Spending Gloucestershire’s money

Recently on the website we posted an open letter from Kevin Lister to Gloucester and Cheltenham councillors regarding the economic and environmental mess that is Gloucestershire’s airport.  It makes an interesting comparison with other news for Gloucestershire about how the county council has handled the incinerator project. 

These are two different levels of local government, three different administrations, but comparable attitudes to public money, infrastructure and resources. We might also consider the GCC bid for millions to build a new road when there’s apparently no money to fill the potholes in the old ones.

The gist of these stories (the details are in the links if you want actual figures) is that an incredible amount of public money gets spent on projects that do not benefit the vast majority of us in any way. We don’t need an incinerator. We most especially don’t need one where insane amounts were paid for the land to build it on. GCC gambled on getting funding, and the gamble did not work out. We all pay, and we pay in terms of cash being ever tighter for essential services. That public money has gone into an airport – hardly an eco-friendly choice, and hardly of service to the majority - is also a travesty.

In the Green Party we are very clear that public money has to be spent for public benefit – not on vanity schemes, cloud castles or propping up the habits of the already affluent. We have to respect taxpayers, and recognise that politics is supposed to be about public service. That means really sitting down to scrutinise projects and budgets to see if they measure up to those standards. From Kevin Lister’s letter and reporting, it looks like many of the people making judgements about the airport had not read or understood the implications of what was happening there, and that’s just not good enough. Anyone in office has a duty to do better by the general public, and key to that duty is having as good an understanding as you can get of what’s going on.

It’s not exactly glamorous. Reading through the fine details of contracts and policy documents is frequently dull and often mentally taxing, but how do we make good decisions without all the facts?

One of the things I can say with pride about the local Greens is that we do the reading. We commented in detail on the local plan, we are responding to the minerals policy consultation at the moment. I end up reading all kinds of things to make sure we’re accurate on the media side – the chief medical officer’s report was a memorable one for me this year. I’ve read reports on Staverton airport. We do our homework. Voters and taxpayers (that’s all adults, one way or another) are entitled to expect as much.

We think Green administrations would have handled public money far better than these local councils have done. We’d like a chance to prove that. If you’d like an opportunity to see something a lot more diligent in operation, we’d value your vote.

Support Spaniel in the Works

Can you support Stroud based theatre group Spaniel in the Works with a new project?


 John (Spaniel in the Works Theatre Company) has been working so hard on the Stroud Theatre Festival that he has had little time gain funding for this piece. The script (an homage to Robert Tressell's book the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists) is already written, but the kickstarter funds would be such a help. If the show can premier at Stroud Theatre Festival, 'Spaniel in the Works' will be well placed to take it on tour in the run up to the election. The Theatre Company feel there is a real place for some 'agit prop' theatre to explore the issues that face the working poor of today, 100 years on. The kickstarter video will explain it all.

Stroud District Green Party is giving this a shout out because we believe in community based arts, and are keen to support political debate and engagement. We are utterly appalled by the way in which Tory austerity policies have stigmatised the most vulnerable in our society, and we know that in-work poverty is widespread, and a lot of benefits money goes on supporting people who are not earning enough to live on. This is why we need a living wage, and a citizens income.

Anyone requiring further details should get in touch with John Bassett - John Bassett, Director – Spaniel in the Works Theatre Company, Tel: 01453 751823, Mob: 07941284878, www.spanielworks.co.uk

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2081429275/nothing-changes

South West Young Greens

The newly formed South West Young Grens's Launch event is really shaping up fantastically. Below is the speaker list so far -  the full program will be released by the end of the week.

- What does the Green Party stand for? – Amelia Womack, Green Party Deputy Leader candidate
- Greens and Europe – Dr Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for  the South West
- Bristol Green Surge – Darren Hall
- Vibrant, progressive politics? Who are the Young Greens? –  Clifford Fleming, Young Greens Co-Chair and NUS NEC member

Panel 1: Youth Cross Party Panel: What does our generation face tomorrow? 

Panel 2: Politics or Activism? How to bring about change tomorrow?

Everyone is welcome (not just Young Greens!), and we'd love to see some of you on the 30th!!!

Media blackout and Green options

How do most people find out about parties, policy issues and what’s going on in politics at the moment? Well, if you’re passionate about politics you probably read political blogs. You might go so far as to join a party – and that party will keep you informed with their take on things and the work they are doing. For most people though, it comes down to the media. Newspapers, television, radio. This is how we know what’s going on, what the issues are and what our options might be.

