North Staffs Green Party have welcomed the launch of an air quality survey by three local council and have called for the results to be used to inform their response to climate change.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council is working with neighbouring Newcastle Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council to carry out an air quality survey.
Rising levels of air pollution nationally and internationally has been recognised as one of the most serious challenges presented by our changing environment.
Poor air quality has been linked to up to 500 deaths in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire and is connected to a range of adverse health outcomes including heart and lung diseases, it may also have an impact on mental health.
Councillor Carl Edwards, cabinet member for the environment at Stoke-on-Trent City Council said in a statement published on their website: “This is an opportunity for local residents to voice their views about air pollution and how it affects them in their community. We are keen to hear from all sections of society – residents, schools, businesses and community groups”.
He added that: “Air pollution is everyone’s responsibility and we need to know how we can help people make better choices when it comes to air quality."
North Staffs Green Party spokesperson Adam Colclough said: “We welcome the council carrying out a survey on what is one of the most important environmental issues communities and the world are facing today”.
He added that: “It is important that the findings of this survey are used to inform urgent and determined action on air pollution and that they feed into the council’s response to the wider challenge posed by climate change”.
The want to hear from residents, community groups, businesses and groups with an interest in the environment, anyone over the age of 16 can take part and the survey will run until 30th April.
The Survey can be accessed by following this link: https://www.stoke.gov.uk/news/article/567/stoke-on-trent_and_newcastle-under-lyme_launch_air_quality_survey
Thursday, 27 February 2020
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
A New Team to Take Stoke Greens into the Future.
Members of North Staffs Green Party have followed the lead of the national party by appointing joint coordinators at their Annual General Meeting.
The meeting took place at the Rep Theatre in Shelton and saw Jade Green and Pete Latham elected to the Coordinator role.
Addressing members Pete Latham, who was previously the Chair, said he had enjoyed doing his previous role for the past three years and intended to use his time as Coordinator to ‘ engage with the public’ and get ‘out the message’ about Green politics.
Jade Green spoke about the plan she had developed to ‘maximize the impact the party is able to make’ with its limited resources.
Former Coordinator Jan Zablocki was elected to Chair the local party and, citing the recent floods as an example, said that they should be a ‘powerful trigger’ for people to take environmental issues seriously.
Other officer positions were taken by Martin Bailey, who joins the team for the first time as Election Officer and will also serve as Vice Chair. Rob Griffiths (Treasurer) and Adam Colclough (Press Officer) retain their places, with the latter also taking on the role of Membership Secretary.
Former general election candidate for Stoke Central Adam Colclough said he was ‘excited’ to be part of a leadership team that was ‘strong, united and determined to make an even bigger impact on the local political scene than we have so far’.
The meeting took place at the Rep Theatre in Shelton and saw Jade Green and Pete Latham elected to the Coordinator role.
Addressing members Pete Latham, who was previously the Chair, said he had enjoyed doing his previous role for the past three years and intended to use his time as Coordinator to ‘ engage with the public’ and get ‘out the message’ about Green politics.
Jade Green spoke about the plan she had developed to ‘maximize the impact the party is able to make’ with its limited resources.
Former Coordinator Jan Zablocki was elected to Chair the local party and, citing the recent floods as an example, said that they should be a ‘powerful trigger’ for people to take environmental issues seriously.
Other officer positions were taken by Martin Bailey, who joins the team for the first time as Election Officer and will also serve as Vice Chair. Rob Griffiths (Treasurer) and Adam Colclough (Press Officer) retain their places, with the latter also taking on the role of Membership Secretary.
Former general election candidate for Stoke Central Adam Colclough said he was ‘excited’ to be part of a leadership team that was ‘strong, united and determined to make an even bigger impact on the local political scene than we have so far’.
Friday, 21 February 2020
Petitions to the People.
Research published by the House of Commons Library shows that 23 million people have signed petitions on the parliament website since their introduction in 2015. This may have an influence on voter turnout at general elections.
