SOUTH WEST HAMPSHIRE

Green Party Will Do More to Protect the Vulnerable

2012-01-14T15:43:00.000Z

Tory controlled Hampshire County Council proclaim their intention to axe 165 jobs so as to achieve savings of £21m from their adult social care budget. Included in their aggressive strategy are increased charges for the elderly in care homes. Southampton City Council is following suit by cutting £3.5m from its adult social care budget, with 47 jobs to go. Charges for residents and recipients at present have not been planned for.

Meanwhile, council tax in Hampshire has been frozen for the third year in a row, in spite of the financial shortage. Raising council tax by 3.5% and removing the 10% discount for people over 65 in the City - would make most of the cuts unnecessary. National Government is currently handing out moderate grants to so-called compliant councils who freeze their council tax. This National Tory Policy can be a daunting journey even for hardline Conservatives.

Before Christmas, leader of the Tory group on Hampshire County Council, Ken Thornber murmured ‘But the grant being offered is for one year only. Without careful financial planning it could result in a bigger gap in our budget for 2013/14.’

Chris Bluemel, prospective Green Party candidate for Portswood, said: "Southampton and Hampshire Conservatives are forcing some of the cruelest cuts for decades on the poor, the elderly and the vulnerable. By Maintaining the council tax freeze at a time when there is a desperate need to raise revenue, both councils are deploying simplistic populist policies at the expense of vital services. The only party the elderly and the disabled can trust is the Green Party."

Chris added,"Southampton Tories may well be boxing clever by announcing any increases in care charges in a couple of months time, whereby the charges would take effect after the local elections. “

Campaign Against Lidl

2011-11-22T21:15:00.001Z

The Story so Far.........
Back in March, Southampton City Council announced that they would sell the Westridge Road carpark to Lidl, providing that the supermarket chain was successful in gaining planning permission to build a store there. Green Party candidate Chris Bluemel has been talking to shopkeepers in Portswood High Street about their views on the Lidl proposal,and very few seem impressed. One of the greengrocers told him in no uncertain terms: 'It will finish us off.' Even non-food shop keepers were adamant that it was not welcome.
Chris Bluemel says: 'The Tories are doing this to make a quick buck, not to serve the needs of Portswood. Portswood has a thriving community of local traders, but with a Sainsburys being built and the Lidl proposal, this will be under threat. I will be fighting this proposal through all appropriate means.'

Southampton Workers' Dispute.

2011-10-26T22:43:00.000+01:00

Joe Cox, highlights Tory inadequacy

Thismonth there have been letters from Labour supporters explaining howthe Tory banking buddies ran our country into the ground. LocalTories tell us it was mainly Labour that overspent and borrowed toomuch. Both parties agree to financial cuts but Labour will not pledgeto keep all the Tory cuts and tax rises (namely VAT), should they getin Government.

Torycuts have lead to a stalemate between our council and the workersunions. We no longer have a seamless waste collection and rubbish hasbeen and still is strewn around the city. The City Council hotlinehas a recorded message telling residents that refuse is beingcollected every two weeks, but more worryingly for our city it tellsus that recycling is only being collected monthly, due to industrialaction.

Herelocal Greens may be part of the solution. Our policy on waste is toensure good recycling by collecting the recycling bin every two weeksand indeed make sure that the refuse bins are also collected twice amonth.

Councilleader Royston Smith has previously declared that the dispute is notcosting residents anything. How untrue, it is costing the future ofour environment as we all become unsure when and where our recyclingis going. Many households are making special trips with theirvehicles to the city’s household waste recycling centres withbacklogs of refuse and recycling.

So Isuggest instead of allowing uncollected recycling to pile up aroundthe front of the sheds at the rear of some blocks of flats, we agreeto try to implement Green policy. Residents will swiftly become usedto putting out one bin one week and the other the following week.Hopefully recycling will increase and the city will save money.Should there ever be a tax on incineration as Friends of the Earthare calling for, then the city will be even more prepared to savefurther finances and resources for the future.

Finally,Tories should spend our tax payers money on giving council workerstheir rightful pay rather than by spending it fighting industrialtribunal cases. The potential £12 million published by this papershould the council loose some 1000 tribunal cases, would becatastrophic for the City. Far better to reinstate council workers onoriginal contracts and then negotiate fair contracts for the longterm future.

Air Quality Demonstration

2011-09-19T22:05:00.001+01:00

15 July 2011 – Keith Taylor, the Green MEP for Hampshire and the South East, visited Southampton Friday 15 July, to launch his new air pollution campaign. The launch took place at Queen’s Park, a pollution hotspot with high levels of the pollutant Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). Council air pollution figures from last year show that Nitrogen dioxide levels at Town Quay are regularly exceeding the government target, which is set to protect our health.
Keith met with members of the Southampton Cycling Campaign and distributed a public information leaflet, ‘Air Pollution: The Invisible Killer’ (2), which he has produced to raise awareness of air pollution and its damaging health impacts. The leaflet explains how air pollution is created, how widespread the problem is across the South East region, how it affects our health and how pollution can be reduced.
Southampton City Council declared an ‘Air Quality Management Area’ in 2005 because certain areas of the city are exceeding the government approved level for the harmful pollutant, Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂).
Southampton City Council is currently piloting the Air Alert scheme which notifies people about the level of air pollution on a daily basis. This service particularly helps those with existing health conditions, such as asthma. Keith will also be calling on local people to write to cllr Royston Smith, the Leader of Southampton City Council, to ask him to do more to tackle the causes of this invisible public health crisis.
Keith said: “The right to breathe clean air is fundamental. Yet thousands of lives in Southampton and across the South East are being shortened because air is heavily polluted in many places, mostly by traffic. Government data shows that air pollution contributes to over 200,000 premature deaths every year in the UK. This is an invisible public health crisis which urgently needs to be tackled. ”
“I’m pleased to be joining cyclists in Southampton today to highlight the health impacts of air pollution. In my meeting with the city council I will be calling on them to take action to invest in public transport and to encourage people to walk and cycle more. Only by making it easier for people to be less dependent on their cars will we start to improve the air around us and make our cities more healthy and pleasant places to live and work.”
Local cyclist and spokesman for the Southampton Cycling Campaign, Dilys Gartside, said: “’I cycle most days in the city and where there are areas of heavy traffic and poor air quality, I try and find an alternative route, which is not always possible. The Southampton Cycling Campaign continues to witness a high volume of traffic in the city and more and more cyclists have been voicing their concerns. I understand the Queens Park area exceeds air pollution levels and this is of great concern particularly as students have to use this route to get to and from their university building.”
Earlier in the day Keith met Simon Hartill, Scientific Officer at Southampton City Council and later in the day he visited St Bede Primary School, Winchester, to meet children who have been measuring air pollution levels around their school.

Election Results 2011

2011-05-07T18:31:00.030+01:00

Local 2011 elections yielded average voting for four Southampton ward candidates. However in the Borough of Test Valley two Green candidates were the only choice against the usual Conservative put ups. Owain Clarke and Lance Mitchell achieved a first for this council ward and the electorate gave them substantial support.

Congratulations to Chris Bluemel for keeping up our party profile in the Portswood ward of Southampton. As the below table shows, it is a hotly contested seat - every vote will have been a well earned one.

Candidate	Political Party	VOTES

Chris Bluemel	Green Party	514
Nick Chaffey	TUSC	88
Mathew Claisse	Conservative	1473
Pete Knight	Southampton First	115
Keith Reed	Liberal Democrat	1210
Olivia Vaughan	Labour	1185

KEITH TAYLOR VISITING

2011-03-17T19:50:00.003Z

Keith Taylor, who succeeded Caroline Lucas as a Green MEP for the South East last year, is undertaking a constituency visit on Friday March 25th. In addition to meeting local Green Party campaigners, he will be available for members of the public to meet him between 11:00 and 1:00 at the St Denys Community Centre. This is a chance for anyone to raise issues with him as an elected representative.

Mr Taylor will also visit the area which could be affected by plans for a huge biomass power plant. Mr Taylor and the Green Party oppose this development, and Mr Taylor is interested to meet local residents who may be affected.

Chris Bluemel, 2010 Green Candidate for Southampton Test, said: 'We are delighted that our Green MEP is visiting Southampton, and that we are able to offer local people a chance to meet with him. Keith Taylor is working very hard at European level on a wide range of issues.'

AUGUST BENEFIT GIG

2010-07-20T23:45:00.005+01:00

Paying for Party Power

2010-03-28T22:42:00.021+01:00

Watching the Government trying to dig itself out of the financial hole that the cavalier and sloppy overpaid banking community managed to drop us all in, made me wonder how the Devil the Labour Party could possibly win a 2010 general election?

Just as the economy showed some signs of growth, then Unite, Labour’s biggest financial backer, encourages BA cabin staff to take industrial action. Has the strike been contrived to achieve a higher political agenda by the Union? It must be remembered that cabin staff were balloted prior to the event- it was their choice whether to risk losing their virtually free travel perks and ultimately risk losing their jobs. I doubt these workers who already command high salaries are all fundementally politically motivated so as to support a strike, which could be used as a bargaining tool against a future Labour Government’s political direction. Moreover at a time when Labour risks losing a General election. Not all Unite leaders would have gone completely bonkers. However it is possible some mud will still stick.

Now on the otherside of the coin Cameron keeps very quiet about his own financial backers (he has links with the wealthy hunting community that contributes thousands of pounds to the Tory party). William Hague, chief whip, gets caught out by the BBC for knowing the Billionaire Lord Ashcroft’s real tax status at the time the Lord’s peerage was being orchestrated. The favours being passed on to rich Tory backers tend to be a little less subtle than those passed down to the powerful leaders of workers’ unions.

So where does that leave ordinary voters? Generally people want a Government that is committed to creating a society where every vote influences the way the country is run and not by every pound pocketed by the political parties from wealthy benefactors. One plausible system could rely on donations from all political party members being limited to say a hundred quid. Such a system would mean large donors would be forced to distrubute money through a network of members, this method would make it harder for rich donors to secure favours from the political system as many more people would be made aware of who and where the money was coming from.

Currently the limited state funding is shared out mainly between the three larger parties with the lion’s share of about £5 millions a year going to the Tory party. Labour and the Lib Dems share £3 millions.

State funding has long been Green Party policy, as is proportional representation which takes away a lot of the unfairness of the traditiona First-Past-The-Post system. In total the Tory Party always, out spends the other parties by a factor of millions. This year they have an £18 millions pile of cash for 2010 elections.

While readers digest the facts determining why the system favours political parties that have attracted huge funds from dubious sources they might consider that, the Green Party relies in the main on small donations from ordinary members. Greens are proud to tell voters that no one should earn more than ten times the minium wage, the state pension should be £170 per a week and everyone should live in an unpolluted environment.

Climate Crisis Demo

2009-12-12T18:51:00.012Z

A few pictures from the rally.

Chris Bluemel (organiser) distinctively delivered much of the information about why we have arrived at such an important turning point in climate history. He confirmed many stories of hypocracy by government and corporations and laid out the aspirations and expectations of the Green Party locally and indeed globally.

Dave Hubble from GREENPEACE demands truly ambitious cuts in line with the science. All commitments must be legally and binding. Anything less than this will be greenwash.

Susan Barry from Chritian Aid. Outlining the current disaster and potential catastrophe affecting the international community.

Joe Cox in place of John Spottiswoode who was tied up, delivers some of Green Party policy to the rally. People should elect the politicians who have committed themselves to an environmental agenda so as to avoid the crisis. 2010 General Election is a good time to support the Greens!

Wind Power for Southampton

2009-10-13T19:16:00.003+01:00

Further to current discussions within the city highlighting the need for more sustainable and renewable energy systems Chris Bluemel Green Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen has focused on the real possibility that a large wind turbine could be erected close to and possibly within the city boundaries. One suggested site is to place a large wind turbine near the junction of the Itchen and Test rivers both as a symbol of Southampton ’s commitment to renewable energy and as a very practical site in terms of wind. People coming in to Southampton by boat would come to see this as an iconic image of Southampton . It would also be a tourist attraction, with access to an Observation Gallery.

South West Hampshire Green Party has drawn up a picture of what it could look like (the scenery depending on location). The Observation Gallery could be much larger and indeed further from ground level than most current wind turbines, such as the one sited in Norfolk at Swaffham (65m), and it would give views far across the Solent . It would be a much more useful yet symbolic structure than the 170m Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth . The cost of the project should be less than the 40 million pounds paid for the Spinnaker Tower . Southampton could perhaps gain benefit by using the same plans and contractors that provided such things as public access and disability access.

The City of Southampton could divert money set aside for the proposed Spitfire Memorial (two million pounds mentioned in the media) so as to give the Turbine a link to the famous fighter plane. The turbine could be called The Spitfire Blade, re-designing the turbine housing to look like a spitfire cockpit with the Observation Gallery on top

Investment would be recouped both by charging a small entry fee to the Observation Gallery with panoramic views and from the substantial energy generation for the city.

The Southampton Turbine could be used so schools have an outside study where wind power and other sustainable energy systems might be exhibited. Chris Bluemel stated “There are far more grants available for projects that have serious educational substance to them and we would hope central government would make substantial money available for the project.”

Chris concluded that “Southampton should be proving to the wind power industry that Southampton people are prepared to embrace such structures for our future energy generation. And much more it would emphasise the point that factories like that of Vestas really are required for the economic future of our country and community.”

Notes:

1. It now is accepted that the MOD must consider giving way to projects like large wind power turbines, where there are no paramount security issues, as similarly the case that civil aviation radar should not be allowed to be blocked electronically by wind energy projects.

2. Reference for noise issues. www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html

Chris Bluemel

2009-09-10T16:23:00.021+01:00

Green Party

Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for

Southampton Test

Chris Bluemel grew up in Southampton, attending Shirley Junior and Cantell Secondary schools. He subsequently read Music at York University, and then trained as a music teacher in Hereford. He currently teaches music at Itchen College and privately to instrumental pupils of all ages. He frequently provides musical entertainment at community events, and plays piano for the Conchord Singers, a local community choir.

Chris's involvement in Green politics began with his involvement, with his mother, in the campaigns against the massive road-building projects of the 90s. Subsequently, he has become involved in a wide range of environmental and human rights groups wherever he has lived.

In Southampton, he has been co-ordinator of Southampton and Eastleigh Friends of the Earth, and he is an active member of Transition Southampton, an initiative to make local communities more sustainable. He has been on South West Hampshire Green Party committee for a number of years. He also takes a lower key role in other campaigns; for example, he maintains the website for the local Palestinian Solidarity Group.

Chris has addressed local rallies in Southampton opposing airport expansion and calling for an end to the siege on Gaza. He has also been vocal in calling for the Government to intervene to prevent the closure of the Vestas plant on the Isle of Wight, and has supported the campaign by speaking at a Newport rally, writing articles for the Daily Echo, and provided outdoor cooking equipment for the camp outside the factory.

Chris believes that key issues of climate change and depletion of material resources need to become key issues for every sector of society, and that a greener society is also a healthier society where we would work shorter hours, and have more time to spend in our communities. Chris is also concerned that vital public services are maintained, and has consistently opposed the privatisation of local health services.

Chris has lived in a shared house in Swaythling for three years. Instead of a car, Chris uses bicycle with a trailer for all his transport needs.

The Government must intervene to keep Vestas open

2009-07-28T19:47:00.008+01:00

In April, I had reason to visit the Lancashire town of Bury. The tram from Manchester provided a picturesque view of beautiful hills. The hills were dotted with wind turbines. Far from being ugly, they struck me as being just as beautiful as the hills on which they sat, as symbols of sustainability, living in tune with nature and the environment.

It is now widely accepted that this is what we will need to see on a massive scale if we are to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and increase our energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. It is therefore a travesty that the only place in England where the turbines are made is threatened with closure.

Vestas has announced that the plants in the Southampton and on the Isle of Wight will close in the very near future, citing a lack of demand in the UK. Between them, these plants support 600 jobs. The Government has promised massive investments in renewable energy. Yet local MP John Denham has said that the Government are not interested in intervening to keep the Vestas plant open.

The Government has spared no expense in stepping in to rescue the banks and the car companies; Northern Rock alone took £55bn, whilst billions more were spent on others. Through the regional development agencies, the Government has also subsidised airport expansion by £80mn over the last ten years. Recently it has renationalised the East Coast Main Line after National Express gave up on it. For around £50mn, it could take over the Vestas plant and keep it open with a view to finding another buyer, just as the Scottish Exectutive stepped in to save a much smaller turbine plant from closure.

This could be the first step on a Green New Deal of the kind that the Green Party are proposing. A national programme insulating all homes, installing large scale renewables, and providing comprehensive public transport across the country would create millions of green jobs, and stimulate our economy by growing the industries of the future. Currently, the UK skills gap in these sectors means that Britain is falling behind other countries in the creation of green jobs. Even China, frequently stereotyped as a 'dirty polluter', is ahead of the UK in renewable energy.

The most frequent objection to wind farms is that they spoil the view. Yet in discussions of energy policy, opponents of wind farms frequently propose nuclear power and coal-burners instead. I'll leave you to decide whether nuclear or coal plants are less intrusive than wind turbines. Both, however, rely on finite resources, and both produce unwanted waste products, in the form of CO2 or nuclear waste. Wind power and other renewables face neither of these constraints.

In order to tackle the parallel economic and environmental crises, we need to get serious about renewable energy now, and this starts by keeping our local wind turbine plant open.

Chris Bluemel,

Green Party, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Southampton Test

Greens Call for Vestas to stay open

2009-07-19T22:03:00.048+01:00

Hampshire Green Party has supported calls for the Government to step in to save the Vestas wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight from closure. The factory is needed to preserve jobs and provide the infrastructure for renewable energy which will be vital to meeting our targets. Chris Bluemel Supporting Vestas workers.

Vestas are planning to close the production plant in Newport due to a 'lack of demand in the UK'. It is the only production facility in the country making wind turbines. The factory's downfall is a direct result of the Government's failure to invest in renewable energy.

Whilst the Government has spared no expense to bail out the banks and the car companies, it has shown no interest in maintaining the only wind turbine factory in the UK.

On Saturday 11 July, Green Party activists from across the South Coast travelled over to the Isle of Wight to support a demonstration held in Newport Town Centre calling for the factory to be kept open. Chris Bluemel, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test addressed the demonstration, called for the Government to step in to ensure the plant's future:

Taking the UK out of a recessions means supporting the industries of the future like renewable energy. This means immediately initiating a Green New Deal to ensure the creation of green jobs and training programmes, to ensure that our workforce has the skills for the future as well as providing a reliable supply of clean energy.

ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU GASP

2009-02-22T14:19:00.003Z

Britain is facing legal action over its failure to meet European air quality standards, and Southampton is among those which have regularly exceeded the limits for pollutants. The UK is likely to incur substantial financial penalties for the infringements. The Greens have pledged to take urgent action to improve Southampton's air quality.