In order to have a decent democracy, we’ve got to have good information. You can’t make a good voting decision if you don’t know what’s going on. You aren’t going to make it to a party website to check out their policies if you don’t know the party exists. If you’re not much interested in politics in the first place, you might not want to go that far, you just want enough insight to make some choices.

At the last elections for councils and MEPs, about two thirds of people did not vote. We need to be asking why. How we talk about politics and how we get political ideas in front of people who feel intimidated, bored, or despairing in face of politics, is a big issue for anyone who cares about democracy.

If you mostly followed the BBC, you could be forgiven for thinking that UKIP were the only party out there some of the time and you’d have had no idea the Greens exist, much less how good the odds were you had a Green to vote for. Is that fair? We don’t think so! If all you hear from the media is the politics of hatred, fear and despair – and that’s my personal assessment of the mainstream right now – if that’s all you hear, why would you vote? Small differences of emphasis between the main parties and no real alternatives, versus the alarming UKIP brigade. Our local example announced herself to the world in a series of letters establishing that she doesn’t understand the difference between geographical climate difference, and climate change. It doesn’t inspire confidence, much less hope!

If a desire to blame and hate other people doesn’t get you out of bed of a morning, what else is there? This is why the silence around Green politics is so troubling. You can’t have a proper debate unless there are a range of options on the table. We’re being offered the same narrow choices, as though real alternatives could not possibly exist. They do.

If you’ve been uncomfortable with recent broadcasting, you can join the thousands of people who have already signed this petition of protest. Let’s open the media up a bit to some proper debates!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/bbc-news-stop-this-media-blackout-of-the-green-party

Flood solutions

Of course when the waters are rising, threatening homes and lives everyone wants a solution right now. The trouble is that there are no short term solutions to this much water. A shortage of long-term thinking got us into this mess in the first place. We can only hope that more short-term ‘problem solving’ does go on to make things worse.

Yes, in the short term if you dredge rivers you can move more water through them at a faster rate. However, what that does is causes more erosion to banks. There are two consequences here – eroded banks are more likely to give way in face of higher water pressure, which means an increased risk of flooding. All that eroded material goes into the river, silting it up, so you have to keep dredging to keep this under control. By destroying the natural ecology of the river you create an ongoing problem that you then have to keep throwing human solutions at, or you get more floods.

All of our problems here are really of our own making. We’ve built on flood plains. We’ve drained wetlands. We’ve laid down non-permeable surfaces (tarmac, concrete, buildings) and this means water is moving faster. The faster water flows out of our towns, the more likely it is to cause flooding. Once upon a time we had flood meadows, and marshes to soak up the excess, and water could seep in where it landed to a far greater degree. Our collective approach to development has caused this problem.

If we insist on ignoring these basic facts about how water moves through the environment, all we are going to do is invent ever more expensive flood protection schemes that do not deliver protection.

If we build on flood plains, we will get floods in those areas. If we destroy wetlands, we lose capacity for managing water. Yes, right now flooding is a big issue for farmers, but we need a totally different attitude to the value of those flooded fields.

Heavy rain isn’t going to magically go away. We need long term solutions to the underlying problems, not political quick-fixes that just move the problem down to the next town downstream, or the next generation, or some other unfortunates who inherit double the damage and an exorbitant bill. We need to start recognising there is a direct relationship between what people do, and what happens in our environment.

If you’d like to take action to do your bit and prevent flooding, and you have any garden space, consider creating a rain garden... more information here. 

Purple Politics

Purple Politics by local cartoonist Russ

There’s an idea I’ve been seeing online, a way of summing up the merging of agendas between what was once left and right: Purple politics. As Labour and the Conservatives offer fewer alternatives and fight over some (perhaps imaginary) middle ground, many of us feel there are no real differences on offer there. Both parties will stick with the same systems that have been failing us for years. There is no will to make real changes, or to think creatively. In the mingling of red and blue, we get purple politics, and nothing improves.

It’s easy to forget, as the Conservatives dish out misery, that Labour are the ones who introduced student tuition fees, failed to rein in the banks and brought us the public disasters that are Private Finance Initiatives. There’s not much to choose between, and when it comes to long term sustainability, both are so obsessed with the idea of economic growth, that they cannot get to grips with sustainable necessities.

