How can we address the causes of migration effectively?

The current migration crisis is a Green issue. In fact, it can be argued that it is not a "crisis" (in the sense of a temporary deviation from the normal) at all, but is the new normal, with climate change a key driver, both indirectly, and in the future, directly.

So, what is the solution?

First, the rejectionist Ukip/Tory solution is no solution at all. It is physically impossible to build a Berlin Wall around the UK, or even around Europe, and failing rejectionism will inevitably turn into hate speech and hate actions.

Building physical barriers is a simplistic solution to political problems that goes back to the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, the 700 kilometre Israel West Bank Barrier/Wall, and, currently, the Great Razor Wire Fence in Hungary. These barriers are symptomatic treatments, and like all symptomatic treatments, they will in the end, fail. The only real solution to the problem is the one that addresses the root causes of the problem.

The underlying causes are fourfold:

1. War
2. Governments that abuse human rights
3. Poverty
4. Climate change

War, and its aftermath, is responsible for most migration movements into Europe. Iraq, Syria and, Afghanistan are major contributors to the total numbers.

Eritrea's post-war military government with its totalitarian control drives many young Eritreans to leave. We must not forget also that Burma's military regime is driving the a huge proportion of the Rohingya people into boats.

Many others, especially Africans, are trying to escape poverty. It is wrong to believe Tory tabloid editors and Ministers when they portray these people as merely making a lifestyle choice. They are fleeing extreme poverty, and this pattern will increase as climate change places further pressure on food prices.

A study by Richard Seager of Columbia University shows that climate change  is a factor in the Syrian conflict, primarily through drought affecting food production.

So, migration is a symptom of war, governments that abuse human rights, poverty and climate change. There are two opposing conclusions that we can draw from this.

Some will just want to give up, or try with increasing desperation and anger to pull up the drawbridge.
The other approach, the humane and rational response, is to work out and apply global solutions to what is a global problem.

The Green Party, and indeed all rational thinkers, should be at the forefront of the second approach, which deserves a name to identify itself. I would propose simply to call it "the New Globalisation", in order to distinguish it from economic Globalisation which is well known, and lies behind much that is wrong in the world, as Caroline Lucas and Mike Woodin showed in their book Green Alternatives to Globalisation in 2004.

It is now time for greens, and indeed, all thinkers and politicians who prefer to deal in realities rather than knee-jerk reactions, to start looking at these global problems and coming up with answers. And answers do exist. The process will be long and slow, measured in decades rather than months or years, but the journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step, and the time to start is now.

The majority of current wars are due to dictators, Islamism and separatism.

Dictatorships can be inhibited by the Green Party's Global Human Rights Index.

Islamism is a bit of a difficult problem that deserves a post all to itself, but the essential principle of treatment is that if we stop bombing Islamic countries, there is a chance that they will stop bombing us (and also other Islamic people: we must remember that jihadis kill far more Muslims than they kill "Christians" and Jews).

The third most important cause of current wars, separatism, is an issue that can usefully be addressed by the United Nations.

There are many other actions that can be taken to reduce the impact of conflict on people. Peace Direct is an excellent organisation that supports local people who take action to stop conflict. There have been successful agreements that will inhibit the arms trade. Attention could fruitfully switch now to the control of ammunition. (See PD434 in Green Party policies here).

So if we wish to address migration, we need to address the problem of war and dictators with their attendant human rights abuses. What of the other promoters of migration, which are poverty and climate change? Again there are solutions available, and again the solutions assist each other.

Poverty is complex, intimately interwoven with environmental issues, but one of the key insights is that poor countries tend to be hot countries, that is, countries with plentiful resources of solar energy. Solar energy offers to help poor countries, not just on a small scale, but also on a large scale, since large solar arrays and Concentrated Solar Power  will turn hitherto poor countries into net exporters of energy.

Development patterns that promote equality will reduce the pressure to migrate.

The points made here are not exhaustive. There are many other issues to be considered, and as ever, if we do not manage to get a handle on human population growth we are not going to get very far with any progress.

In conclusion, the only way to manage the "migration crisis" is to address the global causes of migration - war, dictatorship, poverty and environmental degradation. These are global problems, but we live in a small world, and a new programme of action, a New Globalisation that addresses humanitarian and environmental issues, is the only effective way forward.

See also:
The Conservatives' cod psychology about migration
How to resolve the problem at Calais
Dictators are the main cause of war in 2015
Rohingya: getting to the source of the problem

Should we despair in the face of this Tory victory?

Is there room for hope, politically?

A few years ago, I made a choice to be optimistic, to believe that it is possible for mankind to pull out of the political and economic nosedive that we are in, to come back to earth in a safe landing.

If we give way to despair and pessimism, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy; we cannot take action, we become depressed and passive.

So I chose to be positive, to look for the reasonable solutions to the many problems that we face, which is what most of this blog is about.

But in common with many thousands of others last week's election result has tipped me into depression.

What hope is there for us, politically?

OK, the Green Party maintains its slow and steady progress. We got a bigger vote than ever before in percentage and absolute terms. Caroline Lucas kept her seat with an increased majority, a fact that many of all parties agree was one of the very few pleasant results last week. But it is too slow. Under proportional representation the Greens would have 25 MPs. As it is, we have one.

We are looking at the monstrously disproportionate results of our clapped-out electoral system, where 24% of the electorate deliver 34% of the vote which delivers 51% of the MPs which delivers 100% of the power to an ugly little regime of small-state ideologues who are determined to punish the poor and dispossessed even harder than before and sell our national assets off cheap to their corporate chums who will run the country into the ground for the sake of their own profits.

