'With Banners Held High' ends in Green Mush!

by Dave Douglass

WITH Banners Held High over the few years of its existence has been an increasingly contradictory event. At first it had a strong focus on the Miners and the NUM and the struggles of the mining communities. Miners’ banners predominated. Miners and their families turned out to celebrate our identity and heritage and use it as an excuse for a canny drink and meet old comrades. Alongside this came the ‘left’ which had over the last couple of decades become more and more infused with a middle class largely southern based liberal agenda, the Identity Politics obsession, and an adoption of the politics of climate alarmism. Climate hysteria for those who are rapidly consumed by it until it becomes an unchallengeable article of faith, simply assume their acceptance of the whole panic and ‘emergency’ agenda is commonly accepted, it isn’t of course. The political demands of Climate Extinction and the Green Party, Green Peace etc confront the very idea of an industrial proletariat, traditional British industry is fighting for life against a war of extermination. That Yorkshire and Humberside TUC have gone over wholesale to their politics and changed the Banners platform into a carnival of green mush and anti-industry propaganda. So, we found in previous years while miners banners and miners proclaimed the fight against pit closures in defence of coal, coal does not dole, and the whole pro mining struggles of the period 83-93 and down to the last three mines. At the same time stalls at the event everywhere called for an end to coal, and much of industry.

This current proposed event marks really an end to the miners connection and its wholesale adaptation to the politics of ‘Climate Emergency’. Where in this ‘virtual event’, which one presumes will be a zoom rally, is the case for coal? Where are the speakers to DEBATE and CHALLENGE the assumption of ‘Climate Emergency’ the degree of ‘Man Made Climate Change’ against an ongoing natural process? Where are speakers from NUM or UNITE to talk in defence of Steel, and coal which is vital to make it? Where are the speakers from the Cement industry who rely on coal for cement and concrete the building industry, including Turbine installation? Where are speakers on the absolute necessity of coal and steel for Boris’s ‘Green Deal’ or Labour’s version of it? Nobody from the NUM invited to speak on the struggle to develop our new mine in Whitehaven, bringing with it 2500 new jobs, and the prospect of mining our own coal again and supplying a steel industry making for example our own wind turbines and our own electric cars or solar frames. None of us from coal, steel, construction, cement, car manufacture etc have been invited to speak on the necessity of fossil fuel in any green manufacturing programme. Where is the workshop on Clean Coal Technology, Carbon Capture and Storage etc? It does not feature.

One thing which made my blood run cold is the session on Labour’s plan to bring in compulsory climate panic lessons into every classroom, with lectures on ‘climate change’ which I for one doubt in the extreme will be an objective assessment of climate change over the last 4.6 billion years before we got here. The dramatic changes in atmospheric composition and weather and temperature and extinctions before we arrived and the context for current changes, mild by comparison and only partially due to our presence. Objectivity, debate, discussion and different points of view and science are not being encouraged here.

I am frankly disgusted at this platform and programme which ignores everything we fought for as miners and steelworkers and our unions. It shows how deeply the climate panic propaganda has entered into the ideology and leadership of even the Trade Union Movement and more shockingly the Northern industry-based Trade Union Movement, one wonders who is running this show and just what are their credentials?

All of that being the case, I don’t think there is any room for miners’ banners on this event, as we have been treated with gross contempt.

I would urge the organisers whoever they are, to think long and hard before next years event, to allow a proper debate and discussion around the question of what is ‘green’ and how does coal and steel meet any challenge of climate concerns. What is the role of clean coal technologies and carbon capture and most importantly the hypocrisy of exporting OUR carbon emissions abroad, our coal and steel requirements abroad, in order that we can use the imported produce here but claim to be emissions free ourselves? Any Labour Movement body let alone Yorkshire and Humberside TUC worthy of its manufacturing traditions would be debating these real issues and facts rather than joining the anti-industry middle class green liberal chorus.

**********************************************************************

Bullying & Arm-Twisting Halts Cumberland County Council Approval of a New Mine

by David John Douglass

I AM so disappointed that the Woodhouse Mine which had passed every test and been approved by the County Council has been suddenly pulled to a halt. This Labour Council had considered the question three times over three years, with a bevy of expert witnesses and public intervention and open debates and approved it three times by substantial majorities.

Every aspect of the application had been examined in forensic detail and no fault could be found in it. Climate extremists had kept up a nonstop campaign to stop the mine. Despite a mass public consultation which overwhelmingly backed the mine, the ‘greens’ would not accept any democratic decision of the council or the locals. First, they sought a Judicial Review, and this was withdrawn by the courts as having no grounds. Then it went to the High Court on the absurd claim that the Council hadn’t considered their arguments, the court struck it down. Then they kicked and screamed and set up a national petition to get people, mainly from the middle class and from the south of England who had never seen a mine or even knew where Whitehaven was to demand a stop to the jobs. They expected Jenrick the Communities Secretary, being a Tory with no love of coal miners or coal mines to block it. They lobbied the Prime Minister to override the Council. They failed, after every obstacle had been overcome and all that was needed now was for the Council to engage in the formality of approving the application (again).

Today Council leaders came to the shocking decision that the judgement will be referred back to their Committee 'after advice from Climate Advisers' obviously with a view to reconsidering the previous overwhelming approvals of the full Council.

So what happened? There has as said been a three-year campaign of bullying, and lobbying against all of the Councillors, XR and Greenpeace moved their full time agents into the area and full time Press Officers have ensure that their friends in the TV and Radio and National Press kept up a nonstop and one sided barrage against the mine and against the Councillors. Doorstepping them, ambushing them on the street, filming outside their houses and through windows of Council meetings.

