All posts by Jonathan Essex

Hope – it’s a political choice

What does it mean to embrace Hope whilst so many are clamouring to tell us what or who to hate? Standing up for what we believe in requires us to take sides and make choices.

Many of us want to change the way things are. The European Union is heavily lobbied by big business interests (just like Westminster politics!). This is centralising our economy in ways that entrench inequality and lock-in climate change. But at the same time the European Union is how we work together to agree setting stronger rules to protect our environment, act on climate change and strengthen workers’ rights across Europe. But which of these – the corporate interests or the international democracy – define how we see the EU?

The Brexit referendum was never just a simple choice, to stay in or to leave the EU. There was a lot of fake news trying to frame the EU for the changes in the UK that have deepened inequality, brought about by a succession of Westminster governments, as highlighted in yesterday’s UN report on extreme poverty and human rights in the UK. Instead of falsely blaming the EU and scapegoating migrants we need to change politics for the good. We won’t change politics for the better by playing the Brexit blame game, which serves the interests of rich elites and big business: key players in planning and financing the Brexit campaigns back in 2016.

And if we leave – to whom would we be gifting our hard-fought democracy? Big corporations and rich equally pour money into the main Westminster parties and they want their pound of flesh back. Housing developers have got their way, and truly affordable homes just aren’t being built. And it is the City of London, not the EU, that leads tax dodging, allowing money to be squirrelled off into tax havens around the world. Similarly, the drip, drip, privatisation of the NHS started with the internal market embraced by Tony Blair, before privatisation was accelerated and formalised under the Coalition government from 2010. And the UK parliament does not even have a written rulebook – so we currently rely on the Speaker, one John Bercow, to be the judge and jury. If you don’t like this ‘politics-as-usual’ there is an alternative to blame and hate, or turning off and tuning out. It is built around hope and collective action.

When Greens say we want a better future – we are not politicians promising this, promising that – we mean it. We are honest. And if enough of us want a better future, a real political landslide for the good, and we put our x where our heart is, we might just change the future.

Who you vote for is who you give to power to, trust and act on your behalf? Please don’t feed the anger or give up, leaving others to determine what happens instead. For me it is more than a choice between a Remain or Brexit but about what kind of future we believe is possible, and to put hope over hate. That is why I have voted Green today. Please join me.

Climate Conference Blog 4 – Towards a New Climate

I spent my final day in Katowice at the Towards a New Climate Conference, in a former coal mine shaft, now art gallery on the edge of town. 

The day kicked off with Bas Eichout, a green MEP arguing for action now, not a reliance on carbon capture technologies saying, “the more we wait, the more insecure we will be, betting on unknown t‎echnologies.” He predicted the COP would end in drama, on how ambitious technical changes and finance to support developing countries would be, with the big hole left by Trump’s pulling out. But he said that the hope we can take away is that we need a zero carbon economy, and that this can be achieved. 

The session I chaired focused on where the million jobs to transition to zero carbon in the UK would be, launching a report titled, ‘Unlocking the Job Potential  of Zero Carbon‘.

Peter Sims of Greenhouse Think Tank ‎explained how creating the jobs needed to deal with climate change would localise the economy and rebalance it across the UK, away from London. Transitioning our lives in terms of energy, a shift from a ‘single-use society’ to a circular economy, localising food and farming and transforming transport. Tommy Simpson of Green Foundation Ireland talked of the need to engage workers and trade unions with these real numbers, and ensure these jobs had decent pay and conditions. He said we needed a plan from the bottom up, like that created by the Lucas Aerospace workers back in 1976 (see short film about this
here). And he said that focusing on economic growth was not creating jobs – so we should focus on work and climate change together, which he called a Just Transition. Finally, Anja Siegesmund, Minister for the Environment in Thuringia, Germany spoke of how even where we have ditched coal already, there was still a long way to go. And that the politics of transformation must energise and lead to wide acceptance of the need for social change, which needs a planned approach to respond to the climate emergency.

