Save Tavistock Place bike lanes! Consultation deadline ends Friday 21 October 2016

Guest blog post by Cllr Siân Berry of Camden Council's Green Party councillor for Highgate Ward

Save Tavistock Place bike lanes The Council began a 12 month trial of better bike lanes in December last year and it has been hugely successful. Doubling the space for people on bikes in Tavistock Place and Torrington Place has led to a 30% average increase in cycling at peak times, and air pollution has reduced in the area, dropping by up to 21%. The Council is now consulting on whether to make the change permanent, while also makeing the street better for walking too, with wider pavements. It takes just two minutes to do - simply choose YES for Q6 “Would you like the current street layout… to become permanent?” and NO for Q7 “Would you like the street to return to its pre-trial layout…?”. Tavistock Place consultation page - deadline: end of 21 October You don't have to live in Camden to fill this in - so please send this on to anyone you know who uses this street.

What Green Party votes stand for

A Personal View By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

In the face of not only BBC cenorship of the Green Party leader's involvement in last Thursday's 'leaders debate' but also BBC news broadcast non-reporting of the Green Party in daily broadcasts of 'what the main parties are doing in the run-up to Thursday's poll', I offer the following clues, some of which have clickable links to manifesto entries on the Green Party's website.

There are alternatives

 Margaret Thatcher's infamous saying, "There is No Alternative," gave her the nickname 'TINA'. Perhaps the BBC News editors should be described as Auntie TINAs?

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group is non-party-political and contains members of various political parties and none. Outside of the options presented by the BBC as the only valid options, the main parties of interest to Kwug members seem to be TUSC (Trade Union & Socialist Coalition)(1) and the Green Party of England & Wales(2). Some Kwug members while being keen on TUSC advocate voting Labour as a lesser evil than letting in a party that promises or threatens '£12bn further [and unspecified] welfare cuts' even where Hampstead & Kilburn Green Party candidate is making an excellent stand and getting electoral support as a result. I disagree with that stand point, not only on the grounds of making a stand for Proportional Representation.

Green Party votes acknowledge the level of internal democratic process that has led to the formulation of a real alternative electoral platform and the elections of Green Party Members of the European Parliament, London Assembly Members and a Green Party MP.(3)

What Green Party votes stand for

No ifs, no buts, the Green Party stands for no benefit sanctions

---

We have everything we need to build a fair economy: natural resources, skilled people, modern technology.

But the Westminster Establishment has built an unfair [economy] where those at the top gain while those at the bottom suffer.

We can transform our economy if we have the courage to challenge the vested interests and close the gap between the righ and the poor.

[Read on... ](4)

---

We all want somewhere warm, safe and secure to call home.

But we have a housing crisis with soaring private rents while social housing is being sold off left, right and centre....

[Read more....](5)

---

We have world class universities, brilliant teachers and talented students.

But by putting a price tag on education, running schools as businesses and making them exam factories we are wasting children's potential and stifling creativity....

[Read on]....(6)

---

Outline continued on special blog page....

---

Notes

(1) http://tusc2015.com/
(2) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/
(3) See 'What Difference Can a Green MP make?' short film accessed 4 May 2015 https://youtu.be/Uq31QIMjVtU
(4) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/fair-economy.html
(5) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/decent-homes.html
(6) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/free-education.html

Official analysis overstates impact of 9% incomes drop on top 10% & understates dire 5% drop for bottom 10%

By Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty

LETTER IN THE GUARDIAN 19/03/2014

IMPACT OF THE DROP INCOMES IS OVERSTATED AT THE TOP AND UNDERSTATED AT THE BOTTOM

Larry Elliott’s business analysis (Living standards, 18 March) follows the conventional wisdom of all macro-economic commentators by focusing on incomes before housing costs have been deducted.

That way the impact of the drop in incomes is overstated at the top and understated at the bottom.

There is no shock horror in learning that the top 10% of the income distribution has fared worst of all with a decline of 9% between 2010 and 2013. Their property has leapt in value and their income after housing costs is still in the millions – not exactly a clobbering.

For the bottom 10% a drop of 5% before housing cost turns into a disaster for millions of tenants after housing costs have been deducted.

The disconnect between the poverty debate and reality in the UK will continue until the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and other independent analysts, provide robust micro-economic data about the dire cumulative impact of benefit caps and cuts, and the imposition of council tax and its enforcement, on the incomes after housing costs, needed for food, utilities, clothes and transport, in work and unemployment, since the April 2013 implementation of so-called welfare reform.

Rev Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty