Can the Greens retain their first and sole Westminster seat?

Photo © 2011 Patrick Duce

With May 2015 just over a year away, battle lines are beginning to be drawn between political parties in marginal seats around the country and many seats are likely to swap hands. One such seat is Brighton Pavilion where Labour is hoping to win back the seat gained by Parliament’s sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas.

Many constituencies across the UK are losing their ‘safe’ status and becoming far more marginal, and those that have long been considered marginal are now split among several parties. The result is that small parties have a far better chance of gaining seats in Westminster than they did do fifty years ago. As the share of the vote for Labour and the Conservatives continues to decline, parties like the Green Party, UKIP and local Independent candidates can begin to feel more of a chance of their victory.

However, a small party with little experience in a position of authority is incredibly likely to come across difficult hurdles when trying to enact their political agenda for the first time. This is something we have seen in Brighton and Hove Council, made worse by the fact that the Greens, although the largest political group, do not have overall control. Hence, the Conservatives and Labour have bargaining power and they have both made sure to use it. Having coincided with the necessity to respond to Government cuts, this has left the Greens in an extraordinarily unpleasant situation: to be forced by Westminster to make unpopular cuts but to also build a popular reputation for a party that has just gained its first position of authority.

The political situation in Brighton has undoubtedly left its electorate confused. They have a council where an unlikely coalition of Labour and Conservative representatives has co-conspired to defeat Green bills. They have a council where the Greens are being forced to do exactly the opposite of what they stand for – make cuts. They have a council dominated by a party that has an MP of the same party protesting against it. Each of these is noticeable to the electorate and, in politics, it is the decisions that you see that matter. When rubbish collected on the streets and pickets of refuse workers formed, the electorate noticed and vowed never to forget, forming a negative image of the Green council from then onwards.

Competition for the Westminster seat, therefore, is going to be heavily fought. A three-way marginal between the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens in 2010, it is likely that at the next general election it will be a contest solely between Labour and the Greens. And, dishearteningly, it is looking like it will be a tight win for the Greens at best. With the Conservatives suffering massively in the polls and Labour retaining a strong lead, the national swing plus general dissatisfaction with the local authority will likely lead to a strong surge in Labour support in the area. A swing of only 1.2% is needed for Labour to regain the seat and, thus, it is featured on their list of target seats.

So, if Caroline Lucas is to remain an MP, the Greens have a lot of work to do. Somehow, the party must simultaneously defend the city council’s record whilst also explaining why Caroline joined the picket against her own party. She will undoubtedly be put under immense scrutiny and pressure by the electorate as soon as campaigning gets underway. She must also respond to Labour’s increasing presence in the area and fight against the replication of the national swing. She must find a way to work with the party’s local councillors that show that internal factions do not adversely affect the party and demonstrate that the visibility of these factions can only be good for a democracy.

Running such a campaign would also likely use up the majority of Green resources for the election, negatively affecting the efforts of other candidates. For example, in 2010, the candidate for Norwich South doubled the number of votes from 7.4% to 14.9%. If such an increase were to be repeated in 2015, the seat would be considered a four-way marginal with the Green Party in the running for a second MP by 2020. Pouring a considerable amount of resources into this secondary constituency could make this far more successful.

Before any decisions can be made, a number of questions need to be answered. How successful will the Green Party be in the European elections this year and will such a success reinspire some confidence in the party? Will the referendum on council tax prove beneficial for the Green Party’s image? Will Caroline’s popularity as an MP trump over the negative perception of the council that has grown? Will the national swing to Labour feature heavily in Brighton? We have just 16 months until the election and, as we know, in the political sphere, anything can happen.

The Cull is About Killing Badgers, Not Scientific Evidence

 Image by The Green Party

The controversial badger cull trial has failed to meet its targets, so Tory logic says that the trial should be extended by three weeks in order to ensure those targets are met.

