Dear Editor ,

Doubtless hundreds of Echo readers will have, like
hundreds of thousands of others across the country, epressed anger and
dismay at the announcement by EDF Energy that they are increasing
energy prices by 10.7%.
By way of explanation EDF argue that wholesale costs
have gone up by 4% and that they are having to provide free insulation
etc for may homes. They also contest the rise is a result of the
government forcing them to subsidize renewable energy.
Considering the numbers, 4% of a wholesale unit
price will, I am sure, be signficantly less than 4% of a retail unit
price. The energy saving assistance EDF and friends are supposed to be
providing plainly is not free if the consumer ultimately covers their
costs, so why are we forced to acccept such unreasonable increases?
The attitude towards customers of the energy
companies is a perfect example of why profit seeking private companies
have no place in public infrastructue and services. Privatization does
not do exactly what it says on the tin! Competition, efficiency and
lower prices are not what we now reap as a result of selling off
assets which took years and billions of pounds of taxpayers money to
develop. The inescapable fact is, these companies exist to make profit
for shareholders and institutionalised investors who then take that
profit out of the real economy to be hoarded abroad, after paying
minimal if any tax on it! As far as their customers are concerned, the
mantra is simple...if you can afford it, you can have it!
Had electricity, oil and gas remained in the public
sector, profits could have been enjoyed by us all, keeping prices down
and allowing a level of investment in renewable energy and energy
saving that would benefit all both in the present and for generations
to come.
Our government in response to the news, and
typically reluctant to leap to the defence of the electorate, meekly
calls the rise "disappointing". Mr Cameron would have us believe that
he is our champion as he calls for simplified and automatic cheapest
tarrif defaults. All well and good Prime Minister but that's cold
comfort to the low paid, pensioner, disabled customers whose lowest
tarrif bill informs them the price just went up another 10%!

Obesity in children , response to a local initiative

Dear Editor,

Your article concerning fast food and the increasing numbers of children (Echo 20-26th Sept) who are considered to be clinically obese or overweight should be of concern to the overwhelming majority of readers. In your article Cllr Chris Brewis disparagingly berates parents as "child abusers" for taking them to such outlets. His remarks demonstrate an understanding of the underlying causes of obesity in our society that lacks both knowledge and depth. Doubtless some ingredients do contribute to acts of anti-social behaviour, and teaching our children domestic science skills would improve their understanding of nutritious food and a healthier lifestyle but subjecting children to "weigh-ins" is draconian, counter productive and a poor use of resources.

Another contributor, Wayne Casement, made the point that "We live in a fast paced world now and it's the way life is" and it is our way of life now that Cllr Brewis would do well to investigate further. I make 3 points for consideration:

In our consumer based, advertisement-driven society we are constantly being sold "lifestyle choices", the underlying message being that to obtain social status one has to own this or that, drink this coffee that soft drink, shop there, buy that phone, the list is endless. Well for those of us who want but can't have those lifestyle choices, there's the opportunity to join in, treat yourself and supress the disappointment by eating fast foods that deliver the feel good factor. After all, it's fairly cheap, some might even argue it tastes good. It is this sense of belonging that marketing exploits and sells. Combined with certain ingredients in the food itself, for regular consumers the result, however brief, is their "happiness hit" and kids who can share in an exclusive "lifestyle" just like those in the adverts.

My second point is that society needs to readjust to accomodate what it means to be a human being. There will always be exceptions but as a rule human beings are social creatures. We thrive on love and relationships and interactions with others that include being valued and respected.

Obesity used to be the rich man's disorder, not so anymore. We live in a society where people are judged by what they own as opposed to what they do, so-called celebrities excepted. With many families, constrained by stagnating wages, battling the constant economic pressures of a consumer based society, junk, fast or comfort food, call it what you will, is increasingly relied on as a coping mechanism.

