Ballot Grammer Schools In Reading

Reading has a lack of schools that is causing problems to patents. Children are traveling miles to schools outside the borough, though as money gets tighter this is being cut back.

Some like Maiden Erlegh in Wokingham have become academies so can set their own admission policies to benefit themselves not the local community. Currently their policy was set by the council, now they are independent we shall see if they change. (last sentence updated to clarify).

Many feel the two grammars, Kendrick and Reading School, are a luxury we can no longer afford. They are being described as state funded private schools.

Concerned Patents are forcing a ballot to decide if these schools can continue as they are.

1 They take 75% of pupils from outside the local authority (Reading) - the highest figure of any grammars in the country (source: Educ dept report 2008) while they took only 23 pupils (2% of 1,000+) in the past 5 years from the 7 primary schools within a mile of both grammars (source: the FoI figures); Alfred Sutton not included because it's 1.2 miles from Kendrick. Only one of these 7 - Redlands - actually qualifies as a “feeder school”.

2 Reading's school places crisis. Growing population with no extra provision after decades of Labour and one year of Tory LD coalition.

3 RBC challenging Wokingham's plan to exclude Park ward parents from local school.

4 In the much-touted “age of austerity”’ why waste public money buying a site then building a University Tech College solution when we've got two perfectly good schools on our doorstep? Two schools which cater for the people living within walking distance (a factor state schools are obliged to consider under the schools admissions code) would be a simple cheap, fair and progressive solution to the school places crisis and chime nicely with the drive to create a much more socially mobile society.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/05/local-parents-protest-against-the-unfairness-of-grammar-schools-in-berkshire-and-might-force-them-to-become-non-selective/

Much of this post comes from
a facebook group "No to Maiden Erlegh Catchment"
http://m.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_144961062211046&id=210473882326430

Woop De Do, Olympic Torch Comes To Reading

Reading has been selected as one of only 66 areas in the UK to celebrate the colossal waste of money and resources that surround a sporting event that lasts only a few days.

For the atheletes involed, and their families, its an amazing event. For the rest of us not so much.

The torch will be coming to town on Tuesday 10th July 2012.

The 70 day Torch Relay will start at Land's End, Cornwall, on the morning of the 19 May 2012. On leaving Land's End, the Olympic Flame is expected to travel an estimated 8,000 miles across the UK.

I think they could use a map or sat nav.

The Olympic Flame will arrive at the Olympic Stadium on 27 July 2012 for the lighting of the cauldron at the Opening Ceremony, signifying the start of the London 2012 Olympic Games. Don't you wish it was in Paris?

Listening NHS reforms 38 degrees

There are just two weeks of health minister Andrew Lansley's NHS “listening exercise" left. It's pretty clear what he'd like to happen next. He wants to use his stage-managed exercise as an excuse to claim he's listened – before ploughing ahead with his reckless NHS changes.

YouGov research paid for by 38 Degrees members has found that 95% of the public have no idea how to get involved with the "listening exercise". [1] That suits Lansley down to the ground!

By working together we can expose this sham and stop the listening exercise being used as cover to push through Lansley's plans. If we club together, we can buy full-page adverts in national newspapers to sound the alarm about Lansley's phoney listening exercise. We can tell the millions of people Lansley's ignored how to join the Save Our NHS campaign.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/lansley-isnt-listening

Andrew Lansley's “listening exercise" has been carefully stage-managed. Most events have been closed to the public. In Sheffield last Friday, 38 Degrees members handing in our massive petition discovered that a "listening exercise" event had been held nearby hours earlier – but was kept secret until it was over. That's not the only reason it's a sham. Behind the scenes, health officials have been told to carry on with Lansley's original plans [2].

The next two weeks are critical. These adverts will help sound the alarm and stop Andrew Lansley using this listening exercise as cover for pushing through his plan. But we can only run them if enough of us chip in.

Please donate now to help sound the alarm and get our adverts in newspapers next week:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/lansley-isnt-listening

Doctors, nurses, and patients’ groups have been queueing up to say how dangerous Lansley’s NHS plans are. [3] Last week, the Royal College of GPs said they could “unravel” the NHS. And on Sunday, The Observer revealed that one of Lansley’s top advisers told private health companies to expect big profits when the NHS moves to a US-style “insurance system”.

