Blog Posts

Blair makes war, becomes peace envoy. Green Jenny Jones questions war, becomes 'domestic extremist'

16/6/2014

Jenny Jones on her narrowboat. French sticks or WMD? Is it a Narrowboat or an armed submarine in disguise. In any case Scotland yard are on the case. Sleep easy.

Funny old game. Former London mayoral candidate and current Green Party peer Jenny Jones has for over a decade been under police surveillance. Her activities have been recorded on a secret database for tracking "domestic extremists"Tony Blair oversaw the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and left his post as PM and MP to become Middle East peace envoy.

The then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it (the Iraq war) was illegal"

The invasion, we were told, was necessary because Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons of mass destruction were never found. Tony Blair has insisted in an essay released on his website on Saturday, that although no weapons of mass destruction had been found that " he (Sadam) retained the expertise and capability to manufacture them"

Tony Blair has been active over the weekend. Along with the publication of his essay, simply called 'Iraq Syria & the Middle East' he has also appeared in TV interviews. This came as the Pentagon dispatched the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush and two guided missile ships into the Gulf.

Government officials in London have confirmed that British military personnel could again be deployed in Iraq to help tackle the growing instability of the region. Full-scale military intervention has been ruled out at this stage, but plans are in place for a "counter-terrorism" package.

Over the weekend Mr Blair has said:

"You do not need to engage as we did in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you need to recognise that we have interests in this"

"This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not."

"At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared."

"It is in our interests for this jihadist extremist group to be stopped in its tracks. I understand entirely why people say 'it is nothing to do with us and I don't want to hear about it'."

The jihadists "are not simply fighting Iraqis and they are also willing to fight us and they will if we don't stop them"

"It is vitally important that we realise what is at stake here and act. We are going to have to engage with it or the consequences will come back on us as we see in Syria today.

The Iraqi ambassador in Washington, Lukman Faily is also raising anxieties that the effects of a destabilising Middle East will be directly felt here in the UK. On BBC Radio 4's 'The World This Weekend' he questioned:

"What will [be] the impact on the streets of London and Bradford and others?"

"These jihadists are coming from all over the world, so do you want these jihadists to go back to their country, in Bradford and elsewhere, to learn [sic] what they have practised in Iraq?"

Clare Short the Labour minister who resigned because of the Iraq invasion does not support Mr Blair's suggestion that there should be some level of intervention and has told Sky news that he is "absolutely, consistently wrong, wrong, wrong".

"He has become a complete American neo-con, who thinks military action, bombing, attacking will solve the problems and it's actually making more and more tension, anger, division and bitterness in the Middle East"

Jenny Jones has spoken against the Iraq invasion in 2003 and was under police surveillance for over a decade.

The 'file' on Jenny Jones records her activities from 2001- 2012 and includes reference to attendance at anti-war demonstrations, social media activities and concerns she has expressed against the arms trade, the invasion of Iraq, conservative cuts in public spending, police hostility (with specific reference to the death of Ian Tomlinson) and ironically, concerns regard excessive police surveilance.

Police recorded that "open source material" indicated that she "has tweeted that she, a Green party mayor candidate" was going to be attending a pro-cycling protest in August 2012 and was "concerned that she may be kettled by the Met".

Seems like a reasonable concern for anyone attending a peaceful protest. More recently, and a cause of greater concern, she has challenged her competitor in the 2012 Mayoral elections, Boris Johnson for his purchase of second hand water-cannons (£1.3 million each) prior to any official 'go-ahead' that they could ever be used (see video below)

Jenny Jones along with Green Councillor Ian Driver (who has also been under surveillance) used data protection laws to obtain the files.

Jenny Jones is presently the only Green party representative in the House of Lords. She has held a series of posts in local government, including deputy mayor. In response she has said she has never been arrested, and all the information held on her is related to her work as an elected politician. She has also stated that the monitoring was unjustified and not a good use of police resources. The Green politicians have signed witness statements to support a lawsuit to be heard at the Supreme Court later this year.

Iraq Syria & The Middle East: An essay by Tony Blair
Tony Blair we must intervene in Iraq: The Guardian
Tony Blair: We did not cause the Iraq Crisis: BBC news
Green Party peer put on database of extremists after police surveillance: The Guardian

8 Comments

Pssst - They don't want us to - But it really is time we talked TTIP (aka dances with corporotocracy)

13/6/2014

1 Comment

Capitalism: you have to respect it. Ya know, in the same way you can have a kind of technical respect for the ideology of the virus or cancer cell. I respect sewer rats too. They are adaptable and resilient, they quickly become immune to poison put down for them by humans, eventually, as if in an act of defiance, they start feasting on that poison, like it's a tasty snack, nomnom.

As long as there are humans to exploit and natural environments to tear down and make commodities from, the march of capital accumulation will continue, always adapting, and always finding new niches and markets.

Seeing as profit is the objective, it has to apply this to any problem that it encounters. So if we need less CO2, well, we commodify the atmosphere and create a market where carbon credits are bought and sold: straight out of the evil genius handbook, it makes some corporations some money ( as an aside fails to stop the destabilisation of the climate, but hey ho). Keeping the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole and the gas in the rocks, now that's an idea..............but.....it does not make money (as an aside, it saves the climate but hey ho)

Whatever you throw at it, capital asks first - how do we make money from this? if it can't satisfy the 'bottom line' and fill the pockets of shareholders, then it is a project that will be passed over. Who needs ecosystems anyway, they are just sooo last year, eh?

If you don't want to read all of this article then just allow the mental residue of these 3 words to permeate in your head space:

"CORPORATE POWER GRAB!"

It is all about corporations. It was invented by corporations. Propaganda to support its aims has been produced by corporations and has quickly been exposed as complete nonsense.

A group of non-corporations did not meet one day over a drink and decide, you know what? - TTIP is EXACTLY what we need.

If TTIP had a native American name it would be dances with corporotocracy

It is an exercise in increasing the power that they have in the US and the EU. As the Asian economies increasingly threaten the imperial powers this is a move to remain competitive.

The flip. The more power corporations have:

The less governments have.
The less people have.
The more exposed nature is to destruction.

Our representative democracy is far from perfect, it is ironically non-representative and decisions are too distant from the people and from civic society. But this flawed system, would be replaced by something much worse with TTIP. That is, a corporotocracy. Some would argue that we are already half way there. Perhaps in the US much more than halfway. The Whitehouse is a revolving door for people to alternate between employment as corporate leaders and politicians. Corporate political collusion is the norm.

Due to the actions of corporate lawyers many moons ago, a corporation in the US has the legal status of, and the same rights as a human! Commentators compare this particular entity (the corporation as a human) to that of a psychopath i.e. it has a complete lack of empathy and compassion.

TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) you would think, is about trade. Not quite, there are not really major barriers between the US and EU, some tariffs that could be reduced maybe. What it boils down to is a corporate wish list for the attenuation of standards. Environmental regulations, workers rights, food safety, think of all the things that Monsanto would do if they had control. If you have not already done so, kiss the climate goodbye. The potential detrimental impact on society and nature is frightening. But the potential boost in profits for the 0.1% is very considerable.

There is a lot more. This is a very 'holistic plan' An evil genius such as our friend pictured top left (Dr Evil) would be proud.

TTIP includes a toxic mechanism called the 'investor-state dispute settlement' this could threaten almost any means by which governments might seek to defend their people or protect the environment. It allows big corporations to throw their toys out of the pram if they don't get what they want and sue governments.

So if for example a government does not allow a frack company to drill under your houses, or to frack, period, the corporate lawyers would take that government to court. The scope is huge. It was deregulation of the banking sector that delivered the financial crisis, here again in a corporotocracy the banks rule OK and could stop governments from applying the brakes.

This isn't the preserve of theory or worst case scenario thinking. This mechanism applies to existing trade agreements. Mining companies are suing governments who are trying to keep them out, nuclear power companies are suing Germany for their decision to go renewable, Australia is being sued by a tobacco company etc

More - TTIP also envisions the establishment of a 'Regulatory Cooperation Council'. Big Business has been lobbying for this for years. This basically means that corporations can 'nip in the bud' government policy, stuff that would potentially be a corporate inconvenience would never progress past the proposal stage.

An Evil Plan indeed.

Why with so much at stake is this not HUGE news then?

Many of the TTIP talks are alarmingly secretive and much information has been derived from leaked memos. As I have said several times in recent articles, the media over here have supported a pro-establishment right wing agenda. Farageism has shifted debate to the right. Whilst people are distracted, putting locks on their doors in fear of a tidal wave of blood sucking Bulgarians the real news story has been completely neglected. Likewise it is true that politicians have failed to elevate the issue. That is because hardly any of them seem to be against it, in fact with few exceptions they are in support.

Having just seen Cameron Clegg and Milliband! photographed with their free copies of the Sun. It does not bode well at all. Over to another 'ocracy' an integral part of the notion of corporatocracy is 'Murdocracy' or related media power. From the Urban Dictionary:

The murder of democracy through misinformation - via Rupert Murdoch's "news" outlets. By framing the narrative through his tabloid and TV outlets in Australia, the US and UK, Rupert Murdoch manipulates the collective consensus, changing ostensibly democratically elected governments at will, to meet his commercial and political needs. Murdochracy is a hijacking of democracy by controlling, restricting and distorting the information on which people make decisions to vote.

Seeing the image of the 3 'main leaders' yesterday with their Sun papers is possibly the most powerful image to date; the most damning indictment of our political system and of our democracy.

Nick Clegg has been gallivanting around the US to sell TTIP to its sceptics. David Cameron has said

"it's a once in a generation prize".

Laughing all the way to the bank he is. In solidarity with the people of Liverpool I can't even bring myself to research what Ed Milliband has said.

I intended to set up my own blog so I could write about a host of things, but it seems to be turning into an ongoing Green Party ad. I passionately believe they are just 'on it' right now. The political objection to TTIP is all Green. Caroline Lucas has published an early-day motion on the issue. Greens in Europe are leading the charge. New south west MEP Molly Scott Cato an Economist, like all greens is strongly opposed. In response to an article in the Wall Street Journal she asserts that TTIP:

"will likely result in another onslaught from the peddlers of genetically modified foods, pharmaceuticals and social protections”
"it is not about trade but about corporate power and the expansion thereof"

The fight against TTIP is 'David vs Goliath'. It will come down to the patchy representation greens have in political arenas, grassroots campaigns and a lot of passion. This has to become big news and quickly. Time is thin.

#timetotalkttip

1 Comment

50000 names handed into the BBC (UKIP promotion/Green Party invisibility) Interested in your feedback they are not?

10/6/2014

3 Comments

Is it true that BBC commentators have a rare condition? Spontaneous Epistaxis (nose bleeds) when saying the words 'Green Party?' Yet, experience an almost uncontrollable and addictive 'high' caused by a sudden rush of dopamine and other feel-good neurotransmitters on mention of the word 'UKIP?'. Perhaps when Harry met Sally could occur with mention of the phrase 'UKIP POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE!'.

As you may have noticed this has been on my mind recently and I was very happy to join with green activists and importantly I feel 'non-greens' too, all of whom share concerns about the BBC failing to meet their own constitutional guidelines regard impartiality. A fascinating day, with a few 'well I didn't expect that' moments.

Prior to meeting the 38 degree team and Green party activists outside of BBC's broadcasting house, I sat outside a neighbouring building 'The Langham'. An exclusive hotel, Europe's first 'Grand Hotel' host to royalty and foreign dignitaries since the 1860s and nowadays more recent aberrations; 'celebrities'. Cars worth more than most people's houses arrive one after the other, and a sycophantic manager enthusiastically hugs and oozes over each new guest, as the drivers open doors and bellhops cart luggage without acknowledgement.

The manager calls out to two girls that are sitting in front of me 'are you sure they are here girls?'. They sit poised with smart phones in hand, camera software running. I ask who it is the manager was referring to. They tell me a band name (I can't remember who) apparently they were 1 direction's support act the other night and rumours on twitter are that they are now staying in the Langham.

The young woman shows me pictures of the band members and focuses in on the blurred background behind the band members faces. She tells me, that if I look closely at the shape of a particular lamp post and the distance between road markings, that she is pretty convinced that the picture was taken when they were standing just in front of the hotel and points to a patch of pavement. Impressed with the forensic analysis but unconvinced and confused by the motivations behind it, I wished them luck and turned my head to the left to face BBC Broadcasting house.

You know what I'm thinking, how the proximity of the 2 buildings is unavoidably symbolic regard how the broadcaster struggles with its own impartiality, establishment pleasing behaviours and 'clickbaiting' aka 'Farageism'

In the words of one BBC commentator; Robert Peston who spoke out last week:

If I'm honest, the BBC's routinely so anxious about being accused of being left-wing, it quite often veers in what you might call a very pro-establishment, [a] rather right-wing direction, so that it's not accused of that.
There's a slightly 'safety first' thing at the BBC - that if we think the Mail or the Telegraph is gonna lead with it, then we should lead with it I happen to think that's mad.

The Telegraph and the Mail; So many front pages to chose from for an illustration here, and no one has even mentioned the Express yet.

A recap of some of our concerns:

The Green Party garnered more votes than the Liberal Democrats in the Euro elections and now has more MEPs (treble the number if we apply some spin of our own). The Liberal Democrats are in coalition government. This displacement of a government party is a significant development and an impartial broadcaster would not exclude it from their coverage, or lump results into that dustbin they call 'other'. In the locals the greens currently have 162 councillors in total, gaining 23 seats on May 22nd. UKIP are hardly polls apart, they have 214 in this arena. UKIPs result in the Euros was very newsworthy but in the locals talk of a political earthquake was misplaced. UKIPs associations in Europe with hard right wing extremists and with many in its own party are troubling. This has not been suitably challenged by the BBC.

