The Green Party put itself firmly on the side of the trade union and working class movement when they passed a motion at the National Conference, moved by Pete Murry of Brent Green Party and the Green Party Trade Union Group, on the party’s relationship with the unions. The motion said in part:
|
| Thankfully, I have rarely heard the words I’m offended by that! in debates at Green Party Conferences. It is the resort of people that are in danger of losing the argument and would rather shut the debate down. It is also a statement at the heart of the culture of over-zealous political correctness. Anyone, at any time, can claim to be offended by anothers words or actions and immediately the offending party is scourged. The claimed right not to be offended seems to trump all other rights and the debate is duly shut down.
Lets consider that for a moment. It may come as a surprise to some, but nowhere in the Green Party Constitution is there a Right Not to be Offended. The right that is protected is the Right to Free Speech, the right to be heard. A freely expressed opinion is always likely be offensive to someone, but we tend to assume that it will generally be our political opponents – generally not our supposed comrades in the same Party. Some issues, however, legitimately divide opinion in even the most cohesive of Parties. Those that follow this blog will probably be thinking of a couple of issues that I have flagged up recently that would fall into that category for the Green Party – namely the Hospital Chaplaincy issue and, much more significantly, Population Policy. The former was aired at Conference in a very considered and dignified manner; the latter was aired in an atmosphere of thinly veiled contempt. At least three times the phrase “I find that offensive” was uttered by antagonists on one side of the argument. It undermined not only their arguments (which I actually share in part), but also their pretensions to be serious politicians. We need to get over being offended as a means to win a debate, and instead construct sound arguments to defend our point of view in a considered, rational and (when among colleagues at least) unemotive way. Stifling free speech, even if it offends, will inevitably lead to a loss of essential freedoms, and we cannot allow that to happen – in society as a whole, but within the Party for certain.
|
| You may recall the letters that we delivered to Downing Street on 1st December: plus one from the Vale Says NO! Group.This illicited this initial response in mid January: Part 1 , part 2 , part 3 This was clearly a poorly thought through ‘fob off’ response to which I duly responded on 22 January. I am pleased to report a rather more considered response from the DECC Correspondence Unit this time around, which still contains too many subjective opinions, alongside acknowledgement of lots of uncertainties. It also, particularly in the Ministerial Extract (pts 3&4) details the seismicity precautions they are supposedly putting in place that should, if applied stringently, put a considerable spanner in the works of Cuadrilla and co. See the attachments: |
Dear friends across Europe,
Big banks are hiding billions in tax havens around the world. In just 24 hours, the European Parliament can push through a reform to make them pay their fair share of tax on their already oversized profits — but to win they need our support. Bankers are using complex accounting tricks to avoid paying tax like the rest of us, and they’re not even required to tell us where their money is. But now the European Parliament wants to shine a light onto their tax avoidance. It’s a no-brainer reform that expert economists widely support — but key governments including the UK and Germany are siding with rich bankers to kill the proposal. Negotiations end in just 24 hours time, and allies in Parliament say that with massive public support, we can win this landmark reform to end banks’ tax dodging. Sign the petition and tell everyone |
| I am just back from the Nottingham Conference, and as usual it was full of interest, inspiration and a fair dollop of controversy.
