Cllr. Gavin Ayling

What does it mean to be green? Can you be green and drive a car? Can you be greener than you already are?

The Congestion Charge in London is supposedly a tax on congestion but there are concessions for those driving green cars. Will these concessions disappear, or even the tax, when all cars are green? Will the car driver remain the political left’s enemy? Is the pollution caused by cars really the thing that makes the political left hate the car?

The Carbon Neutral Company says that I need to plant one tree per year to counteract the pollution caused by my commute to work. I planted a tree on Sunday and will buy a tree from the company next year.

There are so many things that can be done to be green and so many things that actually save you time and money at the same time. If you use energy saving light bulbs, for example, you will save yourself trips to the shop to buy new bulbs as well as the more obvious electricity savings. If you compost your fruit and vegetable waste you will reduce the amount of waste you produce and the amount of weight that the dustcart must transport away.

I wonder how many people who consider the car an evil actually do all they can to be green? There are two categories of car-complainer, those that hate the car and everything it stands for (Ken Livingstone once said that if he could ban cars completely he would); and those that think we should use our cars only when necessary. I have sympathy with the latter - of course we should restrict our use where possible if our car is not green.

Do the car-haters, for example, turn off lights when leaving a room? Do they use A rated kitchen appliances? Do they run their heating when it is not necessary? Do they have thermostats on the separate radiators? And, most importantly, do they recycle everything that they can?

I am sure the answer to most of those questions is yes, but those that hate cars for non-environmental reasons should check their own lifestyles before trying to tell people not to use their vehicle. I wrote to the Evening Argus in Brighton a year or so ago when parking charges were introduced pointing out that car use is not always more expensive (as the bus companies would have you believe) - time is money (to use an overused cliche)…

Given all the other examples listed above, especially energy saving appliances and composting, the financial false economy of car-hatred seems at odds with the genuine savings that can be made in favour of our environment.

Brighton & Hove and London are easily navigable by public transport, but what of those living or travelling to places not served by the mass transit options? What also, of the cost? For an individual, a car is more expensive - I accept that - but what if you are transporting a family or a group of adults? Maybe those making policy dissuading us from using the only viable method of transport (for many) should look at the alternatives for someone living outside of a city.

And finally, a thought. The government taxes petrol and diesel used as fuel at an extraordinary rate. The average petrol tank would pay approximately £30 to Gordon Brown for each refill… And yet to be carbon neutral costs only £30 per year from the Carbon Neutral Company - what is Gordon doing with my money? Is he, for example, funding development of a green vehicle? Is he looking at ways of tackling, in a real way, the disadvantages typical of public transport (inflexibility of time and location)? I have to say, I doubt it. The rate of tax has been similar for a long time (I haven’t checked for how long, but it is for at least as long as I can remember) and no progress has been made on this at all.

For the environment, the car is not the enemy. For the political left, the car epitomises individual freedom from the state’s control. The government must look at ways of mitigating the affects of cars on the environment, not at making life more expensive for individuals in the vain hope of acheiving a political aim. Taxing cars to the extreme will inevitably lead to the poorer in society not being able to afford to live comfortably, not to a greener England.

On the environment, there is unequivocal evidence that the world is heating up. Bush’s apologists are not representative of scientists. But whether this is because of human activity alone, has not been proven. I don’t think this is a reason to ignore the environment - I go to great lengths to be green (aside from the car) - but it must be taken into account. We must also recognise that there are costs to focussing on the environment - money will be spent on Kyoto compliance that could be better spent on improving the lot of society - it is a balance that we must achieve.

[Technorati: Environment, Green, Politics, Socialism, Science]

David Davis is mentioned in the Scotsman:

In marked contrast to the policy-lite Cameron, he has concrete plans already. Davis believes Holyrood should use the tartan tax to cut income tax by 3%, even if that means Scots got a better deal than the English.

This site is listed on Bloggers for Cameron

[Technorati: En glish Parliament, David Davis, David Cameron, England, Tory, Conservative]

With due thanks to Little Man in a Toque:

create your own visited countries map

It appears my travelling has been very euro-centric - I need to get out of the EU and US on my next trip!

Anyone who hasn’t tried Google Maps, do now!

Anyway, Blogwise have made a similar one which shows where blogs are in relation to one another - great!

This is an interesting question: BBC Action Network.

I’m sure the answer is “No”. Does anyone know for sure?