In fiction, there is something called ‘Purple Prose’ and it isn’t a compliment to label a piece of writing that way. Purple prose is overblown, and ridiculous. It uses misleading metaphors where a bit of plain speaking would do a lot better. If you’ve got to call a penis a ‘throbbing manly edifice of joy’ you’ve got purple prose. If you over describe everything with unnecessary melodrama, you’ve got purple prose. A lot of words to no good effect. The parallels between purple prose and purple politics are many: They do not work. They are not clever. It’s really embarrassing when you run into it. The world would be a much better place without them.

The Spirit of Christmas

This new report by Green MEP Keith Taylor shows a 60% rise in food bank use and thousands facing a hungry Christmas: http://ow.ly/rNhZ5 

The report focuses on the South East, an area traditionally a lot better off than much of the country. It is a shocking thing that in an affluent nation like ours, anyone should be hungry, but hunger is on the rise. Malnutrition is a real risk for people who regularly miss meals, or go more than five days without eating, with long term health implications for people who aren’t eating properly. If you’ve never done that, you might take a moment to try and imagine what it’s like not to be able to afford to eat properly. Weight is no indicator, either. A person eating a badly balanced diet, can be both obese and suffering malnutrition. Junk food with lots of calories but little nutritional value, is often a cheap option.

The Charity The Trussell Trust runs a number of foodbanks in Stroud district – typically open for a few hours several days a week, they are giving food to some of the most desperate people in the district. Dursley Tabernacle, Douglas Morley Hall in Stonehouse, Wotton Baptist Church and The Cross at Parliament Street, Stroud, all host foodbanks. http://strouddistrict.foodbank.org.uk/

Of course you have to be able to get there. We have a lot of smaller villages across the district, many of which do not get much of a bus service. The person who cannot afford food probably also can’t afford the cost of petrol, or a bus ticket even assuming a bus is available. We might imagine the countryside as a place for the wealthy, but many of our villages also have small pockets of council housing, and older people in houses bought before rural property prices inflated so outrageously. We have a small population of people living on narrowboats as well. The tendency of foodbanks to be in small towns, may hide the extent of rural poverty and the people who cannot access that help.

The rise in foodbanks marks the failure of our modern politics and culture. They are proof of a corrupt system that punishes the poor for being poor. The government may talk of ‘recovery’ but Shelter (http://www.shelter.org.uk/) are telling us there will be some 80,000 homeless children in the UK this Christmas. And how many hungry people? This is not recovery, this is the destruction of lives, and an assault on civilization.

 

St Nicholas was a saint famous for giving to others. This Christmas, charity at home is more critical, more needed than it’s been since the Victorian era. You can bet the bankers who wrecked our economy, and the politicians who dish out the austerity measures will not be going hungry on Christmas day, or any other day. Plenty of other people will. It’s not acceptable.

Voter Apathy

The negative feedback has started to roll, as political writers respond to Russell Brand’s comments about politics. Unshockingly, the response is to blame Brand for not engaging in the first place.

People become disengaged from and apathetic about politics when they can’t see any point. If it doesn’t matter who you vote for, because the policies are so similar, or if no party offers policies that make sense to you, why vote? If you feel disempowered and just don’t believe your vote will make a difference, that will do it, too. So, where are you going to engage? Clearly not by voting, and anyone who thinks otherwise may be short in the imagination department. You aren’t going to make change by joining a political party, if you already feel marginalised, irrelevant and out of kilter. All that leaves is starting your own. Perhaps that’s realistic if you are wealthy and have a lot of time on your hands, but someone who feels marginalised and powerless won’t go there either, because they already know there’s no point.

If we blame the disaffected, they will stay disaffected.

There have been times when I couldn’t find anyone to vote for, when the parties I wanted didn’t field candidates, and when I found the individual candidates so repellent that really, I didn’t want to encourage any of them. I went to the ballot box with a soiled ‘none of the above’ because I did not want to be counted as someone who did not care. I felt awful. Voting rights for women were hard won, and I take that seriously. Voting rights for the poor took some establishing too. If I don’t vote, I am painfully aware of my many ancestors who could not vote, and I feel like I’m letting them down. But what can a person do if there’s nothing and nobody that inspires them?