It was particularly inspiring to see our latest Bridgend Green recruit, 16 year old Adam Taylor, taking to Conference like the proverbial duck to water. He immersed himself in the full Conference experience and found himself comfortably at home among the other Young Greens. We may well have a rising star in our midst. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed my first experience of co-chairing a whole Conference Plenary Session in the Main Hall alongside the experience of Moira Dunworth from the Scottish Green Party. I am not alone in thinking it was the best chaired plenary of the weekend. Moira is a class act and I learned an enormous amount from her. Unfortunately our Charitable Hospital Chaplaincy did not make it to the Conference floor, and as such we will need to re-present it to next Conference and put a bit more effort to getting it prioritised higher. The workshop on the motion did go ahead and went predictably enough with the those with religious affiliations largely against and the rationalists present in favour. Other highlights included a revision to the Party’s Philosophical Basis to emphasise our Social Justice objectives; a successful motion to strengthen Trade Union links; helping the Welsh team in the Young Greens Quiz Night to a creditable 4th place; and the start of a process to air the divisive Population issue, which I hope (perhaps over-optimistically) will produce a better understanding of the issue on both sides of the divide. The Open Mic Night was also a highly entretaining mix of music, comedy and poetry presented by Party members. We are fortunate to have such a fabulous array of talent in this Party. I was disappointed with the outcome of the Green World meeting that produced no evidence that the board have learned anything from the debacle over the Population Matters advert. The two members that created the problem by imposing their own ideological viewpoint have recruited a like-minded friend to step into the vacancy my resignation created. I therefore feel that there can only be turbulent times ahead for GWEB, if for no other reason that I am not finished with this issue yet. In terms of the set piece speeches, you can judge these for yourself below. Leader Natalie Bennett’s speech to Conference: Pt2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcRnn4H6TdM Deputy Leader Will Duckworth’s speech at Conference: Brighton Council Leader Jason Kitcat’s speech at Conference: Peter Tatchell speaks at the Green Party 40th anniversary party: As a member of a Welsh local party, I have always found the WGP Leader’s speech at National Conference cringe worthy. It was bad enough having Jake Griffiths boring everyone in a language that not even the other Welsh delegates could understand, but at least we couldn’t understand what he was saying!! It is fortunate that Pippa Bartolotti’s speech to this Conference has not made it to youtube (yet) as it was ill-judged and poorly received. I will say no more! Overall then, a thoroughly enjoyable experience yet again. The next Conference takes us down Brighton – where we can immerse ourselves in the delights of the Greenest town in the land! Andy |
To: Members of Parliament and of the House of Lords
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/petition-to-stop-new-nhs-competition-regulations-si257-being-passedWhy is this important?These regulations - which will only go to a vote if parliament insists - would require virtually all health provision to be carried out in competitive markets, regardless of the wishes of either local people, GPs or local Clinical Commissioning Groups. They contradict assurances that were given by health ministers during the passage of the Act that it did not mean the privatisation of the NHS, and that local people would have the final say in who provided their NHS. For example, Lord Howe said then Clinicians will be free to commission services in the way they consider best. We intend to make it clear that commissioners will have a full range of options and that they will be under no legal obligation to create new markets... This will be made absolutely clear through secondary legislation and supporting guidance as a result of the Bill. Andrew Lansley said (in a letter to the Clinical Commissioning Groups set up to manage most health budgets) that It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that you as commissioners, not the Secretary of State and not regulators should decide when and how competition should be used to serve your patients interests.. We call on parliament to take all necessary steps to ensure these regulations, which would be incredibly damaging to the NHS, do not become law. For more information see this report: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/nicola-cutcher-lucy-reynolds/nhs-as-we-know-it-needs-prayer |
|
| East Midland Conference Centre Nottingham – Friday 22nd-Monday 25th February 2013The Green Party Spring conference 2013 will be held in Nottingham, and also marks the 40th Anniversary of the Party.
Highlights include: Friday 22nd February MAIN HALL Leaders Opening Speech Natalie Bennett Training session on Fundraising for Local Parties PANEL Meeting the Zero Hunger Challenge, Keith Taylor MEP WORKSHOP – On our Hospital Chaplaincy Motion Saturday 23rd February Speech, Deputy Leader, Cllr Will Duckworth Update from Cllr Jason Kitcat, Leader, Brighton and Hove Council Campaigning on Air Pollution Jean Lambert, MEP, Keith Taylor MEP Building the movement against austerity Romayne Phoenix The Eton mess: the attack on the most vulnerable Shan Oakes 40TH BIRTHDAY GALA DINNER Sunday 24th February LGBTIQ Greens Stuart Neyton The Green story in Brighton and Hove Simon Williams The Yasuni Project: protecting the rainforest and fighting climate change Derek Wall and the Embassy of Ecuador PANEL Austerity in Europe, the Eurozone and beyond Jean Lambert MEP Andy Co-Chairing afternoon plenary Pippa Bartolotti’s Speech as Leader of Wales Green Party Monday 25th February Q and A with Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, and Deputy Leader, Will Duckworth PANEL Votes at 16 To be or not to be Training session on dealing with the media Full programme available here: http://greenparty.org.UK/Conference/Spring%202013/Spring2013_full_timetable_draft_for%20the%20website.PDF |