But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind where this rapid application of brakes comes from and that is the Labour Party PLP and Shadow cabinet.

Firstly, we had Catherine West MP Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Shadow Minister. Brought onto the TV news channels to discus the election of Biden and British American relations she instead launches into an attack on the new mine! Nothing to do with her brief, nothing to do with the programme but Starmer had obviously given the steer to oppose the mine and win votes from the nice liberal greens in the London elections. West was of course the PA to David Lammy who was next in line to carry the torch on Any Questions. Admitting he knew nothing about the mine and nothing about steel making he argued that it should be cancelled because ‘we don’t need coal in this day and age’ and thus proving the point he in fact didn’t know anything about steel making or the need for this mine. But the Prime Directive undoubtedly came from Ed Miliband the Shadow Energy Minister on the Marr programme on Sunday. Once again, this topic had not been on the agenda or Marr’s script but Miliband was determined to let the country in general and Cumberland Council in particular know that Labour wants Dole Not Coal. Obviously, some senior Labour Party Council leaders have been got at and warned to pull the approval. To be a fly on the wall of the calls that must have come thick and fast from London labour Party HQ would have been a great illustration of political duplicity.

Its literally physically and politically sickening. We have yet to discover the date of the Committee Meeting and whether it will be public or we will get to find out who the mysterious ‘Climate Advisers’ are and what they have said that hadn’t already been said in the last three years.

The Committee isn’t bound to withdraw consent, and the full council isn’t bound to agree with them if they did, but it all adds an impossible mental and political strain on decent Councillors men and women who had been trying to the best for their community.

I will be writing to the Council with a view to urging them to hold their nerve and stand their ground and approve the mine. I hope you will join me and do so yourselves.

So next time we think back in anger when they try to unveil the statue of Thatcher and we turn up to protest at the slaughter of our mines and robbing the miners and our families of secure futures. We should also remember that Starmer and Labour have just banged a stake through our hearts to ensure we don’t come back to haunt them. With a Labour Parliamentary Party like this who needs bloody Tories?

***********************************************************

Fossil Fuel: Letter to the NV Editor

Trafford Council Motion on Fossil Fuels

Editor,

I should also fill you in. I’m proposing this motion to Councl next week. It would be great if we could get some support. It will be Trafford Town Hall Wednesday the 9^th, I think at 7pm.

It will be official later today so will be spreading the word then.

Geraldine Coggins

Investing in green solutions instead of fossil fuels.

This Council notes:

1.             That at least 5% of funds of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund are invested in Shell, BP and other fossil fuel companies. (See paragraph 3 of Appendix A of GMPF document in responding to Trafford’s climate emergency motion https://democratic.trafford.gov.uk/documents/s32216/Fossil%20Fuel%20Investments%20Jan%2019.pdf

**********************

The Delegitimising of Jeremy Corbyn

by Les May

FIRST some figures. Amongst the Opposition parties Labour has 247 seats, the SNP 35, Independents 15, Liberal Democrats 14, Independent Group for Change 5, Plaid Cymru 4 and the Green Party 1.  In other words Labour has more than three times the rest of the Opposition parties combined and in particular it has 233 seats more than the Liberal Democrats.

So if there is a ‘no confidence’ vote in Parliament and the Johnson government loses its majority and is unable to secure a majority in a second vote within 14 days the outcome should be either an immediate general election or a cross party ‘caretaker’ government mandated to delay leaving the European Union without a deal, it would seem to be uncontestable that the leader of the caretaker administration should be Jeremy Corbyn.

Apparently not. Jo Swinson, who since July has been leader of the LibDems, has said he ‘risks jeopardising a vote of no confidence in the government by insisting he becomes caretaker PM’.  Previously she had said he was ‘divisive’.

Writing in the ‘i’ last week Kate Maltby, who on her website modestly describes herself as ‘a critic, columnist and scholar’ tried to cast doubt on Corbyn’s fitness to lead by claiming that some of his social media supporters were ‘anti-semitic’ and were linked to those opposed to vaccination of children. (As she provided zero evidence for these claims I do hope she is a little more assiduous in carrying out research for the PhD she tells us she is doing on her website.)

In mid August Caroline Lucas decided she would bypass Corbyn by offering to broker a deal for ten women MPs to form a cross party Cabinet. (Interestingly she was attacked in the Guardian because, amongst other things, none of them were ‘trans’ and most were not lesbians.)

Yesterday Yasmin Alibhai-Brown used her column in the ‘i’ to claim he was ‘worryingly beholden to his close, maniacally anti-capitalist advisers’ and that he should let Caroline Lucas lead a temporary government of national unity.

What these women are about is delegitimising Corbyn and, by inference, Labour’s claim to be the party to form a caretaker government.  Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour party on two occasions.  He was leader of the party when it confounded the pundits by denying Theresa May a clear majority in 2017.   None of the four women referred to above can make anything approaching such a claim.

You cannot maintain credibility by first attacking Boris Johnson for avoiding scrutiny by closing down Parliament for five weeks and then seeking to find an excuse for bypassing the leader of the largest opposition party.  If Jo Swinson is listening, ‘You have 14 MPs, Corbyn has 247.  Go figure’.

*************

Tameside MBC Dirty Dancing with Fossil Fuels

Four Arrested At Anti-Fracking Demo in Droyslden!
by Brian Bamford (Sec. Tameside TUC)

TODAY four objectors to Tameside Council's dirty dance promotion of fossil fuel investments through the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) were detained in a protest of about 100 activists from FOSSIL FREE GM protesting outside Guardsman Tony Downes House in Droyslden, in Tameside and were taken away to police stations in Ashton-under-Lyne and elsewhere in Greater Manchester.   The three men and a young lass were arrested after they had super-glued and locked themselves to the railings.  