Widely condemned, the six week badger cull being piloted in West Somerset and Gloucestershire attempts to discern how effective, humane and safe a cull would be if later implemented across England. Working on a quota, those who have been granted a license to kill the badgers in Somerset are now to be given an additional six weeks to make sure they kill the right amount.

This is a ridiculous move by the Government. The trial cull has already been riddled with failure, uncertainty and inaccuracies and the questions the government want answered have most definitely been unanswered. Only a short amount of time after the cull was initiated, the Government revised their figures on the number of badgers in the area, reducing them. How can any experiment be undertaken if the full facts aren’t known?

Ludicrously, the government is attempting to blame the badgers for their failure with Owen Paterson saying that the badgers ‘moved the goalposts.’ How have they done this? By doing what nature tells them to do: responding to the weather, moving away from danger and breeding. These are hardly unexpected moves from the enemies, with scientists already having warned the Government of these complications if they were to press on with this disgusting policy.

Yet, the Government believes that this is reason enough to extend the cull, ignoring the fact that it is factors like these that help to determine the effectiveness of their trial. The Government are ignoring the difficulties that a cull faces and are only concerned with the number of badgers are killed. It is more than apparent that when this quota has been met, the Government will claim the cull a success, as they already have done despite not reaching the numbers, and will begin rolling out the programme across England on the basis of this ‘evidence.’

In addition, protest groups in the area have noted that not all badgers have been killed humanely (using the Government’s definition), with some being trapped in cages before being shot at point-blank. The cull requires that badgers are killed while freely roaming. This highlights that another of the requirements of this cull has already been failed, in a closely-monitored trial, suggesting that if it were to be reproduced nationally there would be many more instances of badgers killed by inhumane methods. Furthermore, one of the arguments against vaccinating badgers against bTB was how difficult they are to capture, but if the Government is catching badgers in cages to shoot them, then they can catch badgers in cages to vaccinate them.

The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, rightly called out Owen Paterson and Defra for continuously 'changing the rules' and preferring 'a scribbled on the back of an envelope, ignoring the facts approach.'

It can only be concluded that the badger cull is a dangerous move for the Government that goes against the will of the public and the expert recommendations of the scientific community. It does not fulfil their requirements and is simply a token gesture to farmers who are worried about losing a bit of capital. Hence, the Government should begin looking at alternative measures to tackle Bovine Tuberculosis, such as the vaccination, which have helped Scotland to achieve its Bovine TB-free status.

Greens Challenge Labour in Brighton

Photo by Brighton and Hove Greens

 

The Greens and Labour are engaging in war this week as both parties choose the city of Brighton as the host for their party conferences. 

Presenting a formidable challenge to Labour, the Greens' sole MP, Caroline Lucas, will be welcoming the party to her seat and attempting to garner support away from the party. 

Criticism of the Labour party is only fair. Having helped the UK into economic crisis, the party lost a lot of support, allowing the Conservatives into power. With their horrible policies, the Tories have now forced people up and down the country into increasingly detrimental positions, where families struggle to make ends meet and the most vulnerable are treated like a burden on the state. Of course, the Labour party can't be blamed directly for the introduction of these abhorrent policies but their recklessness in government played into their opposition's hands, causing the coalition we have today. To add salt to the wound, however, it appears that the Labour party have few plans to end this reign of terror enforced by the 'nasty party' and seemingly want to continue with the timetable of austerity, reversing few of the Tories' cuts and policies if they were to gain control of Government in 2015.

Additionally, the Labour party seem to be on the path to destruction in the General Election. Despite their high polling levels, a parliamentary majority still remains dependent on their ability to connect with voters, but it's hard to do that when you have no, at least public, policies. Whether it's a tactically slow release, or a case of developing policies at the last minute, Miliband's party are sending their support packing as people struggle to understand what the party stands for. Far from the certainty of receiving the support from their original voter base, Labour seem to be only pushing away votes rather than drawing new ones in. 

