Aussie Greens could 'Abbott proof' Australia's future - Natalie Bennett

As voting for expatriate Australians and visitors continued at Australia House in London, the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales offered her best wishes to the Australian Greens in the election that will be held on Saturday.

Natalie Bennett said: “I’ve been hearing good reports about the turnout of Greens voters on the Strand.

“The Australian Greens are offering a vision for the future of a more humane, equal and sustainable country. Their offerings particularly on community energy, with a strong anti-poverty benefits with a focus on
decent welfare,  and on decent treatment for asylum-seekers are beacons.

“The Senate vote is going to be particularly important, with a vote for the Greens offering the chance to ‘Abbott-proof’Australia’s future, with the power of the proportional vote ensuring that the views of a wide range of Australians are represented. [Natalie was referring to the economically environmentally disastrous policies promoted by conservative lead and election favourite Tony Abbott.]

“Lower house MP Adam Bandt has been a strong force since he was elected shortly after Britain’s first Green MP Caroline Lucas, and I hope that he’ll not only keep his seat in Melbourne, but be joined by other Green MPs.

“As a former resident of inner Sydney, I have followed the campaign of Hall Greenland for Grayndler with particular interest, and I wish him, and all of the Greens candidates, the best of luck in the coming days.”

Note: Voting continues at the Strand, and at Australian embassies and consulates around the world, until Friday.

Save Our Sulivan school is a child-centred campaign that deserves our whole-hearted support

Outside Hammersmith Town Hall

Parents, pupils, teachers and governors  lobbied the Hammersmith and Fulham Council at Hammersmith Town Hall this evening to try and save Sulivan Primary School. 'Save Our Hospitals' campaigner were there in  support.

The Council want to  move the pupils to nearby New Kings School to enable a Free School for 800 boys to take over the Sulivan site. The sting in the tail of this proposal is that New King's has decided to become an academy with private sponsorship, contrary to the values of Sulivan Primary.

The 'consultation' took place, as so many do, when people were away for the long summer holiday.

The campaign website describes Sulivan School LINK:

• It is rated ‘GOOD WITH OUTSTANDING FEATURES’
• It is full in nursery and reception – 299 parents have chosen Sulivan
• It has earned some of its highest results ever in recent years with amazing achievement and progress
  
• It is a small, beautiful school with lovely grounds including large play areas and an outdoor science laboratory

The demonstration began at 5.30pm at this last Cabinet before the consultation.  The Council had refused to hear a delegation on technical grounds but eventually they were given 5 minutes to present their case

It is clear from the comments that have been circulating on Twitter @SaveOurSulivan  that Sulivan is exactly the sort of small, family-centred , creative school that we in the Green Party favour and it is great to see it getting such vociferous support from parents. They deserve maximum support.

Here are some of the Twitter comments:

'Learning for life' -and Learning outside!! Lets keep it that way! 

 we have wonderful courgette flowers in the sulivan school garden ready for eating - yum yum - how many schools can report that!

'oh what a perfect place, we want to keep it our Sulivan school' name the song!!

Sulivan children bake cookies to help save their school! @lbhf council can't say no to a cookie baked with such love 

 Amazing Gardens for exploring, cooking, science and conservation. Children don't want bricks - they want EARTH

 Sulivan is one of the top performing primaries in @lbhf - and in high demand. Closing us makes ZERO sense.

 @jamieoliver we cook fab meals from kitchen garden for the children and they also have their own kitchen - we even cook for the Lycee

  Twicktor Meldrew ‏@twicktormeldrew 31 Aug
Not in my Borough, but I'll mention @SaveOurSulivan. @LBHF want to shut Sulivan Primary School to open another lardy di da free school!

 Very sad to try and remove the opportunities Sulivan gives to poor local children of all cultures. #shameful

 Our chn learn science, data collecting, conservation. Some @hfconscllrs see this 'too good 4 our chn' - we don't

 Children in portacabins so that the property can be fixed up at our cost and given away to a private school chain

 Local children in #fulham are petitioning to save their school! Support the youth of the community - help Save Sulivan

Ealing a step nearer Judicial Review on hospital downgrading

Ealing Council has secured an oral hearing at the High Court on Wednesday, 9 October as it presses for a judicial review (JR) of plans to downgrade four local hospitals.