This ridiculous FPTP electoral system will not change short of sustained rioting in the streets, because the Government of the day is elected by FPTP and the Labour Opposition colludes unforgivably with the Tory Government in defending the indefensible.

The electoral system is one major block to progress, The other is the state of the media. Out of every 4 newspaper readers, 3 are reading right wing newspapers. Of TV stations, Murdoch owns Sky, and the BBC has make a sickening lurch to the right since 2010. Channel 4 is reasonable at the moment, but is prone to making awful propaganda in films like the Great Global Warming Swindle.

The massive failure of the media as a block is demonstrated by the way the media-led election "debate" excluded discussion of climate change, corruption and fracking. This despite one of the "major" parties having a policy of repealing the Climate Change Act.

To a small extent, social media compensate for the inadequacies of the corporate media, but social media is subject to its own vagaries (see the influence of conspiracy theorists and global warming deniers), and at present is too small to counterbalance the huge influence of the corporates.

In short, democracy in the UK is hobbled by an undemocratic electoral system and a deeply biased media.

Is there any room for hope in terms of peaceful democratic politics? It is difficult to see any, rationally. But we should not give up hope yet. Hope and despair are like the weather; they change. Today it is cold, cloudy and wet. Tomorrow, the sun will shine. Today we are in the grip of a false individualistic ideology, but Truth cannot be held back forever. The truth is that we are social animals, and we do need to look after our life support systems. If we cling on, hope against hope, these two truths may, in the end, give us political hope.

It was the BBC wot won it for UKIP - and yet...

 I am going to discuss immigration. In the round, in the light of UKIP's success in the European Parliamentary elections. This post is likely to get me into hot water with my Green Party colleagues.

First, nobody can accuse me of being a UKIP sympathiser. I have a well-read post which collects the failings of UKIP and Ukippers. I have been tweeting intensively against UKIP over the election period. My most retweeted tweet : Voting UKIP to get rid of greedy useless politicians is like trying to treat your ulcer by drinking hydrochloric acid. #VoteGreen2014

I have moaned incessantly at the BBC for their blatant puffing of UKIP, and I've signed the 38 Degrees petition calling on the BBC to stop the media blackout of the Green Party. (Have you?)

Yes, UKIP's "success" is down to extraordinary support for, and lack of critical journalistic investigation of, a shambolic single-issue party on the part of the media, especially the BBC.

Yes, UKIP's single obsession, the evils of the European Union, is not felt very strongly as the main issue even by their supporters. Immigration is the issue that motivates them.

And yes, we know that the right wing tabloids have been pumping the immigration issue for years, to give it a salience out of proportion with its impact.

Yes, we know that we are all immigrants when it comes down to it.

We know that immigrants keep the NHS going, that they do low paid jobs that free-born Englishmen would not want to do. (Thus solving the problem of low pay without obliging employers to pay more.)

We know incidentally that the police do not seem particularly interested, considering how easy it would be to identify them,  in catching the "task masters" who are actually slave owners.

Yes, we know that the net impact of immigration on the UK economy is beneficial, (at least until they in turn grow old, and need carers)

We know that net migration is only about 250,000 p.a.

We understand that any one immigrant coming here is one less person living somewhere else on the planet (although if he is moving from a poorer country, his ecological footprint is almost certainly larger as a result of coming here).

We know that the number of British living in the EU almost completely match EU migrants coming here.

And yet...migration is still a problem for our society. Why? Because, with the help of tabloid editors, it stokes the fires of anger and resentment.

It is easy for middle class liberals living in the country to take a tolerant view of immigrants. It is less easy for working class people whose street and community changes rapidly over the course of a few years to be similarly tolerant, especially when they are reading pernicious, inflammatory tabloid stories of immigrants "taking over" housing lists and services.

Yes, the correct response of Government should be to create adequate services across the board. But this is not how this Government thinks and acts.

So the bottom line is that migration generates resentment and anger, and that is a given.
Another "given" is that tabloid journalism and populist politicians trade in emotions, not reality.

If immigration is a problem, they say, it must be stopped. If immigration from the EU is allowed by EU rules, we should leave the EU. Simples.

Viewed in one way, the world is indeed simple. All life forms, including humans, depend on the land for survival. Each area of land can support just so many life forms - so many bacteria, so many fungi, so many insects, so many birds, mammals, and, especially, humans. It is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. The British Isles are a finite space. Therefore we must put an end to our ever increasing human population in our islands.

That is the easy bit. The difficult bit is moving from the present situation of denial and deceit regarding population to a rational framework. The world is a complex system of interrelated forces. It is going to take years before rational thought about this topic becomes mainstream, and even more years before politicians start to act on it. In the meantime, migration will continue, and we have to be realistic and accept it s a given in a modern world where information and transport is easy and cheap.

The bitter paradox is that the tabloid editors who complain most emotionally about immigraton are the self-same editors who dismiss concerns bout foreign wars, foreign poverty and foreign dictators because they have nothing to do with us. But they do have something to do with us, because wars, poverty and dictators cause immigration.

What, in a nutshell, should we do about migration?