In the three-way marginal that is the constituency of Brighton Pavilion, Labour are hoping to win the seat from the Greens, as part of their bid to reassert themselves as the people's party. Yet, it will not be a surprise if they lose the seat again, as they continue down the path they are taking. Despite the public spats the Greens have had in the council and some of their lesser appreciated policies by local residents, Caroline Lucas continues to hold strong support, if only by a margin. With their conference having ended this week, the Greens have voted for policies that the public want, but the Labour party doesn't (yet) offer: no to fracking, nationalised railways and the reversion of austerity policies, for example. It is on this basis that the Greens will remind Labour party members of an alternative as they challenge the official opposition to the status of de facto opposition. Labour party members will be greeted with this billboard, which criticises their lack of policy and position on the right of the political spectrum, on their way to conference this week:

Although the Greens would be extremely pleased to gain support on the basis of their policies and establish themselves as a true party in Westminster, what is more important is the introduction of their policies. Hence, this argument attempts to work in two ways. The first is that it will persuade Labour members to realign with the Greens. The second that will prompt Labour members to ask their party to introduce these policies to their manifesto.

In order to ensure success and stop the demise of Labour majority governments (which may not necessarily be a bad thing), Miliband and his party members need to reconsider their strategy and begun introducing policy promises that will get people back on their side. 

Natalie Bennett Kicks Off Conference Season with Promising Speech

Kicking off the UK Party Conference Season, Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett set off continuous rounds of applause as she delivered a promising speech to her party in Brighton.

Bennett showed how in touch and relevant the Green Party is yesterday when she reiterated the Green Party’s long-standing policies on fracking, austerity and privatisation. The policies outlined by the leader are ones that stand well with the public and, once the party receives some national coverage of the event, will likely hit home in a large section of the population.

As the population continues to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Natalie Bennett is right to point out how the Green Party (and Ukip) will stand in good stead at the next General Election, in 2015, as people look towards viable alternatives and realise that these parties have policies they can eagerly rally behind.

Perhaps the most attractive of the positions taken in her speech are her commitments to renationalising the railways (and Royal Mail), anti-fracking and anti-cuts. With people around the country suffering from the Government’s brutal cuts, a party that promises an honest and viable reprieve should receive a considerable amount of backing. However, the Green Party's stance on immigration and asylum seekers will not be welcomed by the general public, as people continue to perceive these issues as problems for the UK. Many YouGov polls have shown that people see immigration as a threat to the country as a whole but not to themselves - this completely highlights the effect of the British media, whereby people are led to believe that immigration is a problem when few are actually affected by it.

Natalie represents a party with few, and not irreconcilable, splits and, thus, has the good fortune of rare inner-party scuffles. This conference is already showing a party ready for the election, prepared with relevant policies and eager to support each other across the country. Much more will come out of this conference that all should be interested in.

For a detailed report of her speech, see below:

---

Natalie Bennett has opened the Green Party conference, the first of the UK party conference season, in Brighton today, immediately outlining the party’s continued opposition to fracking, austerity and military intervention in Syria.

At her second conference as leader of the party, after Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP, stepped down from the position of leader last year, Bennett proclaimed the party’s continued resistance to the coalition Government’s austere programme.

Praising the actions of elected Green Party members, Bennett declared it a difficult situation for Brighton and Hove Council, the only Green council in the country, under the continued strains of ‘brutal’ Government cuts. Bennett congratulated the councillors for their work on introducing a living wage, pay ratios, ethical investment and great GCSE results under their authority. She also commended Jenny Jones on her appointment to the House of Lords before announcing that Jenny will take a platform of abolishing the House.

Criticism of Ukip and Nigel Farage…

This article was originally published by H4TV - for the full article, click here

Fear Will Maintain Our Status Quo

Photo by Roger Harris

It is a much discussed topic that the UK suffers from the illness of a two-party system, whereby either Labour or the Tories hold power over the Government, even though it is not evident that either party actually received the support of over 50% of the entire eligible electorate. Medicine for such a problem ranges from compulsory voting to increased relevance of parties to a change in the voting system. However, the tumour that eats away at British confidence in our political system is unlikely to be defeated for one simple reason - fear.