Environmental activists, Green Party members including Tameside Cllr. Lee Huntbach, and trade unionists were present at the event.

 Exclusive Bosses Secret Concordat as Pensioners Banned

The occasion today was what should have been the AGM of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, but in a remarkable piece of Orwellian linguistics has now been re-christened the 'Annual Employers yearly update'!  The protesters were supporters of 'FOSSIL FREE GM'.

This cunning change of title was created so as to justify excluding the pensioners who are members of the Pension Fund, and public from meeting. Consequently, the event today chaired by Tameside Council boss, Brenda Warrington, became a glorified Councillor's Concordat from which the membership, the pensioners and the public were locked-out.   

 As the FOSSIL FREE GM campaigners super-glued their limbs to the railings of the Pension Fund's building and set about their business-like endeavours of spray painting the windows of the Manchester Road building urging the council bosses of Greater Manchester to quit their dirty investments in oil companies like Shell and Fossil Fuels generally, nervous councillors furtively fled round to the rear entrance to gain access to their 'BOSSES ONLY' secretive Concordat.  

In the past these Greater Manchester council bosses have tried to assure the public that they are clean and responsible in their investment decisions.  Last year in their Annual Statement these Pension Fund bigwigs declared:


'Although we will listen to special interest groups that oppose some of GMPF’s investments, for example in alcohol, gambling or pharmaceuticals, we cannot let this detract from our duty.  Considerations such as these have led us to decide not to have or develop a detailed generalised ethical investment policy.  We prefer to concentrate on developing a policy that involves using voting and other contacts to positively influence company behaviour.  In our view, simply disinvesting from particular companies is a denial of responsibility.'

Perhaps the Manchester supporters of 'FOSSIL FREE GM' can be excused for seeing this as yet more hypocrisy from their local councillors.

*******************

Stockport Abandons Labour Party

 Forwarded by Joe Bailey

WHEN she resigned the Labour whip and left the party to serve as an independent in February, Stockport MP Ann Coffey cited Labour’s Brexit policy as a reason for her departure. The previous month she had conducted a poll of 4,500 households in her Greater Manchester constituency, asking for their views on Brexit.

Advocating a second vote, she said: “What is striking is that of those who responded 71% now feel ‘the people’ should have the final say on the Brexit deal and 72 % said that remaining in the EU should be an option in another referendum. Of those who replied to say they voted leave in 2016, 13% said they would now vote remain.”

With Coffey abandoning Labour after 27 years an MP, it is perhaps little surprise that her constituents followed suit in the European elections. Labour attracted 10,738 in the borough, coming a distant third behind the local victors, the Liberal Democrats (23,135), and the Brexit party, which came a close second (22,462).

The Greens were fourth with 10,705 and the Conservatives fifth with 5,451: a particularly poor show for a party with two out of four of Stockport’s MPs (William Wragg in Hazel Grove and Mary Robinson in Cheadle, both Lib Dem/Tory marginals). Change UK, Coffey’s new party, were sixth, with 2,599.

************

Stop Blaming the Politicians

by Les May

ANTROPOGENIC climate change, it’s the story with everything; aged gurus issuing warnings of an imminent ecological disaster, self righteous protesters gluing themselves to garden fences, kiddies ‘going on strike’, teenagers meeting party leaders and best of all, the blame can be dumped on the usual suspects, people like Trump ‘the climate change denier’ and the politicians who should ‘do something’, but don’t.

But if you want to know who is really responsible go to the nearest mirror and the face you see in it is the person responsible.  The uncomfortable truth is, It’s you, or to be strictly accurate, it’s us.  And if the politicians were persuaded to ‘do something’ we would not like it one little bit.

Doing something about climate change, which requires us to drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere, can only be brought about by reducing the amount of energy we consume.

We need to be listening not just to those who style themselves ‘greens’ or ‘ecologists’ and are very good at telling us what the problems brought on by climate change are, but to physicists who will point out the problems of doing something about it.  Not the physics of Einstein, black-holes or the Higgs boson, but the old fashioned 19^th century physics developed to explain the limits on the efficiency of the steam engine.

In all these discussions about climate change and how to do something about it there are two very large ‘elephants in the room’.  They are called the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.  You may not like what they say and what it means for your future lifestyle, but if you think you can ignore them you are peeing in the same pot as Trump and his ilk.

The First law says in essence ‘The Universe Does Not Provide Free Lunches’. What this means in practice is that if you want to move something or change something from one form to another, there is a price which you pay in the form of energy. Whether you fly, take the car, get the bus, cycle or walk to the shop it requires the expenditure of energy to get you there. Flying, taking the car or getting the bus means burning an energy rich fuel which pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Walking or cycling means burning the energy stored in our food. This does not add any additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because the plants we ate have removed this much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere already whilst they were busy making the carbohydrate which stores the energy derived from sunlight.

The Second Law says in essence ‘Heat Energy Moves From Places With A Higher Temperature To Places With A Lower Temperature’. If you want to make energy move the other way you have to pay a cost in the form of energy. (You almost certainly have something in your kitchen doing exactly this. It’s called a refrigerator.) This law shows itself as an ‘energy tax’ when we turn one substance into another.   That means that recycling of materials also carries a cost which has to be paid In the form of energy.

So if you read in the papers that the solution to global warming is to heat our houses with electricity, travel in electric cars or to move to a hydrogen economy, don’t believe it. Just ask yourself where the energy is to come from to generate the electricity and where is the energy to come from to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen so that the hydrogen can later be burned (cleanly) to produce the energy to drive the engine of the plane/bus/car.