And it is just that. The carbon clock shows we have just 9 years if we don’t drastically cut emissions before feedback loops make climate change dangerous and the consequences disastrous for the human race. 

The final session discussed the false hope presented by nuclear power, and how this is incompatible with dealing with climate change as it is risky, has only limited efficiency gains and investment in it would divert finance from renewables which are now cheaper so better value. After a presentation on the shocking impact of Uranium mining on the Navajo nation the US a French research group called Negawatt presented on how France could go zero carbon by cutting demand, improving efficiency and scaling up renewables alone. ‎
The close of the event reflected on the overall climate conference. Evelyne Huytebroeck contrasted how these annual conferences have changed since 2004: more civil society voices and much more positive atalthough still not enough) progress. and the nlack of a progressive voice nowf rom the EU, let alone the UK? Maybe that is because Europe and the UK are divided on the future we want, so focusing on telling the story of how can deal with environmental, climate and social justice issues together is not the number one thing on our minds. But that is the story we must tell. It must be our story. The story of our time.

Natalie Bennett then closed the event, talking of the role of lawyers in taking things forward. “Making laws is how we arrive at political consensus”, she said. And while the COP24 continues to strengthen the rules for our future this will never be enough – the role of cities, local actions, bottom-up networks must not just lead, but do so in ways that draw-up and energise, that inspire hope. And we must carry that hope, as that is what will take us to a better world.

Climate Conference Blog 3 – Is this really the way we will change the world?

‎This is surely the largest conference I have ever been too. The food court took over the ground floor of a sports arena. Registration requires a warehouse. And alongside the main events (which seemed to be a lot of statements by different government ministers from around the world)

there was a bewildering array of ‘important meetings’ in public, business-led programme, country sponsored events and charities and other non-governmental-organisations. And that is before counting all the “closed” meetings where I presume the real negotiations were actually taking place.

Yes it was interesting. How all the different countries choose to portray themselves. Including the British one which looked like a trade mission. And the one organised by lots of American organisations in place of the event being boycotted by the USA.

But does this represent enough real leadership – let alone action – to deal with climate change and inequality together?

I went to a session on climate finance which seemed to focus on words like ambition, monitoring, targets and frameworks. I questioned why two panel members, the EIB and EBRD, still choose to spend more on increasing the use of fossil fuels than on renewable energy. The answers talked about energy security, were positive but made no commitments. But its not good enough to just stop coal extraction (which is still a challenge) – we need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels by 10% a year and leave most in the ground. Claiming to do this whilst still investing in it was described by an earlier panel speaker as ‘trying to save the planet with one hand tied behind your back’. I would say if you in a hole, then stop digging. ‎

Then I heard a British scientist, Kevin Anderson speak about whether this series of annual climate conferences ‎is working – 28 years after negotiations started and global emissions have gone up a further two thirds.

I am not saying it is not useful to focus the mind, and have a good bit of networking. But, for example, why do British, French and German leaders not come here (yet? – or am I over hopeful?). It feels like this is still a side show, that might tweak our economic and lifestyle choices, but isn’t really tackling the scale of the problem. I guess you could argue that the British politicians, including Theresa May, have something on their minds. But you can’t use a referendum vote to blot out making series efforts on issues like climate change for 2 years… Either the climate changes everything – or it does not.

Last session of the day. ‎I attended a roundtable on shipping and climate change. This was supposed to an open discussion out of ‘silos’. The shipping companies and industry bodies started by predicting how much shipping would grow, and why LPG (liquified petroleum gas) and a 50% cut of carbon emissions by 2050 was really ambitious. And then the more radical EU (!) and a Transport and Environment NGO talked of how we should not waste time on gas, but focus straight away on electric – battery powered ships. No-one sought to mention that drastic carbon reductions in all other ways of living might lead to a reduced demand for global shipping… So the session still felt a bit like shipping discussing it’s future in its own silo, affecting and changing nothing beyond it.

