... of a Green Party activist. Ok so I'm not feeling inspired this week so I'm using my weekly slot as a diary of some events which I have attended over the last few days. Not really a typical week - I don't think there is any such thing - but hopefully it gives the impression of diversity.
Last Wednesday Manchester Green Party hosted a public meeting on 'Faith and Climate Change' which featured guest speakers from the Christian, Muslim and Humanist faiths, and was attended by about 40 people. Whilst there is a whole ecosystem of groups campaigning on climate change in Manchester this brought some new angles to the subject, and there is every intention that it is repeated with different faith groups. The meeting was held at the 'Nexus Cafe' a relatively new meeting place, and thanks are due to the group of people who run the cafe for letting us use it.
Thursday saw 2 events: at lunchtime Gtr Manchester Stop the War held an event in Market Street at which 1,000 names of the many thousands of people who have died there since (soon to be ex-) President Bush declared victory there no less than seven years ago. This attracted a lot of attention (and support) from passers-by. Work prevented me from staying long, but an advantage of city-centre working is that I can take part in such events.
This was followed in the evening by a relaunch rally for Manchester Unite against Fascism (UAF), which was a lively event attended by over a hundred people. Any schadenfreude over the recent public leaking of the BNP membership list was short-lived as the possibility of the North West having the odious Nick Griffin as an MEP hit home. There will be more on this topic on this and related blogs to come. For an ongoing low-down on the BNP see the Lancaster UAF blog in the list on the right.
The most recent event of the last few days was a Tea-Party at the threatened Rose Cottage (mentioned briefly in an earlier post 'South of the River'. Seeing the beautiful 17th Century Cottage and its surrounding buildings in the flesh brought home to me the sheer vandalism of the Airport's expansion plans. The cottage is sandwiched between the M56 and the Airport and its immediate surroundings have become a haven for wildlife driven from the already huge expanse of the Airport. Small-scale compared to the Heathrow 3rd Runway maybe, but symbolic of the battle lines between those who recognise what is unsustainable and those who do not.
Of course this is only the part of the life of an activist; there is all the online stuff - emails, websites etc. Plus of course work, family and other interests. Anyone know any good multitasking courses?
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Tif and the Charge - the Debate heats up
I thought it wouldn't be long before I returned to this topic. I am referring of course to the impending referendum on the TiF bid for transport funding and the linked congestion charge proposal. As ballot papers are due to go out very shortly and the deadline for voting is 11th December, the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns are engaged in all-out battle.
This was evidenced at a debate last Thursday organised by the South Manchester Reporter, in which I took part. An audience of around 180 took part, with a panel consisting of Lis Phelan (Chair of the yes campaign)and Andrew Simpson (of Peel Holdings and the yes campaign's favourite pantomime villain) plus representatives of the four main political Parties in the area (yes, four) as a supporting cast.
Clearly both Lis and Andrew have done a number of these events and now present their respective cases with the slickness of professional politicians. A vote was taken of the audience before and after - the pre-vote was 44 in favour (of the bid) and 57 against; the vote at the end was 74 in favour and 80 against. To me this this all suggests that opinion is pretty evenly divided (at least amingst people who attend public meetings) and is pretty entrenched on both sides.
Of the 4 Party representatives, there were 3 in support (Labour, Lib Dem and me for the Greens) and 1 against (the Tory). Manchester Lib Dems have clearly come off the fence now; actually I shouldn't be too hard on them as we Greens have also had internal differences of opinion on this. I have to say that, just as the devil seems to have all the best tunes, it is more fun to argue against the many flaws in the whole package than to argue in favour. The pragmatic argument in favour wins out for me however, and seeing some of the bedfellows one would have in the 'no' campaign, reassures me that I am in the right place.
Unsurprisingly there were many 'questions' from the floor; of course these were mostly comments, although there were some definite questions along the lines of 'where are you lot getting your funding from?' (on both sides). Arguments raged over the numbers of people who would pay and the use of the word 'zone'. Fortunately climate change and other environmental issues did get a good look-in (they haven't always in previous debates).