The solution to human induced climate change is to be found in our consuming less energy, whether that be for transport, heating, making new things or recycling old things.   It will mean changing what and how much we eat, how we package things, how we transport our food and other goods, substituting natural (i.e. plant and animal derived materials) for synthetic materials based on oil, what we wear, where and how often we holiday and what our built and natural landscapes look like.   In turn this will mean a shift in the jobs we do and the nature of employment.

If after reading this you still have a massive sense of entitlement and a belief that you have a right to consume as much energy and materials as you can afford you will see why none of the political parties, be they Greens, Tiggers, Kippers, Farage-ophiles, LibDems, Tories or Labour want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what needs to be done to halt climate change.

But if you do, don’t blame the politicians. Blame yourself.

**********

Green Party win in TAMESIDE

LAST year on the 27th, November, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, ANGELA RAYNER (27th, November 2018) said on her FACEBOOK page:
Massive congratulations to Jean Drennan who tonight has been unanimously selected as the Labour Party candidate in my constituency for the Ashton Waterloo Ward Tameside local elections 2019.
Last night the chickens came home to roost for the Labour MP Ms. Rayner, when Cllr. Jean Drennan lost the Ashton Waterloo ward seat in the Tameside Council local elections to Lee Huntback of the Green Party.

Mr Huntbach said of his victory: 
'I campaigned for local issues which I think has really stuck with residents.
'What we did was ask for what residents wanted, and we reacted to their answers."
'Everyone knows the conservatives are not going to get in but I seem to have given people another option other than labour,' he added.

This represents a landmark victory for the Greens in Tameside, as a Green has been elected for the first time ever.  The ward had been a Labour Party stronghold in the past.

********

Labour Party: Strange Allegations & Deselections

MARK Hollinrake, the Rochdale Green Party candidate for Kingsway in today's local elections has expressed his dismay and shock at the local Labour Party's 'deselection of loyal and effective long-standing local councillor, Lynne Brosnan, who has served the local community extremely well.'  

The deselection of Labour Councillor Brosnan follows a denunciation of her on a You-Tube telephone recording some months ago in which Labour Councillor Sara Rowbotham made unsubstantiated allegations against Cllr. Brosnan and another Councillor as 'knowing all about Cyril [Smith]' . 

All this was placed in the public domain through the You-Tube video, but the somewhat emotional remarks and allegations which amounted to a rant by Cllr. Rowbotham are unsupported by any evidence what-so-ever.  At the time Cllr. Rowbotham was seemingly unaware that her conversation was being recorded, much less that it would be later made public.

Later Councillor Blundell at an informal meeting of Labour supporters warned that this remark was potentially 'defamatory' inferring it should not be discussed, and that a high level investigation into the claim was to take place.  So far as we know no evidence has ever been produced to support Cllr. Rowbotham's allegations and there has been no clarification as to why she pronounced on this matter or made the unsupprted allegations.

Yesterday, with this in mind, I sent the e-mail below to Cllr. Blundell:
'At the most recent meeting of Labour supporters, which you attended at *******, reference was made to a recorded telephone conversation involving Cllr. Rowbotham in which she made allegations about Cllr. Lynn Brosnan and another Councillor you made a serious claim:  you raised the point that repeating them might be potentially defamatory.  In the light of this you suggested people ought to be cautious in their comments, and there was little or no discussion, although this was clearly a contentious issue.  You went on to say that a council investigation was being planned to consider these allegations which had already been placed in the public domain on a You Tube video.  Has this inquiry into these allegations taken place yet?  If not, why was this matter not investigated as you claimed at the meeting it would be?'

Thus far, reply 'Came There None' from Cllr. Blundell!

Furthermore, he has also failed to answer the following question also in my e-mail:  'I ask this question in the light of the forthcoming local elections in which Councillor Brosnan has now been deselected as a Labour candidate.  Has this deselection of Cllr. Brosnan been brought about owing to the allegations of Cllr. Rowbotham, which were later made public on the You Tube video?'

Could this shyness on his part have something to do with reports of his own lust for the leadership of the Rochdale Labour Party?

***********

Shoulder to Shoulder with electoral Fraud

Aspiring Labour Candidate & Vicar's Wife alongside Electoral Fraud

THE Labour candidate for Spotland and Falinge in today's local elections, Rachel Massey (right), stood proudly alongside self-confessed electoral fraud, Councillor Faisal Rana (centre), in a photo-shoot with Cllr. Wendy Cocks (far left).  

Councillor (Two-Votes) Rana said: “Twenty is plenty.
“We have been campaigning alongside residents for the speed reductions. Too many cars were travelling too fast putting residents’ lives – including children – in danger.”

But only last year the police told a local Forum meeting that Rooley Moor Road was almost impossible for them to police owing to lack of resources.  So if that is true then the 20-mile an hour zone signs are neither use nor ornament. 

Faced with this cosmetic response from the Labour Council Mick Coats, the candidate for the Green Party in the same ward, has pointed to the hypocrisy of the existing Labour councillors arguing:
'Another problem is cars speeding. It is a problem for us all. But what is Labour's solution to deal with cars speeding on Rooley Moor Road? It is to remove cars parked on the road (which act as a natural restraint on speeding cars), allowing cars to go even faster. It makes no sense.'

***********

Election statement by MICK COATS

'MAKE A DIFFERENCE' VOTE Mick Coats: Spotland and Falinge ward Green candidate:

THANK YOU for reading this.  I am standing as the local candidate for this ward.  This is an election about what we can do locally and why it is important to vote.  We do not need another party hack elected in Spotland, who will be more concerned with obeying orders sent down from their party leader than addressing the issues in the ward.

