Randwick allotments and Finn's Way update

Well at Randwick Parish Council meeting this evening there was lots on the agenda - I gave a report back re District Council stuff and caught up on progress re various projects. I thought in this blog I would look at two items....

Photos: Finn's Way

First allotments - at last we have reached the magic number of 6 residents interested in an allotment. This evening the Parish set up a work party, on which I will sit, to look at where they might be able to go.  This is exciting stuff - when we first set up Whiteshill and Ruscombe allotments few came forward until we had the site then 20 names came out of nowhere - see my film of the allotments here. If you are in Randwick or nearby then write to the Randwick Parish Council Clerk to express interest.

One site that seems to be ruled out (due to the covenant) as a possibility for allotments is Finn's Way - the Parish Council are in the process of taking over ownership from a trust. It will come with a lump sum that I am keen to see invested locally - poss more solar on Randwick Village Hall - win win in that the returns look good  and the income could be used to fund maintenance of Finn's Way. Although not sure if the Parish will go down that route....

Afghanistan: renewed calls for withdrawl

On Saturday the Guardian carried the letter below regarding Afghanistan with an email action that I've already taken. War on Want have released a disturbing report here. The current war in Afghanistan has now entered its 10th year - longer than both the First World War and Second World War combined.

This report outlines the impact of the war on the Afghan people, whose country has been devastated by decades of warfare and foreign interference, and calls for the immediate withdrawal of NATO troops. It also looks at some of the motives for Britain being involved like the strategic importance, the credibility of NATO and the natural gas pipeline.

“One of our goals is to stabilise Afghanistan... so that energy can flow to the south”. US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher 2007

Civillian deaths continue to mount - over 8,000 in last 5 years - 3 million Afghans are refugees or internally misplaced. Afghan assets are privatised and much of the so-called 'aid' arriving is spent on security. In 2009, the Afghan government reported that security spending by the Defence and Interior ministries accounted for fully 47% of the country’s core operating budget. Indeed the whole country is increasingly militarised - one of the most militarised on earth - worse still are all the private security companies - in May last year Britain's commander in southern Afghanistan, Major General Nick Carter, said that private security companies in Afghanistan operated in a “culture of impunity”, and admitted there was no system of registering guns or vehicles.

Letter to The Guardian which calls on supporters to email War on Want

Sixty years ago today, this newspaper carried a letter from the publisher Victor Gollancz (reproduced in full here) calling for people to join him in an urgent campaign against world poverty and militarism. Britain was fighting an unwinnable war in Asia, the Korean war, and Gollancz asked all who agreed with his call for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict to send him a postcard marked with the single word "yes". Within a month 10,000 people had responded, and War on Want was born.

Today Britain is mired in another unwinnable war in Asia, this time in Afghanistan. As detailed in the new report launched by War on Want this morning, the Afghan people are paying a terrible price for the ongoing occupation of their country. The surge in military activity has led not to more security but to greater insecurity, both in Afghanistan itself and in neighbouring Pakistan. Opinion polls consistently show over 70% of British people now support the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, either "immediately" or "soon".

We believe the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is against the interests of the Afghan people. We call for the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, and a negotiated settlement which guarantees self-determination, security and human rights for the Afghan people. If you agree, please join us by emailing "yes" to yes(at)waronwant.org [replace (at) with @].

John Hilary Executive director, War on Want
Malalai Joya Afghan politician
Len McCluskey General secretary, Unite
Dave Prentis General secretary, Unison
Sally Hunt General secretary, University and College Union
Jeremy Dear General secretary, National Union of Journalists
Mark Serwotka General secretary, Public and Commercial Services Union
Billy Hayes General secretary, Communication Workers Union
Bob Crow General secretary, Rail Maritime and Transport Union
Michael Mansfield QC
Tony Benn
Marsha Singh MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Mike Hancock MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Martin Caton MP
John McDonnell MP
Elfyn Llwyd MP
Paul Flynn MP
Moazzam Begg Director, Cageprisoners
Salma Yaqoob Birmingham city councillor
Lindsey German Convenor, Stop the War Coalition
Phil Shiner Public Interest Lawyers
Ken Loach
Victoria Brittain
Lowkey
Bruce Kent

Shaming of UK and US

The British military has been training interrogators in techniques that include threats, sensory deprivation and enforced nakedness in an apparent breach of the Geneva conventions, the Guardian has discovered. See Guardian here. And see Robert Fisk on the wikileaks here - the shameful lies told by US military about Iraqi military torture, civilians shot at checkpoints and more. These two stories are a painful read. How can we make amends?

Photo: Kneeling cushion in Randwick Church

Ask Blair questions on war

It is right that Blair should face questions regarding taking us to war - please join me in putting pressure on the Chair of the Inquiry to make sure Blair faces a real grilling.

Photo: Pic of nightime sledgers in Randwick!

You can ask your question at: www.38degrees.org.uk/ask-blair-tough-questions

Terrorism was the justification for war, but even if this was the reason war cannot stop terrorism - war itself breeds more rage and hate. We can see it clearly. War is no substitute for getting at the roots of terrorism. My question was about why other avenues were not fully explored before resorting to war. As regular blog readers will know I have long called for Blair to be put on trial for war crimes - see for example here.

In truth the US and Britain turned to war because to deal with fundamentals rather than symptoms would require radical changes in policy. I was sent recently Tony Blair's 'good reasons' to invade that make you think about who are we talking about;
- a country has weapons of mass destruction
- has invaded another country
- has oil reserves to provide the necessary finance
- has a leader associated with 100,000 deaths
- a leader supported by a minority of his people and surrounded by a tight-knit band of cronies

Nato demo

Meanwhile on Thursday 28 January the leaders of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan are coming to Central London for a conference organised by Gordon Brown to discuss the next steps in their war effort. President Karzai, Hilary Clinton, President Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are among those expected to attend. Stop the War, of which the Green party is a signatory, are organising a protest and have issued the following statement on the conference:

The situation for the warmongers is deteriorating sharply. Last year was by far the worst since the invasion in 2001 for the invading forces, with 108 British soldiers and 319 US troops losing their lives in a war with no purpose. The number of Afghan civilians killed in 2009 also rose dramatically, with the UN giving a figure of well over 2000, which is undoubtedly an under-estimate of the total, as many deaths go unreported.