Hi Andy This doesn’t happen every day. We have a chance to move away from dirty fossil fuels and set our country firmly on the path to a renewable, booming, low-carbon economy. In writing, by law. Want in? Good. Tell your MP to support clean electricity in the Energy Bill. A crucial ingredient of the government’s new Energy Bill was supposed to be a legally-binding target for the UK to produce almost zero carbon electricity by 2030. This would be a huge win for household bills, our planet and common sense. But George Osborne is blocking it in favour of gas; the kind you get from fracking – a process which involves pumping chemicals into the ground to fracture gas-containing rocks. At this critical point in our history, there’s no way we want the British countryside ‘fracked’ for dirty and expensive gas instead of a clean, renewable energy boom. Write to your MP today and ask them to show support for clean electricity. This is our country’s chance to finally end our dependence on fossil fuels for electricity. The UK already has a leading edge on renewables: wind power has been growing by 50% year-on-year. [1] Britain is now in prime position to become a world leader in the offshore wind industry. But instead Osborne and his allies are plotting to blast two-thirds of the English countryside to see their gas-fuelled nightmare come true.[2] This is not something that might yet happen in the future. This is real, it’s happening now and you can do something about it. Tell your MP to support clean jobs and clean electricity now, and cut our dependence on gas and other polluting fossil fuels. This is winnable. Industry is with us: major clean energy companies like Siemens and Alstrom are lined up to invest in the UK if we get this commitment which would create thousands of jobs and get the economy going again. This is bigger than party politics. Influential members of Osborne’s own party agree with us. Tim Yeo, the Conservative MP leading the rebellion against Osborne said ‘[I] will not stand by and watch the wrong decisions being made on energy policy’. Now it’s our turn to show our support. Let’s make this law do what it’s supposed to do, and change the future for our country. Thanks, Pete & the energy team PS The Energy Bill will define where our electricity comes from for the next 30 years or more. Let’s make sure it prioritises clean electricity over dirty, expensive gas. Tell your MP to support green jobs and clean energy now. Notes [1]“Britain’s supply of green energy soars,” The Independent, 1 July 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/britains-supply-of-green-energy-soars-7901917.html [2]”Fracking in the UK” Greenpeace Energydesk 30th November 2012 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/infographic-fracking-backyard
We don’t accept any money from companies or governments so we can be independent and challenge anyone who threatens the planet or peace. To help us keep fighting climate change, defending our oceans and protecting ancient forests, you can make a regular donation by direct debit. Thank you! |
| Adam Ramsay has provoked the most interesting blog thread on the issue of the Green World Editorial Board (GWEB) refusing to accept a flier from Population Matters:
You should be aware that I resigned from GWEB over this matter, not because of my opinion on Population Matters as an orgnisatuion, but as a matter of editorial principle. My contribution to the blog thread is no. 70, but I repeat it here: This thread demonstrates the reason why I felt I had to resign from GWEB over the refusal to take the flier from PM. There are very many GP members on both sides of the argument, and therefore, it had to be incumbent to GWEB to reflect that spread of opinion, rather than effectively censor one side of the debate. The GWEB that I found myself a part of consisted of three passionate young guys and Miriam Kennett, who I know a bit about, but have not (to this day) ever met. My understanding of the role, perhaps based on naive assumption, was that the magazine should reflect the full range of opinion within the Party, as well hoping that it may perhaps provoke debate and discussion more than it appears to have done in the past. When one member of GWEB voiced opposition to taking the flier from Population Matters, I thought it was ridiculous. It is not that I have a strong opinion on the organisation, and it would not have been relevant if I had. The fact of the matter is that there are very many Green Party members that not only sympathise with PM, but are active members and supporters of it. I therefore made the case, within GWEB, that it was preposterous to turn down advertising from an organisation that clearly had support from within the Party, especially as there is a disclaimer in every issue that makes it clear that, and I quote: “views in Green World do not necessarily express the views of the Green Party. Products and services advertised in Green World are not necessarily endorsed by the Green Party”. I thought this line of argument would put the issue to bed, but it soon emerged that GWEB was split down the middle, with 2 members entrenched on each side of the argument, and the