1. Offer humane, rapid asylum to those fleeing persecution, oppression political imprisonment and death, followed by effective action against the dictators who cause that immigration.
2. Stop war mongering by UK Prime Ministers 
3. Work against endemic poverty, economic inequality between nations, and the environmental conditions, including global warming, that drive people out of their home countries.
4. Inform the public (through press TV and radio articles, advertisements and posters) in nations that are sending migrants to Europe, of the dangers and difficulties that they face not just in the journey, but on arrival.
5. Informing applicants of the European laws that they will be expected to comply with, and the culture that they will be expected to fit in with.

Of course, there is more to be discussed. But at least we need to discuss it. The Green view does include toleration, but it goes further than the standard left-right dialectic, because as ever, Greens must take the widest possible view. In doing so, it is likely that emotions will be stirred, that names will be called, that Godwin's Law will come into play. We shall see. 

More on this blog: 

The Irresistible Force of mathematics meets the Unmoveable Object of freedom to reproduce

World Food prices

Four posts on population

Green Party Immigration Policy

The Earth has a fever

Watching Grey politicians pretending to care about the environmental crisis is like watching a young friend die of a treatable disease because the hospital finance office refuses to release the trivial amount of money needed to pay for her treatment until the end of the next financial year. All physicians in the hospital except one, Dr C. O'Toole, are agreed on the diagnosis and treatment, so the finance officer decides to give ear to Dr O'Toole, and wait until such time as all of Dr O'Toole's questions were fully answered to his own satisfaction. 

That's what it is like to all people who understand the threats posed by free-market economics: the threat of air pollution, water pollution, soil loss, forest loss, fish loss, species loss, habitat loss, happiness loss, peace loss and climate disruption.  Add in the social problems: inequality, poverty, greedy bankers with a monopoly on money creation, tax havens,  insincere politicians, lawbreaking snooping tabloid journalists, homelessness, empty houses, unemployment, constructive work not done, the wrecking of the welfare system, cruelty, injustice, resentment, crime...and all the rest of it.

The patient is seriously ill. She has a fever. Dr O'Toole insists that she has had fevers in the past, and this is just the same, maybe a little warmer, but that may be a coincidence. He discounts the lab results brought up by his colleagues. He is a poor diagnostician - but he has the ear of the hospital finance officer.

That is the present situation.

The condition of our environments - natural, economic and social - is critical. 

Critical but curable. 

The first step to successful treatment is a re-think of how we do things. 

Our leaders need to stop listening to the O'Tooles of this world and start facing up to reality.

Many changes are needed, but they fall under three headings:  

Democracy, Equality and Sustainability.

Change takes a lot of effort, but at the same time, changing things for the better can be fun. 

 

Every little helps. 

We know you care, and that you do your bit already.

There's one more tiny thing you can do.

Please will you and your friends vote Green on May 22nd in the Euro-elections? Greens are not perfect, but they do try to address the real problems. 

Your X in the Green slot on the ballot form is tiny, but it may make the difference between life and death for the Earth.

Thanks for reading this far.

The Sugar Tax - Yes or No?

The idea of a Sugar Tax is being suggested by Sally Davies, England's chief medical officer.

I raised this in 1996 in my book Bills of Health, and put it to Green Party Conference. It was rejected, by the Handbrake Tendency, on grounds that it would put up the price of home made jam.

Sugar tax is a Pigovian tax that puts up the cost of an item that you want people to use less of. The item becomes more expensive, so people will buy less of it. The proceeds of the tax should be directed (hypothecated) to making better alternatives cheaper. Pigovian taxes are already applied to tobacco, alcohol and oil, although the hypothecation aspect is not well done. 

The problem is that when an item is addictive (as is the case for tobacco, alcohol, oil and sugar) the demand goes down for a short time each time the tax is increased, then bounces back as the addiction re-asserts itself. This is fine from the Treasury point of view, because the tax revenue keeps rolling in, but addiction trumps the idea that putting up the cost alone will solve the problem.

Therefore the tax has to be part of a more comprehensive and holistic treatment of the problem. The tax should remain, its proceeds should be hypothecated (directed) to remediation of the problems it causes, but other measures should also be applied. Carbon taxes should go to support public transport, energy conservation and renewables. Nicotine taxes must go to supporting nicotine addiction treatments, respiratory medicine, and the cost of the fire service. Sugar taxes should be hypothecated to NHS dentistry services, and to making healthy foods cheaper. This is the application of the Polluter Pays principle, which is one of the central elements of green economics.

Corporations that produce addictive products will of course resist any attempt to reduce demand for their product.

The tobacco barons held up the campaign by the medical profession to put health warnings on tobacco by about 20 years.

Only last year the alcohol producers bought off the Tories from introducing minimum alcohol pricing.

The coal, oil and gas corporations are of course waging a highly successful campaign against the findings of climate science.

As for the sugar corporations, they are playing a blinder.

The only battle that the sugar giants have lost is to the dentists. Sugar causes dental caries. Fact.

Sugar probably causes obesity, Type 2 diabetes, strokes, coronary heart disease and some behaviour disorders. But the causality is hotly disputed by the corporations, their paid spokesmen, and by people who have been unknowingly influenced by their propaganda. Some of the proceeds of the tax should go to pay for research into these effects. Why should the corporations get the profits, while publicly funded  research should have to scurry around to find what the effects are?

There is a fair amount of research into the behavioral effects of sugar taxes, mainly centering aroud "soda" - sugary soft drinks. As is always the case with health and economics related research, results vary, but there is an emerging picture that substantial price increases will cause reduced consumption. An 18% tax was found to reduce intake by 56 calories a day, which should cause a 2kg/yr weight loss among the population. Not bad.