First, a word from Carl Faulkner who has stood as an independent in the ward over several elections.We have fought together on a number of issues, both believing that Rochdale has had a poor deal from the main political parties and their politicians. We have tried to make sense of local politics.

Carl says:  

'Locally I have been very concerned with issues that affect us – particularly the pitiful standard of our local councillors.  We cannot rely on them to represent us in the way that they should. They have done nothing to protect our open spaces, done nothing to deal with the old, highly toxic Turner Brothers site or even to tackle the problem of speeding.  I have worked with Mick on these and other issues.  Unlike the other candidates, he actually attends meetings and questions councillors.  He is the only candidate worth your vote.'

We have fought to resolve the problem of the old Turner Brothers Site.  It is a 72 acre wasteland of toxic material, mainly asbestos.   It is too dangerous for housing and the safest solution is to turn it into a country park.  What does the Labour Party candidate say about it?   Nothing!

Another problem is cars speeding.  It is a problem for us all.  But what is Labour's solution to deal with cars speeding on Rooley Moor Road?   It is to remove cars parked on the road (which act as a natural restraint on speeding cars), allowing cars to go even faster.  It makes no sense.

Until now we have had the opportunity to question councillors at the local Forum. This was held four times a year in a central location with good public transport where the public could question councillors.  Now the local Labour Party have unilaterally decided to hold these Forums in the middle of Falinge Park.  Why?  Few people live near the park, it is mainly populated by various animals and birds with only a few people living nearby.  Is the Labour Party going to 'talk to the animals' like some latterday Doctor Dolittle?  (An all too appropriate name perhaps).

Locally we should be ensuring local work is done by local companies with local people.  In the past we even had consultants coming into the town (from Yorkshire!) to tell us what we need to do to improve the town.  Other towns (for example Preston) have kept services local and reaped the benefits.

Locally, and nationally we should not be building on Green Belt land.  Nor should we be building anything other than affordable houses to buy or rent.   There is enough land available for housing that has previously been used in other ways.  (Where there was once factories and shops for instance).

These derelict sites could also be given over to local groups to use prior to being used.  There is a lot of land all over Rochdale that has lain unused for years.  Let people use it for recreational purposes until it is needed.

I do not understand why there is a threat to demolish some of the 'seven sisters' against the wishes of residents, and I fully support there cause.  Another issue that does not make sense.

These are local elections, but national Green Party policies are relevant locally.  The council should clearly and openly oppose fracking.  Integrated publically owned railways and buses are common sense. These should also be electrically powered.  Building laws should insist that all new buildings incorporate environmentally sound measures such as solar panels.  Policies to improve the environment are of particular concern to me.   Having experienced pollution elsewhere I know how important it is to stop choking the planet.  These measures should be in the minds of the local council and opportunities should be taken to further them where possible.

Our policies are vital and we would encourage main stream parties to adopt them.  We can take credit for some policies already but the important thing is to get them introduced, not to look important.

This election is important as local democracy is being abused .  People are being ignored and worse. At the last election a candidate actually voted twice; a criminal offence that resulted in a police caution. His election as one of our councillors was allowed to stand.  But why did he think it was ok to vote more than once?  Why did his fellow councillors accept that he did not know that he was not allowed to vote twice?  What does it say about their view of what standards a councillor should aspire to?  Now he is the agent for the current Labour Party candidate. (The agent is responsible for the right procedures to be followed by the candidate!  No further comment needed)

We have also had recent examples of other councillors failing to reach the standards that we have a right to expect from them, including the council leader.  The main opposition are also failing to hold the current council leaders to account.   We need to reclaim local democracy.

Just a personal note; I live in Spotland and am married with three sons, two of which ran the Manchester marathon.  I am a season ticket holder at Rochdale football Club (Up the Dale!), play in Rochdale quiz league and am a supporter of several local drinking establishments.

Make a change, give me a chance to shake up the local political establishment and hold them to account.  We have been labelled a 'rotten borough' for far too long.  Just complaining is not enough, you have a vote, use it.

Mick Coats 

66, Rooley Moor Road,

Tel. 07590595473

**********************

BREXIT – Another Anarchist’s Guide

                                                                      by Green Swiper

ANARCHISTS come in all shapes and sizes.   I for one salute Chris Draper for posting our alternative view.

I agree with everything in his section one: 'The EU is a bad thing'.  That title is correct but Chris is pulling his punches.  Free Movement just allows Big Business to use foreign-scab-labour.  Those scabs drive down wages and push up prices.  Anybody who objects gets called a racist.  That’s a neat trick: good old capitalism!  Send them all back: the dirty scabs. That’s what I say.

I agree with everything in Chris’ section two:  'BREXIT or BETRAYAL?'.   The answer is BETRAYAL!  A better title for this section might have been: 'BREXIT or BULLSHIT?'  Chris makes many pertinent points here.  Theresa May has spent over two years dragging her feet. She has pretended to be incompetent while her state sponsored broadcaster, the BBC, has slavishly relayed her laid down message:  'You idiot plebs have made a big mistake because you didn’t know what you were doing'.  We should reply to this by sending the police around to number ten to arrest May for treason. We haven’t been able to hang traitors since the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 so we’ll have to settle for life imprisonment. Take her away.

I suppose I agree with everything in Chris’ section three:  'Fooling all the People all the Time?'. They don’t fool all the people.  We know that all the main political parties, which sadly includes the Green Party led by Labour Party stooge Caroline Lucas, are in the conspiracy.  They think that British people are as witless as sheep and that they will accept anything.  It’s not true.  British people just lack leadership.  It’s a pity that the Green Party is unable to provide it.