In the 2017/19 parliament alone there were 8154 petitions signed by 15,166.387 unique users of the site. Out of these 456 gathered enough signatures to receive a response from government and 73 went on to be debated in Westminster Hall.
The Petitions Committee only considers petitions relating to matters for which the UK parliament or House of Commons has responsibility. Local councils and the three devolved parliaments have separate arrangements for receiving petitions.
There is no official minimum age for starting or signing a petition, so many who do so may be under the legal voting age of 18. Petitions can also be signed by Jon-UK citizens, who also cannot vote.
Research suggests though that a link may exist between the popularity of petitions and turnout at general elections.
In the ten constituencies with the highest number of petitions eight also had a higher than average voter turnout in 2019. At the same election nine of the ten constituencies with the fewest petitions also saw a lower than average number of people cast their vote.
Turnout across the UK at the 2019 general election was 67.3%, down 1.5 percentage points on 2017 (68.8%), but still the second highest since the salad days of Tony Blair in 1997. Out of the four home nations Scotland recorded the highest turnout (68.1%) and Northern Ireland the lowest (61.8%); the two English regions with the highest turnout were the South West (72.0%) and the South East (70.2%).
Factors influencing the popularity of petitions may, the research suggests, be linked to the perceived safety of the seat in question with voters who feel they have no other voice using them to highlight their concerns. However, they have also been shown to be popular in one very marginal seat (Cities of London and Westminster) and one very safe seat (Edinburgh North and Leith).
In 2019, an election the saw a more than usual number of previously safe seats fall, mostly going from Labour to the Conservatives, there seemed to be no clear link between turnout and the safety of a seat.
Age though may influence voter turnout, with an Ipsos-MORI poll suggesting 47% of voters aged 18-24 cast their ballot compared to 74% of over 65's, a widening of the gap in 2017 when, respectively, 54% and 71% of the same group voted.
On one level the popularity of petitioning parliament is something about which to feel thankful. In a country where exhausted apathy often seems to be out default response to politics any kind of engagement is. Only in this instance it is hard not to feel that to some extent we the public are being sold a pup.
There is something undeniably satisfying about signing a petition, it offers the illusion of being politically active without the fuss of having to leave the house. The question keeps nagging at me though, just what do all these petitions achieve?
In my experience it tends to be much less than the signatories thought they would. A response from government is very nice, but in terms of content they tend to be about as memorable as the hit single from the summer before last.
As for those that get 'debated', either in Westminster Hall or the less grand environs of your local town hall. The whole thing seems a lot more like an opportunity for representatives to grandstand than democracy in action; hot air alone does not make legislation.
Petitions have their part to play, not least when it comes to highlighting issues missed by politicians afflicted with the myopia of high office. The must though be backed by further action, no great change was ever brought about just because enough people typed their name in a text box.
If we shrink our engagement to signing petitions online then as actors in the drama of politics, we reduce our role to that of children. Easily pacified mites to be patted on the head and sent up to the nursery, letting the grownups downstairs get on with wrecking the rest of the house.
In the 2017/19 parliament alone there were 8154 petitions signed by 15,166.387 unique users of the site. Out of these 456 gathered enough signatures to receive a response from government and 73 went on to be debated in Westminster Hall.
The Petitions Committee only considers petitions relating to matters for which the UK parliament or House of Commons has responsibility. Local councils and the three devolved parliaments have separate arrangements for receiving petitions.
There is no official minimum age for starting or signing a petition, so many who do so may be under the legal voting age of 18. Petitions can also be signed by Jon-UK citizens, who also cannot vote.
Research suggests though that a link may exist between the popularity of petitions and turnout at general elections.
In the ten constituencies with the highest number of petitions eight also had a higher than average voter turnout in 2019. At the same election nine of the ten constituencies with the fewest petitions also saw a lower than average number of people cast their vote.