Since the early twentieth century, government control has remained firmly in the hands of either the Tories or Labour. Yet, especially as of late, dissatisfaction with this established status quo is high, represented in a drop of party membership and electoral support; for example, neither party received a majority in the 2010 election. As such, you would be forgiven for thinking that the popularity of smaller parties may have soared and these two parties would have been displaced. Sadly, this is not the case. Again, a number of reasons have been previously been given to this decline, including similarities between political parties and the lesser prevalence of political activism in modern-day life. Where membership of a political party used to be a major part of an individual's lives, this practice no longer remains, with a wider range of activities preferred.

Poll levels for these two parties are always fairly close or perceived to be close but are in no way representative of support from the full electorate. As such, the make-up of the House of Commons is even less representative of public opinion as the First Past The Vote (FPTP) voting system does not allow for such. Take, for example, the 2010 election. Out of an electorate of an estimated 45,603,078, 29,687,604 voted but only 10,703,654 voted for the Conservative party. Therefore, of the estimated electorate, only 23% voted for the Tories, whereas of those who voted, 36.1% voted for them. Yet, inexplicably, the Tories hold 47.1% of UK seats, representing roughly double the number of constituents who voted for them. In contrast, the Green Party received 265,243 (0.9%) votes, meaning that, for a properly representative House, the Green Party should have at least 5, possibly 6, MPs. It's no surprise that people become increasingly disenfranchised with politics as such a House doesn't represent them.

It is this lack of proportionality in the House that makes the situation worse. As people recognise that wide support for a small party doesn't necessarily result in representation in the House - the support needs to be concentrated under FPTP - they realise that their vote will only make any real difference if they vote for the Tories or Labour. It becomes a protest vote - worried that the worst of the two evils will take power if they don't vote, or they vote for a small party, people vote for the lesser of the two evils. People are fearful of a situation where the worse of the two options take power. Even though this feeling is quite widespread, and people know that concentrated voting for a smaller party could wreck the status quo, people fear that it won't work and, thus, stick to voting for one of the two major parties. While this attitude to voting continues to exist, we are unlikely to see anything different - maybe further coalitions are in our future, but we are bound to see the Tories or Labour form the majority of these.

Hence, the only real way to inspire confidence in voters and show them that there is a way to oust these two parties, is to introduce proportional representation, where every person's vote influences the makeup of the House of Commons, where 1% of the vote means 1% of the seats. Unfortunately, even this is unlikely to ever occur. Whilst Labour or the Tories hold control of Government and they know that a system of proportional representation would be detrimental to their prospects, we are unlikely to ever see this proposal make its way into law. The closest opportunity we had was when the Liberal Democrats coerced their coalition partners to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote, a step-down from their original Single Transferable Vote preference, which would have barely bettered the situation but was voted away anyway, reducing any chance of us changing this system.

There are only two ways in which we are going to be able to change our two-party system. Either it will be a long process as small parties slowly grow in support as their small local successes begin to get noticed, but this is not an ideal approach. Alternatively, the process could be achieved through coalitions where smaller parties garner support through their successes in government but if we are to take the Liberal Democrats in this coalition as an example, confidence in smaller parties is unlikely to grow.

Also posted on Backbench

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

"Get behind fracking" demands David Cameron in The Telegraph today. Think of the benefits to the economy, he lays on. Ignore the environmental impact, he infers. As anti-fracking protests continue strong in Balcombe, Sussex, the Tory Prime Minister adds yet another controversy to his premiership's legacy, so what substance lies behind his words?

