Letter from Caroline Lucas to the Independent
17 December 2007
Dear Sir
If the Government approves plans for the ill conceived, old-fashioned and environmentally disastrous coal-fired facility at Kingsnorth, it will not only demonstrate an appalling lack of commitment to fulfilling the UK's environmental goals - it will also be a disaster for Kent. (Agreeing to Kingsnorth will signal surrender on targets, Independent, 17 December).
The South East region, including Kent, is likely to be one of the worst hit by climate change, because of its long coastline and low-lying land. Ironically, Kent is also ideally placed to benefit from renewable solutions such as wind and tidal energy generation, which can both deliver energy security and new employment opportunities.
Instead of backing a further coal-fired station at Kingsnorth, this would be an ideal opportunity to invest in renewables and make serious progress towards our EU targets. The Government could start along the right path by backing distributed generation and providing full funding for renewable energy grants for homeowners.
Yours sincerely
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP for the South East of England
Green Party
Green Party campaigner in Kent. Also a nurse, academic, former manager, writer, Druid, husband and father...
Sunday, 30 December 2007
Hotson - the truth?
I thought I would publish the letter that Cllr Hotson wrote to the Kent Messenger, published on 20th Dec 07:
"Why is it that Maidstone Green Party always trails behind in local politics? Is it because they wait to be headline makers rather than convey real facts to the electorate who ignore them?
"Mr Jeffery (KM letters, Dec 14) blames last year's Conservative administration for the KIG planning application. The core strategy took more than a year to formulate through public meetings and member consideration.
"The final core strategy was published for consultation, with the unanimous approval of all political groups of the council.
"The KIG site was not included in the areas of search within the core strategy.
"Cllr Eric Hotson, Conservative group leader, Maidstone council"
There seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people in his letter (seem my earlier blog on the KIG site). I wasn't going to respond to his letter but I have emailed a short response to the KM today.
Stuart
"Why is it that Maidstone Green Party always trails behind in local politics? Is it because they wait to be headline makers rather than convey real facts to the electorate who ignore them?
"Mr Jeffery (KM letters, Dec 14) blames last year's Conservative administration for the KIG planning application. The core strategy took more than a year to formulate through public meetings and member consideration.
"The final core strategy was published for consultation, with the unanimous approval of all political groups of the council.
"The KIG site was not included in the areas of search within the core strategy.
"Cllr Eric Hotson, Conservative group leader, Maidstone council"
There seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people in his letter (seem my earlier blog on the KIG site). I wasn't going to respond to his letter but I have emailed a short response to the KM today.
Stuart
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Arms companies and government information
Well Kent County Council has little problem in investing in arms companies and they are less likely to lose our data that the government so what is the problem with Lockheed Martin running the UK 2011 census? Do I really have to answer that?
Sign the petition online here: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/census-alert/
Sign the petition online here: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/census-alert/
With more sensitive information being collected in the next Census in 2011, do we really want data about everyone in the UK being collected by a foreign arms company?
Lockheed Martin is one of the shortlisted contractors to provide data capture and storage services for the 2011 Census, but the majority of its business is with the American Department of Defense and other US government agencies. They produce missiles, naval systems and land mines, as well as providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnnaissance services. Most worrying is their claim to deliver 'integrated threat information' to the US military by combining and analysing a widde range of intelligence information from around the world.
With Lockheed Martin involved, people in the UK will not believe that their Census submissions will be safe from being incorporated into these systems, and this is likely to harm the reliability of the 2011 Census.
We at Census Alert urge you to sign the petition because we believe that this kind of company should not be gathering sensitive data on every member of our population.
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Unhappy Conservatives & KIG
Oops, I seem to have gotten under Cllr Hotson's skin with my letter to the KM. He claims that the KIG site was not included in the 'areas of search' within the core strategy. This is very puzzling - the facts are open to all and, while KIG iteself was not mentioned, the site is shown as being a key area of search, i.e. destined for houses. How he can make these claims is beyond me.