Gordon Brown claims NATO is committed to a stable and secure Afghanistan, but the war has only increased the suffering of ordinary people in the world's second poorest country. This is the environment in which the Taliban continue to grown in strength -- with even the commander of the NATO forces admitting they control much of the country. The Taliban infiltration of the Afghan army -- which according to Obama and Brown is the long term key to winning the war -- was highlighted at the end of 2009, when five British soldiers and seven CIA operatives were killed in separate incidents by Taliban supporters serving in the army.

The western backed Karzai government -- already discredited by the farcical presidential "election" -- is in utter disarray, following the rejection of Karzai's new cabinet by the Afghan parliament. This has made a mockery of Gordon Brown's slogan for the conference on 28 January: "Afghan leadership, international partnership". We are told the purpose of the ever mounting death toll is to counter the danger of terrorism. But it is clear that far from combating terrorism , the 'war on terror' has created more enemies for the west and al-Qaeda has spread across the Middle East to Somalia, Yemen and beyond. The one place it isn't, is in Afghanistan, where the US government admits there are less than 100 al-Qaeda operatives.

The leaders gathering on 28 January have only one response to the catastrophe their war has created. More war. With his latest troop surge Obama has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan since he became president. As ever - and despite a majority of the British public calling for the troops to be withdrawn -- our government follows slavishly wherever US foreign policy takes it, and Brown has increased Britain's deployment to over 9500.

It is essential that we make clear on 28 January that these war policies are opposed by the majority of people in virtually every NATO country. Instead of discussing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Brown's international conference should be planning to bring all the troops home.

Afghanistan: extra troops a mistake

Gordon Brown's "mini-surge", taking the number of British troops fighting the Afghan war to over 10,000, plus Obama's surge taking the US deployment to over 100,000, is deeply concerning. More than 200 British MOD personnel have died in the conflict since 2001 and the UN Mission to Afghanistan recorded over 1,000 civilian deaths in the first six months of this year alone.

At our monthly meeting this last Wednesday the Stroud District Green Party unanimously passed a motion to renew our call for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.

Despite high levels of corruption and election fraud within the Afghan Government, the NATO forces are propping up the current regime. The costs of keeping forces in Afghanistan are astronomical. White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, has stated that one million dollars is needed per year to keep just one soldier in the country.

Martin Whiteside, the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for the Stroud District, who has worked in Afghanistan five times advising on aid programmes, says: “The people who are suffering the most from this terrible war are ordinary Afghan children, women and men and also our own soldiers. Who really believes that having our troops in Afghanistan makes our streets safer? When the war started, Greens with massive public support from people in Stroud, warned that it was wrong. The war is reaching the end of its ninth year and the only solution is a complete and immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.”

The three major political parties all support the military efforts in Afghanistan. Gordon Brown argues that these efforts are securing the streets in the UK from terrorist attack. In contrast to the main political parties, The Green Party calls for this bloody conflict to end and for British troops to withdraw now. What is needed is a peace agreement involving the UN and lead by Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. See our Green party news release this week here.

History shows that the people of Afghanistan never accept occupation by foreign powers. Many had voted for Obama as the "peace president" and will be disappointed with this move. The excuse that this is a "war of necessity" waged to keep us secure from terrorist attack is utterly discredited. Al-Qaeda is 'an international jihadist organisation' which, according to Obama’s own advisors, has less than 100 operatives in Afghanistan. We are also told that the Taliban and other forces opposing the US have no aspirations beyond their country’s borders - they simply want Afghanistan to be free of occupation by foreign powers.

We have already seen the result of Obama’s first surge has been to make 2009 the bloodiest year of the war - both for Afghan civilians and for Nato soldiers - it has not improved security - indeed it is thought that more Afghans have joined the resistance as a result.

The Afghan army of 95,000 is a vast overstatement of the number of soldiers who can actually be deployed. The US admits that one in four recruits deserts within one year of enlisting - no doubt partly as there are so many deaths amongst their fellow soldiers. The story is the same in the police which are feared by most Afghans for their corruption and brutality.

Yet Obama and Brown want to see this army and police as the cornerstone of their "exit strategy". Even if this "exit strategy" worked as described, US and British military advisors have said that many more years of war are envisaged - David Miliband earlier in the year said British forces would be in Afghanistan for at least five more years. Obama’s officials and the Pentagon are talking about at least seven more years. The talk of troop withdrawals beginning within 18 months, is surely a way to try and sell a war to electorates who increasing opposing the war.

Anyway to nearly finish this post see here Green party articles re the war and why opium needs to be grown legally there.

There is new online petition at: http://bit.ly/8jLhRk (If you signed one of the previous online Afghanistan petitions, there is no need to sign again). The deadline for the petition is 17 December.

Obama's nobel prize

Reactions to Obama's nobel peace prize have been largely welcoming but there is also some serious criticisms - see Gary Ruskin's views below - he is Co-founder of the relatively new Green Change.

It is true Obama has appealed for reductions in nuclear arsenals and is seeking to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. I also believe there is a genuine change in the international climate but I was disappointed to hear he has just rebuffed calls for a commission to investigate alleged abuses under the Bush administration in fighting terrorism. That aside the following piece shows he has lots of work to do - no that should read we all have lots to do! It is perhaps not surprising that some commentators are saying it is about what people hope he will bring....

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said: "In a way, it's an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all. It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope." Anyway now to that Green Change comment:

This morning, President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Nobel Committee said. Why?
Did Obama bring peace to Iraq?

No. He has retained 124,000 U.S. troops there, with tens of thousands deployed perhaps indefinitely.

Did he bring peace to Afghanistan?

No. He has escalated the Afghan war, and is part responsible for the scores of civilian deaths that have occurred there. He has done this despite that most Americans believe that the war is "not worth fighting."

Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee said in an interview that “Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics.” Has Obama done anything singular to stop the worldwide crisis of climate change?

No. He has spent little or no political capital on the climate crisis, and still refuses to commit the U.S. to strong actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And there are widespread reports that he is trying to weaken the Copenhagen global climate treaty.