The UK's failure to comply with the basic standards has led to unacceptable levels of certain airborne pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) which are extremely dangerous to human health. The new air quality directive provided an option for member states to apply for an extension for particular geographical areas which, if they met the conditions, would delay the target for tiny airborne particles known as PM10. However, the UK government missed the deadline of 31 October last year
to apply for an extension, showing either disregard for the legislation or recognition that it would not meet the conditions.

Instead, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has now launched a consultation on a planned application to try to delay meeting the PM10 standards until mid-2011 (PM10 are particles of pollution).
The intention is to send the application to the commission "as soon as possible" after the connsultation has closed on 10 March.

Chris Bluemel, prospective Green candidate for Southampton, said: ''Breathing heavily polluted air puts people in Southampton and other urban areas at greater risk of developing asthma, other respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease and lung cancer. This is why the legislation is there. It is false economy not to implement air quality standards, as there will be increasing demands on the NHS. It is also an issue of social justice, as it is the poor who tend to live in the most polluted areas.''

Public Consultation a “sham”

2008-07-25T18:13:00.002+01:00

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Chairperson John Spottiswoode has condemned the Public Consultation plans being voted on by South Central Strategic Health Authority on Thursday (24^th July). He says that: “the Strategic Health Authority has failed to give a guarantee to Hampshire Against Fluoridation that the planned Public Consultation will be truly fair and balanced. They will not guarantee to allow people who oppose fluoridation to have a fair voice in the consultation. Therefore the whole process will be one sided and a sham. It looks like it will be a propaganda exercise designed to obtain a predetermined result.”

In addition John Spottiswoode, who also represents SW Hampshire Green Party, has formally complained to the Health Authority about bias in their reports to the Board and a failure to consider the arguments against fluoridation. By failing to consider the full range of relevant information he charges that they have made deeply flawed decisions. He continues: “The Health Authorities are likely to have spent at least a quarter of a million pounds on pushing water fluoridation onto the people of Southampton and Hampshire who justifiably are very suspicious of the idea. The authorities are using their institutional muscle in manpower and our money to push something that is known to have many serious, sometimes fatal, side effects on health. This is not only wasteful of scarce NHS resources, but irresponsible and distracts from tackling the true causes of poor dental health, eating a bad diet and not cleaning the teeth properly. Fluoridation fails in its official purpose of improving dental health as it causes fluorosis which dentists refuse to treat on the NHS.”

He continues: “The proposed Public Consultation is a sham. It is actually pointless in that water fluoridation flouts medical ethics and human rights. It is unethical (and indeed illegal) to mass-medicate a population via their water supply. No person should be medicated without their individual consent. If one person does not give their individual consent then fluoridation of the water supply cannot legitimately take place. I do not give my consent to Southern Water to add fluoride to my water supply - medicating me and my family. The people of Southampton and Hampshire who oppose fluoridation need to make this absolutely clear to Southern Water, Health Authorities and their elected representatives too.”

High fossil fuel taxes are needed

2007-12-16T19:42:00.001Z

The Green Party demonstrated at the main entrance to Fawley Refinery at midday today (Saturday December 15^th 2007). The message was that fossil fuel taxes are fully justified and in fact need to be higher. The alternative is fuel rationing, which may soon be necessary and indeed may be preferable if we are to protect the poor.

The Green Party demonstration did not confront any of the Fuel Protesters who want cheaper fuel. These Fuel Protesters had claimed that they would be at Fawley but the Green Party understand that a few did come earlier and had left before midday. The Police had a small presence at the North gate to the Fawley Refinery, but not at the South gate.

John Spottiswoode, Green Party spokesman said: “The failure of the UNFCCC in Bali to come up with specific targets shows the mortal danger the planet is in. The governments of the world seem to be unable to work together effectively to grasp the nettle of really serious measures to tackle Climate Change. This is the road to global environmental catastrophe, paved with good intentions and good words, yet ending with an environmental catastrophe worse than anything mankind has ever experienced. Never has so much back-slapping been seen at an environmental conference for so little result.”

“We need government leadership across the globe, something we are so clearly not getting. This means that people across the world must assert the popular pressure for such things as higher taxes for fossil fuels. We must use less fossil fuel if we are to tackle Climate Change, and that means making fossil fuels more expensive, or rationing them. This is urgent now, tomorrow is too late.”

“We don’t even yet do the basics to reduce fuel usage. For instance, I live in Southampton and I see tons and tons of goods land at the docks. These goods are transported to Distribution Centres in the Midlands, and then transported back to Southampton shops, a lot of wholly unnecessary miles. As long as fuel is relatively cheap this makes economic but not environmental sense. We need a Distribution Centre here by the docks, and then the goods are sent where they need to go, reducing haulage, reducing traffic congestion and reducing our CO₂emissions.”

“I repeat that it would be an enormous mistake to keep fuel prices cheap. We have to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, and do it now.”

In My View ...Published Sept 2007

2007-12-02T21:03:00.001Z

Talk of sustainability is now mainstream. Environmental issues feature in the rhetoric of most political parties, school inspections now cover sustainability, and businesses are keen to demonstrate their eco-credentials. Oh, and, er, the local airport wants to almost treble its flight numbers by 2030.

BAA Southampton claim to be committed to reducing noise, air pollution and greenhouse gases through technological advances. However, it is hard to see how all three aspirations can be met. Open-rotor jet engines could reduce fuel consumption by 50%, but are noisier than current models. Propeller planes use far less fuel and are quieter than jets, but as they are slower, they are used on fewer flights.

Increases in flight numbers will outweigh any such improvements. In 1992, annual passenger numbers at Southampton stood at 200,000; today the figure is nearly 2 million (on 44,000 flights), and BAA aspire to 6 million by 2030. Across the UK, carbon dioxide emissions from domestic aviation alone have almost doubled since 1990, and the Department of Transport forecasts further increases. Very few people outside the industry or government would argue that this could be compatible with the 60% cut to which the UK is committed.

77% of the forecast growth at Southampton is on domestic flights, somewhat extravagant on such a small island. Both these and many of the international destinations served by Southampton can be reached by train within a few hours. CO2 emissions per passenger-km would be around ten times lower. Check-in times are shorter, so if you dislike the airport security hassle, this is a clear alternative. A modal switch from planes to trains would make airport expansion unnecessary.

The promised 'economic benefits' are questionable. In 2004, overseas visitors to South East England spent £1.2bn whilst South East residents flying abroad spent £3.9bn, resulting in a regional deficit of £2.7bn. If the airport expands, this deficit will increase, as outward tourism is growing faster than inward tourism. Furthermore, 49% of the airport's customers are in socio-economic groups A and B, and only 5% in groups D and E. The industry only thrives through exemptions from VAT and fuel duty, and they are currently demanding that the government pays for their security.

In any case, economic benefits cannot be confused with quality of life. You cannot buy clean air or a good night's sleep. nor can you buy your way out of climate change. AXE will campaign against any infrastructure expansion, for flight numbers to be capped at 50,000, and for any further developments to improve the quality of life for local people. To join us, e-mail info@axe.org.uk.

Chris Bluemel, co-ordinator of AXE (Against eXpansion at Eastleigh)

WWF Footprint Tables

2007-10-29T19:20:00.002Z

In My View...Published Nov2007 Daily Echo

Like the School League tables we now have an Ecological Footprint Table, which places UK cities in an order of achievement courtesy of the World Wild Life Fund – but sadly we won’t be able to close down the worst offenders!

The recent WWF report states “ The amount we consume has a direct effect on climate change and species loss. We need to change our patterns of consumption to combat climate change, conserve the Amazon rainforest and protect our oceans.” The new table puts Newport (S.Wales) and Plymouth equally at the top. These cities must have made some effort to keep their citizens ecological footprints as small as possible. Some geographical positioning of cities can encourage mass commuting to London, which should cause a lower position in the table. Surprisingly though Salisbury that is within commuting distance of London by car, managed joint third in the table. Those cities like Southampton (6th from the bottom) and Winchester (actually bottom) will just have to play catch up. The price for not doing our homework, though, is that all of us in the South East area - including those already doing comparatively well conserving environmental resources - will be failing to learn how to survive in a world where there will be far less for everyone.

It should be the duty of governments, manufacturing and retail industry to help us to make this transition away from high resource use. Legislation could be formed to make sure goods are manufactured to a higher quality so that instead of throwing out our possessions because they break all too quickly - or can’t be repaired - we can enjoy the use of the things we buy for far longer. This would save us money, and also mean far fewer resources are required to maintain our current lifestyles.

Most individuals are already very well aware of the cost to the environment that transport plays. By taking the decision to use public transport, walk and cycle we are preparing ourselves for a possible day when only the very rich will be able to buy themselves into the realms of motorized private transport. Use of cars in the future may well be not unlike celebrities using helicopters at present.

The numbers of holidays people take abroad have a huge impact on our ecological footprints. Each time you fly far afield you are adding to your eco footprint. Businesses need to considerably cut back on American and Far Eastern excursions for their representatives.

Not surprisingly, diet can play a major part in how large your eco footprint is. Farming livestock is worse than all forms of transport put together when it comes to pollution and waste of resources. A plant-based diet (Vegan) has a much smaller ecological footprint. By sourcing locally grown organic vegetables this protects the environment for future generations. However, we do need to educate supermarkets not to package organic produce. Extra packaging leads to an increased cost to the consumer, which at the moment is financially penalizing those people trying to buy organic produce. Wouldn’t it be a good promotional exercise to price some organic (and fair-trade) products exactly the same as non-organic products? Shops could use such promotion as a loss leader exercise to encourage more ethical shopping.

The South has a far milder climate than the Glasgow area does; by properly insulating housing, only heating those rooms being used and by turning the thermostat down we could well compete with Glasgow for fifteenth place in the WWF table.

So with a little bit more effort we can play catch up and make some of the South’s cities far greener, but by turning a blind eye to the WWF recent report we can only cause further damage to our ecological standing.

Joe Cox South West Hants Green Party

Greens Head to Head with Air Industry. . . . . (By Joe Cox)

2007-08-14T20:07:00.001+01:00

Hampshire residents can be assured that the local South West Hampshire Green Party is one party that is completely against all airport expansion plans proposed by BAA. In Portswood, Southampton I myself stood for council primarily on transport issues and as a voice for those against increased air traffic locally. The Green Party fields candidates in Winchester and Eastleigh areas.

Over the last decade the public has been seduced with cheap flight airlines and as such it might be that people feel hypocritical voting against something that they themselves now find bound into their lifestyles. So although it is easier to achieve recognition through the ballot box on an environmental platform, we see that only a minority of the electorate are ready (so far) to accept that the Green Party does have many of the right answers for our future.

Now around 20% of air traffic from the Southampton airport goes to Scotland and approximately 60% of people flying from the airport are traveling for leisure purposes. Those people traveling north on holiday should be refreshed to know that by booking in advance on the train you can still achieve a reasonably priced return ticket compared to that being sold by airlines. The hype over cheap air travel is very much now fading and the real cost of fuel and airport services are now starting to be borne by customers. Holidaymakers might well enjoy a rail journey as part of the holidaying experience. There are overnight trains from Southampton, and from Euston, London there are the Caledonian sleeper trains to Scotland for people who find rail travel tiresome.

In other parts of the country expansion plans have been overturned; a victory for campaigners recently when Manchester Airport's plans to expand on to green belt land which it owns in Cheshire were rejected by a government planning inspector, who supported the objections of Macclesfield Borough Council. The decision follows a similar triumph for Warwick District Council, whose opposition to ambitious development plans at Coventry airport has halted plans to double passenger numbers.

Our members also support this years Climate Camp at Heathrow Airport Protesters say they have "legally occupied" the site, which is on the route of a proposed third runway at Heathrow and is around 800 metres (yards) from the headquarters of airport operator BAA, owned by Spanish construction and services group Ferrovial. This is the same outfit that runs our local Southampton Airport.

As with the lengthy saga of expanding Southampton Sea Port into Dibden Bay, the Green Party will stand up to those politicians within mainstream parties who have been successfully lobbied by industry. The phenomenal increase in flights proposed by BAA over the schools in those areas do not just pose a threat to children’s learning capabilities, but as the skies become overcrowded surely the threat to our children’s safety will be compounded. We also note the geographical position of the airport, which is very close to a large population in Southampton and Eastleigh. The Green Party is committed to stopping increased development of the airport in order to protect all of us from global warming and indeed local residents from the unacceptable level of noise from aircraft.

Election Round Up

2007-05-07T18:30:00.001+01:00

Some very promising results have been achieved in all areas that candidates were stood. Also click on our archive link.
WWW.SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION ARCHIVE

In Southampton, the Green Party received a total of 2,743 votes, an increase of 33% on last year. Our two best results were in Freemantle, where Darren Pickering gained more than 13% of the vote, and in Portswood where Joe Cox gained nearly 11%, beating both Southampton First and Save Our Services. Portswood is fertile ground for us - last year, we beat Labour, Conservative and Respect candidates there.

In Eastleigh, where we didn't stand last year, Sarah Goode gained a respectable 5.6% of the vote in Eastleigh Central.

In Winchester, also new ground for us, Alison Craig and Dave Walker-Nix contested Wonston & Micheldever, and St Barnabas respectively. In both cases, we gained third place, ahead of the Labour Party.

Clearly these results, while encouraging, are a launchpad rather than a destination. Next year, we hope to give more people across the region the chance to vote Green, and perhaps gain a Council seat in one of our target wards. Through direct campaigning and through indirect leverage on other parties, we can help to ensure that this region is ready for the social and environmental challenges of the twenty-first century.

THE BIG GREEN SURVEY (Southampton, Portswood)

2007-03-23T20:04:00.001Z

Are you in favour of more flights out of Southampton Airport ?

As promised we now are publishing some of the results to our Big Green Survey carried out in Portswood shopping pricinct Southampton.

The chart above clearly shows that a big majority of people do not want further numbers of aircraft flying in and out of the city airport, which is very close to a large residential population. As the Survey was carried out some miles west of the flight path of city and the most affected population is to the east of the city, then this survey result could well be deemed representative of a population that are taking all the arguments into the question. A NIMBY population might mainly consider the noise and saftey issues far more intensely which would mean an even higher proportion of people coming out against airport expansion.

Intense Animal Farming Costs Tax Payers and Environment

2007-02-05T22:09:00.002Z

One of the warmest winters on record and bird flu (H5N1 strain) finally infects a holding of 159,000 turkeys. The entire slaughter of the flock was the only option open, considering the risks to the human population. Since January 2003 over 150 people world wide have died of this virus.

The cost of feeding a human population on animal products is far higher in resources than the UK shopper has to pay out for. Just recently a new government website www.direct.gov.uk advises consumers, ‘The production of meat and dairy products has a much bigger effect on climate change and other environmental impacts than that of most grains, pulses and outdoor fruit and vegetables’. Local Green Party officials believe the government is right to concern the public with these important facts but the Green Party wants Ben Bradshaw (Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare Minister) to go further and abolish factory farming.
Spokesperson Joe Cox said “ It is a ludicrous situation that tax payers' money is helping to rear intensively farmed animals that inevitably will help lead to the destruction of our environment. Any subsidies made available to farmers through the Single Payment Scheme should be for grain and vegetable products used directly for human consumption. Ideally these should also be grown organically.”
He added “ Inevitably a cull of animals will eventually eradicate this disease as did the cull of sheep, cattle, pigs and goats at the beginning of the millennium to stop Foot and Mouth - but we must recognize that the more we subsidize cruel and intensive methods of farming, the more we also have to pay for the resulting clean-up operations.
Green Party MEP Dr Caroline Lucas has called on the EU to consider an outright ban on factory farming as a way of preventing the further development and spread of deadly bird 'flu - and for the World Health Organization to recommend free-range farming and keeping birds outdoors wherever possible.

AIRPORT EXPANSION VS PUBLIC SAFETY

2007-01-26T22:32:00.001Z

Wednesday 17th January incident at Southampton Airport , when an incoming plane overshot the runway, can only demonstrate that public safety will be undermined by any further expansion of Southampton Airport , Southampton Against Expansion at Eastlcigh Airport (AXE) campaigners said today.

The Air France flight AF5869 from Paris Charles De Gaulle failed to stop before reaching the end of the runway, and came to a halt on the grass verge. Fortunately on this occasion none of the 44 passengers was injured, but there have been similar incidents in which aircraft failed to land correctly in the past, including an incident when a plane landed on the M27.

AXE is opposed to any expansion of Southampton Airport , on grounds of increasing noise and air pollution, increasing traffic congestion, rising emissions of greenhouse gases, and the threat to public safety, especially given the airport’s close proximity to other industrial and transport infrastructure. If incidents like that described above can occur with current flight numbers, we can only conclude that a trebling of flight numbers will present an unacceptable risk to the public. AXE wants improvements in the quality of life for local residents to be a top priority in the airport’s plans.

Happy New Year 2007

2007-01-11T23:20:00.000Z

This year has started with more than a few bangs surrounding issues of climate change and the resultant destruction of the worlds ecosystems. If it is not parliamentary members churping about CO2 quotas then it is European Scientists mapping out how the world will be.

Hampshire Greens are also doing their bit by highlighting the blatant stupidity from some parties not to change the underlying systems that are in no doubt leading to wrack and ruin.

We seek to step up our campaigns especially where concerning authorities are intending to reward themselves by delibrately building economies on the back of fragile environmental foundation and indeed on the backs of ordinary people, as we feel we have a duty to protect society as a whole.

So lets try not to waste our tidal wave of support and put every effort into local campaigns and elections where we feel we can change peoples fundamental thinking for the long term sustainable future.

Elections ARCHIVE

2006-05-15T18:38:00.001+01:00

3rd MAY 2007 GREENPARTY X

2006-05-03T22:23:00.000+01:00

The Green Party is the strongest upcoming political party in the United Kingdom. Unlike the existing 'grey' parties we stand for real values and real progress.

Here are eight positive reasons to go out and cast your vote for the Green Party today:

[1] A clear message AGAINST the senseless fluoridation of our water
[2] A clear message that we want to save our city's green spaces
[3] A call for sensible solutions to our city's transport issues - that means real investment in alternative forms of transport creating real choice
[4] A clear and equivocal message against the expansion of Southampton airport - local quality of life and our environment must take priority
[5] Education for health. We will champion healthy, local school meals and high quality health education.
[6] Power to the people. We will give residents associations more power, allow the public greater freedom to address the council and hold local referenda on major issues such as water fluoridation.
[7] Strong communities - fighting crime. We won’t stereotype all young people, but we will champion high visibility community policing and support education campaigns on drugs, alcohol and anti-social behaviour.
[8] Green councillors make a difference! Where Greens are elected across the country from Leeds to Bradford, Lewisham to Norwich, Oxford to Brighton we are making real progress and taking real action towards realising social justice, environmental protection and sustainability

SHAMEFUL GREEN POSTURING FROM BROWN AND CAMERON

2006-04-21T18:38:00.000+01:00

The Green Party today responded to Gordon Brown and David Cameron's latest 'green' profferings with a call to see 'action, not words'.

Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor commented: "Talk is cheap. Cameron claims the environment is his priority, but I'm not holding my breath. We have yet to see any substantive policies to tackle climate change emerge from the blank canvass that currently constitutes Tory party policy.

"He says he wants to learn about climate change on a fact finding mission - but the Green Party can tell him all he needs to know. It is the most dangerous threat the world faces, and successive inaction by both Tory and Labour government's has ensured the UK is not on track to seriously tackling it.

"For the past 30 years, the Green Party have led the charge for reducing our carbon emissions, advocating a package of measures involving demand reduction and energy efficiency. We want to see greater investment in renewable technology and initiatives such as home insulation schemes, but Brown and Blair would rather spend billions on subsidising an uneconomic andunsafe nuclear industry. We want to see energy prices reflect the real cost of energy, but David Cameron is opposed to the climate change levy.

"At what point will rhetoric and reality converge? As it stands there is a daily widening gulf between the claimed aspirations and aims of the Labour and Tory party and their decisions when in power at every level. Tony Blair has presided over the biggest expansion of the aviation sector - the fastest growing contributor to climate change - in a generation, with the full support of the Tories. Labour's enormous £30 billion road building programme also has the full support of the Tory party - indeed Cameron even called for greater road building in his acceptance speech.

"On a local level, Tory led councils are across the country are ensuring that congestion schemes are rejected, wind farms don't get built and motorways continue to eat in the heart of the UK. In Lancaster, Conservative Cllrs have repeatedly voted in favour of building a huge new dual carriageway to the north of Lancaster which will cost some £118M, and destroy 70ha of Green Belt.

In David Cameron's own constituency, Witney, Tories are seeking to build yet another monstrous bypass - the Cogges Link Road in Witney, that will cut through precious green space.

Taylor added:

"We remain the only party committed to seriously tackling the environmental challenges the world faces. Brown and Blair have had almost a decade to act, and have failed dismally. What's different now?

"Is Cameron's greenwash going to trickle down through the ranks, or will he be forced to purge the party of those not adhering to this, his latest policy u-turn? Actions speak louder than words. As it stands, for all his posturing, the Tory's Green credentials are non existent.

"Combating climate change needs action, not words. Chasing the headlines with visits to Norway or grand speeches at the United Nations does not deliver an ounce of carbon reduction - flying there does quite the opposite.

"What's needed is a determined and integrated carbon reduction strategy framework across every facet of government and business, with annual reduction targets. You don't have to look at an iceberg to see the obvious."

OFCOM PROPOSALS ON JUNK FOOD ADVERTISING DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH

2006-03-29T10:21:00.001+01:00

Ofcom, the media regulator's long-awaited report into advertising junk food to children sets out new rules banning the use of celebrities to advertise junk food during television programmes designed to appeal to the under-10s - but campaigners say the measures don't go far enough.

John Spottiswoode, a Southampton Green Party spokesman said: "We have seen so much empty rhetoric from Labour, now we need action. We have a responsibility towards children. They don't tend to have a free choice and they don't have the necessary information or understanding to make informed choices. These proposals go no where near far enough and are a blatant sign that Ofcom have given in to pressure from the food giants."

John Spottiswoode continued: "One in three children in the UK are now classed as obese yet once again necessary action is being delayed. We have seen the public health benefits of banning tobacco advertising - governments must now have the courage to take the same approach with unhealthy food, at least where children are concerned."

Calls for more action have also been made by many organisations including: British Medical Association, Barnados, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the National Federation of Women's Institutes.

BROWN BUDGET, NOT A GREEN BUDGET

2006-03-26T21:30:00.000+01:00

Chancellor must make effort to promote the green economy, says John Spottiswoode.

Whilst a number of measures announced today by the chancellor Gordon Brown were welcomed by Greens, Southampton Green Party spokesman John Spottiswoode said the budget statement was fiddling at the edges and not aimed at delivering significant action on pressing issues like climate change.

John Spottiswoode, the Green Party’s leading candidate in the upcoming city council elections said: "The Chancellor has made a small effort to do a little about greening the economy, but this is still very much a brown budget, not a green budget. I think everyone could see right through Mr Cameron's efforts to appear to be greener than brown. The £45 extra on the big gas guzzlers is hardly going to prevent their use, although it is at least some incentive in the right direction to reduce charges for the most efficient vehicles.

"A new energy and environment institute is interesting, but it can't be an excuse for navel gazing. What is needed is much greater investment in alternative energy sources such as marine power which are already proven. It is depressing for example, that although British companies are at the forefront of wave energy development, they have to go to other countries such as Portugal to get the support they need. Nothing announced today by Brown will alter that fact. Britain could be a world leader in renewable energy with the right kind of leadership from government.

"I do welcome energy efficiency measures for insulating homes but we need much greater action on this, especially in Southampton. The encouragement of microrenewables is also welcome.

"Many of the measures outlined by Brown sound good on the ear, but without bolder steps nor mandatory targets to reduce carbon emissions year on year, they will not stimulate the kind of action that is required."

SOUTHAMPTON TAX PAYERS FALL PREY TO MAVERICK AIRLINES

2006-03-13T21:53:00.000Z

Taxpayers in Southampton are effectively subsidising airlines to the tune of £300 per person every year, new research by Friends of the Earth reveals today. The UK airline industry receives an effective subsidy of £9.2 billion a year because airlines pay no tax on fuel used, virtually no VAT and benefit from duty free. Other taxes such as income tax therefore have to be higher to subsidise the aviation industry.

John Spottiswoode, a spokesperson for the Southampton Green party, said: "It is crazy that each of us is subsidising airlines by £300 per year when flight departures from UK airports are responsible for around 6 per cent of the country's total carbon dioxide emissions. We are jeopardising our chance of meeting our Kyoto Targets. The Green Party has long called for the Government end it's subsidisation of the aviation industry for the benefit of both the environment and UK tax payers."

The report comes on the same day as new European study suggests that Southampton airport does not meet EU-recommended limits on the pollutant gas nitrogen dioxide. The airport is regularly breaching the EU recommended limit by up to 50% the study says.

Keith Taylor, Green Party Principal Speaker, comments: "The Green Party is committed to radical measures to force the aviation industry to take responsibility for the pollution it is creating. The Greens will be voting on a policy motion to introduce legislative controls on airline advertising at the Green Party Spring Conference, March 16th-19th in Scarborough. These legislative controls will include mandatory health warnings on the climate change effects and carbon dioxide emissions of the flights advertised. It is evident that corporations lack the drive to self-regulate and the aviation industry is currently the major barrier to effectively combating global climate change. Now is the time for the Government to act decisively, for the sake of our health, our environment and our pockets."

Sign the Friends of the Earth petition against airport expansion here.

BRITAIN ‘S LONGEST HOURS PRODUCE LOWEST PRODUCTIVITY

2006-02-23T17:58:00.000Z

On the eve of ‘Work Your Proper Hours Day’ Greens call to end the opt-out and opt-in to a healthier workforce

British people work the longest hours in Europe, yet due to stress and fatigue, productivity is one of the lowest. With levels falling far behind France, Britain’s long hours culture is seriously threatening our physical and mental health.

UK Green Euro-MP, Jean Lambert, who launched her new report today, ‘I must work harder? Britain and the Working Time Directive,’ [1] said: “Britain’s long hours culture has encroached on our society through the British opt-out in the Working Time Directive, the only EU country to adopt such a clause. It’s not just our opportunities for a social and family life that has been eroded but we are now seeing record levels of employee sick leave due to long hours and stress."

Joe Cox, a spokesman for the Hampshire Green party, and prospective city councillor said: "Here in Hampshire you hear many people complain about their long working hours and how stressed they feel. Sadly the British work culture seems to view stress as a weakness - so instead of being treated, it gets worse, costing both the individual and business. Indirect causes of long hours such as tiredness on the roads are particularly damaging. Symptoms of stress and fatigue are often worse than being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

Jean Lambert, who is Vice-Chair of the Green Group in the European Parliament and co-ordinator of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, is concerned that many workers do not truly ‘opt-out’ but sign away their right to a cap on their working hours under pressure or do not know they entitled to refuse.

She said: “We want fair hours for fair pay. Without focus on the prevention of ill health, shortsighted policies will result in the public sector picking up the bill once again. It is time the Government accepted that long hours are damaging our health, innovation and economy. We have to protect the UK’s workforce by getting rid of the opt-out and regulating the working week.”

Joe Cox said: "Greens simply argue that the UK adheres to a maximum 48-hour week and, where intensive work has occurred, the employee is given compensatory rest through time off."

POLL REVEALS BRITAIN IS READY FOR GREEN TAXES

2006-02-22T16:17:00.000Z

Greens today called on the government to introduce a series of green taxes to help fight climate change, saying the taxes would not be as unpopular as it fears.

Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor said: "The Green Party recognises the positive role that taxation can play in changing behaviour. The problem of climate change is not just another factor that can be addressed as and when it's seen to be politically expedient; it is real and happening now and we have to do something about it."

Joe Cox, a prospective Green Party city councillor said: "This poll shows that people want to see decisive action now. Our government has been dithering over this since they came to power and the opposition parties lack the political will to use their weight to bring about change. Expert after expert, including the Prime Minister's own advisers, warn of the severity of climate change - it is simply unacceptable that gas-guzzling cars are taxed the same amount as more efficient cars, or that insulation and double glazing aren't installed as standard in new homes."

Joe Cox added: "As Greens have noted in this newspaper before, the biggest outrage is the aviation industry. They are actively increasing emissions while all other sectors are working towards reducing theirs - and all subsidised by the public. Blair says cleaner technology in the future is the answer, rather than taxing passengers. But where is the incentive to develop this technology when the industry remains exempt from any tax, never mind pollution tax."

Joe Cox said: "This poll shows that a clear majority of people identify quality of life improvements over economic expansion. Yet the government is blatantly protecting big business by delaying implementing the 'polluter pays' principle. It is high time the government took climate change as seriously as it pretends to."

Stark warning over climate change - Hampshire's Green MEP calls for urgent review of government policy

2006-01-31T23:22:00.004Z

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases could have even more devastating consequences than previously thought, a major scientific report from central government has said. [1]

The report says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels. It fears the Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) – enough to see most of Southampton and Portsmouth submerged - over 1,000 years.

It warns of large-scale and irreversible disruption if temperatures rise by more than 3C (5.4F) - well within the range of climate change projections for the century.

Caroline Lucas, Hampshire’s Green Party Euro-MP and member of the European
Parliament’s Environment Committee said the message was clear. “Scientists agree that climate change is worse than previously thought and that stabilising CO2 levels is more urgent than ever,” she said.

“The government has repeatedly claimed – not least in three general election manifestos - that tackling climate change is a top priority. But the gap between its rhetoric and action continues to widen, even as the scientists’ warnings become increasingly urgent.”

Joe Cox, a Hampshire Green Party spokesman said: “Just today, the Government’s chief scientific advisor Sir David King admitted that we can and must reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 400 ppm, but that doing so would be politically unfeasible.

“This is a shameless admission of the Government’s dereliction of duty. The truth is the UK, like the rest of the world, faces a predictable and devastating tragedy – indeed its first chapters are already unfolding.

“Our government must do everything in its power to reduce CO2 emissions before it’s too late: that means a complete review of government policy, an end to road and airport construction and a massive investment in energy efficiency and renewable technologies – and a renewed embrace of international mechanisms to persuade the rest of the developed and industrialized world to do the same.”

Dr Lucas, who commissioned the Association for Conservation of Energy (ACE) report ‘So Much Hot Air’ last October, which detailed the UK government’s failure to implement EU law on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, added:

“Scientists are pretty much in agreement about the dangers of doing nothing to prevent climate change. We need our politicians to wake up – and expend as much political will on the coming crisis at they might following, for example, a tsunami which destroyed the UK’s coastal towns and cities overnight, or even a hostile military invasion.

“Can you imagine the government claiming that defending the country from invasion would be preferable but politically unfeasible? Of course not – and its attitude to tackling climate change, which has a far greater potential for destruction, should be no different.”

City failing on - recycling

2006-01-12T18:33:00.001Z

Southampton has been shown to be lagging 236 places behind nearby rivals Eastleigh in terms of recycling, in results released in December from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

The figures, which rank all 393 UK local authorities, show that the city has yet to break through the significant 20% barrier, whilst bordering authority Eastliegh fly high at over 30% and the best in the country exceed 50%.

“These figures show what we have known for a long time in Southampton,” comments local Green spokesman John Spottiswoode, “the council is failing on recycling.”

“Despite some advances, improvements are still too slow and we are still relying too heavily on landfill and incineration. It is time Southampton looked to high flying Eastliegh, and to the continent - where rates of 60 and 70% are the norm - and put a real focus on recycling and composting.”

“This is yet another piece of evidence showing the need for a strong Green voice on Southampton city council to pressure the council into making the difficult decisions that will guarantee a high quality and sustainable waste service for years to come.”

Typical Christmas dinner travels 30,000 miles - Greens highlight food miles scandel

2005-12-14T22:32:00.000Z

Ingredients for a typical Christmas dinner may have travelled 30,000 miles from producers and growers to the UK dinner table – damaging the environment and undermining the local economy, south Hampshire Greens warned this week.

Hampshire’s Green Party Euro-MP, Caroline Lucas said that our European turkeys, African vegetables, Australian wine and American cranberry sauce will have notched up enough ‘food miles’ between them to circumnavigate the globe.

Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee and author of the influential 2002 report ‘Stopping the Great Food Swap’, said the international trade in locally available produce was damaging the environment, local economies and the enjoyment of fresh, tasty, seasonal food.

“Ingredients for a traditional Christmas Dinner are in season in the UK right now – that’s why they’re traditionally eaten at Christmas! There’s simply no need to eat mange tout from Zimbabwe, runner beans from Zambia or carrots from South Africa,” she said.

“African farmers are paying a high social and environmental price for switching traditional production to inappropriate cash crops geared for western markets, but seeing few of the financial benefits.

Southampton Green Party spokesman, Joe Cox, said: “Greens will be campaigning on just this issue in the new year, putting forward constructive policies to encourage locally grown produce. There’s no reason why our local council services can’t make a real effort to go local and local farmer’s markets and box schemes deserve far greater support.”

“By eating locally grown produce we can enjoy fresher, tastier food, support our local economy – and cut out some of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the aviation industry as it flies all these vegetables around the world.”

Caroline Lucas writes blog from Hong Kong summit

2005-12-14T22:28:00.000Z

Hampshire's Green Euro-MP, Dr Caroline Lucas will be keeping us informed and up-to-date with all the goings on at the ongoing World Trade Organisation ministerial summit in Honk Kong via daily online updates.

You can read the blog on Caroline's website here.

Hampshire Greens join thousands at climate march

2005-12-06T16:38:00.001Z

Green Party activists from across Hampshire took part in a coordinated worldwide protest on climate change this weekend, which organisers claim was the biggest ever event of its kind.

Demonstrations took place in more than thirty countries to coincide with the ongoing UN climate change conference in Montreal. While some 15,000 protesters marched at the main event in Montreal on Saturday, campaigners also took to the streets of a host of other cities on the day including London, New York, Sydney, Seoul and Moscow.

The key objective of the protest, supported globally by a wide collection of organisations, is to urge the US and Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and for international governments to develop workable emissions reduction programmes and policies.

The London event involved a march past the offices of oil giant ExxonMobil, the Australian Embassy, Downing Street and culminated in a rally and series of speeches at the US Embassy, where Southampton’s Green Party Euro-MP, Dr Caroline Lucas was amongst the speakers.

"Climate change is the greatest threat we face, and our only hope for tackling it is for world leaders to adopt binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - with the richer countries cutting their emissions further and faster than developing nations," said Joe Cox, a local Green Party spokesman who will be joining the march this weekend.

“I am delighted that Greens from across Hampshire are playing a role in this vital protest, which I hope will keep up the pressure on world leaders to promote a replacement treaty for the Kyoto protocol based on tough, binding targets - applied universally under the 'Contraction and Convergence' principle."

Photograph courtesy of Mark Grenville

Greens warn against nuclear future

2005-11-23T15:16:00.000Z

Environmental groups have warned the government against backing a revised nuclear power programme, following indications from Prime Minister Tony Blair that Britain was ready to support the creation of new developments. At yesterday’s discussion with the Common’s Liaison Committee, Mr. Blair said that the upcoming decisions on energy would be ‘difficult and controversial’.

“With some of the issues to do with climate change, and you can see it with the debate about nuclear power, there are going to be difficult and controversial decisions government has got to take. And in the end it has got to do what it believes to be right in the long-term interests of the country," said the PM.

Environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth called the proposals an economic ‘white elephant’, while the Green Party of England and Wales described them as ‘deplorable’, questioning the safety of energy source.

“Tony Blair seems intent on taking the dirty and dangerous route that is nuclear power. This is a deplorable move,” commented Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor. “Britain has been generating radioactive waste for over 50 years, yet no progress has been made on how to dispose of it. Current strategies for dealing with waste are unreliable, unsafe and ruinously expensive.”

"The Government must invest in cleaner and safer alternatives to nuclear power, not waste yet more money on nuclear white elephants,” said Friends of the Earth's director, Tony Juniper. “Ministers should champion renewable energy and energy efficiency as the means to achieve a low carbon economy while at the same time creating jobs and export opportunities."

"Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change. It is expensive and leaves a legacy of deadly nuclear waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. UK tax-payers are already committed to a bill of more than £50 billion to clean up the nuclear mess we have already created. Adding to that cost would be financial madness, and divert resources that would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewables," added Juniper.

Green MEP Unveils the Toxic Toys The Tories Won't Ban

2005-11-08T19:09:00.000Z

CHILDREN’S toys on sale in the UK this Christmas contain a raft of potentially lethal toxic chemicals – which a vote in the European parliament on 17 November could ban, Hampshire's Green Euro-MP Caroline Lucas said today.

Just days before the European Parliament is set to vote on the REACH directive – which will completely overhaul EU chemical safety legislation – Dr Lucas will be warning shoppers about some of the toxic products on sale this Christmas.

"The REACH directive will protect consumers from the most harmful toxic ingredients used in everyday products from, computers and cleaning products to clothes and even baby goods and children’s toys,” said Dr Lucas, who is Vice-President of the European Parliament’s cross-party consumer protection group and a member of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee.

“But even if the REACH Directive is adopted next month – despite the best efforts of the Tories and the chemicals industry to sabotage it – it will be years before some of the offending products are taken off the shelves.

“I urge consumers to think carefully before buying toys which contain ingredients likely to be covered by the new rules – or else they may end up giving more than they bargained to family and friends this Christmas.”

Dr Lucas will be displaying a sample of products containing toxic ingredients bought from UK stores this week, including a ‘Bratz’ doll, scoubidous, baby feeding bottles made by Toys’R’Us, modelling clay and bath ducks.