The council initially applied for a JR in March after the NHS approved plans to shut A&E departments and downgrade other services at Ealing, Central Middlesex, Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals despite increasing demand for emergency services.

This application was turned down so the council sought the oral hearing to press its case. If it is successful at the oral hearing, the council will be able to pursue a full JR.

Councillor Julian Bell, leader of the council, said: "The fight to ensure local people have the health services they deserve goes on. We will present our case forcibly at the oral hearing and pursue all other opportunities to ensure there is proper consideration of our serious concerns about what amounts to the largest experiment in NHS history.”

Concerns about the safety of the NHS plans and the ability of remaining services to cope have been raised by local campaigners as well as the council. The NHS has itself admitted that 'blue light' journeys to hospital will be longer for one in three patients if the plans go ahead.

The council has also referred the issue to the secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt MP, who responded by ordering an independent panel to review the NHS plans. The panel’s report will be presented to Mr Hunt by 13 September and his decision is expected around 40 days later.

Bennett on Syria: Focus on humanitarian aid, ban London Arms Fair and Scrap Trident

Transcript adaptation of speech

Syria: Greens amongst hundreds protesting against military strike

I joined many Greens and anti-war protesters on the Syria march this afternoon and it was great to see so many young people and families present. We were  united in wanting to reinforce the message to the Coalition government to keep out of the conflict but also in calling on President Obama not to attack Syria.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett spoke for many when she called on the government to focus on humanitarian aid, call off the up-coming London Arm's Fair and abolish Trident.

I would add that given the widespread lack of confidence in politicans word on these issues that it is imperative that the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry be published as soon as possible.

Lucas calls for redoubling of Syrian aid efforts following Commons vote

Following Thursday’s parliamentary vote against military intervention in Syria, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion is calling for a redoubling of humanitarian support to the region.

Caroline Lucas said:

“Whatever the political significance of (Thursday’s) vote, it’s vital that the focus urgently shifts now to humanitarian support for the victims of the conflict.

“There are millions of people who have lost their homes, or are in urgent need of medical care.
“We are hearing from development agencies, including Oxfam, that the situation facing refugees, in Syria and the wider region, is appalling. More than eight million people are now in desperate need of supplies.

“As a matter of urgency we should be increasing aid to Syria’s neighbours to help them support the families forced to seek refuge.

 “A huge amount of political energy has been focused on getting ready for a military strike.  If even just a fraction of those resources could be directed towards this humanitarian crisis, we could do much to reduce further suffering and loss of life."

Lucas also called for the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

“Crimes against humanity and international law have been committed.  Once there is evidence of responsibility for these appalling attacks, those responsible must be dealt with by the International Criminal Court.”

Syria demonstration to go ahead on Saturday

Statement by Stop the War:

The Stop the War Coalition welcomes the defeat of David Cameron’s plan to attack Syria in parliament last night. We didn’t stop the war in Iraq, but we did create a mass anti war opinion in Britain. 

That tide of anti war opinion has made itself felt in the past few days. MPs have in their majority refused to back a fourth intervention by western powers since 2001. They have for once reflected the majority public opinion in this country.

We now have to reject all attempts at intervention in Syria and to develop a foreign policy which is based on equality and justice, and the rights of national sovereignty.

The Tory led government will try to recoup the situation. We will demonstrate on Saturday against this intervention, whether by the US alone or with Britain involved. It is the aim of the anti-war movement to ensure that the US is forced to abandon the attack on Syria now that the country with which it is supposed to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ has carried a parliamentary vote against war.

Brent politicians' positions on Syria debate

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather joined Labour colleagues Barry Gardiner and Glenda Jackson in voting against the government motion on Syria last night. Barry Gardiner made an effective intervention when Nick Clegg was summing up, asking if the US mounted an attack over the weekend whether the UK would offer 'indirect' support (the use of UK bases for example). Clegg failed to answer fully and his avoidance was followed up by other MPs, contributing to doubts over the Coalition's position.

