Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Soylent Green is… not real.

Jul 26

Posted by Dom in Activism, Education, Environment, Gender, Health | Comments off

As has been covered by the UK-wide Green blog Bright Green, there has been a bit of a stooshie amongst  some unreformed environmentalists after the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Natalie Bennett, made a speech unashamedly embracing immigration.

The population control lobby are a stick which people use to beat Green movements the world over, accusing them of authoritarianism or, at worst, eugenics.

A simple-minded approach to environmental problems says that there are too many people, and that we should just have fewer of them to solve all problems. This is less noticeable in Scotland but to the casual observer might appear true in England where issues of sprawl consuming green space is far more prevalent.  England’s problem is more that it has an addiction to suburban housing estates instead of building high density sustainable urban housing and social space – one of the great ironies of the modern suburb is that they often have lower levels of access to the things they were designed to facilitate – namely a higher quality of life outside of urban centres. Such spread is what led to the expansion of the slip road and the motorway and much else besides, along with an associated decline in point to point urban travel such as buses and railways.

Even if Britain were overcrowded, keeping people out would not save the planet anyway. As science hurriedly maps the global ecosystem it is becoming increasingly apparent just how interdependent we all are in areas other than the global economy. Stopping people from entering the UK would do nothing to stop population growth and the associated environmental burdens whatsoever.

If the far right or the population lobby were serious about stopping immigration they would plough as much money as possible into the developing world to encourage the transition to the relatively gender-equal societies of Europe and North America, give countries help in moving on from the economic or social pressure to have large families, and push to reform international trade so that it did not put economic and population growth as the primary means by which countries advance.

The population lobby should direct its ire at half a century of misplaced architecture and planning or the bizarre injustices of the global economy, as contemporary Greens are, and lose the Soylent Green dystopian scaremongering.

Labour’s chance to seize on a radical Holyrood agenda

Jul 15

Posted by Dom in Democracy, Environment, Holyrood, International, Parties, Society, Transport | 8 Comments

April Cumming is Vice-Chair of the left-wing think tank the Scottish Fabians. Here she writes for Better Nation about the opportunity for Labour to seize on a progressive agenda and change the way transport works in Scotland.

The Danish Parliament has its own fleet of staff bikes

The Danish Parliament has its own fleet of staff bikes

I cycled to my office this morning.  There’s nothing remarkable in this fact, thousands of workers across the country also prefer to take the bike where it is possible rather than its more cumbersome road-fellow.  What is remarkable, however, is the number of times on a weekly basis this activity brings me close to an unpleasant and untimely demise.  It’s not that I’m an unsafe cyclist; I indicate, I use the correct lanes, and I keep a safe distance from the frequently indifferent or incensed cab drivers, vans and buses.  The issue, I believe, is that those who prefer ‘active travel’ as a means of navigating Edinburgh’s streets are still perceived as an awkward inconvenience rather than a road user of equal status.  This is reflected in the lack of any real infrastructure to facilitate safe cycling in the city.  Without the provision of a network of well-maintained cycle routes, cyclist will continue to exist as second class citizens on the roads of our nation’s capital.

But why is it that as a country that invests so heavily in roads and large scale public sector infrastructure projects we continue to fall behind our more pro-active European neighbours in investing in relatively inexpensive but hugely effective active travel networks?  We appear to be besotted by the idea of the extravagant glamour project, for example HS2 and the Forth Bridge Replacement project; these are the status builds that mark the era of an ambitious government.  However, ambitious projects do not always a wise investment make, and in this time of stretched budgets we must look at expenditure choices that cover a wide range of policy objectives.  Active travel infrastructure in Scotland is not only a necessary facility for allowing citizens of all backgrounds to transport themselves and their families on short to mid-range journeys.  It is a vital mechanism for reducing our carbon emissions and vastly improving the health and wellbeing of our nation.  Effective town planning can vastly improve the living standards of urban residents, bringing diverse communities closer and acting as a social leveller; this is no less the case with active travel infrastructure as with housing and public spaces.  As a resident of Leith the capacity for good transport networks to create a more coherent flow between city centres and respective limbs of Edinburgh is not lost on me.  However, this does not simply mean catering to the needs of drivers above all others.  Short trips need to be made by alternative means, for the good of every Edinburgh resident and to achieve the long-term goal of an improved, accessible and human-friendly city.  Only central policy that pushes local authorities into action can ensure this is achieved, with adequate budgets put in place now to start that long-term modal shift.  Spend the money now and reap the rewards in future.  For a government whose focus has long been on endorsing a model of preventative spend this should not be rocket science.  As a case in point, a study in Copenhagen showed that when the health benefits, time saved and reduction in congestion and car crashes are taken into account, society makes a net profit of 1.22 Danish kroner (around 13p) for every kilometre cycled by one of its citizens.