It is supposed that product substitution would mean that people would take less taxed "soda" drinks, but might switch to sweet milky drinks and fatty foods. Therefore the sugar tax should happen in parallel with a fat tax, and measures to reduce car dependency and stimulate walking and cycling.

The key card played by the sugar corporations is that it would put up the price of food chosen by people on low incomes, which would be "unfair". As if they cared. This line has been swallowed uncritically by some on the Left, including the Browns (=red/greens) in the Green Party. I had a brisk debate about this a couple of days ago on Twitter with a person who is recent addition to the ranks of the Green Party who has quickly risen to a position of influence. The conversation is here.

He argues that sugar tax is regressive - bears more heavily on the poor - and therefore that it is unacceptable. He accepts though that subsidies should be removed from sugar. This would increase the price of sugar to the poor to some extent, but not by enough to be effective. He would prefer to command the sugar companies to introduce less sugar into the UK market, which would be great if we had a command economy, but we do not. So until the UK becomes a command economy, the Browns in the Green Party will ally themselves with the fat cats in the sugar corporations, defending the right of the masses to live in unemployed poverty and console themselves with sugary drinks until their teeth rot, until they can barely waddle to the table to get their diabetic medication, and until their misery is relieved by an early death.

Great.

Green Party Conference votes for continued unemployment, and against greening of the economy

Rather be here

Once again, I leave Green Party conference demoralised, defeated and depressed. 

The Green Wage Subsidy (GWS) motion that would convert the Government's dead, grudging dole into an empowering subsidy to the green sector of the economy has been defeated by about two votes to one.

I expected this. I have been imagining the scenario for months. My plan was to cancel my Party membership immediately and publicly as soon as that vote was lost. However, a conversation with John Marjoram, the veteran Stroud Green Councillor, has opened up one possibility of carrying on within the Green Party.

Emotionally though I feel exhausted and angry. The counter arguments to GWS brought by Greens, both the Handbrake Tendency and the Browns (Green+Red=Brown), are utterly  contrived, creating problems where none exist. The Brown Bloc's arguments are dealt with here.  The main argument in Conference on Monday came from the Handbrake Tendency, and it was that it would be impossibly difficult for a local government officer to determine whether a particular economic actor applying for GWS accreditation is providing work that helpful to society or environment. In other words, they would have difficulty distinguishing between a firm that insulates domestic properties and an arms manufacturer. 

This is irrational. Greens are always singing the praises of our Green ideas, of how wonderful it will be when a Green Government has created a Green society and a Green economy, but when it comes down to specifics, it is made out to be impossibly difficult. 

It is not. The list of activities within the green sector (see at foot of this post) of the economy is very clear, and it is perfectly obvious that if a company is providing energy conservation services, they should be included, providing they are not using child labour, for example. The tribunals would prioritise the clear cases. If perchance some marginal cases applied for accreditation - say, someone who reckons that their hairdressing business should be included because it is not using palm oil for instance - they can be put on a waiting list for consideration when the clear-cut cases have been put through, and can be given forms to fill in to confirm that all aspects of their business are in the clear.

The objectors assert (wrongly) that GWS is bureaucratic, but it is the objectors who are manufacturing bureaucratic complexity where none exists.

Interestingly, this technique is exactly the same as that used by climate change deniers such as Judith Curry, who specialises in talking up the uncertainty. The smoking lobby and the creationist lobby express this technique as "teach the uncertainty".

If anything, it is the Green Party policy making process that has bureaucratic, with a Policy Committee and process that is aged and sclerotic.

The Party proclaims proudly how democratic it is, and indeed, it is far more open to rank and file membership input than the grey parties, but it has developed its own equivalent of Black Rod style traditions. To create new policy requires an enabling Motion, then six months later a draft voting papers then six months later a voting paper, that may get referred back for another six months, so there may be an eighteen month gestation period or more. Sections of policy (transport, health etc) must be reworked as a whole, in huge slabs of text, rather than specific amendments and updates when the need arises. 

The debating procedures are better than they were now that some Chairs, having been elected to Councils, are familiar with how committees work, but the whole thing is shambolic and slow, and there is huge scope for improvement both in terms of efficiency and in terms of equity and fairness.

Anyway, Green Party Conference has made an important decision.

Conference has decided that it is in favour of keeping some 2.5 million people in unemployment, trapped in a toxic, dis-empowering welfare system, where benefits are given grudgingly on condition that the claimant does no work, but applies time and time again, on a daily basis, for jobs that do not exist, while at the same vast amounts of good, constructive work is not done.

Conference has also decided that it is against a measure that would create new, constructive, useful jobs in the green sector of the economy, a measure that would lead not just to the greening of the economy, but would prepare the ground for Citizen's Income.

Conference (or at least a small section of it - I estimate that there were about 60 members present, which means that the grand total of about 40 Green Party members have voted this measure down) has made a big mistake. 

[Update: concluding line deleted.]

Appendix - The Green Sector of the economy

Energy

·                                 energy conservation

·                                 renewable energy technologies

·                                 energy efficient goods development and manufacture

·                                 public transport

Pollution Control

·                                 pollution control technology

·                                 waste minimisation

·                                 repair

·                                 recycling

Environment

·                                 water management (including flood defence work)

·                                 sustainable agriculture

·                                 forestry

·                                 timber use

·                                 countryside management

 Human needs

·                                 housing - new building and refurbishment

·                                 improvements to visual environment

·                                 education and training

·                                 counselling, caring and healing

·                                 community work

·                                 community enterprises such as cultural centres

·                                 leisure and tourism

·                                 innovation, research and development in these fields



IiI have started a Campaign for the Green Wage Subsidy

Defeating Austerity with the General Tea Break

What the Cleggeron is doing to the UK people is truly damaging and ideologically driven. It is unacceptable. Therefore:

• The cuts must be stopped.