Gardiner had strongly supported Tony Blair's Iraq war.

Following the Government defeat and David Cameron's declaration that there would be no direct UK intervention the issue of whether there will be indirect support remains unanswered. The Labour Party meanwhile hasn't clarified whether their position is still that set out in its motion, support for intervention if conditions are met, or whether it is now opposed to any military intervention.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari made here position clear this morning in a Tweet:

Horrified and outraged by scenes in Syria. Fail to understand anyone who categorically rules out military intervention to help these people.

At 6pm yesterday  Sarah Teather posted a full statement on her position:

Everyone will agree that the use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent and unjustifiable act. The horrifying pictures that emerged after last week's attack were devastating to see and all will want action to prevent this from reoccurring.

However, I do not believe that the case for military action to prevent further attacks has been made successfully, either practically or ethically.

I am not opposed to military action in all situations. I do accept that military intervention is sometimes necessary, for example as part of an international peacekeeping mission, as an urgent response to prevent an immediate imminent humanitarian disaster such as genocide, or as an act of self-defence. When used in such circumstances, military action must be a last resort, have some reasonable chance of success and be proportionate to its context. I am not convinced that the proposed action in this situation meets those objectives.

First, it falls into none of the categories described above (peacekeeping, prevention of genocide, self-defence). Instead it seeks to punish a country for an action it has already taken. We have repeatedly heard politicians speak of a 'slapped wrist' or of making clear that Assad's actions 'must be seen to have consequences'. I am troubled that military action on this basis - which would inevitably involve further loss of life - may not have an adequate moral or legal foundation to justify it.

Politicians in the UK have subsequently shifted their rhetoric to argue that it is intended to be a deterrent rather than a punishment. But it is not clear how it would succeed in acting as a deterrent and yet meet the test for proportionality. Certainly it seems to have limited chance of success in meeting an objective of preventing further use of chemical weapons. Strikes against chemical weapon stores would be incredibly dangerous and would risk civilian casualties. An alternative course of strikes against minor targets would do little to dissuade Assad and instead could result in him escalating the already bloody civil war that is raging in Syria. We simply cannot know what Assad's response to any attack would be.

Stronger military action would also not accomplish the stated aim. Weakening Assad's military capabilities would tip the balance in favour of regime change - something the Government has steered clear from. The situation in Syria is extremely complicated and is not simply a case of Assad's regime versus the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition is not a homogenous group, but is rather a mix of factions and sub-groups where in many cases the shared value is opposition to Assad. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the sudden toppling of Assad will end the civil war. Instead it is much more likely to result in the conflict spreading beyond the borders of Syria, further destabilising the region. I therefore do not believe that any military action will achieve the asserted aim of preventing further chemical attacks.

There is no easy answer to the current situation in Syria but I fear that military action can only make matters worse. And if we do intervene and the situation continues to escalate, what then? It would be almost unavoidable for the UK not to be drawn into further and more intensive military action.

In our understandable desire to do something in the face of such appalling atrocities we are in danger of arriving at a contradictory position: attempting to uphold international law by flouting international law ourselves and attempting to make a statement about our disapproval of violence by perpetrating further violence.

Some people have argued were we not to take military action, we would be washing our hands of the situation and doing nothing. However, the choice between military action and doing nothing is a false one. It is not clear to me that the only way to uphold international law is via military force. Certainly any military force would clearly need to be a last resort, having exhausted all other options.

Any solution to the current crisis in Syria needs to be political rather than military if long-term peace is to be found. That is why the UK must increase its attempts to work with international partners and provide full support for the Geneva II process in order to secure global cooperation in finding a peaceful resolution. There must also be full provision in place to provide international humanitarian support and aid for the nearly 2 million refugees that have left Syria - half of whom are children - who are fleeing into neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, and given the current circumstances, I do not support military intervention in Syria. I also feel that, while I welcome the work done by Nick Clegg in ensuring that the Government does not rush into military action, tonight's motion paves the way for a future commitment. As such, I shall this evening be voting against the motion