Greens to stand in Copeland on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty platform

After the controversy over the Green Party's decision not to stand in the Richmond Park by-election there has been an ongoing debate in the party about the pros and cons of a progressive alliance. Local parties are autonomous and it is their decision on whether to stand a candidate.

The Green Party will contest the Copeland by-election on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty campaign.

Members of Allerdale and Copeland Green Party made the decision to stand last night (January 12th) at the local party’s AGM and a candidate will be selected on January 24th.

Clare Brown, chair of Allerdale and Copeland Greens, said:

We feel it’s vitally important to offer a vote to those people who want to see a fair and sustainable future for the area.
 

There are clear differences between us and the other parties and we welcome this opportunity to campaign on our priorities, which include sustainable energy and standing against nuclear power, as well as anti-poverty measures and exposing the lie of austerity.

With Labour looking set to select a pro-nuclear candidate the Greens will campaign for clean power in Copeland.

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

The Greens are the only party in Copeland campaigning against nuclear power, to defend the NHS and for a close relationship with Europe.

Voting Green is a vote for a renewable energy revolution which would create thousands of jobs in Copeland.

Allerdale and Copeland Greens are dedicated to ending poverty and inequality in their local community and creating a fairer society by putting forward the bold policies we so desperately need.

Barry Gardiner raises Sellafield safety concerns after Panorama programme

Following the Panorama report on Sellafield questions were asked in the House of Commons by several MPs.

The programme can be viewed HERE

This is what Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North and Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, said:

Yesterday evening’s television report on Sellafield was profoundly disturbing, and my hon. Friend Mr Reed was absolutely right to request this urgent question—I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. My hon. Friend expressed his concerns at the revelations and referred to the importance of the storage and reprocessing facility for his constituency. Of course, the House must raise such concerns on behalf of the country.

I want to focus on a number of questions on which I believe the Minister should give the House either further information or reassurance, and preferably both. On minimum staffing levels, will he confirm that as recently as five days ago a formal notice was sent to the management, raising the unions’ concern about critical manning levels and the ability to comply with the appropriate procedures and practices when minimum staffing levels are not met?

Will the Minister also say whether he agrees with Dr Rex Strong, the head of nuclear safety, who said in last night’s programme that not meeting the minimum safety standards or staffing levels did not mean that there was a safety risk?

In 2013, the manager of the site, Nuclear Management Partners, produced its somewhat ironically entitled excellence plan, cataloguing the safety problems and the critical nature of the infrastructure with respect to both electricity and water supply on the site. Why did the Government not insist that further resources—staffing and, of course, financial resources—be invested in the site to clean it up at that point? The Minister will know that expenditure in 2012-13 was £7,348 million, with £3,157 million from the Department of Energy and Climate Change itself. The year following that report, the figure had fallen to £5,345 million. Will he explain why, after such a damning report, the resources going into the site decreased? Will he also confirm that the cost estimates for the clean-up of the site have increased at an annual estimate from £25.2 million to £47.9 million?

The programme also cited problems with alarms, and it was said that these were turned off repeatedly, without checking. Will the Minister confirm that that practice is no longer in force? Finally, will he confirm that he has absolute confidence in Dr Rex Strong as head of nuclear safety at Sellafield and John Clarke, the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?

Gardiner did not get a very full reply from Nick Hurd, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for a constructive response, which reflects the cross-party concern to get this absolutely right with no equivocation. Issues were raised in the programme about minimum safety levels. I think they were responded to adequately in the programme. We were reassured that the NDA always has enough people on duty to maintain the site safely, and if the work cannot be done safely it will not get it done. I think the programme and the response to it have reassured us on that front.

As I said in my opening statement, cleaning up Sellafield safely costs £2 billion a year, and maintaining the NDA’s overall annual spend on cleaning up the UK’s nuclear sites at some £3 billion reflects the continuing importance that the Government place on cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy and Sellafield.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the reaction to the number of alarms raised—another issue raised in the programme. Those alarms, as he knows, are not unusual, given the types of material that people are working with and do not necessarily mean that there is a safety issue. However, we are reassured that staff are briefed never to be complacent and always react to alarms if they are serious, which is a point that was made in rebuttals in the programme.

On levels of confidence, yes, we do have confidence in the NDA. We also have a great deal of confidence in the independent regulator, which has made it quite clear that, as far as it is concerned, the programme does not raise any new issues and that Sellafield is safe.

Reassured?