If you look at the map (Key Diagram 5.1 on page 27 of the Core Strategy, also shown as Appendix 9) here, it clearly shows housing being built on the area now being proposed to be used by KIG. This is an excerpt from the preferred option showing the same area as the KIG proposal (the black area is "Area of search for development sites on edge of urban area"; pink area is "Major growth focussed within east/south east part of areas of search"):
Note where the railways cross and Junction 8 of the M20. The next map is from StopKIG showing the same area being covered by the Kent International Gateway.
I think these diagrams clearly show that the preferred option in the Core Strategy had the KIG area being built on with houses. This plan was produced under the Tory administration of Maidstone Borough Council in Jan 2007. The Tories are now saying that they would never let this land be built upon - I can only conclude they now oppose their own plans.
As for his other point that nobody cares about the Green Party in Maidstone... almost 20% of the vote in Fant Ward this year and 40% in Headcorn last year says differently! Green politics is the politics of the future and it is here to stay.
Stuart
If you look at the map (Key Diagram 5.1 on page 27 of the Core Strategy, also shown as Appendix 9) here, it clearly shows housing being built on the area now being proposed to be used by KIG. This is an excerpt from the preferred option showing the same area as the KIG proposal (the black area is "Area of search for development sites on edge of urban area"; pink area is "Major growth focussed within east/south east part of areas of search"):
Note where the railways cross and Junction 8 of the M20. The next map is from StopKIG showing the same area being covered by the Kent International Gateway.
I think these diagrams clearly show that the preferred option in the Core Strategy had the KIG area being built on with houses. This plan was produced under the Tory administration of Maidstone Borough Council in Jan 2007. The Tories are now saying that they would never let this land be built upon - I can only conclude they now oppose their own plans.
As for his other point that nobody cares about the Green Party in Maidstone... almost 20% of the vote in Fant Ward this year and 40% in Headcorn last year says differently! Green politics is the politics of the future and it is here to stay.
Stuart
Ethical Investments Too...
As part of the questions and answer session I was not allowed to comment on the answers given by the leaders, so this is my opportunity!!! Before I start, Gandhi suggested that there are Seven Blunders out of which grows the violence that plagues the world. One of these is 'Commerce without morality'.
Fran Wilson (Maidstone LibDem leader) stated that BAE was a mixed company and that she would need persuading about their unethicalness. I will shortly be emailing Fran a set of links on why we should not invest in BAE, but as the UK's biggest arms company I think the need for persuasion is strange! As far as her challenge that my question was too simplistic - yes it was simple and we could debate the greyer areas of ethical investments, however arms, oil and tobacco are straightforward no-nos for investment. Ethical investment fund managers have got to grips with the issues - why can council fund managers and politicians? Aside from the LibDems economic policies which worship the god of economic growth, the LibDems are renowned for fence sitting.
Eric Hotson (Maidstone Tory leader) talks about how having the highest returns on fund is far more important than being ethical and doing the right thing. Of course the counter argument is that ethical investments are doing very well at present... I think it is morally repugnant to justify death and destruction on the grounds that it makes money. Welcome to their Conservative world.
Pat Marshall (leader of the independents) says nothing of note. I have no idea where they stand on this issue or why they won't spell out what they think...
Morel D'Souza (Maidstone Labour leader) talked at length. He backed the call to disinvest in arms and called BAE corrupt - a more refreshing position than his fellow councillors, shame his party are still happy to do business with BAE. He is happy with investing in oil and nuclear, which demonstrates the key difference between Old Labour and Green. Nuclear is dirty, dangerous and expensive - it has a legacy that will last 250,000 years. The only certainty about what this will leave future generations is that it will be destructive. As for oil - lets leave it in the ground and only consider using it for setting up a renewable future. Wind, wave and concentrated solar combined with energy efficiency are the only way forward, oil companies are ignoring this and continue to put the vast majority of their energies into oil.
Fran Wilson (Maidstone LibDem leader) stated that BAE was a mixed company and that she would need persuading about their unethicalness. I will shortly be emailing Fran a set of links on why we should not invest in BAE, but as the UK's biggest arms company I think the need for persuasion is strange! As far as her challenge that my question was too simplistic - yes it was simple and we could debate the greyer areas of ethical investments, however arms, oil and tobacco are straightforward no-nos for investment. Ethical investment fund managers have got to grips with the issues - why can council fund managers and politicians? Aside from the LibDems economic policies which worship the god of economic growth, the LibDems are renowned for fence sitting.