The pro-fracking alliance of Caudrilla and The Conservative Party announce the godsends of the new energy initiative at any hint of disapproval: cheap energy, self-sufficiency and enough jobs to provide for the unemployed and the millions of illegal immigrants popping out of the sewage system. Meant to be a bit of good news, the Nasty Party must be in disarray that their distraction from their widespread attacks has only added fuel to the fire. Rather than prompting street parties and celebrations akin to those on New Year's Day, simply the possibility of fracking has resulted in angry gatherings. 

The potential of fracking is vastly outweighed by its potential to wreck the environment. Carving up the countryside, destroying habitats and contaminating water, it's hardly going to be Beautiful Britain. 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas doesn't exactly suggest a short-scale and isolated project; if David Cameron's partners manage to find shale gas, which is a certainty, there's no doubt that they'll continue to exploring elsewhere in the country. It really should come as no surprise that fracking is being favoured over other options when one of Cameron's advisors, Lord Browne, is the chief executive of Caudrilla. The big black bags of money that the Government are saying will drop into the Treasury or the local public's back pockets are empty promises. If anything is reinvested into the economy, it will be minimal. We only have to look at the 'Big Six' to recognise this; despite their massive profits this year, they still have the cheek to demand more money from their customers. Here is where Cameron's promise of cheaper energy can be called into question.

The latter two promises, self-sufficiency and jobs, also raise eyebrows. Although it may be the case that fracking can provide them both, they are not the sole approaches that can offer, and they are far more the cleanest. Fracking is a dirty process, and presents the highly likely chance of water contamination in the local area. Add the certainty of increased traffic from unclean lorries through the local area, and the noise created during the process, and it the pollution is an abysmal thought. Furthermore, climate change is a real concern in the present day and as we continue to rely on finite and dirty resources to power society, we are forgetting the long-term problems and solely thinking of the short-term benefits. It has been predicted that 60-80% of resources in the ground must not be extracted if we are to avoid any of the catastrophic results of climate change. In contrast, there are various green energies that can be invested in for all the same benefits. Additional money placed towards procuring energy-efficient homes and building technologies to catch renewable energies is far more sustainable and financially viable. The jobs created by implementing a shale-gas service are equally required for a large-scale investment project in sustainable and clean resources, that will not just benefit us, but generations to come and have far more public support than dirty fracking.

The language used by the pro-fracking alliance is misleading and ignorant of alternatives and public opinion. Despite widespread opposition, the technology, which is in its infancy, is being favoured over far more sustainable technologies, which can provide the very same benefits. There is enough shale gas to keep us powered for decades, they say. But there is enough sun, water, wind and heat to keep us powered indefinitely.

Also posted on Redbrick.

It’s Time to Tackle Climate Change

Image by 350.org

Barack Obama yesterday announced a wide-range of reforms to tackle climate change to make himself the most committed president to challenging growing ecological problems. From cutting carbon emissions to developing renewable energy, the demands from the President demonstrate an acceptance that climate change is a real problem that needs to be tackled. However, is his speech simply a demonstration of rhetoric, or is there something to look forward to?

The President of the United States released his plans to the public yesterday via a document and a speech at Georgetown University, and he makes some very promising points. His commitment to reducing carbon pollution in America, following on from mercury and arsenic, is a particularly important step, making the world a safer and more sustainable place for generations beyond us and the wider animal kingdom and their habitats. Furthermore, by doing this, he is committing to developing more renewable energies, which is not only good for the environment, but it also increases employment opportunities and helps to strengthen the economy. Obama positively suggests that this can be carried out alongside keeping the economy growing.

He also addressed the problem of natural disasters that climate change has caused, by announcing plans to protect people from the adverse effects of severe weather. This is perhaps where the UK can learn a lesson. With flooding increasing in recent years, it is certain that we need to tackle the problem at its source, but also increase flood defences, strengthen bridges and protect people’s homes to ensure that people are not made homeless and lose their possessions over and over again.

