Keane on Politics

Quelling Rumours on My Party Status

2012-01-31T09:14:00.001Z

Rumours seem to have been circulating that I have left the Green Party, as I have been accosted by a few Green members via Twitter and email since the weekend. So people will stop contacting me in this way, I am publicly providing my response to these rumours here.

In truth, my party membership was terminated by the party in October of last year. I was only made aware of this last month when an email on the branch list said local selection ballots had been sent out and I had to reply to query why I did not receive one.

I was told my details were no longer on the party's membership list, and after further investigation it was revealed the membership was revoked after my recurring PayPal payment to the party was cancelled.

Aside from the fact that this action was due to the party's own request to switch payment method to Direct Debit, I was paid up until May 2012 in any case. It would appear that the party, in a way I understand, assumed I had quit.

However, the party made no attempt to contact me to ask what was happening, or indeed even to tell me my membership had been cancelled. Personally, I find this an unacceptable way in which to treat party activists.

The intention implied from these actions is that the party is unwilling to co-operate with activists who do not have a perfect history of "towing the line". Other recent debacles, such as the party's failure to nominate any candidate to contest the Coatbridge by-election when I volunteered to stand, reinforces this view.

For this reason, I did not seek to have my membership reinstated after its termination was brought to light.

As regards any future political activity, I have decided for the present time that I want to focus on studying for my degree and on running my election result website as well as my work for the Britain Votes blog. If I do join any other parties as was rumoured, I would reveal it myself in the fullness of time.

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T17:55:00.000Z

Happy New Year to all of my followers and readers! I hope 2012 has gotten off to a good start for everyone so far.

It's been some time since I posted up a blog here. My hiatus, originally meant to just cover moving house, ended up extended on for some time as I dealt with overtime at work, clearing out my new room and catching up on studying. Today is hopefully to be something of a relaunch and, to match my changing primary interest, I'm intending to shift the blog's main focus from political opinion to psephological analysis.

As some people may know, I've been covering Scottish by-elections for Britain Votes since last May. No more by-elections are expected now that we have entered the six month period before May's all out elections, so I have turned my attention to some other projects.

The first of these was completing pages for all of the local by-election results from 2007-12 for my website, which are now online. Once that was finished, I began writing pages for all the results from the last all out local elections. I've been working on these since Christmas and currently I have 15 out of 32 councils complete. I'm expecting the full lot to be ready for upload within the next week.

After that's out of the way, my next projects are for Britain Votes. Firstly, I'll be doing a series of articles looking at the results and trends from 2007 and the by-elections since, and then I'll be using these articles to write up a 'preview' for every council going into the 2012 election complete with predictions and candidate lists once those are available. I'm also aiming to have pages on my own website for each council by that point, ready to compile candidate lists and news coverage for each election.

Hopefully this will be a very productive new year for me!

Hiatus

2011-09-03T20:03:00.001+01:00

Sorry for the lack of posts recently. I don't expect to start again until some time later this year, as I'm currently moving house using environmentally friendly, if somewhat slow, methods!

Looters in Court - Justice or Show Trials?

2011-08-11T20:07:00.000+01:00

The Telegraph reports that a 23-year old student has been imprisoned for six months for stealing £3.50 worth of bottled water from Lidl during the London riots of the past week. This is one of the first individual sentences to be brought to media attention, and if this is setting then the trend then it suggests magistrates are being pushed to bring severely overly harsh sentences on looters.

Consider this Telegraph report from just last week where another young person - with, it should be noted, a far wealthier and not to mention Tory card-carrying background - assaulted police officers after burgling a police station. His sentence? A 12-month community order including 100 hours of unpaid community service.

To me, and I think anyone from a rational standpoint, the second crime is a far greater offense. Bodily harm was done, there was an attempt made to steal goods of greater value, and the crime was more greatly premeditated. So why has the looter received by far the harsher punishment?

There are several other cases coming to light too, with one story just there on the TV of one person handed a jail sentence who had not stolen anything at all - committing the crime of carrying a balaclava! Sure logic suggests he was intent on looting, but there is no proof or evidence that he did, since he did not! But still he goes to prison anyway!

And my apologies for the excessive use of the exclamation mark. I'm not keen on hyperbole, but these cases are setting an extremely worrying trend that suggests to me these trials are not about justice or rehabilitation, but rather they are about nothing other than trying to meet the retributive demands of the tabloids.

There should be questions asked about how these sentences are in the public interest. We are in the midst of cutbacks and a crisis of prison overcrowding, and yet we are sending people to prison who have little or no need for rehabilitation and who pose no considerable risk to society. This is a perversion of the justice system, and if it is borne out in the rest of the looters' sentences it sets a disturbing precedent for unbalanced punishments.

The Riots: Political Crisis, or Identity Crisis?

2011-08-10T18:03:00.000+01:00

Britain has been shaken this week by the sudden onset of violent rioting and looting on a scale not seen in decades. What seems to have started as a protest against Mark Duggan's death has escalated to widespread criminal activity across England, concentrated in London but spreading out to Birmingham, Manchester and other cities. Most of the debate on this escalated behaviour I have seen so far consists of the Left arguing that service cuts and social inequality acted as a trigger while the Right argue that lack of discipline and authority was the major factor. However, while all of these could have been factors, to me there is a far deeper root to this problem that goes beyond the political divide and lies at the very design of our society itself.

Modern Britain, as with much of the modern world, has developed into a 'consumer society', where we principally form our individual identities based upon what goods we consume, and what we do with these goods. In the past, our identities were based upon other factors such as our occupation, beliefs or class. Consumer society has brought positive influences on culture in general, including an increase in individual freedoms and greater social mobility as compared to the past. However, it has also emphasised inequities in society.

To simplify the terms of the esteemed sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, people living within a consumer society fall into the categories of either the 'seduced' or the 'repressed'. The seduced are those with the capability to take advantage of consumer society and enjoy its benefits such as the freer expression of individuality. The repressed, on the other hand, are unable to take these advantages for one or more of a variety of reasons such as lack of education, lack of employment or so on. Therefore, the way in which our society is constructed incorporates this divide, leaving a group of the population who feel little or no benefit from involvement within the society.

To apply this then to the riot scenario, the looters are members of the repressed group. That is not to say that all people disadvantaged by consumer society have been rioting, and I will address specific additional reasons in a bit, but it is important to consider this concept of identity as I feel that the riots have not been a crisis of either politics or society, but rather one of individual identity. To take my previous definition of consumer society, we define ourselves by what we own and what we do with what we own. The repressed group therefore, who are less able to consume goods and therefore own less and can do less with what they own have a limited ability to form their own identity in consumer society. This limitation has been even further emphasised by the creation of brands and advertising, and the consequent rise of 'conspicuous consumption' where, consciously or subconsciously, we consume certain goods and services primarily to influence how other people see and think about us.