Thirdly, since it rests with the councils to allow such outlets to operate, surely it is within their power to limit the number of those that do so? Rather than directing unhelpful vitriole at parents, Cllr Brewis might achieve more success, by encouraging fellow councillors to act to prevent our shopping centres and high streets offering little more to citizens than an array of saturated fats supplied in various guises.

I base my arguments on a widely researched body of evidence that is gaining increasing support both nationally and internationally. Life doesn't have to be this way. Frankly, it's high time we moved towards a society that embraces and nutures as many of us as possible instead of one in which a few thrive whilst most survive.

Housing benefits

Dear Editor,

               David Cameron proposes scrapping housing benefit for under
25's. He says he wants to discourage the feeling of entitlement and a
"something for nothing culture". Our Prime Minister shows he has neither
compassion for those affected, nor understanding of the consequences of his
economic policies.
               Housing and other benefits aren't "entitlements", they are
first aid! Proof is available in stone that wealth inequalty is increasing.
The wealthiest get richer whilst the wages of the majority have stagnated
for years. Nobody working full time should need benefits and if social
housing programmes hadn't been scrapped, few would be at the mercy of
unscrupulous landlords.
               The government have imposed austerity measures insisting that
there is no alternative to the cuts. Yet the head of the "millionaire's
cabinet" and his chancellor have made it easier for the wealthiest to avoid
taxes, for corporations to evade taxes and amass even greater profit, and
for the financial sector to walk away from the damage it has caused without
penalty or regulatory reform.
               Our country continues to follow an economic model which rewards
the wealthiest by focussing on what the financial sector refers to as
"shareholder value".
Companies must perform to provide profit for shareholders, the
overwhelming majority of
whom, take that profit and move onto the next "investment" demanding short
term dividends which are achieved through job losses, low wages and more
difficult working conditions.
               Through regulation of such predatory activity, government
must support business to enable it to refocus on stakeholder value whereby
companies are able act in a manner which consider not just shareholders but
employers, employees, suppliers, customers, the community and
environment in which it
operates.
               Shareholders must be told that they can no longer contribute
nothing of substance and demand change for the sake of a quick profit. They
are not entitled to destroy jobs, families and communities in order to
swell their offshore accounts. The real wealth of this country is created
by those who live, earn and spend it here. Low wages and fewer jobs means less
tax paid, less spending, less growth, less profit !
              If there is a "something for nothing culture", it is the
preserve of the wealthy.

High stakes chess, round 1

          Interesting times in the world of politics at the moment. Those of us who protest the injustice of tax evasion and avoidance seem to have found ourselves with a most unlikely ally in the proprietor of The Sun and The Times, namely one Mr Rupert Murdoch. Whilst he doubtless expects to curry no favour with those of us who expect tax dodgers to pay up, through News International, the man from the land down under is out for revenge.
          The Murdochs are big corporate players, unused to being humiliated at the hands of politicians they used to manipulate like marionettes. So often courted by successive Prime Ministers in their quests for high office, Murdoch, summoned to the Leveson Inquiry, was abandoned by his puppets to answer questions about his empire, family members and employees culminating in a private meeting with the family of Milly Dowler and a statement of regret read out in front of the press. Mr Murdoch has chosen his weapon well, tax avoidance will have the stamina of M.P's expenses thrice over and his quarry are upto their necks in it. Pawn Jimmy Carr found himself in the limelight as Murdoch's opening move. David Cameron, maybe thinking he was one step ahead of RM looked to block condemning the comedian's apparent greed. In The Sun an editorial piece pointed the finger of blame at politicians unwilling to address the issue and so the clocks are running. Already the Prime Minister has, having declared tax avoidance schemes morally reprehensible, faltered having back tracked on his initial call for the tax affairs of his ministers to be made public. A round the world cruise, let alone parliament's summer holidays won't be long enough for this one to die down.

