Speak up for Gaza

In 60 years of conflict, it is not often that shock reverberates so deeply amongst the international community.

After years of occupation, illegal Israeli settlements, theft of land and vital resources, house demolitions, the construction of an illegal Apartheid wall, the brutal blockade of Gaza it seemed that we had all become subdued by a steady ebb and flow of violence directed against the Palestinians.

Yet this Saturday, Israel launched a deadly attack against the Palestinians of Gaza which can never be forgotten. “Operation Cast Lead” began a deadly assault on a siege-crippled people and has already been declared as the bloodiest day in all sixty years of conflict. The death toll on the first day climbed from 200 deaths and hundreds injured to 360 killed and at least 1,000 injured- the military assault continues for the fourth day with a threat from Israel that the onslaught in Gaza could last for weeks.

Rather than condemning this blatant Israeli brutality, US policy makers seem to weaving webs of utter lies and contradiction- basically giving Israel their implicit support.

Rice, the US Secretary of State declared that:"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza,"

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe also echoed:"The United States understands that Israel needs to take actions to defend itself,"

"In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire."

And Obama? Well, he was 'monitoring' the situation...

All blame was therefore neatly placed on Hamas, as if they had gone round killing the Palestinians themselves.. Now, I'm no huge fan but I'm pretty sure that's not what happened- so WHY isn't the UK and US directly condemning Israel?

Another thing, Johann Hari of the Independent states that Hamas has made diplomatic moves which have either been forgotten or simply ignored:

"Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms."

If our government's have let us down with their pathetic attempts to stop these attacks on Palestinians, then the protesters and demonstrators have really spoken. Across the world, people have taken to the streets chanting protests and showing solidarity for the Palestinian people. Here in Manchester, an emergency protest was called outside the BBC on Oxford Road (Sunday 28^th at 1pm) to object to the attacks on Gaza which was attended by approximately 400 people. Vigils are also being held there for every day that the conflict continues...

3 Billion for Manchester's public transport... No Thanks!

To be quite honest I wasn't surprised by the spectacular defeat of the TIF bid in Manchester... I got my shock a couple of days earlier when we got the ballot papers through the post and I was talking to friends and family during Eid day about it all...
Well, there I was getting on with my life and thinking that the TIF bid was doing really well, talking to some of my more 'active' friends, the whole debate seemed to be pretty settled.. Public transport is particularly shitty and so three billion would be definitely a good thing... all makes perfect sense.

Common sense, I thought would lead the huge amount of people who have to rely the truly crappy public transport to vote YES...well, no it seemed that something else was afoot. Talking to my friends and family about the possibility that public transport would be improved, led to startled questions of whether I was voting Yes... well, duh!

I rely on public transport for day-to-day travel and trust me some of the stories would actually bring tears to your eyes (they certainly did to mine after waiting for hours in the cold and rain only to be told a million uninspiring stories about why a tram/train/bus was delayed/re-routed/cancelled...).

'But why? Don't you know that you would have to pay 1,200 pounds a year if you had a car? I couldn't afford that!'

Firstly, most of these people don't have cars right now as they can't afford them and if they (or I) were ever to get cars, paying the congestion charge seems a small trade-off for our laziness and helping to poison the planet...

Secondly and most worryingly, they actually know what public transport is like. They have waited hours for a bus/tram that never showed up, they get that public transport needs to be better...so WHY are my working class friends and family, who NEED better public transport voting NO?? I just couldn't make sense of it all.

Digging a little deeper, it was obvious that despite the massive campaigns to help educate the public, there was still loads of misunderstanding (if not total ignorance) about the major aspects of the TIF bid. (Despite the reported £34 million the authorities spent on the whole campaign). The main thing that seemed to surprise them was the fact that the congestion charge was part of a bid for a 1.5 billion grant from the central government ... and that Manchester had come up with the Congestion Charge as a way to pay back a further 1.5 billion loan from government as a way to win the money and improve our public transport. A lot of people seem to believe that the congestion charge was concocted simply to make money to be invested in public transport as its own plan... Others just don't trust local councils to be able to improve the public transport and not abuse the power (and money) that they would get their hands on.. Linked into this lack of trust, another major reason that my friends/family voted no was that they saw private transport as the only real solution to escaping abysmal public transport. Following this logic they didn't want another obstacle (such as a congestion charge) in their path to achieving this...

