From the Green Group of Councillors, Brighton & Hove City Council
Green Cllr Ben Duncan has called on all UK bloggers to change the
location and time zone details of their blog and twitter accounts to
say they are based in Iran.
His action comes after an Iranian blogger contacted him asking for
help, stating that Iranian secret police are rounding up people
blogging and twittering about events in the country, using a list
detailing which accounts are registered in Iran and with this unique
time zone.
Ben, the Green Group of Cllrs Human Rights Spokesperson and Green
Parliamentary candidate for Brighton Kemptown said:
“If thousands of us around the world make these settings our own, the
hope is that the secret police will be overwhelmed and free blogging
and twittering will continue in Iran a while longer.
“Freedom of speech on the 'net - and for journalists in general - must
be preserved: it's only if people know what's going on that they can
make an informed decision, and no-one will know what's going on if the
police are arresting everyone who's trying to tell us!
“So please change these details, even if just for a day or two: it
takes less than a minute, costs nothing, and could prevent an innocent
'blogger from a night (or more...) in the cells, and help preserve the
free flow of information about political events both inside, and
beyond, Iran.”
ENDS
Notes for editors:
Tehran time is GMT + 3.30
For more information please contact Ben Duncan on 07824 266 953, or
see his blog at:
http://greenkemptownben.blogspot.com/2009/06/act-now-to-protect-iranian-political.html
Friday 19 June 2009
Tuesday 16 June 2009
Jenny Jones's Article on guardian.co.uk,
There are many shades of Green.
The media should be talking about the Green party's range of interconnected policies, not accusing us of single-issue politics
It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning – that "the clue's in the name" – doesn't entirely stack up.
Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus. It would have no policy on crime, because crime isn't work. It could have no policy on defence, health or public transport, except insofar as wages and contracts were concerned. Is that what we would assume about a party called Labour?
Possibly the Greens are asking for trouble because they have a flower as their logo. But then, so does Labour. And the Lib Dems have a startled chicken, but would anyone say this aptly symbolised the Liberal Democrats? (Ok, I concede that particular point).
It always was strange that people would describe the Greens as "single issue". You only ever had to look at our manifesto to see policies on everything that everyone else had policies on.
It's also a fundamental misrepresentation. The Green party – formerly the Ecology party – formerly People – has an ecological perspective. Ecology is about everything and how it all interconnects. How could anyone ever see everything and how it all interconnects as a single issue?
This is what's distinctive about the Green party: it is the original party of joined-up thinking. The other parties have traditionally seen issues as though they were separate things in separate boxes. So, for example, transport policy was only about moving people and goods from A to B. But ask a Green to invent a transport policy for you, and they wouldn't know how to be so narrow. A Green or ecological perspective will, by its very nature, think of the thing itself and how it interconnects with everything else. Hence transport and climate change; transport and social inclusion; transport and congestion and the resulting costs to businesses; transport and disruption of communities; the impacts of transport's noise and air pollution on health; transport and external costs; and so on. That's how you end up with a Green transport policy, as opposed to endless roadbuilding, airport expansions and the highest rail fares in Europe.
That the party that blazed new trails and pioneered joined-up thinking was caricatured as single issue, against all logic, against all evidence, is one of the big ironies of modern British politics.
Most of the time, most people get most of their information about politics from the mass media. It's a relief to see that the media have recently been giving more attention, for instance, to the Green party's economic policies. Indeed, one highly respected journalist in the Daily Telegraph last week congratulated the Green Party for being ahead of the economic curve with its Green New Deal. But the reappearance of the "one-issue Greens" myth in the Guardian, of all places, in the last few days shows that the falsehood still lives.
Whoever this falsehood serves, it doesn't serve the British voter. Democracy depends on good information. The media acknowledge their duty to tell the truth. I think there's one major task the UK media could undertake now, while British politics is in such a state of disarray that the British voter is clamouring for sweeping reforms. It's this: tell the British voter about the Green party. Not about its environment policy, but about its million-jobs manifesto. Its commitment to re-regulating the buses and doubling the number of them. Its policy for re-nationalising the railways and slashing rail fares. Its policy of rescuing the NHS from privatisation, restoring free dental care and dramatically improving maternity services.
These are good policies, and they're policies only the Green party is offering. They're popular policies, and the readers and viewers and listeners would like to hear about them. Telling the voters about all of this can only be a good thing for British democracy.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/16/green-party-policies)
The media should be talking about the Green party's range of interconnected policies, not accusing us of single-issue politics
It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning – that "the clue's in the name" – doesn't entirely stack up.
Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus. It would have no policy on crime, because crime isn't work. It could have no policy on defence, health or public transport, except insofar as wages and contracts were concerned. Is that what we would assume about a party called Labour?
Possibly the Greens are asking for trouble because they have a flower as their logo. But then, so does Labour. And the Lib Dems have a startled chicken, but would anyone say this aptly symbolised the Liberal Democrats? (Ok, I concede that particular point).