Interaction between audience and panel was fast and furious; I was at the end of the row and being a naturally polite person was reluctant to interrupt; at one point I confiscated a microphone to ensure I could get my turn. The 'debate' was billed to end at 9 pm, but continued till 9.20 and the time seemed to pass in an instant.
It is hard to overestimate the significance of the coming referendum; people all around the country are looking to Manchester to see what happens. Not just in this country too - apparently no less a person than Barack Obama is showing an interest. A referendum is unusual in itself - last time I remember being able to take part in one was for the Common Market (as it was then called) in the 70s.
I also think it is important to see this bid as only one of a number of changes which will be needed in Greater Manchester to reach a sustainable low-carbon future.
This was evidenced at a debate last Thursday organised by the South Manchester Reporter, in which I took part. An audience of around 180 took part, with a panel consisting of Lis Phelan (Chair of the yes campaign)and Andrew Simpson (of Peel Holdings and the yes campaign's favourite pantomime villain) plus representatives of the four main political Parties in the area (yes, four) as a supporting cast.
Clearly both Lis and Andrew have done a number of these events and now present their respective cases with the slickness of professional politicians. A vote was taken of the audience before and after - the pre-vote was 44 in favour (of the bid) and 57 against; the vote at the end was 74 in favour and 80 against. To me this this all suggests that opinion is pretty evenly divided (at least amingst people who attend public meetings) and is pretty entrenched on both sides.
Of the 4 Party representatives, there were 3 in support (Labour, Lib Dem and me for the Greens) and 1 against (the Tory). Manchester Lib Dems have clearly come off the fence now; actually I shouldn't be too hard on them as we Greens have also had internal differences of opinion on this. I have to say that, just as the devil seems to have all the best tunes, it is more fun to argue against the many flaws in the whole package than to argue in favour. The pragmatic argument in favour wins out for me however, and seeing some of the bedfellows one would have in the 'no' campaign, reassures me that I am in the right place.
Unsurprisingly there were many 'questions' from the floor; of course these were mostly comments, although there were some definite questions along the lines of 'where are you lot getting your funding from?' (on both sides). Arguments raged over the numbers of people who would pay and the use of the word 'zone'. Fortunately climate change and other environmental issues did get a good look-in (they haven't always in previous debates).
Interaction between audience and panel was fast and furious; I was at the end of the row and being a naturally polite person was reluctant to interrupt; at one point I confiscated a microphone to ensure I could get my turn. The 'debate' was billed to end at 9 pm, but continued till 9.20 and the time seemed to pass in an instant.
It is hard to overestimate the significance of the coming referendum; people all around the country are looking to Manchester to see what happens. Not just in this country too - apparently no less a person than Barack Obama is showing an interest. A referendum is unusual in itself - last time I remember being able to take part in one was for the Common Market (as it was then called) in the 70s.
I also think it is important to see this bid as only one of a number of changes which will be needed in Greater Manchester to reach a sustainable low-carbon future.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
South of The River
Manchester is in a strange city in the geographical sense. It's shape resembles a slightly squashed banana, sandwiched in between the neighbouring Greater Manchester boroughs. The centre is about 3/4 of the way up, leaving a south which is 3 times bigger than the north. In turn this south can be divided into an 'inner south' (down as far as the Mersey Valley) and Wythenshawe.
There are major cultural difference between the different parts of the city too. A look at the spread of Green Party members is revealing; the vast majority are in the centre and south, and 'inner south' at that. I would expect an analysis of members of groups such as Friends of the Earth to be similar. This in no way means that people living in the other areas are any less green or potentially green (Green Party vote levels are not that different across most parts of the city). It is maybe more that people in those areas are less likely to have time or inclination for involvement in a political Party.
Because of this imbalance, we are not always as aware as we should be about what is happening in these other areas, so I would like to do a series of posts highlighting them, starting South of the River (Mersey) with Wythenshawe (including, and at the risk of upsetting people there, Northenden).
Wythenshawe was built as a garden city in the 1930s and was formerly known as the biggest council estate in Europe (we like our superlatives here in Manchester). Over the years it unfortunately acquired a reputation for high unemployment, crime and poor health which it is still struggling to shake off. My wife worked for several years at a school in Benchill (which was officially the most disadvantaged ward in the country until it disappeared in the last boundary changes)and became well-acquainted with the difficulties. National attention was last drawn here when a 'hoodie' pretended to shoot David Cameron.