Anonymous said: 'A bit of an oversimplification to say the least'.  Anonymous then goes off on one and starts talking about 'imaginary nation states' and racists.  Anonymous, please could you be more patronizing, condescending and insulting?   Your dismissive slap-down wasn’t offensive enough.

**********

Baffling Ballot Box Probe

Editorial Note:  IN May 2017, Northern Voice produced the piece of investigative journalism below in which we tried to shed light on the shady goings on in the Spotland and Falinge ward.  That was at a time when mysteriously a marked ballot register disappeared without adequate explanation.  Since then the voting irregularities of the new Councillor Faisal Rana has further damaged the image of Rochdale.

*******

In Rochdale, a lack of curiosity at the top?

Written up by Les May based on research by Carl Faulkner and Brian Bamford

THERESA May’s ostensible reason for calling a General Election is that her slender majority of 12 was an obstacle to passing the legislation needed to cope with the fallout from the UK leaving the EU.  The cynical amongst you might wonder if it was not also an opportunity to distract attention from the fact that criminal charges are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against at least 30 individuals in the Conservative party.  Some have been MPs in the 2015 parliament and contributing to Theresa’s slim majority, some will be candidates in this election and could be re-elected.   Electoral fraud isn’t just something that happens in other countries it happens here too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 

It’s not just the Tories who have played fast and loose with the rules on election expenditure.  In recent years Labour and the LibDems have both been fined by the Electoral Commission for breaking election expense rules.  What makes the Tory case different is that the CPS is investigating whether there is evidence that candidates and their agents may be guilty of filing false spending returns. If they are both could be charged with fraud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexandra-runswick/election-expenses_b_16146174.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

This type of fraud is easy to detect once you are alerted to what is happening.   There’s always a ‘paper trail’.  In fact a year ago as part of its ‘Check a Tory’ campaign the Daily Mirror put the election expenses of Tory MPs on line and invited readers to scrutinise them.  What’s much harder to detect is when a small group, with or without the tacit agreement of local party bosses, exploit weaknesses in the system to rig the ballot.  Having a system which ‘on paper’ is foolproof, is fallible if the people who are supposed to implement it fall down on the job.

In August 2015, the government put out a press release announcing that, ‘Sir Eric Pickles, the Government’s Anti-Corruption Champion’, was to review the question of electoral fraud.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud

A year later it was published.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-publishes-report-into-tackling-electoral-fraud 

So far so good.  But as I noted above any system is only as good as the people who implement it. This is what the Electoral Commission have to say about those people:

‘Local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Returning Officers (ROs) manage elections, and are uniquely placed to detect and prevent electoral fraud.  They should have robust plans in place to identify any suspicious behaviour and should work with the police to investigate any potential electoral fraud.’  (my emphasis)

But what actually happens when something ‘suspicious’ does occur.   Just how easy is it to get anyone to take notice?  Things seem to have changed in Rochdale since 2011 when ex-council leader Colin Lambert was outspoken about what needed to be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13192008 

Over a year ago Northern Voices was sent the extremely well documented correspondence between a candidate in the Spotland and Falinge ward at last years Rochdale Council elections, and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud.  It runs to some 22 pages.

At that election a 'marked register' went missing.   It should have been handed to the Returning Officer at the point at which the ballot box and other official documents were delivered by the Presiding Officer at the close of poll. It was either accidentally lost or deliberately stolen.  There can be no reason why one of these alternative explanations should be favoured over the other.   If we are to take the fight against electoral fraud seriously the ‘precautionary principle’ suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it should be assumed that it was stolen, the police should be informed to that effect and a full investigation launched.   It did not happen.

What is clear from this correspondence is that, in spite of Pickles bluster in The Telegraph:
'We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections', when a complaint is made, no one wants to shoulder the responsibility for making sure that a proper investigation is launched.  It seems that Pickles was right about one thing, ‘the authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud.’

Equally worrying is that the complainant, Carl Faulkner, who stood as an independent candidate, claims that he was not informed of the loss of the missing register as he should have been and that he was told ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register'.  Northern Voices made an effort to contact the other candidates to find out if and when they were told about the missing register.

Mick Coates, the Green candidate, was quite clear that he had not been officially informed that the mark register was missing.

Enquires with the Lib-Dems suggested that this was also the case with their candidate Matthew Allen, and Ian Duckworth, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, was unable to confirm that their candidate, Steven Scholes, had been informed either.

Wendy Cox the Labour candidate did not answer the question directly but said:  
'Thank you for your email. I have passed this to the electoral officer.'  

Quite why she felt she had to ask the electoral officer whether she had been informed, is unclear at this point.  A week later she was asked if there had been any response and replied suggesting that NV should contact the electoral officer directly.  On the 10th April the joint editor of NV wrote to the RMBC Chief Executive, Steve Rumbelow for clarification.

(His reply to the NV joint editor, Brian Bamford, is printed below together with the response of the original complainant, Carl Faulkner.  Copies of the full correspondence between the complainant and the various bodies which are supposed to deal with questions of electoral fraud can be made available by e-mail from Northern Voices.  It shows clearly that it was the complainant who initiated the contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police not RMBC.)

The possibility that the register was in fact stolen has been excluded from consideration a priori, even though at the time an exhaustive and unsuccessful search was made at the polling station, and even of people’s cars.   The consequence of deciding that a register was ‘definitely lost’ not ‘possibly stolen’ is that there is a convenient ‘fall guy’ in the form of whoever was in charge of that polling station. They are deemed to have ‘lost’ it and their reputation must suffer as a consequence.

In all this the one thing that is very clear is that whoever told the complainant that ‘all candidates were informed about the missing register' was telling a porky pie. And these are the people we have to trust when it comes to combating electoral fraud.  Robust plans to identify potential electoral fraud?   I think not.

*******

Dear Mr Bamford
Thank you for your recent enquiry.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.
To clarify, the marked register is the copy of the electoral register used in polling stations. It serves as the record of who has voted in the election, and it is kept for a year after the election. The marked register does not indicate who electors voted for, nor does it contain ballot paper numbers. 

Legislation provides that a variety of parties are eligible to access copies of the marked register after an election. Anyone can inspect the marked register, but only certain people can purchase a copy. 

This includes individual candidates and political party representatives.  Usually, copies are requested by and provided to party representatives who would then disseminate the information to their colleagues, including candidates. 

All those who requested copies of the marked registers were informed that a register had not been returned following the close of poll and the steps that had been taken in an attempt to locate it, both immediately after the close of poll and in the days following the election. 

In addition, the Council has been in contact with the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission and Police on the matter who were satisfied with the steps that had been taken and the measures put in place to prevent any future issues of a similar nature. 

Yours Sincerely
Steve Rumbelow

And here are Mr Faulkner’s observations:
1) Without him actually stating it, it is clear that people were only going to be informed if and when a copy of the register was requested. That is not the same as informing all candidates as a matter of course. It reiterates my position that there was a concerted attempt to conceal the incident by keeping quiet about it.

2) I feel he is attempting to downplay the importance of the marked register, by portraying it as nothing more than a post-election tool for political parties /candidates / interested persons.  This is not the case - it’s primary purpose is as an anti-fraud document - but one which can be utilised by political parties etc.

3) All contact with the police, Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission was initiated by me. They contacted RMBC - not the other way round as his response could be taken to mean.

4) What are the ‘steps’ put in place that did not exist before? The issue is not about how, who, why or exactly when the register went missing but that no candidates nor the police were informed at the time or during the following 21 days.

********

Claim that Burnley Council lacks serious intent!

GREEN COUNCILLOR FEWINGS MAKES APPEAL 

ON the 4th, May 2018, the news reporter Ciaran Duggan wrote in The Lancashire Telegraph:

'THE Green Party has been elected onto Burnley Council for the first time in its 28 year history. Members described the election result as "momentous" and "historic" after Green Party candidate Andrew Fewings was named the councillor for Trinity ward.'
It was also reported that   'He (Green Party Councillor Fewings) received 789 votes, nearly 500 more than the second placed Labour candidate and outgoing mayor Howard Baker' 

Below Councillor Fewings writes an appeal following last month's Burnley Council meeting:

'I have been working hard since being elected in May 2018 to get Green issues on the Agenda.

'At my council meeting on Wednesday 26 September, I left feeling that the Labour run council are not taking Fuel Poverty or empty properties seriously. They suggested leaving housing "to the market".

'Please help me to get the council to take this issue seriously and introduce energy efficiency standards for new homes by sharing and signing my petition on the Burnley council website. https://your.burnley.gov.uk/Petitions

'Apologies to those Local Party members who live outside the borough. Perhaps you could start a petition in your own council?'

Best wishes,

Cllr Andy Fewings

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Green Party

Protesting the Chop & Sheffield's Trees

Labour Council outsources tree felling to Amey / Ferrovial*

The outsource companies currently contracted to Sheffield City Council include:

• Amey manage the city's 'Streets Ahead' project including management of highways.
• Kier Sheffield maintains and repairs the social housing stock.**
• Veolia manages household waste disposal.
• Capita provides HR, payroll and IT services for council employees. ***

*       Amey, is a subsidiary of the massive Spanish company grupo Ferrovial
**     Kier is one of the seven companies that in 2015 admitted to blacklisting building workers.
***  Capita has been compared to Carillion, and its share price has plunged from around £11 to £2 in just two years and it dropped out of the FTSE 100 last March.

******

OVER 5,000 trees have been cut down in Sheffield since 2012, as part the city council's £2bn Streets Ahead project with the excuse of improving roads and footpaths in the city.

The council, which is planting sapling trees after removing existing mature ones, insists the trees earmarked for felling are either 'dangerous, dead, diseased, dying, damaging or discriminatory'.

Yet it seems many of the trees condemned by the council as 'damaging' or 'discriminatory' are healthy specimens which campaigners say should be saved.  They say that alterations should be made to surrounding pavements and roads instead.

Today an event 'Get Off Our Tree!' is being held at Sheffield City Hall.  Also playing are local artists The Everly Pregnant Brothers, lead singer of Reverend and the Makers, Jon McClure, and former Pulp drummer Nick Banks and the Compare is Jason Cocker , who was interviewed on Radio Four's 'Today' program.

These are just some of Sheffield’s tree protesters, members of local groups coordinated by the Sheffield Tree Action Groups (Stag), which are claiming that this is another example of local government gone wrong.  Stag have made it their mission to protect the trees from council-backed felling crews in what is often hailed, with more than a pinch of Yorkshire hyperbole, as Europe’s greenest city.

Labour Council's PFI Contract

The fellings are part of a 25-year, £2.2bn Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.  Signed in 2012 between the Labour-led council and a private company, Amey, the Streets Ahead programme is intended to upgrade 'the condition of our city’s roads, pavements, streetlights, bridges …'  –  no small feat in a place that was known as 'pothole city'.