It always was strange that people would describe the Greens as "single issue". You only ever had to look at our manifesto to see policies on everything that everyone else had policies on.
It's also a fundamental misrepresentation. The Green party – formerly the Ecology party – formerly People – has an ecological perspective. Ecology is about everything and how it all interconnects. How could anyone ever see everything and how it all interconnects as a single issue?
This is what's distinctive about the Green party: it is the original party of joined-up thinking. The other parties have traditionally seen issues as though they were separate things in separate boxes. So, for example, transport policy was only about moving people and goods from A to B. But ask a Green to invent a transport policy for you, and they wouldn't know how to be so narrow. A Green or ecological perspective will, by its very nature, think of the thing itself and how it interconnects with everything else. Hence transport and climate change; transport and social inclusion; transport and congestion and the resulting costs to businesses; transport and disruption of communities; the impacts of transport's noise and air pollution on health; transport and external costs; and so on. That's how you end up with a Green transport policy, as opposed to endless roadbuilding, airport expansions and the highest rail fares in Europe.
That the party that blazed new trails and pioneered joined-up thinking was caricatured as single issue, against all logic, against all evidence, is one of the big ironies of modern British politics.
Most of the time, most people get most of their information about politics from the mass media. It's a relief to see that the media have recently been giving more attention, for instance, to the Green party's economic policies. Indeed, one highly respected journalist in the Daily Telegraph last week congratulated the Green Party for being ahead of the economic curve with its Green New Deal. But the reappearance of the "one-issue Greens" myth in the Guardian, of all places, in the last few days shows that the falsehood still lives.
Whoever this falsehood serves, it doesn't serve the British voter. Democracy depends on good information. The media acknowledge their duty to tell the truth. I think there's one major task the UK media could undertake now, while British politics is in such a state of disarray that the British voter is clamouring for sweeping reforms. It's this: tell the British voter about the Green party. Not about its environment policy, but about its million-jobs manifesto. Its commitment to re-regulating the buses and doubling the number of them. Its policy for re-nationalising the railways and slashing rail fares. Its policy of rescuing the NHS from privatisation, restoring free dental care and dramatically improving maternity services.
These are good policies, and they're policies only the Green party is offering. They're popular policies, and the readers and viewers and listeners would like to hear about them. Telling the voters about all of this can only be a good thing for British democracy.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/16/green-party-policies)
Monday 8 June 2009
South West Results and reflections
Conservative 468,742
UKIP 341,845
Liberal Democrat 255,253
GREEN 144,179
Labour 118,716
BNP 60,889
Pensioners 37,785
English Democrat 25,313
Christians 21,329
Mebyon Kernow 14,922
Socialist Labour 10,033
Misc 39,702 (6 other groups mostly around 7,000)
1st seat Conservative with 468,742
2nd seat UKIP with 341,845
3rd seat LD with 255,253
4th seat Conservative with 234,371
5th seat UKIP with 170,923
6th seat Conservative with 156,248
Greens 12,070 votes short of a seat
Spread across 49 parliamentary constituencies that is 247 votes short per constituency. Each constituency is about 60,000 electors, typically divided into 20 wards of about 3,000 for local elections. So in your ward we needed an extra 12 votes and probably 1,800 people in your ward didn't bother to vote.
Small consolation that we beat the current party of government into 5th place. We also increased our vote by more than enough to have won a seat last time when there were 7 seats in the SW. That's the price of EU enlargement.
UKIP 341,845
Liberal Democrat 255,253
GREEN 144,179
Labour 118,716
BNP 60,889
Pensioners 37,785
English Democrat 25,313
Christians 21,329
Mebyon Kernow 14,922
Socialist Labour 10,033
Misc 39,702 (6 other groups mostly around 7,000)
1st seat Conservative with 468,742
2nd seat UKIP with 341,845
3rd seat LD with 255,253
4th seat Conservative with 234,371
5th seat UKIP with 170,923
6th seat Conservative with 156,248
Greens 12,070 votes short of a seat
Spread across 49 parliamentary constituencies that is 247 votes short per constituency. Each constituency is about 60,000 electors, typically divided into 20 wards of about 3,000 for local elections. So in your ward we needed an extra 12 votes and probably 1,800 people in your ward didn't bother to vote.
Small consolation that we beat the current party of government into 5th place. We also increased our vote by more than enough to have won a seat last time when there were 7 seats in the SW. That's the price of EU enlargement.
Getting cross...
Tory's:THE LOW CARBON ECONOMY SECURITY, STABILITY AND GREEN GROWTH Protecting Security Policy Green Paper:
"...whole streets will be retrofitted at the same time – building on the Warm Zones approach taken by Conservative-led Kirklees Council,"
Proposed and worked out by the Greens on Kirklees Council! Bloody cheek!!!!
"...whole streets will be retrofitted at the same time – building on the Warm Zones approach taken by Conservative-led Kirklees Council,"
Proposed and worked out by the Greens on Kirklees Council! Bloody cheek!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
