Don't let Coop off the hook in Maidstone, action required

In March Coop were granted planning permission for a new convenience store on the Loose Road opposite Tesco Express where a car showroom had previously been.

Maidstone Borough Council imposed planning conditions and one of these was that at least 'one publicly accessible electric vehicle charging point' should be provided. This has become a common condition for even small developments to help improve Maidstone's sustainable transport and air quality.

Now Coop want this condition removed and their motive seems to be that they want an extra space for cars with polluting combustion engines. They attempt to justify it by saying that because it's a convenience store the average visit time will be less than 10 minutes which won't be enough to charge a car. Ionity are installing chargers that will take as little as 8 minutes.   

Please object to this application and hopefully we can stop these Luddites in their tracks!

You can read the applicants letter here, full details here and my objection here.

To object you can either by registering with the planning portal site or emailing planningcomments@midkent.gov.uk and quote reference 19/500388/FULL.

For KCC to target 2050 to cut emissions to net zero is at best like flipping a coin for our future

Yesterday Conservative Kent Country Councillors undermined a motion which made a genuine effort to help tackle global warming when they trebled the length of time in which action is to be taken.

In a debate on a motion brought to the council by KCC's sole Green councillor, which was supported by Lib Dems and Labour, a disagreement centred on the dates 2030 or 2050. UN scientists reported last year that there was a 50:50 chance of avoiding global warming of over 1.5 degrees if global emissions are reduced to net zero by 2050. (1.5 degrees is the amount of warming scientists and politicians have agreed would avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.) The Green, Lib Dem and Labour councillors supported reducing emissions which they have direct control of to zero by 2030 but Conservatives voted to amend this to 2050 claiming that this was the approach which science dictates. (scientific bases come from the IPCC and reported here)

These Conservative showed a complete disregard for both science and the political realities of climate change. Economically developed countries like ours have been built on the back of decades of pollution which have got us where we are both in economic terms and a climate crisis. Therefore it is only right that developed countries cut their emissions at a much greater pace than other countries who have historically polluted less. Even more poignant is that scientists have said that the 2050 target gives us a 50:50 chance of avoiding the most catastrophic effects of climate change. For KCC to target 2050 to cut emissions to net zero is at best like flipping a coin for our future but seems to me that they aren't genuine about doing their bit to tackle global warming.

We need to transform local politics

KM 16.05.19

For a long time local elections have had very low turnouts, it is common for there to be two or three times the number of non voters as voters. These numbers only improve when county, national or EU elections are held on the same day.

Our First Past the Post voting system doesn't help because many people's votes won't count. We should of course campaign for the introduction of a better voting system but we still need to achieve things within FPTP because life is too short!

We clearly can't carry on with the way things are. Either many of the people don't vote because they are happy with how everything is (which I find hard to believe!) or local political parties and activists need to radically change.

My letter in the KM:

Political activists have spent the last week theorising about what the recent local election results proved but these amateur generalisations are often very biased. For obvious reasons people from all political creeds like to point out where their own did well but within this humdrum what is often missed is that local politics is broken.

The average turnout was just 32% for MBC and although this is similar to many comparable elections it is appallingly low. While just two out of eighteen parish councils had enough candidates to contest an election which led to a former BNP & NF candidate becoming a parish councillor by default while in the Borough council election he came in 8th place our of 8 candidates with just 43 of the 1631 votes cast.

Local political parties and activists need to look at themselves and ask why so few people vote. It would be easy and lazy to blame non voters but rather than apathy I think many people despair at what they see.

What is needed is a complete transformation in our local politics.

Nike: 'turning rebellion into money'

We should of listened closer to the 90's Chumbawamba song That's How Grateful We Are when they said 'they're not concerned with what is to be learned, they sell 501s (Levi jeans) and think it's funny, turning rebellion into money. Can I kick it?'. We should of listened closer to Naomi Klein when she wrote in here book No Logo about brands. We should of listened to the Situationists like when Guy Debord wrote in The Society of the Spectacle 'dissatisfaction itself becomes a commodity' We should of listened but we didn't.

In 2016 Colin Kaepernick, a professional NFL player, refused to stand during the national anthem before American Football games. Protesting during a time of several high profile cases when US police shot young black men he said "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color to me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."
This was a bold protest that I am sure he knew could trigger negative repercussions to his career which it definitely appears to have happened. What Nike are doing with their Kaepernick advertising campaign is the opposite and while just as bold it deserves scorn not praise.

Companies like Nike aren't shoe makers they are brands, their advertising focuses almost exclusively on brand image and not the products they sell. Do you think the ad men at Nike sat in meetings discussing how they can best support Kaepernick and the values he believes in? I suspect the discussion was how it helps build their brand image and drive sales just like it has done. They would have discussed the inevitable backlash to the adverts; what it would say about their brand and how to use that to advertise more. The backlash and media frenzy has been a huge brand building exercise and there is nothing new or good about it because it is just the continued expansion of commodification and consumerism. These actions should be the end of Nike not the making of them.