However, despite Obama’s great intentions, his announcements fall short. His continued commitment to nuclear energy and fracking allow cause for great concern. Both of these energy sources are dangerous to the population, with scientists proving that the latter has been linked to rare earthquakes in the UK. It also relies on a limited amount of shale gas resources and involves the destruction of habitats and the environment in the search and extraction of it. In addition to these concerns, he neglected to make any indication as to his decision on the Keystone tar sands pipeline, only stating that climate implications would be considered before making his decision. He also failed to mention any way of combating those who emit too much carbon and pollution, such as a tax or a penalty charge. Whilst the capitalist system allows for companies to exploit the environment with no consequences, we are unlikely to see any real change from such big industries.

Unfortunately for him and environmentalists, the US political system works in such a way that the President can’t just get what he demands and anything Obama wishes to push through must first go through Congress. So, was his speech yesterday another display of rhetoric, or a real commitment to making sure the progress starts during his administration? After all, we’ve seen his previous promises about Guantanamo Bay and no real action has been made on that front.

Nevertheless, the announcements made by the President push thought on climate change in the right direction; the problem needs to be addressed and tackled before it is too late. It is hopefully a step that his citizens will climb on board with, and one that nations around the world will learn from. To tackle climate change, everyone needs to be in it together.

Stop the Badger Cull

 Image by The Green Party

 

The badger cull pilot project is set to begin in the UK shortly, trialling in the south-western counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset despite many calls for its cancellation. It disheartens me that the hard work of The Green Party, the RSPCA and high-street store, Lush, have been ignored by the Government. What we are seeing now, according to the BBC, is the massacre of 5094 innocent creatures by February next year. 

People will proclaim that the badgers aren’t innocent because they have spread TB to cattle across the country and cost farmers and the nation massive amounts of money, but this is to neglect the fact that these creatures are none the wiser. We, as humans, are lucky to possess the intelligence that we have – we can stop the spread of diseases and viruses using our mental capacities – but, unfortunately, badgers don’t have this same awareness. So, to treat them like they do and hold them as “guilty” of carrying TB and ruining livestock across the country is preposterous. 

It would be outrageous if we were to wipe out the entire population that carry HIV, so why should we do the same to badgers? There are other ways of tackling the problem, and these have been tried and tested. So, they cost more and harder to administer, but should these creatures pay the price for our laziness and ignorance? No. Besides, leading scientists (including the Government’s chief scientist) have argued that there is no real evidence to justify the slaughter, yet the activity goes ahead. 

In October 2012, the House of Commons voted against the proposed cull but this non-binding result from the house was only greeted with a slight postponement by the Government. Acting against the wishes of the House’s members and, indeed, the population, we are seeing an act of downright betrayal from those who are meant to represent us. 

A campaign has been launched by Lush, the high-street cosmetics shop, against the cull, gathering support from customers and passers-by across the country, via organised flash mobs as in the video below. But, we have seen that, time and time again, the Government just does not listen; despite how hard the campaign is fought, and the damning evidence, unless it’s the right people pushing the buttons, it’s hard to get your voice heard. 

Unfortunately, it is already too late to save some, but it is not yet too late to put pressure on the Government. Join me and many others in saying no to the badger cull. Tweet your support using “#stopthecull”, sign the petition, stick up a poster and tell everyone you know. Let’s give those badgers back their lives.

Legislation is Only Half the Battle for Equality

Image by Michael Fleshman

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed through its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday, allowing it to now be debated in the House of Lords before hopefully becoming law. An amendment by Labour to ensure that the Government also holds a consultation on whether to allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships marks another step towards equality between heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual couples. 

The bill passed by a large majority of 205, showing concrete support for this incredible step, but it is sad that 161 MPs continue to show opposition to the motion and that 119 were not present at the vote. Still, we must remain enthused that the legislation passed through the House of Commons. Of course, there is further scrutiny, perhaps much more in depth, to be undertaken in the House  of Lords, but we are halfway to some fantastic marriage reform, allowing homosexual couples across the UK to commit to each other in marriage with their heterosexual counterparts.