The following is an e-mail sent by the South East’s key Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan. I agree with the whole of this e-mail and I strongly suggest you read this whether you are already eurosceptic or yet to understand its institutions:

An occasional euro-briefing from Daniel Hannan MEP.

This is an edited version of Daniel’s column in today’s Daily Telegraph.

Today, Norwegian King will take his leave of the British Queen. Both are monarchs, but only one is sovereign. The word “sovereignty” is often used nowadays as a loose synonym for power, but it has an exact meaning. In Norway, the 1814 constitution vests supreme legal authority in the Crown. In Britain, the 1972 European Communities Act shares sovereignty with the EU which now accounts—depending on how you measure it—for between 50 and 80 per cent of our laws.

Sovereignty evidently suits the Norwegians. They are the richest people in Europe, with a GDP per head of £31,200 as against an EU average of £12,600. According to the UN, which measures infant mortality, literacy rates and so on, they are the healthiest and happiest people in the world.

We are forever being told that Britain is too small to survive on its own: a post-imperial state, a speck of land on Europe’s fringe, blah blah. This is bilge, of course: we are the world’s fourth largest economy and fourth military power. But it is instructive to consider the situation of a country that really is small, and really is on Europe’s fringe.

There are four-and-a-half million Norwegians, clinging to an icy strip of tundra on the uttermost edge of the continent. Yet, on every measure, they are outperforming their continental neighbours. At a time when France and Germany are struggling to comply with the Stability Pact, Norway is running an annual surplus of seven per cent. Its unemployment is less than half the EU’s. Its real interest rates are comfortably below those in the Euro-zone. Its inflation is low, its trade booming, its stock exchange soaring.

A people two generations away from subsistence farming have become Europe’s new elite. Like blue-eyed sheiks, they buy vast houses in Chelsea which lie empty between their occasional visits to London (Norwegians, in the main, being tremendous Anglophiles).

How have they done it? Much of the answer has to do with the deal they struck with Brussels. Norway is not in the EU, but the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It participates fully in the so-called Four Freedoms of the EU’s single market—free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital. But it is outside the Common Agricultural Policy; it controls its own territorial resources, including energy and fisheries; it decides its own human rights questions; it determines who may settle on its territory; it is able to negotiate trade accords with third countries, and it makes only a token contribution to the EU budget.

At this stage, my Euro-phile friends protest that we are nothing like Norway. “Look at all the fish they have”, they say. Indeed. Look at all the fish we would have, but for the Common Fisheries Policy. “Look at their oil”, my friends go on. Well, Britain is the EU’s only net exporter of oil. In any case, Norway’s extraordinary economic statistics are unrelated to its oil wealth: for the past 14 years, Norwegians have been stashing away their oil surpluses in the “Petroleum Fund”, which now contains nearly £100 billion, just in case a future government should face unexpected liabilities.

“But what about trade?” protest the Euro-sophists. “If we weren’t part of the EU, we’d have no clout”. In fact, Norway benefits from all the preferential trade deals that the EU has signed with third countries. The difference is that, where it feels the EU is being unduly protectionist, it can go further. It has, for example, signed a free trade accord with Singapore, and is negotiating others with South Africa, Taiwan and South Korea.

“Alright then, what about our trade with the EU?” comes the rejoinder. “Surely that depends on our membership”. Brace yourself for an astonishing fact. Every EFTA country exports more, proportionately, to the EU than we do. Norway sells twice as much per head to the EU from outside as does Britain from inside. The EU accounts for 73 per cent of their exports, 52 per cent of ours. Oh, and their trade is in surplus, whereas we have run a trade deficit with the EU, over 33 years of membership, of some £30 million per day.

Norwegians must meet EU standards when they sell to the EU—as exporters the world over must do. But they are spared the expense of having to apply most of these regulations to their domestic commerce. You will sometimes hear that Norway has to assimilate thousands of EU laws, but these laws are generally of a technical and trivial nature. The 3,000 EU legal acts adopted in Norway since 1992 have required only 50 statutes in the Storting. And the people who make such a fuss of these 3,000 regulations neglect to mention the 24,000 that Britain has had to incorporate over the same period.

Then comes the last-ditch argument. “Norway may be content to be a tiny country, but we could never abandon our global role”. At the risk of stating the obvious, nations are generally more influential if they have a foreign policy in the first place. Norwegian diplomats are playing the key role in, among other places, Sudan, Israel, Sri Lanka and South East Asia. Being outside the EU, Norway can use trade and aid as instruments of diplomacy. Britain contracted out the whole shebang to Brussels in 1973.