The contract has serious implications for the city’s 36,000 roadside trees, which have in effect been privatised until the late 2030s. Amey, a subsidiary of the massive Spanish company Ferrovial, has so far removed around 5,350, including oaks, elms and limes. Alison Teal, a local Green party councillor, believes she knows why many were chosen:  'I can only assume that because it’s a 25-year contract, they’re felling mature trees because they are more expensive. They cause pavement and road disruption and a hell of a lot of leaves fall off them.'

Loose and wonky kerbstones and cracked pavements owing to tree roots are among the reasons given for the fellings.  But there is a belief among the Sheffield protesters that the 14 alternatives priced into Amey’s contract – from flexible paving to root pruning and pollarding – are being underused.

The council says it only resorts to removing trees if they are 'dangerous, dying, diseased, dead, damaging or discriminatory' (meaning that they damage pavements and potentially obstruct disabled residents).  Of the eight mature limes destroyed on Rustlings Road, however, the council’s own independent tree panel found that seven were in good condition with a good life expectancy.

The heavy redaction of the contract between Amey and Sheffield council doesn’t help clarify things.  With many details kept from the public in the name of 'commercial confidentiality', there is no way of verifying, for instance, the council’s warnings of “catastrophic financial consequences” if the fellings are delayed.  The gaps leave room for conjecture about why the PFI deal isn’t being called off, or its terms renegotiated.  Protesters think they have found legal reasons that would allow the council to annul the contract – a recent petition focuses on Amey’s alleged failure to disclose a 2011 health and safety conviction following the death of an employee.  A council spokesperson said it was aware of the death before the contract was awarded, but it failed to provide written evidence of that knowledge in response to Freedom of Information requests made by campaigners.

 Thatcherite Law Used by Labour Council

Many cite “the battle for Rustlings Road” as a turning point – following a pre-dawn raid and scenes that the former local MP Nick Clegg described as “something you’d expect in Putin’s Russia”, pensioners were arrested for peacefully protesting. Eight trees were chopped down.
It has been a long and gnarly road to today’s situation, with frustrations running high.  In 2016, arrests of peaceful protesters started under the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which criminalises anyone who persistently stops someone from carrying out lawful work – in this case, tree surgeons contracted by Amey.

'We have the harsh irony of Thatcherite anti-union law being used by a Labour council against its own citizens,' says Ian Rotherham, professor of environmental geography at Sheffield Hallam university.  'Only about 30 years on from Orgreave, our local councillors seem to not see the bitter twist in all this.'

We have the harsh irony of Thatcherite anti-union law being used by a Labour council against its own citizens.

None of those arrested have ever been prosecuted, however, with the Crown Prosecution Service saying there was insufficient evidence.  Then, last summer, the council brought an injunction against nine named protesters – including the Greens Alison Teal, and Brook, as well as 'persons unknown'.   It prohibits protesters from entering safety zones around condemned trees, or encouraging others to do so, either on social media or in person.

Labour's 'One Party State' !

In Ms. Teal’s opinion of local democracy is low – and no wonder, after a year in which the council on which she sits took her to court for breaking the injunction, only for the case to be thrown out.  'This is a one-party state,' she says. 'Sheffield has 84 councillors; 56 are Labour.  They can’t be outvoted.'  She mentions Nasima Akther, a Labour councillor who defied the whip to abstain on a vote about the fellings.  'For her courage she was suspended from the party.  It’s bullying and she subsequently resigned.'

******

Labour Councillor's call to fine beggars

A Labour Councillor has said the only way to tackle begging is to fine offenders.

The controversial comments follow Labour's Richard Leese, leader of Manchester Council, who described Christmas as 'peak begging season'.

In his blog post, the Labour giant urges people not to give beggars food, clothing or money saying that the cash will end up in an off-licence or in the hands of criminals, claiming the majority of begging is organised.

In a post titled 'Manchester's aggressive beggars should be fined', Rochdale Labour Councillor John Blundell said:  'The point here is: if the incentive is great enough people will do virtually anything. This is why aggressive begging is rife in our city centre. 

'There is only one way to solve this issue...crack down. Fine aggressive beggars and arrest them.'

The comments have been widely condemned by the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Greater Manchester Housing Action, who slammed Blundell's comments as 'encouraging indifference and fear.'

Former Manchester MP John Leech, who has campaigned extensively on affordable housing, said: 'Blundell’s comments are dehumanising, divisive and frankly just ignorant, only exposing his lack of knowledge and experience on the issue.

'The solution to begging, rough sleeping and homelessness isn’t fines, intimidation and social cleansing - the typical Labour way. It is fixing our broken housing system once and for all, ending luxury developments, guaranteeing genuinely affordable housing, getting people off the streets and preventing the initial causes.

'I will never understand why the Labour party seems to have such a problem with rough sleepers and homelessness - it’s just baffling.'

Recent disagreements over affordable housing, rough sleeping, begging and homelessness in Manchester town hall caused tensions to completely boil over, with Mayor Andy Burnham being forced to step in after Mr Leech accused the council of “social cleansing”.

His stinging attack came after the council approved the construction of more than 2,500 homes – not a single one of which they could guarantee would be affordable.

Earlier in 2016, Mr Leech hit out at the Council after they effectively evicted and tried to sue a group of homeless people who had pitched tents in the city centre.

Greater Manchester Housing Action responded to Blundell’s call for fines saying, 'The idea that homeless people are being driven to ask for change by a profit incentive is a distortion of reality.

'By seeing the street homeless population as individuals seeking economic opportunity, he is willfully ignoring the structural forces that have led to an explosion of street homelessness.

'Using language in this way obscures these wider systemic issues and feeds into the othering of homeless people, encouraging indifference and fear.'