Although I could understand (sort of) their reasons for voting 'No', in reality it didn't make any sense. The amount of people who rely on public transport from working-class backgrounds is huge and will continue to grow in this increasingly fragile economy. So getting better and cheaper public transport is gonna be vital if we still want to work and study. Hoping that cars become cheaper and more affordable instead is a really bad idea...Also, if we are going to reduce emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change, then public transport has to grow and car-use has to stop..There really is no other option.

In hindsight, the reason these messages didn't reach the people who voted 'No' although better public transport is in their interest, is that they we didn't speak to them in their own language. We didn't state the amount of jobs that would be created (a clear numerical figure to challenge the 1,200 the No Campaigners used) and we didn't highlight the fact that that improved public transport was a real possibility whilst cheaper private transport isn't. Had we addressed, or even recognised, these concerns we could have had a real impact on their final decision.

Now, that the votes are in- overall 812,815 (78.8%) voted 'No' whilst only 218,860 (21.2%) voted in favour of the 3 billion- it seems that Manchester's public transport just doesn't need 3 billions.. who knew...

Margaret Thatcher, Blackmail and ‘Only 6%?!'

That’s the range of topics you get when you mix conservatives, lefties, a bunch of eco-hippies in debate on public transport!!! I recently attended the lively public meeting in question which was arranged by Manchester’s Climate Forum to discuss the Transport Innovation Fund’s bid to invest 3 billion into Manchester’s public transport whilst ALSO introducing a ‘congestion charge’. It was actually interesting as the panellist represented a genuinely wide range of views and opinions about whether the bid should be accepted and if so, with what qualifications.

Toby Sproll (of United City represented local businesses) kicked off the debate stated that the TIF bid made perfect business sense as the investment into public transport would improve local economy by increasing the efficiency of transport networks.

The congestion charges, he assured, were effective and fairly targeted at peak time traffic (travelling in the morning and leaving the city centre in the evening). Dave Coleman (Clean Air Now) backed Toby adding that congestion charges were an effective way to secure badly needed investment in public transport which would tackle climate change.

The effectiveness of the scheme in tackling climate change was challenged however when a member of the audience highlighted that even with the introduction of congestion charges CO2 levels in Manchester are predicted to fall by only 6%. Is that really enough? 6%? Clearly, it’s better than an increase but 6% is an abysmal change for the investment of 3 BILLION quid.

Roy Wilkes who represented the Campaign for Free Public Transport, urged that this 3 billion be invested in free public transport instead as a more radical measure to combat the real and catastrophic threat of climate change. Public transport, he declared, was still too expensive which was why it still didn’t compete with cars which were simply being entrenched as a transport mode by the congestion charge.

Questions of whether such radical measure could be done were met with cries from the audience to ‘Nationalise! Nationalise!’ and suggestions of buying back what Margaret Thatcher had sold and running public transport for less or free.

As a Manchester Conservative, Rob Adler brought new perspective into the debate stating that the congestion charges are not needed as 1.5 billion is already available to improve public transport in Manchester. He also added that the congestion charge and fining system were unclear and that the stipulation of congestion charges to receive the funds is quite simply ‘blackmail’.

Without the congestion charge, responded Councillor Andrew Fender, Greater Manchester was simply another council competing alongside a lot of others for the money. The congestion charge gives Manchester a realistic chance to achieve more, quicker and over a shorter period of time.

Despite the heated debate, many agreed on the need to improve the bid, making it more transparent and focus more on environmental issues by improving walking and cycling facilities. There were also suggestions of an independent body to monitor the bid and also ensure that money from the congestion charges were invested straight back into Manchester.

Personally, I think that investing into public transport is so vital to reduce the number of cars on the road and to help make public travel a more viable option. However I do think that the 3 billion would go so much further and combat climate change more effectively if the investments were going to public-owned services rather than private companies. This would not only help keep the price of public transport down but would also make the possibility of free public transport realistic in the mid-to-long term future. And that can't be a bad thing!