Energy bills are rising. The Prime Minister suggests you put on a jumper. Sea levels are rising too. So we’ll be getting an even bigger nuclear power station on the Severn flood plain. People are going hungry and turning to foodbanks, and politicians blame the foodbanks, and the poor. Most of our public services are being sold off to the private sector via the backdoor. Where are the alternatives? Where are the voices of dissent? All the main parties seem to offer is minor twiddling with the system, not radical overhaul. There are women going hungry so they can afford to feed their children and Westminster doesn't seem to care.

If you are a young person who cannot afford a home, cannot get a job, whilst being pushed out of social support, blamed and humiliated for not trying hard enough in a country that has offered them nothing… why would you vote? What is there to believe in? Russell Brand may have been the first person our younger folk have heard in their entire lives who can talk about politics in public and make sense. The answer is not to tell Russell Brand off for not engaging. We need to start thinking about how many people are pushed out to the margins. Not voting might not about being lazy, it might be about despair, or disgust.

Someone needs to sit Mr Brand down and tell him that pretty much everything he was talking about is on the table already. There is a party for radical change, and that cares about not trashing the planet. And we Greens need to up our game, and reach out to more people who feel the way Russell Brand does, not to tell them off for not getting involved, as other parties seem keen to, but to offer them real alternatives. It should be the business of politicians to inspire and persuade people into supporting a vision. It is the politicians who have a duty to engage the voters, not the other way round!

Cut and Thrust Politics

From the latest Stroud News and Journal, I see David Drew excuses being rude on the basis that it is simply part of the cut and thrust of modern politics. While I accept this is accurate, I question whether it’s right, and invite everyone (David included) to consider the social implications of ‘normal’ political behaviour.

It’s worth noting there aren’t anything like as many women in politics as men. This is in part because fewer women tend to come forward in the first place. Aggressive, macho politics where shouting down your opponent is preferred to collaborative or reasoned approaches, may be partly to blame here. This is certainly not a female-friendly culture. Either we have to raise women to be aggressive and assertive like men or we need a culture shift in politics. I’m for the latter, because this is not just about female engagement in political activity.

Domestic abuse and workplace bullying often depend on the basic assumption that it is ok to shout at people, to abuse them verbally, to humiliate, denigrate and shout down rather than showing respect or dealing with issues. Anyone who wishes to justify this behaviour need only look to modern politics for validation. It should further be noted that once you’ve established it is normal to verbally abuse, harass and humiliate, it is a good deal easier to both justify and get away with physical violence. People who have not been abused ask why victims stay. One reason is feeling that the behaviour is normal and deserved. Again, when politicians set such poor examples in terms of respect, it is little wonder women who are shouted at until they are nervous wrecks feel no right to defend themselves from that. Verbal bullying wrecks lives; I believe politicians have a moral duty to set a better example.

We complain about what lousy role models pop stars and footballers are for our young people. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that politicians should be making more effort to be good role models. If this is because we cannot imagine young people would take any interest in what politicians do, then we are failing them. We should be trying to engage the young in society and therefore in politics, or what you get is a lot of Russell Brands who loathe the system and don’t want to vote. What do we do, in politics, to inspire and motivate the young? What examples do politicians set, and what role models do politicians offer? Let’s consider the hypocrisy of a tax-payer funded second home, while the poorest people are facing a bedroom tax. Let’s consider the subsidised eating for well paid politicians, while the poorest are denigrated for turning to food banks. I rather expect Mr Drew to agree that the impact of such hypocrisy is to disengage our young people from politics. But what about the style? What about the issue of shouting people down rather than arguing points? I don’t think children are impressed when they hear playground style bullying from the leaders of the land. The thing is, that on a playground, that behaviour is actively discouraged by teachers.

 

Politicians need to listen as much as speak, probably more. We can’t listen to what people, who are supposed to be the heart of democracy, say, if we’re shouting. Fear of being ridiculed (as I was) and shouted down makes it harder to ask questions and offer opinions in the first place. Anyone feeling downtrodden won’t have the confidence to assert themselves in this modern political environment. We should not be excluding the emotionally delicate, the nervous, the fearful, the downtrodden from political debate by frightening them off before they have even tried to communicate. We have to be able to hear alternative perspectives to our own, and to treat with respect those human beings who think differently. We need to persuade people of the value of our arguments rather than ridiculing theirs. We need to bring people in, not depress them into going away.