For it is my belief that the major influence in the riots has been that lack of identity of some individuals within society. It is not simply because the rioters were marginalised by poverty or by living in poor communities, bad as those ills are, but that our consumer society has now become so dominating that these people are excluded from operating in society by it. Analyses of the looting have shown that the largest part of what was stolen were items that have become major identity-forming objects, for example branded trainers. If poverty was the primary ailment in this case, you might have expected looters to steal whatever they could take, mostly basic commodities, but to a large degree there was a specificity to which stores and items were targeted. This theory could also explain the looters' desire to cause damage to other property by smashing windows and starting fires - these have no direct benefit to the looters themselves, but can be seen as an attempt to hinder the greater identity-forming ability of the seduced group of consumer society.

This is not to in any way diminish the fact that the looters engaged in dangerous, violent and criminal behaviour, and there have to be further reasons as to why certain people engaged in looting. The Left seem to argue that poverty was a major factor, and while it certainly does seem to have been a factor in terms of what areas were affected I don't believe it explains why certain people acted in this way as within impoverished areas there were people who did not take part. Equally, I don't accept the Right's argument that looters were specifically people who lacked discipline or respect to authority as this argument lacks any explanation as to why the riots occurred in discrete areas.

Rather, I feel the looters derive from an extreme-end of Bauman's repressed group - a group of completely dispossessed people who feel they have no place within consumer society at all. This group would feel no connection to society at large, which would explain why they were largely content to ransack their own local communities rather than go off to wealthier neighbourhoods. This group would also in theory be the most desperate to own any of the identity-forming items that they are largely excluded from, which would somewhat explain the targeted looting of certain items.

If these are the people involved, then the response from both sides of the political debate thus far will be ineffective. Investing more in regeneration of deprived areas, while certainly a benefit to many people living in that locality, will not have an effect on the dispossessed group as they have no concern for their local communities to begin with. Likewise, an increasingly authoritarian policing response is unlikely to be effective as this group have no interest in the defense of society, and therefore little or no concern over law and order.

The real problem that I see needing to be corrected is the rampant state of our consumer society, and no major political movement seems to be dedicated to anti-consumerism. The Left-Right divide is less about the level of consumption in society, and more about the redistribution of the ability to consume one way or the other. Even my own Green Party, whilst probably the most critical party of consumer society, seems to lack a plan to implement an alternative across society at large.

As I see it, society needs to be moved in a direction where our self-identities are based on things other than our consumption. The existing situation has created a social and moral poverty in society, as people and ideals are left as externalities in a consumption-dominated economy. If we continue to become increasingly extreme consumers, then the divides within the structure of our society will increase, and those left at the bottom are likely to become even further outcast from society, increasing the likelihood of future riots and other anti-social behaviour.

A sustainable society will be one where we form our identities based primarily on our connections to other people, and on our knowledge and beliefs. So rather than throwing money at these people, or throwing the book at them, why not simply go out and talk to them, connect with them and provide them with the opportunities to reach their potential within society?

John Mason

2011-08-04T16:02:00.000+01:00

Working full-time plus studying for a degree equals a shortage of blogs recently. But I had to write on this topic today...

SNP MSP John Mason, who rose to prominence as victor of the Glasgow East by-election and more recently won election to Holyrood in the constituency of Glasgow Shettleston, has brought his party into ill repute with this motion submitted yesterday to parliament:

S4M-00586 John Mason (Scottish National Party): That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.

While it is clear that Mason, with his strongly Baptist background, is completely opposed to equal marriage rights, neither his argument nor his party seem to be backing him up on this one.

His argument seems to be based on the principle that because some people are opposed to same-sex marriage, it is entirely impossible to contemplate introducing it. First off, I would challenge John Mason to identify any single piece of legislation that the SNP has ever introduced that was supported unanimously by 100% of the population. After all, based on his argument any legislation without this support should not be passed, and therefore all of the SNP's work (nay, any Goverment's work) should be repealed because of a minority opposition, no matter how small. Votes for the working class and votes for women both faced opposition. Equal rights for all regardless of colour or background faced opposition. Maintaining a Scottish nation in the periods of English invasion faced opposition. Apparently, John Mason would be opposed to all of these.

Oh, and how about this one for the SNP - not everyone supports a referendum on Scottish Independence. Presumably John will be voting against that one too then.

The other strand of his argument is that Scotland cannot support same-sex marriages as it would deny pluralism, or a freedom to hold opinions against. Based on this argument, I guess Mason is mistakenly under the impression that gay men are planning to force him into a shotgun wedding at the first opportunity, but the last time I checked pluralism would suggest that choices should be left as far as possible up to individual people and organisations. It would seem to me therefore that pluralism would be best met by allowing the same-sex couples who want to be married and the churches that want to hold such weddings to do so. You know, rather than supporting the complete ban on one side of the argument which seems to be the position he's supposedly trying to oppose.

And quite frankly, the view he is trying to defend is by all measures a small minority view. The 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that 53% of Scots agreed that same-sex couples should be able to get married while only 21% disagreed. A 2010 poll found that support had risen to 58% while opposition had fallen to 19%. Moreover, in his constituency of Shettleston, the almost single-issuedly homophobic Scottish Christian Party received less than 1% of the regional vote in May, indicating that it is not even a particular local concern.

Patrick Harvie of the Greens has submitted an amendment to Mason's motion, reading:

Delete from "desires" and insert:

"notes that the balance between these views has changed substantially over recent decades, with the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing 53% in agreement with equal marriage and only 21% in disagreement, and a poll in 2010 showing 58% support with only 19% against; congratulates the Scottish Youth Parliament on the launch of its Love Equally campaign for equal marriage and civil partnership, a campaign it voted to select after consulting with over 42,000 young people across Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government is recognising this shift in public attitudes with its forthcoming consultation on equal marriage; recognises that allowing same sex marriage and mixed sex civil partnerships would in no way undermine the rights and freedoms of whose who do not wish to participate in them; and further believes it would be both right and popular for secular and religious Scots alike to be free to reach their own view on the legal status that is right for their own relationship, instead of being banned by law from having their relationships recognised on equal terms."

I would call on members of all parties to support Patrick's amendment, and meanwhile the SNP whips had better be talking to John Mason to see if he can vote in favour of anything at all...

Another Green-less By-Election

2011-06-19T15:40:00.000+01:00

The candidates for the Inverclyde by-election have been announced, with five candidates fighting for the seat: Iain MacKenzie (Labour); Anne McLaughlin (SNP); David Wilson (Conservative); Sophie Bridger (Liberal Democrat); an Mitch Sorbie (UKIP).

I have bleated on about this before like a broken record, but it is very disappointing to see a major parliamentary by-election being held in Scotland with no Green candidate. It has been little more than a month since we were excitedly talking about the prospect of becoming a nationwide party with a list MSP in each region, but failure to nominate a candidate in an area like this is, I feel, evidence of a political apathy that will prevent us from ever becoming that national party.

The regular arguments fielded against the idea are over lost deposits and a lack of local members. The former argument I feel is counter to our existence as a political party - we exist to fight elections, and win them. I understand that as a small party we need to pick our battles when there is a larger nationwide election going on, but with just a single seat up for grabs when a by-election comes around there is no other better target at this time. Not making any appearance at all deprives us of media coverage, stops us gathering regular Green voters and, contrary to the latter argument, stops the development of any local recruitment or organisation for a new branch.