Eric Hotson (Maidstone Tory leader) talks about how having the highest returns on fund is far more important than being ethical and doing the right thing. Of course the counter argument is that ethical investments are doing very well at present... I think it is morally repugnant to justify death and destruction on the grounds that it makes money. Welcome to their Conservative world.
Pat Marshall (leader of the independents) says nothing of note. I have no idea where they stand on this issue or why they won't spell out what they think...
Morel D'Souza (Maidstone Labour leader) talked at length. He backed the call to disinvest in arms and called BAE corrupt - a more refreshing position than his fellow councillors, shame his party are still happy to do business with BAE. He is happy with investing in oil and nuclear, which demonstrates the key difference between Old Labour and Green. Nuclear is dirty, dangerous and expensive - it has a legacy that will last 250,000 years. The only certainty about what this will leave future generations is that it will be destructive. As for oil - lets leave it in the ground and only consider using it for setting up a renewable future. Wind, wave and concentrated solar combined with energy efficiency are the only way forward, oil companies are ignoring this and continue to put the vast majority of their energies into oil.
Ethical Investments Transcript
On Wednesday 12th Dec, I put a question to the council meeting in Maidstone on ethical investment, As I have explained, Kent County Council holds millions of shares in BAE (Britain's biggest arms manufacturer), tobacco and oil companies. These are held as the pension fund on behalf of all local authorities in Kent and therefore Maidstone Borough Council have a stake in this. The responses from the leaders of the four groups on MBC are set out below:
Stuart Jeffery:
Does this council agree that investing in arms, tobacco and oil companies should be deplored? Will the Borough Council call upon Kent County Council to adopt an ethical investment policy and to withdraw its significant shares in arms, tobacco and oil companies.
Fran Wilson:
My personal view is that I would not like to see investments directly to arms but I would require far more information regarding investments into oil companies or other companies such as BAE who have a wide range of products before I would be persuaded to deplore them as investments.
I think that your questions is very simplistic and that any such policy would require far more sophistication before it would be capable of implementation.
What I can say is that this authority does not invest in shares and tharefore it is not an issue for this authority. I can also tell you that the major investments made by KCC are on behalf of the superannuation fund and that theis authority as employers needs to make substantial contributions to this fund if investment returns fall short. We are currently contributing nearly £1.5m per annum to make up for historic shortfalls and would be very concerned if KCC had an investment policy that required this authority to make additional contributions. It would be difficult to justify that to our council tax payers.
Eric Hotson:
The council does not make investments as implied in the question but of course it does pay into the benefit of its staff into the KCC pension fund. There are at the moment 70000 contributing and non-contributing members. At the last audit I believe the pension fund had a deficit of £50m. Last year this authority budgeted for a staggering £1.4m to support them. Next year our budget provides for an even larger sum. The KCC superannuation fund committee is advised by financial experts on their investments, these investments are scrutinised and in recent years those investments have proven to have realised the best market rewards and it is the duty of the superannuation board, its advisors and inspectors, to ensure that the highest possible yield is obtained.
If the current investment portfolio changes to a lesser and unproven investment stream, a higher risk of an even greater contribution by MBC will be required hence threatening the services that we presently supply, including of course, green spaces.
Pat Marshall:
I have very little to add to whats already been said...
Morel D'Souza:
I have got a problem with some words that you have used in your question, for example, "to be deplored" and that KCC have got significant shares - I don't know where you got that information about significant shares - we don't have that infomation available, however I just wanted to talk about ethical investments and how people feeel about it.
Ethical investment is investment which explicitly seeks to take environmental, social and ethical issues into account. Or as one of teh financial advisors described to me, ethical investment means choosing investment that reflects your values.
Many people would be surprised to hear that they have some kind of investment in the stock market. This does not just mean those who own shares. Most pensions and endowment mortgages and savings chemes are based on funds of money that are invested in shares. Most of these funds aim only to make finacial goals and as Cllr Hotson said, the highest yield - they don't care about anything else. They tend to invest your money without concern for moral or ethical values.