10 hours. Time for a Piwo – that is a beer, and a plate of cabbage stew (which seemed very like a large bowl of stewed cabbage). And to reflect – maybe it was not the scale of the event but the dominance of self-interests – national interests, banker‎s investments, businesses and so on that irked me rather than lifted the spirit. And that the real debates were either hidden from view – or not obvious to the first-time visitor. Without transparency and accountability, can we deal with climate change? Or indeed ensure whatever deal we make is also fair for all?

Climate Conference Blog 2: From Poland’s coal history to oil producers blocking a better future

Today was a day-off in the climate conference, before the politicians join in the negotiations tomorrow.

We started the day seeing the message ‘combating climate change – Taiwan can help’ plastered on the side of a tram.

a tram took us to the Silesian Museum, on the site of a former coal mine shaft next to the main conference venue. In the entrance we were encouraged to ‘talk about garbage’ – a reminder of how relatively recently our ‘single use’ society has taken hold – with the first beer can made in 1935 and the first disposable nappies piled off the production line in 1961. This then showed how plastic bottles filled with water are being turned into lights in ‎shanty towns in the Philippines, and now around the world.

But the museum’s most impressive bit tells the story of how the history of Silesia (this area of Poland) is intertwined with the history of coal. ‎One aristocrat turned industrialist earned 25 million over a century ago (deutsch) marks – almost a million times his workers’ annual salary – and by 1910 was mining 36 million tonnes ‎of coal a year. ‎The exhibit ended by asking whether, after two centuries of industrialism we are entering a new era?

After eating Pierogi (Polish filled dumplings) we happened upon a climate service at Katowice’s cathedral, the largest in Poland. The Archbishop of Katowice ended his sermon with the words, “Let the face of the earth, the mother of us all, begin to change today in us and through us.”

But I don’t think the US and Russia, Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti delegates were listening. Late last (Saturday) night they agreed to block a deepening of the climate commitment to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels (the ambitious target which was presented at Paris climate conference 3 years ago). This follows the publishing a report, agreed with global censensus that this is what is required to limit dangerous climate change, and requires a radical shift in levels of action starting right now. That needs all countries to put aside their self-interests on what can make them ‘great again’ and instead do enough for the sake of all of us, together.

Climate Conference Blog 1. Redhill-Katowice

We arrived this morning in Katowice where the 24th ‘conference of the parties’ (annual international climate talks) is taking place. We are currently halfway through the fortnight of talks – the first week with officials in discussion between different countries before the politicians arrive for the second week.

The journey here took 22 hours from Redhill – a real reminder of just how big Europe is and how easy it is to take for granted the damage we do to the climate when travelling huge distances by plane. We arrived at 3am and then a half hour walk to check into our hostel after a nightbus from Vienna through the Czech Republic, after leaving Redhill just before 5am on Friday morning to take the Eurostar to Brussels and then two trains across Belgium, Germany and Austria.

After a few hour sleep I joined a group from Cafod (the Catholic relief agency) on the climate march in Katowice up until the venue where the climate talks are taking place.
There were lots of police ‎surrounding the march, dressed in riot gear with machine guns and CS gas. In walking back from the march I counted 20 police vans in rows, and was shocked to see a dual carriageway passing under the climate venue. It feels like transport’s impact, and perhaps oil companies that sit behind our ‘normal ‘ way of life is one of the biggest challenges that need international agreement – right down to personal actions across the world.
Ended the day drinking a local beer in a cafe in the evening. The local beer, Hajer even has a coal mine as part of its logo (see picture). This is a challenging place to hold an international conference where we need to agree to stop burning coal, let alone ending our global addiction to oil and gas too. 


Our Environment: Not an Optional Extra

The Environment

I strongly believe that environmental issues and social issues must be addressed together, as two sides of the same coin. Which means rethinking our politics (including making better, longer term decisions) and our economics (to make sure our economy delivers better quality of life for all, within environmental limits).

Climate change, air pollution and the countryside are not factored into policies about housing, industry, or for that matter trade and Brexit strategies.