Turnout across the UK at the 2019 general election was 67.3%, down 1.5 percentage points on 2017 (68.8%), but still the second highest since the salad days of Tony Blair in 1997. Out of the four home nations Scotland recorded the highest turnout (68.1%) and Northern Ireland the lowest (61.8%); the two English regions with the highest turnout were the South West (72.0%) and the South East (70.2%).
Factors influencing the popularity of petitions may, the research suggests, be linked to the perceived safety of the seat in question with voters who feel they have no other voice using them to highlight their concerns. However, they have also been shown to be popular in one very marginal seat (Cities of London and Westminster) and one very safe seat (Edinburgh North and Leith).
In 2019, an election the saw a more than usual number of previously safe seats fall, mostly going from Labour to the Conservatives, there seemed to be no clear link between turnout and the safety of a seat.
Age though may influence voter turnout, with an Ipsos-MORI poll suggesting 47% of voters aged 18-24 cast their ballot compared to 74% of over 65's, a widening of the gap in 2017 when, respectively, 54% and 71% of the same group voted.
On one level the popularity of petitioning parliament is something about which to feel thankful. In a country where exhausted apathy often seems to be out default response to politics any kind of engagement is. Only in this instance it is hard not to feel that to some extent we the public are being sold a pup.
There is something undeniably satisfying about signing a petition, it offers the illusion of being politically active without the fuss of having to leave the house. The question keeps nagging at me though, just what do all these petitions achieve?
In my experience it tends to be much less than the signatories thought they would. A response from government is very nice, but in terms of content they tend to be about as memorable as the hit single from the summer before last.
As for those that get 'debated', either in Westminster Hall or the less grand environs of your local town hall. The whole thing seems a lot more like an opportunity for representatives to grandstand than democracy in action; hot air alone does not make legislation.
Petitions have their part to play, not least when it comes to highlighting issues missed by politicians afflicted with the myopia of high office. The must though be backed by further action, no great change was ever brought about just because enough people typed their name in a text box.
If we shrink our engagement to signing petitions online then as actors in the drama of politics, we reduce our role to that of children. Easily pacified mites to be patted on the head and sent up to the nursery, letting the grownups downstairs get on with wrecking the rest of the house.
Tuesday, 11 February 2020
Loosening the Grip of Poverty
'It is simply not right that we live in a society where so many people are locked in poverty', write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their UK Poverty Report for 2019/20.
The report paints a grim picture of life in the UK for individuals and households on low incomes. Although more people are in work poverty levels have risen thanks to factors such as housing costs, low wages and changes to the benefits system.
In work poverty has risen from 9.9% of the working population in 1997/98 to 12.7% in 2020.
Over the past two decades some progress has been made in addressing poverty amongst traditionally at-risk groups such as pensioners and children. However, in recent years much of this has started to unravel.
Amongst at risk groups disabled people are experiencing high levels of poverty, out of 13million people in the UK registered as having a disability 4 million are living in poverty. Out of 4.5million unpaid carers in the UK almost a million are living in poverty.
Households living in rented accommodation are also suffering, the decade long low interest rates that have been helpful to house buyers have brought them few benefits. Housing costs for low income households have risen sharply since 2000/01 with private renters being hardest hit.
Poverty is a trap that stifles lives, 7% people living in poverty have been there for two years or longer. Traditional narratives about 'working your way out of poverty offer them little in the way of comfort since some formidable barriers stand in their way.
These include not having enough hours work to make working really pay, costs imposed by expenses such as childcare and changes to the benefits system.
'Much of the world of work, social security and the housing market is designed based on decisions about our society's priorities,' write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their report, adding that ' we can choose to redesign them so they loosen poverty's grip and work better for everyone '.
Their vision for how this can be achieved involves action being taken in four key areas.