Convenor sitting very uncomfortably on the fence. I again made it clear to GWEB members that I considered our own ideological positions on this issue irrelevant, as the magazine had to reflect the range of opinion within the party and not effectively censor elements of it. I suggested that if anybody had such strong views about any organisation associated with the Party, the proper means to address this would be through Conference. I considered this situation could set a very dangerous precedent and I was not happy to work with a Board that was not prepared to reflect the whole Party, but seek to impose their own perspectives. Thus, I felt the principles at stake here were such that it had become a resignation issue – so when the Convenor chose to favour the call to refuse the advertising, I duly resigned. I do not rule out returning to GWEB, indeed I think I would like to do so at some point, but I hope this whole episode might precipitate some useful and beneficial debate on a number of issues related to both Population Matters and Green World at Conference and beyond. It is, perhaps time I declared a position on the central ideological controversy regarding population growth and its implications. Being a geography graduate of the early 80’s, I am very familiar with Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population , from way back in 1798. He describes unchecked population growth as exponential (1→2→4→8), while the growth of the food supply he anticipates to be arithmetical (1→2→3→4). Malthus then suggested that were two types of “checks” that could then reduce the population, returning it to a more sustainable levels. He believed there were “preventive” checks, such as moral restraints (e.g. abstinence, delayed marriage on economic grounds), and restricting marriage against persons suffering poverty and/or defects. These ideas have given rise to all manner of objectionable and heinous (indeed fascist) ideas, such as eugenics and genocide, which has led to anything vaguely Malthusian becoming a cause for left wing contempt, as seen in the various blogs on this Population Matters controversy. However, Malthus also recognised “positive checks” (somewhat ironically named), which lead to ‘premature’ death: disease, starvation, war; resulting in what are sometimes called Malthusian catastrophes. The catastrophes would return population to a lower, more “sustainable”, level. The term has been applied in different ways over the last two hundred years, and has been linked to a variety of other political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control. This has become the ‘elephant in the room’ that my Green Left colleagues seem reluctant to get to grips with. There are some stark facts that need to inform the ideological extremes on both sides of the divide. Simple logic dictates that the human population will not, indeed cannot, continue to grow exponentially as it has in the last 200 years. There is evidence that the rate of increase is slowing down, even the most optimistic predictions suggest we will not see the world population stabilise until somewhere between 10 and 12 billion. We are currently at 7.1 billion and counting ( http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ )
The crux of the issue is whether we do anything at all to try and manage population, or whether we leave it to Malthusian catastrophes to control. Surely the only sensible way forward is to try to manage it in some way, but we ecosocialists, at least within Green Left, seem to be floundering to come up with answers. But the answers are in our core beliefs. Decrying (ancient) Malthusian ideas as misogynistic and racist is not enough. Ecosocialist solutions, based on overcoming poverty and empowering women, have to be fought for and, so far as I can see, are values largely shared with Population Matters (http://populationmatters.org/about/values/). It is a matter of fact that high birth rates generally accompany poverty and lack of education. Most poor women do not actually want to spend their lives in childbirth and child rearing. A central demand of women’s movements across the globe has always been for better access to safe and reliable contraception and abortion. Poor people often have large families as an insurance against poverty in old age. When people become richer, birth rates go down. These are all established patterns that I have been teaching in geography lessons for decades. Collectivisation of housework has also been a demand of feminists and socialists, and we need to take a much closer look at this and the role it should play when considering alternatives to capitalism. Malthusian catastrophes will be associated with increases in domestic violence and violence against women. These things always increase dramatically during any societal breakdown. A world of environmental catastrophe also opens up the danger of massively increased militarism, repression and war – Malthusian catastrophes compounded. Ecological collapse may be survived by the rich minority, but it will devastate the poor. The fight against it is a vital part of the struggle for ecosocialism. Ignoring the ‘population’ elephant in the room is not an option. The stark choice was posed by Rosa Luxemburg: Ecosocialism or Barbarism! |
A Solo Travel and Literature Blog
WOOD REINCARNATIONS
Words and witterings of Owen Adams
Remembering the contribution of Bridgend & District during World War One.
A repository to promote my work; my process; my inspiration; my research; my journey toward making ART for ACTIVISM
An ecosocialist blog
An ecosocialist blog
Philosophical Writings
Angry old man
Technology focused music tuition, recording and publishing
Just another WordPress.com site
Bridgend's Green Leftie 