This is a process that starts with good policy at the centre, and encourages local government to bring forward plans for action that meets the needs and characteristics of specific localities.  The case for active transport networks was argued vociferously in the transport and infrastructure committee and through the forum of the cycling CPG, with bodies like Sustrans and Spokes highlighting that a more hands-on approach was necessary. But to this point the rhetoric of successive governments with regard to building the infrastructure and vigorously promoting healthy and active travel options has fallen far short of the actions taken.

We live in a time where household budgets are being stretched and the cost of maintaining and running a car has become gradually less affordable.  At the same time a growing number of issues relating to health inequalities are yet to be tackled, and the infrastructure of our major urban hubs has been left in dire need of repair.  Most importantly, for the second year running we have failed to meet our emissions reduction targets.  The Scottish Government has set laudable and challenging targets to reduce carbon emissions by 42% by 2020 and by at least 80% by 2050.  The need for a more resilient and accessible active transport network, linked in with our local public transport routes, has become glaringly obvious and yet we are still to see the kind of focused attention on bringing forward a workable and practical plan that we see in other pioneering countries like Denmark.  This is a country whose government has tapped into the psyche of cyclists, has understood the specific needs and problems faced by travellers and has reacted with innovative technologies that not only assist but promote active travel.  Trains have entire carriages that may be adapted to accommodate cyclists.  Points of cultural interest have stations where bikes may be left and public transport hubs have facilities to hire bicycles to explore the city further or get to work.  There are even resting curbs specifically designed for cyclists at traffic junctions.   One third of journeys are made by bicycle, while car usage is falling. A quarter of two-children families own a cargo-style bike to get around the busy streets, encouraged to use the 346km (215 miles) of segregated cycle lanes, maintained by the relatively low budget of €10 million (£8 million) per year.

Current central and local government policy advocates investment in active travel (walking and cycling) over the private car, due to the multiple benefits it brings to society. The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CA PS) has a vision that “by 2020, 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike.”  However, to date only 1% of journeys could be classified as “active” and Scotland’s current transport funding decisions, which largely prioritise major schemes such as the Forth road bridge, promote delivery mechanisms that fail to make the most of our capacity to lead on small-scale, local active travel initiatives.

I believe that in the absence of real progress the onus is on opposition parties, namely Scottish Labour and the Scottish Greens, to come forward with a logical and achievable pathway to real, sustainable change.  This means looking at the models adopted elsewhere and realising that this is an investment worth making.

As a regular attendee of events run by the think tank Nordic Horizons, I am a great advocate of looking to examples of best practice from other shores that may help us to bring forward policy suggestions based on evidence; such an approach allows more ambitious, innovative planning.  There are other cities in the Nordic region that have succeeded in not only creating the necessary infrastructure for modal shift but also lauding the practise of active travel and giving it an immense sense of social worth.  The communal aspect of walking and cycling is seen as something of real cultural value; it is a leveller that provides the individual with the ability to transport themselves and their family across the urban space, regardless of wealth or class background. As such it is not only a practical necessity but also serves as part of the fabric of that nation’s social makeup.  Recognising the need to challenge imbedded cultural attitudes to active travel and promote a shift away from our national vehicular fettish will be part in forcing the hand of central government.  Key to this is emphasising the benefit changes to our infrastructure will have on policy objectives across the board: reducing obesity, achieving carbon reduction targets, promoting social integration, opening up our city centres, making roads safer, and more generally enhancing our personal and collective well-being.  We stand to gain so much and yet have achieved so little.