They contain chemicals which will be regulated under REACH and are thought or known to be harmful to human health – especially the developing bodies of babies and children - including phthalates, tin-organic compounds, phosphororganic compounds, nonylphenol and bisphenol-A.

Absorbed through breathing dust created as the toys suffer wear and tear, through putting the products in the mouth – or through skin contact – these chemicals are responsible for a range of symptoms ranging from reproductive damage and hormone disruption to nausea, headaches, liver damage and sleeplessness.

Dr Lucas added: “The point about all these chemicals and toys, which are just an indicative sample, is that we don’t know with certainty what their long-term health impacts may be.

"As they have all been associated with damaging side-effects we should exercise the precautionary principle, substituting them for other, safer, chemicals in all manufactured products – and certainly ensuring they are not used in toys and other goods destined for children.

“The younger children are the more sensitive they are to toxins as their bodies are still developing. Surely this is a case where precautionary action is needed: and while we are waiting I urge parents and anyone buying presents for young children to avoid them this Christmas.”

UK "Lagging" on Climate Change - Greens

2005-11-04T18:36:00.001Z

The UK was accused last night of ‘lagging’ on climate change, by Hampshire Euro-MP Caroline Lucas, despite PM Tony Blair’s aim of exercising ‘global leadership’ on the issue during 2005. The comments come after the PM’s calls for a new approach to combating the problem earlier this week, which were seen by many environmentalists as abandoning past efforts.

“The government has been discussing developing and sharing ‘green’ technologies as an alternative to persuading the US and developing nations to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol – but without binding targets there will be no incentive for nations to adopt such technologies,” said Dr. Lucas, Green MEP for South-East England and a member of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, speaking at a public meeting on the Campaign against Climate Change at Southampton University.

Dr. Lucas called on the government to urgently adopt all EU directives on climate change and work towards developing a suitable successor to Kyoto after 2012.

“We must reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in a sustainable and socially just way – and the UK can play a key role by promoting tough, legally binding targets on emissions reduction, promoting energy conservation, investing heavily in renewable energy production, and adopting the ‘contraction and convergence’ principle, under which developing nations are expected to reduce their emissions at a slower rate then developed nations,” she added.

Southampton MEP Publishes Response to Airport Plans

2005-10-31T22:17:00.001Z

Southampton's Green Euro-MP Caroline Lucas today published her damning official response to BAA's "Masterplan" for Southampton Airport.

Dr Lucas' response highlights the need for a full investigation into the real economic costs of aviation, the impact of the airport on local residents and questions the logic of expanding the airport in the face of the latest climate change research.

You can view her complete response here.

Alternatively visit our Stop Southampton Airport Expansion campaign page here.

Green MEP Slams "Absurd" Airport Plans

2005-10-16T21:59:00.000+01:00

PLANS for a four-fold increase in passenger numbers and a new terminal at Southampton Airport will damage the local environment, increase noise and congestion levels – and contribute to an upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions according to Southampton’s Green Euro-MP, Caroline Lucas.

Dr Lucas, South-East England’s Green Party MEP, condemned proposals to cater for as many as six million passengers a year by 2030 at a public meeting to discuss the plans organised by the Southampton Airport Pressure Group and chaired by John Denham MP.

She said: “The proposed expansion at Southampton would have a major impact on our health and the environment, and is a backward step in terms of sustainability.

“The effects, in terms of stress, noise and disturbance, to local residents are simply unacceptable. It is a child’s right to learn without constant noise disruption and a resident’s human right to sleep undisturbed.

“Aviation is the fastest growing source of the greenhouse gas emissions which are fuelling climate change, and we need to manage demand for flying – not simply predict more passengers and provide more flights.

“The aviation industry receives billions in hidden subsidies and tax breaks not enjoyed by other modes of transport, such as trains and buses. The government must create a level playing field for transport by scrapping the subsidies and investing in an integrated public transport system which offers an affordable, viable alternative means of getting from A to B.”

Green MEP to Speak Out Against Airport Plans

2005-10-11T20:09:00.000+01:00

Southampton’s Green MEP, Caroline Lucas is to speak at a public meeting in Southampton this Friday outlining the green argument against expansion plans for the city’s airport.

The meeting, organised by the Southampton Airport Pressure Group will take place at Bitterne Park School, Friday October 14th, 7pm.

Dr Lucas, who represents southeast England and sits on the European Parliament’s influential environment committee, will discuss the health and environmental impacts of continued airport expansion as well as addressing the issue in terms of our future sustainability.

She will also explain that because of the aviation industries vast contribution to global climate change any plan for airport expansion is completely incompatible with attempts to meet our Kyoto agreements and combat global warming.

Southampton Airport Expansion Slated

2005-09-26T21:01:00.001+01:00

The proposed expansion programme for Southampton airport should be shelved in the wake of the most recent climate change warnings, the southwest Hampshire Green Party has claimed. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research report last week pointed out that aviation was one of the biggest contributors to global warming.

"After reading this report anyone who still thinks tripling passenger numbers at Southampton is a good idea needs their head examining,” said Green Party spokesman, Joe Cox. “By failing to curb the need to fly, especially short-haul journeys that could otherwise be undertaken by rail, we are making it even more difficult for ourselves to make the necessary pollution cuts to halt climate change.

"The report makes it clear that if the selfish pro-runway lobby gets its way, and Southampton airport is allowed to expand, then the rest of society and our economy will suffer as a result,” he added.

Green Party statement on rising fuel prices

2005-09-06T23:33:00.000+01:00

“British governments have had thirty years to make Britain immune to increases in oil prices. By failing to respond to the first oil crisis in 1973-74, and the subsequent ones, they have laid the basis for repeated problems in this area

“Decades of failure in energy conservation, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources have a particular impact upon Hampshire today. Only the Greens are thinking seriously about climate change and how we need to stop being oil dependent. Only the Green Party has campaigned for a constructive route out of the oil crisis."

"Petrol prices don't reflect the huge hidden costs of road transport its contribution to climate change, pollution-related ill-health and so on - which amount to £15 billion a year and maybe a lot more.

"Of course fuel tax must be progressively increased, but under two conditions: firstly there must be overall tax reform that redistributes wealth downwards so that eco-taxes don't impact unfairly on poorer people; and secondly we must invest hugely in alternatives to the car so that people have proper choices in mode of transport. We should also scrap the vehicle excise duty and ensure that those that use their cars most pay a fairer contribution to the cost of car travel."

"We also need to be a lot less dependent on oil so that our economy doesn't suffer the crises that oil-dependency brings every few years. We must not be deflected from the effort of tackling climate change and reducing the thousands of annual deaths and hospitalisations attributable to traffic pollution. We can make progress on pollution while improving business practice and cutting hauliers' costs at the same time".

Read more...

South Coast Faces 'Climate Chaos' - Greens

2005-09-01T11:52:00.000+01:00

The Southampton Green Party has today warned that the effects of climate change will ‘wreak havoc’ with the south coasts marine environment damaging fish stocks, bird colonies and coastal areas.

The party cites a report by the international wildlife charity, the WWF, which claims that changes in surface temperatures will impact on fish breeding cycles with knock on effects on birds.

Additionally, temporary increases in sea level caused by atmospheric pressures and strong winds will become increasingly frequent, causing damage to coastal areas. This will also lead to habitat destruction for seabirds.

"Our seas are already under severe pressure from a number of activities such as fishing, oil and gas exploration and coastal development. This report shows that climate change has the power to deepen this crisis and to completely turn our marine world upside down - disrupting and changing the entire ecosystem,” said Andrew Lee, Director of Campaigns at WWF, speaking to wwf.org.uk.

Commenting for the Southampton Green Party spokesman Joe Cox said: “The coastline around South West Hampshire faces particular difficulties because of its mixture of intensive development and hugely important wildlife sites. This is a further example of the government, and individuals, needing to take urgent action to reduce our impact on the natural environment and in particular our contribution to climate change, to ensure that our coastlines remain economically productive and sustainable for generations to come.”

Southampton Energy Saving Worth £20 million

2005-08-16T21:56:00.000+01:00

Southampton households could save at least £20 million every year on bills if certain energy efficient measures were introduced, says the Southampton Green Party. Citing a recent report by the Energy Savings Trust, the party says individual households could save up to £250 every year with simple changes.

Amongst other energy saving recommendations are replacing old boilers, replacing inefficient appliances, lowering the thermostat and using energy efficient light bulbs.

“We take our day to day energy consumption for granted, but as the cost of our energy sours and the impact of our consumption on the environment becomes more evident, energy saving measures become more and more important,” said the Green Party’s Joe Cox.

“Many energy saving measures are cheap and simple, such as replacing light bulbs. But many Southampton residents may not be aware that there is government money available to help with the costs. Greens would like to see grant money increased and better advertised so that Southampton residents can gain the rewards of energy efficiency in their bills and their environment” he added.

Water saving tips

2005-07-25T21:49:00.000+01:00

As water companies announce a series of hose pipe bans across the south east and concerns over water shortages grow across Western Europe, many people are considering it increasingly important to use water supplies with care.

Using less water is not just a good thing simply because it means we will not run out, it is also good for the environment (and if you have a water meter, good for your water bill too!). Over exploitation of water supplies can lead to subsidence, salt water incursion and a reduction in groundwater as well as a possible drying up of springs, which could lead to a reduction in river flow and very simply using less water will use less energy.

Below are just a few tips you could use to reduce your water consumption at home:

• Placing a brick in your toilet cistern will save a litre per flush.
• Fix leaking taps - a dripping tap can waste up to 140 litres a week.
• Swap a hosepipe for a bucket of water when washing your car.
• Installing a water meter can save water and money by monitoring how much you use.
• Wait for a full load before you use the washing machine.
• Have a shower instead of a bath - this can save more than 300 litres of water a week. But be warned, a power shower can use more water than a bath!
• Turn off the tap when brushing your teeth. Brushing with the tap running wastes six litres per minute.
• If you have a water meter, check for leaks by turning off the water and taking two readings several minutes apart. If the readings are noticeably different there may be a leak.
• When buying a new dishwasher or washing machine choose the most energy- and water-efficient model.
• Use a water butt in your garden to collect rainwater.
• Use any clean water created by cooking to water plants.
• Water the garden in the evening to reduce evaporation.
• Mulch for moisture in the garden to reduce the need for watering.

Greens condemn plans for ½ million new homes in South-East

2005-07-15T21:32:00.000+01:00

PLANS to build more than half a million new homes in the South-East agreed this week will increase the chance of water shortages and the destructive impact of climate change whilst doing little to address the region’s shortage of affordable housing, Green MEP Caroline Lucas has warned.

The South-East England Regional Authority (SEERA) has adopted a target of 578,000 new homes to be built across the south-East over the next 20 years – with annual targets of over 6000 in Hampshire alone.

Dr Lucas, Green Euro-MP for the South-East England region, said: “This level of housing development is simply too high for the region, which is already over-crowded and economically ‘overheating’.

“By adopting such high targets for housing growth, SEERA has agreed to place an unsustainable burden on the region’s infrastructure – especially its water supply – and increased the likely human costs of climate change, which studies have shown is likely to affect the South-East worse than any other region of the UK.”

She said there was undoubtedly a need for more affordable housing in the region – but argued that this need for housing must be balanced against the impact of new development on existing residents and the environment.

Other ways of increasing the level of affordable housing – such as bringing back into use the region’s 83,000 empty homes and requiring a higher proportion of dwelling in new developments to be earmarked for social housing – should be prioritised over a policy of “concreting over the countryside”, she added.

“SEERA’s plans will be subject to a full public consultation before a final decision is taken on the targets by the Government next year.

“A full social, economic and environmental assessment of the impact of such large-scale development – both on the South-East and other regions – must be carried out to enable the public to make an informed contribution during the consultation process.”

Local Greens launch radical cycling plan

2005-06-10T17:32:00.000+01:00

The Southampton Green Party today announced that it would like to see a citywide target of 10% of journeys by bicycle by 2009 along with a raft of measures aimed at encouraging cycling in the city.

The launch comes just as people across the country begin celebrating the annual national bike week festival. The festival is the UK’s “celebration of cycling” and includes events across the country promoting cycling.

Commenting on the plan local Green Party spokesman Joe Cox said: “Greens want to see measures introduced that will make a real difference now, with an ambitious yet perfectly achievable target of 10% of journeys by bike brought about by a safe and direct cycle network citywide and secure cycle parking close to homes and shops.”

He concluded: “Everyone should have safe, comfortable and convenient access to cycling; as well as providing an essential means of transportation, cycling is fun, makes us fit and is kind to the environment.”

The Green Party’s ten-point plan for cycling:

1. Set a target of 10% of all journeys by cycle by 2009
2. Immediately quadruple the Department of Transport cycling budget
3. Ensure the introduction of a fully integrated city-wide cycling network by 2009
4. Ensure all routes are safe and direct
5. Set up a Green Route Patrol for enforcement of cycling facilities and safety
6. Shift 20% of all police officers out of patrol cars and onto bikes
7. Reduce the 30 mph speed limit in major built-up areas to 20 mph where advised by safety officers
8. Safe routes to schools for all school children by 2008
9. Regular car free Sundays on main streets in the city centre
10. Secure parking for bicycles in all new housing and commercial developments

Read the cycling plan in full here.

Thank you for voting Green

2005-05-06T23:21:00.000+01:00

Thank you to all voters in Southampton Test who voted Green on May 5th. The Green Party achieved 1402 votes, 3.5% of the total cast.

Nationally the Greens achieved their best set of election results ever, including a fantastic 22% in Brighton Pavilion, narrowly missing out on second place to the Conservatives. Nationwide, in the 201 constituencies contested by the Greens over 250,000 people voted for the Green Party.

Greens used the election though to voice concerns at the unfair nature of the electoral system, highlighting the fact that Labour achieved just 36% of the vote yet over 55% of the seats in the House of Commons and that nationwide over 250,000 Green voters are left without representation.

Green Party spokesman John Spottiswoode comments:

"The first past the post system we use to elect our members of parliament in the UK is grossly unfair, the system is totally unproportional, leaving large numbers of voters for smaller parties completely unrepresented.

In the Scottish parliament, under a partially proportional system, the Greens have seven seats, and we are making real progress. If in Westminster elections the number of seats allocated actually reflected the number of votes cast then we would be facing a much brighter future."

Click here to sign the 'Make My Vote Count' petition calling on the government to reform the voting system

Vote Green - May 5th

2005-04-30T23:05:00.000+01:00

The first Green MPs will not form the next government, but a strong Green voice at Westminster would act as the consience of the parliament and change the face of British politics for good. Just a few Green MPs would:

1. Tackle climate change: Expose how the government's efforts rely on subsidising nuclear over renewables.
2. Defend schools and hospitals: Expose the true costs of Private Finance Initiatives.
3. Keep the peace: Demand information to ensure that British troops have not colluded in US war crimes.
4. Defend free speech: Investigate government attempts to undermine the independance of the BBC.
5. Make poverty history: Monitor that overseas aid is directed towards indigenous industry. No British contractors.
6. Keep big business out of government: Expose the revolving door between government and private consultancy.
7. Stand up for our communities: Campaign on the real issues that matter to local people.
8. Stand true to our principles: Promote the radical Green manifesto that we will be elected on.

Vote for the real choice for real change.

Vote Green Party

Fuel protestors "should vote Green"

2005-04-26T23:22:00.000+01:00

Southampton Greens today condemned a group of thirty protesters for goingahead with a “go-slow” protest near an oil refinery in the city claimingthey were merely disguising the real issues of climate change and oildependency.

The Greens laid out their response to the hauliers concerns that higher oilprices are affecting their business by arguing that the protestors shouldvote Green on May 5th, on the basis that the Green Party is the only partythinking seriously about climate change and ending our economic dependency on oil.

Local Party spokesman, Joe Cox, comments: “Fuel protestors should protest byvoting Green on May 5th because only the Green Party has campaigned for aconstructive route out of the oil crisis. All the protestors are doing byrunning shock and awe media stunts such as this, other than wasting fuel, isproviding a smoke screen for the real issues.”

John Spottiswoode, Green Parliamentary candidate in Southampton Testcomments: "Petrol prices don't reflect the huge hidden costs of roadtransport; its contribution to climate change, pollution-related ill-healthand so on - which amount to £15 billion a year and maybe a lot more.

Of course fuel tax must be progressively increased, but under threeconditions: firstly there must be overall tax reform that redistributeswealth downwards so that eco-taxes don't impact unfairly on poorer people;secondly we must argue for the equalisation of fuel duty across the EU, sothat no countries hauliers have an advantage over another’s; and lastly wemust invest hugely in alternatives to the car so that people have properchoices in mode of transport. We should also scrap the vehicle excise dutyand ensure that those that use their cars most pay a fairer contribution tothe cost of car travel."

Greens: Labour lied over Iraq

2005-04-22T22:59:00.000+01:00

Local Southampton Greens today slammed Labour’s Iraq policy claiming the war was illegal, unnecessary and a gross abuse of our international power.

Comments, John Spottiswoode, Southampton Test Green candidate:

“Mr Blair misled the public about the alleged reasons for the attack on Iraq, and proceeded to lead the UK into an illegal and unjustifiable war on the basis of this deceit.

"The Green Party said all along that the war would be criminal. Lawyers at Cherie Blair's firm, Matrix Chambers, said so too, and delivered their legal opinion to the public on the same platform as CND and the Green Party (1) Even the UN Secretary-General himself has said so. (2)

"But we mustn't put all the blame on Tony Blair. Most Labour MPs as well as Tory MPs supported him. The Lib Dems equivocated - never once said the war would be illegal - and gave it what Charles Kennedy called their 'total support' once it went ahead.

"I urge all voters who are anti-war to vote for peaceful solutions by voting for the only party that wholeheartedly opposed the war at the time - the Greens (3)."

Notes:
(1) See "Legal Opinion from Matrix Chambers"
(2) See BBC Online News
(3) See Nine Reasons not to bomb Iraq: It would be illegal, aggressive, unnecessary, dishonest, hypocritical, unjust, exploitative, wasteful and likely to prove counter-productive.

Greens “win hands down” Make Poverty History debate

2005-04-14T18:09:00.000+01:00

Green Party parliamentary candidate John Spottiswoode spoke for the Green Party at a Make Poverty History debate in Southampton this week. John emphasised that the environment and poverty are explicably linked. He said, “With the majority of the world’s resources gone most of the worlds poor will never catch up with the materialist wealth of the west.”

Global climate change also poses challenges as water and suitable arable land become more and more scarce trapping yet more people in poverty and spreading starvation. The various other threats including worsening pollution, inaction over global climate change, gross over-consumption by developed nations, GM foods and imperialist war mongering are just some of the reasons that have motivated John to stand for the Green Party in this election.