At least two of the five standing parties clearly don't consider these factors as problems - the UKIP and Liberal Democrat candidates are neither likely to hold their deposits nor do they come from the local area (both give addresses in Glasgow). Additionally, the SNP candidate also comes from Glasgow. If all parties adopted the Green approach, we'd have as few as two or three parties contesting the seat, and voters would have a very limited and undemocratic choice to make.

Admittedly I'm no longer involved in the party's decision-making apparatuses, but there seems to have been no discussion at all within the wider party whether to stand or not. If there were discussions at a centralised level, in a supposedly decentralised party, this should have at least included some form of dialogue with the party's activists and regular candidates as to whether there was anyone willing to stand for the seat, even if required to fund their own deposit (as you may gather, I would personally fall into the category of the willing).

However, I don't believe it is even necessarily a matter of money or people that explains our electoral apathy. We have a very poor record in contesting council by-elections, where, at worst, we should be fielding a paper candidate for no outlay at all. Since the Holyrood elections, there have been four council by-elections, with a fifth one taking place next week. Huge props go to the Aberdeen branch who have fielded a candidate in both of their by-elections, but contests in Falkirk, Highland and Dumfries & Galloway have all been ignored. This is despite all three having had some Green candidates in 2007, and despite the latter two both being home to list-topping candidates in May.

Rather, I am concerned that our growing apathy is coming from a sort of 'leftie syndrome' - a feeling that if we sit back and argue amongst ourselves about gender balancing and party philosophy then somehow votes are going to surge our way at the next election. To the contrary, I am not aware of a single person who voted Green because our top list candidates were equally male and female. When I stood outside a cold and wet polling station on election day, most people who told me they'd be voting Green were doing so because they said they knew and liked the candidate and, to a smaller proportion, because they thought we had the best policies on things like taxation and transport.

The candidate in that case, Kirsten Robb, is probably one of the best activists the party has. She balances both community politics - campaigning on local issues and working with the local community council - and electoral politics, standing for election at all levels. Indeed, the Lanarkshire branch has contested every by-election in the county since 2006, only matched by the branches covering Glasgow and Edinburgh councils. People come out and vote for Kirsten because she has the regular press coverage and the local profile, and this in turn gets people used to voting Green at other levels - assuming there are Green candidates to choose from.

Now, it's not all bad news everywhere. There is a promising amount of activity around the upcoming City Centre by-election in Edinburgh, but given in 2007 this was the strongest Green ward in the city and second strongest in the entire country (after Hillhead, Glasgow), anything short of a long and well-resourced campaign would be as under-expectations as failing to stand a candidate elsewhere. If the Edinburgh Greens are able to make progress or even gain the seat in the by-election, hopefully it might encourage the rest of the party to stand more often.

And by-election gains are relatively achievable - after all the English Greens gained a surprise seat in Essex just last Thursday on an 18.6% swing. With the alternative vote system in use for Scottish by-elections, gains should be even easier what with there being the possibility to pick up transfers from other candidates and with the absence of the 'wasted vote' concern - advantages the Greens down south gain seats without.

Overall, and I know I've said this so many times before both online and back when I used to attend party council meetings, we should be contesting every seat. If there are honestly zero activists eligible to stand in a council area or if our bank coffers are down to the last couple of buttons, fair enough. Otherwise, there is really no excuse for a supposedly national political party not to stand.

Tory MP Pushes Quick Referendum

2011-06-17T16:31:00.000+01:00

A Conservative MP has submitted an amendment to the Scotland Bill calling for a referendum on Scottish independence to be held this year. Jacob Rees-Mogg, a character of some infamy in Scotland, submitted the amendment yesterday which would require the referendum to take place within four months of the passing of the Bill.

Rees-Mogg's amendment would have a referendum asking us:

"The Scotland Act increases the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Should there be full independence for Scotland instead?"

Apart from the already much alluded-to desire by unionists to get a referendum by as quickly as possible in the hope they can still win it, the question is skewed as it plays the actual powers of the Scotland Act against full independence - unlike Salmond's question there is no possibility for the status quo or to demand further powers short of independence.

Presumably, the Tory backbencher hopes that the option of some more powers against independence would help secure a unionist win while also preventing a call for greater financial powers - a result which the SNP are probably more likely to win than full independence under their own planned question.

It seems unlikely that the amendment will pass, although it could have support from strongly unionist Tories and Scottish Labour MPs. If it did pass, I think a question being pushed by an MP from the south of England rather than of Scotland's own design would, if anything, make an independence campaign win even more likely as it would further erode Westminster's claim to supporting a degree of Scottish self-determination.

In the long run, I still believe a referendum in 2014/15 is more likely. I know that 24 June 2014 has been posited as a possible date for being the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. And if English Tory MPs keep trying to push Scotland around in the mean time, it can only help to bolster support for independence.

Belfast West, Anyone?

2011-06-08T21:47:00.001+01:00

Perhaps it's just the digital switchover messing up my channels, but has there been ANY coverage of the fact there's an MP getting elected tomorrow? In lieu of mainstream coverage, I therefore present you with my guide to the Belfast West by-election.

Gerry Adams resigned his Belfast West seat way back in January amidst much media speculation as to whether he had really resigned since he refused to take the odd if traditional route of 'disqualification' by accepting an office of profit under the crown. After being safely elected to the Dáil Éireann, topping the first preference poll in Louth, the Belfast West by-election remained lost in the ether for weeks until it was finally called - after the Northern Irish Assembly elections, raising conspiracies about trying to reduce Sinn Féin turnout.

I presume the complete lack of coverage is down to a part disinterest in that far flung province of Northern Ireland by the mainland British media, a part disinterest in the guaranteed certainty of the winner, and a part disinterest in a seat that hasn't actually sent an MP to Westminster in fourteen years due to the abstentionist policy of Sinn Féin.

For the first part, Northern Irish politics can admittedly be confusing to the uninitiated, with a different set of parties and a very different political environment. There are six parties contesting the election: Sinn Féin, who refuse to take seats in Westminster as they won't swear an oath to the British monarch; the Social Democratic and Labour Party, who take the Labour whip in Westminster; the Democratic Unionist Party, formerly headed by Ian Paisley; the Ulster Unionist Party, who have previously linked up with the Conservatives; the Alliance, who are related to the Lib Dems; and the People Before Profit Alliance, who are an Irish-wide socialist party.

Most Northern Irish parties designate themselves as either "unionist", in that they want to retain Northern Ireland's union with England, Scotland and Wales, or "nationalist" (or "republican") meaning they want the six counties of Northern Ireland to leave Britain and join the Republic of Ireland. This split also encompasses a notable sectarian divide, with the unionist side overwhelmingly Protestant and the nationalist side overwhelmingly Catholic. The first two parties in the running (SF and SDLP) are nationalists, and the next two (DUP and UUP) are, as named, unionists. There is also a recognised "other" category for parties who forego the constitutional and religious divide and seek to represent a cross-community electorate. The example here would be the Alliance. Finally, I'm not entirely sure where People Before Profit stand, but they don't mention the issue on their website so I would presume they're "other".