• Petitions and demonstrations, though necessary, are not sufficient.

• A General Strike would be effective, but the people are not yet ready for it.  They may be in a year or two, but by that time the damage will be done.

• Therefore, let us start with a General Tea Break.  Here's the plan

Every Monday morning, at 9 am, cuts activists meet up at work at the water cooler or someplace, and talk about the cuts for 5 minutes. That's all. Talk about the cuts for 5 mins. Anyone who comes along "Hello, we are just discussing the cuts. What do you think". 

After 5 mins they get to work. 

As numbers gather, the time slowly extends to 15 to 20 minutes and more.

If management comes and says "Why aren't you at your stations?"  the response is "We are talking about the cuts. They are going to wreck this country, do you not agree? We were just going back to our stations, but since you are here, we would like to know what you think? Do you think it will end up with a General Strike?"

Management will get the idea, as soon as they realise it is happening in other companies. They will realise we are tooling up for a General Strike, on the QT. They will have a word with the Treasury, which will have to calculate on the economic costs of a General Strike.

I do not promise that this will stop the cuts in their stride, but it is a useful weapon.  It is the Thin End of the Wedge. The thing is, it is so small (5 minutes, growing) that waverers will be encouraged to join. As more and more participate, it could go viral. The beauty of it is, if people are not sure and come up to question the General Tea Breakers, they become part of the action. 

Yes, OK a General Tea Break does not have the historic resonances of the Bolshevism to the Long March, but hey, we are British, and this is how we do things in Britain.

Green Party Conference Emergency motion on Squatting and Housing

Emergency Motion for Green Party Conference on Squatting

This Conference deeply regrets the recent action of the Government to criminalise squatting.
We note that it will evict up to 20,000 squatters, the majority of whom are decent, honest and self-reliant people.
We note that these people will either be thrown onto the streets, or into jail, or into local authority temporary accommodation, and that the accommodation  they have been squatting will mainly revert to empty status.

We note that there are some 60,000 households are classified as homeless in the UK, while some 720,000 houses are currently empty.

We note that as well as being a waste of resources, empty houses adversely affect the neighbourhood directly (by causing dampness in adjoining terraced houses) and indirectly through aesthetic effects.

Therefore we ask our elected representatives to do all in their power to implement our present policies of Empty Property use orders as an immediate tactical response to the criminalisation of squatting, and also to press for a Land Value Tax as a strategic response to the problem of empty housing.

Rwandan Green Party Leader honoured

salem-news.com

Rwandan Opposition Leader Receives

Doctoral Degree from Bethel College

Frank Habineza, founder and president of the Opposition Democratic Green Party of Rwanda will receive an honorary Doctoral Degree from Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana, USA, during a campus ceremony at 10:00 am Friday, March 15, 2013. The degree is presented in honor of Mr. Habineza’s work in promoting democratic reforms and human rights in Rwanda and across Africa.

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda was officially launched in August 2009 as an alternative to President Paul Kagame’s Ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, where most of its founding members had belonged. However, they found it very difficult to get the Opposition Party registered and during the 2010 presidential elections, the party faced so many challenges that it was not able to field a candidate. It had confirmed Frank Habineza as its presidential candidate. However, given the difficult circumstances at the time, Habineza had to leave the country for Sweden, where he stayed for two years. He was finally able to return in September 2012, in order to re-establish the party and enable it participate in parliamentary elections due this September.

In addition to forming the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Habineza was elected president of the African Greens Federation, a coalition of 30 political parties and movements from 29 African countries in April of 2010.

In 2012 the Africa Greens Federation, with Frank Habineza as president, was able to assist in the democratic programs of at least ten Green Parties in different sub-regions of Africa, including the registration of the Federation with the government in Burkina Faso.

Frank Habineza worked in the government of Rwanda as a personal assistant to the Minister of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines in 2005 and 2006. He was National Coordinator for the Nile Basin Discourse Forum of Rwanda, from 2006-2009 and was also founder chairman of Rwanda’s NGO’s Forum on Water, Sanitation and Environment. He is a graduate of the National University of Rwanda, earning a degree in Political and Administrative Sciences with a major in Public Administration.

He received a Democracy Prize in Swedish Parliament in April 2011 and an African Leader in Innovation and Sustainability Award in August 2011 from Pilot International-Uganda.

In his Christian ministry, he has worked very closely with World Partners, the overseas agency of the Missionary Church, an evangelical denomination with headquarters in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Missionary Church has over 500 U.S. churches and thousands of churches worldwide. World Partners employs a staff of 100 people serving in over 20 international locations who work with a growing network of nationals in various countries to develop disciple-making movements around the world. As part of its ministry, World Partners participates in programs such as community development, medicine, agriculture, education, Bible translation, literacy and leadership training.

Bethel College is affiliated with the Missionary Church. Bethel (www.bethelcollege.edu) is uniquely qualified to provide educational opportunities for all students, traditional and non-traditional, who are interested in a liberal arts program of studies with career and personal growth orientations. It offers studies including master's, baccalaureate and associate degrees for the broad spectrum of students and in a variety of settings.

-END-

Frustration at Green Party Conference

I'd rather be among the trees...