Getting more people into good jobs, many of the jobs that have been created in recent years are either poorly paid or insecure; in many cases both, more also needs to be done to improve pay and training opportunities for people doing this type of work. The benefits system has to be improved to make it more responsive to the needs of claimants. There is also a need for more good quality social housing and better rights for private renters.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation conclude lifting its most vulnerable members out of poverty is the responsibility of 'the whole of society, including central, devolved and local government, employers and civil society'. Adding that these partners must ' all work together for a prosperous UK where all areas are free from poverty'.
The report paints a grim picture of life in the UK for individuals and households on low incomes. Although more people are in work poverty levels have risen thanks to factors such as housing costs, low wages and changes to the benefits system.
In work poverty has risen from 9.9% of the working population in 1997/98 to 12.7% in 2020.
Over the past two decades some progress has been made in addressing poverty amongst traditionally at-risk groups such as pensioners and children. However, in recent years much of this has started to unravel.
Amongst at risk groups disabled people are experiencing high levels of poverty, out of 13million people in the UK registered as having a disability 4 million are living in poverty. Out of 4.5million unpaid carers in the UK almost a million are living in poverty.
Households living in rented accommodation are also suffering, the decade long low interest rates that have been helpful to house buyers have brought them few benefits. Housing costs for low income households have risen sharply since 2000/01 with private renters being hardest hit.
Poverty is a trap that stifles lives, 7% people living in poverty have been there for two years or longer. Traditional narratives about 'working your way out of poverty offer them little in the way of comfort since some formidable barriers stand in their way.
These include not having enough hours work to make working really pay, costs imposed by expenses such as childcare and changes to the benefits system.
'Much of the world of work, social security and the housing market is designed based on decisions about our society's priorities,' write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their report, adding that ' we can choose to redesign them so they loosen poverty's grip and work better for everyone '.
Their vision for how this can be achieved involves action being taken in four key areas.
Getting more people into good jobs, many of the jobs that have been created in recent years are either poorly paid or insecure; in many cases both, more also needs to be done to improve pay and training opportunities for people doing this type of work. The benefits system has to be improved to make it more responsive to the needs of claimants. There is also a need for more good quality social housing and better rights for private renters.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation conclude lifting its most vulnerable members out of poverty is the responsibility of 'the whole of society, including central, devolved and local government, employers and civil society'. Adding that these partners must ' all work together for a prosperous UK where all areas are free from poverty'.
Sunday, 2 February 2020
Brexit isn't the end, but of what exactly is it the beginning?
At the end of last week, the UK left the European Union after forty-seven years of mostly semi-detached membership. Despite the best efforts of the media to spin it as an 'event' the whole thing turned out to be a bit of a damp squib.
Leavers gathered outside Parliament and cheered the recorded chimes of Big Ben, a crowd funding campaign to have the real thing fired up for the occasion having raised little more than pocket change. In Glasgow Remain supporters clutched EU flags and tried to look suitably downcast for the cameras.
The great British public for the most part ignored both groups and instead stayed home to watch the football or wash their hair. Perhaps that's how it should be, history is as much about small things as major events.
Something important did happen on Friday night, just how important we don't get know; but it is likely to change everything.
Looking back with the perfect vision provided by hindsight it is remarkable that we thought joining the EU was ever going to work. During the referendum I backed the Remain campaign and still believe that being part of Europe is the most logical thing for the UK to do in a globalized world.
The thing is though people seldom do the logical thing, the stories we tell about who we are as a nation tend to get in the way. Britain, we assure ourselves, is a big country and could never fit into the straitjacket of EU membership, even though other countries manage to do so without losing their identity.
For the best part of half a century we had a sort of half out, half in relationship with Europe. On one hand following every rule handed down by Brussels as if it were holy writ and on the other dragging our feet like a stroppy teenager on a family walk. No wonder the EU didn't know what to do with the 'English Patient', apart from many put screens around our bed and hope we didn't disturb everyone else in the ward.
Now we are where we wanted to be, looking in from the outside, but do we have any idea what we are going to do with our new freedom? Beyond windy rhetoric and naive expectations have don't think we do.