Jagland said that “The Nobel Committee has in particular looked at Obama’s vision and work toward a world without atomic weapons.” But on this issue, Obama is merely implementing the ideas of the more conservative foreign policy minds of our nation, including Henry Kissinger.

Did he beat the swords of the giant U.S. defense budget into plowshares of peace?

No. In fact, he will soon sign into law the largest defense bill in our nation's history.

Has he brought home the troops scattered across the world stationed to maintain our empire?

No. We still have an estimated 1,000 military bases in foreign lands worldwide.

Has he stopped our nation's scandalous weapons trade?

No. The U.S. has expanded its weapons trade. We now supply 2/3rds of the world's foreign armaments.

Did Obama sign the cluster munitions treaty to ban cluster bombs, because 98% of cluster bomb casualties are children?

No. The U.S. has not signed the cluster munitions treaty.

Has Obama brought home the army of mercenaries we have stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

No. He has expanded the ranks of these mercenaries to 250,000.

There are millions of people across our world who spend their blood and sweat every day for peace -- real peace. Every one of them deserves the Nobel Peace Prize far more than Barack Obama.

Four parties in Stroud debate defence

On Thursday Bruce Kent was in Stroud - see here with links to actions on Trident - this was followed on Friday night by a debate sponsored by the Green party in The Space in Stroud with spokespeople from all four parties.

Photos: Panel from left to right: MP David Drew for Labour, Parliamentary spokespersons Cllr. Martin Whiteside for the Greens, Chair Jane Mace, Lib Dem spokesperson Cllr. Dennis Andrewartha and Neil Carmichael for the Tories. Plus other pics from the evening.

But before I get to that please email Miliband before 1st October here on arms control. While Governments talk, over 2 million people have died from armed violence. As the campaign Control Arms website says: "Irresponsible arms transfers fuel conflict, poverty and human rights abuses. In the past, David Miliband and the UK Government have shown leadership in promoting a strong Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) at the United Nations. But right now the Treaty is stuck in the slow lane – governments have been discussing the ATT since 2006, meanwhile over 2 million people have died from armed violence. The UK Government needs to finish what it started, it's time to get down to business."

Anyway to the evening of discussion - a turnout of around 80 people with most engaging in challenging and informative discussion on topics including the replacement of the Trident missile system and the military alliance of England and America.

All four parties were represented and spoke from the platform: MP David Drew for Labour, Parliamentary spokespersons Cllr. Martin Whiteside for the Greens, Neil Carmichael for the Tories and Lib Dem spokesperson Cllr. Dennis Andrewartha. This was the first meeting of party spokespeople ahead of the elections that will take place before May 2010.

During the course of the evening Green Party Parliamentary candidate Cllr. Martin Whiteside – who has wide ranging experience of poverty and war - been to Afghanistan 5 times - found support for his views on non-proliferation and democratic solutions to international problems. Perhaps not so surprising being so many Greens in the audience - only the Conservative spokesperson spoke in favour of the need to retain Trident. Anyway there is now a more full report on the evening here.

Next month the Coffee House discussion returns to Star Anise cafe and looks at planning locally: Where should housing go? Where should wind turbines go? And more - but before signing off this blog wanted to quote Stop the War Coalition, of which the Green party is a member -- they said today: Much is being made of UN calls for nuclear disarmament this week. Every missile nuclear or otherwise that is scrapped is welcome. Anything which reduces tension between big powers is to be applauded. But the cuts proposed will leave enough nuclear weapons in play to destroy the planet many times over and the changes taking place amount to a shift to new military priorities not a move away from intervention.

Long range nuclear weapons, even aircraft carriers and big tanks may be de-prioritised because of the kind of wars the west will be fighting. The new British Chief of staff General Richards outlined the new thinking last week. Afghanistan was a "signpost" indicating the nature of wars in the future - "asymmetric" conflicts with less need for traditional military hardware like tanks and warplanes.

"Future conflicts are more likely to involve non-state actors and failed states, like Afghanistan, rather than traditional wars between states... How we deal with the threat posed by violent extremism, often embedded in dangerously radicalised states, will be an issue that will dominate our professional lives." In reality the big powers will keep enough nuclear weapons and hi-tech hardware to continue to intimidate potential rivals, but they are clearing the way to spend more on targeted, infantry-led interventions round the world. General Richards also made clear the military sees no choice but to fight to the end in Afghanistan - whatever that is - and he explained why defeat is not an option. Imagine he said, the "enduring grand strategic impact on the UK's authority and reputation in the world of the defeat of the British Armed Forces, and its impact on public sentiment here in the UK." The war in Afghanistan is not about the well being of the Afghan people, economic, social or political, it is about the projection of American and British power abroad.

We can also remember that there is a national Bring the Troops Home demonstration on Saturday 24 October at Hyde Park at midday. It will be lead by anti-war military families, army veterans and soldiers and will march to Trafalgar Square for a mass rally. Unfortunately this clashes with the 350 Internatioonal Climate Day when here in Stroud we will be planting 350 trees and finishing 350 beehouses.

Afghanistan: time to disengage

The latest opinion poll in The Independent carried the headline, "Voters turn against war in Afghanistan". Despite the pro war propaganda campaign it reported that 52% of the British Public want the troops home now. (See http://bit.ly/2QXiDj).

Photo: Peace vigil in High Street with soldiers also collecting for charity

The government has declared 'mission accomplished' but even it had to admit they have only 'cleared' an area the size of the Isle of Wight of 500 Taliban, deploying 9000 troops to do so, at a cost of 22 soldiers killed and hundreds more wounded. This is unacceptable - for 8 years we have been fighting Afghans, longer than both the Great War and the Second World War. The costs are huge and recently estimated at £12 billion.

At a packed Stop the War meeting in London last week, it was reported that Afghan MP Malalai Joya explained how the occupation was a disaster for the Afghan people and is driving the country backwards. "We always reject occupation and foreign domination," she said, calling for solidarity from the anti-war movement. "I know there are millions of British people who want to see an end to this conflict as soon as possible. Together we can raise our voice for peace and justice." (See http://bit.ly/2x33Fz). In fact must note some of stuff in first half of this blog is adapted from Stop the War emails.