I am writing on the train back from Green Party Conference in Nottingham, seething emotions of frustration and resentment gradually settling down as we approach Birmingham.

The motion on the Green Wage Subsidy got referred back for further consideration.

I was pretty much expecting this, and referral back is better than an outright defeat because it can come back to the next conference, but it was frustrating. Again, as with the "Dealing with Dictators" motion, it was the form of the debate which annoyed me. I will not go in to details on that here, beyond that it was an extremely brief "debate", a travesty, unbalanced and stuffed with misinformation and misrepresentation.

Some of the opposition points were simply wrong: assertions that people will deliberately choose to become unemployed from their regular work in order to take up GWS work; blanket assertions that it was "bureaucratic", when in fact the scheme can be explained in a couple of paragraphs; the assertion that it would be abused (the same can be said of all legislation); the assertion that the "private sector cannot be trusted"; that it would create " a free pool of labour".

One objection made in the  online discussion was that it was too long, and that the list exemplifying the green sector of the economy should be cut out. So some do not want actually to think about what is meant by the green sector, or by constructive work that increases the health of society or environment.

The proposer of the motion to refer back actually took the line " It's OK but needs amending; why not extend it to ALL sectors of the economy?" I pointed out that "all" included manufacturers of motor cars and arms. Even so, his view prevailed.

The objections misrepresent the simple plan set out in the motion. What will have to happen is that the motion will become longer and more detailed to meet all the objections. When it comes back, the reactionaries will then be able to say it is too long and too detailed, and refer it back again.

This game of Object-Obfuscate-Refer Back can be played out for years on the floor of Conference.

Rather than playing political games, it would be far more open, honest and "green" to have a fair debate. If there are people in the Green Party who prefer the present benefit system as is, who see no problem with high levels of unemployment, who prefer to keep people in a state of unemployment, and who do not perceive the need for an expansion of the green sector of the economy, then they should nail their colours to the mast, and fight their corner openly. Obfuscation and misrepresentation is not the Green way.

Policy formation in the Green Party is supposedly democratic. Our Conferences are the supreme policy creation body in the party, although the leadership can and does pick and choose which, of the thousands of policies that Conference has created over the years, they will present at any election.

If Conference is to be the supreme policy making body, it has to be efficient and fair. One problem with this Conference was that not enough time was allocated to policy motions. Another problem is that some chairs let debate run on too long. As a rule, two speeches for and two against is a reasonable target; sometimes, the longer debate continues, the more confused people become. The chair can use straw polls to find if conference is ready to vote, and also to find the balance of opinion. Sometimes debate goes on for ages, only to find that the vote is overwhelming in one direction. A small passionate caucus can hold things up enormously.

All this is a re-run of the Dealing with Dictators fiasco of 2010. As a result of that matter, the chairs are better instructed, and are much more careful to be sure that they take "for" and "against" speakers.

This present set-to has caused me to reflect on my way of working. I am an inventor, and inventors tend to work alone. I do try to discuss my ideas, but often they do not get any reaction until they come to Conference. I try to be brief and clear in my explanations, but maybe I do not succeed at that. Or maybe I'm too brief. I think that when I try to be emphatic, it comes across as aggressive. I just do not know, all I know is that I am failing.

Overall I simply cannot understand why greens cannot see that full employment through a work programme that heals society and environment and paves the way for full Citizens' Income is something to be welcomed, picked up and if necessary, improved. Have we been cut off from mainstream politics for so long that we just care about reiterating our core beliefs like a mantra rather than thinking of innovative practical ways to actually get them rolled out? Are we, at 40, getting a bit set in our old ways of thinking, are we getting stiff and fat, sinking into our slippers by the fireside of our old ways?

I've been in the Green Party for some 33 years. I was one of the first National Co-Speakers, was one of the first two elected District Councillors, my chairing at Conference seems to be appreciated. The contribution that I offer now is innovative, fresh, lateral thinking policies. But these consistently attract rejection from within some within the central regions of the party, and I do not understand the reason.

The temptation is to walk away. Yet I think the Green Party has a role to play, even in this benighted country with its democratic deficit, and even given the nerdy, introverted and dysfunctional aspect of the Green Party itself.

One of the Green Party's roles is to bathe naked in the river of political thought, leaving our clothes on the bank to be stolen by other parties. The better our policies, the better become the policies of the other parties.

It is still important for us to develop policy - and also to present it to the world. One idea is to try to pilot the GWS in real time, in an unemployment hot spot somewhere, where we have a critical number of activists interested in doing this. This would require a major effort, but it could be done, especially if we slip back into a third phase of recession, or if we begin to get food or poverty riots.

So I will try to hang on and work within the Green Party. But what I have learned from this is that I cannot act alone. If we are to get Green Wage Subsidy onto our Policies for a Sustainable Society, (the link is broken at the time of writing, let me know if it persists. Our website is flaky. *sigh*) we have to form a group of committed people, to counterbalance the forces of reaction.

We have got to get organised.

So if there is any Green Party member reading this post who wants to join in the process to provide the Green Party, and therefore the world, with a means to kill the two headed dragon of unemployment and ecological degeneration, please get in touch with me. We need a core of eight activists at minimum. That should be enough to overcome the frustration inherent in trying to introduce new ideas in the teeth of resistance from the Handbrake Tendency.  