There are three broad approaches to ethical investments. the best funds tend to combine all three. The negative ones, which are the arms trade, investment in tobacco companies - you omitted nuclear power as a fund and anti-trade unions where investments are against trade unions.
we would support not investing in the arms trade, converting swords into plough shares - we would support that scheme because hopefully job losses in the arms factories would be gained elsewhere. However there is a lot of corruption in the arms industry particularly from BAE and they tend to maintain repressive regimes thus depriving nations of resources of health and education, especially in the poorer countries.
Of course tobacco is another industry where it conflicts with medical research so we would not support it but our government has banned smoking in many public places, advertising etc.
Now the interesting point is why you did not include nuclear power. You mentioned oil, we are an exporting countyr of oil and I would not agree with you that investment in oil companies is bad. neither would I agree that nuclear is bad as it is a much more effient form of investment.
On the positive side the ethicla investment fund managers will actively seek to invest in companies whose products and services are of lang term benefit to teh communities in which they operate and contribute to a better environment and this might include openness about activities, pollution control, eneregy conservation and providing equal opportunity policies.
And thirdly, the best way is to get people together and talk about investments and make sure that the companies that you are investing in have social responsibility and take climate change into account.
So it makes financial sense as well as moral sense to invest in companies that are planning ahead to create a better environment. We strongly support socially responsible investment. In 2000 it became law for occupational schemes to say whether they took account of any social, environmental or ethical factors when deciding what stocks to invest in.
Investors now have to complete a statement of investment principles. Now if you think that KCC is breaking the law, not to have sought experts advice as Cllr Hotson has suggested on its investment, I suggest that you report local authorities to the police for further investigation.
Stuart Jeffery:
Does this council agree that investing in arms, tobacco and oil companies should be deplored? Will the Borough Council call upon Kent County Council to adopt an ethical investment policy and to withdraw its significant shares in arms, tobacco and oil companies.
Fran Wilson:
My personal view is that I would not like to see investments directly to arms but I would require far more information regarding investments into oil companies or other companies such as BAE who have a wide range of products before I would be persuaded to deplore them as investments.
I think that your questions is very simplistic and that any such policy would require far more sophistication before it would be capable of implementation.
What I can say is that this authority does not invest in shares and tharefore it is not an issue for this authority. I can also tell you that the major investments made by KCC are on behalf of the superannuation fund and that theis authority as employers needs to make substantial contributions to this fund if investment returns fall short. We are currently contributing nearly £1.5m per annum to make up for historic shortfalls and would be very concerned if KCC had an investment policy that required this authority to make additional contributions. It would be difficult to justify that to our council tax payers.
Eric Hotson:
The council does not make investments as implied in the question but of course it does pay into the benefit of its staff into the KCC pension fund. There are at the moment 70000 contributing and non-contributing members. At the last audit I believe the pension fund had a deficit of £50m. Last year this authority budgeted for a staggering £1.4m to support them. Next year our budget provides for an even larger sum. The KCC superannuation fund committee is advised by financial experts on their investments, these investments are scrutinised and in recent years those investments have proven to have realised the best market rewards and it is the duty of the superannuation board, its advisors and inspectors, to ensure that the highest possible yield is obtained.
If the current investment portfolio changes to a lesser and unproven investment stream, a higher risk of an even greater contribution by MBC will be required hence threatening the services that we presently supply, including of course, green spaces.
Pat Marshall:
I have very little to add to whats already been said...
Morel D'Souza:
I have got a problem with some words that you have used in your question, for example, "to be deplored" and that KCC have got significant shares - I don't know where you got that information about significant shares - we don't have that infomation available, however I just wanted to talk about ethical investments and how people feeel about it.
Ethical investment is investment which explicitly seeks to take environmental, social and ethical issues into account. Or as one of teh financial advisors described to me, ethical investment means choosing investment that reflects your values.
Many people would be surprised to hear that they have some kind of investment in the stock market. This does not just mean those who own shares. Most pensions and endowment mortgages and savings chemes are based on funds of money that are invested in shares. Most of these funds aim only to make finacial goals and as Cllr Hotson said, the highest yield - they don't care about anything else. They tend to invest your money without concern for moral or ethical values.