Natalie Bennett was finally interviewed on election night at around 2:30 am in the morning, all other leaders and a plethora of other political figures and commentators came first. But omision or quantity of coverage is one issue. Quality is another. I recall seeing David Dimbleby interviewing Caroline Lucas briefly as local election results were unfolding. He dismissed, interrupted and closed the interview down very quickly before moving on with undeniable enthusiasm about all things UKIP. It is not subtle; there really is a culture of arrogance at play, a feeling of being above reprehension.

The Greens gained an MEP in the South West region; Molly Scott Cato who appeared on the Sunday Politics show yesterday. The context for the interview was that the Europhobe/right wing vote had been split by A party of the ilk of UKIP (One of 6 political parties that have been set up by former UKIP members, this one had concerns about Farage's authoritarianism). The implication or thrust of the broadcast was that Molly Scott Cato was elected not on her own merits, but rather by a political quirk. So from the off, had to defend her position. Insert expletives here. Nothing to do with positive politics, having very popular policies and running a solution focused campaign.

The galling thing is of course that it is the BBC's own coverage over the past year that has helped deliver us UKIP and shifted the debate to the right, i.e. been instrumental in creating this situation where 2 right wing parties were standing in the south west region in the first place. As I have mentioned in previous articles, the only person to appear on Question Time more than Nigel Farage over the last year is David Dimbleby.

In the minds of many who were beginning to believe the BBC was all getting a bit too pro-UKIP, the election coverage certainly corroborated those suspicions. The Greens can at least take pride in the claim that per unit of time of media coverage, they were the party with the biggest impact on May 22nd.

Despite this, the Green Party still manages to have more representation in more political arenas than UKIP (An MP and the London Assembly) and is polling neck and neck with the Liberal Democrats for next year's general election. Despite the BBC's cloak of green party invisibilty, the party somehow manages to be significant and membership has risen by 23% in the first 5 months of 2014.

On with yesterday! Handing in day.

The point of the day was hardly even a peaceful protest. There was no plan to spend much time at broadcasting house, rather it was a handing in of 2 related 38 degree petitions. We were there in a show of solidarity for this grassroots campaign. A small group of pacifists, no chanting or shouting, just handshakes and photographs. We were not expecting an immediate detailed response there and then, or promises of remedial actions. This would hopefully occur in the next few days from the political editors having had time to read the letters and so on.

We did however expect to be able to hand the petitions in.

Initially we were told to wait and management would come and speak to us and receive the petition. So we waited. Security guards then proceeded to erect a fence, which seemed somewhat disproportionate to the size of our small and peaceful gathering, our numbers weren't increasing.

And then the police arrived to communicate with us! We only wanted to hand in a petition, and were content for just the two people who had written them to do the honours. This is a taxpayer funded corporation that should welcome feedback not repel it. The magnitude of the feedback from these petitions is simply too large to pass over, as is the 1200 individual letters of complaint they have received regards biased election coverage.

The police officers notified us that somebody would come and meet with us and take the petitions. The BBC security came out in force to accept Andy and Portia's petitions. Each envelope was checked by security in case we had concealed any nasties. It was very over the top.

We then proceeded to Millbank where some of the political editors are based and to hand in letters containing summaries of our dispute. This is where Nick Robinson is based. Concerns about his own right wing bias have been raised previously with campaigns to the effect that he should step down. (He was previously president of the Oxford University Conservative Association and in 1986 spent a year as the National Chairman of the Young Conservatives!)

By contrast in this building Portia and Mark simply walked in and handed the letters in.

As we were setting off Tory MP David Davis walked past and said he agreed that the BBC had become a centre-right wing broadcaster that was unfairly biased against the green party. Good form.

If the BBC are interested in your feedback, the performance at Broadcasting house would suggest they are pretty reluctant to receive it.

Is all of this great grassroots campaigning going to make a difference? Will the green party leader speak at the televised election debates in 2015? David Cameron thinks this should be the case. Ed Milliband does not. Will there be representative coverage in the build up? With regards UKIP who have received media representation well in advance of their political representation up until now, they have now been 'delivered' and having performed well in the European elections, can now justify all coverage they receive. In any case, the campaign for fair coverage is certainly well underway and the pressure does not stop here. Young Green Portia Cocks is certainly determined and won't let it drop:

I am dubious as to whether I'll get a direct response, even though I requested one, but I can assure you I will be following this up with a series of phonecalls and emails until I do.

Dave Plummer and Lewisham Green Party have produced this video:

3 Comments

The right wing coup at the BBC is so pointed; those involved must have decided it is worth risking their jobs.

7/6/2014

11 Comments

Where do bears shit? Of what religion is the pope? Which side of the political divide does the BBC have its bias? All of these questions have single word answers and most sentient beings know what those answers are.

The right wing bias at the BBC is not imagined, not a vague possibility that needs extensive research to corroborate one's suspicions. We just know, we have seen it, it has been reinforced time and time again. The 45000+ people that signed Portia's 38 degree petition know, high profile members of the BBC team know. Researchers at Cardiff University who released research earlier this year know.

So let's be clear. Impartiality is not something you breach at the BBC lightly. It is against its constitution. The broadcaster has an obligation to "ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality.". It is therefore not acceptable to display bias. If you knowingly do it, you knowingly risk your job and prospectively set up the corporation for a real headache. It is therefore a decision that has been made quite consciously knowing full well what the consequences are, although perhaps made within a culture of arrogance where the feeling is, that no one would get caught out; Akin to the expenses culture of MPs.

This is a game with high stakes, it could have very significant influence on the political architecture of the UK for generations. If you have a bias and you have power, the motivation is plain enough. Or perhaps the right wing 'coup' is less overtly about political leaning but more about the BBC’s dependence upon the 'establishment' regard licence renewal.

Internally it must be a divisive issue. Some have a problem with it, some must be supportive, some must be considering speaking up or even finding employment elsewhere. Are we going to have a flurry of BBC employees speaking up? Stating their case before that thing bears do in the woods hits the fan?

I don't think there will be anything too dramatic, and there will be 'reasonable doubt' on many issues as cherry picked examples are presented as evidence to the contrary. Could there have been any bribes even? Or is it just that the BBC is dominated by figures that are culturally conditioned by the 'establishment'.

But surely there will be somebody, on the inside speaking out ?

Alas! Robert Peston the go to commentator during the unravelling financial crisis has got the ball rolling. On Thursday after giving the Charles Wheeler lecture on journalism in London he quite openly shared his views.

When asked if he agreed with former political editor Jeff Randall that the BBC has a left bias he said

"Look, I love Jeff. He's a great mate of mine. But it's bollocks really"

"If I'm honest, the BBC's routinely so anxious about being accused of being left-wing, it quite often veers in what you might call a very pro-establishment, [a] rather right-wing direction, so that it's not accused of that."