Further reading on the GWS 

[this post has been amended]

Green Party Conference Bristol 2012

The Green Party Conference was in Bristol was in good heart, not least as a result of media attention brought on by Caroline Lucas MP handing over the leadership of the party to Natalie Bennet. We have other reasons for optimism: the party is making steady progress in local elections, with the title “Councillor” now commonplace among delegates, instead of a thing to be marvelled at, as was the case 26 years ago.

It began with a handover speech by Caroline, one of the most fluent and confident I have heard from her. Practice does not make perfect, because nobody is perfect, but it certainly helps a politician to sound vote worthy. Practice will do the same for Natalie Bennet, who is intelligent, articulate and media savvy, as an ex-Guardian journalist. Cllr Will Duckworth was voted in as Deputy Leader, and I would rate him as the most bonhomous deputy leader in the entire UK. He positively oozes humanity, friendliness, and jollity, which is presumably what catapulted him into Birmingham councillorship a few years after founding the local Green Party.

Leadership formalities over, most of the cameras and the journalists cleared off, because the Green Conference is working conference replete with substantive motions, amendments, points of order, and other procedures that always teeter dangerously close to the cliff edge of the chaotic version of anarchy if the chair does not know what s/he is doing. Accidents are less frequent as the number of people with experience on local authority meetings goes up.

Being excluded from taking part in the political process by the archaic electoral system, and excluded from the political debate by the whim of editors and producers, the Greens have devoted their 40 year history to creating a large amount of detailed policy – the Policies for a Sustainable Society. This year, the major work was on a review of the Disability Chapter of the policies. There were also votes on Economic Democracy, International Law on Ecocide, End of Life Palliative Care, Animal Racing, the Aarhus Convention, Nuclear Waste, ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and Libel Law Reform.

As if this were not enough, there are Emergency Motions (EMs) on topical subjects designed (but generally failing) to attract the attention of the media. These are usually voted through unanimously, because although internal party matters may attract intense debate, there is usually good agreement on what needs to be done in the world outside.  For instance, my EM condemning the Coalition’s recent criminalisation of squatting drew on existing policy on Land Value Tax and Empty Property Use Orders to redress the ridiculous problem of homeless people coexisting with empty houses.

Aside from the policy work, Conference is a place where old friendships are renewed. Breaktimes are deafening with discussion and argument, as theories and hobby horses get expounded and tested. There is a general atmosphere of openness and friendliness. Evening entertainment tends to be of the open mic variety, as you might expect, with some musicians of quite a high standard, usually in the blues/folkish end of the spectrum. And there were intriguing little side shows, such as a fringe on Dragon Sexing from a historian who noticed that dragons, at least in their Western manifestation, tend to be female.

Relaxation also takes the form of listening to experts.  There was a panel on energy with Jonathon Porrit putting the boot into nuclear power (total waste of money) along with Paul Steedman from Friends of the Earth and the CEO of Good Energy. It is a sign of how far we have come that the CEO of a major company would be there to speak. There were panels on Right to Die, and a well attended seminar on population.  (And before anyone says, yes, over-consumption is very important, but taking that into account does not mean that the mathematics of doubling series can be set aside). I was pleased to get a positive response from the Population Matters speaker to my suggesitnog of a Social Contract  More on population here.

There were a couple of discussions of economic growth, one with Neal Lawson of Compass, and another set piece with Molly Scott Cato, the party’s economics speaker, Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, James Vaccaro - Head of Investment Banking in the ethical bank Triodos (who began with the memorable line, “I am proud to say that I am a banker”), and Michael Crichton of the Schumacher Institute. The impression that I took away from these meetings was that while the vision of a decent, rational economy working for the interests of the common people and of a sustainable healthy environment was much in evidence, that vision hovered tantalisingly about a meter from the ground. It was all vision and no protective goggles.

This is not quite fair, because the Green Party has been calling as loudly as it can (from its position of being locked up in the cupboard under the stairs of Westminster politics), for a Green new Deal that would create a million new jobs in energy conservation and renewables. However, at the same time it has proved itself singularly reluctant to engage with immediate, practical reforms to the benefit system that would enable a further million to find jobs in the green sector of the economy. 

Still, nothing’s perfect, least of all a political party. The struggle continues, and hopefully Caroline Lucas will be able to push the Green solutions to recession forward in Parliament, but at least the Green party is in good heart after its successful trip to Bristol.

Cycling Olympic Gold, also Cycling Death

Bradley Wiggins' brilliant performance in the Olympics cycling events has put cycling in the forefront of the news, but it coincided with yet another tragic accident in which a cyclist was killed by a bus carrying Olympic journalists. Eyewitness account here. It was the 61st this year, and the victim had just started to cycle to work.

We must use the transient salience and popularity of cycling to campaign to reduce cycling deaths.

Bradley was asked his opinion on cycling safety in the UK, and unfortunately he was reported to have led with compulsory helmets and no headphones. Which has led to a brisk debate about compulsory helmets.

In fact, Bradley Wiggins says he has been misreported. He tweets also:  ‏"I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally if involved in an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch"

I am a big advocate of helmets, but do not think they should be compulsory, on the grounds that it would
(a) create an insufferably loud and prolonged bout of whining from the libertarians, and
(b) when compulsory helmets law was brought in some countries (notably Australia)  the numbers of cyclists went down.

So, no compulsion. Helmets - and non-use of headphones - should remain advisory. Ideally, people who refuse helmets should pay the NHS for the extra work they impose, but that would be too contentious.

I have fallen off my bike 3 times in the last 20 years, and each time my helmets have saved me a trip to hospital with one or all of the following:

• scalp laceration
• concussion
• skull fracture

OK, that's just anecdotal evidence. We need statistics. 