There are three broad approaches to ethical investments. the best funds tend to combine all three. The negative ones, which are the arms trade, investment in tobacco companies - you omitted nuclear power as a fund and anti-trade unions where investments are against trade unions.
we would support not investing in the arms trade, converting swords into plough shares - we would support that scheme because hopefully job losses in the arms factories would be gained elsewhere. However there is a lot of corruption in the arms industry particularly from BAE and they tend to maintain repressive regimes thus depriving nations of resources of health and education, especially in the poorer countries.
Of course tobacco is another industry where it conflicts with medical research so we would not support it but our government has banned smoking in many public places, advertising etc.
Now the interesting point is why you did not include nuclear power. You mentioned oil, we are an exporting countyr of oil and I would not agree with you that investment in oil companies is bad. neither would I agree that nuclear is bad as it is a much more effient form of investment.
On the positive side the ethicla investment fund managers will actively seek to invest in companies whose products and services are of lang term benefit to teh communities in which they operate and contribute to a better environment and this might include openness about activities, pollution control, eneregy conservation and providing equal opportunity policies.
And thirdly, the best way is to get people together and talk about investments and make sure that the companies that you are investing in have social responsibility and take climate change into account.
So it makes financial sense as well as moral sense to invest in companies that are planning ahead to create a better environment. We strongly support socially responsible investment. In 2000 it became law for occupational schemes to say whether they took account of any social, environmental or ethical factors when deciding what stocks to invest in.
Investors now have to complete a statement of investment principles. Now if you think that KCC is breaking the law, not to have sought experts advice as Cllr Hotson has suggested on its investment, I suggest that you report local authorities to the police for further investigation.
Sunday, 16 December 2007
Fuel Protest in Maidstone
Well, there wasn't one as far as I could tell, but that shouldn't stop me giving my opinion on the issue!!!
I have a great deal of sympathy with the protesters, but I think the real issue gets lost in protectionism, nimbyism and rants of swingeing taxes.
People should have fair, equal access to fuel and this means fuel that they can afford but at a level that doesn't cause runaway climate change. Our independent farmers have taken repeated bashings from supermarkets, changing workforce patterns and no fuel price hikes, yet it is with these people that the future of the country really lies. Local food production is one of the most important planks in the fight against climate change, globalisation and so on - it must not be allowed to fail.
We are entering a period of 'peak oil'. Demand for oil is becoming higher than supply. We are not running out yet but we can't extract it quickly enough to keep up with demand - therefore the price of oil rises and oil companies will get even richer (is this possible?). We are also entering a pivotal period to tackle climate change, only 10 years left to avoid the worst of it (so Bali decides to procrastinate for another couple of years to appease the US).
The answer to both crises is simple.
1. Fair and equitable shares of fuel at a level that reduces CO2 outputs by 90% by 2030 in the UK. Adoption of Contraction and Convergence at a global level, so that each country is allowed to emit a level of CO2 based on population and that fits with tackling climate change, but also allows for the excess quotas to be traded.
2. Adoption of the same principle at a UK level. Each person is allocated an allowance that can meet their needs with the option of trading excess quotas as some people won't use it all. This allows for absolute regulation of demand and therefore will mean that prices for fuel are kept in check, avoiding the ravages of fuel poverty. To be able to use more than the quota, then people will need to pay through the nose in the quota market, and those who use less that the quota can make money on the spare carbon credits.
The quota, personal and international, can be regulated to ensure they fit with climate change, with the UK reducing its current usage by 90% by 2030 and poorer countries not having to make substantial cuts. This is the fair way to tackle climate change!
Stuart
I have a great deal of sympathy with the protesters, but I think the real issue gets lost in protectionism, nimbyism and rants of swingeing taxes.
People should have fair, equal access to fuel and this means fuel that they can afford but at a level that doesn't cause runaway climate change. Our independent farmers have taken repeated bashings from supermarkets, changing workforce patterns and no fuel price hikes, yet it is with these people that the future of the country really lies. Local food production is one of the most important planks in the fight against climate change, globalisation and so on - it must not be allowed to fail.
