Housing Facts
Dear Editor
While agreeing with the final sentiment of James Caspell's article "It's Time to Defend Council Housing" (GW60) there are some inaccuracies in the comments that he makes.
"ALMOs move ownership...to privately run housing associations" - some commentators have suggested that ALMOs are a stepping stone to full stock transfer. However, this staged privatisation is not proven and councils retain the right to return the stock to their direct management under the ALMO option.
"Privatisation sees rents rise as a direct consequence of stock transfer" - again the fact is that all rents in social housing are now governed by a central government rent restructuring formula. There is little scope for housing associations, councils or ALMOs to engineer huge rent hikes of their own volition.
"Attempts to privatise housing...have introduced socially inequitable affects on both tenants and public sector workers" - well again there may have been some losers but very often the workers involved are very keen to be involved in stock transfer as they see this route as a passport to improved terms and conditions. As mentioned at the outset I wouldn't argue with James's call for Greens to provide incentives for sustainable development rather than privatisation but as with any serious debate we need to get the facts right before determining our policy.
Jim Wilson
Sheffield
Kafkaesque Policy
Dear Editor
I read with interest the article on immigration in GW60. My wife, Sarah, has been deported back to Uganda. An application for a UK visa was refused, as was a subsequent appeal. So I am separated from my wife and family to appease the Daily Mail et al. So much for Article 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The whole tone of the Home Office stance on this issue is straight out of Kafka, instead of being "guilty" the mantra is that your marriage is "not sustaining". The Labour Government makes spurious claims that it delivers "Social Justice", but those of us who have the misfortune to enmesh with the UK Border and Immigration Agency know just how vacuous such statements are.
It is wrong to hate, but in all honesty I find it hard to express my loathing of the government which perpetuates such cruel acts as to separate families.
Dave Sheekey
West Lancashire
Shake Up The System
Dear editor,
Following on from your page on immigration (GW60) I thought my direct experience of the mindless and uncaring bureaucrats who mastermind government policy might be of interest.
Some years back I shacked up with a US citizen with the "permanent right to remain in the UK". This arose from her marriage previously to another Englishman. Our relationship broke up and I was left with the care of our daughter, for whom the courts subsequently granted me custody.
When she was three I decided to visit her mother's family and the mother who had returned to the States. I applied for a passport only to be told that because her mother was not a British citizen she could not have a British passport. My first and only human reaction was "Who do these people think they are - taking upon themselves the right to deport a three year old to a country she had never visited let alone lived in, or alternatively to permanently imprison her in the country of her birth?"
Having calmed down I realised these people did have precisely that power and would, if challenged, enforce this with the full weight of police and judiciary. I swallowed my rage and wrote a polite protest letter to my MP. After months of representations I had a letter from the "Under Secretary of State" agreeing to grant her citizenship "under concessionary powers". "What a gent!" I thought.
There is an ironic twist to this story in that the US government, which for me has always represented a ruthless, exploitative, racist, imperialist and uncaring society - far worse than dear old Blighty - took the view, when I applied also for a US passport for my daughter, that because she was the daughter of a US citizen she was automatically entitled to a US passport.
If the Greens one day get power this is one area that merits a complete shake up!
Ian Dixon
Classic Dilemmas
Dear Editor
I am a new member of the Green Party, and also have an interest in vintage and classic cars. I own a Marcos 3litre (1970), shock, horror! Please let me bring it into perspective though: it's only done about 30 miles in three years. There are probably tens of thousands of cars like this in people's garages.
The biggest problem we face is from everyday transport. I walk two miles to work every day and get a lift home. Only using my 1.4 litre Rover for shopping and a few odd jobs on a weekend.
I look forward to hearing from my fellow members - and hopefully writing to you again.
