Party Time

The Green Party has one MP, two MEPs and 130 councilors on 43 councils across the UK. While not yet quite a mainstream party, membership has doubled in the last few years and is still growing steadily.

I've decided to volunteer one day a week for the Green Party's North West region; to gain experience in campaigning, media and general political policy. My first job will be to look at the regions university local groups, their current activities and what they need to expand.

Today I went to the regional meeting in Preston's County Hall- a very impressive building! I met with Emily Heath, their regional coordinator and a member of Lancaster City Council, to discuss what my volunteering might involve.

In the morning there was a choice of two workshops. I chose "Why Capitalism is destroying the planet", run by Joel Rasbash, a supporter of the Green Party in Carlisle and a very engaging speaker. Although I didn't know much about capitalism before the session was very interesting and informative. The workshop discussed the basic principles behind capitalism, it's historic relevance and the consequences for economics, society and the environment. Then the discussion was opened to the room and there was a 45 minute discussion of the key points. I didn't understand a lot of it but it was very interesting to see that the main points weren't environment based but social and economic concerns. It's easy to forget that the Green party isn't all about the environment. A lot of their policy is built around sustainable living, which involves renewable energy and recycling, but their policies stretch across all areas of governance.

The afternoon was taken up by reports from regional local groups, current campaigning updates and feedback from the Party conference which was help in Sheffield last month. I found the campaign updates particularly interesting. Currently the main concerns for the North West region are opposing the governments planned austerity cuts, disposal of nuclear waste, the national planning policy framework (which I talked about on Thursday) and Fracking-a very real concern for the region at the moment.

Planning Ahead

The biggest environmental news story in the past month has definitely been about planning. Way back in July the UK government  released a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which outlined proposed changes to planning policy. Since then environmental NGOs have repeatedly raised concerns over the new plans and over the last two weeks a row has broken out, mainly between the National Trust and the Government but other NGOs have been getting involved too.
So what is it all about?
First let look at what the changes actually say. The current system tells local authorities to oppose any development that damages sites of particular environmental or scientific importance. This includes sites protected by UK, European or international laws (e.g. SSSIs, protected species, protected habitat). The only way this sort of development can be approved is if the site isn't specifically protected under law already (if it is you really can't damage it) AND if the benefits of the development outweigh the negative impacts it will have. That seems like a pretty sensible system. You must prove that you won't damage the environment, and if you do the benefits are much much better than the damage.
The new NPPF now puts much more emphasis on the importance of economic growth. It says that local authorities should support developments "unless the adverse impacts of allowing the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits". Now this sounds quite similar to above, if the damage is greater than the benefits then you can't build, but it's more subtle than that. I read a good explanation on another blog, the difference between the old and the new policy is the difference between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent.
This is a HUGELY simplified version of the debate. There is lots of case-law, legislation and previous protection to be taken into account and how the policy will be used will vary from place to place so it's not simple. But the above seems to be the key issue people are fighting about.
Now, whose actually fighting and on which side?
On the Yes side: The Government (Bob Neil the minister for Communities and Local Government, George Osbourne, Eric Pickles and even David Cameron have all spoken on the issue) and some developers and business (although I can't find any specific names anywhere on the internet at the time of writing!)On the NO side: Environmental NGOs (The National Trust in particular as well as RSPB, Woodland Trust, Friends of the Earth, Buglife and others) and the lobbying group 38degrees.
This gives quite a clear image of whose fighting for which issue. Those saying yes are looking to improve the economy first and worry about environmental sustainability second. George Osbourne even said “No one should underestimate our determination to win this battle.” While the environment charities are doing what it's their job to do- raise awareness of possible threats to our ecosystems, wildlife and environment that doesn't have a voice of its own. And to be honest, the seem to be making their points a lot more calmly and rational than government.
Both environment NGOs and business are fighting for their specific interests, but surely government shouldn't be fighting. Government should be listening to all sides then deciding what's best for the country, both in the short and long term. Yes, that might mean arguing point out with people but not actively going out to fight specific groups.
This one blog doesn't contain enough information to draw conclusions about the new planning policy. If you want more information have a look at this, this, this and this. There are several campaigns and petitions you can sign if you want changes to the current proposals. You can find them here and here. Also there is the official government consultation website here. Get involved and have your say, either on this blog, oen of the petitions or the government site.