At the same rally featuring Lance Corporal Joe Glenton became the first serving British soldier to speak out publicly against the Afghan war. Today Joe faces a court martial hearing and a possible two-year prison term after going on the run rather than return to Afghanistan. He says he gradually became aware that justifications for occupying Afghanistan were ringing hollow. "The Afghan people were attacking us, even though our politicians said we were going in to help them. It came as a real shock. That's when I became aware that there was something seriously wrong with the war." Families of military are also becoming increasingly vocal.

It was also interesting to see Simon Jenkins writing in The Guardian - see here - worth a read - here is some of it...

"The one thing you know (and the enemy knows) about a named military operation is that it ends, which is one thing counter-insurgency can never do. All talk of talking to the Taliban forgets that Americans were talking to the Taliban before 9/11. Indeed, they spent a fortune training and arming them against Russia. Britain's first Helmand offensive in 2006 concluded that the Taliban would not be beaten and was followed by talking and a "cessation of hostilities", involving a series of local deals with (good) Taliban and a joint withdrawal agreement. It was later regarded as a disaster.

"...Any dispassionate observer returning from Afghanistan reports the same message. This is not working. People do not want their hearts and minds bribed or their infrastructure rebuilt. The money just gets stolen. They want their poppy crop left in peace and they want to know which sheikh or Taliban warlord will rule their lives a year from now. After years of being bombed, bankrupted and betrayed, they wonder who can offer them security. The answer is neither the British nor the regime in Kabul.

"...Everyone knows that the British will go but the Taliban will stay. That is why the strategy of take, hold and build is mere pastiche imperialism. It relies on the palpable nonsense that the Afghan army, a drugged militia of little competence and less loyalty, will fight and defeat its Pashtun cousins. It will not. All wars end in talking, even if the conversation is usually brief and one-sided. Such will be any deal with the Taliban, good or bad. As the Canadians and most Europeans have realised, Afghanistan is essentially a war of American vendetta, and the more stupid for it. Yes, it will end in talk, but how many more must die first?"

I'm not sure I agree that it was just vendetta - a big part was also oil and control of the region. Anyway the real cost is in lives, British soldiers on the one hand and Afghan militants on the other and then the tens of thousands of civilians. Soldiers and armies have to follow orders. But as citizens we have every right and duty to question what our country gets involved in and when it sends our forces into harm's way and that includes knowing when to call time. We have pulled out of Iraq it is now more than time to start disengaging from Afghanistan. That is certainly not an easy task...

Far far too many lives lost, yet the country is no closer to peace or democracy. The idea that democracy could be restored through military assaults proved to be wrong, yet it remains a central plank of the failed US strategy. We need to help Afghanistan re-build itself, but we can only do this by investing in economic reconstruction, training programmes and good governance – not endless warfare. The UK is now seen as the enemy by too many. The United Nations – not the United States and UK - should take the lead in restoring a peaceful democracy and ending the downward spiral of violence.

To finish see Green party comment on the new Inquiry into Iraq here and letter re Afghanistan here.

Sign petition on Afghanistan

The local press asked yesterday for a comment on Iraq - see here - however I also want to draw attention to this petition. While we can all welcome the troops leaving Iraq, the pull out is only partly in response to public opinion, it is also a product of the decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Cartoon: Steve Bell taken from Stop the War website

The Stop the War Coalition, of which the Green party is a part, has just launched a petition to Gordon Brown demanding the withdrawal of all British troops from Afghanistan. In fact so new that I was the third signature. As regular blog readers will know Greens have opposed the war in Afghanistan from the start. Please consider signing online: http://www.petitiononline.com/stwc01/petition.html

Comment re troops leaving Iraq

I got asked for a response to reports today of British troops leaving Iraq - trouble is I didn't get message until late as work then in Randwick Woods with nearly 20 Woodcraft Folk aged 6 to 9 (wow are those bluebells wonderful there) then another meeting...

In haste I wrote the comments below - but I would have wanted to spend more time on it - the Green party were the only main party to wholly oppose the war in Iraq - yet we never could have imagined the nightmare it became - how we have let down so many including our own troops - the prewar planning and indeed execution have been nothing short of criminal negligence.

Let us hope this is a genuine move for peace and not as some commentators have said due to troops being needed in Afghanistan.

Here is what I sent: "I welcome the troops leaving Iraq and Obama's plans to also pull out. Many millions of us opposed this futile, costly, unjust and damaging war that contravened international law, damaged important links with the region and increased terrorist risks. It led to chaos, devastation and the deaths of up to 650,000 Iraqis. Many British, US and others have also lost their lives. Our Government failed us and our troops. If the war in Iraq has proven anything, it is the utter ineffectiveness of using military power to counter terrorism. Greens have joined others in calling for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to be tried for war crimes at the international court in the Hague.

"Western Governments must work towards tackling the root causes of conflict and violence. The war on terror can surely only ever be won when we replace a culture of fear with one of respect, engagement, vigilance and solidarity."

Journalist Robert Fisk said of the occupation: "One hundred and seventy-nine dead soldiers. For what? 179,000 dead Iraqis? Or is the real figure closer to a million? We don't know. And we don't care. We never cared about the Iraqis. That's why we don't know the figure. That's why we left Basra."

Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley was killed in Iraq said: "It was an illegal war. We were told we were going to find weapons of mass destruction but there were none. They have dragged the war out for 6 years. I have prayed for no other parent to suffer what we went though."

Meanwhile Gordon Brown declared, "Our task in Iraq is complete… it is a success story."

US Army suicides - record January figures "terrifying"

If reports of suicides are confirmed, more soldiers will have taken their lives in January than died in combat. The US Army has said 24 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in January alone - six times as many as killed themselves in January 2008.

Photo: Sky last week over towards Randwick

According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January. Now regular blog readers will know my concerns about both those wars - but there is no excuse for not having proper support for those fighting. 128 soldiers killed themselves in 2008 - this is the highest number of suicides since records began in 1980. Officials calculate the deaths at a rate of roughly 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers – which is higher than the adjusted civilian rate for the first time since the Vietnam War, officials told a Pentagon news conference. See CNN report here.