However there are moves to bring more of a sense of community to the area. The area is the site of a pioneering community radio station (Wythenshawe FM) which was set up in 2000 with the backing of Manchester's Radio Regen project. As well as providing local information, the station has made a point of providing training.
Huge amounts of money have been invested in the area, but the City Council's usual top down, control-freakery approach is less likely to bring dividends than initiatives which are genuinely rooted in the community. The latest such move featured in last week's Guardian (article here); time will tell how successful it proves.
Another avenue being pursued in Northenden is the creation of an urban parish council, which has the support of many groups and individuals in the area, but which the City Council seems determined to strangle at birth (control-freakery again). I will probably return to this in a subsequent blog.
It is interesting to note that the high unemployment has continued in this area, the part of Manchester which includes the Airport, despite the claims of jobs, jobs, jobs every time the authorities want to expand the airport. This conflict between Wythenshawe and its remaining green lungs is highlighted by the campaign to save Rose Cottage - see link here.
There are major cultural difference between the different parts of the city too. A look at the spread of Green Party members is revealing; the vast majority are in the centre and south, and 'inner south' at that. I would expect an analysis of members of groups such as Friends of the Earth to be similar. This in no way means that people living in the other areas are any less green or potentially green (Green Party vote levels are not that different across most parts of the city). It is maybe more that people in those areas are less likely to have time or inclination for involvement in a political Party.
Because of this imbalance, we are not always as aware as we should be about what is happening in these other areas, so I would like to do a series of posts highlighting them, starting South of the River (Mersey) with Wythenshawe (including, and at the risk of upsetting people there, Northenden).
Wythenshawe was built as a garden city in the 1930s and was formerly known as the biggest council estate in Europe (we like our superlatives here in Manchester). Over the years it unfortunately acquired a reputation for high unemployment, crime and poor health which it is still struggling to shake off. My wife worked for several years at a school in Benchill (which was officially the most disadvantaged ward in the country until it disappeared in the last boundary changes)and became well-acquainted with the difficulties. National attention was last drawn here when a 'hoodie' pretended to shoot David Cameron.
However there are moves to bring more of a sense of community to the area. The area is the site of a pioneering community radio station (Wythenshawe FM) which was set up in 2000 with the backing of Manchester's Radio Regen project. As well as providing local information, the station has made a point of providing training.
Huge amounts of money have been invested in the area, but the City Council's usual top down, control-freakery approach is less likely to bring dividends than initiatives which are genuinely rooted in the community. The latest such move featured in last week's Guardian (article here); time will tell how successful it proves.
Another avenue being pursued in Northenden is the creation of an urban parish council, which has the support of many groups and individuals in the area, but which the City Council seems determined to strangle at birth (control-freakery again). I will probably return to this in a subsequent blog.
It is interesting to note that the high unemployment has continued in this area, the part of Manchester which includes the Airport, despite the claims of jobs, jobs, jobs every time the authorities want to expand the airport. This conflict between Wythenshawe and its remaining green lungs is highlighted by the campaign to save Rose Cottage - see link here.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
BBC Shocker! (no - not that one)
These are not good days for the BBC - I'm not going to dwell on the Brand - Ross business, it's been done to death already, (although as resignations go up the chain, I will be interested to see if Gordon Brown goes). Unsavoury though that was, no-body died, - the arms industry is a different story.
The BBC's Top Gear programme is taking part in the MPH motor show which opened today in London, and the owners of the show, Clarion events, bought up the DSEi, ITEC and LAAD arms trade show earlier this year - see here
Campaign Against the Arms Trade have called on the BBC to recognise the level of public opposition to the arms trade saying "Clarion owns arms fairs which have cheerfully invited officials from brutal regimes such as China, Colombia and Saudi Arabia. Involvement with this trade is not an option for any company that cares about its reputation". In as much as the BBC has any reputation left. Protests can be hoped for - and expected.
