Well, the only public hustings of the campaign in Hackney North took place on Tuesday evening, organised by Hackney and Tower Hamlets Friends of the Earth - and, as this report in the Hackney Citizen confirms, it seemed to go alright for me.
Yes, I know, 'Green Party candidate does well at Friends of the Earth hustings' is probably not the headline of the century - but I was glad to have had the opportunity to debate with the other candidates, particularly as the discussion ranged much more widely than simple, 'green issues'.
Probably the most interesting debate arose from a question that was about sustainability, however - and it was around the definition of the word 'reality'. The questioner raised the point that economic commentators are always going on about the need to face fiscal reality as regards the deficit - and yet there is a thundering silence about the reality of environmental limits, and the fact that our economy is exceeding them more and more every year.
What was particularly eye-opening was the response of the other candidates. They just didn't get it. Not in a deliberately evasive way - they just didn't grasp the scope of the question. At all.
Darren, the Conservative candidate, answered as you might expect - the issue is the over regulation of business and the ingenuity of the free market will solve the problem, so no need to worry. Well, that's not an answer I agree with, but at least he answered. Diane and Keith, on the other hand, simply talked about their various programmes of green investment. Fair enough, I certainly agree that we need a short-term stimulus to start building the low-carbon infrastructure we need to transition to a sustainable economy (and, of course, the mainstream party packages on this are pitifully inadequate) - but neither of them seemed even to realise that at some point they would have to address the current driver of the economic model...economic growth.
As the excellent report from the SDC, Redefining Prosperity, accurately points out, continued economic growth in developed economies is totally unsustainable. And as Tim Jackson, the report's author, comments: "The purpose of the economy is not to grow, but to bring prosperity...the conditions in which we can flourish as human beings." The great challenge of the 21st century is going to be crafting societies which are more equal, more sustainable, and do not rely on economic growth for stability. The most eye opening part of Tuesday's hustings was that the three other candidates don't seem even to realise this - let alone have a plan about how to get there.
P.S. It would seem I won't have the opportunity to make this point at another hustings, since I haven't been invited to the one on Sunday. Apparently 23% of the vote borough wide last year isn't good enough to get in on the debate. Needless to say, I am deeply unimpressed.
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Monday, 22 March 2010
Ending Fuel Poverty
In one of my more recent posts, I highlighted one of the major items of expenditure in Hackney Green Party's budget proposals this year - a scheme designed to kickstart the provision of free insulation for all residents of the borough, prioritising the most vulnerable households.
A similar scheme has already been pioneered by Kirklees Green Party, who secured over £20 million for it, and it has transformed the energy efficiency situation of housing in their area.
Now, I'm aware that insulation isn't the sexiest political issue. But it should be.
It should be because nearly five million households in England cannot afford to heat and power their own homes. They need to spend more than 10% of their income on energy, and so are living in fuel poverty. The annual average household energy bill is now over £1,200 - more than double the average bill just five years ago.
And it should be because, in 2008/2009, there were more than 36,000 excess winter deaths, with many more people becoming seriously ill or going into heavy debt due to fuel poverty.
THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PEOPLE.
Yes, of course, excess deaths aren't just cold related, and not everyone died as a result of poor heating in their homes - but even if we are ludicrously conservative and attribute just 10% of those deaths to insufficient fuel and heating (and I suspect its actually a lot more), we are talking about thousands of preventable deaths. And that was for 2008/9. The winter we've just had was colder.
Of course, the Labour government have been on the case for a decade now, ever since they passed a Parliamentary Bill on the topic of fuel poverty in 2000. I'm sure its fixed.
Oh. Turns out, there are now nearly three times more households in fuel poverty than in 2001, when the government launched its UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. The government has already acknowledged it will miss its 2010 legal target on fuel poverty, and is on course to miss the 2016 target unless there is a radical shift in strategy. As End Fuel poverty have said of the government, "it is reluctant to set a target energy efficiency standard for private sector homes; take regulatory action to drive up standards...and make sure all the necessary funding is provided."
Frankly, this isn't rocket science. We need to stop faffing about at the edges of this problem, stop relying on the market to fix itself, and introduce minimum standards in the private sector as a matter of urgency. As Friends of the Earth point out in a recent briefing: "Strong minimum standards, which are toughened over time, should make it illegal to rent out a property below a certain energy efficiency rating...this should start immediately with properties in Energy Performance Certificate Bands F and G...there is simply no moral, practical or financial argument for allowing a landlord to continue to make money from letting a property which is in bands F or G - a standard of energy efficiency so poor that it is classified as a health hazard - when that property could be improved to Band E for less than a thousand pounds."