If that hasn't completely thrown you yet, you might be interested to know that in the west of Belfast, Sinn Féin is by far the dominant party. Particularly in the Upper and Lower Falls, each of which elect four out of five SF councillors under proportional representation, the party has a highly mobilised activist force that is the envy of many other candidates across the country. Sinn Féin also have five out of six of the Northern Ireland Assembly seats in Belfast West, also elected by proportional representation. These feats are accomplished with a combination of huge voter loyalty to the party, and a party campaign machine that balances out first preferences between candidates with an amazing efficiency.

So, if Sinn Féin elects members to all bodies with whopping majorities, how come we've never seen them in Westminster? Well, as mentioned above, Sinn Féin members who are elected as MPs refuse to take their seats in Westminster as to do so would require them to take an oath of loyalty to the British monarch, which they believe would betray their republican beliefs. Therefore, they cannot take part in debates in Westminster, or ask any spoken or written questions. However, they can still take up constituency work, and many Sinn Féin MPs have simultaneously sat as either local councillors or Assembly members.

So, who will win tomorrow's by-election? Well, frankly, Sinn Féin will. The former MP here, Gerry Adams, is their party leader and most widely known figurehead, so his departure may result in a slight drop in their vote. However, with a swing of over 27% from SF to SDLP required to unseat Sinn Féin here, any drop will be easily absorbed. Congratulations in advance to Paul Maskey MP.

Power to the People

2011-06-07T23:08:00.000+01:00

From the first of August, I will be one of 2.4 million households to be affected by a surge in fuel prices by Scottish Power. The cost of gas will be raised by 19% and the cost of electricity will be raised by 10%, and this sudden rise comes barely nine months after the company's previous hike in prices. The company explains the expected average bill rise of £180 as being a result of global energy markets, but this only highlights how unfit for purpose our current power generation and supply models are.

The extraction of fossil fuels is becoming more expensive. With the depletion of relatively easier harvested resources, ever-increasing demand, and the move into even more environmentally damaging practices such as "fracking", we are clearly entering the Peak Oil period where the maximum extractable supply of oil and gas simply cannot meet the energy demands of the world. This is why it is vitally essential that we move now and no later into a sustainable post-oil infrastructure of mixed renewables. The longer any country remains dependent upon oil, the longer their economy will suffer while energy companies laugh all the way to the bank.

Scottish Power, for instance, is happily passing on these supposedly required cost increases - no doubt a result of the terrible drop in their profits last year to a mere 1.2 BILLION pounds. While these energy suppliers increasingly try to put on a green facade, they are the ones profiting out of global warming, environmental damage and fuel poverty. Investing in post-oil infrastructure simply isn't in the interest of these companies, as it will only reduce the value and subsequent profits of their control over the fossil fuel market.

The 'liberalised' power market is failing to protect the interests of the people. The competition element of the so called free market clearly isn't working, as the Scottish Power price hike is already viewed as the gate opening for every other company to raise their prices by a similar amount. There is no incentive amongst the existing energy companies to actually invest the most in renewables or to consider the needs of the fuel-impoverished.

There is realistically only one alternative therefore to protect the interests of both the environment and consumers. Re-nationalising power utilities in Scotland would remove the incentive to draw every last drop of oil in the ground, and would allow the profits of the operation to be used to control domestic prices and to invest in renewables. No longer would shareholders make huge profits out of disadvantaged families trying to keep warm or out of householders who experience tremors and contaminated water supplies from 'fracking'.

The sooner we bring power back under our control, the sooner we can stop families' pockets being pinched and our fragile environments being wrecked.

You Can Strike, Unless You Want To

2011-06-07T12:22:00.000+01:00

We're repeatedly told by the Lib Dems how much worse off we'd all be if the Tories were governing by themselves. Indeed, is it not great to see Lib Dem ministers out defending our freedom to associate in trade unions, as with Vince Cable's speech to the GMB yesterday? Cable was well up for defending the right to strike against the nasty Tories. Unless of course, there were some crazy union out there who actually wanted to use that right....

You can read Cable's full speech here, although it's largely pretty dull until the section on strikes near the end. I mean, you really have to admire a man who can say "the right to strike is a fundamental principle" two sentences before threatening the assembled union delegates that co-ordinated strikes against the government will lead to severe restrictions on unions. That's some award-winning stuff right there, if there were awards for opposing human rights and freedoms.

Cable, for his ~~party~~ part, is keen to stave off the rising prospect of co-ordinated strikes against the government's ideological slaughter of the public sector. Clearly we should all be accepting that Dave and Nick know best, and how dare we try to protect our livelihoods, our communities and our economy?

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right of individuals to organise in trade unions to protect their interests. Any form of liberal or democratic party should be committed to upholding human rights, but Cable would rather have us believe that unions are out to destroy democracy at the first available opportunity rather than defend workers against the government. On the contrary, any society without trade unions to protect our rights and the value of our labour would be nothing more than a society of slaves.

But maybe I'm overreacting. After all, despite the criticism of all those pesky trade unionists, business leaders have welcomed the speech and announced there was a need to "modernise" industrial relations law. Well whoop-dee-doo, I guess some turkeys still just won't vote for Christmas.

In all seriousness, Cable should be absolutely ashamed of himself and of how many of his own principles he's sacrificed for the sake of power. I'm sure that deep down somewhere he believes in individual freedoms and rights, but he's increasingly choosing to crack down on freedom and liberty by the use of scaremongering and selective reporting, whether that be about the state of the economy, the right to protest or now the right to organise. There will probably be some form of organised people's movement against the government in the future, especially as the all-important growth in the economy keeps stagnating. Will Cable then defend our human rights? Or do the Liberal Democrats want to go down as the party eager to sell workers into slavery?

Why are the Lib Dems U-Turning on Alcohol?

2011-06-05T21:53:00.003+01:00

A month into his tenure as MSP, and just a little less than that as Scottish Lib Dem party leader, Willie Rennie has announced that his party will u-turn on minimum alcohol pricing and support it when the SNP bring back a bill to legislate for it. But what's changed his mind?

Certainly there seemed to be some confusion at the beginning of the year when the Lib Dems in Westminster decided to support a coalition bill on minimum alcohol pricing - when the Scottish Lib Dems had voted down the Holyrood bill in 2010. I'm aware the Lib Dems have something of a devolved structure on policy formation but it did seem odd for their Westminster group to be backing the very evidence that their Holyrood counterparts had rubbished just two months before! The Conservatives, meanwhile, on each side of the border seem equally hypocritical here, although their Scottish counterparts do seem to still oppose the proposal for now.

Personally I think the evidence in favour of minimum alcohol pricing is highly convincing and I, as well as the two Green MSPs in the last parliament, supported the proposal from the beginning. I was highly disappointed at the time that the motion fell on Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative opposition when that opposition seemed to be far more routed in party positioning over the approaching election than over any ideological position, even if they were taking a position I disagreed with. The timing of this u-turn so soon after the election seems to only emphasise this point and, although Rennie still apparently needs to pass this u-turn through party conference, he seems to be suggesting that the party had already supported the bill on its own merits.