Here is a comment from a Green colleague: "I remember reading that the number of US Vietnam deaths, 58,000 was well exceeded by the number of subsequent suicides. There is a large range of claims from a surely conservative 9,000 ( http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html ), to 50,000, a 100,000 and even 200,000 (http://www.suicidewall.com/SWStats.html ). A lot of PTSD suicides may be masked as car accidents and gun accidents. The Falklands death toll (255) also appears to be exceeded by the suicides (264 by 2002) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1758301.stm). The people who fight against war are doing a huge favour for the people who fight in war. A shame this is lost on our present political leadership."

I remember some years ago that Russian officers requested help from their British counterparts after estimates that thousands of conscripts were taking their lives every year because of low morale, poor conditions and brutality meted out by superiors. It was also some years ago when Greens locally joined others in highlighting concerns in the British army - see here.

As Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard, said in the CNN article, she sees the stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers. Those who are seeking mental-health care often have their treatment disrupted by deployments. Deployed soldiers also have to deal with the stress of separations from families.

Stigma is indeed a real problem. As are issues of confidentiality in the military. It is high time we tackled the stigma associated with seeking any mental health treatment. It's a societal issue, but it is much more pronounced in the military. There seems to be a perception among some troops that seeking mental health support means you're weak or a coward and frankly. The military must take some blame as they dish out medals to those who charge up the hill, but don't really recognize the day-to-day heroism of soldiers who take care of themselves.

Apparently a US Defense Department study looking at combat troops returning from Iraq found that soldiers and Marines who need counseling the most are least likely to seek it. As many as 16 percent of the troops questioned admitted to symptoms of severe depression, Post Combat Stress Disorder and other problems. Of those, six out of 10 questioned felt their leaders would treat them differently and that fellow troops would lose confidence in them. As many as 65 percent said they'd "be seen as weak."

It is positive that more mental health assessments will be taking place to counter this - but there is still miles to go. Difficulty sleeping, reliving incidents in your mind, feeling emotionally detached are all kinds of reactions that are very common and really expected after combat - and indeed in many other challenging situations.

Interestingly there is a debate about calling troops who seek help 'patients' - in the long run this could help reduce the sense that problems coping with the horrors of combat are no different than bleeding from a gunshot wound. On the other hand, studies have shown that the more troops are treated as sick - rather than simply experiencing normal reactions - the more likely they are to wrestle with mental health problems over time.

Col. Thomas Burke, one of the Pentagon's top psychiatrists and the director of mental health policy for the Defense Department has said that for any program to work, troops and military leaders need to understand "mental illness is not the kind of unsolvable problem that it once was." The message he tries to ram home is that usually it's not a matter of "problem soldiers, but soldiers with problems."

Why we need the Stroud pound

Christian Gelleri, Manager of the Chiemgau Currency was in town last month talking about 'A Local Currency for Stroud?' The Chiemgauer is one of Germany's most successful local currencies. It began as a school project and was formally launched in the small Bavarian town of Chiemgau in 2003. There are over 600 participating businesses and 2,600 members who keep nearly 300,000 Chiemgauers in circulation.

So why are we in Transition Stroud looking at a currency for Stroud? Well this blog entry is a bit of a ramble as I've been interupted several times and never quite seem to finish it...but hey ho see what you think...

Well a 1.5% plummet in economic growth in the last three months of 2008 compounds the previous quarter’s 0.6% drop to make the UK recession official. The percentages may seem small but the continuing economic shrinkage will cause acute problems for some specific sectors - such as in retail where the damage is over 4% - taking proportionately much larger hits than others. The media suggest this recession will be wider and deeper than we endured in the early 1990s - and for many young adults it will be their first taste of austerity and social insecurity.

As noted before many Greens have called for an end to GDP as the accepted way of measuring economic health and instead “value what matters” for a more ecologically sustainable economy - infact a carbon lite life can be a happier life - see here. Certainly I would have hoped that a Green Government would have tried to engineer 0% growth carefully, deliberately and as painlessly as possible rather than through the calamitous events that have brought about the current situation.

Indeed we need to start thinking differently. George Monbiot last year quoted research that a 3% increase in economic growth (the aim of most countries) practically means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. A doubling of growth between now and 2040 means humankind will consume more natural materials from the Earth than were used in the entire period from when we first stood on two legs up to present day. Indeed, continuation of 3% growth would mean consumption of mineral and other resources would further double between 2040 and 2063. That just isn't possible????

So let us hope the current crisis will mean a move to a more sustainable and responsible economy. What opportunities are there?

Dr Molly Scott Cato, economics spokesperson, Green Party of England & Wales - who lives in Stroud - writes: "These are interesting times for green economists. For 30 years we have been calling for a steady-state economy rather than economic growth. Two signs that we are in a steady state would be the absence of economic growth and zero interest rates. Since we have both of those now, can we take heart that the steady state may be approaching? Of course life is never so simple, and in reality what we are seeing at present is a chaotic struggle for the remaining credit by ‘businesses’ many of which do not produce anything. Without political management of the economy the descent from peak money - like the descent from peak oil that will shortly follow - gives no guarantee that the useful businesses and productive jobs will survive. In a recession the public sector increases in size relative to the private sector. Governments invest in the economy when private-sector ompanies cannot afford to. Sadly, at present they are investing in bankrupt banks rather than the transition to a low-carbon economy that the Green New Deal would ensure."

Interestingly I read that Casey Research, of Vermont, has analyzed the costs of the US government bailouts of the housing crisis, the credit crisis and others and has concluded that the total is $8.5 trillion, which is more than the cost of all US wars, the Louisiana Purchase, the New Deal, the Marshall Plan and the NASA Space Program combined. According to CRS, the Congressional Research Service, all major US wars (including such events as the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasion of Panama, the Kosovo War and numerous other small conflicts), cost a total of $7.5 trillion in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.

The $700 billion spent bailing out banks in the US is enough to fund complete medical care for every man, woman and child currently alive in the US for 11 years!! And how far would $50 billion used to bail out the auto industry???

I was recently sent around one of those 'amusing' emails about trying to help us understand how much a billion really is....a billion seconds ago it was 1959, a billion minutes ago Jesus was alive, a billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age and a billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet. Yet a billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it....