Cut and thrust style politics sets up an atmosphere of conflict. Us and them. Win and lose. What happens in that scenario, is that actually, everyone loses, and democracy is undermined. Surely we can do better?

(Cartoon by Russ)

Local Politics

This is a transcript of a recent Twitter exchange between myself (@Nimue_B) and local Labour candidate David Drew (@DavidEDrew). I think it raises some important points and illustrates some critical issues about the very nature of modern political debate. As it’s difficult to follow conversations on Twitter sometimes, I am reproducing the whole thing. I have not sought David’s permission, but as he is a local political figure and the whole thing took place in that most visible public sphere – Twitter – I think this is ok. Other people have been participating in the conversation, but not in a way that has affected the overall direction, so for clarity I have not included those other voices. Anyone very keen to know can no doubt squeeze the whole exchange out of Twitter.

 

There was also some debate between David Drew and Molly Scott Cato before I became involved, again, for clarity I’m starting at the point where I came in on the 13^th October. I do not believe that distorts anything. Typos all included, extra @s left out for ease of reading.

David Drew: Much more point than Greens which has no roots in working class politics!

 

Nimue: My Gran was a Labour councillor. I'm Green cos I see more social justice from Greens than Labour.

David Drew: Deluded then!

Nimue: show me the policies and evidence to prove otherwise, David.

Nimue: I also like the respectful behaviour of Greens, good manners are worth a lot. Respect, at all?

Nimue (18^th Oct) : Still waiting to hear about social justice policies from @DavidEDrew what should I be reading, David? What should I know?

David Drew: Read RH Tawney and then you're get it!

Nimue: just to confirm you mean the chap who died in 1962? Was hoping for contemporary policy statements.

Nimue: Looing at The Acquisitive Society by R. H. Tawney online, cannot square it to modern Labour policy

David Drew: Since when are we not supposed to draw on important historical individuals; oh forgot Greens have no history which is their problem

Nimue: please talk to me about how Tawney's thinking manifests in modern labour policy, am interested.

Nimue: Surely we all draw on the same radical roots. We all choose our roots. Would they have chosen us? I cannot say. I'm with Ruskin.

David Drew: Christian socialism very strong in Labour whereas Greens don't want either Christians or socialists.

Nimue: actually I think we have an abundance of both.

Nimue: A strong Quaker presence, locally, and they have a long history of socialism, political radicalism etc. An inspiring tradition.

David Drew: Golly even the Tory trolls are having a go now! Clearly haven't got anything better to do.

 

Nimue: If Labour had social justice policies I could respect & David Drew directed me to them, I would thank him & recognise their value.

(This last one was not directed to him, the odds are that he did not see it.)

 

Here we are on the 21st October, and I still do not know what David Drew thinks there is by way of modern social justice policy from the Labour Party that explains why I would be ‘deluded’ to consider the Greens more of  social justice party. He did not apologise for being rude to me, and did not substantiate any of his claims. This is not, in my opinion, how politics ought to work, but he’s following the lead of Westminster, and actually I think we should be challenging that with better manners and more emphasis on facts rather than noise.

More to follow in future blogs about the history of Green thinking…

Green Events and local politics

Here’s the current list of things we know about that are happening in the near future. Where relevant, we’re also listing events a bit further afield that you might be interested in, too.

If you are aware of other talks, events, workshops or other community activities in the coming week or so, please do mention them in the comments. If there’s an event you would like our support in promoting, please email the details to brynnethnimue (at) gmail (dot) com.


Friday 4th October 7.15pm, Open House, British School (near Star Anise) Stroud, members of campaigning group 38 Degrees have arranged to speak with Neil Carmichael regarding concerns over the proposed gagging laws.



Monday, October 7th public meeting to discuss banning plastic bags from Stroud.
Deputy mayor John Marjoram and Town councillor Eva Ward and have set up the Stroud Town Opposed to Plastic bags (STOP) initiative in an attempt to raise awareness about the issue and build public support for their fight. All are welcome to the meeting at 7.30pm at the town council offices in London Road.



Thursday October 10th 7.30 pm at the Grove Suite, the Winter Gardens, Weston, hosted by North Somerset Greens, 'Breadline Britain- why foodbanks are growing faster than supermarkets'. A talk by Green leader Natalie Bennett. Natalie is an interesting and compelling speaker, and the issues underpinning the recent rise in foodbanks need exposing so that we can tackle them.

