A happy Neil Laurenson - Worcester City Councillor

Members of the Green Party, such as myself, are celebrating our first ever electoral success in local elections in Worcester. Neil Laurenson won in the St. Stephen ward of Worcester with nearly 50% of the vote.

It feels great to be part of this success, even if I only played a small part in it. Neil and Louis Stephen (Party Chairman) have put in the hard work in the ward over the past 2 years and they should be congratulated.

It shows that people will vote for a candidate who will work hard for his constituents and for a party who have principles that they stick to.

The latter has been highlighted over the past week, due to our electoral success helping to create a situation where no party had an overall majority. There was immediate pressure on the Green Party, and Neil in particular, to join with either Labour or the Conservatives. However, rather than looking to claim power for ourselves, we attempted to persuade the other parties to open up the City Council Cabinet to all parties. Ideally, we wanted a return to the Council itself having more say in the running of Worcester, rather than just a small number in the Cabinet.

We may not have achieved our desired outcome, as the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives formed a pact short of full coalition, but we are still in a position to influence matters. Indeed, our proposal for opening up the decision-making process to more parties has been picked up by these two (we’ll have to see to what extend, though). Plus, we have demonstrated to the electorate of Worcester that we are a party of principle, rather than one merely eager for power.

Hopefully, this initial success will be a springboard towards further success in Worcester. Watch this space…

How wrong I was. The Liberal Democrats seem to have been subsumed into the Conservatives, losing their identity. Consequently, they were punished at the local elections and the AV referendum. Rather than acting as a brake on the more right-wing aspects of the Conservative Party in power, the Liberal Democrats have allowed the Conservatives to propose reforms to the NHS and other areas that ideologically beyond anything stated in their manifesto.

The Conservatives have used the coalition claim that they came together for the good of the country, to push forward their own ideological programme. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have not felt able to criticise anything that the Conservatives have proposed.

The official opposition, the Labour Party, have their own problems, under a new leader still finding his feet. Plus, they are struggling to criticise many of the coalition’s proposals, such as university tuition fees, because ideologically they agree with many of them, e.g., tuition fees, internal market in the NHS, etc.

Thank goodness there is Caroline Lucas making a stand, plus campaigning groups such as 38 Degrees.

There was strong representation from various unions, a number of whom spoke about the likely impact of the cuts. Clearly these cuts are going to have a serious impact on jobs and services.

A problem at this stage is that although the amount of money that the coalition government wishes to cut from various budgets has been announced, there are few cases of definite cuts to jobs and services. Hence, it is difficult to motivate people to protest against something that is not clear and precise. Also, it is likely that cuts will not be announced at the same time and so as each cut comes along there may be some who are willing to protest, namely those directly effected either through loss of job or loss of service, but many will feel that it doesn’t really effect them so they won’t be motivated to come along.

The important points that I gained from the meeting and that I hope will form part of the campaign are that:

1. We need to include as broad a cross-section of people in the campaign, not just the unions, and
2. We need to ensure that people understand that although many individual cuts may not directly effect them, taken together they will cause lasting damage to nearly all people and communities in Worcester and Worcestershire.

It will be difficult to hold together such a broad group of people, who may have quite different ideas about how the deficit should be managed. However, I believe that it is essential that we convince the wider community of the need to take action against the scale and pace of the proposed cuts.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 have caused people to draw a link between Islam and terrorism.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Western soldiers have lost their lives (though far less than the local civilians), have added to the resentment towards Muslims.

There is a wider backlash against immigration and multiculturalism, of which Muslims form a part.

The solution to this problem must be to bring Muslims and non-Muslims together. As the antagonism gradually increases, the less likelihood there is that either side will talk to the other. The less you know about another culture, the less you understand it and consequently this ignorance leads to prejudice. Saying that immigrants should integrate is not enough. Both sides, immigrant and non-immigrant, need to make an effort to get to know each other better. How many people actually do this?

This is a really useful book for anyone interested in renewable energy. Happy reading.

According to Charles Moore, writing in The Telegraph (18/09/10), the cuts planned to welfare, schools, health and police are far more drastic than those by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. According to Cabinet ministers that he has spoken to in private, “they are full of zeal both for cuts and for reform, but they don’t like to say so in public.”

This seems to confirm the belief many have that the speed and size of the cuts is politically driven. Hence, it is a matter for political debate.

We need to be challenging the government to prove that the damage these cuts will inevitably do to society are justified, whilst offering viable alternatives.

A clear alternative is to cut the deficit much more slowly. Another is to alter the balance of deficit reduction, away from cuts and towards raising more money through a fairer tax system and reducing tax avoidance. Currently the split is 20% tax, 80% cuts. Another is through investing in areas that badly need it and that create jobs, such as the Green New Deal that would move us towards a low carbon economy, by investing in renewables, insulating homes, etc.

Rather than a zeal for cuts, we need a zeal for fairness and a better way of coping with the current economic situation.