No surprises that the programme in question is 'Top Gear' of course. This is a show, paid for out of the license fee/broadcasting poll tax of all of us, which glorifies speed and petrol burning and will no doubt have led indirectly to the deaths and injuries of many at the hands of boy racers trying to emulate the presenters (not to mention the climate change impact). The fact that it is apparently so popular is a slap in the face to all green-minded people in the land. I tuned into the Television Awards programme last night to see Clarkson hurtling down some highway holding a Bill Oddie mask in front of his face to fool the speed cameras as the show won an award for best factual programme (!).
Which leads me on to my 'Daft comment of the week'. A host of possible contenders here, even without considering Palin and co as the US election reaches its climax. No, my choice is an excerpt from Manchester Evening News' TV editor Ian Wylie, who in a half page eulogy to the show claimed that 'there can scarcely be a TV viewer in the country who isn't excited about the return of Top Gear'.
The BBC's Top Gear programme is taking part in the MPH motor show which opened today in London, and the owners of the show, Clarion events, bought up the DSEi, ITEC and LAAD arms trade show earlier this year - see here
Campaign Against the Arms Trade have called on the BBC to recognise the level of public opposition to the arms trade saying "Clarion owns arms fairs which have cheerfully invited officials from brutal regimes such as China, Colombia and Saudi Arabia. Involvement with this trade is not an option for any company that cares about its reputation". In as much as the BBC has any reputation left. Protests can be hoped for - and expected.
No surprises that the programme in question is 'Top Gear' of course. This is a show, paid for out of the license fee/broadcasting poll tax of all of us, which glorifies speed and petrol burning and will no doubt have led indirectly to the deaths and injuries of many at the hands of boy racers trying to emulate the presenters (not to mention the climate change impact). The fact that it is apparently so popular is a slap in the face to all green-minded people in the land. I tuned into the Television Awards programme last night to see Clarkson hurtling down some highway holding a Bill Oddie mask in front of his face to fool the speed cameras as the show won an award for best factual programme (!).
Which leads me on to my 'Daft comment of the week'. A host of possible contenders here, even without considering Palin and co as the US election reaches its climax. No, my choice is an excerpt from Manchester Evening News' TV editor Ian Wylie, who in a half page eulogy to the show claimed that 'there can scarcely be a TV viewer in the country who isn't excited about the return of Top Gear'.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
A Tale of Two Cycling Cities
With 1966 becoming a fading memory it's good to know that there is another sport in which we rule the world, and have done consistently over several recent events. I am of course referring to track cycling, which was back in the news this week with two-wheeled gold medallists taking pride of place in the first bus for the Olympic parade in London. The current home of British cycling is at Manchester's velodrome, and there is even a chance of seeing some of these medallist out and about on the streets of the conurbation. Indeed one or two may have passed me, but at the speed I pedal on my 1985 Coventry Eagle, I would not have seen them for dust.
So Manchester leads the world in track cycling, and this can rightly be seen as a source of civic pride; this is one of the Cycling cities referred to in the title. Given that you would think that Manchester would be a leading city for ordinary cyclists too. Alas not.
This other of the two cities was also in the news this week, with figures on the accident rates for cyclists in the city, and its didn't make encouraging reading. Whilst facilities are better than they were, Manchester and other large British cities still trail comparable cities in continental Europe by miles. Some comparative statistics can be seen here for countries and for comparable-sized cities
This year Manchester had the chance to become Britain's cycling city, but lost out to Bristol. Some reason why may be gleaned from the following comment at a recent Cycle Forum meeting "Cycling England basically said that the Council had shown no leadership in promoting Cycling or increasing the amount of Cyclists in Manchester…when the bid went through the Council didn’t even have a Cycling Officer as he moved job and wasn’t replaced for 3 months."
In Manchester's current great transport debate cycling was little more than an afterthought, and its increasing profile during the consultation is due entirely to hard work by environmental groups such as FoE and Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign. This despite the leader of Manchester City Council, Sir Richard Leese no less, being a cycle user.
Daft Comment of the Week
I'm introducing this as a new feature. For our inaugural comment we go from the least polluting form of transport to the most polluting, and a comment from John Twigg of Manchester Airport. What follows is as reported by the Manchester Evening News (so it must be accurate) from their Greenlife debate on Sustainable Cities this week. Bizarrely given the title, this event was sponsored by Manchester Airport (a bit like King Herod sponsoring a conference on successful child-rearing). The quote is "Creating a sustainable city is part of the long-term plan for us - we want to maximise the potential that air travel brings to the economy and population".