Mr Spottiswoode emphasised the need for fair trade, not free trade. He said that free trade favoured the strong over the weak and favoured those with money over those without. He referred to personal experience in many poor nations, such as Malaysia and Thailand and said that the Green Party would cancel the debt of the fifty-two poorest countries, whilst also raising aid contributions above the current 0.7% of GDP target, to 1%.

Many at the debate, attended by well over one hundred people, were unaware that the Green Party was more than a single-issue environmental group, and were impressed by the range and strength of Green arguments.

“Whilst the most important problems facing us are environmental, it is impossible to deal with these effectively without also tackling the economic system and social inequalities. Everything is interlinked.” He also referred to the quote about humans acting like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, playing God with the Earth’s environment: “We know not what we do, but we do it anyway.”

Greens launch "People, Planet, Peace" election themes

2005-04-07T18:17:00.000+01:00

Greens set the wheels rolling on their radical "People, Planet, Peace" election campaign, with billboards, Battle bikes and a bevy of candidates lining up on College Green, Westminster, on Thursday morning.

Target candidates congregated outside parliament, then towed the 3 bike-led billboards emblazoned with the campaign's themes back to their constituencies, to distribute the hot-off-the-press campaign literature.

Keith Taylor, Green Party Principal Speaker and Brighton Pavilion parliamentary candidate Widely tipped to become nation's first ever Green-MP comments: "We are fighting this election on an unashamed platform of social, economic and environmental justice, that places Peace, Public services and the planet's resources at the heart of our policies, and provides a choice for real change from the business as usual politics of pollute and privatise."

Read the BBC News article on the launch here

Easter Egg packaging “excessive”

2005-03-24T19:52:00.000Z

Southampton Greens today highlighted a report from Hampshire Trading Standards, which has found that the average Easter egg is 80% packaging and just 20% chocolate.

Commenting on the report today John Spottiswoode, Green prospective parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test, said, “There is no need for such excessive and elaborate packaging on Easter Eggs. All of the excess packaging takes huge amounts of energy to produce and adds to Southampton’s growing landfill troubles.”

The report found in one case that an egg was just 14% chocolate and 86% plastic and cardboard. Easter Eggs are just one example of over packaging though; the report found a huge range of products with over excessive and often entirely unnecessary packaging.

John says, “The Green Party would introduce tax incentives for companies to limit pointless packaging, reflecting the real damage their excess packaging causes, meaning real progress toward a sustainable society.”

Find out more about Green Party food policy here.

Local MEP in Winchester to warn of 'poisoned planet'

2005-03-22T21:54:00.000Z

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party Euro-MP for South east of England is to speak in Winchester tomorrow about our 'poisoned planet' - and what we can do about.

Dr Lucas will speak alongside Alison Craig from Pesticide Action Network at the meeting, organised by Winchester Animal Concern on Friday May 20th, at The United Church, Jewry Street, Winchester at 7.30pm.

She will discuss the health and environmental threats posed by hundreds of thousands of synthetic chemicals used in everyday items from cosmetics to cleaning products, carpets to computers – and even children’s clothes.

She will also explain that the current regime of testing chemicals on animals is leading to animals dying in cruel experiments that do not provide reliable evidence of the dangers to human health.

“Rain drops, human blood and even breast milk are contaminated with dangerous chemicals, many of which pre-date current EU safety rules and largely escape regulation,” she said.

"I want to see dangerous chemicals controlled without recourse to cruel, outdated and inefficient animal tests. Indeed, animal testing has actually allowed the chemicals industry to escape proper regulation as the science is often crude and tests produce results of variable quality.

"For example, studies investigating the effectiveness of the animal test for cancer found that 46 per cent of substances were found have been carcinogenic in rats but not in mice, and vice versa. Regulators analysing test results that vary between animal species must then question which species - the rat or the mouse - is most likely to react like a human being.

"I believe that far more can be done to use existing non-animal tests to create a rigorous regulatory regime for all synthetically-produced chemicals in commercial use. We can ensure that the most hazardous chemicals are banned and safer alternatives used instead without needlessly sacrificing huge numbers of animals."

All are welcome to the meeting. Entry is free and the venue is wheelchair-accessible.

Greens launch first ever billboard

2005-03-21T21:31:00.000Z

The Green Party's election campaign entered full swing today as the Greens unveiled their first-ever billboard, outside Parliament. The graphic, which currently dominates the temporarily-redesigned Green Party website, is available to send as an e-card here

The poster was masterminded by the Green Party's advertising agency, Satellite Marketing Communications. The agency, who have a social responsibility ethic, are working with the Green Party on a pro bono basis.

The Green Party's head of communications, Matt Wootton said today "Satellite has developed the Green Party's first truly professional advertising campaign, in powerful and potent style. It's a relationship that incisively projects the Green Party's urgent message of social justice and environmental protection into the minds of an ever-more receptive public".

PFI - Economic Heroin

2005-02-10T22:07:00.000Z

Green Party PPC for Southampton Test, John Spottiswoode, today issued a damning critique of the governments growing use of PFI (Private finance initiative). The continued use of PFI to fund public projects will “cripple future generations with debt repayments” he says. PFI is a particular worry for residents of Southampton where three schools (Cantell, Woodlands and Redbridge) as well as sections of the hospital are funded through the flawed method.

In his report John explains: “PFI is so popular now because it gives the false impression of high economic activity while hiding the true costs through suspect accounting. Large liabilities today from PFI are hidden by ‘off Balance Sheet’ accounting (somewhat similar to the accounting practices of Enron before that company collapsed). Off Balance Sheet accounting hides the true nature of the long-term debt build-up.”

Unfortunately for future generations the present Labour government has become addicted. As more and more projects are funded through PFI and its twin scheme of PPP (Public private partnerships) future generations are going to have to pay for what is in effect huge, unsustainable public borrowing. PFI has become the government’s economic heroin, it gives them a high now, but eventually we will have to go “cold turkey” and future generations will suffer for it.

In the not too distant future taxes will have to rise significantly or services will have to be drastically cut back to pay for this governments addiction. John asks in his report “Is it worth flashy new buildings now only to leave huge debts for the future which mean we wont be able to afford to pay the teachers and doctors who work in them?”

Green Party policy is for sustainable development, that is development now that won’t hinder or hold back future generations. The Green Party calls for the renovation of existing buildings rather than costly re-builds, the Greens have regularly sounded their criticism of PFI as it offers huge profits to large companies whilst ignoring the needs of local people. We need small scale re-use and renovation projects funded through realistic financial means.

Southampton City Council and the Labour government need to kick the PFI habit now and get back to realistic financial practices and accept the need for funding new public capital schemes in a non-illusory fashion.

To read Johns report "A Green Critique of the PFI/PPP Arrangements" click here.

Read more about Green Party plans for economic growth and sustainability here.

Climate Change Meeting - Thursday November 3rd

2005-02-04T00:04:00.000Z

Greens unveil public services election pledge

2005-01-21T17:50:00.000Z

The Green party today announced it intends to fight the forthcoming general election on a platform of massive investment in public services, the renationalisation of the railways and a pledge to scrap university tuition fees.

The proposals, put forward by Green party principal speaker and south east region MEP Caroline Lucas, also included a principled opposition to the Iraq war and a pledge to scrap the unpopular PFI, the public-private partnerships that have become a hallmark of New Labour. Read more here...

Aim Higher on Recycling - Greens

2004-11-03T21:17:00.000Z

Southampton faces under performing on recycling unless new, tougher targets are introduced for coming years, the Southampton Green Party has warned, following the publication of the final national 2003/04 results this week. The Defra statistics showed that over the period Southampton trailed the national average for recycling and composting by 11%, at just 6%.

Local Green Party spokesman Joe Cox called the figures “a disgrace for Southampton city council” and called for stricter measures on recycling to be outlined in the coming months.

He continued to say: "Recycling in the rest of Hampshire has been improving, while Southampton is lagging behind. The infrastructure is available in Hampshire for a much higher rate, why else could our neighbour Eastliegh manage 28% to our pitiful 6%? What is missing in Southampton is the political will. We should be aiming to recycle at least half our waste by 2010, so that we become one of the best recyclers in Europe."

The Green Party supports the alternate twin bin scheme for recycling/waste collection rejected last year by Labour and Conservative councillors in town hall and has consistently called for a recycling target of 50% by the end of the decade, recommending a further improvement to 75% by 2015. Several European nations, including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands already recycle around half of all household waste.

Greens Support Southampton Recycling Campaign

2004-11-01T21:26:00.000Z

The south west Hampshire Green Party has given its backing to the campaign for better recycling in Southampton. Southampton city council needs to show that it is serious about solving the landfill crisis and getting Southampton to recycle more.

In October city councillors voted for a weekly landfill/incinerator refuse collection and a fortnightly recycling collection. It is a decision which is sadly not going to benefit the people of Southampton.

The decision goes against what residents want, during trials of the alternate week system MORI carried out a poll of residents revealing most found the scheme very successful.

Continuing the weekly refuse collection will mean an additional cost of £750,000, as well removing the incentive to recycle more, meaning the council could potentially miss its own target and miss out on over £400,000 of central government funding.

Landfill space in Hampshire is fast running out, and continuing to dump or burn our waste is an unsustainable use of natural resources. When are we going to stop producing endless amounts of waste? Where are we going to put it? What damage is it doing to our land, water and air?

The south west Hampshire Green Party supports the campaign for an alternate recycling/refuse collection for the people of Southampton.

<< Home

No Expansion at Southampton Airport

2004-10-04T20:37:00.001+01:00

Why do we oppose Southampton airport expansion?

Climate change: Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions - it accounts for just 3.5% of human caused emissions today, but, at current predicted growth rates, could account for up to 15% by 2050. Aviation is not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

Social justice: Many of the poorest in our society are suffering from fuel poverty, because heating fuel is taxed - yet air fuel is not taxed. In effect, those who don't fly are subsidising those who do, to the tune of £183 per person nationwide. Yet less than 40% of British people fly in any given year. Aviation is subsidising the rich - The rich tend to fly more often than the poor, and the poor are more likely to live under flight paths.

Health: Noise has genuine and significant health effects; the fear of crashes has severe health effects; air pollution now kills more people than road traffic accidents.

Children's rights: A recent study by researchers at the University of London shows that the reading ability of children living under flight paths is worse than that of children in similar economic circumstances elsewhere.

Human rights: The European Court found that night flights deprive people of their human right to a decent night's sleep.

You can view BAAs future plans for the airport online here.

Southampton's Green Euro-MP responds to Airport Plans

2004-10-03T22:22:00.000+01:00

Green MEP Slams "Absurd" Airport Plans

2004-10-01T22:09:00.000+01:00

Green MEP to Speak Out Against Airport Plans

2004-10-01T20:36:00.000+01:00

Southampton Airport Expansion Slated

2004-10-01T20:35:00.000+01:00

Young Greens in South West Hampshire

2004-09-02T13:50:00.000+01:00

Who are the Young Greens?
Young Greens is the section of the Green Party of England and Wales that is dedicated to members under 25. We share the Green Party's vision of a fair, democratic and sustainable future, and work closely with the local party to make South West Hampshire a better place to live.

What do we do?
At present we are a relatively small part of the party, but with the few members we have from Southampton, Winchester and the surrounding areas we have done a lot, and with growing a number of members we have a far greater potential to do more. Some of our activities include, encouraging recycling at schools and colleges, encouraging Fairtrade to be sold in schools, colleges and Student Unions and raising awareness of environmental and global issues amongst students of all ages.

For members aged over 21 there is even the opportunity to stand for election in City and Council elections with the party.

Interested? Want to find out more?
To find out more about the Green Party locally please continue to browse this website, there is a wealth of news on our local campaigns, as well as Green Party policy information.

It will also be worth looking at the Green Party's national website, as well as the Young Greens to find out more.

If you are really interested though you should consider joining the party, email YoungGreens AT swhantsgreenparty.org.uk (replace AT with @) for more information.

SW Hants Young Greens mailing list

2004-09-01T18:45:00.000+01:00

Young Greens is a new movement harnessing the energy and ideas of young people to change the direction of our society.

The Young Greens in the south west of Hampshire are a rapidly growing organisation. We support the local party because we share their vision of a fair, democratic and sustainable future.

To keep up to date with what the Young Greens, and indeed the Green Party are up to in and around South West Hampshire sign up to our mailing list...

<< Home

Caroline Lucas MEP's response to the BAA Masterplan

2004-07-01T22:10:00.000+01:00

Mr David Cumming
Managing Director
Southampton Airport
31 October 2005

Dear Mr Cumming,

Re: BAA's Masterplan for Southampton Airport

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document, which has been drawn up as required by the Government's White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport". I have tried to respond to the questions posed. However, I must mention the leading way in which some of the questions have been framed, which makes it difficult to express an opposing point of view and still answer the question.

Chapter 2 - economic and social benefits of the airport
Question 1 - What social and economic benefits do you associate with Southampton Airport and which of these do you regard as most important?

This chapter discusses the estimates of the number of jobs that will be created by the expansion of Southampton airport. Previous predictions of employment gain through the growth of airports have proved to be unreliable - Manchester airport is a case in point. Its claim that 50,000 jobs would be generated by runway two shrank to a revised claim 18,000 jobs during the public inquiry. As for Southampton airport, one resident pointed out, at the recent Bitterne Park public meeting into the airport's expansion plans, that BAA has predicted before that 4,000 jobs would be created as a result of the airport's operations. That prediction was made in 1989 yet the prediction is still nowhere near being fulfilled. Now the same prediction has been issued again in support of the latest expansion bid.

Even if this number of jobs is created, there is no certainty that they will go to local people. There are generally high levels of employment within Hampshire, but pockets of deprivation do exist. How does BAA propose linking jobs that are created with the communities that need them? As Pam Alexander, chief executive of SEEDA, said at a review of the Regional Economic Strategy in Southampton recently: "This is an area where businesses do prosper, often relying on an influx of skilled workers from outside the patch, leaving the local workforce in low-skilled jobs with little ambition."

If job creation leads to people moving to the area, existing businesses could find that they have to compensate employees for increased house prices, raising their business costs. Nic Ferriday of AirportWatch reports that BAA at Heathrow has been at pains to say how few jobs have been created by the airport!

Inward migration would lead to further pressure to build more homes. SEERA's plans for 4,000 homes to be built in south Hampshire every year until 2026 are tremendously unpopular because residents foresee deterioration in their quality of life. The masterplan does not explain why expansion and the creation of 4,000 jobs will not lead to more housing demand.

Paragraph 3.4.5 quotes the draft South-East Plan, which calls "for diversification of the sub-regional economy to reduce reliance on Southampton airport as a dominant economic factor." If expansion of the airport drives up business costs, that will hinder this aim.

Even aviation industry insiders question the economic benefits that are claimed for airports. Sir Rod Eddington, who retired as chief executive of BAA earlier this year, was asked about the economic benefits that Southampton airport brings to the area at a meeting of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Directors. He is quoted as saying: "You have to ask the question how much real economic activity it brings to the local area and I think the answer varies a lot from regional airport to regional airport.
You shouldn't take it as a given that just because the airlines fly out more often that somehow more tourists come and they stay in hotels and eat in restaurants. You have got to look very carefully at traffic flows, who's going where, but I think universally the convenience issue is a real one, particularly for people who live in this part of southern UK, but the issue of real economic value to the region is more problematical."

The masterplan does not quantify the economic benefit that tourists flying into Southampton bring. Paragraph 2.5.3 says that overseas visitors account for 24% of the money spent by tourists in Hampshire, but it does not explain how many of these tourists arrived via Southampton airport as opposed to the ports of Portsmouth and Southampton or overland via another point of entry to the UK. Nationally, UK tourists spend more abroad than overseas tourists do in the UK. In 2001 the respective totals were £18.7 billion compared to £7.6 billion (HACAN Clear Skies).

The claims for the economic benefits of airport expansion also overlook the point that money spent on flying might also have been spent on something else instead. The cost of a tourist flight could have paid for other leisure activities - from eating out and theatre-going to horse-riding and sailing - activities that secure local jobs. The cost of a business flight could have funded equipment for video-conferencing that might have been sold or manufactured within the region.

The argument is made that a regional airport services local businesses and serves to attract new companies to the area. It would be useful if the masterplan analysed the types of passengers carried.

There is no mention within this chapter of the costs that the airport industry creates for others: the cost of reducing noise, its contribution to pollutants that damage health and, the biggest component, its impact on climate change. The Green Party has put these external costs imposed by the UK aviation industry at £3.8 billion pa. This cost is borne by society in general, and not the passenger in particular.

As well as not paying its external costs, the air transport industry does not pay certain taxes. There is no tax on fuel, no VAT, and duty-free sales continue except for trips entirely within the EU. It is estimated that if aircraft fuel were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol, if VAT were levied at the standard rate and if duty-free were abolished, the tax raised would be an astonishing £9.2bn a year. This is after the current Airport Departure Tax (APD) of £0.9bn has been netted off.
("The Hidden Cost of Flying" - the Aviation Environment Federation 2003).

Partly as a result of these hidden subsidies, air tickets are almost half the price today as they were ten years ago. Clearly aviation is treated as a special case industry, particularly compared to other forms of transport. This is not justifiable from an environmental perspective nor from a financial standpoint. As one economist wryly observed about Stansted airport: "Where is the economic benefit to the UK in subsidising an Irish airline to buy American planes to transport British citizens to France and Spain?"

If aviation was treated in a similar fashion to other modes of transport, we would see a decline in demand for air travel. Groups in Britain have demonstrated that if aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as motor fuel and if VAT was imposed on air travel, including fuel and aircraft purchases, there would be no demand for new airport capacity in the UK for another 30 years or more.

While the general public might not like more expensive flights, they are going to like the consequences of climate change even less: more extreme weather events, the spread of diseases associated with warmer climes, disappearing countries and the plight of environmental refugees. And experts agree that curbing the expansion of aviation is the first necessary step if even the government’s relatively unambitious CO2 emission targets are to be met.

Democratic governance is about drawing lines between different freedoms. Against one person's freedom to fly, we have to balance another's freedom to be free of noise and pollution and the worst effects of climate change.

Chapter 5 - passenger number forecasts
Question 4 BAA assumes that growth in air travel is driven by economic growth and the price of air travel? Do you share this view and, if not, what drivers do you believe facilitate this growth?

As I have outlined, the cost of flying is artificially cheap. This is coupled with the lack of investment in alternative means of transport, particularly rail, for journeys to locations as close as Manchester and Leeds - two of the destinations served by Southampton airport.

Chapter 6 - land use in 2015
Question 8 In the period to 2015, are there any other facilities that you would like to see developed at Southampton Airport?
I would like to tie my response to this in with my response to question 11 in chapter 8: "Do you agree with our principals of transport strategy for the airport, including its development as an inter-modal transport hub?"