We can’t let that happen. We all rely on the NHS sooner or later, to take care of us and our loved ones. It’s not perfect, but that’s no excuse for ignoring the advice of the real experts and pushing through these huge, untested changes. To stop these plans, 38 Degrees members are contacting and meeting MPs up and down the country. We're building a huge petition showing the extent of public concern.

So now let's put these adverts all over the papers – and make sure everyone knows they can get involved with our growing campaign to stop these dangerous NHS changes.

Please make a secure donation and help get the ads in the papers now:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/lansley-isnt-listening

Thanks for getting involved,

NOTES
[1] http://www.38degrees.org.uk/lansley-yougov-poll
[2] Letter 'shows pause on NHS reform is stunt' http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23942461-letter-shows-pause-on-nhs-reform-is-stunt.do
[3] http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/save-our-nhs-who-is-worried

Dont Get Clegged

In Reading the Greens hold the balance of power between Lab and the LD Cons coalition. There is much speculation so long after the election, understanably, who will be Mayor, lead cllrs etc.

And much misinformation is coming mostly from a few LD and Tories. And an ex LD. All saying we will be in a coalition with one side or another, but this isnt needed ir helpfull.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/18-05-11-greens-balance-power-reading-council.html

Just because the LD formed a coalition doesnt mean we have to. Why would we want to make the same mistakes. Who would want to be Nick Clegg now.

Clegg would have been better off supporting policies he agreed with rather than betraying much that he stood for. Played lab against tories/ LD and got a better deal for the country.

We would have had a proper referendum on PR, less chaos at the NHS and a few Green policies may have made there way into the mix.

So rather than sell out to get a cabinet position we want to put the people of Reading first.

Cut Carbon Create Jobs.

Going Where the Grass is Greener - Why I'm Leaving Labour (guest post)

Guest post by Josiah Mortimer who writes http://marchthefury.wordpress.com

It's been an tough decision to make, but I have decided to join the Green Party. For the past year I've been in the Labour party, and met some fantastic people - principled people, including many on the left. MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have consistently acted upon their socialist beliefs, and been dedicated to fighting for social justice and egalitarianism. The election of Ed Miliband provided some hope for people like me, that is, Young Socialists (sadly just 'Young Labour' now) by offering a split from New Labour. But I have decided to change party for a lot of reasons, which I'll try and explain.

Firstly, the old cliche, which I've just realised to be true. Though there are some socialists in the Labour party, it is fundamentally, and unfortunately, not a left-wing party. That is not to say this won't change in the future (social democratic parties have been wiped out in Europe after the '90s) - but the Labour party doesn't represent all that many progressive views. Cuts are being supported by Labour. Just at a slightly slower rate - not really encouraging for people about to lose their job or having their disability support slashed. And in education, Labour still supports a view of education that sees it as a mere commodity to be sold to students, or 'customers' as we are increasingly called. Education is a public good, a gift from one generation to another. It pays for itself in extra tax revenue from higher earning graduates. It creates well-rounded individuals. And ability to pay shouldn't come into the public sector - whatever part of the public sector that is. On Trident, the war in Afghanistan, on Gaza and NATO, the Green Party is on the side of progressivism when frankly Labour isn't.

I voted for Ed Miliband. He appeared to support a future for Britain that is centre-left on the side of equality. But now he seems keen on reducing the role of trade unions within the party and is cozying up to 'Blue Labour' - effectively a continuation of New Labour but with slightly less free-market obsession and slightly more racism and xenophobia. Again, not all that inspiring.

I come back to the point of socialists in the Labour party. John McDonnell, the beacon of hope within the party, couldn't even get on the ballot for the leadership election. He had to drop out to boost Dianne Abbott's chances of getting on there. And she sent her kids to private school. Caroline Lucas MP is to the left of Abbott - and leads the Greens. I want to be part of a party that not only has strong left element, but that is actually led by the left.

Of course, there are flaws with the Greens. They don't have trade unions at their heart. But unlike Labour, the Green's stand on a platform of removing anti-trade union laws. Something Labour didn't do in their 13 years of power. And the Greens perhaps have a presentation problem of being seen as a bourgeois humus-eating elitist clique. However, all the Green Party members I know are rooted in realism and the working class. Are they a single issue party If so, which single issue Wishing to clamp down on tax dodging Seeking a fairer tax system to stop the cuts. Through their 131 councillors, their MP and MEPs, they have shown that they most definitely are not a single-issue party. Nonetheless, if they were it would be preferable to a party that has no firm beliefs anymore at all.