'Nuclear Disaster - The Aftermath' Feb 4th Meeing

Ealing

 

Are hosting

Nuclear Disaster

The Aftermath

A talk by Mrs Kei Ikezumi

(Director of the No-Nuke project)

Kei has been living with the thousands of evacuees still living in temporary accommodation 5 years after the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power plant disaster in Japan. Kei will speak about the impact of the disaster and the dangers imposed by nuclear power

Thursday 4 February 7.00pm for 7.30pm

The Forester pub (upstairs function room)   Leighton Road, West Ealing W13 9EP

Rebecca Johnson is the Green Party's featured candidate today

Rebecca Johnson is today' s featured candidate on the Green Party national website LINK

 I reproduce the post here: 

In the run up to the General Election we will be giving you the opportunity to get to know some of our candidates. Our key candidates and spokespeople can be found here.

This year we will be standing in over 90% of seats in England and Wales.

Our featured candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn: Rebecca Johnson 

Rebecca Johnson at Saturday's Save NHS Petition presentation

Why are you standing as a candidate?

I'm a feminist peace activist committed to participatory democracy. After joining the Greens I supported getting Caroline Lucas into Westminster and canvassed on behalf of other smart, committed Greens standing for local councils and the European Parliament. So when I was asked to put my name forward this time, how could I say no?

What are your top 3 priorities if elected?

1) Transforming British democracy. It makes me so sad to hear voters in Hampstead and Kilburn say after a hustings that they think I'd make the best MP, they love how I argue for the Green Party's joined-up policies across all issues, but they feel they have to vote for another candidate as it's a marginal seat and they don't want a Tory MP. British politics alienates more people than it engages, especially young people, because under the stale 'first-past-the-post' system, most of us feel that our votes don't count. So we need genuine proportional representation – constituency-based single transferable votes for the House of Commons. We should lower the voting age to 16, and of course replace the unelected House of Lords with a proportionally-elected and much more effective Second Chamber.

2) Tackling homelessness and poverty here, notably in parts of Kilburn. That means ending the scandal of empty houses, reforming Council tax banding and investing in genuinely affordable social housing, and bringing in legislation so that the private rental sector is better controlled to provide fair rents, better accommodation and more secure tenancies.

3) Scrapping Trident and putting the billions we would save into our real security needs, such as a truly world class NHS, lifelong education opportunities, and protecting our planet from the biggest security threat of all, humanity's pollution and climate change.

What made you want to get into politics?

I've been engaged in British and UN politics as a feminist peace activist for many years, promoting equality, social justice, disarmament and environmental responsibility. I lived for five years at the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp to get rid of one generation of nuclear weapons, and then for Greenpeace to ban nuclear testing. Successful in both, but we still have to scrap Trident and build security without nuclear weapons. I decided to join the Green Party in 2009, when I could no longer fool myself that Labour would transform itself into an effective socialist party with the courage to tackle climate change, nuclear disarmament, poverty and homelessness.

What are your favourite things about the constituency?

I love the community spirit here, from parishioners in South Kilburn and Queens Park determined to stop HS2 from destroying their homes and schools, to Belsize Park residents and shopkeepers campaigning to defend their local jobs and shops against Tesco and its identikit, low-pay, profit-first model. And I love cycling to Hampstead Heath and swimming in the women's pond... an oasis of bliss while busy london fades into the background!

Who is your political hero?

Sylvia Pankhurst – the socialist suffragette committed to practical activism on behalf of London's poor, especially hardworking women from British and immigrant communities in the East End. She was feminist, courageous in her commitment to peace, and worked closely with Keir Hardie, Labour's first MP, in breaking the Tory-Liberal two-party stranglehold. From Greenham onwards, I've worn the green, purple and white ribbons of the suffragettes. We must honour their struggle for the vote by refusing to throw our precious democracy away in "tactical" voting for the "least worst" of today's inadequate TweedleCon and TweedleLab parties and their short term political machines. Our votes can bring in the transformational policies this country and our planet need.

Greens show why they are different on the first day of conference

The Green Party Conference assembled in confident mood yesterday with membership growing, especially amongst young people and the party polling at its highest in recent times.

Natalie Bennett made a speech extolling the Green Party's vision of a socially,economically and environmentally just society and contrasted this with the neoliberalism  of the other parties. She was particularly scathing about the Labour Party and set out policies far too the left of that party.

