Political

The new road layout at the Parkway in Newbury has caught out many drivers. David Betts spoke to the Newbury Weekly news saying "some people just drive about with their eyes shut". He admitted that some people had been fined multiple times. Not really fair looking at this as a cash cow, it's greedy and arrogant. We should give the cash back and perhaps issue a 'smug tax' on councillors gloating like this to make up the difference. At the very least David Betts should issue an apology and consider moving to a more suitable role.

I call on West Berks to do the right thing: Give the cash back, issue warnings (always best to educate people before punishing them) and never look on fines as income - they are a penalty and not a tax.

Fines like this should be put into a community fund and distributed in a way that helps to fix the causes of the fines and protect our communities.

Adrian Hollister
West Berkshire Green Party

Dear Sir George,

I write in reference to the recent timing out of the Daylight Saving Bill. It seems a disappointing state of affairs when a significant minority can destroy democracy in action. 140 MPs turned up to vote in favour of the Daylight Saving Bill and only 16 voted against, but those against talked for so long that the bill ran out of it's allocated time. To use administrative process to block the bills progress seems petty and anti-democratic.

Clearly there is a substantial process and administrative problem with the way bills are handled in parliament; something I do hope that you are working to resolve. But, given the cross party support, support from a large number of organisation and support from the general public, I do hope that you can urgently find additional government time to look at the Daylight Savings Bill (there are strong precedents for giving Private Members Bills more government time when needed).

Yours sincerely,

Adrian Hollister

cc Richard Benyon MP


This message was sent in support of 10:10’s Lighter Later campaign and the Daylight Saving Bill. http://www.lighterlater.org

It's only eight days to go to have your say on the Incinerator plans at Chieveley. The Green Party and I are in complete objection to such plans. So I urge all those with an opinion on the subject to get onto the West Berkshire web site and register their opinion now!

You can find the online planning site in West Berkshire here. You will need to register, but you can see other public comments and you will get a letter in the post to confirm your opinion.

There is also a web site http://www.wbagi.org that can give you a little more detail from local residents and some details from Grundon here.

It's interesting to think that the UK could be subsidising nuclear power unlawfully. This stance raises awareness of the problem of nuclear power - there are a lot of hidden costs. It's not just the building of a plant (with all it's concrete etc), the running, or the decommissioning; its a combination of all three. We will leave a radioactive legacy for generations. Not just a few years, not even in your life time or that of your kids and grandchildren.

For all that time, we will have to actively manage the power stations and radioactive waste:
-We have to keep it secure and protected from terrorism or threats from other states. It's interesting that in London Under Attack: The Report of the Greater London Area War Risk Study, the nuclear power stations and stock piles are targeted because of the devastation they would cause to most of the country.
-We have to keep in cool and contained.
-We have to protect it from our environment. Storms, rain, earthquakes, land slips, etc. Anything can damage our storage systems and nothing is as immune as you think (re: Fukushima).
-We have to protect our environment from it. I'm not too keen on drinking contaminated water or eating foods contaminated by radioactive particles.

All of this costs money - a lot of money - and we have to pay for that and so do our future generations.

If we included these additional costs, would Nuclear power ever be seen as viable?

Private Eye have uncovered a further massive Tax dodge from Vodafone.

"£6bn… and then some
The latest major tax avoidance ruse slipped under the public radar because Vodafone stopped setting aside money in its accounts for its offshore disputes in 2006. But the agreement with HMRC, which the company said covers “all outstanding [controlled foreign companies] issues from 2001”, must have cleared the scheme (Vodafone would only say it was “confidential”), letting the company off well over £2bn plus whatever it can funnel through the set-up in future and making the Eye’s initial £6bn estimate of the cost of the dodgy deal look conservative.

The revelation also seems to contradict Hartnett’s repeated assertions that nothing less than the full force of the tax law was applied to the company, since this scheme is if anything more squarely caught by the UK’s tax laws than the Mannesmann arrangement and on its own would have brought in more than £2bn. More troubling questions, then, for the NAO and retired Judge Park."

So, Newbury based Vodafone have yet again swindled us all out of cash. Swindled, because we as a country could have used that money for investment in services, debt payment, or even reducing the tax bill for the poorest. But no, the money goes to shareholders, a good deal of which won't even be in the country. Shame on you Vodafone.

The Tory and Lib Dem government has that it plans to make it easier for head teachers in England to sack under performing staff. According to the press release it is due to go ahead from September 2012. Seems to me to be another blame culture thing - point the finger and not fix the problem. I wonder if head teachers and governors will be under the same pressure? It would be interesting if we could have a public review of head's and governors, especially around here in the Downlands of West Berkshire.

Why should MP's get to vote on political party funding?

I know for sure that I personally support the change to level funding - it would open democracy in our country and it would certainly help political parties with limited budgets (such as the Green Party).  How much money you have should not influence your ability to get elected.  The US system is the worst case I can think of and we are moving towards it.  It's not democratic, it's just a plain worship of mamon.  Here in Newbury we are a US style system - you either vote Tory or their pet party the Lib Dems - at least that's what they want you to think and with the budgets they wield they can afford to buy the marketing to let the messages stick.