The masterplan contains very little information on how it is going to affect a modal shift away from the car. Private cars account for 63% of passenger journeys to the airport, compared with 13% for rail and just 1% for buses and coaches combined. While it may be more difficult to influence the train services calling at Southampton Parkway, the lack of a coach stop at the airport shows a severe lack of commitment to the promotion of public transport. Paragraph 8.3.8 describes how the airport is connected to the National Express stop in Southampton city centre by local buses and trains, but it is not an easy link. Other airports make provision for coaches. One would have thought that it would be easy for a National Express coach to stop at the airport given its proximity to the motorway.

There is insufficient information on the bus services to the airport or on initiatives to reduce staff travel by car.

Chapter 9 - environmental impacts
Question 12: Chapter 9 states BAA's view that major airport developments should only be undertaken in line with national sustainability objectives, and in a responsible way. Do you agree with this approach?

I gather that the reduction in carbon dioxide target given in paragraph 9.10.3 (the BAA group-wide goal of a 15% reduction in overall carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 compared with 1990) refers to the ground-based activities at the airports, rather than the emissions from planes. I, therefore, do not believe that BAA is acting in a sustainable or responsible fashion.

Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. We need to manage demand for air travel, rather than pursuing the current predict-and-provide approach, an approach that has been discredited for car travel.

There is a contradiction within Government policy. The Government's desire to cater for demand is at odds with its stated commitment to tackle climate change. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, at the University of East Anglia, has calculated that, if the aviation industry grows as predicted, all householders, motorists and businesses will have to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to zero in order to meet the Government's climate change target of a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. A report published by the centre in September 2005 concluded that even if aviation's current growth is halved, the rest of the economy will still have to make cuts far beyond the Government's 60% target.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has also argued for no new airport capacity, and for measures to constrain aviation, so that the Government's sustainable development goals can be met.

Question 13: Furthermore, BAA's development strategy looks for a sensible balance between promoting social and economic benefits and managing local and environmental impacts. Do you support this approach?

I agree with the approach, but not the outcome, so I must - on balance - reply: "No". The social and economic benefits have been overplayed, for the reasons I have given in response to question 2, and the local and environmental impacts have been downplayed.

Questions 12 and 13 are examples of leading questions. They depend on the respondent's definition of "responsible" and "sensible".

Question 14: BAA argues that aviation should be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, as the most effective means by which the EU aviation can address its climate impacts. Do you agree with this approach?

No, the most effective means would be to reduce air travel. A fuel tax would also be preferable to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. If emissions trading is extended to cover aviation, there should be a separate scheme for aviation. Otherwise there will be no real constraint in air travel for many years, as airlines will be able to buy emissions permits from other industry sectors.

There would also need to be parallel actions on other pollutants emitted by aircraft that have a greenhouse gas effect e.g. nitrous oxides and water vapour. Nitrous oxides at high altitudes are a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide while, below the flight corridors where air traffic is concentrated, contrails (condensation trails) could have a greater greenhouse gas effect than any other greenhouse gas emission. Without action on these other gases, there is a risk that their emissions might increase, due to modifications in engine design geared towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Engine manufacturers have made significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by increasing combustion temperatures. As a consequence, you often get an increase in nitrous oxide emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere" stated that the overall contribution to greenhouse warming by aircraft is between two and four times larger than the impact of an aircraft's carbon dioxide emissions alone.

These points are summarised in an amendment that the European Parliament tabled to a recent EU report on action to tackle climate change post-2012:

(the European Parliament…) "Urges the commission to take prompt action to reduce the climate impact from aviation, by creating an emissions trading scheme for aviation emissions for the period 2008-2012, covering all flights to and from any EU airport, and that the instruments to tackle the full climate impact of aviation be introduced in parallel."

Noise is not addressed by the questions for this chapter. EU members have adopted the 1999 World Health Organisation recommendations that the welfare of communities must be put first when creating transport policy. Sadly, there is little evidence that this happening.

Noise is not just an irritation, it is a serious health risk too. According to considerable evidence, including a study published in the Lancet in 2004, adults who are repeatedly disturbed by noise suffer sleep loss, fatigue, hypertension and accidents from concentration failure, especially if they are carrying out complex tasks.

Children in schools or homes under flight paths can chronically under-perform. A study at Schipol airport showed higher than average levels of poor reading comprehension due to aircraft noise exposure. Another study undertaken at Munich airport revealed that long-term memory and reading deficits in children were eliminated when Munich airport closed, but emerged in children near the new airport. Worryingly, stress responses, such as increased blood pressure and higher levels of adrenaline when at rest, were also revealed when comparison was made with children not exposed to chronic aircraft noise.

Even the Government's White Paper recommends the funding of school trips away, especially when the loss of outdoor amenities becomes severe.

So, the noise issue must be addressed, given the proximity of homes and schools to the airport. Health impact assessments as well as Environmental Impact Assessments ought to be carried out before any kind of development is approved. The methodology for measuring noise must also be modified, as it averages noise levels over a 16-hour day rather than taking into account individual noise incidents.

Scheduled flights from Southampton airport are banned between the hours of 2300 and 0600 each day, and between 2300 on Saturday and 0730 on Sunday. Yet, at the Bitterne Park public meeting, several residents said that they experienced disturbed sleep - and one can understand why considering that planes passed just a couple of hundred feet overhead. Residents to the north of the airport also experience considerable disturbance. No-flight periods should be extended, irrespective of the outcome of BAA's plans for expansion.

The complaints line procedure also needs to be improved as residents report that their calls are not being logged by the airport.

Finally, the public meeting at Bitterne Park showed that nearby residents were very worried about the chance of an aircraft crashing, and they felt that their concerns were not being fully investigated. I would urge the airport to look into the incidents reported by residents and share their findings in full.

That concludes my response to the consultation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Caroline Lucas – Green Party MEP, South East of England.

General Election 2005

2004-06-19T16:51:00.000+01:00

A successful election for the Greens both locally and nationally. Over 280,000 people vote Green in the UK, despite Greens only standing in a third of the seats.

Locally there were Green candidates in two constituencies, Southampton Test and New Forest West where the Greens achieved 3.5% and 4% of the vote respectively, beating UKIP in Test and making progress towards establishing themselves as the regions fourth political party.

Nationally the Greens kept their deposits (achieved 5% or higher) in many constituencies including a fantastic 22% in Brighton Pavilion, beating the Liberal Democrats into fourth and narrowly missing out to the Conservatives.

Greens are now looking to build on these results in the local elections next May and aim to increase their local nationwide representation from the current 80 councillors to well over 100.

European elections 2004

2004-06-16T09:47:00.000+01:00

Congratulations, you voted to keep your Green Party MEP, Caroline Lucas. Caroline acheived the increased share of the vote she needed to remain Green MEP for the south east of England, with 7.9% of the vote.

Caroline has been an elected MEP since 1999, and has since tirelessly worked to make real progress on a number of issues:

No to GM food and crops
Caroline Lucas has helped to gain the strictest controls on GMOs in the world, and argued in Parliament for a total ban.

Peace and justice
Caroline Lucas has been a leading voice against war on Iraq (click here for more details) – and has visited Iraq and Israel/ Palestine on fact-finding missions

Animal rights
As Vice President of the Parliament’s Animal Protection Group, Caroline Lucas has challenged the EU to end live exports of animals.

No to airport expansion
Caroline Lucas has led a European-wide campaign to end night flights, and opposed all plans for airport expansion in the South East.

Mobile phone masts
Dr Lucas has called for a ban on siting mobile phone masts near schools and hospitals.

Fair and sustainable trade
Caroline Lucas has argued for radical reform of the World Trade Organisation for fairer trade.

Weapons into ploughshares
She has faced arrest for peacefully protesting against nuclear weapons, and led parliamentary debates on nuclear disarmament

No to massive housebuilding
She has supported local campaigns against the destruction of precious Green spaces for ever greater housing and road-building across the SE.

Yes to Europe, No to the Euro
She has been a leading spokesperson in the campaign against taking Britain into the Euro, and for a referendum on a new EU constitution

Local election round-up

2004-06-12T22:21:00.000+01:00

The south west Hampshire Green Party put forward candidates in two of the Southampton city council wards. In both wards an above national average Green vote was acheived, a great boost for the local party, the result was as folllows:

Southampton Portswood 11.7%
Southampton Freemantle 11.2%

Should the party continue to rise in recognition the Greens will certainly be upsetting Southamptons established political forces considerably.

No Water Fluoridation

2004-05-04T12:09:00.007+01:00

We have carried out substantial campaigning against fluoride and you can read John's work by clicking the link at the very bottom of this page.

For more information on the Green Party's opposition to the fluoridation of water supplies:

Read the Green Party briefing "Truth Decay" here.

Or visit the national website for more water news.

John Spottiswoode.
<<>

Fluoridation of our water is "dangerous unscientific nonsense"

2004-05-03T18:42:00.000+01:00

Southampton Greens have slated controversial plans to fluoridate water supplies, claiming that there are many significant questions over fluoride's safety and effectiveness.

Hampshire health chiefs are currently deciding whether to adopt fluoridation as their preferred route to reducing tooth decay in children - a move described as "dangerously unscientific nonsense" by fluoride's opponents.

Leading Green Party commentator on fluoridation and Southampton resident, John Spottiswoode said:

"The case for fluoride has been far from made. Claims about the effectiveness of fluoride simply do not stand up to close scrutiny and there is growing evidence pointing towards fluoride causing bone problems, arthritic-like symptoms, brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, hypothyroidism, as well as identified links to cancer and other diseases.

"Fluoride is a class 2 poison, it is extremely biochemically reactive in the body and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic. It also makes bones more brittle and has led to a marked increase in dental fluorosis (fluoride poisoning), affecting up to 48% of people in fluoridated areas. You should look in the mirror. If you have white flecks in your teeth then you could well have fluoride poisoning, and that is a potential health risk. If fluoride poisoning is showing in your teeth, then it is like the tip of a toxic fluoride iceberg in many of your body's bones and organs.

"Those who deny that there are fluoride dangers either are ignoring the huge volume of research, or trying to dismiss it. However even the basic laws of chemistry tell us that fluorides will be highly reactive and damaging in our bodies. Either the pro-fluoridation people must accept the logic of chemistry's laws, or they must re-write the chemistry books.

"Besides the reality of negative health effects, there is also the issue of medical ethics. Fluoridating water is essentially medicating people without their permission. It also violates a number of bills and legislation designed to protect health and human rights, and may be illegal.

"Britain is all but alone in that most of Western Europe has now abandoned fluoridation of water due to a lack of evidence as to its effectiveness and concerns about major side-effects. 98% of Europe is now free of fluoridated water.

"Poor dental health is a complex public health issue. The root causes are poor diet and inadequate dental hygiene. Typically the government seems more concerned with dangerous knee-jerk action, to be seen to be doing 'something', rather than confronting the real causes of the problem."

To view John's full article on water fluoridation click here.

Food We Can Trust

2004-04-25T23:17:00.000+01:00

There are few things more essential to our every day lives than food. More and more people are asking themselves whether they can trust the food they eat. We're told that the chemicals, growth hormones and antibiotics the food industry adds to our food are a sign of progress. We're told that those of us who are concerned about genetically modified (GM) foods are anti-progress.

The Green Party believes Real Progress means real food; food we can trust. We want a GM-free Britain. In the last decade the amount of organic food produced in Europe has gone up by five times, but British farmers lag far behind - even though we're one of the biggest markets for organic produce. Less than half of the organic food we eat is home-grown. Real Progress means encouraging Britain's food producers to meet the demand for natural food in this country. That could mean 40,000 extra jobs for our rural and farming communities.

Greens believe that people care as we do about the treatment of animals. Farm animals have a right not to suffer, and our stand against intensive factory production lines promotes respect and compassion in farming.

On the London Assembly, Green Party Assembly Member Darren Johnson has successfully promoted community allotments, and secured an anti-GM clause for the Mayor's Biodiversity Strategy.

Green Party Euro-MP Dr Caroline Lucas has been an outspoken critic of the Common Agricultural Policy and has campaigned for an organic, local and safe agricultural system. She has written reports proposing ways of reducing supermarket power, and has lobbied the UK government to use EU money to help farmers promote local food initiatives.

British Greens in the European Parliament played a key role in making sure that all food with any GM links is properly labelled - so you can choose whether or not to buy it. Caroline Lucas won support from many farmers for highlighting the absurd trade where British food products are flown half way round the world to countries which sell exactly the same type of products back to us.

Find out more about Green Party food policy click here.

To find out more about the Greens European campaign - Food We Can Trust - Click here.

By the People For the People

2004-04-23T19:06:00.000+01:00

Should government be about maintaining a framework that protects human rights and our environment? Or should government be about allowing big business to become bigger? This is the single most important debate of our time.

We believe in people taking control of their own lives. But that doesn't mean that the State has no role to play: what is the function of Government if not to regulate the economy in favour of the majority and of the long-term interests of the world we live in?

Real Progress is the further devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, and to the English regions. Greens believe in government being as local and participative as practically possible.
We believe in Europe. But we don't believe in a European super-state. We want a Europe where decisions are made by elected parliamentarians and not behind closed doors. We want transparency and accountability. We want a Europe that believes local people know and understand their local communities and are best placed to make decisions that affect their daily lives. We believe in a Europe which is culturally, ethnically and economically diverse, where rights are protected for all, and discrimination, poverty and inequalities are consigned to history. We want a social Europe, which protects workers, public services and minorities. We want a commonsense Europe that works for the interests of all.

We want a Constitution for Europe, to increase accountability, and one for the UK too. But Tony Blair has helped ruin the current EU proposals by removing some of the more positive aspects - such as workers' rights - and leaving some of the worst, such as support for increased arms spending, further globalisation, and no controls of big business.

Real Progress means equal treatment for all people regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability or religious (non) belief.

The Green Party works for a significant reduction in immigration control and the protection of the rights of migrant workers regardless of their 'economic value'. We belive that we must ensure decent minimum standards are set so migrant's human rights are properly protected, but above all we must address global inequalities so people are not compelled to migrate because of economic hardship. After all, refugees are made not born.

Green Party Euro-MP Jean Lambert has campaigned against the tabloid media distortions of asylum seekers, and the London Greens were the first to call for the Partnership Register allowing civil recognition to same-sex couples.

Read more about Green Party policy on the EU and constitutional affairs.

Reliable and Inclusive Public Transport

2004-04-22T19:23:00.000+01:00

Our public transport systems used to be among the best in the world. Now they're at breaking point. For decades governments have siphoned away money earmarked for essential investment - and now we're paying the price - not just in wasted time but also in lost lives.
Next time you sit in a traffic jam ask yourself if we're on the right road. The Green Party wants to get Britain moving again.

We know that more roads simply mean more car traffic. Re-allocate just a quarter of the road budget and in ten years we could build light rail systems in eight cities, create 10,000 people-friendly home zones, put £4 billion into cutting train and bus fares, £1 billion into rural transport and another billion into transport for disabled people. Add to that safe routes to all our schools and colleges and tens of thousands of new jobs and it's money well spent.

We also know that most journeys are local ones, and that walking and cycling should be a pleasant experience that everyone can enjoy, without having to risk life and limb.

Real Progress means making public transport an easy option.

Deputy Mayor of London, the Green Party's Jenny Jones AM has promoted Road Safety as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The Greens on London's Assembly have supported the successful congestion charge. In Europe, British Green MEPs have made Real Progress in pushing for cuts in aircraft noise and for airlines to pay for damaging the environment. The Greens have also pushed for train travel to always be a cheaper option than flying, and for the re-nationalistion of Britain's railways and re-regulation of our buses.

For information on the South West Hampshire Green Party's cycling policy click here.

Learning for Life

2004-04-11T21:57:00.000+01:00

Should schools see our children solely according to their future function in the job market?

The Greens believe in education being for the public good, and publicly-funded

Real Progress is not students paying top-up fees; in fact, we believe in student grants and higher education being freely available to anyone who wants to invest their time in learning the skills to make a greater contribution back to our society.

In schools, we believe much smaller class sizes are the key to questions of behaviour and learning. Classrooms should be places of exploration and the exhilaration of discovery, not a forum for crowd-control.

We want more more locally-focussed and better-funded schools, that listen more to the needs of parents and pupils alike.

Green MEPs Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas are fighting for this by preventing Britain's public services from being forced open to international competition and privatisation.

To read more about Green Party education policy click here.

PFI/PPP - A Green Critique

2004-04-10T22:17:00.000+01:00

Summary
The PFI/PPP approach has many very enticing short-term benefits to politicians due to the lack of increase in public borrowing whilst at the same time spending significant sums of money on new public projects, and gaining the political prestige from these.

This seems too good to be true, and unfortunately in the long term it is. PFI/PPP accounting methodology is very close to that used by Enron, which led to the collapse of one of the biggest companies in the world. It is off balance sheet accounting, losing key elements of true liabilities off the accounts for short-term benefits and long term dangers.

In addition it fails to recognise the very real risk elements that are not lost when the private sector runs areas of the public sector. If the service fails then in the end the government must step in, usually very expensively and with a lot of financial and operational chaos caused. What is more it is putting off payments for large liabilities made today into the future when demographic trends mean that greater pressure will be put on services from an aging population and yet there will be fewer people in the workforce to pay for these services, a "double-whammy" waiting for us.

PFI and PPP are rather like financial heroin. They can give you a short term economic "high" and give the illusion of getting lots of things for next to nothing. However in the long term we have to pay for it and the repayments could swamp the revenue cash flows, damaging severely future services due to the high and ever-growing levels of repayments necessary. Governments can keep the PFI financial high going by ever increasing amounts of investment, but each time the extra investment happens it is harder to reach the same level of "high" for the economy. The way to come off the PFI/PPP drug is to do a financial "cold turkey", cut out the new PFI schemes and concentrate on paying off the legacy of repayments whilst the economy struggles to maintain decent public services.

Why is this so when the government claims that this approach gives the best value for money? The truth is that these claims are extremely dubious and cannot be considered to be proven. Accountancy companies can do studies that show value for money, but when these accountancy companies have a high vested interest in the outcome, as they are heavily involved in the PFI and PPP financial arrangements, these reports must be taken with some degree of scepticism.

The fact that there are very high, and often hidden, costs of putting the work out to private companies (preparation, tendering and monitoring). The fact that loans are cheaper for the public sector than the private sector. The fact that the private sector must cream off a significant percentage of profit from the basic operational income. The fact that the Public Sector Comparators (PSCs) cannot really compare like with like due to the nature of the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that may or may not be tightly written, so service levels are likely to differ in the pre and post private sector era. The fact that accountability slips from the public when private companies motivated by the dominant profit motive do much of the work. The fact that the integrated ("joined up") nature of public services is broken up by the fragmentation into different private schemes and the costly provider/purchaser split of roles. All these militate against giving the public best value for money and it is simply not logical that the pure effects of competition to bring down the price outweigh all these factors.