Furthermore he said the BBC was "completely obsessed" with following the news agenda set by right-wing papers such as the Mail and Telegraph.

"There's a slightly 'safety first' thing at the BBC - that if we think the Mail or the Telegraph is gonna lead with it, then we should lead with it,"

"I happen to think that's mad."

Will we be seeing more views like this from high profile BBC figures in the course of the build-up to next-year's general election? (or its aftermath?).

Although the BBC's leaning to either side has formed part of the backdrop of political commentary, over the decades, I haven't seen A UKIP petition complaining about a 'cloak of invisibilty' that the Greens can rightfully lay claim to.

The BBC is currently a right leaning broadcaster that has played a significant role in delivering us UKIP and Farageism, and shifting the debate to the right with a narrow focus. From the time Caroline Lucas became an MP it could just have easily done this for the Green party if it was so inclined.

But Greens don't want a leg up. Just parity. By definition this is what the BBC is obliged to deliver.

#fail.

11 Comments

An open letter to Lord Ashcroft. Please consider adding Green party data to your polling summaries.

3/6/2014

1 Comment

Dear Lord Ashcroft

Along with hundreds of thousands of other people I very much respect and appreciate the excellent service you provide.

I would however like to alert you to what I feel would be a noteworthy improvement in the presentation of your data.

You provide your own written analysis of your data and include links to your full data set and to a data summary (the bit most interested readers refer to and media analysts cite in their own work).

In your data summary you include discrete party data for Labour, Conservative, the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats. The sum of all other parties results are added under the label 'other'

By definition this is a data 'summary' so brevity is a requirement and you have to decide what is worthy of inclusion and exclusion.

It is the exclusion of the Green Party as a discrete item in your summary that I would like to draw your attention to.

You declare you personally are not impartial (I'm a Tory, and always will be). Likewise I am not impartial. I am a member of the Green Party of England and Wales. I personally don't believe in blind allegiance, but remain critically supportive of the Greens and I certainly hope that I too will always be a member of the party.

I think if we were to have a difference of opinion about why the Greens should be included in the way that I suggest, I imagine we could both write convincingly to back our contrasting points of view. It would be very much 'tit for tat' (UKIP have no MPs and no complete or partial control over any councils, the Greens do, Greens poll much lower than UKIP, but in your last two polls Greens are neck and neck with the Liberal Democrats who are in coalition government and the greens had more votes on May 22nd than the Liberal Democrats etc.)

I would like to refer you to your own 'about' section on your website.

The value of this work lies in its objectivity. Though I myself am not impartial – I’m a Tory, and always will be – commentators from across the political spectrum have noted that the research is professionally conducted and reliable. Some of the research yields encouraging conclusions for the Conservatives, and some of it does not.

Most important of all, the reports do not convey my views, but those of the voters.

Why do I do it? Several reasons. The interaction between politicians and voters is fascinating in itself. I like to offer new evidence as to how voters see things, and to provoke discussion and debate.

And if it doesn’t sound too pompous, there is an element of public service in keeping politicians on their toes. If my research has a unifying theme, it is to remind politicians and parties what matters and what their priorities should be – the voters and the things they care about.

It is precisely because of the points you raise here: 'The value of this work lies in its objectivity' because 'Most important of all, the reports do not convey my views, but those of the voters' because you provide a 'public service' that 'keeps politicians on their toes' because you like to 'offer new evidence as to how voters see things and to provoke discussion and debate' and because you want 'to remind politicians and parties what matters and what their priorities should be – the voters and the things they care about' and because Greens take up a large share of the 'other' category and are polling neck and neck with the Liberal Democrats (amongst other things) that I am writing to you (and not the other polling services, at this stage)

It is because I think it is hard to argue comprehensively against this proposal and because I am convinced that anyone that was impartial would feel there is at the least 'a very reasonable doubt', that it is very worthy of your consideration.

I know I would be personally grateful if you would consider this and also if you would write a response to this open letter. The green party has had an influx of new members over the past months and I'm sure they would also appreciate it. Furthermore I imagine the 40000+ people that recently signed a 38 degree petition to protest media neglect of the Greens would also appreciate it.

Finally I would like you to have the opportunity to not only continue representing the views of voters and keeping politicians on their toes, but I would also like you to have the opportunity to keep the other polling services on their toes too.

Yours Sincerely

Martin O'Beirne

1 Comment

David Cameron supports Green Inclusion in TV election debates 2015 - Ed Milliband does not

1/6/2014

1 Comment

Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett protesting against Fracking at Balcombe. She has said that she is delighted to debate our strong policies with the other leaders "any time, any place, anywhere"

Earlier this month David Cameron stated that he was not opposed to the pre-election TV debates as long as the parties and broadcasters could reach agreement on a format. He also suggested that formal talks should not begin until after the party conferences later in the year.

Bucking the trend of the media 'black-out' of the Green Party, he supported the inclusion of Green Party leader Natalie Bennett. But only in a single broadcast which would feature all leaders of the 5 main parties. He said:

“You can have a debate where you have all of the parties. I don't think we could have a party like Ukip without an MP if you don’t have a party like the Greens, who have an MP.”

In response Natalie Bennett has said that she would be:

"delighted" to debate her party's "strong set of policies" with the other leaders "any time, anywhere, any place". and "We represent a large number of views that are not represented elsewhere in British politics, such as renationalisation of the railways, which is supported by 68% of the public," and "Also, let's face it, this is the only way we're going to get any gender balance in the debates."

In a move, which in part is designed to stem the tide of 'Farageism' he also alluded that there should be a second debate, between the only two leaders that could realistically become Prime Minister; referring to himself and Ed Milliband.

Labour leader Ed Miliband, is less inclusive of the Greens, perhaps aware that the bubble may finally burst; that it is the Greens that are actually THE party of the left and THE party for working people.

He has said that the 2010 format of three debates between the three main party leaders over three weeks should be a "starting point" but that he was open to moves such as a less formal setting and greater voter participation.

David Cameron's proposed format could be positive for the greens. In 2010 'Cleggmania' occurred on the back of his TV appearances (plural) and after the first, was considered the winner with 61% approval .

But with only one shot at one debate with 5 party leaders (not 3 as previously) would probably make 2015's debate relatively benign and would not allow any of the leaders to really 'stand-out'.

The decision on format is not however David Cameron's to make alone, but things do look promising for Natalie Bennett to attend, as is fair.

Taken in context with ongoing UKIP hype vs Green 'blackout' there is much to fight for in the battle for media parity.

It's also worth acknowledging that a petition for green inclusion in the TV debates, by a young green Lisa Camps received over 4000 signatures. It is closed now but can be viewed here.

Perhaps on the back of the brilliant 38 degree petition for media parity initiated by young green Portia Cox (now over 40k signatures) it is time for the greens not to just sit back and wait to be either be invited or passed over, but rather to actually say what we want.