We are entering a period of 'peak oil'. Demand for oil is becoming higher than supply. We are not running out yet but we can't extract it quickly enough to keep up with demand - therefore the price of oil rises and oil companies will get even richer (is this possible?). We are also entering a pivotal period to tackle climate change, only 10 years left to avoid the worst of it (so Bali decides to procrastinate for another couple of years to appease the US).
The answer to both crises is simple.
1. Fair and equitable shares of fuel at a level that reduces CO2 outputs by 90% by 2030 in the UK. Adoption of Contraction and Convergence at a global level, so that each country is allowed to emit a level of CO2 based on population and that fits with tackling climate change, but also allows for the excess quotas to be traded.
2. Adoption of the same principle at a UK level. Each person is allocated an allowance that can meet their needs with the option of trading excess quotas as some people won't use it all. This allows for absolute regulation of demand and therefore will mean that prices for fuel are kept in check, avoiding the ravages of fuel poverty. To be able to use more than the quota, then people will need to pay through the nose in the quota market, and those who use less that the quota can make money on the spare carbon credits.
The quota, personal and international, can be regulated to ensure they fit with climate change, with the UK reducing its current usage by 90% by 2030 and poorer countries not having to make substantial cuts. This is the fair way to tackle climate change!
Stuart
Friday, 14 December 2007
KCC investing in death
This week I put a question to the full Council Meeting of Maidstone Borough Council:
"Does this council agree that investing in arms, tobacco and oil companies should be deplored? Will the Maidstone Borough Council call upon Kent County Council to adopt an ethical investment policy and to withdraw its significant shares in arms,tobacco and oil companies?"
KCC has £14 million in arms, £14million in tobacco and £91m in oil as part of their pension fund portfolio that is run for all levels of council in Kent. The Unison doesn't seem bothered by this and the Tories positively encourage this investment. The LibDems don't think that BAE is a problem and the press are not enthusiastic about the issue.
Fortunately my question has prompted a debate at their External Overview and Scrutiny Committee - so a reasonable outcome - but we need to continue to put pressure on and get this issue more widely known. I urge you to write to your county and borough councillors expressing your disgust at these investments. Please also sign the online petition at www.maidstone.greenparty.org.uk
Stuart
"Does this council agree that investing in arms, tobacco and oil companies should be deplored? Will the Maidstone Borough Council call upon Kent County Council to adopt an ethical investment policy and to withdraw its significant shares in arms,tobacco and oil companies?"
KCC has £14 million in arms, £14million in tobacco and £91m in oil as part of their pension fund portfolio that is run for all levels of council in Kent. The Unison doesn't seem bothered by this and the Tories positively encourage this investment. The LibDems don't think that BAE is a problem and the press are not enthusiastic about the issue.
Fortunately my question has prompted a debate at their External Overview and Scrutiny Committee - so a reasonable outcome - but we need to continue to put pressure on and get this issue more widely known. I urge you to write to your county and borough councillors expressing your disgust at these investments. Please also sign the online petition at www.maidstone.greenparty.org.uk
Stuart
Friday, 7 December 2007
Shepway South Ward - By-Election
Results from the by election in Shepway South Ward
Con: 251 (36%)
Lab: 240 (34%)
LD: 163 (23%)
Green: 34 (5%)
Not our best result, but we haven't stood a candidate there as long as I have lived in Maidstone.
There were mutterings from the LibDems behind me, that the Greens standing a candidate let the Tories win.
It is ironic that Labour promised us proportional representation in their 1997 election manifesto and then welched on the deal. Now they are being squeezed like this when the race is between more than two parties. The Lib Dems have been extremely quiet on PR, so how they can have the cheek to suggest that the Tory victory was the fault of the Greens, beggars belief. With proportional respresentation, Labour would have more that the three councillors that they currently have in Maidstone. On the other hand, if we had had the 'single transferable vote' system used in Shepway South, this would have given people the chance to vote with confidence for the party they really want to see win and to do so with the knowledge that their vote may get given to their second or third choice candidate instead.