If the ethos changes from public service to a market ethos where the main objective is to make profit for your company then not only will services suffer, but those working in the services area will demand more competitive salaries compared to their skilled peers. This will lead eventually to poorer services, more expensive services and many key skilled positions will stay unfilled where pay remains low (e.g. nurses and teachers).

The PFI/PPP route also heavily favours the large companies and the larger schemes, ruling out the smaller companies and smaller schemes from consideration, and certainly cutting out the in house bids to do the work. If the political objective, e.g. for the Green Vision, is to decentralise and encourage the small scale and the re-use of under-used or empty buildings, then we need financial arrangements that support this approach.

There are alternatives that involve recognition of the true costs of what we are investing in, yet allow the investment to take place without threatening the long term viability of publicly provided public services. The use of publicly sourced cheaper loans, such as those available through European bodies can be used. But fundamentally we need to accept politically that we should not cut public spending in favour of private consumption as much as we have. In a period when the economy has been healthy, the oil and gas revenues have been enormous, and the income from sales of publicly owned industries has been large, surely we should have pushed more of this money into public investment for the future and for the poorer or most unfortunate members of society and not into the pockets of the already well off? There is a strong moral situation here.

We can rectify this, but trying to fool the accounts by not recognising current capital spending when we have to pay for it later is a recipe for long-term disaster. We need to kick the PFI/PPP drug habit and get back to realistic financial practices and accept the need for funding new public capital schemes in a non-illusory fashion.

Origins
The Conservative Government set up the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the early 1990s as a means to get private investment into the public arena, and many felt as a back route into privatisation of public services. It followed on from the Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) legislation that the Conservatives brought in during the 1980s whereby public bodies were obliged to put internal contracts up for competitive tendering.

With the election of Labour in 1997 PFI was not abandoned, indeed after a very rapid review it was embraced by the new Labour Government and extended to include Public Private Partnership (PPP). Whereas PFI is mainly a form of funding, PPP broadens this out to include all sorts of potential partnership arrangements, with potentially different funding options.

Ideology
The ideological position behind the PFI and PPP is that there is no need for public ownership of services and many services can be better provided using private resources. For instance the Treasury's Private Finance panel in 1996 stated, Taxpayers no longer need to own hospital buildings'. Separation of the purchaser and provider is not only seen as possible, it is positively beneficial as an element of competition can be created in what is otherwise a bureaucratic monopoly. Private is seen as lean and efficient, whilst public provision is seen as lacking in innovation, wedded to outdated practises and over bureaucratic.

The opposing ideology contests every element of the above paragraph. Separation of provider and purchaser divorces the provider from the "coal face" of actually providing the services. The duplication of roles into provider and supplier as one supervises the other, and the high transaction costs of writing the contract specifications and running the tendering process result in endemic inefficiency and unnecessary extra costs. If measured properly the transaction costs are not recouped from competitive bids. The loss of one team with integrated functions, without the contractor/client potentially adversarial split and the loss of "joined up" public provision across the board loses synergy and potentially creates a lot of hidden costs.

The private company may have to be lean and efficient to survive in a competitive situation, but the profits they make do not come from efficiencies but from cutting back services where the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) do not require the true service levels provided in the pre-PFI situation. Innovation is not encouraged as the contracts have to be very tight, of necessity, and any innovation in service provision has to be part of a contract change order. Many companies will aim to make their main profits from these change orders and there is no discount available as the contractor is the sole supplier and so can quote a price for changes that includes a hefty profit.

On top of this the bureaucracy levels are necessary for democratic accountability (e.g. to service the Council decision making process). The lower bureaucracy of private companies is likely to come from their lower accountability, with most of this work being pushed onto the Client Purchaser role.

The evidence to come down definitively on whichever side of the above argument is only partially there, but is hotly disputed by both sides where it does not support their ideological position. The discussion below will seek to extract fact from ideological fiction in coming to the conclusions. There is a place for ideology in what should be done, but an analysis of facts can resolve some of the points.

Political pragmatism
There is a strong political incentive to go down the PFI/PPP road. This is that private money can be brought in to provide much needed new hospitals and infrastructure without the need for the government to borrow more money, at least in the initial years. The renamed PSBR is now the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR) and this does not go up when the private company invests money into a project. In fact the public finances can be made to look extremely healthy in the short term whilst at the same time providing billions of pounds worth of new public investment.

Governments not only get the political credit for all this public investment, they also get a buoyant economy as investment is ploughed into the economy, all whilst the government keeps well within spending limits and in fact reduce public borrowing as a percentage of gross national Product (GNP). The investment is not even treated as deferred capital investment, but is hidden amongst the revenue repayments over several years.

This sounds too good to be true, and unfortunately it is. In the short term this all works ideally, but what is happening is that the government has to pay back the private companies for their investment over the coming years. This is usually in the order of thirty years or so and so the vast bulk of the repayments do not happen until well past the political life of the government that incurs the expenditure and benefits.

Therefore the level of repayments increases over time as more and more of the projects start on the long payback trail. Even Norman Lamont, who brought in PFIs recognised the danger of a silting up of public expenditure with a stream of never-ending rental payments. He should perhaps have said never-ending and ever-increasing rental payments.

In fact the short-term political advantages are so great that it is a bit like a financial drug to policy makers. The trouble is the drug is rather like heroin in that it gives a short term financial "high", with enormously beneficial political effects such as economic growth and provision of public goods. However the payback commitment increases over time, consuming more and more of the revenue flow, so that future "highs" need even more investment, leading to even greater cash outflows afterwards. Eventually either the habit has to be kicked through financial "cold turkey" over many years, or more and more has to be spent feeding the habit, that could eventually consume most if not all of the public sector spending budget.

The Public Monopoly
Provision of public services is a natural monopoly as the "customer" does not have the money to pay for it and so there is no profit available to private companies. Capitalism may be a very effective method for the production of goods, but it does not provide for the needs of people without money. The social-democratic state seeks to rectify this situation, in their own countries, by the provision of state services in all the key areas such as health, education, housing, infrastructure and social security.

The argument is that this natural monopoly can be broken, essentially by the state buying these services from private companies, putting the profit motive back in for the private companies. However this goes back to the ideological attitude that everything can be made better with the profit motive as king. This is the Adam Smith idea that everyone doing everything for purely personal selfish motives can create the greatest benefit to society as a whole, an idea surely disproven by the lack of provision of goods to those without money - the very thing that public services are there to counteract.

However this capitalist view is extremely suspect in the public services sphere where the objective is to provide social services to the old, the infirm, the unwell and so on. People who work in these areas are not usually in the job for the money (as these are some of the lowest paid jobs in society) but for the benefit they feel that they can bring to people. The point is that the benefits are not financial and cannot be measured financially. Indeed services can cost a lot of money for what may be considered marginal benefits. For instance the cost to keep a few people alive in intensive care is enormous, but the political decision has been made to do this as everyone wants it to be available if they ever were to need it, rather than spend the money with more "life saving effectiveness", for instance by pushing more education and putting more pressure on people to stop smoking.

The PFI camp would say that more intensive beds can be created by private sector investment, if the political decision is to put more money that way. However the opponents of PFI might say that the Health Service is always strapped in many areas. This is privatisation by stealth as key services are hived off to the private sector for dubious benefit and some loss of accountability. To spend money on more intensive beds now in the long term will have serious detrimental effects on the other budgets, probably leading to more unnecessary suffering and more early deaths in the longer term.

However we start to diverge into some more areas of disagreement, so this section needs to close. The main summary here is that the Public Services are a monopoly for a good reason, they provide services to people who cannot or should not have to pay and the people in these services do not operate with the selfish financial motive and have not been shown to work better when money becomes the dominant drive of the organisation they work for.

People
It is estimated that there will be 150,000 transfers of staff and 30,000 job losses from the anticipated level of PFIs from 1998 to 2007. Whilst people who are taken over by a private company under a PFI deal will not lose their current terms and conditions under the TUPE arrangements, the new people taken on to replace leavers will be taken on under different terms and conditions. This leads to two types of arrangements and even the original staff find their benefits under threat from such things as changed pension arrangements.

Trade Unions, whose raison d'etre is to represent the workers interests are heavily against PFIs and PPPs precisely because they represent a threat to the staffs terms and conditions. The move of PFIs has been more and more away from the simple supply of assets (e.g. hospitals) and towards the services under the Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) schemes. The estimate is that 35% of PFIs is now capital funding and the rest revenue and therefore services led.

The Trade Unions also oppose the PFIs because it is moving more and more people out of the public sector and into the private, effectively privatising areas that even the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher found it politically dangerous to privatise. This trend to move public services to the private sector also implies a longer-term trend to the international companies as WTO and GATS regulations apply to the work put out.

Then there is the issue about the ethos of public service that the people in the public sector now have, and indeed many joined for this specific reason. Nurses are the classic case of people who opt for it because they want to help others rather than for the money, but this also applies in large other parts of public services (care workers, teachers, health professionals, and even such areas as the Police and Local Government). If the ethos changes towards a competitive market ethos where the main objective is to make money for your company not only will service suffer but the staff will start to demand to be paid a more competitive rate compared to their peers elsewhere. Initially indications of this are seen in the difficulty currently being experienced in filling many public sector positions, particularly in skilled and responsible positions such as teachers and nurses.

Finances
The financial picture is at the heart of the debate about whether PFIs are worthwhile. In order to overcome the other factors such as loss of accountability, splitting of the purchaser and supplier and to cover the costs of transaction of contracts then the outcome must give very good value for money. However there is strong disagreement here as well.

Arthur Anderson did a very influential study that showed a 17% saving for PFIs over their Public Service Comparator (PSC). There is also a duty of best value whereby if a contract is to go the PFI route it must be demonstrated to be the best value approach. This is where a lot of the problem is in the detail.

The way that the public and the private sectors deal with risk differs significantly and when 60% of the savings come from the risk area then questions need to be asked about why the private section notionally deals with risk more effectively, if indeed it does. In the end the risk is not effectively transferred totally to the private sector as when a major failure occurs the state almost inevitably has to step in to restore that service. This is usually very expensive and operationally very disruptive, and unfortunately all too common (e.g. National Insurance, Inland Revenue, Passport Office, Immigration and Nationality, Northern Ireland Vehicle Licensing Agency, Benefits Agency, National Air Traffic Services New Control Centre, Metropolitan Police and several NHS hospitals). The first 14 NHS projects had, on average, cost increases of 69% over the original estimate. This indicates either poor risk control or that costs were more than originally estimated. As the original costs are the basis for demonstrating the duty of best value then this undermines the whole basis of putting many of the contracts out to PFI/PPP.

The rest of the savings are from comparing what would have happened between the private and the public situation, which is very difficult to judge fairly. When a private company takes over an existing public service, including the people on the same salaries as before where exactly do the savings come from?

What happens is that the new operator looks hard at where the costs are, what the contract says needs to be delivered for Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and where savings can be made and still meet the SLAs. As natural loss of staff occurs and new procedures are introduced to "streamline" operations, change in what is done happens. How well the SLAs are written depends very much on how good the future service will be. In some cases things that were done before are no longer adequately described in the contract and so are liable to be dropped or not done very well. For instance if the contract does not state that a fault with a building must be repaired, then the private company may not do the repair without a change order. This is not a theoretical situation as seen in several real situations such as the faulty plumbing at the new PFI hospital in Carlisle.

Therefore something that would have been done before is no longer covered, and change orders are excluded from the PSC, so the new deal looks cheaper than the original one. Also the comparison may assume that improvements would not have been made in the public service organisation if the contract had not gone the PFI route, when clearly some would have taken place.

Another area where private sector savings are a mirage is in the area of funding. The public sector in fact can borrow money at lower rates than the private sector, so although it shows up in the PSNCR figures, it is in fact cheaper from this single factor than getting a private company to invest and then paying them back over time. This is a very important factor when NPV (Net Present Value) calculations are done to determine the present value of future payments. If a higher interest rate is used, based on private funding, then the NPV of future outgoings are less, i.e. the cost looks less when looking at the lump sum the public purse would have to fund up front.

It very much comes down to the accounting rules and practices followed to do the justification. Also what is included for the preparation and transaction costs are very open to under-estimate. People writing the contracts, running the tendering process and administering the "purchaser" side of the contract, "advisers" fees, ensuring quality, monitoring the contract, etc, are very significant, but often hidden unless rigorous timesheets are done, especially as the division of what is extra for the operation of the contract and what would be required anyway to run the service themselves is very unclear.

With many case studies, where the detail needs to be fully understood to really ensure a fair comparison, the record is not good for PFIs. Assets have been sold at less than the full market value in order to sweeten deals. The new infirmary in Edinburgh would have cost £180 million if the government had funded it directly, but instead using PFI it is costing £240 million when the value of the land that was sold cheaply is included. Several PFI/PPP out-sourced contracts have caused havoc for service users. Up to November 2000 sixteen PFI projects had been abandoned, including four NHS hospital projects, two transport, four education and five further health related projects and Cheshire CC Information Services.

So the financial case for PFIs and PPPs in creating the best value, even in straight financial terms, for the public is far from proven. The closer each individual case is examined the more problems are discovered and the basis for the original best value study is often undermined by future events or by estimating assumptions. Relying on figures from accountancy firms who are earning heavily from the PFI and PPP process at best needs to be taken with caution and certainly the detailed assumptions, service quality levels and figures need to be understood as to what they really mean.

Long Term
In the long term we are all dead, as is famously quoted. However we are talking about the average PFI contract running over 25 to 30 years, a timescale many of us hope to outlive (indeed when those middle aged today may need public services the most), although the governments responsible for setting up the contracts can be expected to be long gone.

The government can stay well within the Maastricht Convergence Criteria for the Euro by not spending their own money but by getting private companies to spend the money and then pay them back over the next 30 years. However as we progress down the timeline the number of PFI/PPP projects that the public purse has to fund mounts up and up, draining the future revenue budgets under the pressure of repayments for past investments rather than ongoing costs of operating the public services.

The quick fix that has led to 85% of NHS major projects being funded privately since 1997 gives the country an economic boost and a political gain for those in power. However repaying the capital costs of new hospitals will take a hefty chunk out of future revenue streams.

The cumulative impact of PFI/PPP revenue payments will mean that future governments are likely to have to raise taxes, impose charges for things that are currently free and/or cut spending in non-PFI/PPP services. The cash outflows could also result in the need to increase the national debt to maintain the payments. Probably all these things will be necessary and it will all have a negative effect on the economy and on the amount of public services that can be afforded in the future.

The Alternatives
The current arrangements for PFI and PPP come down to their being a politically more convenient way to spend money in the short term without showing a large increased level of debt. This is due to the way that private finance can be pretended to be little to do with the government, despite the fact that the government is creating liabilities for the public purse.

Therefore one alternative is to borrow directly (at a lower rate) using the public purse, from European Investment Funds, which could be set up so that it did not show up in the PSNCR. This carries on the sham of not increasing the nominal borrowing level of the government, but keeps the investment directly in the public domain, being done for not-for-profit reasons and without creating the artificial purchaser/provider split in public services.

A second alternative is simply to accept that we can afford to spend more on public services. The economy is reasonably healthy. The levels of public spending have gone down at the same time that oil and gas revenues have come in and at the same time that large amounts of income were achieved from the sell-offs of publicly owned industries. These extra sources of income could be used for public spending and not for tax reductions. Rather than encouraging the short-term measure extra consumption for those who earn a lot anyway, public investment in the future and for the less well off could be prioritised first.

A third alternative is to recognise that the accounting rules are creating a damaging illusion. The fetish that current accounting practices are the only way of dealing with the situation is unsustainable. The distinctions that say private borrowing does not appear in the government's accounts, even though it is patently part of the government's financial arrangements, yet public borrowing is a headline item is in effect trickery that creates a false impression of the situation. The current PFI arrangements effectively help the larger companies, exclude the smaller companies from consideration and rule out in house bids to do the work. By recognising the true financial impact of what is being done means that different ways to get better services, with decentralisation, smaller local hospitals not larger ones, become potentially viable options. The benefits to the community of having more local facilities near to where people live could be recognised as a greater benefit to the community than the larger, anonymous but supposedly more cost effective large hospitals. Re-use of empty or under-utilised property could take place with small-scale initiatives coordinated by Councils that are an integrated entity dedicated to the service ideal.

Conclusions
The cost benefits of PFI schemes are far from proven and the more closely each scheme is examined the more problems can be seen. The whole PFI principle is flawed by an accountancy system that does not recognise the impact of private borrowing on the long-term viability of public services.

The whole PFI/PPP system breaks up the integrated nature of Councils and does not encourage innovation in what is a natural monopoly. Getting the private sector to do work where they have a particular expertise and experience can be sensible (e.g. being commissioned to build a new facility). However when this crosses over into services where the expertise and experience is all in the public domain does not make logical sense.

There are good arguments to keep services in public ownership for accountability and staff continuity, training and reasonable standards of benefits for people who go into the work to help people and not for what is often very low pay.

There are alternatives to the PFI/PPP route. Although in essence these alternatives highlight the financial consequences for extra current investment, it is possible to make the extra investment needed. This can be done either through European loans or by accepting the fact that we need to pay more for our public services if we want to improve them, and not grown debt on the "never-never" principle. Also we need to have financial arrangements that encourage the smaller scale and the in-house initiatives, not have PFI/PPP that effectively rule these options out.

References
Public Services or Corporate Welfare: Rethinking the Nation State in the Global Economy by Dexter Whitfield (Pluto Press, 2001)
Centre for Public Services briefing on www.centre.public.org.uk/griefings/pfi_and_ppp.html
Public Services and Privatisation - a briefing on www.greenparty.org.uk
NHS Confederation report on The Use of the Private Finance Initiative in the NHS
Arthur Anderson "Taskforce Guidance" on PFI projects, including extracts from their survey of public sector projects as available on the Internet.

John Spottiswoode

Notes about the author:

John Spottiswoode has worked in both the public and private sectors. He was heavily involved in the 1980s in Southampton City Council on Compulsory Competitive Tendering work from the "Purchaser" angle. He has also been involved with PFI/PPP bids from the private sector point of view and has been closely involved with several out-sourced contracts from the "Provider" angle. John studied Economics as part of his degree and now is a Managing Consultant with a large private sector company. John is the Green Party PPC for Southampton Test, click here to read his profile.

10 point cycling plan

2004-04-09T22:24:00.000+01:00

1. Set a target of 10% of all journeys by cycle by 2009

2. Immediately quadruple the Department of Transport cycling budget
This pledge comes from the Green Party election manifesto 2005. The Green Party has and will continue to pressure central government for vastly increased funding for cycling facilities and bicycle related road improvements through the department of transport’s local transport unit. Money for an increased cycling budget would come from an end to the £30 billion new road-building budget.