The Green Party has challenged the other parties to take the environment seriously. Our key commitments are set out in our environment manifesto.

Neither public debt, nor Brexit should be used as excuses to delay or downgrade the importance of including environmental issues in our decision making today. Instead, they require different decisions and priorities. For example, we propose a better alternative to austerity that would start with creating a million green jobs to improve the vitality of our economy alongside protecting (instead of cutting) public services.

Living Locally – and Protecting our Green Belt

The Green Party has long been in the ‎forefront of campaigns to protect our countryside, as well as advocating a radical shift in transport and planning policy to encourage far more people to walk both for leisure and as a mode of travel. Yet with the current government in power we recognise that there is much still to do.

At present our Green Belt is under threat not because there is a housing crisis, but because developers and Government want to maximise profits in the one region of the country where land prices are high and where public investment continues to create infrastructure and jobs. Our housing crisis could disappear if people really believed other regions have a strong prosperous future. If people could become confident in investing and living away from the south east the situation could be changed and the sacrifice of our landscape and ecology and our public health could be unnecessary. At present the Government is planning for a further 3.5 million people in Greater London over the next 25 years. We need to implement a green plan to rebalance the national economy if other places are given the chance to compete and grow.

The local consequences of not having a national plan are already being felt. For example, here in Surrey, cuts in government funding have meant spending on rights of way was cut from £300,000 to £100,000 this year. This is barely enough for the summer vegetation clearance from paths alone. Meanwhile, the coalition government’s National Planning Policy Framework has led to a quadrupling of building on the Green Belt.

We need move things in a positive direction instead. Investment in low traffic neighbourhoods and safe, convenient networks of routes for walking and cycling would be a good start.

I believe that Surrey residents want to be able to enjoy a healthy environment and an affordable place to live – not be forced to choose between these things. Which is why we are calling for better protection of the Green Belt, National Parks, SSSIs and our AONB. And we also need an Environmental Protection Act to sustain environmental safeguards in the face of Brexit and improve our food and farming systems.

Thinking Globally – needs a Different Political Climate

The issue of climate change has for so long has been a policy discussion, not resulting in sufficient action by politicians.

For example, the idea that we can expand Heathrow Airport, generating an additional 22 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, and stay within a carbon budget that requires huge reductions in emissions by 2050 is creative accounting. The Green Party’s position on this is clear – we can’t expand Heathrow or Gatwick as either would accelerate climate change.

We must bridge the chasm between political promises and current economic priorities. We have taken big steps backwards in the UK in the last few years – cancelling programmes to insulate housing, eliminating the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’, which committed all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016, and then Vince Cable introducing tax incentives which led the dash towards the extraction of unconventional oil and gas through fracking and similar processes. We’ve seen this – locally at Horse Hill, Brockham and Leith Hill. Our government is moving us in the wrong direction.

To prevent the worst impacts of climate change, as predicted by the vast majority of climate scientists, we need to move at least twice as fast, reducing fossil fuel emissions to zero by 2030. And this means not just focusing on direct energy use (in transport, heating, electricity) but the carbon ’embedded’ in our imports –which accounts for around half our impact on the climate. I have written an idea of what such a transition to a more caring, stronger local British economy might look like here, in a report I wrote for the Green House think tank.

And it requires some new hope injected into our politics and economics, before Trump’s plan to exclude the USA from the Paris climate agreement raised the stakes yet further.

Beyond Climate Change

But the global environmental challenge is not just about acting on climate change is not the only environmental challenge – that ‘just’ sets some limits of how different the future might be, and how quickly we must act. We also need to stop disposing of plastic, which is that is getting into the food-chain and swirling around in the middle of our oceans and getting into the food-chain. And we need to care for our environment so it can retain and improve soils (not degrading degrade it them with chemical dependant farming) so we can feed ourselves sustainably into the future. Also, we must start to revalue not just the rural economy (beyond farming to how we manage natural resources more widely), and countryside, but land, on which everything ultimately depends.

