country they reached. The rest were expected to go home.

Such compassion. No doubt there will be economic migrants in their number, no doubt hardened criminals too. But to dismiss the genuine needs and concerns of refugees, and falling back on an asylum system which benefits neither refugee nor host country is just monstrous. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has spoken out, saying:

“Rather than fulfilling their responsibilities to seekers of asylum under both EU and international law, the French and British governments are turning a blind eye to the suffering taking place on their own doorsteps. Home Secretary Alan Johnson‘s glee in the wake of this aggressive police raid is particularly disturbing.

“The plan for mass deportations of these refugees rides roughshod over the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Geneva Convention. And given that so many facing expulsion are children, the plans may also breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“This short term ‘solution’ is not only inhumane – it will not work. The French are not playing their part in allowing people to claim asylum in Calais, and must commit to making the official procedures for seeking asylum more accessible to those in need. Equally, other EU Member states must recognise their duty to share the responsibility.”

Protests against the UK Border Agency have taken place here, here here and here. There is continuing coverage by Calais Migrant Solidarity here.

(photo source)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.