Would the EU offer Britain as favourable deal as Norway? No: our terms would be better. This is partly because we are an existing member, with commensurate leverage, but mainly because of the trade balance. Since we joined, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. It is not normal, in any transaction, for the salesman to have the upper hand over the customer.

It is just conceivable, of course, that our ex-partners would so resent us that they would seek to limit this commerce, cutting off their noses to spite their faces. I don’t believe this: our neighbours are, for the most part, long standing allies of Britain whose interests in any negotiations would be the same as ours, namely to maximise prosperity. But if I am wrong, and they really are that vindictive, what on Earth are we doing with them?

We must leave the EU.

[Technorati: EU, European Union, Europe]

I am sure you know my feelings on Israel and Palestine.

Coupled with this, however, I am troubled by the death of bystanders in Israel’s targeted strikes. Surely with Israel’s military dominance they could have extracted their targets without the risks involved with rocket attacks for those nearby?

BBC News

[Technorati: Israel, Islam, Muslim]

Discussions about the proposed smoking ban would have been amusing were it not for the seriousness of the lack of democracy involved in the decision. Personally, I am torn between worrying about civil liberties (both of smokers and those who work in their fumes) and my personal preference for a smoke-free evening…

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are having their Parliaments and Assemblies make the decision about bans on smoking. The English, meanwhile, must rely on BRITAIN’S MPs to make the decision. The British Parliament includes Scottish and Welsh MPs who have no electorate to answer to on issues that relate to England only. John Reid, particularly, has been implicated in having a serious involvement in the eventual decision. Reid represents a Scottish Constituency.

The English must be offered a Parliament to correct this democratic deficit - a deficit which has no parallel in the free world.

[Technorati: En glish Parliament, Smoking, England]

Brighton get permission for the new Falmer stadium: BBC News

On Friday (21 October) I wrote to the two candidates with e-mails similar to the following:

Dear Mr Cameron

Congratulations on making it to the last two.

As a Conservative member I am to choose between yourself and David Davis. I wonder, with that in mind, if you could answer a couple of questions:

1) Will you consider proposing that the English are consulted about devolution?
2) Will you denounce positive discrimination?
3) Could you countenance compulsion in pension savings?

Yours sincerely
Gavin Ayling

I am yet to receive a reply from David Davis and, frankly, I do not expect one as he has ignored my e-mails in the past.

However, I have received a reply from David Cameron. I was referred to the Frequently Asked Questions on his campaign website and provided no direct answers. The FAQ contains only a response to the third, and least important question.

I have asked for a more complete reply.

[Technorati: David Cameron, Tory, Conservative]

Those opposed to life have, again, attacked the only democracy in the Middle East even while the withdrawal from Gaza was being tested by a brave Sharon.

How can the Israeli government, which has to balance withdrawal from the occupied territories with the electorates understandable distrust of the Palestianians, convince that electorate that the West Bank should be given up in order to make peace if the nut-cases in the West Bank continue to explode themselves in order to remove people’s limbs and end (five at the moment) people’s lives?

The Israeli conflict is not simple, but there are people who can do something about resolving it. Those are, primarily at the moment, the Palestinian people. If Gaza citizens could be shown to survive without feeling the need to murder their neighbour’s people and, indeed, thrive, there is every chance the Israelis would do what they should and withdraw.

While they continue to commit these mass murders, though, the electorate (who control the government in any healthy democracy) will not accept what they see as concessions for nothing.

[Technorati: Israel, Islam, Muslim]

The BBC, it seems, has lost interest in the new republics of Eastern Europe. It is cutting television in several languages and in several countries that were set up during the cold war. Currently the BBC caters for 43 languages - this will be cut to 33. All this in order to create a news channel in Arabic.

But the real travesty, what really makes me hang my head in shame, is that this channel will be publicly funded. This is the first international television station that license fee payers will be asked to fund.

[Technorati: BBC, Islam, Muslim]

A while ago I considered designing and building a windmill to create a little free electricity. With a combined lack of skill and time it never got blowing.

This news article shows what can be done, though, and may get me back to work… (to save the £2,000 cost). Just a shame that there is a tendency among people to object to applications for the sake of objecting.

That’s the number plate of the Police Dog Unit speeding on the seafront road today.