Absolutely right. We need the 'stick' of minimum energy standards, and the 'carrot' of easily understood and accessible free insulation. We need it because bringing the homes of the fuel poor up to the energy efficiency standards of homes built today would reduce their fuel bills by an average of 52 per cent, and cut their carbon emissions by 59 per cent. And we need it because people are dying.
A similar scheme has already been pioneered by Kirklees Green Party, who secured over £20 million for it, and it has transformed the energy efficiency situation of housing in their area.
Now, I'm aware that insulation isn't the sexiest political issue. But it should be.
It should be because nearly five million households in England cannot afford to heat and power their own homes. They need to spend more than 10% of their income on energy, and so are living in fuel poverty. The annual average household energy bill is now over £1,200 - more than double the average bill just five years ago.
And it should be because, in 2008/2009, there were more than 36,000 excess winter deaths, with many more people becoming seriously ill or going into heavy debt due to fuel poverty.
THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PEOPLE.
Yes, of course, excess deaths aren't just cold related, and not everyone died as a result of poor heating in their homes - but even if we are ludicrously conservative and attribute just 10% of those deaths to insufficient fuel and heating (and I suspect its actually a lot more), we are talking about thousands of preventable deaths. And that was for 2008/9. The winter we've just had was colder.
Of course, the Labour government have been on the case for a decade now, ever since they passed a Parliamentary Bill on the topic of fuel poverty in 2000. I'm sure its fixed.
Oh. Turns out, there are now nearly three times more households in fuel poverty than in 2001, when the government launched its UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. The government has already acknowledged it will miss its 2010 legal target on fuel poverty, and is on course to miss the 2016 target unless there is a radical shift in strategy. As End Fuel poverty have said of the government, "it is reluctant to set a target energy efficiency standard for private sector homes; take regulatory action to drive up standards...and make sure all the necessary funding is provided."
Frankly, this isn't rocket science. We need to stop faffing about at the edges of this problem, stop relying on the market to fix itself, and introduce minimum standards in the private sector as a matter of urgency. As Friends of the Earth point out in a recent briefing: "Strong minimum standards, which are toughened over time, should make it illegal to rent out a property below a certain energy efficiency rating...this should start immediately with properties in Energy Performance Certificate Bands F and G...there is simply no moral, practical or financial argument for allowing a landlord to continue to make money from letting a property which is in bands F or G - a standard of energy efficiency so poor that it is classified as a health hazard - when that property could be improved to Band E for less than a thousand pounds."
Absolutely right. We need the 'stick' of minimum energy standards, and the 'carrot' of easily understood and accessible free insulation. We need it because bringing the homes of the fuel poor up to the energy efficiency standards of homes built today would reduce their fuel bills by an average of 52 per cent, and cut their carbon emissions by 59 per cent. And we need it because people are dying.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Grassroots Legislator?
Those who are keen readers of the Hackney Gazette may have noticed that Diane Abbott has reacted with some irritation after I pointed out her absence from a key climate vote a couple of weeks ago.
While I've been having a bit of fun with her assertion that no-one in Hackney has ever met me (I'm fairly sure I'm not a figment of someone's imagination, though I suppose you never can tell), Diane's response actually brings up an important and interesting point of discussion - the proper balance as an elected representative between engagement in the community you serve, and attendance at the legislative body in which you sit.
In actual fact, Diane and I are not very far apart on this, I suspect. I come from a tradition of politics which believes, strongly, that the role of a politician is not to be elected every five years and then go about their Parliamentary business (a view of the function of elected representatives which has been extremely prevalent in historical British politics), but rather to interact with and dynamically serve the community groups and campaigning organisations which exist within their constituency.
The main wellspring of ideas and 'genius' for change comes from the grassroots, not from one person who happens to have been elected. One of my political heroes is the late Paul Wellstone, and I've found the organisation set up in his memory, Wellstone Action, to be a helpful guide to how an elected representative should spend much of their time empowering constituents to hold them to account. There are already many good examples of this in Hackney - the London Coalition Against Poverty springs to mind - and I would hope to work with many more if elected, either as a councillor or MP.
The only difference between Diane and I is the value that we placed on that particular amendment to that particular bill. For me, when a vote is that tight, and when it is about holding powerful corporations to account on their attempts to water down environmental standards, I'll be in Parliament. That doesn't mean that I won't be an active and energetic community MP as well - because, in the end, building community politics is the most powerful route to social change.