Her speech can be read in full here: http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/09/05/natalie-bennetts-green-party-autumn-conference-speech-%28full-text%29/

In true Green Party fashion a particularly tricky debate, with lots of procedural motions, on issues of local party autonomy, was skillfully handled by a chair who while dealing with points of order was suckling her contented baby.

An emergency motion on Gaza was overwhelmingly carried. It called on the membership to get active supporting boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns and opposing arms sales to Israel.

Although it was clear that an amendment to today's Energy motion, which would commit the party to supporting nuclear power, had very little support, Conference rejected attempts to have the amendment ruled out of order. It was seen as a victory for democracy rather than for the pro-nuclear position.

Brent Labour debate the Syria issue

Yesterday evening outside the US Embassy

After attending yesterday's protest calling on the US not to mount a military attack on Syria, I went o to the Labour Party's Public Meeting on Syria in Queen's Park.

All was not unity outside the Embassy with Assad and opposition supporters clashing verbally and there was disagreement too in Queen's Park.  The Labour meeting had been planned well before the heightened tension caused by the use of chemical weapons and the parliamentary vote and it turned out to be a calm and well-informed debate with passion breaking through only occasionally.

Cllr James Denselow who writes on the Middle East, completed a Ph.D in Syria and lived there for 3 years before the regime became 'uncomfortable' with his studeis and banned him from the country.

He described his experience of the country as quiet and safe for tourists but dangerous for  opposition. It had higher numbers of secret police per head than the former Soviet Union.

He said that the Arab Spring had taken previously 'coup proof' regimes by surpise with the rise in food prices being the catalyst for unrest. This meant that the regimes could offer 'neither bread nor freedom'. The young were revolting not merely against their rulers but against the 'owners' of the state.  Syria is a case of the failure of the expectations, of revolution with the opposition united by what they are against rather than what they are for.

With damage to the country amounting to £11b and mounting, the regime only in charge of 45% of the country and 10 million likely to be dependent on aid by the end of the year, the situation is extremely serious.

John Lloyd of the Financial Times spoke next opening with the statement that he agreed with Michael Gove's view, although not how it was expressed, on the rejoicing of MPs after the House of Commons vote. It was a curious vote, which nobody won, and should be revisited. Llopyd said the international situation was unstable with the euphoria of the Arab Spring gone, 20-30 states developing or have developed chemical or biological weapons and nuclear instability  especially over possession of nuclear weapons by Indian and Pakistan.

He likened the situation between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East to that which prevailed in the past between Catholic and Protestant in Europe.

On statements from Labour that the issue may be revisited if something 'huge happens' he said, 'What hugemess are we waiting for. It has happened already.' Countries are trying to uphold international agreements on the use of chemical weapons and we can't let their use become normalised.

Ivana Bartoletti, London Labour Euro 2014 candidate and deputy director of the Fabian Women's Network, spoke from a background of experience in European and international politics. She quoted an old saying, 'Never light the fire when the wind is blowing: you'll get burned'.

She said that Syria was a critical issue with the geographical closeness of Israel and Syrian Kurds beginning to flee to Kurdish regions and the number of refugees in Bulgaria. Bartoletti believed that Labour's amendment was right but that this didn't mean that the UK couldn't intervene in other ways.

Options in Syria are never easy, a campaign for  democracy had turned into a civil war and then a religious war. She was concerned about what would happen internationally if the US attack Syria and believed that the G20 talks gave an opportunity to put the issue at the top of the international diplomatic agenda.

Dr Sundar Thava, of Freedom for Torture, Amnesty International the Fabian Network and an NHS doctor, told the audience about his 10 years experience as an officer in the army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast to John Lloyd, he was pleased with the outcome of the parliamentary voted although he had not been impressed by the quality of the debate. He believed that we shouldn't intervene and that question was a moral one. The US held hegemony over the UN but we can't sweep China and Russia aside. We should look at the concept of national interest as it applies to the US, Russia and Syria.

The US was seeking to spread neo-liberalism internationally and doesn't need us in terms of our armed forces as such - they can go it alone. Thava thought our non-participation would not affect the 'special; relationship'. He didn't agree with gassing but felt that Obama had been silly in making its use a 'red line; and been trapped into the position of having to be seen to react.

He wanted to see evidence that bombing would send a message to other dictators - he could see none. There was no such thing as bombardment as a 'surgical tool' and it was insincere to suggest that bombardment could be effective without the use of ground troops.

Military intervention would risk escalating the situation.

In the subsequent discussion different views were expressed but I got the impression, despite no show of hands, that there were more people supporting Bartoletti and Thava than Lloyd.

I was not chosen by Chair Tulip Siddiq to ask a question but would have wanted to discuss the wider issue of the UK's international role and whether we should cease the 'punching above our weight' approach that has become our role. Hugh Gaitskell's condemnation of the Suez adventure, Harold Wilson's steadfast refusal to send British troops to Vietnam, Robin Cook's attempt at an ethical foreign policy have to be set against Tony Blair's actions in Iraq.

Can you be an internationalist without being a military interventionist?

Lucas on the Coalition's Trident 'cowardice'

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond today announced a £1billion contract to cover work on the reactors used to power the UK’s Trident submarines, despite the fact that a decision on renewing the nuclear deterrent will not be taken until 2016.

Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion and leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:

The Defence Secretary’s announcement of a £1billion contract to include the development of reactors that will power the as-yet-unauthorised next generation of nuclear submarines raises yet more urgent questions about the profligate spending habits of the MoD – and the Coalition’s cowardice on a crucial political issue.

The Government chose to delay the decision on replacing Trident until after the next election in order to prevent a major Coalition fall out – and now the taxpayer is having to stump up for technology that may not even be needed, while our public services take the hit from austerity.

If the Government is determined to plough ahead with this spending spree, then ministers must give some assurances that it will be able to negotiate its way out of these expensive contracts if the decision is taken not to renew Trident.

Lucas added: 

In his statement today, Philip Hammond clearly implies that he believes Trident is necessary for national security – despite the doubts already expressed by some in the military about whether upgrading what is essentially a Cold War nuclear weapons system is the right defence solution for the future.

 This insidious attempt to pre-empt Parliament’s decision seriously undermines our democratic system, and sends out a worrying signal to the rest of the world about the UK's commitment to nuclear disarmament.

 

Wembley Peace Activist Sentenced to 14 Days Imprisonment

Sit-down protest at AWE Aldermaston, 27 July 2007 - pic by M. Atkinson

Wembley peace  and environmental justice campaigner, Daniel Viesnik, was today sentenced to 14 days imprisonment at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.  The sentence was in relation to an unpaid fine of £50 and costs of £465 resulting from a peaceful symbolic sit-down protest outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire in July 2007, during the Footprints for Peace International Walk towards a Nuclear-Free Future from Dublin to London.

In December Daniel had written to the Court in the following terms:

I have given the matter plenty of consideration and have thus arrived at the decision that as a matter of conscience I shall not pay the outstanding sum, either as a lump sum or by instalment. My wholly unnecessary, disproportionate and unjust prosecution, conviction and penalty for "obstructing the highway" arose from my participation in an entirely peaceful symbolic sit-down protest in opposition to what I consider to be the illegal, immoral and criminally irresponsible maintenance and development of weapons of mass murder and destruction, namely Trident nuclear warheads, and supporting infrastructure at the Aldermaston atomic death factory (also known as Atomic Weapons Establishment) in West Berkshire. The event in question took place on 27 July, 2007 as I walked nearly 900 miles from Dublin to London via Belfast and Glasgow for a nuclear-free future with an international group called Footprints for Peace. I was doing nothing more that day than peacefully carrying out my moral duty to protect humanity and life on planet Earth from the grave threat of nuclear annihilation and radiation exposure. My strength of feeling on this issue is such that I am prepared to face imprisonment rather than pay the fine, despite never having experienced prison before. I initiated a case-stated appeal to the High Court against my conviction, but eventually withdrew for reasons that do not concern this Court. In my experience the courts in general appear to be deaf to arguments of morality, conscience and common sense, especially in politically-sensitive cases such as this, with the result that true justice is often sacrificed in favour of appeasing the Establishment.

Showing his usual quiet courage and perseverance Dan maintained his dignity and respectful demeanour throughtout his appearance and addressed. the court from the dock. He was supported by about 20 sympathisers and will serve his sentence at Pentonville.

I express my admiration for Dan's principled action and his courage at a time when there is so little of either in evidence from our politicians. It is incredible that on Friday the Chilcott Inquiry failed to make Tony Blair answer for waging an illegal war, which killed thousands of innocent civilians, on a pretext of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction; and on Monday a peace activist was jailed for not paying a fine incurred when he demonstrated against our own Weapons of Mass Destruction.