Labour’s amendment to include a consultation on civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is also important. Whilst marriage is “religious” in its connotations, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists and mixed-religious couples are excluded. Furthermore, it also demonstrates another level on which homosexual couples are differentiated from their fellow heterosexual citizens. The new proposal to the Government is simple; allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships, or abolish civil partnerships. To continue this difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is to shift equality in the wrong direction. 

However, a change in legislation is only half the battle. The country continues to face the problem with the actual day-to-day perceptions and discrimination of LGBTQ* people. As we have seen before, given women the vote and other equalities does not rid the evil that is discrimination via sexism. The same stands with LGBTQ* rights – homophobia and stigma based on sexuality continues to exist. A woman even tried to drive through the gates of the Palace of Westminster during the vote yesterday in a bid to show her lack of agreement; people will  go to incredible lengths to show their opposition. Whilst “outing” is a problem and a risk, we must continue the battle for sexuality equality.

Despite the vote being a landmark victory, we’re not quite at proper equality yet. Hopefully, we can reach a day where marriage is marriage, no matter who is in it.

The Not-So-Grand National

Image by Paolo Camera

The Grand National starts today and its controversial history has already been repeated with two horses already having died in the preliminary stages; one from a jump, the other from a suspected heart attack. There have been numerous attempts to make the races safer but these do not seem to be making any difference, with horses continuing to die at each race.

It is a sad state of affairs that people would accept this practice as normal and only express remorse at the death of the horses rather than the initial cruelty. Furthermore, this remorse is short-lived and only shown during the Great National and later races. The races are treated as an experience and a great day out but who treats a death as a great day out? The fact that the horse is a lesser-being, an animal, changes the very treatment and perception that we grant it; this is wholly unfair.

Ludicrously, the RSPCA have argued that the Grand National, or horseracing in general, does not amount to animal cruelty, stating that animal cruelty was when people deliberately hurt animals for their own entertainment or pleasure. But surely this is exactly what the Grand National is? Jockeys beating their horses with sticks for their pursuit of money and fame, whilst others gather to watch, bet and enjoy. And year after year, horses die as a direct result of the broken bones caused by falling at fences they are required to jump. This is a very strange opinion to hear from the RSPCA.

The attempts to make the Grand National safer every year are unsuccessful. Changing the heights and types of fence are a step forward but they are not enough. The real problem in horseracing is the pressure that jockeys are put under to win the race and the difficulty to manoeuvre the horse when all horses are so close together, taking bends and dangerous jumps. It seems unlikely that any changes will be made to stop these horses having to die.

For some reason, cruelty to animals is a frowned upon practice yet the Grand National does not constitute as animal cruelty to many in society. The decrease of a threat of a death is enough to calm some fears but this is not enough to ensure the safety of our animals. Horseracing is a horrible sport that has been normalised into acceptance.

Misconceiving the Green Party

The Green Party Logo

It is a horrible misconception of the Green Party to take their name literally and assume that they are a single-issue party – that is to say that their policies are always, at the very least, tenuously linked to environmental policies. However, this is not the case. There’s no denying that the environment is at the core of a lot of Green policies but, despite this, the Greens have a vast manifesto full of policies on education, crime and personal economy. And, unlike other smaller political parties such as UKIP, their policy focus is not one that can easily be solved in one policy change. The Green Party is essentially a left-leaning party with Socialist ideals; hence, similar to the Labour party before it abandoned its roots and repositioned itself under Blair’s New Labour. It’ll be impossible to talk through all of their manifesto points in 600 words, but we can at least look at some of their biggest policy areas.

The basic Green Party policy page alone outlines their attitudes towards the banking system, health and the jobs. The Green Party offer support for policies that attempt to make society a more equal arena, for example, a “living wage” as a new minimum wage which they predict would be around £8.10 an hour. One specific section on young people states “we think it’s unfair that young people are demonised for hanging around on our streets” and then goes on to promise more spending on youth services and free travel on off-peak buses for those under 18 or in full time education. Furthermore, their extended manifesto highlights policies relating to the equality of those who define as LGBTI, women and disabled. They also have a keen focus on further democratising democracy by extending the right to vote to those aged 16 and 17, and changing the voting system to proportional representation for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and allowing a right to recall your MP.