While I've been having a bit of fun with her assertion that no-one in Hackney has ever met me (I'm fairly sure I'm not a figment of someone's imagination, though I suppose you never can tell), Diane's response actually brings up an important and interesting point of discussion - the proper balance as an elected representative between engagement in the community you serve, and attendance at the legislative body in which you sit.
In actual fact, Diane and I are not very far apart on this, I suspect. I come from a tradition of politics which believes, strongly, that the role of a politician is not to be elected every five years and then go about their Parliamentary business (a view of the function of elected representatives which has been extremely prevalent in historical British politics), but rather to interact with and dynamically serve the community groups and campaigning organisations which exist within their constituency.
The main wellspring of ideas and 'genius' for change comes from the grassroots, not from one person who happens to have been elected. One of my political heroes is the late Paul Wellstone, and I've found the organisation set up in his memory, Wellstone Action, to be a helpful guide to how an elected representative should spend much of their time empowering constituents to hold them to account. There are already many good examples of this in Hackney - the London Coalition Against Poverty springs to mind - and I would hope to work with many more if elected, either as a councillor or MP.
The only difference between Diane and I is the value that we placed on that particular amendment to that particular bill. For me, when a vote is that tight, and when it is about holding powerful corporations to account on their attempts to water down environmental standards, I'll be in Parliament. That doesn't mean that I won't be an active and energetic community MP as well - because, in the end, building community politics is the most powerful route to social change.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Abbott and Lib Dems - Absent on Climate
So, I've gone on record before as saying that Diane Abbott is one of the better Labour MPs. I'm interested in honesty in politics, and there's no point in pretending that she is Geoff Hoon, or Charles Clarke. However, what she does now seem to be is - well - disinterested.
A lot of people whom I've been canvassing have said that they will vote for me because "These days we seen Diane more on the telly than we do on the streets". And, it would seem from news today, more on the telly than in Parliament.
Yesterday was the scene of a rebellion in Parliament, over the crucial issue of Emissions Performance Standards for new coal-fired power stations in the UK. A vital plank of any coherent and logical plan for climate sanity. I quickly checked the list of how MPs voted - and - umm...Diane didn't bother to turn up. Having, apparently, told Friends of the Earth that she would be rebelling.
Now, I know that this is a pretty basic promise - but I can guarantee that when there is a vital, close-fought amendment, on which I have been lobbied and made promises about - I'll turn up to Parliament to vote!
Just to let you know how close it was - the amendment was defeated by 252 votes to 244 - slashing the Government's 57-strong majority to just eight. And Diane didn't bother to attend.
It's worth noting, as well, that she wasn't the only one who didn't turn up. The Lib Dems, great defenders of the environment they, saw 13 of their MPs not bothering to vote either...including Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable. Inspiring.
A lot of people whom I've been canvassing have said that they will vote for me because "These days we seen Diane more on the telly than we do on the streets". And, it would seem from news today, more on the telly than in Parliament.
Yesterday was the scene of a rebellion in Parliament, over the crucial issue of Emissions Performance Standards for new coal-fired power stations in the UK. A vital plank of any coherent and logical plan for climate sanity. I quickly checked the list of how MPs voted - and - umm...Diane didn't bother to turn up. Having, apparently, told Friends of the Earth that she would be rebelling.
Now, I know that this is a pretty basic promise - but I can guarantee that when there is a vital, close-fought amendment, on which I have been lobbied and made promises about - I'll turn up to Parliament to vote!
Just to let you know how close it was - the amendment was defeated by 252 votes to 244 - slashing the Government's 57-strong majority to just eight. And Diane didn't bother to attend.
It's worth noting, as well, that she wasn't the only one who didn't turn up. The Lib Dems, great defenders of the environment they, saw 13 of their MPs not bothering to vote either...including Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable. Inspiring.
Friday, 18 December 2009
Copenhagen Failure
I really really really didn't want to write a blog that had 'Copenhagen' and 'failure' in the title. I've not written a word about it so far, in the hope that my cynicism might be proven unfounded - that the world's governments might, for once, throw off the shackles of an insane economic system and actually listen to the scientific evidence that is being screamed into their ears.
It seems it was not to be. Below, I append the first eleven days of summary analysis from Greenpeace UK, along with my own thoughts on Day 12 - today....
Day 1: South Africa joins India, China, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia in tabling commitments as the big developing world countries call the bluff of the rich nations.
Day 2: After years of negotiating a UN agreement a plan by Denmark to introduce an alternative, greenwash text is leaked to the media. The Danes, it seems just want a deal that says Copenhagen at the top. They don’t care whether or not it will save the climate.
