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!

Ethical Fashion

here's the link for a piece i did a while back on ethical fashion. enjoy.

http://www.student-direct.co.uk/lifestyle/ethical-fashion

60yrs of Injustice : Palestine Lives 2008 Manchester

As Israel celebrates the 60^th anniversary of the formation of its state- which heralded a new age of oppression, exile and apartheid on Palestinian inhabitants- the world must stop and consider the real impact of this Nakba (catastrophe) on Palestinian lives. There needs to be a condemnation of the inhumane and hypocritical denial of Palestinian rights; criticism of US/Western support for a regime which continues to violate widely-accepted international laws.

To do this, it is important to educate ordinary people against biased media coverage which simply ignores Palestinian suffering and creates misinformed and passive citizens.

As Edward Said once wrote:

“Gone from public memory are the destruction of Palestinian society in 1948 and the creation of a dispossessed people; the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza and their military occupation in 1967; the invasion of 1982, with its 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinian dead and the Sabra and Shatila massacres; the continuous assault on Palestinian schools, refugee camps, hospitals, civil institutions of every kind”.[1]

Clearly this is an attempt by the Israeli state to destroy a people and its history, to crush a way of live and to wipe out a nation- in the hope that it would be able to build its own.

Yet these policies have not only failed to demolish Palestine and its resilient people but has also created a sense of disillusionment amongst Israel’s own citizens and 1948 veterans who feel that their moral, egalitarian vision of society have been betrayed.[2] Consequently on a sunny June weekend in Manchester, hundreds of people- of all religious and political beliefs, Palestinian and Israeli- gathered to show their solidarity with the Palestinian people and to celebrate the fact that after 60years of oppression and apartheid the Palestinians and their culture continues not only to live on, but to flourish.

Palestine Lives 2008- which took place over 6^th/7th of June in Manchester’s Albert Square- celebrated the spirit of Palestinian culture, art, music, and history. The event included a lively parade around the city centre, music performers, traditional dabka dancers, stalls and exhibitions. There were also speeches from a wide array of organisations such as Manchester PSC, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition UK and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, amongst many others who gave personal accounts of their struggles against Israeli domination.

---

[1] Edwad Said, “The End Of The Peace Process: Oslo and After”, (Granta Publications: London), p. xv.

[2] See Haim Baram’s “Isreal’s secret fears” (pg28-30) and Martin Bright’s “The great betrayal: how the left and Isreal fell out of love” (pg34-36) in New Statesman: 19 May 2008.

60yrs of Injustice & What the Future Holds...

Palestine Lives 2008 which was organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign also held a lecture conference on the Friday by respected scholars, Ilan Pappe and Alan Hart.

The main theme of the lectures was the need to challenge widely-accepted Zionist history and ideology which creates a ‘misinformed, conditioned and even brainwashed public’ in Israel and across the world. By highlighting the daily human rights abuses that Palestinians face, a more active citizenship -which could pressure government into making policies which support the Palestinian cause – would surely emerge. Therefore, the path to Palestinian liberation is the liberation of history which acknowledges Israel’s utter refusal to recognise Palestinian rights to self-government and sovereignty.

Alan Hart, author of “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews”, emphasised the need to question the portrayal of Israel as a ‘victim’ of Arab terrorism whose existence is under threat. As Hart goes onto point out, Israel is in fact the major threat to peace in the region. Ilan Pappe supported this stance stating that Israel is careful about using the rights word and maintaining its victim image which creates a fearful Israeli populace who are willing to accept their leader’s lies. This gap between the representation of Israel in contrast to the reality of politics on the ground needs to be revealed. Pappe uses the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing and apartheid to illustrate this contradiction, as the policy was formulated and documented in government archives in 1967 but was later justified as a ‘reaction’ to Palestinian violence.

The policy of ethnic cleansing was formulated for the occupied territories as an alternative strategy after the mass expulsion of Palestinians that occurred in 1948. However, if you keep a people and their land but control their borders, water, air and security then what you have effectively created is a “Mega-Prison”. If the populace ‘behaves’ and doesn’t resist, then they are granted certain privileges and autonomy within the prison walls. However if there is any opposition then Israel reverts back to high security and holds the people siege as it has done in Gaza. Israel has been able to operate this policy with full Western support and US-backing and without any consideration for the international community.

Yet this won’t and can’t continue indefinitely. There is a wider feeling that there is a gradual change in general public opinion which questions Israel’s policies and justification, both in Israel and within the wider international community. Many are now starting to see beyond the PR-Spin, hot air and lies that the media and Israeli state spew out. They want an end to the injustice of apartheid and demolition of the prison walls of Palestinian occupation.

Relevant Links:

http://www.psc-manchester.org.uk/

http://www.icahd.org/icahdukdev/eng/

http://www.jfjfp.org/

New Year- New Direction

January. A new year and a new start. I finally went for it and decided to go for journalism. It was a tough, personal decision as I still had loads of questions and reservations about the whole field and also whether I could actually do it. But I thought if a bunch of idiots are out there telling the world what to believe, writing the news according to them, why the hell shouldn’t I be? At least the field would be more representative. And in reality that’s what journalism is all about. It’s not about being ‘Objective’. There is no such thing as objective, we all see the world through our own eyes and we give what we see meaning according to our own views and experiences. So… I thought what the hell!! I’ll give it a go!!

Choices Choices Choices!! & Finally Making up my Mind

The next stage.
I went away for about four weeks after I graduated and tried not to think too much about what the hell I was going to do when I got back. When I got back, I went back to work in retail (Probably the worst job in the world- EVER- So bad that in a 50 years time when they remake ‘Worst Jobs in History’ with Tony Robinson, retail will top the list. Trust me on that one.)

I was still not sure what I wanted to do so I looked at jobs for research, local council and government, museum, office stuff and publishing etc etc. I was willing to take anything on as I still wasn’t sure what to do and so was happy to give it a go. In the meantime I got promoted to assistant manager in retail which made me just feel like I would be there forever and ever....

Very little actually happened for about 6 months. I went to interviews, changed my mind, got another interview and changed my mind again, felt like I was getting somewhere and then nothing happened. Six months is a very long time to be waiting..worrying.... Panicing!! If I could tell myself something then that I know now, is that the process makes you realise what’s important to you and once you know that, your sorted!!!

Going through all of that made me realise that I care about political issues and campaigns, writing and research and compassionate people and that I wasn’t willing to go without them in the long run. I also realised that you have to say no sometimes because you know that path takes you away from where you want to get to. It’s hard but knowing what to do and having some sort of direction is a nice feeling. : )

Writing what I know now.....

"Write what you know." That's the advice that i got from one of the few people i know who are in the news and media industry who is still true to their values and also combines journalism with political activism. Seems like good advice to. Makes a lot of sense.

Write what i know..write what i know. Okay. Now, I'm not sure that I can claim to know a tremendous amount about the media industry (using any stretch of the imagination) but since graduating i have been thrown in the deep end and forced myself to learn a hell of lot about it. I have been on placements with newspapers, magazines, written freelance and I even volunteer for a co-operative which tackles issues through research and activism.

But first, let me start at the beginning. After I graduated in 2007 i decided not to go onto further education, so I guess 2008 turned into my year out of to decide. Its been pretty tough so far, lack of direction is probably something that alot of graduates have to deal with as universities don't really seem to prepare students for the harsh, competitive realities of the employment market.
So, I graduated in the summer and joined the big bad world thinking 'damn! I should have had a plan!'