We need to stand up for protecting animals from – not just those threatened with extinction that is important, but protecting animals full stop. Only the Greens are prepared to take on big business by opposing all forms of factory farming, and working for the full replacement of animals used in research and testing. As well as resisting any attempt to weaken laws on animal welfare or environmental protection, we have set out seven key pledges on animal welfare to reflect how we must not just better care for each other, but animals too.

Finally, standing up for the environment means protecting nature, for its own sake – from the Spring-watch excitement of seeing blue tits leaving the nest for the first time (which I did this morning at home in my garden!) or the wonder of wilderness. We need to leave space for wildlife, too which means we must stop over-exploiting nature. And have better protection of our nature hotspots and wild spaces (including opposing Reigate & Banstead Borough Council’s plan to possibly build homes on a nature reserve off Cockshott Hill in Reigate and into the Biodiversity Opportunity Area and Nutfield marshes east of Redhill, a network of varied wildlife habitats which is a major focus for environmental improvement by the Surrey Wildlife Trust, east of Redhill that are restoring to create an important wildlife corridor.

I hope you share my passion that it is this issue – how we value the environment, alongside inequality and how we value each other – which must define our politics, as together they will define the future we create for ourselves.

I might not win, but I am standing because I want to change politics for the better. And then means a joined-up plan for how we can make quality-of-life better for everyone, while respecting environmental limits. Which It needs a lot of hope, and a bold, clear vision too.

Please support and, if you share my passion and believe this too, then why not join us.

A Better Plan for our Railways in Reigate: Take Back Control of Southern, Fair Fares and Invest Locally

As a regular member of the Reigate, Redhill and District Rail User Association (RRDUA) and commuter I am passionate about how we can improve train services in Redhill, Reigate and our local stations. I think there is (still) much to do, and a clear role for government to make it better. This should include:

  • Take Back Control of Southern (just like the London Mayor holds TfL to account) and taking failing franchises back in-house (including Southern)
  • Bringing in Fairer Fares with the new 2018 timetable (which could still be better) – and 3-day a week season tickets on Oyster; and
  • Working closer with Network Rail to secure longer term plans including a flyover for the Redhill line at Stoats nest to speed up our London journey, a pedestrian footbridge at Redhill and electrification of the North Down’s Line

Government Failed to Stand up to Southern, so in the Delay it was we who Paid out

I understand, totally, the hard last few years we have had commuting to London. Our constituency has been hit hardest by the works at London Bridge (as Redhill is on the ‘slow-line’ to Brighton, so has been hit more than services into London than those on the ‘fast line’). And has been hit again by the RMT and ASLEF disputes. But the government response has been inadequate.

In London it is the Mayor of London that holds Transport for London (TfL) to account. However, here, out of London we need the UK government, that is Ministers overseeing the Department of Transport, to hold our train companies to account. This has plainly not happened. The Conservatives have let the rail dispute continue with Southern (who as a ‘managing agent’ had no financial incentive to end the strike). The costs of the strike, including the £50m delay-repay bill which covers only a fraction of the financial impact to commuters, was picked up by government and repaid by us, the taxpayer. Unacceptable. We need a government that is prepared to step in and help resolve disputes not wash its hands and leave a company, in this case Southern Rail, failing to act.

When Rail Company Franchises Fail then take them in-house.

The Green Party position is to bring the rail franchises back into public ownership. When the East Coast Mainline franchise failed it was taken over by the state where it was more profitable. It was then privatised. Instead of a system where the company makes risk-free money and then passes on financial impacts (like the recent strike) to the government, this public good should be run publicly. This would enable the government to stop the annual above-inflation hike in rail prices, so our cost to commute is similar to that in Europe.