Day 3: Despite Tuvalu having met all the requirements for their proposals for a legally binding deal to be discussed their request is refused. Tuvalu and their supporters in the developing world bring the main negotiations to a halt until everyone agrees to play by the rules.
Day 4: Tuvalu asks for a group to be set up to discuss amendments to the Kyoto protocol. Again they’re turned down by those who fear a binding deal and another portion of the negotiations is halted.
Day 5: Negotiations resume on all fronts as rich nations realise they can’t steamroller the poor countries.
Day 6: As the negotiators take a rest day the global day of action sweeps around the world. 100 000 people take to the streets of Copenhagen and millions join events around the world – piling pressure onto the talks.
Day 7: Round 1 to Tuvalu! A legally binding deal is back on the table as it appears the Danes have given up on their alternative text when a promised update fails to appear. Battle lines have been clearly drawn, on one side the nations who know that only a binding deal will deliver results, and on the other side, everyone else.
Day 8: Do they never learn? Again the Danes try to sideline discussions on Kyoto. This time it is the Africans who walk out. The EU, Australia and Japan retaliate by refusing to discuss their own commitments. More lost hours.
In the forest sessions it becomes clear that everyone except the Americans and Columbians want a deal that won’t end up subsidizing forest destruction. Worryingly the amount of forest nations are talking about saving is being talked down.
Day 9: As the world’s environment Ministers arrive the summit goes into ‘high level’ mode. Unfortunately the efforts by the Danes and others to avoid discussion of the Kyoto protocol means there is a huge amount of work to be done.
Day 10: With heads of state due to arrive everything is up in the air. There hasn’t been enough progress and the heads of state are going to have to earn their money.
Day 11: Finally some movement. Hilary Clinton proposes a fund worth $100 billion a year to support developing countries. It’s a number, but there’s no detail on where the money will come from. China responds by signaling that it is now prepared to talk about how its own commitments would be monitored – possibly removing a major block to a deal. The USA is still refusing to talk about a binding deal.As the heads of state prepare for their state dinner President’s Lula of Brazil and Sarkozy of France request that an evening meeting is convened to make progress.
Day 12: Today. Obama speaks. Possibly the worst speech I have ever heard from a non-denier head of state on climate change - not something I expected to be writing. At least Barack normally gives it some rhetorical welly. This was just inflexible, myopic tosh. And now it looks, as I write, that we are going to end up with a deal that will put us way, way, way, WAY over 2 degrees celsius of warming. Well into the region of tipping points. Well into the region where entire nations are going to be underwater in the coming decades, and in which millions upon millions of people will be forced from their homes.
This is insanity. THIS is the point at which we could have done something - and the people who run our governments - all of them, with a very few honourable exceptions -have completely failed.
Now, I have an analysis of why that is. It isn't because they want a world with more climate catastrophe, nor that they hate the poor (though a lot of them don't particularly care either way, of course). It's because the world economy needs to make a profit - and all the forces of profit are lined up against meaningful action. Sure, they will exploit loopholes and occupy market niches and do everything they can to make a quick buck out of climate change action. But when it comes down to it -business as usual is still the easiest way to turn a short-term bit of money. And we have failed to stand up in enough numbers, and to say "Ya Basta!" - "Enough Is Enough!"
Enough of warmed over words. Enough of platitudes. Enough of sitting by while the world burns. We have to do something, and we have to do it right now. And the answer isn't going to come entirely through the ballot box - though I think voting for the right candidates will help. It's going to come through ordinary people taking action in their own communities, linking up together, and showing governments that if they are incapable of doing something, then we will do it ourselves. I'll do my best to build a strong electoral challenge to this current shower of failures and charlatans - but I'll do my best to support community action while I'm doing it. Because only all of us, acting together, right now, can do what needs to be done. Lets get started.
P.S. If you want to see what our current 'leaders' think of people who try to point out the insanity of the current system, then check out this video. Several Hackney Greens were on this demonstration - beaten up for trying to assemble and speak out, nonviolently. It's a disgrace - just like the rest of the Copenhagen summit.
It seems it was not to be. Below, I append the first eleven days of summary analysis from Greenpeace UK, along with my own thoughts on Day 12 - today....
Day 1: South Africa joins India, China, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia in tabling commitments as the big developing world countries call the bluff of the rich nations.
Day 2: After years of negotiating a UN agreement a plan by Denmark to introduce an alternative, greenwash text is leaked to the media. The Danes, it seems just want a deal that says Copenhagen at the top. They don’t care whether or not it will save the climate.