Another headline grabbing 38 degree petition anyone?

Unfortunately my web host decided it was necessary to fix things that aren't broken, making changes to the URL format - This meant that your likes and tweets were reset on several occasions. It's always useful to have feedback and work out how well articles do. What I do know is that 1 week after publication this artcle had 758 hits and at one stage had 237 likes. I am assured that as of 7th June there should be no more issues with sharing and tweeting from this blog :)

1 Comment

Taking Stock & Moving Forward: 10 Key Things for the Greens

31/5/2014

0 Comments

Here are my 10 key 'things' for greens as we reflect on the results of the May 22nd elections and move toward the general elections in 341 days time! (update your twibbons now) The 'Things' are inter-related and the 'lord of the things' is the tenth; the thing that binds all the other things together :) so keep reading. The things are:

Thing 1. Votes per unit of time of media coverage = Green Party Win

To illustrate this point I have spent hundreds of hours sifting through media footage, and to ensure only the highest standards of scientific rigor I have recruited a team of experts that include Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting, Stephen Hawking and Midge Ure From Ultravox. Using an algorhithm we developed, it is my pleasure to present the following graph:

*Disclaimer any likeness with diagrams of the female reproductive system are coincidental :/

Thing 2. The Battle for the media

BBC narrative: UKIP-soaraway yay - Labour- its curtains - Tories/LibDem-nothing to see here,move along - Green Party? We have a green party?
— Martin O'Beirne (@theecosocialist) May 23, 2014

Thing 1. Does of course ignore other factors that create successful outcomes, the media isn't everything but its certainly big enough to have delivered us UKIP and accordingly shifted debate to the right with an incredibly narrow focus.

Our relative impact in terms of quantity of coverage is immense. To correct bias has the potential to alter the political architecture of the UK. It is also worth noting that it is not just the quantity of coverage but also the quality of coverage that is questionable. There is nothing covert about the gusto displayed by key BBC figures as they talk up UKIP and snatch at, interrupt and direct Green speakers into less fertile areas of debate .

Having witnessed 'Clegg-Mania' in 2010, the plucky underdog winning with 61% popularity on the first election debate broadcast, it was clear that if Caroline Lucas had been invited, something even more remarkable could have happened.

The format for next years debates are still being worked-out and on the back of pressure, petitions and complaints, next years TV debates should be more representative.

In the wake of May 22nd, the battle for fair green coverage has exploded and will be mentioned in 'Thing 6. The young greens - A Bright Green Future'. The last time I checked, the 38 degree petition was approaching 40k names. Amazing, and it's not just greens signing. Also the Guardian reports that 1200 individual letters of complaint have also been sent directly to the BBC.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson has responded to concerns. It's not just politicians that do politics you know. The program was broadcast last night and is available on iplayer here. The program begins by showing 2 examples from the archive of Nick Robinson challenging Nigel Forage. Then several letters were read out, including this one from Elizabeth Clark.

They have had what appears to be a disproportionate amount of coverage and then, surprise surprise they do well, can't help but thinking that if a party like the greens that have an MP, had been given the same amount of coverage, they would have done better, it almost feels like a self fulfilling prophecy: tell everyone often enough, that UKIP is a force to be reckoned with, and then they are

Nick Robinson then proceeds to not even mention the greens, and talk about why he (or his seniors) believe UKIP received all the coverage they deserved. A graph was also shown, that guess what? didn't include greens, despite beating the liberal democrats, we were dumped into that proverbial 'other' dustbin again.

Needless to say in the battle for the media, we have a long way to go. Fair coverage is of vital importance and we need to apply an unrelenting barrage of pressure to get our fair share.

Dear @BBCNews - This party you refer to as 'other' - This is not the place for the party that came 4th on May22nd. It's name @TheGreenParty
— Martin O'Beirne (@theecosocialist) May 31, 2014

Note:
OFCOM have been approached?

Thing 3. The Green Party displacing the Lib Dems

Greens have beaten lib dems in Sheffield on popular vote, Cleggs constituency #nomorebrokenpromises #votegreen2014
— Martin O'Beirne (@theecosocialist) May 25, 2014

Moving forward to 2015, this is the most important development and is an eminently realizable aim. We beat the 'Dems' in their established homelands of the south west in the Euros, with a brilliantly positive campaign and perhaps more symbolically in Sheffield in the locals (Nick Clegg's constituency) Symbolism counts! The nationwide share of the vote percentage was also in our favour, all be it marginal. To that end we could be regarded as the 4th party ahead of the Lib Dems (and we are represented in more arenas than UKIP)

All the more stunning then, and a compliment to thing 2 was the recent News Night broadcast about the new 4 party politics, that excluded the Greens. The establishment is undoubtedly scared of the left.

Latest polls for the general election have Greens and Lib Dems neck and neck, although the pollsters don't want to give us any credit (see tweet below).

Table of Ashcroft poll for GE15 with pro edits (Greens added to 'Other Dustbin' again) Green = Libdem 8% #Vote2015 pic.twitter.com/HS5rGLdFeD
— Martin O'Beirne (@theecosocialist) May 29, 2014

Thing 4. Owen Jones is a Green and other hobbies

There is no commentator more prolific or popular on this island of ours. His frustrations with his own party are plain, he frequently uses green policy and strategy to juxtapose this view. Examples are too numerous to mention, so I'll just take one quote from his recent Guardian article, which is, I think you'll agree, so concordant with standard green narrative that if blinded, you would have said it was written by a green:

Ukip's politics of despair has filled a vacuum. That's why Labour needs to offer hope: a living wage, for instance; letting councils build Britain out of its housing crisis; an industrial strategy to create the renewable energy jobs of the future; turning the bailed-out banks into accountable public investment banks; tax justice; and public ownership of our key utilities.

I won't rehearse arguments here of why I believe the beast is too big to turn around, I have to wonder if in the future some high profile Labourites will finally ditch their allegiance, especially if; as many predict, Farageism succeeds and pulls Labour further to the right.

Other notable nails in the coffin in recent times, were the poor showing of only 13 Labour MPs voting against Osbourne's welfare cap in March (100% of Green MPs voting against :) and as an article in yesterday's Huff Post reveals the party plans to do nothing to undo con-dem cuts. Labour has some great folks in its ranks, but the Labour left have never been so sparse. This will of course provide Owen with plenty of wholesome green material to fling at his party.

Thing 5. Membership (Steady and ongoing - waiting to explode?)

Historically i.e. looking back from the post war war period, the overall trend of big party membership is one of decline. There is no obligation for parties to publish membership figures, the Tories are generally tight lipped but most others release them along with annual financial statements to the Electoral Commission.

The trend with the smaller parties is a little different. UKIP is up and down, a trend one may expect will continue in the long term, Griffin's BNP has probably taken its final frog march since leaving europe, the new and ever hopeful left unity project is up at around 2000. Respect seems to have left the show and the NHA is a single issue party that is great, but doesn't have the legs to develop.