I think Mr Twigg has set a high standard for daftness here; however I fear there will be anough material around to maintain the standard for weeks to come.
So Manchester leads the world in track cycling, and this can rightly be seen as a source of civic pride; this is one of the Cycling cities referred to in the title. Given that you would think that Manchester would be a leading city for ordinary cyclists too. Alas not.
This other of the two cities was also in the news this week, with figures on the accident rates for cyclists in the city, and its didn't make encouraging reading. Whilst facilities are better than they were, Manchester and other large British cities still trail comparable cities in continental Europe by miles. Some comparative statistics can be seen here for countries and for comparable-sized cities
This year Manchester had the chance to become Britain's cycling city, but lost out to Bristol. Some reason why may be gleaned from the following comment at a recent Cycle Forum meeting "Cycling England basically said that the Council had shown no leadership in promoting Cycling or increasing the amount of Cyclists in Manchester…when the bid went through the Council didn’t even have a Cycling Officer as he moved job and wasn’t replaced for 3 months."
In Manchester's current great transport debate cycling was little more than an afterthought, and its increasing profile during the consultation is due entirely to hard work by environmental groups such as FoE and Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign. This despite the leader of Manchester City Council, Sir Richard Leese no less, being a cycle user.
Daft Comment of the Week
I'm introducing this as a new feature. For our inaugural comment we go from the least polluting form of transport to the most polluting, and a comment from John Twigg of Manchester Airport. What follows is as reported by the Manchester Evening News (so it must be accurate) from their Greenlife debate on Sustainable Cities this week. Bizarrely given the title, this event was sponsored by Manchester Airport (a bit like King Herod sponsoring a conference on successful child-rearing). The quote is "Creating a sustainable city is part of the long-term plan for us - we want to maximise the potential that air travel brings to the economy and population".
I think Mr Twigg has set a high standard for daftness here; however I fear there will be anough material around to maintain the standard for weeks to come.
Sunday, 12 October 2008
A piece of history
A piece in the business section of the Manchester Evening News caught my eye this week as it brought back memories of my life in a period of the mid-eighties. The article concerned the preservation of the Mather and Platt factory in the Newton Heath area of East Manchester, where I worked for two years.
I remember the almost Dickensian atmosphere of the plant with its noisy, grimy machine rooms (I was normally in the quieter confines of the IT Office, but I went out onto the floor occasionally). To environmentally-minded colleagues of the day it seemed the last sort of place that a Green should be working. Even now, a survey of Green Party members would probably show a majority in the 'helping professions' or in small scale ethical businesses; however there is a role for heavy metal-bashing too (where else would our renewable energy devices be made?), and it is those types of industry where environmental and energy awareness is likely to make the biggest difference.
It's easy to forget nowadays just how big East Manchester was as a centre for engineering in times gone by. The eighties of course was the heyday of Maggie Thatcher and the replacement of manufacturing in this country with service industry - particularly financial services (look where that's gone!) The last proposal for creating employment in that area of the city was to build a huge gambling den. That too is now history, and rightly so.
As the laissez-faire financial markets collapse around us, why not bring back appropriate (and cleaner!) engineering back to the area, as part of a Green New Deal to invest in sustainable technologies for the future instead of propping up the 'banksters'.
I remember the almost Dickensian atmosphere of the plant with its noisy, grimy machine rooms (I was normally in the quieter confines of the IT Office, but I went out onto the floor occasionally). To environmentally-minded colleagues of the day it seemed the last sort of place that a Green should be working. Even now, a survey of Green Party members would probably show a majority in the 'helping professions' or in small scale ethical businesses; however there is a role for heavy metal-bashing too (where else would our renewable energy devices be made?), and it is those types of industry where environmental and energy awareness is likely to make the biggest difference.
It's easy to forget nowadays just how big East Manchester was as a centre for engineering in times gone by. The eighties of course was the heyday of Maggie Thatcher and the replacement of manufacturing in this country with service industry - particularly financial services (look where that's gone!) The last proposal for creating employment in that area of the city was to build a huge gambling den. That too is now history, and rightly so.