In the UK too the Government is set, in effect, to own great swathes of our financial system - Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds TSB, HBOS. Is this really the best use of money?? What opportunities are there?

See Monbiot article here about how we could solve the credit crunch without giving anything to the banks. He writes in support of local currencies - like the possible Stroud Pound - he notes the mayor of Curitiba in Brazil, kick-starting the economy of the city in 1971 by issuing currency in the form of bus tokens. People earned them by picking and sorting litter: thus cleaning the streets and acquiring the means to commute to work. Schemes like this helped Curitiba become one of the most prosperous cities in Brazil. But the projects which have proved even more effective were those inspired by the German economist Silvio Gesell. He proposed that communities seeking to rescue themselves from economic collapse should issue their own currency. To discourage people from hoarding it, they should impose a fee (called demurrage), which had the same effect as negative interest.

Monbiot writes: "No one is suggesting that we replace official currencies with local scrip: this is a complementary system, not an alternative. Nor does Lietaer propose this as a solution to all economic ills. But even before you consider how it could be improved through modern information technology, several features of Gesell’s system grab your attention. We need not wait for the government or the central bank to save us: we can set this system up ourselves. It costs taxpayers nothing. It bypasses the greedy banks. It recharges local economies and gives local businesses an advantage over multinationals. It can be tailored to the needs of the community. It does not require - as Eddie George, the former Governor of the Bank of England, insisted - that one part of the country be squeezed so that another can prosper.

"Perhaps most importantly, a demurrage system reverses the ecological problem of discount rates. If you have to pay to keep your money, the later you receive your income, the more valuable it will be. So it makes economic sense, under this system, to invest long-term. As resources in the ground are a better store of value than money in the bank, the system encourages their conservation."

The possibility of a Stroud Pound is exciting. The Mayor of Stroud has already pledged support and in this country there are other examples where it is starting to work - in Totnes they launched a currency in March 2007 - see good article in The Independent here. Lewes have also launched a local currency - see here.

In the US "BerkShares" were launched in the Southern Berkshire region of Massachusetts in 2006. They have been a huge success – some 1.43 million "BerkShares" worth $1.29m (£650,000) were issued in the scheme's first 17 months and there are now more than 300 businesses accepting them. BerkShares' organisers say: "The purpose of a local currency is to function on a local scale the same way that national currencies have functioned on a national scale – building the local economy by maximising circulation of trade within a defined region.
The currency distinguishes the local businesses that accept the currency from those that do not, building stronger relationships and a greater affinity between the business community and the locals. The people who choose to use the currency make a conscious commitment to buy local first. They are taking personal responsibility for the health and well-being of their community by laying the foundation of a thriving local economy."

The Stroud Pound is a similar idea ie to keep money in the area, thereby retaining wealth within the community. If you look at the places with economic problems it is because the wealth is leaking out of the neighbourhood.

The think-tank nef (the new economics foundation) in the 2003 book, the Real World Economic Outlook first predicted the scale, and consequences of the global credit bubble. Now that the bubble has burst, the think-tank has launched a set of proposals intended to both immediately stabilise the economy and lay the foundations for a phoenix-like new economy.

And, nef says this doesn’t mean starting from scratch: "Just beneath the economy’s surface is the sleeping architecture of a new, diverse and resilient local financial system. The same is true of Britain’s neglected and undermined network of small shops and local enterprises that contribute disproportionately to job creation and help create the social glue that holds communities together during hard times."

You can download their report here. It includes calls:

- to demerge banks that are ‘too big to fail’ - the discredited financial institutions that have needed so much public money to prop them up should be reduced to a size where their failure would not jeopardise the system itself.

- to introduce a moratorium on crash-related home evictions. The banks, which are at fault, have been bailed out to a previously unimaginable degree by the tax payer, yet thousands of hard-working home owners face the daily insecurity of potential eviction. Evictions could be stopped replaced by long-term plans for restructuring householders’ mortgage debts.

- to create a secure, accessible local banking system for people by growing the role of post offices and more.

- to use the Government’s new role in the banks to set new directions for investment to tackle the other great challenges we face: climate change and oil depletion.

- to launch a Green New Deal as mentioned before: with a windfall tax on the oil companies to invest in a massive environmental transformation programme that could insulate the economy from recession, create countless new jobs and allow Britain to pay its part in meeting the climate change challenge.

Our financial system has long since failed to do the basic job required of it – to underpin the productive economy and the fundamental operating systems of family, community and the environment upon which we all depend. Now that the state owns a large slice of the financial system, these are things we can do now.

As nef write about 2008: "This year has been finance-led capitalism’s 1989. It is now as broken as the old Soviet Union. It didn’t work for the real economy. It put people in rich and poor countries alike into debt for short-term profit. It was uncontrolled and grew in power until the tail was wagging the dog. Now there is a huge opportunity to develop a new model for a real economy that does work for people and the planet."

A Stroud Pound would be a small part of the fight to reclaim our local economy.

Stroud Vigil for Gaza

Stroud High Street saw close to a 100 people join the vigil earlier today to end the Israel-Gaza conflict. The rest of the country saw many similar protests including a march in Gloucester and in London an estimated 100,000 people turned out (see here).

Photos: Pics of the demo this morning

In Stroud the vigil was for an hour finishing in a circle with a few minutes of silence. For me such protests are crucial to highlight the failings of the EU and our Government to use their political leverage to try and stop the war - nearly 800 people killed and thousands more injured.

It was great to see so many people attend the protest and feel their strength of feeling. We must have an immediate and complete ceasefire in Gaza. There is no way to justify this continued devastating assault and granting only three hours of respite a day is simply shameful.

Martin Whiteside, the Green party's Parliamentary candidate for Stroud, who helped organise the vigil said in a news release soon to go out: "We should not forget our own government is implicated in the slaughter, since it continues to export arms to Israel-arms. Indeed last year saw a major increase in the number of arms exports it licensed. There should be an immediate end to all arms exports from the EU, but if that cannot be secured, then the Prime Minister must act alone. The UK urgently needs a truly ethical foreign policy. We all need to lobby, lobby, lobby and take any other action we can think of to end this crisis."