The graph below shows a steady and sustainable rise in Green Party membership over the years, it is currently reported to be at around the 16k mark (so you can add another upward deflection to the 2011 figure on the graph below) and appears to be on the ascendency, quoted at recently growing at 50 per day. As the debate and parties shift further to the right, the vacuum to the left grows ever larger. the Green Party is THE party of the left, so one can assume will take up the slack and attract accordingly.

Membership growth has proven to be sustainable, there has been a massive influx of young members and once in, people tend to stay. The party is popular with the under 30s (see thing 6)
and attracts many young voters (ahead of both UKIP and Lib Dems in the most recent YouGov poll in the 18-24 year old category with similar results with the under 30s in the latest Ashcroft Poll ).

Thing 7.' The Green Bridge' will discuss other avenues of potential membership growth that are quite unique in British politics.

*LIVE UPDATE - JUST HOURS AFTER PUBLICATION, HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT MEMBERSHIP HAS SHOT UP TO JUST UNDER 17000!

Thing 6. The Young Greens (A Bright Green Future)

The young greens are pointing the way to a bright green future. Being less than 30 yrs old does not automatically include a green party member in the young green group but I think it is remarkable that 1 quarter of all green party of England and Wales members are in the young greens. This bodes well for the future.

Josiah Mortimer, young greens press officer tells me that alot of the GPEW influx of membership occurred on the free membership scheme during the 2010 student protests and has subsequently led to hundreds of long term members. Perhaps now is a good time to roll out a similar scheme? #thegreensurge

Membership is currently as little as a fiver - you can join here.

The brilliant 38 degree petition mentioned in 'Thing 2' to tackle the disparity in media coverage was set up by a young green, Portia Cocks. The outcomes of which are unfolding as I write, articles are popping up all over and Nick Robinson's broadcast last night is only going to fan the flames not extinguish them.

Topically, Thomas G Clark of 'Another Angry Voice' writes:

"Instead of complaining to the BBC about their blatantly biased coverage, the Green party needs to engage alternative strategies. The old world of traditional media still dominates now, but the party that really figures out the new world of social networking and independent bloggers is going to be at a distinct advantage in the future"

I don't agree at all that we should just submit to bias. I can see no logic here. We should absolutely fight for Thing 2, fair coverage and a shout at the TV debates; it could have incredibly far reaching effects.

But I do agree with the second point regard blogging, and social media. It's partly why I have started blogging again and I think many more should. I expect we will start to see many more Young Green bloggers in the near future and there are young green writers that are establishing themselves, like the aforementioned Josiah Mortimer for example. (As an aside I wonder if Jim Jepps of the 'Daily Maybe' would start again. Hmmm.)

The greens are having to use a heavy grassroots social network led campaign. As a cohort the young greens understand social media the best. The 38 degree petition is a prime example. There is always room for improvement and the Social network campaign is establishing itself. How many green party groups, pages, twitter accounts and so on are there?

The signs for further development are good. For example a young green based in Stroud: Sahaya James produces high quality graphics on a whim. In fact by some fluke I shared an infographic on my facebook profile a couple of weeks ago and sang its praises. Green party campaigns coordinator Howard Thorp asked who had made it. A young green Daniel Lee owned up and was subsequently invited onto the campaigns committee. Here is his work:

Another example of how young greens are leading in this particular area is the graph and spreadsheet below, illustrating how BBC's own social networking neglects the Greens. Again, great work.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SLCasueF-J0I7kB93ydiCR7Vehh3uFck6syP-VFNZA8/edit?pli=1#gid=472057837

Thing 7. The Green Bridge (Unique outreach in British Politics -The Left, The Fracktivists, Occupy, et al)

What I'm calling the 'green bridge' here is something that I believe is unique in British politics. Conventional analyses often talks about voters as though they exist in some kind of vacuum, an echo chamber in which parties compete for votes from one already existing pool of Lib-Dem, Conservative & Labour voters. A few losses from one equates to a few gains in one or more others. And hey if anyone is really outstanding they may even engage some from the largest cohort going - those that don't vote. See Tweet below:

Forget UKIP - the first bar on this chart should be the primary concern for all political parties. pic.twitter.com/xntQorAtNb
— Phil Maylor (@Maylor) May 26, 2014

The Green pool of potential voters and members has more dimensions than those available to the other main parties. These could be considered broadly as two strands 'the conventional or radical left' and then the more disparate strands of more focal social and environmental movements.

The Green Party genuinely can and does reach out to these two strands like no other party can. Adam Ramsay has just written two excellent blogs over on bright green. On one he begins

"Last week, more than at any time I can remember, politically active friends from across the left – from the feminist, student, anti-austerity, environmental and democracy movements, seem to have turned out in droves to vote for The Green Party. This is an appeal to them – you – to join the party, and to get involved.

Taking the broad left, those that are exploring radical ideas, anti-capitalism, socialism and Marxism or if a distinction is still required: 'ecosocialism':

We just can't wait for the overthrow of capitalism before taking the steps necessary to ensure some level of climate stabilization or before we surpass several other planetary ecological boundaries.
A G8 nation with green government and a Green Europe could make in-roads. Electoral politics for all its nonsense is a way to win some of these changes, to keep the coal in the hole and the oil in the soil, to put an end to fracking or to prevent the march of Monsanto.

For me personally, coming from the above base made it a little hard for quite some time to associate fully with the greens. I felt more at home with the 'grassroots' and found actual politics to be quite repellent, i.e. I shared the same concerns of many radicals.

I see the green party/electoral politics as just one front and an important one. I believe we have to 'start where we are' and adhering to some form of ideological purity often leads to little more than naval gazing and other unfruitful endeavours.

Supporting and developing the greens is I believe a very worthwhile endeavour. More sects are just not going to have impact and the ecological and social clocks are ticking. The total vote in this analysis of left parties' Euro results (below - and not including the greens) was only 0.29% down from 2.22% 5 years ago.

Thanks to Stephen Calder

Following lessons from Latin America there are many things that a government can do to alter capitalist relations in the work-place, in the economy and in society, and bring decision making closer to the people.

The Greens back many of these measures. They are policy. An example from the manifesto:

“Encourage worker ownership and co-operatives by supporting member states in introducing a workers’ right to buy their company.”

The party isn't perfect but policies are not plucked from the air, they are suggested by and decided by members. A reason to join, improve and be part of the process.

It is the green left (if not the actual green party group, but the ideas of the movement) that makes Green politics less hum drum, delivers it's brilliant social justice agenda and stops it from being that thing that every commentator in the land seems to associate with the party - A single issue environmental party. So starting tomorrow, hug that ecomarxist, they open doors.

As other movements gather pace, animal rights - badger protection or the the anti-fracking movement and so on, many others will automatically begin to associate with the greens, other parties just don't resonate with these groups.