As the laissez-faire financial markets collapse around us, why not bring back appropriate (and cleaner!) engineering back to the area, as part of a Green New Deal to invest in sustainable technologies for the future instead of propping up the 'banksters'.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
The TiF Bid
Nobody could spend any time in Manchester these days without noticing that there is a big transport debate going on, with a proposal for massive public transport investment paid for with a congestion charge (the Tif bid). I won't go into the basic details - there are a range of sites from both proponents and opponents for you to sift through (various links in the text) - but this has been a more difficult subject for us Greens to deal with than you might think.
Colleagues in groups like Friends of the Earth express surprise that anyone other than a diehard motorist should oppose the scheme; it improves public transport, it discourages cars - surely it must be a good thing. Greens campaigning for other congestion charge schemes around the country might feel the same. However detailed reading of the consultation documents raises a number of issues from a true Green point of view.
The first issue is with the rationale of the whole proposal; it isn't for environmental benefit, it is to support continued economic growth in the City region. The problem to be solved is the negative impact of congestion on business.
The environmental aspects of the proposal are tacked on as an afterthought, indeed the 24 page consultation document sent out to households contains just 2 brief paragraphs on the environmental impact.
Reading the small print one finds out that the reduction in carbon claimed by the scheme is only a reduction in the increase that would result from a 'do nothing' strategy. A low carbon option was put forward by consultants Steer Davies Gleave in their Strategic Environmental Assessment; this was rejected by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) as being too radical. Walking and cycling have a low profile despite the fact that 17% of car journeys in the conurbation are of less than 1 km and 51% are of less than 3 km. And there is always the worry that AGMA will have an incentive to keep car use at a level such as to pay off the loan via the congestion charge for years to come.
Much of the public debate (particularly in the business-obsessed Manchester Evening news) has centred on the pro and anti business groups, ('United City' and 'Greater Manchester Momentum Campaign' respectively) slugging it out over which outcome will best suit their interests. The motoring lobby has of course been vocal in framing it as 'another stealth tax on the poor motorist'. Community groups may well be deeply involved in the consultation process, but if so, it is under the radar and one wonders how much say they will actually have.
Anyway, decision time approaches. The question is - from a green point of view is the scenario which would result from a succesful bid better than the balance of likely scenarios if it falls? Most green-minded people might answer yes, but it can be argued both ways.
Colleagues in groups like Friends of the Earth express surprise that anyone other than a diehard motorist should oppose the scheme; it improves public transport, it discourages cars - surely it must be a good thing. Greens campaigning for other congestion charge schemes around the country might feel the same. However detailed reading of the consultation documents raises a number of issues from a true Green point of view.
The first issue is with the rationale of the whole proposal; it isn't for environmental benefit, it is to support continued economic growth in the City region. The problem to be solved is the negative impact of congestion on business.
The environmental aspects of the proposal are tacked on as an afterthought, indeed the 24 page consultation document sent out to households contains just 2 brief paragraphs on the environmental impact.
Reading the small print one finds out that the reduction in carbon claimed by the scheme is only a reduction in the increase that would result from a 'do nothing' strategy. A low carbon option was put forward by consultants Steer Davies Gleave in their Strategic Environmental Assessment; this was rejected by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) as being too radical. Walking and cycling have a low profile despite the fact that 17% of car journeys in the conurbation are of less than 1 km and 51% are of less than 3 km. And there is always the worry that AGMA will have an incentive to keep car use at a level such as to pay off the loan via the congestion charge for years to come.
Much of the public debate (particularly in the business-obsessed Manchester Evening news) has centred on the pro and anti business groups, ('United City' and 'Greater Manchester Momentum Campaign' respectively) slugging it out over which outcome will best suit their interests. The motoring lobby has of course been vocal in framing it as 'another stealth tax on the poor motorist'. Community groups may well be deeply involved in the consultation process, but if so, it is under the radar and one wonders how much say they will actually have.
Anyway, decision time approaches. The question is - from a green point of view is the scenario which would result from a succesful bid better than the balance of likely scenarios if it falls? Most green-minded people might answer yes, but it can be argued both ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