Martin Whiteside added: "The Green Party is also calling on the UK Government to revoke its support for any new agreements with Israel, calling on the European Parliament to refuse to endorse any extension of existing agreements and seeking that the EU uses its influence to prevent any upgrades of EU benefits to Israel until it abides by its international legal and humanitarian obligations."

I have to note my shock at the United States vetoing a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire - this surely gives a green light to Israel to keep up the bombing on civilians, keep depriving the majority of civilians of electricity, fuel and clean water, keep denying the Red Cross access to the injured and keep up the blockade to deprive the country of food and essential medicines.

The protests are a great sign of hope that such barbarism must stop - it was great to read that Norwegian Locomotive Drivers Union have shown what trade unions in Britain should be doing now: on Thursday all trains in the whole of Norway, and all trams and subways in Oslo, stood still for two minutes in protest against the Israeli invasion. The union issued the following information for passengers: "Because of the situation in the Gaza Strip, the Locomotive Drivers Union in Norway has decided to demonstrate our solidarity with the Palestinian people. This will be organised by adding two more minutes of stoppage at the station. The same action applies to all passenger trains in Norway simultaneously. We demand the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Palestinian territory. Thank you for your understanding."

More shockingly on Friday Al Jazeera English was reporting that it believed white phosphorus is being used by the Israelis forces in Gaza. This forms clouds which can spread over large areas and cause third degree burns. Its use at Fallujah in Iraq was widely condemned and it has been used in Afghanistan. Despite its indiscriminate character, it is not illegal in international law. I hope sincerely that it has not been used.

I also read here re how the conflict in Gaza can be seen in the context of a decade of war that has forged an even closer military alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv. See here Martin Whiteside's comment piece that was in todays Citizen - there will hopefully be another news release soon but I'm having problems with my emails...indeed I've not received any for over 24 hours.

Obama: The world is different?

I've just read Dr Lawson's blog re Obama - worth a read - and if you haven't heard Obama's full victory speech then listen - good stuff! Even McCain's losing speech makes you feel like the world has become a better place overnight.

Of course there are serious doubts about just how much change the democrats and Obama can or will deliver. But there is a real change today is in the 'hearts and minds' of people in the US and around the world. It is about hope for a better future - some restoration of faith in democracy and possibly even a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" as Obama promises.

Like Dr Lawson in his blog I was reminded of the day in May 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. So much hope from a young, good speaker, apparently a man of the people yet look what he became. Let us hope Obama has more depth - he appears to in the glare of the world's media - but also let us not be too taken in by Obama - he is, for example, positively hawkish on Afghanistan and as noted before on this blog there are other areas of concern.


So far the latest I've seen is Greens and McKinney (pic above) have 141,000 votes - ie 0.1% - see more here. Indeed all the other Presidential hopefuls were squeezed. Must dash - a bonfire to attend to commemorate a guy who wanted to blow up Westminister.....then a local Green party monthly meeting...

Obama's speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7710038.stm (text)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7710079.stm (video)

US elections favour scary return to Republicans

I've not blogged on the US elections and don't really mean to start but note John Marjoram's letter in Guardian today here. He calls for them to consider more than just the Republican - Democrat fight...

Photos: This morning over Farmhill - a new dawn!

With that in mind I note Roseanne Barr comes out with some typically feisty comments re the US elections and her support for Cynthia Mc Kinney and the Greens here. See also Reactions of the Green Party Vice Presidential candidate to the Vice Presidential debate here.

In one shocking bit of news it emerged at the European Green Party Council that the General Secretary and the EGP had been in touch with the US Greens trying to get them not to campaign in the so called swing states for fear of damaging the Democrat campaign. The US Greens had told them where to get off. Agree!!! Can you imagine the US Greens telling the EGP not to campaign in the UK, as it might damage the Labour or Tory vote? The Gen Sec apparently went on to state that it was no longer an issue as the Democrats were sufficiently ahead in the swing states this time. Ah well Greens are not perfect!

Election stacked against Obama

Anyway more re the US elections - certainly this week the Republican election campaign has gone from one crisis to another with the seemingly barely competent Senator McCain and Governor Palin - the latter is now deliberately being kept away from the media as she shows her true colours as Mayor of Gaffe City.

However the US election is still stacked against Obama - the scale of voter disenfranchisement in America could put the Republicans back in the White House (see Peter Tatchell comment here). Naomi Wolf as seen on this blog earlier this month believes a coup has already taken place - see her scary video here.

Amazingly research by the New York Times (NYT) and BBC Newsnight confirms that the US presidential election will not be free and fair, because millions of electors will either not be allowed to vote or will not have their votes properly counted. The NYT found that in some states for every new voter registered in the last couple of months, two voters have been removed – negating Obama's massive voter registration drive. This voter purging could mean fewer people voting next month than voted in 2004. This widespread electoral malpractice is independently corroborated by a Newsnight investigation by Greg Palast. See here and here.

Palast says that almost three million voters have already been purged from the voter rolls – mostly poor and black voters who are more likely to vote Democrat. During elections in New Mexico earlier this year, one in nine voters found that their names had disappeared from the voter rolls. In Colorado, the disenfranchisement is even greater, with 20% of voters being purged. It has happened before. During the 2004 presidential election one in four registered Ohio voters turned up at the polling booth only to discover that their names were not on the voter roll, an exclusion rate of 25%.

The Republican strategist Karl Rove has backed a new law requiring voters to show photo ID at
the polling booth. One in ten US citizens don't have photo ID. Among African Americans it is one in five. This requirement will disenfranchise millions of poor, elderly and black Americans, who tend to vote Democrat. In one swing state, Indiana, an estimated 100,000 African-Americans may lose their right to vote (see more here).

Many will remember that voting irregularities in 2004 were enough to steal the presidency for the Republicans - see article by the civil rights lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr, JFK's nephew here.

What would Obama victory bring?

It is clear a McCain victory would have truly frightening foreign policy implications. However I can't say I am not also worried ny an Obama victory - many of his foreign policy statements have been less than reassuring. Indeed he sounds positively hawkish on Afghanistan. The occupation of Afghanistan is increasingly brutal. Reports of civilian deaths have been mounting as air bombardments become more intense. The occupation is in crisis, but the response in both the US and UK seems to be to order an escalation of the aggression. The outspoken General Dannatt is resigning early as chief of the General Staff and is replaced by the hawk Sir David Richards who supports a surge in Afghanistan including sending 5,000 extra British troops. Yet the British ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, recently said that the US strategy in Afghanistan is destined to fail. "The coalition presence - particularly the military presence - is part of the problem, not the solution."