On Bridge People, not trolls though, that's different

In my experience it is often the more radical members that open the way for others for the first steps on the green bridge. Someone like the international coordinator Derek Wall who writes articles like this in the Morning Star "Why good old Karl still holds his own" and links with the commons movement and all things Karl Marx and anti-capitalist. Here he speaks at occupy at the tent university.

Caroline Lucas has also done lots of great outreach work, happy to be called a watermelon on TV by the telegraph's most eminent climate denier James Delingpole, famously getting arresting with other Fracktavists at Balcombe and quick to support and speak at Occupy where she said:

"As awareness increases of the injustice and unsustainability of the global economic system, more and more people are taking to the streets in opposition.

"The camp that has been set up a stone's throw from London Stock Exchange is an opportunity to explore a different kind of future to the one the mainstream political parties have constructed.

"The authorities must now respect the right to peaceful protest.

"If they have any sense, they will also start to listen to the voices of those ordinary - and extraordinary people - who want to invest in a greener, fairer future rather than the stocks-and-shares house of sand that sustains corporate capitalism."

Caroline Lucas MP with the no votey wotey Russell Brand

Caroline Lucas MP with Fracktivist hero Vanessa Vine

Other figures like Romayne Phoneix who chairs the coalition of resistance, Adam Ramsay who was instrumental in the anti-cuts movement and deputy leader Will Duckworth are also notable examples of 'outreach' people.

A Bridge for the apathetic? A Bridge too far?

So the green bridge works for those that are already active in one form or another, demonstrable by membership or by votes and appeals to the broader left or other more focal movements for social and environmental justice, in a way no other party can.

But how to engage those in that large cohort that do not vote? Stroud's Molly Scott Cato's campaign in the South West region provides a good case study. It was very positive, not UKIP-centric and relied on talking in simple terms about how green ideas are about enhancing the quality of life. It was'nt fake like that of a career politician nor was it headline grabbing but it was 'real' articulate, humble and solution focused, not problem focused. This to me is the secret of how to engage the apathetic who have no trust of politicians. More on this in thing 10 - Belief.

Thing 8. UKIP voters and other floaters are there for the taking

I was once of the belief that anyone who chooses to vote UKIP must inhabit an orbit so alien to mine that there would be little point in trying to appeal. I changed track as soon as I started talking to people who were considering a vote for UKIP. I'm not talking about the hardliners, rather the floaters that have been taken in by the media facade.

Not everyone follows politics closely, time constraints, not much interest and so on. A lot of people really don't know what the kip actually stand for, not producing a manifesto for May 22nd was either lazy or mindful. Their last manifesto was very unpopular (see voteforpolicies.org.uk) (Ours was of course the most popular)

The one issue, bloke down the pub, cheeky Nige with his fag, media narrative delivered by the beeb has resonated but in conversation can be deconstructed fairly concisely.

The key points that have been passed around the net can pierce the Farage mirage in quick time.

Caroline Russell writing in the Morning Star reports her experience:

"While talking it was clear that they were often concerned about provision of services, lack of school places, scarcity of affordable housing and poor wages rather than an overtly anti-immigrant agenda. Certainly positive Green messages about an economy run for the benefit of people not corporations, with jobs paying the living wage and reducing the pay gap went down well. "

You can't blame people for getting drawn in:

Thing 9. The Brits love the under-dog

On pinching the words and phrases of others. I have said elsewhere that everytime Cameron uses the word 'resilient' the lights go out in a transition town.
Robbing words in such a way, and using them against their progeny is a clever way of diminishing their original value and frustrating the opposition.

There is currently a battle for the word the 'underdog' - why? Because for whatever reason, in this country in particular, we seem to love em and tend to give them our support and in turn tend to believe that our support can make a difference. Think Tim Henman, not a bad player but rubbish anywhere other than Wimbledon, got as far as the semi's and now has a hill named after him. I digress.

Deputy UKIP leader Paul Nuttall uses the term 'underdog' repeatedly, to deflect criticisms of UKIP being a single issue, eurosceptic party or a party of racists hell bent on dividing the country, cashing in on hate, as delivered by friends at the daily mail and so on - nope 'our success is because the brits love the underdog' is his favoured reply.

But its not just UKIP that are trying to label themselves as the plucky underdog. Nick Clegg has said that it is the Lib Dems that are deserving of the crown, because they were the only party confronting the "Eurosceptic establishment" directly in the European election campaign, by fighting on an unashamedly pro-European platform.

Nick Clegg neglects to mention, that the Greens are also running a pro-european platform. Wanting to reform the European machinery and working within it to improve it as opposed getting elected and then boycotting it. With a characteristic commitment to democracy, greens also want to offer an in-out referendum.

It was also in 2010 that Nick Clegg's great moment came, when being cast as the underdog against Brown and Cameron in the TV debates. Clegg winning by 61% on popular vote after the first one was aired. Cleggmania seems like a distant dream now but it did happen, I think :/

The format of next year's TV debates is not yet finalized, but if a green is there (and we must make it so) the 'real underdogs' that is - who knows what might happen.

Whichever way you look at it, campaign funds, feet on the street, media coverage, constantly being outcast into the dustbin called 'other', money in the coffers generally, we have dibs on the 'plucky underdog' title. Ironically this can be turned in our favour and become a part of an appealing, David vs Goliath type narrative.

Thing 10. The Lord of the Things - Belief

Greens needs to believe and be believable.

The 'thing' can happen when you really start to believe in it and it is the belief in a thing that can make it happen.

I have witnessed a buzz amongst the greens in the past few months, more so than I can ever remember. The Greens are starting to believe.

31 million people did not vote on May 22nd. That is a staggering figure. It means each party garnered only small percentages of the total available vote and viewed through this lens the differences between each party are actually pretty tiny.

Politics/representative democracy is in crisis. And the rubber faced man with the pint and the fag is, despite popular narrative not causing people to vote in droves. That is - those non voters are not being duped. Faragism is 'clickbait' and accordingly the go to media story. With such superficial underpinnings things tend to rise just as quickly as they can fall.

The fact that UKIP did not produce a manifesto and their existing policies are very unpopular had no bearing on their relative success in the euro vote, having ran a single issue media supported campaign.

In the locals the fact they gained control of no councils have a comparable number of councillors to the greens, have myriad negative associations and can rationally be called out as a crypto-fascist organization; yet, had near complete control over the popular media is a gross injustice.

Fox News must be considering giving the beeb a 'development' award.

Politics is dominated by people that the electorate do not believe in, people we do not recognise. The privately educated, privileged, and the technocrats; A representative democracy with a non-representative sample of people. Only 4% of MPs have ever had a manual job. Where are all the women? (50% of green candidates are women) Professional or career politicians dominate, yet seldom resonate with people outside of the Westminster village or the established minority of the population that still give a shit about politics.

There is much not to believe in, and I'm only scratching the surface here.

So what sets the greens apart? and why after presenting such a damning view on politics are the greens starting to believe?