Molly for Europe

 

The European elections aren’t until next year – 22nd May 2014, and while that may still feel like a very long way off, things are already happening. The Green Party in the Southwest has chosen its candidates and now the work begins to put Green policies in front of people.  The lead candidate for the South West is our own Molly Scott Cato and if Twitter is anything to go by, people of Stroud are already showing a lot of love for Molly.

Molly leads the Green Group on Stroud District Council. She is Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at Roehampton University, the Green Party’s national speaker on finance and an international expert on green economics. Molly represented the Green Party on the “No to the Euro” campaign and is a regular commentator on the Eurozone crisis via her personal blog, Gaian Economics (http://gaianeconomics.blogspot.co.uk/ ).

Molly says, “I am deeply concerned that the Eurozone crisis is creating tensions and threatening the peace project that lies at the heart of my vision of Europe. I believe I can communicate the vision that Europe needs: of peace, prosperity and happy settled lives within a healthy environment, rather than competition and the endless quest for more.

There is a significant risk that if we don’t get the politics right, the political pressure for a referendum on leaving the EU will build, and the Union that has provided us with security and protection throughout our lives will start to break up. Restoring public support relies on increasing the democratic accountability of the European institutions and, crucially, on switching the focus to stability and away from the corporate single market.

My knowledge of economics can offer something important to the Green Group in the European Parliament at this time. I would like to join the likes of Sven Giegold and Philippe Lamberts, working to constrain the power of the ‘banksters’ and share wealth more equally, whilst remembering that nature is the true source of all our wealth.”

Molly was brought up in Bath and has lived in the West Country for most of her life. She holds a degree in PPE from Oxford University and a PhD in Economics from Aberystwyth University. She has three children.

There are Green Members of the European Parliament from all over Europe, coming to the table with broadly similar aims and ideas around sustainable living and a fairer future. Molly would be a powerful voice in that mix. A European Parliament that delivers for the people of Europe has to be about far more than big business and keeping the bankers happy. A good quality of life, real peace and real security are what we all need. We can make that happen.

Civil politics

As I see it, democracy does not mean the majority shouting loudly so that no other voices can be heard. It also doesn’t mean trashing people rather than debating issues. All too often what we get in politics is far too much noise and bluster, too much interest in point scoring and no one listening at all. Commentators wonder at the lack of respect young people have for just about everything, at falling standards in manners and so forth, and do not seem to notice that at the very highest level shouting playground abuse at your opposite number is considered perfectly reasonable.

It is so important to listen to each other, to really hear the alternative perspectives, understand the issues and show respect to the people raising them. There are all kinds of things that worry, frighten and trouble people. Sometimes those fears are well founded and need responding to. Sometimes, it just means a proper explanation is called for. Mocking people, shouting them down or dismissing their opinions tends not to solve anything, and yet this is so often a normal approach in all things political.

Yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time really gave me hope. In normal circumstances, the first PMQs after a Prime Minster loses an important vote, would be a time to bring out the knives. It would be a point scoring session, full of disrespect and attempts at humiliation. If you kick people when they are down, as policy, you aren’t going to get much willingness to step back over key issues, when mistakes have been made. It is human to make mistakes and we all do it. If our leaders are not allowed to acknowledge mistakes and step down from them gracefully, that can mean pushing further and further into horrendous error just to try and save face. No one wins that way, with all due reference to badger culls, fracking and austerity, to name a few obvious candidates.

Ed Miliband did not use yesterday’s opportunity to shower abuse on the Prime Minister. Instead, he took the much wiser, nobler decision to talk about the urgent need for diplomatic solutions to Syria. He put the issues before the opportunity to make political capital. In doing so, he recognised that the lives and deaths at stake here are far more important than a chance to get one over on someone.

One of the things I like about being a Green, is that I don’t have to go round opposing people for the sake of it. We believe in co-operation, in listening to each other and agreeing the way forwards as far as is humanly possible. One of the side effects is that when someone from another political party makes a good decision, we don’t have to invent excuses to rubbish them. We can give them the much deserved round of applause and get on with the needful work. Well done Ed Miliband, you made a good and honourable call there, and it is appreciated.