What is to be gained from this u-turn then? It would be my proposition that Rennie is trying to establish himself and his parliamentary collegaues here as two things - opposed to the Lib Dem establishment of the previous parliament, and supportive of the SNP government.

The benefits of drawing a line under the past are clear - the Lib Dems have been substantially reduced in Holyrood following the election and, while this is largely the fault of the actions of the Lib Dems in Westminster, there will be an impetus for the party to put as much distance from its old positions as feasible. And, if Rennie wants any real chance to avoid his party becoming a Highlands Residents' Association after next year's council elections, it makes sense to him to be positioning his party close to the SNP - after all, that is where a large part of his former voters seem to have gone.

It may also in part be that in a majority government situation where Lib Dem votes no longer have any real impact on the outcome at decision time, they have reverted to being in the ilk of the pre-coalition Westminster Lib Dems - able to vote however they feel will win the most votes in future elections, knowing there won't be any consequences on the result either way.

Overall, I do of course welcome that the Lib Dems have come around to supporting minimum alcohol pricing. Scotland needs legislation to tackle our binge drinking culture, and experts from public health researchers to GPs agree that this legislation is the most practical way to produce a positive outcome to that effect. However, it is disappointing that the Lib Dems will continue to play games in this way, and they should have voted through the bill in its first iteration, rather than cause the waste of parliamentary time and, ergo, taxpayers' money in having it brought back through. Meanwhile, I expect we will be seeing Rennie's rump party backing Salmond all the way until next year's local elections.

Update: Rennie, writing on Lib Dem Voice, has between-the-lines said he's changed his mind because Westminster and the SNP told him to...

Resuming Normal Service...

2011-06-05T14:48:00.001+01:00

I have to say, I've needed some time away from politics. The last month has been pretty good just for taking stock and getting over the election period. Indeed, I think much of the first week after the election was simply catching up on sleep lost due to the election!

I'm sure there must be some sort of paper I could write out of the idea of post-election depression. All the excitement and activity of the election period can often leave me, and I'm sure other activists (amongst the non-winners anyway), wondering what to do with themselves once the elections have passed for another year. For myself, I've mostly been alternating between sleep and work with not much in between!

The election result was disappointing in the lack of progress, but relatively securing in that we've survived an SNP surge for a second election in a row now. I feel the time for discussing it has really passed, and there's already plenty of coverage on other Scottish Green blogs now if you want to go check them out.

I finally feel ready to get back up and running here though. I have, as some may know, also started writing over on the Britain Votes blog, covering Scottish by-elections. I covered the council election in Aberdeen last month, and in future all my writing about election material will be over on that site as opposed to here. The team provide an excellent service covering every single upcoming election and subsequent results across Britain, and I recommend any fellow election ~~geeks~~ fans should definitely check them out!

That leaves this blog more for covering current affairs and political debate issues. I am also still considering a more localised discussion blog covering Lanarkshire, but I'll wait and see if I can ever actually get around to writing here on a regular basis before creating more commitments for myself... And speaking of commitments, I'll start working on my website again soon. I'll need to get by-election details up then start working backwards to get Holyrood results up. At least I'm no longer so desperate for the next election to be right around the corner!

Three Essential Lessons From #sp11

2011-05-07T13:47:00.002+01:00

There will be time for a fuller review of the Scottish election result later, but for the moment I am in post-election recuperation down in Manchester. However, I've been compelled to write a very quick piece just to speak my mind in the current internal discussion of our electoral result.

First of all, a huge congratulations to Patrick Harvie for being re-elected in Glasgow (technically a gain as he notionally lost his seat on boundary changes!) and to Alison Johnstone for taking the place of Robin Harper in Lothian. I am very happy that we remain in Parliament, and that we were the only party not to fall back against the SNP juggernaut. That being said, it is massively disappointing for us not to be making progress forward after such a professional and hard fought campaign by all of our excellent staff and activists.

Several patterns of thought are currently being pushed back and forward about our lack of progress, and my personal feelings are that there are three things we absolutely must take away from this experience.

1. We MUST stand in the constituencies in 2016.
Throughout the campaign, we have been standing on the slogan of "2nd Vote Green". In the context of a history of coalition or minority government and a history of wasted Labour votes on the regional lists, it made sense to appeal to voters to consider who Labour or the SNP could govern with. However, with the new majority government and with Labour picking up list seats across Scotland, these arguments have been largely nullified. Scotland has shown that they will back a party who fight to win a Scottish election, not a party more interested in fighting against a UK government, or a party interested in being in a good place to form a coalition. If we do not fight to win we will not win seats, and to this end I believe we must field a full slate of candidates come the next Scottish elections. Ideally in the 2012 locals and 2015 Westminster elections as well, although these may suffer from a lack of members willing to stand and a lack of deposit funding respectively.

2. Gender balancing MUST go.
Our Holyrood selection processes were wrangled with delays and bureaucracy thanks to an extended gender balancing system that involved not only zipping lists as before, but then pairing off the top candidates of regions with similar chances of being elected. Not only did this massively delay the start of our local campaigning compared to other parties, it also led to at least one candidate topping a list when neither they nor the local party wanted them to. I agree that we need to have more women in parliament, but the current system only balances out for any gender bias in the Green selectorate. If we do not win seats, we will not be returning women, or anyone to Parliament. And if we're not winning seats, we may as well give up now.

3. We MUST kill off the Lib Dems for good.
And the Socialists as well, but the Lib Dems are the larger priority. Despite a complete non-campaign and a self-inflicted massacre, the Lib Dems still managed to hold a greater number of seats than we did. In some places, despite winning seats we still have an opportunity to establish ourselves as the dominant left-liberal force. In Central Scotland, for example, the Green vote was greater than the Lib Dem, SSP and Solidarity votes combined, and in Glasgow we came third on the list. Unfortunately, as time goes on, Tavish and Clegg are eventually replaced and the Westminster coalition ends, the Lib Dems probably will be able to recover back some ground, even if only slowly. I really believe the only way to prevent this recovery is to deal absolutely as much damage to the Lib Dems as we can: heavily targeting former Lib Dem voters in next year's local elections; highlighting over and over their betrayal to their left-liberal Scottish base; building an identity that the Greens are now the real liberal and democratic party; and, most importantly, actively recruiting Lib Dems members, activists and elected officials to join us. All these things will be far easier now, and are essential to us being able to grow into the future.

Anyway, as I say, a fuller review will come later. I'm heading back to my whisky now...

A Conspicuous Lack of Election Coverage

2011-05-01T14:49:00.000+01:00

Just to quickly address the complete absence of blogposts during the quadrennial peak of interest in Scottish politics, I have unfortunately simply been completely unavailable for the past six weeks. In future, I would strongly advise others and myself to not attempt to move house, start a degree and begin working full time within the same month as it does make time management something of a military-scale endeavour in planning.

I have been tweeting plenty though and for coverage up to the election and on election night you might want to watch me here. I will be attending the local count for the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency and the Central Scotland region.