Day 3: Despite Tuvalu having met all the requirements for their proposals for a legally binding deal to be discussed their request is refused. Tuvalu and their supporters in the developing world bring the main negotiations to a halt until everyone agrees to play by the rules.
Day 4: Tuvalu asks for a group to be set up to discuss amendments to the Kyoto protocol. Again they’re turned down by those who fear a binding deal and another portion of the negotiations is halted.
Day 5: Negotiations resume on all fronts as rich nations realise they can’t steamroller the poor countries.
Day 6: As the negotiators take a rest day the global day of action sweeps around the world. 100 000 people take to the streets of Copenhagen and millions join events around the world – piling pressure onto the talks.
Day 7: Round 1 to Tuvalu! A legally binding deal is back on the table as it appears the Danes have given up on their alternative text when a promised update fails to appear. Battle lines have been clearly drawn, on one side the nations who know that only a binding deal will deliver results, and on the other side, everyone else.
Day 8: Do they never learn? Again the Danes try to sideline discussions on Kyoto. This time it is the Africans who walk out. The EU, Australia and Japan retaliate by refusing to discuss their own commitments. More lost hours.
In the forest sessions it becomes clear that everyone except the Americans and Columbians want a deal that won’t end up subsidizing forest destruction. Worryingly the amount of forest nations are talking about saving is being talked down.
Day 9: As the world’s environment Ministers arrive the summit goes into ‘high level’ mode. Unfortunately the efforts by the Danes and others to avoid discussion of the Kyoto protocol means there is a huge amount of work to be done.
Day 10: With heads of state due to arrive everything is up in the air. There hasn’t been enough progress and the heads of state are going to have to earn their money.
Day 11: Finally some movement. Hilary Clinton proposes a fund worth $100 billion a year to support developing countries. It’s a number, but there’s no detail on where the money will come from. China responds by signaling that it is now prepared to talk about how its own commitments would be monitored – possibly removing a major block to a deal. The USA is still refusing to talk about a binding deal.As the heads of state prepare for their state dinner President’s Lula of Brazil and Sarkozy of France request that an evening meeting is convened to make progress.
Day 12: Today. Obama speaks. Possibly the worst speech I have ever heard from a non-denier head of state on climate change - not something I expected to be writing. At least Barack normally gives it some rhetorical welly. This was just inflexible, myopic tosh. And now it looks, as I write, that we are going to end up with a deal that will put us way, way, way, WAY over 2 degrees celsius of warming. Well into the region of tipping points. Well into the region where entire nations are going to be underwater in the coming decades, and in which millions upon millions of people will be forced from their homes.
This is insanity. THIS is the point at which we could have done something - and the people who run our governments - all of them, with a very few honourable exceptions -have completely failed.
Now, I have an analysis of why that is. It isn't because they want a world with more climate catastrophe, nor that they hate the poor (though a lot of them don't particularly care either way, of course). It's because the world economy needs to make a profit - and all the forces of profit are lined up against meaningful action. Sure, they will exploit loopholes and occupy market niches and do everything they can to make a quick buck out of climate change action. But when it comes down to it -business as usual is still the easiest way to turn a short-term bit of money. And we have failed to stand up in enough numbers, and to say "Ya Basta!" - "Enough Is Enough!"
Enough of warmed over words. Enough of platitudes. Enough of sitting by while the world burns. We have to do something, and we have to do it right now. And the answer isn't going to come entirely through the ballot box - though I think voting for the right candidates will help. It's going to come through ordinary people taking action in their own communities, linking up together, and showing governments that if they are incapable of doing something, then we will do it ourselves. I'll do my best to build a strong electoral challenge to this current shower of failures and charlatans - but I'll do my best to support community action while I'm doing it. Because only all of us, acting together, right now, can do what needs to be done. Lets get started.
P.S. If you want to see what our current 'leaders' think of people who try to point out the insanity of the current system, then check out this video. Several Hackney Greens were on this demonstration - beaten up for trying to assemble and speak out, nonviolently. It's a disgrace - just like the rest of the Copenhagen summit.
Monday, 7 December 2009
The Wave
I think it's fair to say that I have been on my share of climate change marches over the last decade - but the one on Saturday was definitely the biggest I have seen. It's always uplifting to see thousands of people on the streets, calling for exactly the kinds of policies which form the Green Party platform, and on which I am standing for election. However - it has to be much deeper and wider than just a march. We're only going to get real change if those people go back to their communities and (as many are already doing) get stuck into the everyday work of community building and persuasion on this issue. It doesn't have to be electoral - though I think that is a vital component of any movement - but it does have to involve speaking to the non-converted. That will be the major test of the climate movement over the next five years.