The only way to end this destruction is by the withdrawal of all foreign troops, a view shared by the vast majority of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, America and Britain.

Obama on injustices in the US is better than McCain but again no real programme for the one hundred million poor people and children in the US. But hey I wasn't intending to blog on all this - there are many more knowledgeable bloggers out there that will give you the low down on these elections.

Green bloggers on election night

I've been invited to join a network of Green bloggers at Green Change for an election night online party - sadly I wont be able to join them but others might be interested - see more here.

Blog Action Day: call for a Green New Deal

"The poor are financing the rich. If we are serious about ending poverty, we have to be serious about ending the unjust and violent systems for wealth creation which create poverty by robbing the poor of their resources, livelihoods and incomes."
Vandana Shiva, campaigner and author

Last year nearly 16,000 sites signed up for the Blog Action Day - 2008 looks set to be even bigger. As the organisers say: “Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future.” Of course talking is all well and good - and many of us would argue we've seen too much of that already - anyhow here is a ramble to support this blog day - I still have the flu but hopefully some of it will still make sense...

Labour has said much of their commitment to tackle poverty - and their are some limited achievements - Sure Start children’s centres, raising the school leaving age, the national minimum wage, flexible hours for parents and carers, better conditions for part-time workers, the Decent Homes programme.

Yet a look at the wider picture reveals a disturbing picture - Labour have shifted taxation from the rich to the poor, cut corporation tax from 33% to 28% and capital gains tax from 40% to 18%, and introduced a new Entrepreneurs’ Relief scheme, taxing the first million of capital gains at just 10%! You will also remember Labour tried to raise the income tax paid by the poorest earners from 10% to 20% and they have lifted the inheritance tax threshold from £300,000 to £700,000, and maintained the cap on the highest rates of council tax. Add to this their vigorous prosecution of benefits cheats, while allowing tax avoidance, mostly by the very rich, to reach an estimated £41billion.

Plus Help the Aged and Friends of the Earth have had to take the government to court because the Government have not made good on fuel poverty - indeed figures of predicted rises in fuel poverty this winter are deeply concerning. And let's not even consider in this post Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of Labour's thoroughly unethical foreign policy...

Plus inequalities are rising - Indeed a read of the 'Tackling health inequalities: 2007 Status Report on the Programme for Action' is depressing - this was the third and final annual report looking at how the the government was doing in reducing this particular strand of inequality. The Dept of Health released it the day after the budget, and late in the day, so unsurprisingly it picked up very little coverage. It's essentially a yardstick report, taking the 'normal' population and the 'deprived' population and comparing everything eg: how many pieces of fruit people eat, how often kids get runover, how many women smoke during pregnancy, the difference in attainment between those who qualify for for free school meals and those that don't etc.

Lots of the simple stats are staggering, but in terms of closing or widening gaps, two of the key indicators show a growing gulf between rich and poor: infant mortality rates are higher AND growing among those whose dads have manual labour jobs in comparsion to the national average - and the difference in life expectancy rates between those living in deprived areas and
those living in richer areas are also growing.

This report makes crystal clear that 12 years of Labour has left some of the most vulnerable in our society - the youngest and the oldest - worse off. Obviously, an endless number of policy areas impact on these stats, from taxation, employment, housing, education to local government to name a few, but too often it is the failure of the NHS to adequately fulfil its obligations which is the problem - eg the number of GPs per head of the population varies massively between rich and poor areas. One Green party press officer wrote: "I haven't seen a more damming report of the government's track record in a long time "(see BBC's coverage of the report here).

Consumer debts - mortgages, loans and credit card bills - overtook the entire gross domestic product. To put it another way, the British now owe more than the value of the produce of every office, farm and factory in the land. This is a bankrupt island.
Nick Cohen 12th Oct 2008 The Observer

Of course the 'Credit Crunch' and recession mean that many without the cushion of savings to break their fall, will be tumbling towards poverty. Perhaps worryingly recessions have always had the potential to persuade voters that their interests and their families interests must come first. Where will this leave us in terms of promises to tackle international poverty - all that hope with Blair, Bono and Geldoff yet little has changed - Make Poverty History's website shows inequality is growing and we are no where near on target to reach those 2015 commitments - although of course I welcome Mandelson's words this week of hopes to end child poverty in Africa....

But hey we cannot mention poverty without considering one of the most important issues of all - the impact climate change is having and will have - see my speech at the Harvest Festival on 5th Oct - perhaps more positive than my rant here - anyhow I quote Oxfam who show that the average Somali is about 100 times more likely to die from events caused by climate change than the average American, despite emitting roughly 16,000 times less carbon. Are we going to take responsibility for our emissions?

Certainly Labour have raised the issue of climate change internationally yet shamefully our emissions still rise - talk but no action or rather worse - the wrong actions like supporting aviation growth - indeed Ed Miliband looks set to lobby to remove aviation from renewable energy targets - this is his first test as the secretary of state for Energy and Climate Change and he fails dismally if that is what happens. The UK has the largest aviation sector in Europe and if the Renewable Energy Directive is amended to exclude it, the EU will open up the door for other countries to plead special cases for their most polluting industries

Today's financial crisis opens up the debate over what sort of economic system we wish to create for the future. Let us hope it does not lead to the grim future Naomi Wolf outlines in the video I posted earlier this week here. Surely now all can see the deep flaws in free-market capitalism? We now have the opportunity to develop a fairer system of international economic governance and to redistribute the spoils of globalisation.

The Green New Deal launched recently by Green party leader Caroline Lucas offers us the ways forward we need to take - more here. Indeed the idea seems to have caught on - this Sunday top economists and the UN also called for a Green New Deal - see here - the initiative is already being seriously considered - I will have to look more closely to see how it differs from the one proposed by Caroline Lucas and others but am now too tired to scribble more. Perhaps in all this we must not forget that social justice and environmental justice are two sides of the same coin - we cannot have one without the other.