Bring in Fairer Fares with the new 2018 timetable – and 3-day a week season tickets

Which brings me on to fairs. Simply speaking we pay to much in this constituency – more per mile than commuters nearer London, further to the coast, to the East and to the West. We are in centre of the biggest timetable re-organisation to be brought in following the 10 day shutdown this next Christmas and New Year. This should be the time to rationalise fares, and make good the promise from the 2015 general election’s Fair Fares campaign. It is not right that the fairs from Redhill are more expensive than East Grinstead, and in some cases it is still cheaper to get a train ticket from Gatwick when I travel to London from Earlswood. So, we must fight for:

  • The Oyster option to be cheaper than the ticket option (in some cases it is still more expensive).
  • The Oyster zone to be extended to Reigate (by TfL), and
  • Now we have electronic tickets have a 3-day-a-week or 4-day-a-week season ticket option for those who partly work from home, or part-time, such as back-to-work mums.

Finally, as MP I would seek regular meetings with Network Rail. The state of Redhill station could be better. Regardless of future development plans more bike racks could be extended along the bank, the pigeon netting finally complete and why not have a tour or a display of the new platform zero plans. And in terms of improvements there are three further things that should be prioritisied:

  • A flyover at Stoats Nest invested in the next investment period, to secure more fast services from the Redhill line to London in future.
  • A pedestrian – platform level bridge – from Redhill station to the Bus Station as this would massively help rush-hour congestion around Redhill. The recent changes to traffic around the station were government funded – but missed an opportunity.
  • Electrify the North Downs Line (which should also be part of the government’s plan to tackle air pollution) and investigate how we can improve the services between Redhill and both Tonbridge and Reading (perhaps a new Tonbridge to Reading route).These longer-term plans they should be planned now, not just routes to/from London like Thameslink and Cross Rail.But the priorities for now still remain – stand up to Southern and bring failing franchises into public ownership, and secure a deal to bring in fair fares for our Redhill, Reigate and our other stations). There is no excuse – we should be making public transport more affordable, and the 2018 timetable is a perfect opportunity to do this. Now let’s make it happen.

Provide the truly-affordable homes we need to address the fastest rising cause of homelessness

We all need a place called home – which is why making that affordable for all sits at the heart of the Green Party’s election manifesto. Our key policies require government intervention – to ensure we have a national target for affordable housing, to introduce private rent controls to better regulate this sector, and to protect the Green Belt. How would this play out here in Surrey?

Here in Reigate we know there is a problem with average house prices already 14 times average earnings in 2016. This crisis in housing affordability (crucially also for rent) will not be addressed by simply building more homes – it needs us to focus on affordable home provision together with a range of other measures, which are set out in the Green Party’s manifesto – in sharp contrast to the government’s failure to provide a clear plan to sort out housing – for a long time.

Much of the problem sits with central government. Here is a flavour of what our MP has supported in government since 2010:

  1. A massive reduction in government support for providing affordable homes, which in 2010 fell from £100,000 to around £16,000 per home provided here by Raven housing.
  2. This led to the redefining what is ‘affordable to rent’ from 50% of market rent to up to 80% of market rent – in one fail swoop making new social housing up to 60% more expensive in 2011. The result is that in the last few years much of the so-called ‘affordable housing’ has become completely unaffordable to many; and then
  3. The ‘viability test’ which gives developer’s an ‘opt out’ to provide any affordable housing or other local social or environmental standards. Now the ability of developer’s to make 20%+ profits trumps any obligation to do what is needed locally. This vicious new policy is part of the Coalition’s National Planning Policy Framework, voted through despite vocal opposition, including from Green councillors here in Redhill. [Note: this weakening of planning policy, led by Conservative MPs, has also led to a four-fold increase in building on the Green Belt]

This is reflected in our poor record in providing affordable homes locally in recent planning decisions. For example, the failure to even provide the minimum amount of affordability on a number of large developments in the centre of Redhill – the station redevelopment, Liquid and Envy, the council’s own development of Marketfield Way and Cromwell Road and the new flats above KFC in Redhill. The Town and Country Planning Association recently highlighted that we are not alone – government needs to make better planning policy nationally to sort this out.