For now, here's a brief video of me at the start of the rally (in which YouTube has picked the grumpiest moment possible of me as the freezeframe, thanks guys!) and a photo, in which I am slightly cheerier. :)
For now, here's a brief video of me at the start of the rally (in which YouTube has picked the grumpiest moment possible of me as the freezeframe, thanks guys!) and a photo, in which I am slightly cheerier. :)
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The BNP, New Labour, and Climate
A very hectic week so far, and thus not much time to blog. Normal service will be resumed shortly, especially as there is so much to write about at the moment!
However, I wanted to cover a few things briefly.
On Nick Griffin, the BBC and Question Time, I will just refer you to this excellent article by Gary Younge. New Labour have created the conditions for fascism - and now they are reaping the whirlwind. My own personal position remains that of 'no platform', which I will likely discuss at another time.
Secondly, there's my continuing Diane Abbott Watch - holding Diane to account and monitoring how she votes in Parliament. I've already blogged about her opposition to a transparent Iraq war inquiry and other such veerings towards New Labour orthodoxy - and yesterday provided another one. The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, put down a motion calling upon Parliament to support the 10:10 climate campaign (the campaign to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010, which Hackney Council made a big hoopla of supporting). Given the Council's stance, and Diane's reputation, you'd expect her to have supported the motion. Umm, no, as it turns out. As you can see from the vote tally, Diane voted WITH the government and against the 10:10 target - unlike other, more reliable rebels such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But then, given that I also recently discovered her steadfast support for nuclear power, I'm not entirely surprised at this latest example of shaky green credentials...
Lastly - I've just come back from a public meeting in Clapton about Afghanistan. I'd urge everyone who can to go along to the demonstration on Saturday (meeting at Hyde Park at noon). The familiar litany of Labour's crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq never fails to make my blood boil - and I can do no better at expressing it than Pablo Neruda's poem about the Spanish Civil War. I leave you with it for now...
I'm Explaining A Few Things
You are going to ask: and where are the lilacs?
and the poppy-petalled metaphysics?
and the rain repeatedly spattering
its words and drilling them full
of apertures and birds?
I'll tell you all the news.
I lived in a suburb,
a suburb of Madrid, with bells,
and clocks, and trees.
From there you could look out
over Castille's dry face:
a leather ocean.
My house was called
the house of flowers, because in every cranny
geraniums burst: it was
a good-looking house
with its dogs and children.
Remember, Raul?
Eh, Rafel? Federico, do you remember
from under the ground
my balconies on which
the light of June drowned flowers in your mouth?
Brother, my brother!
Everything
loud with big voices, the salt of merchandises,
pile-ups of palpitating bread,
the stalls of my suburb of Arguelles with its statue
like a drained inkwell in a swirl of hake:
oil flowed into spoons,
a deep baying
of feet and hands swelled in the streets,
metres, litres, the sharp
measure of life,
stacked-up fish,
the texture of roofs with a cold sun in which
the weather vane falters,
the fine, frenzied ivory of potatoes,
wave on wave of tomatoes rolling down the sea.
And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings --
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.
Jackals that the jackals would despise,
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate!
Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives!
Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain :
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers,
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes,
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.
And you'll ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land?
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
The blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
In the streets!
However, I wanted to cover a few things briefly.
On Nick Griffin, the BBC and Question Time, I will just refer you to this excellent article by Gary Younge. New Labour have created the conditions for fascism - and now they are reaping the whirlwind. My own personal position remains that of 'no platform', which I will likely discuss at another time.
Secondly, there's my continuing Diane Abbott Watch - holding Diane to account and monitoring how she votes in Parliament. I've already blogged about her opposition to a transparent Iraq war inquiry and other such veerings towards New Labour orthodoxy - and yesterday provided another one. The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, put down a motion calling upon Parliament to support the 10:10 climate campaign (the campaign to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010, which Hackney Council made a big hoopla of supporting). Given the Council's stance, and Diane's reputation, you'd expect her to have supported the motion. Umm, no, as it turns out. As you can see from the vote tally, Diane voted WITH the government and against the 10:10 target - unlike other, more reliable rebels such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But then, given that I also recently discovered her steadfast support for nuclear power, I'm not entirely surprised at this latest example of shaky green credentials...