Of course, it would be deceiving to talk through the Greens’ manifesto points without whipping out their environmental policies. As environmental policies make their way into mainstream politics of the three main parties, it is often questioned what more The Green Party has to contribute to the field; some argue that there are only limited, realistic ways of achieving an environmentally friendly society. It is, in fact, the opposite of this; although the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do offer environmental policies in their manifestos, these are quite often easy to complete and more anthropocentric (to conserve what is for human consumption). In contrast, many of the Green Party’s policies can be interpreted as ecocentric (focused on the welfare and value of nature).

Using the credible source of Wikipedia, we only have to look at the party’s encyclopaedia entry to note that they are not simply an Environmentalist party, but are often attributed the characteristics of being republican, progressive, democratic, socialist and soft Eurosceptics. Upon Natalie Bennett’s successful election in August 2012, she announced that the UK needed “investment in homes, investment in jobs, investment in energy conservation, renewable energy and public transport.” This clearly shows that, although the party does have an Environmentalist focus, they have room to focus on the wider social and fiscal issues that the people of the nation find important. If you find all of this surprising, visit www.voteforpolicies.org.uk and you will see most participants have discovered that the policies of which they most agree with are those of the Green Party. Try it yourself – choose four policy areas and choose which you most agree with; see what party you should be voting for. The fact that you won’t be able to spot The Green Party’s environmentalism in every area shows that they are not just a single-issue party.

January 2013 in Economics

Image by HM Treasury on Flickr

Now, before I start, I must admit that I am no expert in the field of economics. There are few words and statistics that I understand. But, the relationship between economic policy and return on that policy, in the way of contraction or growth, is not a difficult analysis to undertake. Hence, the recent news items regarding the nation’s return to contraction, the closure of Jessops, the cut of jobs by Honda and the contraction in the construction industry, all within the space of the week, signify a massive problem in our fiscal system.

In an earlier post, I predicted that the return to growth in the third quarter of 2012 was merely the result of the temporary Olympics and Jubilee celebrations (otherwise known as “artificially strong growth”) and this is exactly what has been confirmed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), noting that without the Olympics the economy would have flat-lined. However, the final quarter of 2012 included the Christmas period – a period of increased and frivolous spending – so it comes as a surprise that we see this contraction so quickly. In another post, I predicted that 2013 would see the UK re-enter a recession. Now this  has not yet happened, (obviously due to the first quarter only having recently begun) but with such a quick contraction and the dent made in the employment figures this week, we can only expect to see this or a dramatic turn of events in the coming months.

Yet, based on just these major newsworthy statistics on job losses, we can already see 2170 people starting their new year without a job, entering an environment where intake of new employees is minimal and those without a job are being punished by the coalition’s blaming policies. Before long, we can see these people losing money on the benefits they did not necessarily used to have to rely on, and then being called scroungers of the state due to their reliance on and complaints about the reformed benefits system via this so-called revolutionary universal tax credit. Ironically, the Government wish to be the helping hand up, but these people will only remember having to take a forceful step down.

But much more ludicrously is the fact that this very week, despite these detrimental austerity measures, despite these massive job losses, despite the number of people’s lives they have ruined, our beloved MPs want a 32% raise in their wage packet. It comes as no surprise, that those who demanded the highest raise were from the already particularly well-off members of the Conservative party. Perhaps more surprisingly is that this raise was demanded by members of parties across the board and not just those of the three main parties.

It is disgusting and awful that those who are coercing the saving of money, reduction of budgets and removal of benefits are those also pleading for more money in their pockets. Because, after all, MPs should be exempt from the rules that they place on the rest of society.