Tags: , , ,

We can fund politics

Jul 15

Posted by James in Elections, Governance, Holyrood, Westminster | Comments off

Thanks for your donation!Last week our friend Andrew Smith did a guest post about the problem of party funding at Holyrood, specifically citing the proportion of the SNP’s funding which comes from Brian Souter. Egregious donors to the larger parties abound, though, and Soutar is just the closest example to home.

Take Michael Brown, who handed the Lib Dems £2.4m he’d acquired through fraud. Last year he started a seven year sentence after being captured in the Dominican Republic: the stolen assets, which the Lib Dems received, have never been returned.

Labour’s examples are less shocking, perhaps – well, almost all the other examples are less shocking – but they’re substantial too. David Abrahams used “three employees as fronts to fund the Labour party nearly £600,000“. Bernie Ecclestone handed over (then withdrew) a £1m donation amidst accusations that the money was tied to an exemption for his pet business, Formula One.

The Tories, well, it’s harder to tell with the Tories, given how central to their purpose it is to skew the rules in favour of big business at our expense. Their policy really does seem to be for sale to the highest bidder.

However, political parties have to be funded. Capping donations and just taking smaller donations from members is one route, but it also limits parties and doesn’t give them an incentive to appeal beyond their base.

At the end of Andrew’s piece he says he doesn’t think anyone is considering public funding, and that he’d opt out if it might fund UKIP (a position he comes back from a bit in the comments).

So what might the alternative be? Why not consider it a tax rebate instead, and add a second form below the existing ballot paper which gives people the opportunity to allocate a pound from their taxes to the party they voted for, or indeed to any other party standing? Or to opt out and have that pound stay with the Treasury if they prefer?

Andrew Rawnsley argued yesterday that the parties would have to become mass organisations again, which is admirable but sounds a bit optimistic. Might this rebate idea not be one small way to rebuild connections (in both directions) between the wider non-joining public and the parties? Might the public feel a bit more invested, and the parties feel a bit more pressure to appeal beyond their base?

The cost would be minimal – even if no-one opted out, the “rebate” from Holyrood 2011 would amount to less than £2m – the turnout was 1,991,051. For a comparison (assuming a final cost of £1.6bn and a road distance of 6.7km), the total cost of this entire scheme for Scotland would be less than the price of ten metres of the unnecessary additional Forth Road Bridge. Yes: the bridge and its roads will cost more than a quarter of a million pounds per metre. Sorry to get sidetracked.

And this kind of sum would be on a convenient scale to fund an election campaign. Take the 2010 UK General Election. 29,687,604 votes cast: £31.5m spent (see 2.3 of the Electoral Commission’s report). Sure, some people would give their “rebate” to parties you or I might find unpleasant, but unpleasant people fund unpleasant parties already, and typically with much larger sums.

Alongside a £5000 cap on donations, this would turn politics over to the public, or at least the electorate (if you don’t vote, your “rebate” goes back to the Treasury, sorry). In a marginal seat where someone’s voting tactically, perhaps they’d donate their £1 to the party they’d really like to see win, and that way that party would be marginally more likely to win next time. It’s no substitute for proportional representation, but it might help ameliorate some of the worst winner-takes-all effects of the current system. Power to the people!

Who pays the piper?

Jul 12

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Parties, Westminster | 8 Comments

Thanks to Andrew Smith for another guest post. Andrew is a Scottish born communications professional in London, who has previously blogged for us about the referendum campaign and, well, the referendum campaign. You can buy his debut novel here, or read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.wordpress.com.

Bagpipes at WestminsterSince the local tremor from the Falkirk Labour Party’s candidate selection became a political earthquake, the issues of party funding and donations have been at the top of the news agenda. Following a difficult week, Ed Miliband had what may have been his best PMQs outing to date, during which he reiterated support for the largest overhaul of the Labour/Trade Union relationship for a generation and called for an individual donor limit of £5000.

SNP MP Pete Wishart berated the entire spectacle of PMQs, tweeting “Hope the Scottish people are observing this rotten Westminster and concluding that we want nothing whatsoever to do with it”, which made me think about whether funding is a Westminster issue or a UK wide one. I tweeted him back to ask if the SNP favours a cap on political donations, but he must have missed it as he didn’t reply: funnily enough neither did any of the other four SNP MPs who I tweeted the same question to.