3. Ensure the introduction of a fully integrated citywide cycling network by 2009
The Green Party will pressure for a wholesale review of the existing cycle network within Southampton after consultation with cycling representatives and transport experts. Improvements may involve adaptations to junctions and carriageways for increased safety and a much-increased number of separate cycle lanes on major routes (such as the Avenue) to deal safely with increased cyclist numbers. A citywide network of safe cycling routes will be established after communication with cyclist groups and transport experts and will be printed and distributed widely around the city. The Green Party will work towards an integrated cycle network linking with bus and rail routes as well as with major commercial, recreational and education centres in the city.

4. Ensure all routes are safe and direct
We will ensure that cycle routes are as direct as possible, and through the publication of a citywide cycle route map will hope to ensure all cycle journeys can be made quickly and easily. Through junction and carriageway improvements as well as an increased number of cycle lanes it is hoped safety will improve.

5. Set up a Green Route Patrol for enforcement of cycling facilities and safety
At present a disproportionate number of cyclists are killed or injured on our roads, for the years 1995 to 1999 cyclists made up 13% of road injuries despite at that time only making up 2% of road users. Combined with the above, we would introduce a specific Green Route Patrol to regularly monitor potentially dangerous junctions and roads and to suggest improvements where needed. The Patrol will also be tasked with monitoring cycle parking bays and other cycle facilities to ensure that they are kept to a high standard and to act as a visible deterrent against bicycle theft.

6. Shift 20% of all police officers out of patrol cars and onto bikes
In accordance with Green Party policy focussing on community policing we would encourage and assist the police force to, where possible, use bicycle patrols rather than panda cars. In London where elected Greens on the GLA have pressured for this over 500 police officers with the Metropolitan police regularly patrol on bicycles and have reported positive benefits in community visibility and ability to reach criminals in high-density urban areas.

7. Reduce the 30 mph speed limit in major built-up areas to 20 mph
After full consultation the speed limit may be lowered in areas close to schools and major cycle junctions for matters of cyclist safety. Temporary speed limits during the busiest times of the day for cyclists may be considered with the aim of reducing cyclist accidents and promoting a safe and inclusive cycling environment.

8. Safe routes to schools for all school children by 2008
The Green Party would accelerate the introduction of the Safe Routes to School programme and would provide active assistance to schools in drawing up sustainable transport plans. We would ensure that both a safe route for walking and for cycling were included in the plans. We would encourage businesses and other organisations to adopt similar policies of encouraging cycling and provide assistance where possible for this.

9. Regular car free Sundays on main streets in the city centre
After consultation with local community groups and transport officials, on some Sundays, initially once a month, major routes surrounding city and town centres around Southampton would be close to all except public transport and bicycles with the aim of fostering a safe and inclusive cycling atmosphere.

10. Secure parking for bicycles in all new housing and commercial developments
Greens would use the city councils planning authority to enforce a minimum number of cycle parking sites in all new developments within the city. The number of parking spaces provided would be required to be reflective of the 10% target for journeys by bicycle.

Peace, Justice and Security

2004-04-07T21:50:00.000+01:00

We all want our children and grandchildren to grow up in a fair and peaceful world.

After September the 11th the threat of terrorism hasn't receded. Poverty and oppression still fuel conflict and nurture extremism. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine still long for real peace. But real peace does not come through the barrel of a gun.

Sympathy for the United States has been replaced with feelings of anger and injustice across the Muslim world, while in Britain our freedoms have been eroded. Meanwhile conflicts like that in central Africa continue to claim millions of lives while being ignored by Western governments.

Progress is not the inequality that comes from half the world living on less than £1.70 a day. Progress is not the heads of 471 multinational companies having more wealth than half the world put together. And at home, our commitment to human rights must extend to welcoming those who are forced to flee their own countries, and building a world where they don't have to: refugees are made, not born.

Greens believe that Real Progress towards real and lasting peace must be built on firm foundations. That means renewing our commitment to a radically reformed and revitalised United Nations, to international law, to justice and human rights.

Green Party MEP Dr Caroline Lucas has spoken of her experiences in Iraq and Palestine at rallies across the UK. Euro-MP Jean Lambert has campaigned against the tabloid media distortions of asylum seekers, and the London Greens were the first to call for the Partnership Register allowing civil recognition to same-sex couples. Dr Lucas - a world famous author on trade issues- is pushing the EU Commission to review world trade rules in favour of developing countries.

To read more Green Party policy on peace, justice and security click here.

Contact Us

2004-04-03T22:08:00.003+01:00

Want to find out more about the party locally? Whether your interested in joining the party or if you simply want to ask us a question about local policy or anything else then please get in touch.

You can email our area co-ordinator Chris Bluemel on:

bluemel AT swhantsgreenparty.org.uk

To email our media officer:

media AT swhantsgreenparty.org.uk

To email the local party treasurer, ron.meldrum AT swhantsgreenparty.org.uk

This site is published and maintained by J.Cox 12 Fernside Close, Millbrook SO16 4AW
We look forward to hearing from you.

Note: replace 'AT' with the @ symbol, this is done to avoid spam email.

Green is the New Black For Southampton's Taxis

2004-03-07T20:49:00.000Z

Local Greens today told taxi drivers in Southampton of the urgent need to upgrade their vehicles in order to improve the city’s failing air quality. Echoing calls from Green Party councillors across the country, Greens warned of the hazards all Southampton residents face if Euro emission standards were not met.

The Greens are calling for all Southampton taxis to be required to comply with Euro 3 emission standards by July 2007 in an effort to combat climate change and global warming. The changes would introduce a new structure of options for taxi drivers across the city but with Southampton's air quality in breech of EU standards the new standards are welcomed by the Green Party.

Commenting on the announcement Green spokesman, Joe Cox explained; “With evidence showing Southampton’s air quality deteriorating over recent years – and the implications of this on the planet and our health clear – there has never been a greater need for emission restrictions.”

He continued: "The environment in which people live has a major affect on their health. Air quality is especially important for children, older people and those with asthma. Taxi drivers, in particular, are at risk spending long hours on the road. The EU rules can benefit the environment and people's health. It is important though, that we work with taxi drivers to make this a reality."

Joe urged taxi drivers to upgrade their vehicles to the highest possible standards they can afford and make Southampton’s fleet of taxis the cleanest, greenest in the world.

Air pollution takes 6 months off your life

2004-03-05T21:23:00.000Z

John Spottiswoode today highlighted the problem of air pollution in Southampton and similar built up areas. He cites a report, realeased this week by the European commission, which has shown that air pollution in the UK takes 6.7 months off the life of the average Briton and kills 32,000 every year.

John says, "sadly the shorted life expectancy is likely to be much worse in Southampton than the UK average, not only because of the cities traffic problems, but also because of the Fawley oil refinary, local industry and the new waste incinerator just a few kilometres away from us. Residents of Southampton are likely to be losing more than a year of their lives due to the cities dirty air."

John and the Green Party have worked for years to oppose new waste incinerators being built near residential areas, arguing that money is better invested in reduction, re-use and recycling. John has spoken at meetings to oppose the Marchwood and Basingstoke incinerators.

The Green Party wants much more stringent pollution controls, including the principle that the polluter pays for the damage to people and the environment that their pollution causes. John Spottiswoode has put forward a resolution to this year's Green Party Conference calling for diesel engines to be required to have particulate traps fitted by the 1st January 2007, with buses converted from diesel to alternative much cleaner fuels, and all diesel fuels sold to become ultra low sulphur.

John says "The problems of diesel engines are particularly dangerous in cities due to the fact that every diesel exhaust produces literally millions of tiny particulates a mile that easily lodge in the lungs causing breathing problems, worsen asthma and kill people through such illnesses as lung cancer. Lead has been removed from petrol and most petrol engines now have catalytic converters, so if we value our health we must also tackle the lethal pollution from diesel engines."

Much of the air pollution, especially in cities, comes from cars and now it is clear from the EU report that the death toll from air pollution is more than nine times greater than deaths from road accidents.

John says "There is too much complacency about air pollution, and this report from the EU should be a wake up call to us all. If the government continue to fail to carry out decisive action then people now must start voting Green. Our health now as well as the future of the planet depends upon it."

Phone Masts are a Hazard to Local Residents Health

2004-03-03T22:39:00.000Z

The Green Party strongly believe that masts should not be put up in residential areas, near schools or hospitals until further research has been carried out by experts to prove it is safe.

According to some leading scientists international guidelines on phone masts are totally misleading and inadequate. For example countries such as Switzerland have levels thousand of times lower than the UK, so to say they are internationally accepted levels is wrong.

Commenting on the rapid mobile mast proliferation, south east region MEP, Caroline Lucas commented: "Research conducted on behalf of the European Parliament has demonstrated that safety guidelines governing the exposure of the public to radiation from mobile 'phone base stations are inadequate. In the face of real health risks we should adopt the precautionary principle and remove masts from inappropriate sites."

The Green Party position is that the whole area of mobile phones has developed too fast. International guidelines have been hastily assembled without sufficient research being done. The health and safety of local people must always come before convenience.

PIctures

2004-02-03T20:02:00.003Z

Greens speak at local climate change seminar

2004-02-02T21:23:00.000Z

Green Party parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test, John Spottiswoode, spoke this week at a climate change seminar at Southampton University.

The seminar organised by the Southampton Friends of the Earth group, included speakers from other Green and trade justice organisations. All speakers encouraged those present to travel to London on 12th February to join a protest calling for governments to take more action on climate change.

In his speech, John Spottiswoode said, “Climate change is the most important issue of our age – perhaps of any age. The vast majority of scientists are now convinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are causing the global temperature to rise significantly.”

John continued to state the possible effects of this temperature rise on Southampton, “our winters will become like hot summers, our summers will become like the Sahara at midday, our ecosystems will collapse and human life will become increasingly less likely to survive.”

The march, called the Kyoto march, calls on governments to go beyond the fundamentally inadequate Kyoto protocol and to begin to make the massive 60 to 90% cuts in greenhouse gases required to avert potential disaster. John continued to say, “Only the Green Party has the political will to implement the radical measures required. Only a vote for the Green Party can send a message to our government, enough is enough, we need action now.”

For information on Green Party environment policy click here, or for information on the 12th February Kyoto march, here.

Countdown to Global Climate Catastrophe

2004-02-01T22:13:00.000Z

Climate change is the biggest issue of our time - perhaps of all time. Collective and individual action is needed now, or our prospects for the future are grim.

A report released today by a task-force British, American and Australian scientists and politicians reveals just how grim our future is looking. The report concludes that the "runaway" point of global warming, where a temperature rise of 2 degrees sets off a number of positive feedback mechanisms and makes stopping or reversing the warming near on impossible, is very soon to be reached.

The report states that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising by 2 parts per million (ppm) every year, and that a continued rise like this would mean reaching the feared point of no return of 400ppm within the decade.

UK CO2 emissions are, however, rising despite pledges from the government. Only the Green Party is committed to the level of action required to halt this global climate disaster. To read more about Green Party policy on climate change and sustainability click here.

<< Home

Home and community

2004-01-03T21:42:00.000Z

Our environment defines us. It's not just our glorious British countryside; it's our landmarks, our streets, our housing estates and our towns. Greens have always been in the forefront of the struggle to protect and improve the world we live in.

Greens believe that Real Progress towards a better environment means putting a human dimension back into development, designing homes and neighbourhoods with character and for our needs, revitalising old buildings, reusing wasteland and not destroying green fields. It means stopping motorways and urban sprawl from disfiguring hills and forests that have inspired generations of musicians, writers, poets and painters; artists who in turn inspire us still.

We believe nobody should be without a home in the 21st century. And the Green Party was a major player in drafting and pushing for the the Home Energy Conservation Bill - aimed at giving everybody a properly-heated home- which Labour scuppered.

We are also pushing for reform of the council tax, which is unfair on the poorer people in society.

We want to make better use of the things we'd throw away, and invest in re-using and recycling materials, not pointlessly and harmfully incinerating them. It's Government's job to make recycling not a chore but easy and second-nature.

Greens in the London Assembly and Green Party councillors all over the country have saved threatened green spaces from development. British Green MEPs have fought for tighter rules on mobile phone masts, with Euro-MP Dr Caroline Lucas pushing for a moratorium on untested Tetra masts.

More about Green Party home and community issues here.

Water fluoridation

2003-11-14T18:50:00.000Z

Introduction
On the face of it the idea of putting fluoride in our water sounds like it could be a good idea if it cuts down on the number of fillings we and our children need. After all many of us take supplements of vitamins and minerals to boost our health, and usually rightly so. However it is extremely important not to ingest toxins of whatever type.

The whole fluoridation issue has become shrouded in controversy. Despite more than fifty years of research there is still much debate on: firstly whether there is really an improvement to our dental health from fluoridation and secondly, whether there are dangerous other effects from putting fluoride in our bodies.

Teeth
We need to look at the known facts. The York Review, set up by the UK government in 1999 was meant to give a definitive view of the research and state clear conclusions. However they said that, despite hundreds of studies, these were often of very poor scientific quality and there was no conclusive research. Their best estimate was that fluoridating water may reduce the number of fillings by 15%. This conclusion was similar to a study done in the USA in 1990 that concluded there may be a reduction of 0.6 of one tooth surface out of 128 surfaces, but the reduction was not statistically significant.

This possible small reduction is a long way from the claims of many in favour of fluoridation, of 50% or more improvements in the number of fillings needed. In fact everywhere in the developed world the rate of teeth fillings has fallen by more that 50% over the last couple of decades, with non-fluoridated areas frequently coming out better than fluoridated areas. The general improvement seems to be due to better dental hygiene, better education and the use of fluoridated toothpaste.

And this is an important point, fluorine is a nasty chemical and helps kill the bacteria on the teeth. In fact the benefits from fluoride are ‘topical’, i.e. on the surface of the teeth, not systemic from inside the body. So there is general agreement that fluoride toothpaste is good, but as soon as we swallow the fluoride this nasty chemical is inside our body, potentially doing enormous harm, that is where opinions differ markedly.

Fluorosis
However, even if there is a slight reduction in the number of fillings, what are the other effects? One known, and very common effect, is fluorosis. This is where the teeth become mottled with white flecks, then brown and then pitted and seriously damaged teeth. Fluorosis can effect up to 48% of people in areas with water fluoridation, with one in eight people in categories of concern. Fluorosis is not only cosmetic as claimed by some (some become very self-conscious and lose self confidence), but causes real serious damage to teeth that can be very costly to repair.

Look in the mirror. If you have flecks of white mottling in your teeth then you are likely to have the start of fluorosis. Initially the extra whiteness may look fine to you, however it is a danger signal of systemic poisoning, and it changes from white to brown, then to pitted damaged teeth as fluorosis progresses. Fluorosis can also occur in non-fluoridated areas either due to the natural level of fluorides in the water or due to the elevated levels found in our food and drink (e.g. in tea). If you have fluoride poisoning in your teeth (which is what fluorosis is) then your whole body is becoming seriously poisoned by fluoride. It is like an iceberg of fluorides in your body, only the tip in the teeth shows.

We now need to look at what that means for the rest of your body.

Other effects
There have been scientific studies, lots of them, that have shown links between fluoridation effects and areas with fluoridated water. Research shows that the effects include:

- Increased bone fractures. This is well documented. Originally it was thought that fluoride in the bones would make them denser and therefore stronger. However, whilst it does make them denser, it also makes them more brittle, like in the teeth.
- Osteosarcoma (bone cancers) in young men. This is controversial as although the link has been found, it cannot be conclusively proven to be due to fluoridation of the water.
- Brain damage and Alzheimer’s disease. Aluminium is not easily ingested by the body, but aluminium fluoride is. Lead is also more easily ingested when chelated with fluorine. This has been linked to lead toxicity and more violent crime in fluoridated areas. Alzheimer’s disease symptoms have been created in animal tests by feeding them aluminium fluoride.
- Reproductive effects. Girls start menstruating earlier and men’s sperm cells are damaged by fluorine.
- Fluorine displaces iodine in the body, and is toxic to the thyroid causing hypothyroidism. This can cause mental problems, hyperactivity and a lower IQ. Ironically it also causes hypoplasia, defective tooth enamel.
- Research shows that 1% of the population are hypersensitive to fluoride at 1 mg per day. The exposure for people living in fluoridated areas is estimated to be between 1.6 and 6.6 mg per day. That means that in a city of say 500,000 people, of these 5,000 can be expected to have serious, diagnosable hypersensitive reactions.
- At 1 ppm in water, fluoride inhibits DNA repair activity, and has been found to cause genetic and chromosome damage.
- Fluorine chemically grabs many elements, such as magnesium and manganese in the body, rending these ineffective for their roles, and disrupts many crucial enzymes, sometimes at tiny trace levels of fluorine.
- According to several doctors, children under three should NEVER be exposed to any fluorides, not even from toothpastes (which they tend to swallow).

All of the above effects have been seen in relatively low doses, some even below the 1 ppm of fluoridated water. The long term effects of drinking fluoridated water over many years lead to a high intake of fluorides.

Laws of Biochemistry
Those in favour of fluoridation either: have not looked at the ‘non-teeth’ research, as they are dentists and are not toxicologists; or they claim it is not scientifically proven; or they claim that the effects are not proven to be linked to fluoridation.This denial is all very disingenuous. Fluorine is the most electronegative element in the Periodic Table, highly reactive, combining easily with a wide range of other elements and displacing others in the halogen group (especially iodine). By the laws of chemistry we already KNOW that fluoride will be reacting in the body in the ways discovered above, and more. Either those in favour of fluoridation have to accept the laws of chemistry and these dangerous effects of fluorine in the body, or they need to re-write the chemistry books. They cannot continue to deny the glaringly obvious, what is biochemically bound to happen.

In fact it may be that the only reason that continuous consumption of fluoride in our water does not kill all of us within a few years, is that because it is so highly reactive, it reacts with a whole range of bodily systems and organs, damaging many but not killing. So if it does concentrate in any one area, that is where people get crippled by bone disease, get Alzheimer’s disease, or whatever else due to the particular concentration is in each individual’s body.

Ethics
Finally it needs to be pointed out that fluorides are defined as a Part II poison under the Poisons Act, 1972, UK. Again in the UK, fluoridation chemicals are controlled hazardous wastes and it is illegal to discharge them into the environment.

Water fluoridation is effectively being used as a forced medication on people in certain areas, with no control over who receives what dose, no medical supervision and against the will of many. Any professional medical person promoting mass fluoridation is in serious breach of the Medical Code of Ethics.

Conclusion
It is amazing that the whole fluoridation debate continues to be pushed by governments and by Health Authorities. The case for water fluoridation is clearly dangerous unscientific nonsense. Fluoridation of our drinking water borders on criminal lunacy.

Those with fluoride in their water should remove it as soon as possible, and on no account should fluoride ever be swallowed if it can be avoided, especially for young children using fluoridated toothpastes. Fluoride is a poison.

If you think that you may have high levels of fluoride in your body, follow a Detoxification Diet and immediately take steps to avoid ingesting fluorides.

John Spottiswoode, 2005

First name:
Last name:
E-mail address:
Subscribe Unsubscribe

Hosting by YMLP.com