It is also so easy to see that donation money could be used to influence the actions our elected MP's take.  There is, for example, no discrimination of where that money comes from home, abroad, extremists, faith groups, companies alike.  Would you be happy for your MP to vote on stem cell research if you know their party was funded in any by businesses in that line of work?  or allow them to vote on banking regulation when assisted by researchers or others from the banking industry?  It's just so open to accusations of corruption that it stinks.

The only fair way, and the only way to ensure that corruption of any form is ruled out from our electoral system is to ensure that each party has the same budget to spend and ideally as little as possible. 

I wonder how Richard Benyon will vote here in West Berkshire?  For level political systems or to keep one that is open to accusations of corruption, waist and power hungry greed.

If you agree that things need to change, you need to vote for your local Green Party candidate - the only political party offering real ethical change.  Adrian Hollister

The Green Party ahead of Liberal Democrats in new poll

 

The Green Party are surging ahead of the Liberal Democrats according to the latest voter intention figures published by ComRes. Public support for the Liberal Democrats has declined dramatically thanks to a growing disillusionment with the coalition government over controversial NHS reforms, cuts in housing and education and a U-turn on tuition fees.

The report coincides with another election poll released earlier this year by polling company, Marketing Means, which revealed a large swing to the Green Party in March this year.  However, while previous voter intention surveys such as Market Means have indicated the Green vote is increasing, the new ComRes report which came out on the 16th October 2011 proves that the Green Party is now a real alternative for traditionally Liberal Democrat voters.

Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party recently called on disaffected Liberal Democrats to look to the Greens, saying:

 "I have a special message for those Lib Dem supporters who are beginning to despair of the path their leadership has taken them down. If you became involved in politics to serve your local community, to protect the environment, or to challenge inequality, then join us.”

The ComRes report coincides with another election poll released in March this year by polling company, Marketing Means which revealed a large swing to the Green Party.

The report shows when asked if voting were compulsory, 7% of those asked would vote Green, where only 6% would vote Lib Dem.  The same question indicated a decrease in support for the Conservative Party, with 15% choosing Labour compared to 13% saying they would probably vote Conservative.

With fascination I've been following the mini Poll on the Newbury Today web site - "Are you in favour of schools receiving Academy status?" The results (to date) show a general apathy towards the whole Academy scheme with more than half not bothered if their schools change.

Rachel Fryer, the Greens' education spokesperson, has a good summary of why people should care: "The Green Party has always spoken in favour of greater freedom for the school to decide how it is run. However this does not and must not mean putting the running of the school into the hands of a private sponsor who may know nothing or very little about education, and taking the power away from parents and teachers who have little representation on the governing body at an Academy."

"Academies can see principals paid in excess of £120,000 whilst there is a high turnover of valued and committed staff lower down the pay scale as they are invited to reapply for their jobs on different pay scales."

"Time and again Greens and others have asked why the freedoms and funding attached to Academies cannot be given without the strings of creeping privatisation and millionaire sponsors attached. Yet no answer is given."

"With the proposals of up to 25% cuts across local authorities, inevitably affecting front-line staff including teachers, we could be facing the situation of having new buildings without the teachers to go in them. Let's give the money directly to schools through greater investment and through bringing back BSF (Building Schools for the Future) money, trusting schools and teachers to know the best way to spend money to improve education."

Adrian Hollister
Newbury & West Berkshire Green Party

As Mrs Thatcherput it: "Any man who rides a bus to work after the age of 30 can counthimself a failure in life". In an attempt to kill public transport, Conservative governments have put in place public transport systems that are designed to make profit. They are not designed to serve their users with the best and most cost effective journey - they are just interested in profit. There is in no competition between rail operators in Newbury. We have only one incumbant supplier who's worries all come from the shareholder and not the rail user. So is there any surprise when the rail operators - First Great Western - look to cram as much profit (people) into each train?

The utilitarian state of our rail stations, trains and station facilities (such as parking) also deter people from the train network. Up until very recently, the car park in Newbury would fill with rain making it impossible to walk with dry feet from the car to the station; seats and facilities are refreshed but in a cold almost military way (where is the Newbury in our station?); and staff seem demoralised.

You can get an idea of the state of trains from the one I was on the other day… https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150275670839736&set=a.411882899735.185075.609674735&type=1&ref=nf


What we need is very simple:

-Stations that reflect the community they serve
-Train's that cost effectively provide clean comfortable seats for all
-Simple train fares that don't penalise buy on the day ticket prices

How about:
-Train tickets that include the seat number at purchase - if there are no seats left TOC should pay fines for standing customers.
-Train tickets by default include the cost of parking (until the rest of the transport system is functional this is an essential stop gap that will atract more people)
-Seat configurations that allow commuters and business people enough space to work (working on a train in standard is almost impossible)
-Family spaces that can actually support families (I've never managed to get our lot into a single group of seats - we always have to spread out down the train in different seats or stand)

Can the Tories and Liberal Democrats do this? I doubt it, they lack the vision and the ability to deliver.

For the moment, I can only hope that when the next government is elected people remember that they voted for this mess, and to vote with their feet.

Adrian Hollister
West Berkshire Green Party