Many thanks
Gary Riley
Huddersfield
Flying Vegans
Dear Editor
As a vegan who in fact first became convinced to become a vegetarian by the ecological arguments against a meat-centred diet, I must protest against some of the less-well-advised and opportunistic arguments made by Tony Wardle of (the otherwise excellent) VIVA in his article in the Winter 2008 issue (GW 59), arguments praised and rehashed by Paul Scholes in his letter, "Where's this going?", in GW 60 (Spring 08).
Wardle for instance belittles the contribution made by aircraft to global over-heating, and tries to make out that meat is much more important. This is a deeply-misleading claim, a claim that plays right into the hands of British Airways and other such anti-Green forces. The facts of the case are this: that air transport is (1) the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) by far the most damaging, because of the cocktail of (mostly greenhouse) gases and vapour that aircraft emit and the 'radiative forcing' effects of these being emitted at high levels in the atmosphere.
In short, it is a reprehensible falsehood to claim as Wardle does that "The aircraft industry accounts for three per cent of global warming", and I am frankly rather shocked to see it making past the sub-editors on GW. The truth is that the total global over-heat effect of the aircraft industry could be as high as 14% of the global greenhouse effect - and that the proportion is rising, rapidly, every day. Advocates for veganism/vegetarianism do themselves and all of us a disservice when they soft-pedal the threat posed to the climate by air travel. I hope that Mr. Wardle and Mr. Scholes will learn from their mistake here, and not repeat it elsewhere.
Of course the Green Party should have policies that promote vegetarianism/veganism, as the best way of feeding an overpopulated world, and as the kindest to animals. But Mr. Wardle and Mr. Scholes do nothing but a disservice to their cause when, in a bid to increase the apparent-importance of animal issues, they downgrade the vital importance of reducing carbon emissions from planes.
Faithfully,
Cllr. Rupert Read
Norwich
Good Intentions Won't Cut It
Dear Editor
Whatever Blair Campbell's reservations (letters, GW60), he accepts the need for "a drastically reduced demand" for meat and dairy. If everyone who still eats meat were to cut down to the levels that he suggests, that would be all very well, but a lot won't, and it takes a number of people doing more than their share - i.e., giving it up altogether - to make up for just one rich person making no change. Ending our insane meat export industry will help, too, but not much. Is Mr. Campbell suggesting a return to rationing?
It is also important to give a clear signal to prevent good intentions paving the road to climate change. The idea that "home-grown is better" is a big one right now, but this does not apply to meat in a densely-populated way-up-north country like Britain. A kilogram of meat imported from outside Europe means importing just that kilogram; the average kilogram of British (or Dutch or German) meat means importing several kilograms of plant protein for livestock feed. Even if some herds eat only home-grown feed it merely ups the proportion of imports eaten by the rest. A quarter of livestock fed on no imports equals three-quarters fed entirely on imports.
As for harnessing gases from cattle, what applies to refuse incineration applies also to this. Recovering energy from waste is not as good as being less wasteful to start with. Far more energy is burned importing what goes into livestock than can be recovered from what comes out. That is to say nothing of the land used for a home-grown minority that still outweighs the end product. The case traditionally made is for raising "only what livestock can live off land that can't grow crops for direct human consumption". Given the even stronger British appetite for car culture than for meat, that case could perhaps have "or biofuels" appended.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Gilman
Surrey
A Holy Alliance?
Dear Editor
I joined the Ecology Party in 1980 and have since worked, waited and hoped for a breakthrough into power. It is quite clear the most we can hope to achieve at the next general election is two, or maybe three MPs, a voice in the House of Commons, but no effective power. It may be anathema to some of our members, but there is a potential radical alternative that could give the party some of the power for which it is so deserving: controversial, but certainly worthy of debate, and that is an alliance with the LIB-DEMS. This might give the 'GREEN LIB-DEMS' the possibility of being in office via the next general election, with Caroline Lucas being deputy PM.
Unless I am greatly mistaken, the announcement of such an alliance would electrify some sections of the media into attempting to make it happen. With a young leader the LIB-DEMS should be more receptive to green policies.