Don’t get me wrong, I speed along that road every day, but if the police accept that the road is too slow, maybe Brighton & Hove City Council should consider raising the limit to something sensible and rid us of the revenue camera.

The Tories’ Grant Maintained schools were quickly dismantled by Blair after the election. Now, eight years later, Tony Blair is reintroducing them as his idea. However, between 1997 and 2005 the world has changed. Islam, and religion generally, has grown to be more obviously dangerous.

The new dangerous ideology that has taken the place of Soviet Communism in the world is Islamic fundamentalism. The bombings today near a hotel used by journalists in Baghdad showed a sickening preparedness on the part of the murders (also known as Homicide Bombers). They drove one vehicle up to a protective wall and exploded it. Another vehicle then drove through the gap and exploded nearer to the hotel.

Islam’s central tenet is the spread of the religion to the ‘infidels’ - anyone who does not agree with Islam is, according to the Koran, a legitimate target for conversion or ‘correction’. This is the world we live in today.

Religious schools, then, seem like a crazy idea in this climate. Do we really want children to grow up in an atmosphere of religious intolerance with one religion having such blatant primacy within an educational institution? I would say no. And yet that is the likely result of the new grant maintained schools. The government is actively encouraging state religious schools (which I vehemently oppose - you may have guessed).

The BBC has this to say on the proposals’ likely effects:

There will also be encouragements for start-up schools from parents’ groups, charities, universities, community organisations, faith groups and businesses.

We should all be worried - and oppose - the faith-related elements of the government’s otherwise excellent policy. David Cameron quite rightly said that the Tories will support the policy even though Tony Blair’s own MPs likely won’t! Let’s hope the religious element of this can be removed before this country becomes even less tolerant than it is already becoming.

Birmingham
This intolerance is exposed by the events in Birmingham over the weekend. ‘West Indian’ on Muslim (and vice versa) attacks are increasing worryingly and suggest a complete lack of respect for the rule of law, E nglish culture, and fellow humans.

Yes, this country has always had criminals and gangs, but I have never seen behaviour like that shown on the news in E ngland before or, indeed, in historical accounts. The CRE and other organisations that promote and condone positive discrimination, non-integration and an attitude other than colour-blindness have dirtied hands in these events but we must not allow this truism to detract from the evil and opportunism of those involved in Birmingham’s sorry events.

[Technorati: Iraq, Religion, Education, Black, Islam, Muslim, Birmingham]

Thanks to Miss Anon for the idea for this post.

For those still making up their mind: Daily Propaganda’s latest post.

Listed on Bloggers for David Cameron

[Technorati: David Cameron, Tory, Conservative]

Shoreham-by-Sea is a reasonably small town. It has a large supermarket in the north used by people from the town and from the continuous conurbation of Lancing to the west and Brighton & Hove and Southwick to the east. Let’s call this supermarket “Tesco”.

People, of all sorts, complain that shops like “Tesco” are in so many markets and in so many locations that they are killing smaller shops. Shops like Sainsbury Local and Tesco Express are cited for particularly attention. Smaller shops exist in Shoreham.

One particular shop in Shoreham town centre we shall call “Somerfield”. While this shop is part of a national chain it has a smaller number of shops and, in this case, is in the centre of town. You would think, then, that customer service would be their leverage - their way of retaining custom in front of the advancing monolith of competitiveness. But no.

Someone has approached me because they won a prize in “Somerfield”. They won a free packet of Digestives Lite! On returning to the shop to claim the prize is was discovered that the store does not sell Digestive Lite. Not to worry, any reasonable shop would allow you a similar product in its stead. Well, full marks to this point, they did.

But then there was a warning - there may be a difference in the price… there was. The voucher which was for £1.03 was worth more than the biscuits. Despite there being a purchase for £0.69 for washing up liquid on the same receipt, the tight staff cut the £0.45 extra from the cost of the voucher so that the biscuits were free rather than discounting the purchase by the whole £1.03.

These are small amounts and not worth spending any time over (the time this post has taken to be written could have been spent earning more than 45 pence) but the principle niggles. I cannot understand why a company would so deliberately nit pick over small amounts like this. The person who has approached me will be talking to Somerfield about this and I will publish the result here, but the temptation is to go somewhere where your custom is appreciated be that the local butcher, green grocer and fish monger or “Tesco”…

[Technorati: Supermarkets, Politics]