Lastly - I've just come back from a public meeting in Clapton about Afghanistan. I'd urge everyone who can to go along to the demonstration on Saturday (meeting at Hyde Park at noon). The familiar litany of Labour's crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq never fails to make my blood boil - and I can do no better at expressing it than Pablo Neruda's poem about the Spanish Civil War. I leave you with it for now...
I'm Explaining A Few Things
You are going to ask: and where are the lilacs?
and the poppy-petalled metaphysics?
and the rain repeatedly spattering
its words and drilling them full
of apertures and birds?
I'll tell you all the news.
I lived in a suburb,
a suburb of Madrid, with bells,
and clocks, and trees.
From there you could look out
over Castille's dry face:
a leather ocean.
My house was called
the house of flowers, because in every cranny
geraniums burst: it was
a good-looking house
with its dogs and children.
Remember, Raul?
Eh, Rafel? Federico, do you remember
from under the ground
my balconies on which
the light of June drowned flowers in your mouth?
Brother, my brother!
Everything
loud with big voices, the salt of merchandises,
pile-ups of palpitating bread,
the stalls of my suburb of Arguelles with its statue
like a drained inkwell in a swirl of hake:
oil flowed into spoons,
a deep baying
of feet and hands swelled in the streets,
metres, litres, the sharp
measure of life,
stacked-up fish,
the texture of roofs with a cold sun in which
the weather vane falters,
the fine, frenzied ivory of potatoes,
wave on wave of tomatoes rolling down the sea.
And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings --
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.
Jackals that the jackals would despise,
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate!
Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives!
Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain :
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers,
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes,
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.
And you'll ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land?
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
The blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
In the streets!
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Climate Change - Action Now!
A few people have recently commented that my lack of posts on climate change so far is strange, given my professional background in campaigning on the subject - and the fact that I believe it to be one of the most pressing issues facing modern society.
To be honest, not talking about the climate for a bit was a deliberate decision - I wanted to avoid going on about it precisely because that is what everyone expects from 'the Green'. My politics are based on the foundations of social justice, peace and democracy - and I wouldn't want those important issues to be submerged by constant discussion of environmental sustainability, important though it is to me. Of course, climate change is a social justice issue - one of the social justice issues of our time - but I wanted to leave a little time before exploring that concept fully.
However, there can be no doubt whatsoever that climate change is the greatest challenge facing anyone standing for elected office in the coming decades - and voters should be demanding answers from all of their candidates about what they are going to do to agitate for progress on the issue, and how qualified they are to do so.
What are my qualifications? Well, not only have I been campaigning on the issue for a decade (my first major bit of activism years ago at University was to co-found 'Oxford University Switch to Green', which got the Uni to start buying renewable energy, becoming the 7th largest purchaser of green electricity in Europe) but my professional life has also been dedicated to climate activism. My first full-time job was with the Climate Outreach Information Network, and then I moved onto Friends of the Earth. Amongst my other campaigning and journalism work, I now do self-employed event organisation for a social enterprise called Talk Action - putting on training courses about effectively communicating the issue of climate change.
Even if I didn't have that background in climate activism, simply by being a Green party candidate and sticking to party policy, I'd be head and shoulders above any candidate from any major political party. The latest scientific predictions suggest that an industrialized country, such as the UK, needs to reduce emissions by 90% by 2030, or approximately 10% per year from now on. Only the Greens are proposing any credible plan for doing this, while using the power of government to increase community cohesion and allow for a 'soft transition' to a green future.
Here in Hackney, that soft transition isn't being helped by our current Council administration. In Oxford, one of my major achievements was to push forward the adoption of the council's Climate Change Action Plan, and I became a founding member of the cross-party working group on climate change. In Hackney, believe it or not, the council is still working on releasing its Action Plan for climate change - let alone actually pushing forward with the scale of tangible projects that we need. Indeed, they seem in many ways to be going backwards. Recently, they have cancelled the 100% renewable energy purchasing policy that was introduced with great fanfare a few years ago, and have gone back to dirty energy instead. Genius. While Jules Pipe and others talk a good game on the climate (see their much heralded signing up to the 10:10 initiative recently), when it comes to action, they are woefully behind the curve.
I know that it can sometimes feel like a hopeless task to take action on climate change. There is no doubt that, without massive collective organisation, the problem is insoluble. While that is daunting, it is also a massive opportunity for the kind of grassroots, cooperative, social justice-based politics of which the Green Party is the electoral outlet. We are never going to get anywhere with this problem unless its solution holds out a vision for a better future - equal, fair, democratic and green.
P.S. If you'd like to read the best book on climate change, denial, and how to take meaningful action that I have so far read, you should check out Carbon Detox by my old boss, George Marshall.