Otherwise, full service will probably resume after the election is safely over. My website does have some of the election pages up, but has also suffered from the same lack of time and energy to devote to it. It will eventually be updated with all 2011 results and then I will return to working my way back, at least to the point when the old Alba Politics website cut off its former excellent service in the same field.

I'm also pondering a project in the near future into some practical localism by trying to buy all of my necessities from local traders within Motherwell. This was inspired by a recent conversation I had lamenting the complete dominance of supermarkets in Motherwell. Indeed, there are some major practical problems to overcome such as the complete absence of a fishmongers in the town or a bookshop and so on, but I figured I could try to follow this through for at least some time and would be posting up a diary on a separate blog for the project. I know other people amongst my watchers have tried and promote similar things, so comments and suggestions would be most welcome.

See you all after the elections, and remember - second vote Green!

Labour/Green Coalition - A Real Possibility?

2011-03-07T20:29:00.002Z

Today's Herald examines the results of a new voting intention poll to consider the possibility of a Labour/Green coalition after the next Holyrood election. The poll shows Labour winning 59 seats and the Greens winning six for a total of 65, which would equate to a majority of one within the parliament. But is a Labour/Green coalition a real possibility?

Firstly, from a personal perspective, I would cautiously support the Greens going into government. Like any politician or activist, naturally I want to see my policies and beliefs being enacted in government and entering a coalition would be the surest way to get Green issues on the agenda - depending of course on how much we got out of the coalition deal; I would have red lines on issues such as stopping new coal or nuclear, allowing councils to increase their revenues (preferably by introducing LVT) rather than cutting, and any attempt to introduce tuition fees to Scottish students.

I am, and I'm sure the rest of the party are, however very concerned about the recent wipeout of the Irish Greens after their tenure in a coalition government with Fianna Fail. There are clearly lessons to be learnt from their experience, such as building safeguards to ensure the coalition maintains the support of the majority of our party and to ensure that we are not violating our core beliefs for the sake of power. One fellow Green member recently suggested to me that the Irish Greens also faced a problem over making up such a small part of the coalition in terms of numbers of elected TDs (fewer than 1 in 14 coalition TDs were Greens) and that to ensure we had a powerful enough say to survive coalition we would ideally want something closer to a ratio of 1 in 6. The poll prediction of 59 to 6 is roughly equivalent to 1 in 11 which, while marginally better, would still suggest that we might not be able to demand enough out of our senior coalition partners.

The party as a whole of course would have to make the decision as to whether or not we entered coalition. I think many of the party share similar limits to myself, especially on the matter of nuclear power, but in general the consensus do seem to be broadly in favour of the idea of going into a coalition, again depending on what we could gain from the coalition agreement. The party could also opt to support a Labour minority government through a supply and confidence system, which would give us less influence but greater independence and freedom to draw the line when we can't agree with Labour policies. The problem there is that on matters such as nuclear power, Labour could easily find allies in the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats (who, remember, apparently suddenly decided to support nuclear so long as it "didn't involve public funding") to pass it through, which is why in many ways I would prefer a coalition agreement that had a deal on opposing new nuclear.

Thinking from the Labour perspective, they want to regain power from the SNP and have Iain Gray installed as First Minister. They do seem almost certain to poll the most seats now, but it would require a shock result for them to secure a majority on their own so their options are going to be either to enter a coalition or go it alone as the SNP have done with a decent level of success.

Labour/Conservative and Labour/SNP coalitions are completely ideologically impossible. I feel that a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition is extremely unlikely as Scottish Labour will want to position themselves as strongly against the Westminster coalition cuts as possible, and that would be rather difficult with one of the parties passing the cuts through Westminster on board supporting their own government. Although I do still predict many left-leaning Liberal Democrats to leave or split the party soon, I don't see this happening quickly enough for n organised force to be involved in any coalition negotiations. Labour is therefore left with the options of either minority government or a coalition with us.

We do have relatively close positions on a number of issues, although Labour persist with pushing the idea of new nuclear, and they also still pursue a pro-cuts agenda even if they want to cut slower. They could therefore find working with us somewhat ideologically difficult, depending largely on how willing they are to compromise on issues like power, the economy and local taxation. On the other hand, if they go it alone they will then have to try and win over either their chief Scottish rivals in the SNP or their Westminster foes in the Conservatives and Lib Dems in order to pass anything, and giving concessions to any of them are unlikely to be palatable or electorally beneficial.

I do believe there is a real possibility of a Labour/Green coalition, albeit a slim one. This is all only based on poll results, and we will have to wait and see after the election is counted and done as to whether the numbers are there to do any kind of deal. If the numbers are there, it will hopefully include a relatively larger number of Greens than the current polls suggest; enough to ensure we can get sufficient demands out of any coalition agreement. If not, Labour may very well go it alone, but that could end in a very deadlocked parliament.

Leicester South By-Election

2011-03-06T22:36:00.001Z

The Barnsley Central by-election is barely past but we've already received wind of our next by-election (Belfast West not withstanding - I've no idea when anyone is going to call the writ for that one).

Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour) has resigned his seat of Leicester South in order to contest the city's first directly elected mayoral election in May. The mayoral election should be pretty safely Labour, as should the parliamentary seat - though it is at least more competitive than Barnsley Central being a past Lib Dem gain at a by-election in 2004.

Last May, the result here was:
Peter Soulsby (Labour) - 21,479 (45.6%, +6.2%)
Parmjit Singh Gill (Liberal Democrats) - 12,671 (26.9%, -3.7%)
Ross Grant (Conservative) - 10,066 (21.4%, +3.6%)
Adrian Waudby (BNP) - 1,418 (3.0%)
Dave Dixey (Green) - 770 (1.6%, -1.6%)
Christopher Lucas (UKIP) - 720 (1.5%)

The 5% swing to Labour, obviously unusual in England for the last GE, can be explained by the absence of a Respect candidate, who saved their deposit here in 2005, as well as further unwind from the Lib Dem by-election win.

I think Labour are still guaranteed of a win here, and probably with an increased majority given the improvement in the party's popularity since last May.

The Liberal Democrats shouldn't be in danger of any meltdowns here. I think there's a good chance some of their support might shift to the Tories, letting their coalition partners into second place but the Midlands is relatively more coalition-friendly in polls than the north, and they have a far bigger starting base than in Barnsley.

The Greens have had councillors in the constituency and a long history of standing in general elections here, so I would expect a candidate from us this time around. UKIP will be looking to continue their string of good by-election results, although anything above fourth with a saved deposit seems extremely unlikely. The BNP meanwhile are likely to fall back amidst their party's general collapse.

The by-election is expected to take place on the 5th of May, so I may be slightly distracted with a few other things happening that night... but it'll still be one to watch.

Yet Another Barnsley Review

2011-03-05T21:15:00.000Z

I know a hundred or more bloggers have already posted their two pennies on the Barnsley Central by-election, but I felt compelled to write something anyway. (i.e. it's an easy post to force myself into blogging again...)

Admittedly, it's not an election that grabbed my attention. The near total lack of media coverage, the guaranteed Labour hold and the lack of a Green candidate meant that it barely registered on my radar.