Are Party members who don't vote Labour 'scabs'?

Since joining the Labour Party I have learnt a lot and my experiences from being actively involved has dramatically developed my thinking. The way 'activists' and 'The Party' should treat its own members is one of them.

The Rule Book is quite clear about members who lend their support to opposition forces:

'A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an
official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or supports any candidate who stands
against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against
a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member'

Which in theory makes indisputable sense because if you are a member of an organisation it is self defeating to vote in opposition to it and could be an indication you aren't truly supportive of it.
However UK voters and even Labour Party members don't live in the realms of theory but in the real world where things are often more complicated. I will set out a few examples of this below and although I don't necessarily agree with all of them they are at least valid points of view that many people have.

Tactical voting
The First Past the Post voting system has created a situation of safe seats and marginals where in reality overall election results are swung by a small numbers of votes. In many elections it is very hard to change your representative and often there is only one alternative way to vote that might do this. For this reason many people vote tactically like the estimated 6.5 million in the 2017 General Election. So if you are a Party member why is it any different? People don't want to waste their vote and would rather the 'lesser of two evils' if they can't see their favourite party winning.

Some candidates aren't very good
Ever political party has this same issue and it normally directly correlates with the size of the party in different areas. For example in an area where Labour dominate the Conservatives will likely have few members locally so it is harder to find good candidates and this is exacerbated when often a party will want to stand a candidate at every election.

Labour is a 'broad church'
Labour has always been a coalition of different ideologies and traditions so it includes a wide variety of people. This can mean a member can find their local candidate has some very differing views to them and even that another candidates views are more aligned with theirs.

Single issues
Some issues are so big that they become vitally important to an individual eg the EU, war, the environment and large planning applications etc. Sometimes party members might have the opposite view on such large issues while being in agreement with a different candidate. 

There are lots of counter arguments to the above reasons, which are applicable to all the larger UK parties, sometimes these debates need to be had however often such debates can come across in a very negative manner which is not very inspiring or persuasive. What I am more concerned about however is when a small minority of often vocal activists call members who are even fleetingly considering not voting Labour scabs, traitors and other insults or generally portray a hostile attitude, reach for the rule book and say they should be thrown out the party. Telling someone, even a party member, they HAVE to vote Labour is not persuasive but damaging. I have seen first hand how this puts off members and other voters who hear about it.

I am not necessarily suggesting Labour rules need to be changed only that if members aren't sure about voting Labour they are approached with respect, understanding and a positive argument as to why they should vote Labour. This attitude might change their mind where as a hostile one will only alienate them. This is something that doesn't only occasionally happen in the Labour Party but other political parties too.
Labour generally is a fantastic positive force for good and this is why people should vote for Labour.

UKIP are Cat-egorically wrong

Letter in KM 30.08.18:

'I recently picked up a leaflet from UKIP which includes a rather odd column from the 'UKIP cat'. Is he their latest leader perhaps?

The feline asserts that 'typical left-wingers' are good at admiring other people's cultures but not their own English culture, as someone that could be described as a 'left-winger' I don't have this trouble at all. In my opinion our culture is one of diversity and tolerance. Our country includes many cultures which have developed from many origins just as we have Cornish or Devonian Cream Tea and Indian or Nepalese Curry. Our many cultures make up our one society which embraces pluralism and it's many benefits.

UKIP reject this idea of multiculturalism and seek an 'Englishness' which never existed, except in elite groups or in rose tinted glasses, while often making certain groups scapegoats for our country's woes. For this reason we should continue to reject UKIP just as we have done in nearly every election.'

Maidstone needs to recycle more

KM 22.03.2018

I am passionate about the environment and believe we need to become a sustainable society as soon as practically possible.

Although it will only help bridge the gap to an extent, recycling will play a vital role in achieving this but in Maidstone the household recycling rate has stagnated at around 50% for the last year or two which is well behind many others in England. 

I was pleased when the Maidstone Labour Party agreed to set a target to achieve at least 75% by 2023.

My letter in the KM:

Recycling can have many benefits, including conserving natural resources, ecosystems and wildlife, protecting vulnerable people from being displaced or exploited, saving significant amounts of energy and reducing carbon emissions and the need for incineration. Maidstone Labour Party wants the town to achieve at least a 75% household-recycling rate by 2023 and go waste-free in the longer term. I believe that one of the ways in which this can be achieved is to work with residents to encourage community groups and businesses to provide more recycling facilities. These could be at no cost to themselves and help raise funds for charities. With the growing pressure on manufacturers to reduce excessive packaging, times are a-changing and we must push recycling further and faster, for the sake of both people and the environment.

Tim Licence

Labour's Prospective Maidstone High Street Ward Candidate

www.maidstone-labour.com