My reply to a small business representative in local pressto

Dear Editor

                 I was concerned to read the first person article by Mr Michael Self in the Echo 7/6 - 13/6. Small business has a massive part to play in the economic recovery and  growth of our country yet his views are utterly at odds with evidence which now stares us all in the face. Mr Self argues initially that the only way to repair the situation"...was to slash government spending and increase taxation."

                 In following paragraphs he concedes that this "tough medicine" has not worked before advocating further cuts and a lowering of taxes.

                 The government introduced the latter, cutting the 50p rate for instance, but only to the benefit of the wealthiest in society. Instituting a financial transaction tax, wholly justified, and increasing taxation would have helped, if tax increases had been deemed necessary after a concerted effort to collect it from those who methodically evade and avoid paying their share year after year.

                 The cuts the coalition have forced upon us have seen public services and a variety of benefits cut including child tax and working tax credits. If employers paid reasonable wages in the first place such tax credits would be unnecessary. Despite this borrowing, as Mr Self rightly states, has actually gone up not down.

                 Mr Self, quite justifiably, berates the government for money created through quantitative easing being handed to those banks, who, when they do agree to lend, do so with high interest rates attached. With Mr Osbourne announcing a further cash injection, would it not be more helpful to cut out the middleman and lend direct to small businesses with a nominal interest charge? This will not happen of course because, as Mr Self and others know, successive governments since Mrs Thatcher first entered Downing St have all pursued economic policies which favour the financial sector over manufacturing.

                 Mr Self's assertion that economic stimulation will be aided by creating a more "...flexible labour force.." beggars belief. Whilst I would agree some aspects of employment law could do with an injection of common sense, the notion that removing employee protections will help small businesses thrive is a nonsense. A low paid, timid, through lack of security, workforce bereft of loyalty commitment and drive, because that's the kind of workforce Mr Self and his kind will create, does not help develop a successful business. One might assume that Mr Self represents businesses which rely solely on unskilled labour since it would be senseless to invest in training a "throwaway" labour force which has no interest in the success of its employers. Furthermore, does he really believe that workers, constantly in fear of losing their jobs are going to spend what little disposable income they will have left over on expensive goods which may require loans or credit to finance? And who will extend credit to a worker with little or no job security? If our fast moving consumer based economy is to help any business grow, it must have a ready supply of people with money to spend! 

                 Respectfully I modify the quote Mr Self both opened and closed his piece with and hope that he will perhaps reflect that in fact, "It's the economic model stupid."