To be honest, not talking about the climate for a bit was a deliberate decision - I wanted to avoid going on about it precisely because that is what everyone expects from 'the Green'. My politics are based on the foundations of social justice, peace and democracy - and I wouldn't want those important issues to be submerged by constant discussion of environmental sustainability, important though it is to me. Of course, climate change is a social justice issue - one of the social justice issues of our time - but I wanted to leave a little time before exploring that concept fully.
However, there can be no doubt whatsoever that climate change is the greatest challenge facing anyone standing for elected office in the coming decades - and voters should be demanding answers from all of their candidates about what they are going to do to agitate for progress on the issue, and how qualified they are to do so.
What are my qualifications? Well, not only have I been campaigning on the issue for a decade (my first major bit of activism years ago at University was to co-found 'Oxford University Switch to Green', which got the Uni to start buying renewable energy, becoming the 7th largest purchaser of green electricity in Europe) but my professional life has also been dedicated to climate activism. My first full-time job was with the Climate Outreach Information Network, and then I moved onto Friends of the Earth. Amongst my other campaigning and journalism work, I now do self-employed event organisation for a social enterprise called Talk Action - putting on training courses about effectively communicating the issue of climate change.
Even if I didn't have that background in climate activism, simply by being a Green party candidate and sticking to party policy, I'd be head and shoulders above any candidate from any major political party. The latest scientific predictions suggest that an industrialized country, such as the UK, needs to reduce emissions by 90% by 2030, or approximately 10% per year from now on. Only the Greens are proposing any credible plan for doing this, while using the power of government to increase community cohesion and allow for a 'soft transition' to a green future.
Here in Hackney, that soft transition isn't being helped by our current Council administration. In Oxford, one of my major achievements was to push forward the adoption of the council's Climate Change Action Plan, and I became a founding member of the cross-party working group on climate change. In Hackney, believe it or not, the council is still working on releasing its Action Plan for climate change - let alone actually pushing forward with the scale of tangible projects that we need. Indeed, they seem in many ways to be going backwards. Recently, they have cancelled the 100% renewable energy purchasing policy that was introduced with great fanfare a few years ago, and have gone back to dirty energy instead. Genius. While Jules Pipe and others talk a good game on the climate (see their much heralded signing up to the 10:10 initiative recently), when it comes to action, they are woefully behind the curve.
I know that it can sometimes feel like a hopeless task to take action on climate change. There is no doubt that, without massive collective organisation, the problem is insoluble. While that is daunting, it is also a massive opportunity for the kind of grassroots, cooperative, social justice-based politics of which the Green Party is the electoral outlet. We are never going to get anywhere with this problem unless its solution holds out a vision for a better future - equal, fair, democratic and green.
P.S. If you'd like to read the best book on climate change, denial, and how to take meaningful action that I have so far read, you should check out Carbon Detox by my old boss, George Marshall.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Vestas Occupation
Just a quick post, to make sure that people are aware of the absolutely crucial Save Vestas campaign, and the fact that the occupation of the Vestas wind turbine factory is due to be ended by bailiffs any day now - unless the eviction is stopped by people power.
I cannot think of a more potent symbol of the utter bankruptcy of Labour in the face of corporate power than the only wind turbine factory in the UK closing.
Economically, environmentally, and politically, such a closure would be a disaster. The fact that workers are having to fight for their livelihoods in this case is a direct indictment of the utter failure of the Government to put in place a radical, comprehensive and well-funded strategy for dealing with climate change while creating jobs and supporting local economies. Billions can be found for the banks - and nothing for workers who are desperately trying to save a constructive, 21st century industry.
I've sent my own message of solidarity to the Vestas occupiers, emails of protest to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and a donation to those campaigning against closure. Not to be too party political about it, but as far as I can tell, Diane Abbott hasn't said a word....
I cannot think of a more potent symbol of the utter bankruptcy of Labour in the face of corporate power than the only wind turbine factory in the UK closing.
Economically, environmentally, and politically, such a closure would be a disaster. The fact that workers are having to fight for their livelihoods in this case is a direct indictment of the utter failure of the Government to put in place a radical, comprehensive and well-funded strategy for dealing with climate change while creating jobs and supporting local economies. Billions can be found for the banks - and nothing for workers who are desperately trying to save a constructive, 21st century industry.
I've sent my own message of solidarity to the Vestas occupiers, emails of protest to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and a donation to those campaigning against closure. Not to be too party political about it, but as far as I can tell, Diane Abbott hasn't said a word....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