To clarify this: The STV system would look at all the first preference votes cast and if one candidate got more than 50% of these they would be successful. In this case no candidate did, so the candidate with the lowest number of votes is knocked out and their votes redistributed in line with the voter's second preference. Lets us assume that all the Green votes got redistributed to Labour... Still no candidate would have more than 50% of the vote, so the LibDems would be knocked out and their votes given to the next preference. This would leave one of the two remaining candidate with a majority and therefore elected.
This system would drastically change the political landscape, as it allows people to have confidence that their vote will not be wasted (as 64% of votes in Shepway South were). STV should be combined with a system of proportionality as well so that all political flavours are represented.
In Shepway South, what was in fact clear was that the Tories put a massive amount of effort into winning the ward, their MP even turned up at the count. On the other hand Labour are being investigated by the police again for corruption and are in the news every day for their incompetency. The reason they lost seems pretty clear to me, and it has nothing to do with giving people their first opportunity to vote Green!
Thank you to the 5% who voted Green Party from me and from Steve Muggeridge.
Stuart
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Carter too frightened to fight for Widdy seat
This was the headline in todays Kent on Sunday. It's a shame really as it looks like they will end up with someone from their 'A List' rather than someone local. Who ever they select will fall down on their attitude to the environment - the Tory stance on the environment beggars belief (as does that of the LibDems and Labour).
They all try to suggest that continuous economic growth is reconcilable with the needs of the environment where as all the evidence says otherwise. We need economic development which will involve growth in some areas (greener industries) and reductions in others (polluting ones).
I'm looking forward to the debates and hustings!
Stuart
They all try to suggest that continuous economic growth is reconcilable with the needs of the environment where as all the evidence says otherwise. We need economic development which will involve growth in some areas (greener industries) and reductions in others (polluting ones).
I'm looking forward to the debates and hustings!
Stuart
KIG - AXA Letter
To the Kent Messenger:
Dear Editor,
I found the KIG meeting at Hollingbourne last week, quite nauseating. The meeting was dominated by self-congratulatory Tories repeating the same few objections to the KIG plan. At one point the Tories even stated that they would never allow development on the land earmarked by KIG.
These are fine words indeed but clearly they have very short memories about their own actions. Let us not forget that it was last year's Tory administration in Maidstone that put forward a plan - their 'Core Strategy' - to cover the same piece of land with houses, and that it was this plan that has allowed AXA to suggest development on the site.
Stuart Jeffery
Dear Editor,
I found the KIG meeting at Hollingbourne last week, quite nauseating. The meeting was dominated by self-congratulatory Tories repeating the same few objections to the KIG plan. At one point the Tories even stated that they would never allow development on the land earmarked by KIG.
These are fine words indeed but clearly they have very short memories about their own actions. Let us not forget that it was last year's Tory administration in Maidstone that put forward a plan - their 'Core Strategy' - to cover the same piece of land with houses, and that it was this plan that has allowed AXA to suggest development on the site.
Stuart Jeffery
Saturday, 1 December 2007
Cllr Jeffery
Congratulations to newly elected Cllr Jeffery! Poppy has just been elected to Kent County Youth Council, having watched her election video it's no wonder she was elected - she is very good.
I have some catching up to do now...
On a separate note, we have just returned from the Rochester Dickensian Christmas Festival's carol service. Usually a lovely half hour singing carols surrounded by people in Dickensian costumes with a snow machine going - very Christmassy. This year the carols was sung to music from the BAE Systems Brass Band. Why couldn't the council choose a band from somewhere else? They were very good, but... BAE are Britain's biggest arms manufacturers, responsible for thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths. Hardly a good accompaniment to Christmas Carols.
Stuart
I have some catching up to do now...
On a separate note, we have just returned from the Rochester Dickensian Christmas Festival's carol service. Usually a lovely half hour singing carols surrounded by people in Dickensian costumes with a snow machine going - very Christmassy. This year the carols was sung to music from the BAE Systems Brass Band. Why couldn't the council choose a band from somewhere else? They were very good, but... BAE are Britain's biggest arms manufacturers, responsible for thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths. Hardly a good accompaniment to Christmas Carols.
Stuart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)