My Green Party

         It's a stressful game is politics and manys the time I curse myself for getting involved. It would be so much easier to ignore what's going on around me and concentrate on favoured pastimes in my down time. Heaven knows, as an NHS employee working for a trust hell bent on meltdown I need some respite!Trouble is, the more I've learnt about the causes and consequences of where our society is at, the less inclined I am to bury my head.
       So here I am, frustrated by intransigence, angry at injustice and motivated against greed. Despite this I have become determined and optimistic for two good reasons and one for which I have high hopes.
       The first explains the why. My 8 year old daughter, pure and simple. I must contribute to ensuring I leave her a safe sustainable and just society to live in. It's not enough to help her develop life skills and provide funds to aid her education. I have learnt that our neoliberal consumer driven economy is causing far more harm than good. As the wealth inequality gap grows and resources are plundered mercilessly in pursuit of a non existent growth driven utopia constantly moved out of reach by the advertisers of dissatisfaction, all of us suffer.
        The second reason is the one that gives me determination and optimism. Understanding causes and consequences is one part of the equation, the other is recognizing that there is a solution. Logical rational  reforms of the banking and tax systems. Implementation of an economic model that supports the development of renewable energy sources and moves to curtail the influence of consumerism over our lives.
         As for high hopes, I've pinned mine to the mast of the Green Party flagpole. I've read the manifesto online and was encouraged to find that they are a party I can align myself with. I also believe that, as much as I applaud, support and respect the work of certain pressure groups economists and political commentators, I am certain of one thing. Truly lasting change that will serve all in society will not be achieved from the fringes of the political system. There needs to be a cultural change in society which can only be led and driven from a position of power. This isn't to suggest we need a dictatorship, far from it. What's required is a government with the strength of character to implement reforms that create possibilities. Possibilities for us all to prosper, to be involved in society and to feel equally valued. Do that and the British people will, I believe, start making choices that will lead to a safer more sustainable society less addicted to the illusion of consumerism.
        But my optimism has to be matched, and here I have concerns. Last week, the latest Yougov poll was released and the results weren't encouraging. Now I don't know how The Green Party stands currently with the electorate but if that poll was accurate, we have a mountain to climb because we weren't even mentioned! UKIP sat 4th with 8%. Whatever the excuses are for voter apathy, we aren't even getting our message across to those who do care enough to vote.The Green Party isn't here waiting for its chance to play it's version of  consumer led capitalism. I hope we are here to lead change and reform because we understand that the earth's resources cannot sustain our current rate of exploitation. We are here to address the problems of climate change because, plainly, nobody else will despite time and opportunities running out. We are here to encourage the electorate, for the sake of us all, to make independent choices to reject consumerism and the laissez-faire approach of the markets. The Green Party's members do care but must become more assertive. We need to get loud and get involved everywhere, making our position known. There are several million voters who need to know we are here, who are starved of an alternative but aren't yet aware of what is possible. There are dozens of political pressure groups whose support we could welcome. They have goals which have a kinship with our own. Not to reach out to them and support to their protests will be a wasted opportunity. The next two general elections will make or break our society. For the sake of our children I'll do my level best to help it be the former !
   

Kensal Library closure

        Yesterday for me was a coalition landmark and a day of reaffirmation. Opening a tweet from UKUncut, I learnt that council workers accompanied by police, though nowadays they are employed more as government forces than officers of the law, proceeded at 2am to return to the Kensal library and empty it of all remaining books.
         The Deputy Prime Minister, a title worth less every day, Nick Clegg, a man worth less every day speaks of supporting social mobility one day and being subjected to " bullying" the next. Indeed sir ?? , well poor little you! Removing avenues of learning, support and information from the less well off in our society hardly encourages opportunities for social mobility. Evidence has shown, it does exactly the reverse. No wonder your leader, for Mr Cameron isn't ours, he's just a pillaging stooge of the corporate elite taking advantage of his position, wisely stays quiet on the subject. He plainly has no time for such fanciful ideas as social mobility, better that the public hear lame baseless explanations from Clegg, the fall guy, the meek mouthpiece of mediation.
         This after a weekend when UK uncutters and other anti-cuts activists in several towns and cities across the country held Great British Street parties, peacefully protesting against the continued slashing of the austerity axe. The Sheffield event, which all reports say passed off peacefully, was held outside Mr Clegg's current constituency home. Come the following day a disgruntled Mr Clegg bleated to the press about unfairness and bullying tactics. Indeed sir ??, well poor you. In fact, how bloody dare you complain, what about the tens, no , hundreds of thousands of children you are pushing into poverty? What about the disabled people who are being  assessed as fit to work when quite clearly they are not? What about all the young unemployed and all those being forced to work for their benefits for companies that rake in profits quarter after quarter? If you want to know about bullying Mr Clegg, talk to some of the people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by policies that you have meekly stood by and watched wreak havoc in your leader's Big bloody Society. Guilt by association in this case is an inescapable fact. You, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, have supported the implementation of these austerity measures which affect those most blameless whilst the guilty walk free with not punishment but encouragement.
          Forget red,blue, yellow has destroyed itself !,  left right or any other convenient label, the only two groups that will count are the have everythings and the have nothings!
          What is happening now in our country will have consequences for future generations which is why thousands of British citizens are angry. We refuse to have our children and love ones suffer the coalition"dream", because in truth this is all about neoliberal economics isn't it, and we will not go away.