The Greens are growing. Membership is going up. Their democratic representation is increasing all the time - even under First Past the Post (which, unlike Labour, the Greens oppose) - as they now control Brighton council and have councillors across the country. Their stature and credibility as a party is growing. It took a long time for me to be convinced of that, but it's true.

I don't want, or need, to list what I think the Labour party did wrong over the past thirteen years. Because many good things happened. Sure Start, investment in the NHS, the minimum wage, devolution and so on. And I am filled with a certain sense of guilt for leaving a party that declares on our membership cards it is a 'democratic socialist party'. But then I remember this was only put in as a concession after the tragic removal of the radical Clause 4 in the '90s.

Again, I have to stress, I fully support the left within the Labour party. The Labour Representation Committee has played a fantastic role in keeping it alive within the movement, and I will sorely miss not being able to retain my LRC membership. Even of those not on the left there are some fantastic people locally who I respect and wish all the best. And were the Labour Party to ever (as unlikely as it may seem) shift back to the left, I will be one of the first to rejoin. But this is looking increasingly remote the more disillusioned I become with Ed Miliband and the rest of the leadership.

So. All the best to all the Labour comrades I have met over the past year and hope to remain friends with - and solidarity with all the trade unionists and socialists still sticking with the party. I'm going to make a firm pledge now that if I ever stand as a Green candidate it will never be against a dedicated left-wing Labour member.

And neither am I going to ask anyone to follow suit. I don't want to be a human billboard for ditching the Labour party. But as the saying goes - the Labour party left us, not the other way round.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The presumption of innocence, the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial.

I don't see much of that at the moment. The press is full of stories based on the claims of a single person. The accused may be guilty or not, until a trial we don't know.

Trial by media is just not on, too many innocent people have their lives wrecked.

Neither the accused or the accuser should be named till the trial is over. Naming the acccused can ruin an innocent persons life, and also influence the trial.

Wokingham Tory And LD All Voted Agaisnt Renewables

Wokingham Borough Council rejected the wind power scheme that was near the M4:
'On balance the wider environmental and economic benefits do not outweigh the harm identified to heritage assets and landscape character and visual amenity.'

They meant that a small number of vocal house owners worried about a possible reduction in property values got there way. While politicians, despite some claiming to be pro renewables, caved in, scardy cats. They should be more scared of the long term lack of power, and losing Green votes .

Around 70% of wind farm proposals in the UK have been turned down. A public opinion poll by YouGov showed 70% of UK homeowners would be interested in investing in domestic renewables. Quite some disconnect, the 30% seem to get what they want.

Here's what the FOE had to say about the decision:

Wokingham Planning Committee have rejected Partnerships for Renewables’ (PfR) application to build four 2.5 MW turbines at Rushy Mead, south of the M4 between Shinfield and Arborfield, because they found that the renewable energy benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified to landscape character, to the setting and amenity of a number of settlements, and to the significance of two listed buildings.

The decision was unanimous – Conservative and Lib-Dem councillors voting together eight days before a local election. PfR are considering whether to appeal against this decision.

The good news is that the Borough Officers agreed with the applicants that the risks of noise, flicker, and flooding – which objectors had suggested could blight the lives of many people – and the effects on wildlife and rights of way, did not provide grounds for rejection of the application. It would be interesting to know to what extent local opposition was based on these fears, and what local opposition there would be based on visual amenity alone.

The opponents of Rushy Mead made much of what they call the 'inefficiency' of turbines in low-wind locations. This is technically known as the load factor - the ratio of average output to peak rated output over a year - which is said to average 17% for the Green Park turbine.

This measure is irrelevant. If Green Park had the same tower and blades but a lower rated generator it might have a higher load factor but generate less electricity at higher unit cost.
What matters is the benefit in terms of the reduction in fossil fuel use compared to the costs - both financial and environmental.

Turbines at Rushy Mead can be connected to the national grid at low cost - the pylons cross the site – and will require little expenditure on access roads compared with many high-wind sites, so they can be cost-effective.
Windier locations are likely to be more visible and may well cost more to connect to the grid.

The financial subsidy to renewables is paid per unit of electricity generated and the rate will be very similar for any on-shore turbine, whatever load factor it achieves. Off-shore turbines receive subsidy at twice the rate so provide electricity at much higher cost.

I found this interesting information here