The lack of coverage was probably largely due to the certainty of the winner - compare it to the strong coverage of the Labour/Liberal Democrat marginal of Oldham East and Saddleworth - but I still would have hoped for more coverage of the constituency and the issues. Instead the country seemed to barely bat an eyelid, which in turn could be a factor in explaining the low turnout.

I was, as usual, opposed to the lack of a Green candidate but in retrospect it may have been beneficial as we would probably have been battling the English Democrats for seventh place in this seat, lost our deposit, and possibly could have made the Liberal Democrats look more legitimate by at least beating us.

The Liberal Democrat collapse was of course the major story of the night. Falling from second to sixth is an extremely significant fall, however much Clegg and Co would like to spin it as simply being a non-competitive seat. The Liberal Democrat apathy towards contesting the seat was clearly a factor, but surely Liberal Democrat councillors across the north of England must be fearing for their jobs now come the May election given this result and other recent collapses such as in Manchester Baguley ward and Walkden North ward in Salford.

I still believe that after May there will be some form of split in the Lib Dems. The new right-wing alignment of the national party clearly doesn't match the ethos of the party's elected members, supporters and voters in the North of England where the more social democrat tradition prevails. May seems a likely time for such a split as local Lib Dem council groups are likely to be left licking heavy wounds, there will be many discontented ex-councillors around, and the party membership is likely to be considerably demoralised.

The other surprise of the night was UKIP's jump to second place. The party had a strong result in the Oldham by-election too, and I think it's clear that they are becoming the preferred party of protest for voters who are both anti-coalition and anti-Labour. It could lead to greater media scrutiny of UKIP's hard right economic policies and of some of their loonier members however, so the success could be short lived.

A Long Overdue Update

2011-02-20T23:16:00.000Z

It's been over six weeks since I last posted a blog, and certainly not for lack of anything happening in politics.

Since that last post, I've campaigned in Oldham for the by-election there (a huge thanks to Cllr Ian Barker for putting me up and to all the team for running a great and fun campaign) but otherwise I've not being doing much personally on the political front. I have also unfortunately broken my iPhone recently, which has also contributed to a reduction in my tweeting and blogging although that has been rectified with the acquisition of some mobile broadband, and sitting surfing on my laptop while on the train to work is indeed very cool.

Overall though, I've just not had the drive to blog. I think I've gotten myself too bogged down - wanting to blog about Oldham, and then about the Egyptian revolution and other events but not getting them written has just put me off writing anything else. Therefore in the hope of getting back up to speed again, I'm going to just delve straight into what's happening now and let the last couple of months be documented by bloggers more motivated than myself...

This coming Friday is election day in Ireland, and I've taken Saturday off work especially so that I can watch and cover the results live overnight, which should be a great deal of fun. I don't think it will be a great night for the Irish Greens but recent polls show that the predictions of a complete wipeout seem unfounded, though it is possible they will be reduced to just one or two seats.

My other intention for the next couple of weeks is to really put in an effort bringing my website up to speed. Ideally, I would like to have all the past Holyrood results up by the time of the dissolution of Parliament, and then to get up information on candidates, etc for this year's election up shortly afterwards. I have also been working on getting by-elections back to June 2009 (where the excellent but no longer operational Alba Politics website cut out) covered, but that has been slow given my drought of motivation.

Last Pickup?

2011-01-06T01:01:00.000Z

Alarmingly, I've read that around twenty Post Offices in the Glasgow area are to be placed up for sale. These include the Post Offices in areas of above average deprivation such as Barlanark and Castlemilk who are more reliant on essential Post Office services including being able to collect pensions and open savings accounts within their local area.

Other listed sites include Penilee, Pollokshields, Drumoyne, Clydebank, Airdrie, Hamilton, Stepps, Milton of Campsie plus two within Coatbridge.

I believe that the Post Office network provides an absolutely essential service to the local areas and communities they serve. As well as their own communication and financial services, they also create a hub of activity that helps support neighbouring local traders and can be a major point of social contact for many isolated people. Closing Post Offices is risking reducing access to opportunities, particularly for those residing in more deprived areas, as well as damaging local shopping areas and communities.

Twenty-one Post Offices were already closed in Scotland last year (out of 162 in the UK) and the new Postal Services Bill is increasing the threat if closure for Post Offices across the country. I strongly believe that it is well within the public interest for Royal Mail to remain a public service, and not be farmed out to the highest bidder to be run into the ground while the taxpayer is left to subsidise the most expensive parts of its operations that the private companies don't want to touch. Privatising Royal Mail is just another example of the coalition's continuing ideological cuts - cutting for the sake of cutting rather than for any coherent economic benefit to people and communities.

Nothing To See Here; Go Check Out This Site

2011-01-04T20:55:00.001Z

I never made it a resolution, but I had hoped to blog at least once everyday from the New Year onwards and that's already out of the window so I probably should have made it a resolution after all... Yes, sorry, it's a cheap cop-out but long shifts at work are giving me pretty serious writer's block and coupled with that the issues of the last two days just haven't engaged me enough to blog about.

I tried to think of a good article on the increasing unemployment figures but it was hard to move beyond much more than "I told you so"while VAT has already been done to death across the media. I just really hope Parliament gets back to some meaty business soon because it really has been a staid political year so far.

Anyway, since I've got nothing for more, I strongly recommend you go check out the new False Economy website who have some great material on why spending cuts aren't the answer to our economic problems. They have a nifty booklet here.

And sorry, I'll get myself back into this somehow!

Fair Fares Now

2011-01-02T23:50:00.000Z

Sorry it's been a pretty slow news day today - cannot wait until Parliament comes back - so I've not got awfully much to give you other than a request that you sign up to the Campaign for Better Transport's Fair Fares Now campaign here.

The Coalition Government is to allow rail operators to raise fares far higher this year than in previous years - by as much as 12.8% in the worst case - in order to make up for cuts in funding to the rail services. Commuters face paying hundreds of pounds more per year for a service that is increasingly overcrowded, unreliable and shows little signs of improving soon. Indeed, there have been no new train orders since July 2008 now, the second longest spell as such only to the period immediately after rail privatisation began, and there seems to be no concerted effort to expand the number of carriages expected to accommodate a constantly increasing number of passengers.

The fare hikes are likely to lead to increased car use as rail travel becomes increasingly unaffordable to average working people and become a major drain on workers' already strained finances. Please sign up to Campaign for Better Transport's Campaign and consider giving them a donation too, as they're a really good campaigning group.

You should also check out the Bring Back British Rail website here - another good organisation to support and they also have a petition running at the moment here you should sign.

When Is A Bus Service Not A Bus Service?

2011-01-01T14:57:00.000Z

When it's pulled off for 36 hours!

I admit it's not the funniest joke to start off the year, and it certainly isn't a joke when you want to get out and see your family on New Year's Day.

However, First have seen fit to completely shut down the public transport network across Glasgow this New Year's Day - not a single bus or train service is running. I agree that drivers should get a public holiday off if they want it, but there must be enough potential volunteers to run a skeleton service as First have run such a service every Christmas Day and New Year's Day I can remember from the past. Indeed, the bus I need to get to my parents ran on an hourly basis last year's New Year, as did the bus from my flat to my Gran's. I could have even visited my sister by changing in the city centre - but this year I can't get anywhere at all.