It could be because they were all away from their desks all day, but the SNP isn’t exactly free of funding controversy. In both 2007 and 2011 roughly 50% of their total election spend was provided by the same person: Brian Souter. Souter’s views on homosexuality caused many to question if he was the sort of person any party should take money from, but that aside there were other issues. The party was accused of changing transport policy shortly after the first donation was made, to one that favoured Souter, and then the Scottish Government nominated him for a knighthood shortly after his second one. In both cases the SNP has denied influence from Souter.

This isn’t an anti-SNP point: their defence is presumably that elections cost money and that Labour has an in-built financial advantage due to union funding. This is fair, their spending in 2005 and 2010 general elections was far lower (£193k and £315k compared to the 1,141,662 in 2011). However, with the possibility of Westminster being reformed it won’t be long before someone suggests Holyrood should have the same debate.

With that in mind I have included some of the points I think are important:

  • The 2007 election saw the SNP outspending Labour by over £250,000 and winning by a solitary seat. Every penny counts!
  • In 2011 the SNP spent £57,449 more on their election campaign than Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green Party put together.
  • With only £131,938 in 2011, the SGP had the lowest spend for any party with MSPs. Smaller parties lose out on free promotion through TV interviews etc, but if they are outspent by the bigger ones to this extent they are squeezed on the ground too.

Is this a bad thing? I think it is. When wealth distorts elections it only favours the status quo. In one fine swoop Labour has proposed cutting its own trade union funding (quite rightfully in my opinion) and made its position on a donations cap clear. Labour’s future corporate funding will only materialise if it looks like they have any chance of power, and in that instance it raises questions about why business only back winners – what do they want in exchange?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting state funding of political parties (I would ask the government if I could opt out if even 1p found its way into UKIP’s coffers) but in a modern, progressive, 21st century democracy like Scotland it seems like something should be done to address the imbalance.

Vince: your P45 is in the post

Jul 10

Posted by James in Parties, Westminster | 3 Comments

Royal Mail binAll too often since 2010, the left has found itself on the back foot: protesting after fees for English students got trebled (thanks Nick!), protesting after the bedroom tax was introduced, and protesting after the most vulnerable got handed over to the unmerciful ATOS. None of the Coalition’s assaults on the poor and the public services they rely upon have yet been overturned this way, important though protest is.

The occasional win, on the other hand, like the 38 Degrees-led campaign against forestry privatisation in England, came because people took action beforehand. Half a million signatures, some useful polling, and some very vocal pressure on MPs did the job.

With that in mind, surely Royal Mail privatisation must be the next target?

Who, outside this neoliberal coalition, thinks Royal Mail would be better off in private hands? It’s a profitable business, which either reduces taxes/borrowing or allows Ministers to spend more, depending on taste. The competition to which it’s exposed would be ramped up, jeopardising the universal service.

We should be bringing key public assets (starting with the rail network) back into public ownership, not repeating the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s. As John Harris says, at a Westminster level “we are largely being ruled by people who seem to think that modern government should amount to a school play about the Thatcher years”.

So what kind of action can be taken? The CWU have set up a campaign called Save Our Royal Mail, and I would advise you to sign the petition here. I don’t want to hear about how this will be fine if only we vote Yes in 2014: by then the damage would be done.

But petitions are unlikely to be enough. The CWU will also ballot for industrial action at the end of this month (Green motion in support of that ballot), and everyone who cares about the future of public services in this country, whatever its borders, should support strike action if their members back it. The unions will have a key role to play in defending their workplace and our vital service.

What else can be done? Personally I like the idea of using any Freepost addresses for the Tory Party or their hypocritical Lib Dem sidekicks. Notable Tory blogger Iain Dale supported a Labour campaign that made First Capital Connect pay to be complained about in this way, back in 2008. Roads protesters used to send the companies destroying their environment breeze blocks at their expense. Wouldn’t it be entirely appropriate if Tory or Lib Dem MPs got sent weighty but unthreatening objects to their Freepost addresses, along with mock P45 letters they will have paid to receive, letters which explain why they should think again on this?