What I think I have seen with the greens in the past year is a kind of collective elevation in belief. This is a pervasive and underlying accumulation that is hard to attribute to any one thing in particular but there are some outstanding items that help join the dots.

Knowing that we have the best policies is very significant. Its like turning up in the school play-ground with an indestructible conker that should never lose a match. But great policies are ironically superficial in this game when it comes to quick gains. But it is the game that is under scrutiny here, for the players can feel rightly empowered. It is a boost that shifts the consciousness into belief gear.

There is a constant reinforcement that we are on the right track. Counter-intuitively, this comes from the negatives that we read about every day, be it the latest IPCC report, realization of further developments in the slow motion privatization of the NHS, climate changes that are coming ever closer to home, the rise and rise of the working poor, the food bank shame of a 'rich' country, rising mental health issues, the housing crisis, the increasing distance between reality and the notion of meritocracy etc etc. We are constantly reminded that we are on the right path, in that, we have a positive response to each 'negative'

To appeal to the electorate is theoretically straightforward. As easy as it would be, easier for the more holistic greens than any others to deal in negatives, what we do, is push solutions and don't play on fear. The papers and other parties are doing the groundwork for us, laying the foundations of despair. This is playing into our hands. This is how we set ourselves apart. We offer genuine solutions.

We pick our sound bites and we hammer them home. We have little choice to make mention of UKIP and the other parties. It is a necessary way to illustrate contrast. But it can't degenerate into negative politics and become a central theme, that way we fail to engage and lose the battle to be believable.

If you should need to get your belief fix just recall the always seductive four pillars of our politics:

Or maybe the belief fix can be garnered from those 2 magic E words - Ecology and Equality. That's exactly what we represent and that is everything worth fighting for. Or recall how ethically unique we are. For example earlier this month a donation from a millionaire was rejected, despite it being entirely lawful, but it failed to adhere to strict green party ethical guidelines. This really is not what people expect of political parties. It's not like the green coffers are stuffed full.

I said in my introduction that 'Thing 10 - Belief' was the lord of the things, the thing that binds all the other things together. Each taken together has a synergistic effect when applied to thing 10. The elevation of belief of party members and in the electorate for the party. So seatbelts on for the big finish:

We know that despite a heavily biased media, our impact per unit of time and quality of coverage equates to a green victory.

The battle for fair representation is well underway and picking up huge support from within and outside of the greens. A place at the table in the televised debates could alter the political architecture of this country, we need to apply relentless pressure to make this happen.

We are displacing one of the government parties and have reasons to believe we can continue on this path. The most popular commentator in the country is a green that awkwardly is in the Labour Party! but nonetheless is continually pushing green policy and strategy, albeit lost on Labour.

Membership continues to rise. Whereas the other main parties are in decline, our growth has proven to be sustainable. The young greens are great, taking the lead in the social media campaign and pointing the way to a bright green future.

The Green Bridge is unique in British politics and leads to votes and members, not available to the other parties.

As the debate shifts to the right we become increasingly relevant as THE genuine left party, also as issues escalate, fracking, climate change, and myriad issues of social justice, we are the 'go to' party. This trend will continue.

Everyone loves an underdog and we are the true underdog. We have the best policies and with positive politics we can make in-roads and change minds, including with those that vote for UKIP.

The 'thing' can happen when you really start to believe in it, and it is the belief in a thing that can make it happen.

0 Comments

Dreadful act of vandalism spotted in Gloucester

19/5/2014

1 Comment

Who pinned the fash tash on the donkey? Drove past this opposite Marlborough road in Barton street earlier - two thoughts came to mind - firstly the folks that posted this huge billboard must be pretty brave. Barton street is the multicultural centre of Gloucester and organizations with so many racist associations are particularly unwelcome here, secondly, kudos to whomever managed to get 12 feet up to pin the fash tash on mr Farage. Good form people of Gloucester.

1 Comment

Great documentary and some insights into life on the waterways

19/5/2014

2 Comments

My solar array that supplies me with more than enough electricity for 9 months of the year

People often ask me all sorts of questions about the practicalities of life on-board my narrowboat 'prefiguration' - From loos, electricity and heating, parking the car, getting to work, internet and phones, post and so on. Which is good, because talking about prefiguration is one of my favourite things :). I will write a more personal account in the future, but in the mean-time, I have just stumbled upon this excellent documentary.

It is a great insight into the lives of those of us that not only live on-board, but live on the canal system and have to keep on the move (different to those with permanent moorings and a very different life to those who live in marinas with readily accessible facilities).

The challenges of adhering to movement rules are touched on too, which in my experience, often make little sense unless applied to busy areas and are remarkably unclear (I have heard so many different responses from both officials and boaters when I pose the simple question, how far have you got to move then? , it becomes quite comical and with so much at stake, must be made transparent, clear and accessible)

The penalties as we can see can be the worst imaginable and in my experience there are major issues with consistency i.e it could be a breeding ground for discrimination if said boater doesn't fit the model of a certain class of boater.

There is certainly a feeling amongst many 'continuous cruisers' as we are often called or 'itinerant boaters' that the movement is toward a canal system that is exclusively or at least primarily, for the leisure industry, or wealthy hobbyist. I would like to say that I hope these fears will diminish with the relatively new body (Canal River Trust) at the helm. But the DNA of the CRT is a profit making organization that can be less accountable than the nationalized British waterways that it replaced.
I'm afraid the story of Maggie covered by a current 38 degrees campaign is not a good precursor:

Maggie* won't have had much of a Christmas. She has been living rough since she was brutally evicted and her boat and all her possessions seized by the Canal & River Trust in late November 2013. Her home was towed away by a team of 20 bailiffs, Canal & River Trust officials and police. She was left standing on the towpath with only the clothes she stood up in. Maggie suffers from schizophrenia. She hasn't been seen for weeks; friends, family and even the Police are concerned for her safety. They fear that the frightening nature of the eviction has affected her already fragile mental state.

You can sign the 38 degree petition by clicking on the following link - STOP EVICTING DISABLED, ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE BOAT DWELLERS

But as we will see boating life can be full of wonder too, attracting many 'creatives' musicians, artists, writers and those that are 'done' with the city or simply can't afford it, but especially full of wonder too, for those children that are raised on the waterways, immersed in nature and close witness to the changing seasons. The documentary has some great pop up soundbites e.g. the average boater uses 75% less energy than the average house dweller, and it also challenges a few common myths about who the itinerant boaters are, not that that really matters. I kind of accept the label 'river pikey' in conversation, but my understanding of the term is less derogatory than the way I understand it can be used, it doesn't really reflect who boaters are, as with my family that lived and worked on the boats, if it has any connotations about ones work ethic, it is misplaced.

A nice quote from a blacksmith who runs a business on the canal summarises things nicely:

" Liveaboard boaters are an asset, this community is an example to all really, of what a community can be, it can be sustainable, environmentally friendly, and very supportive of each other"