The knock on effect of rising ‘affordable’ home prices is spiralling private rent costs, which are increasing homelessness as well as the number of people stuck in half-way housing, unable to afford to move on into a new home locally. This totalled 141 families in Reigate and Banstead in December 2016: 116 in temporary accomodation and around 25 families in Bed & Breakfast accomodation (see p41 of budget evidence).

The housing and welfare policies of government since 2010 have created a huge increase in homelessness and rough sleeping. To address homelessness requires an integrated approach which must include a rebalancing of the housing market, focused on providing truly affordable homes, and a reversal of the cuts to public health, including here in Surrey which helps tackle alcohol and drug misuse and sexual health and welfare, helping to address some of the other underlying causes of homelessness. The Green Party policies include a number of ways to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. This includes investing in ‘Housing First’ initiatives, where homeless people with complex needs are moved into a home first instead of expecting them to recover on the streets. We must also reverse damaging cuts to welfare, such as the bedroom tax and the removal of housing benefit to under-21s.

And action is also needed locally, Here on Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, my Green Councillor colleague Steve McKenna put forward a council motion – which was partially accepted by the Conservative council – for a guarantee that the council will treat its affordable housing policy as a minimum standard, and apply it to all public sites. But these targeted measures will not be sufficient unless they sit alongside a clear and well thought out restructuring of UK housing policy and funding:

– Firstly we need to have not so much a general ‘housebuilding target’ but a target for truly affordable homes. This is why the Green’s housing target is to build 100,000 council homes (homes for affordable rent) every year by 2022. Individuals and families are currently locked into living in hostels or having to move across the country because of the lack of council housing. This in turn means that people on the streets cannot get into hostels.

– Secondly, we need to reform renting – for as long as there is a lack of truly affordable social housing places then the biggest cause of homelessness in the UK is the loss of a private rented tenancy. This is reflected here in Reigate and Banstead, where the end of tenancy (including to introduce a hike in rent prices) is the main factor responsible for the rise in those made homeless. We would tackle this by giving tenants protection from no-fault evictions and rent controls to keep their home affordable.

– Finally, this needs a stronger planning framework. As noted above the Conservative/LibDem government’s reduction of 10,000 pages of planning policy to 52 pages in 2012 and redefinition of affordable as 80% rather than 50% of market rent might sound technical but this frames the problems we have today. The former allows the housing market to support 20% developer profit (as a minimum) before providing any affordable homes and the latter made new so-called affordable homes 60% more expensive overnight and has led to a continual spiralling in housing sale and rent costs. This has devastated living standards for those in private rent more than the last decade of stalled wages for many.

The government has repeatedly made bold promises and then failed to deliver positive changes to UK housing. And while the recent Homelessness Reduction Act will extend from just helping those with a ‘priority need’ to all those made homeless we still need to deal with the root causes – reduced public health provision and a lack of truly affordable homes. Addressing homelessness in the long-term must start with provision of affordable homes, as a right for all – but also requires the integrated social safety net, including public health care, and a commitment to provide these homes on brownfield not countryside and Green Belt sites. It is possible. But changes nationally are crucial if we are to make this happen locally.

A Better Plan for Schools starts by reversing the Funding Cuts

I am shocked that this government thinks that it can cut school’s annual (mainly teaching) budgets without this having an impact. With average class sizes already above 30 in many schools this will have a significant impact. The way to reverse this is not the Conservative promise to end free school dinners for all, while forgetting about the impact of academies on budgets. And The IFS has today exposed that this unfair idea would still lead a to 3% a year cut by 2021.

I highlighted this school funding crisis in my recent campaign to be re-elected onto Surrey County Council. The full extent of the government’s cuts to Reigate constituency schools are highlighted in the table here.  

This is unacceptable. I admire the excellent work done by teachers and other school staff under the current difficult conditions. I believe it is truly shocking that the Conservative Party is cutting funding for schools, with many schools now reducing teaching staff as well as cutting back on basic equipment. I understand that through speaking to a governor of one local primary school that around 90% of the school budget goes on staff – so cutting budgets will surely have a knock on effect, estimated at over 100 less teachers across the Reigate constituency.