The alternative is to be indefinitely isolated and frustrated on the political peripheries.Green candidates who could not accept such a solution could stand as green independents. Local progress is fine, but not where the power is. Unless we change course to a realistic heading voter apathy will continue to obstruct us.
Yours sincerely
Philip Davis
Hampshire
Friends Of...What On Earth?
Dear Editor
At the time of writing I have no idea who will win the race to become the Mayor of London following the elections in the city on Thursday 1st May 2008. If Friends of the Earth have anything to do with it, the Mayor will be Ken Livingstone of the Labour Party. Today I received the following (one of many emails) from FoE with the headline: "Press Release: Ken Livingstone is the 'greenest' of the three main candidates to be Mayor of London, Friends of the Earth said today" In the article no mention was made of Sian Berry who is the Greenest Candidate but instead the news editor fell into the trap of focusing entirely on the three large "Grey" parties.
As a Green Party member I feel utterly betrayed by Friends of the Earth who have ignored all the hard work that Sian Berry and hundreds of Green Party members do trying to get elected in order to implement the very policies that Friends of the Earth believe in. The question I would like to raise is - Why? Are FoE trying to raise the profile of their organisation by appearing non-political? If this is the case then they are sadly mistaken. Green issues are political, every action we take affects the planet.
I will not be making donations to Friends of the Earth who should possibly be renamed 'Friends Of The Labour Party'. I urge everyone else to boycott this organisation. I have a full copy of the press release and will forward it anyone who would like to read it.
Yours Sincerely
Mr Robert William Riley
Cottingham
The Elephant On The Planet
Dear Editor
These days there are many problems facing this country - a housing shortage, unemployment, water shortages, overcrowded roads, threatened power shortages, pressure upon our beautiful countryside and global warming to name but a few. Most of these are also problems for the planet as a whole. Yet few people seem to realise that there is a common denominator at work, both nationally and globally. It is one which politicians tend to ignore; after all, they are more interested in being re-elected than in the long-term interests of their country or the planet. Yet failure to act now threatens the future existence of us all. So what is the malign common factor driving even global warming? The answer is over-population and it is a particular problem for this country which is one of the most densely populated in Europe.
So why is our population increasing? In this country there are two factors at work. Firstly, births continually exceed deaths and secondly immigration. The latter was once balanced by out emigration, but the eastwards expansion of the European Union and the resulting unregulated and unmonitored influx of people from that area have greatly exacerbated our problems and overstretched services.
So what is to be done? Obviously we need to curb our birth rate and that can be achieved in a variety of ways. One is through a tax and benefits structure designed to provide help with a first child, nothing for a second and penalties for subsequent births. Large families could be made as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or smoking. Criminals could be made to serve their full prison terms, thus not only keeping us all safer, but also preventing them from bringing more unwanted children into the world.
We urgently need to take control over who is entering or leaving the country, especially the former. That shouldn't be difficult given that we are an island state and the advanced technology these days. At present it appears that some genuine asylum seekers are being returned to their country of origin to face torture or even death. We need to be more careful (and caring) and live up to our international obligations to provide a safe haven to those in need. However, economic migrants should be strictly controlled and only a select few allowed to enter. Perhaps preference could be given to children of our own emigrants. Migrant workers already here should be registered and their status assessed, with a view to possible repatriation. If the European Union should object to this they should be informed in no uncertain way that our own national interest comes first.
Unfortunately our present government seems to view every immigrant as a potential tax-payer, rather than as a potential welfare recipient, seemingly obvious to the pressure on schools, health centres, etc. Also, by ignoring the population crisis they may eventually be forced into even more draconian measures than the Chinese. Meanwhile, extreme right political parties will make hay, as ordinary citizens seek someone who will act to stop the erosion of their quality of life and the destruction of our countryside (to say nothing of our planet). Now is the time for responsible people to act - tomorrow may be too late. Is the Green Party ready, willing and able to do what so far pusillanimous politicians have avoided - that is to adopt a robust population policy?
D.R. Underwood
Berkshire