Brexit was a Union Flag planted in the already existing fissure in our society. Voters in places like my hometown of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly for it because they felt angry and ignored. Three years later they voted Tory because they were still being ignored and felt even angrier.
Leaving Europe won't solve any of their problems, in fact it could make most of them worse. There are two things the government could do next, one of which is difficult but will be beneficial in the long term, the other is simple and possibly deadly.
The hard choice is for Brexit to be the starting point for our journey to becoming an outward looking, fair and modern country. This will be a difficult and unsettling process that will require all concerned to give ground, it is not something that will be completed in a single political cycle.
The easy option is to sink into a comforting fantasy where 'plucky little Britain' stands alone against the rest of the world. All the tired tropes from the beating of Drake's drum to Spitfires soaring over the white cliffs of Dover will be rolled out like floats in a theme park parade.
Take the hard option and we could with time and effort we could have a more peaceful and prosperous future; take the easy one and all we’ve got to look forward to is populism and decline.
I'd like to hope we are big and bold enough as a nation to take the hard option because we know it is the right thing to do. The trouble is the decision is in the hands of a prime minister who is a populist to the ends of his artfully dishevelled hair.
Waking on the first morning in this new world I felt and still feel like the narrator in Philip Larkin's poem ‘Homage to a Government’, seeing the statues standing in the tree muffled squares and looking the same as ever; but knowing that everything has changed. I hope we can leave our children more than just blue passports.
The great British public for the most part ignored both groups and instead stayed home to watch the football or wash their hair. Perhaps that's how it should be, history is as much about small things as major events.
Something important did happen on Friday night, just how important we don't get know; but it is likely to change everything.
Looking back with the perfect vision provided by hindsight it is remarkable that we thought joining the EU was ever going to work. During the referendum I backed the Remain campaign and still believe that being part of Europe is the most logical thing for the UK to do in a globalized world.
The thing is though people seldom do the logical thing, the stories we tell about who we are as a nation tend to get in the way. Britain, we assure ourselves, is a big country and could never fit into the straitjacket of EU membership, even though other countries manage to do so without losing their identity.
For the best part of half a century we had a sort of half out, half in relationship with Europe. On one hand following every rule handed down by Brussels as if it were holy writ and on the other dragging our feet like a stroppy teenager on a family walk. No wonder the EU didn't know what to do with the 'English Patient', apart from many put screens around our bed and hope we didn't disturb everyone else in the ward.
Now we are where we wanted to be, looking in from the outside, but do we have any idea what we are going to do with our new freedom? Beyond windy rhetoric and naive expectations have don't think we do.
Brexit was a Union Flag planted in the already existing fissure in our society. Voters in places like my hometown of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly for it because they felt angry and ignored. Three years later they voted Tory because they were still being ignored and felt even angrier.
Leaving Europe won't solve any of their problems, in fact it could make most of them worse. There are two things the government could do next, one of which is difficult but will be beneficial in the long term, the other is simple and possibly deadly.
The hard choice is for Brexit to be the starting point for our journey to becoming an outward looking, fair and modern country. This will be a difficult and unsettling process that will require all concerned to give ground, it is not something that will be completed in a single political cycle.
The easy option is to sink into a comforting fantasy where 'plucky little Britain' stands alone against the rest of the world. All the tired tropes from the beating of Drake's drum to Spitfires soaring over the white cliffs of Dover will be rolled out like floats in a theme park parade.
Take the hard option and we could with time and effort we could have a more peaceful and prosperous future; take the easy one and all we’ve got to look forward to is populism and decline.
I'd like to hope we are big and bold enough as a nation to take the hard option because we know it is the right thing to do. The trouble is the decision is in the hands of a prime minister who is a populist to the ends of his artfully dishevelled hair.
Waking on the first morning in this new world I felt and still feel like the narrator in Philip Larkin's poem ‘Homage to a Government’, seeing the statues standing in the tree muffled squares and looking the same as ever; but knowing that everything has changed. I hope we can leave our children more than just blue passports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)