 Our civilised society should value education as a public good and invests in it accordingly. Failure to do so is not only dereliction of duty towards individual children, whose opportunities to learn and thrive are greatly reduced; it is also extremely short-sighted, as the UK relies upon a well-educated population for its workforce and its global reputation – and for us to create a different and better future for the UK, and worldwide education is absolutely central.

We need to reverse both the government school budget cuts and academisation that are squeezing our school’s operations and leading to teaching posts being cut and class sizes going up across the UK.

In addtion, the shift to schools to academies is exacerbating this issue – as the additional cost of running the academy chains itself also draws money away, leaving less for teaching.

This means schools budgets are not just being squeezed by the government – but by the need to support academy chains. So schools budgets are in a double squeeze.

The Green Party’s position on this is clear. We must reverse both of these pressures on school budgets – and get better schools for all as a result.

  • Firstly, we must ensure that real terms spending on schools increases and is protected; which will reduce class sizes, with a long-term goal of 20 per class at both primary and secondary level.
  • Equally, we commit to return all schools to local authority control, ending the disastrous experiment with free schools and academies, which has fragmented the school system and directed money to where it is least needed while failing to improve children’s education.

Reversing this requires strong political campaigning to be brought, for which I am happy to act on your behalf.

Three Alternatives to a “Dementia Tax”

I have been trained as a Surrey County Councillor in dementia awareness and pledged to be a Dementia Friend. What would that mean if I were elected as MP?

I don’t accept that the best way to do this is Theresa May’s approach – to cut funding to local councils (who pay for social care) by £5.7 billion and instead increase the burden that will be paid by individuals through their £100,000 home “dementia tax” cap.

By loading the burden of responsibility on individuals – and particularly in Surrey with its high house prices – this is likely to increase stress and anxiety for elderly people. Totally unacceptable. Instead of worsening the current ‘care lottery’. where those with the greatest care needs have such a tax imposed on them, and risk a lack of dignity in older age, we need to fund social care equitably across society. So what might this response look like for dementia?

Firstly, we must reverse the cuts to the social care and NHS budgets have led to a crisis in care in the UK. As a county councillor I campaigned against the closure of Surrey’s last residential care homes –and raised this in council meetings. I have had residents and care workers highlight poor standards in some care homes. One care worker pointed out to me that there are minimum care ratios for residential care homes in Northern Ireland, yet funding pressures in England are increasingly putting patients at risk. Academics around the world have shown that minimum staffing levels save lives. Yet the standard of some care homes in Surrey is, in my view, not good enough (consider, for example, Merok Park in Banstead. This in itself needs a public inquiry to undercover the true extent of care home problems.

Secondly, I am concerned that the causes of dementia are rarely discussed, such as the increasing link between air pollution and dementia. While many have highlighted how air pollution leads to 40,000 early deaths in the UK each year there has been far less focus on what the health impacts are. Increasingly, research is linking air pollution to issues like dementia. So, the government should act – not just because it is in breach of minimum standards on air pollution, but because the health impacts – and costs – are huge.

Finally, I think dementia needs a new approach. I want to end on a positive note by highlighting the work of a good friend of mine, Brigitta. She is a Swiss nun who teaches social workers how to care for those with dementia. Her story is this – that you forget how to do tasks before you forget how to love. That a hand massage can reach those who no longer remember facts or names. This message is highlighted in the work of the many caring people who see people with dementia as people first, and seek to find the things they can still do and enjoy. The best care homes already do this of course – as in the example of the young care worker who helped a 93-year old musician reunite with his band.

I will definitely continue to do what I can to support those with dementia in my community – whether I’m elected to parliament or not. But if I’m elected would wish to take this further, and highlight how the lives of people with dementia locally, and their families and friends, is already impacted by the proposed Conservative changes, and that to stand up for those with dementia and their relatives a sea-change in how dementia is addressed is required.