First say there wasn't sufficient demand last year to warrant continuing the services, but the word I've heard from bus drivers' forums is that the services were well used and that the company just didn't want to pay out overtime this year. This is a widespread problem though and there seem to be hardly any services running across Scotland. Indeed, the only operator I'm aware are running today are Lothian Buses in Edinburgh - shockingly the publicly owned operator wins out over all the privately run concerns.

With today's Scotsman running the headline story of rising fuel costs through 2011, the need for a comprehensive public transport service is greater than ever. I predict with a great certainty that this year will see huge fare rises and service cuts. In fact this isn't even a prediction - rail season ticket fares are to soar from today and First have already announced service cuts to be implemented across the city later this month!

The solution is clear - let us bring public transport back into the public sector where it belongs and give passengers a real service back.

A Happy Green New Year

2010-12-31T23:37:00.000Z

A very happy new year to all of my readers. As befits this time of year, I have written for myself a list of resolutions to uphold in the coming new year and I have written these primarily with the intention of aiming to reduce my personal carbon footprint. The 10:10 campaign was brilliant in 2010 in encouraging people to reduce their CO2 emissions, but let us not forget that striving to reduce our environmental impact must be an ongoing process - not something for just one year.

Here therefore are my eleven resolutions for 2011.

1. Use shops on the Main Street.
I live right on the Main Street in Rutherglen. Yet, like many, I am tempted towards the big supermarkets on the edge of town for their convenience, variety and low cost. However, the ongoing exodus of shoppers from Main Streets to these monolithic mega-marts is damaging our town centers and local traders with the inevitable consequences of closing stores, money being pulled out of the local economy, and an increase in car use as people become more dependent on the out-of-town warehouse stores. Therefore in 2011 I aim to purchase as much of what I require as possible here on Main Street.

2. No "big 4" supermarkets.
For the same reasons as above, but taking into account that I'm not always in Rutherglen and therefore need a more general rule to apply when I'm out and about, I will be avoiding the "big 4" supermarkets of Tesco, ASDA, Morrisons' and Sainsbury's. I will preferentially use locally owned shops wherever possible but also note that some chains take a serious approach towards protecting the environment and the local economy, such as the Co-Operative.

3. Boycott Amazon.
As well as for the reasons above (there are no book stores left in Rutherglen which is truly dire), I also want to boycott Amazon for their sudden withdrawal of support for Wikileaks. A greener world should be one where government works openly and transparently for the benefit of all citizens, not in the dark with dodgy dealings and secrets. That is why I wholeheartedly support Wikileaks and will boycott Amazon and their other detractors.

4. Save with the Co-Operative Bank.
As briefly mentioned above, the Co-Operative have some very respectable policies towards social justice and the environment. Their bank in particular is well noted in this field for refusing investments in any organisation that violate the Co-Operative's ethical policy. I actually already have a savings account set up with them, I've just never got around to putting money into it and so I will be starting this year.

5. Eliminate food waste.
This is probably one of my biggest failings of late, especially over the Christmas period. It is all too tempting to fill the fridge with food to have on hand and then so irritating to watch it go past its best before you've even touched it. All the carbon emissions involved in the production of the food instantly become all for naught and it creates more demand for landfill or incineration projects too. That's why, with a combination of buying less and planning more, my aim for 2011 is to reduce my food waste entirely.

6. Go pescetarian.
I had originally toyed with going vegetarian again - I was veggie for over a year back in high school but my parents made me pack it in when I started getting a bit too thin - but unlike some, I don't believe in making pledges that I will almost certainly renege on later. That's why I chose pescetarianism over vegetarianism for this year. Dwindling fish stocks are a major problem, but from a carbon point-of-view catching fish is more sustainable than growing crops for animal feed and passing it along a food chain before getting to us - that and the infamous rear-end problem of certain ruminants makes meat a most unsustainable option! A couple of portions of oily fish a week will give me some extra variety, protein and omega oils.

7. Stop buying alcohol.
Alcohol production isn't one of the major global carbon sources (as far as I'm aware) and avoiding alcohol obviously isn't for everyone, but I've personally decided just to cut off the habit entirely. I consider it unnecessary consumption and therefore it's a pretty easy cut to make to reduce my footprint. I've worded it as stop buying so that I can use up the Irish cream liqueur in the fridge and in case my family ever insist on me having a drink when I visit!

8. Get on my bike.
My bike is currently occupying space in our larger cupboard - unused since I moved here and rarely used for years before that. While it's not really a commuting option (eight miles, no showers, working with food and customers...), I'd like to cycle more for leisure, exercise and as a free way to get anywhere else I need to go. My sister's house would be a pretty good example as there's no direct public transport, and at a few miles away it's pretty far on foot. My flatmates might also feel better if I'm not taking up space for no reason!

9. Get my flatmates to recycle.
Speaking of those flatmates, I really need to try and rub off some basic good habits on them. I don't envisage banning alcohol and meat from the flat, but a dose of basic "reduce, reuse, recycle" doesn't hurt anyone - and my flatmates are terrible at all three! In wider terms, I need to encourage green habits to all the people I know. While individual actions are essential, the more people involved in cutting their carbon emissions, the greater the potential for savings.

10. Get out campaigning for the Party.
While I've been leafleting a little recently, I really need to get out knocking doors and fundraising on larger scales. Going to Oldham this month is a good first step but with the critical Scottish elections coming up this May, I need to be doing more to help the Party. The more Greens elected to Holyrood this year, the greater the chance of the Scottish Government being steered in a truly sustainable direction as opposed to the feigned interest of other parties. Like I said above, while individual contributions are important, wider actions have greater potential and governments have the biggest roles to play of all.

And finally...
11. Lose weight.
Yup, I'm going with Britain's most overused resolution too! While I debated just how green a course of action it really is (fat is after all essentially carbon capture and storage...), I decided that the reduced consumption of food associated with weight loss probably makes it overall positive!

So hopefully some of those might have taken your interest and may have even inspired you to take on a few green resolutions yourself. I'll be sure to note how well I get on keeping all of these. Some will certainly be pretty tricky I'm sure but I know it's for the greater good.

Happy New Year!

Airdrie to Bathgate Line Opens

2010-12-12T23:44:00.003Z

I know I haven't blogged in an age, and I'm not honestly likely to again until after Christmas due to general busyness, but today I travelled through to Edinburgh on the first day of trains on the new Airdrie/Bathgate line and just wanted to put up all my decent photos (yeah some were even worse than these, I blame the filthy windows!) into a post.

Bellgrove

Carntyne

Shettleston

Garrowhill

Easterhouse

Coatbridge Sunnyside

Countryside near Caldercruix

Countryside near Blackridge

Blackridge (new station)

Bathgate (new station and depot)

Livingston North (new station)

Uphall (new station, very similar to above!)

I convinced Michael to walk up Calton Hill in Edinburgh.

He slipped on the ice but enjoyed the view!