This is from this Times article:

An assessment carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT) of over 100 police forensic reports into cycling fatalities showed that between 10 and 16 per cent of those fatalities would have been avoided had the victim been wearing an “appropriate cycle helmet” - ie: a helmet that is in good condition, of good quality and fits properly.

The report also found that, in cases of serious cyclist casualties treated in English hospitals, 10 per cent had suffered “injuries of a type and to a part of the head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated or prevented”.

100 is not a lot, but it's a start. If you want the original reference, you should find it here.
So that is good enough for me. The debate will continue, but it gets bogged down into stuff like "Well a helmet isn't going to save you if you are run over by a 20 tonne lorry, is it?"
To which the answer is
"No".

This argument, which pops up everywhere, is a red herring fallacy.
Policy A, designed to address Problem A, does not address Problem B, therefore Policy A is no good.
Bollox to that.

So let us agree that helmets should be voluntary, and move swiftly on to the much more interesting matter, of what politicians in general, and in particular Boris Johnson,  Mayor of London, should do about it.

First, here are the Green Party's full walking and cycling policies. 14 points.
And here are the Times newspapers Cities Fit For Cycling manifesto points, which for a Murdoch-owned right wing rag, are pretty good. Here's a discussion of the manifesto.

We need infrastructure changes, not helmet laws. The key points for politicians are:

1. Cycle paths and cycle lanes.
   Paris has these. Last year, Paris had 0 (zero) cyclist deaths.
   London has no cycle lanes to speak of. Last year, London had 16 deaths.
   
   Obviously there are other factors, but dedicated cycle lanes and paths makes sense. It will reduce cycling on pavements too.
2. Blind spot technology for HGVs and PSVs. Many deaths happen when a lorry turns left while a cyclist is undertaking on the left, and gets crushed between the lorry and railings. Mirrors, cameral, or body sensors are all possibilities.
3. Rails along the sides of lorries, to prevent a toppled cyclist (or pedestrian) from falling under the wheels.
4. Other stuff. I put this in because there is always more stuff to do, and if I don't put it in, people will say "What you've written is all wrong because you've left out my Best Thing.". Government has to work out the optimum response. We have to kick Government into action. 

I hope that the Greens on the London Assembly will press the Boris to start thinking sensibly and realistically about how to respond. But we will have to kick him into action. His Twitter address is here, and his email address is mayor@london.gov.uk.

PS another irony of the whole current situation is that our intelligent, wonderful and freedom-loving coppers in the Met Police decided to attack the regular Critical Mass ride. Here's an account by the excellent JauntyAngle

The day of the opening ceremony for the Olympics the monthly Critical Mass Ride was taking place in London, which is an informally organised protest ride about the situation and provision for cyclists which also happens in a number of other countries around the world. Except that ride didn’t just happen as it does every month, the police decided that it was a threat to the peace and harmony of the Olympic games and decided to use kettling tactics to detain the riders and arrest 182 of them, including a 13 year old. Apparently riding your bike near the Olympic park can get you in a police cell for 5 hours and a bail order to not enter the Borough of Newham during the Olympics.

Sign the petition on Critical Mass here:

Big Green Week was great - but needs to connect with the economy

Over the last week, I have been to several talks at Bristol's Big Green Week. It has been good, listening to thinkers and do-ers in the field of bringing mankind to its ecological senses. In fact, yesterday, after listening to Fiona Reynolds and Dan Pearson talking about Nature Deficit Disorder - the malign effect of separating humans from nature, and the benign effect of re-connecting them with nature - I actually felt the stirrings of primary optimism in my chest.

Primary optimism is distinct from my chosen optimism. A few years ago, I was suffering one of those times when you wonder if it is all a waste of time, that our rulers are hell-bent on exhausting the planetary resources in the name of profit, and that there is nothing that we can say or do to affect this process. At that time, I decided to deliberately choose to be optimistic, to keep looking for solutions, because the alternative was not just pessimism and inactivity, but also personal depression.

But yesterday, I realised that there are many many people who are quietly and successfully beavering away at making a better world, in every aspect of life, and that this is cause for optimism. I also realised that we have moved on immensely since I began doing green politics. Of course, it is happening much too slowly, but it is happening. Peoples' minds are changing, and only the immutable ideologues and free market fundamentalists remain fixed in denial, as is demanded by their root belief.

So the Big Green Week was good. But it has one big flaw - its disconnectedness from the current political situation. Apart from one reference from Caroline Lucas, I heard nobody dealing with the economic crisis that is engulfing the UK, Europe and the world.  At the same time, yesterday, in the session with Caroline Lucas Patrick Curry and Polly Higgins, chaired by Jonathon Porritt.

In this session, the question was raised, on the platform, of why these issues, so obvious and so important to us, the middle class intelligensia, are of so little interest to the mainstream? Why, knowing what we know, do we not act? How do we raise the popular energy to make the transition to a green, sustainable economy? How do we change the culture, generate a groundswell of opinion that supports a way of living that does not wreck the planet?

I believe that the answer lies in solving the problem of unemployment by creating good work in the green sector of the economy. Philosophically, this means understanding that true work means increasing the order in our surrounding world, applying ourselves to oppose entropy. In practice, it means facilitating work in these areas of the economy :


1 energy conservation
2 renewable energy technologies
3 energy efficient goods manufacture
4 pollution control technology
5 waste minimisation
6 repair
7 recycling
8 water management
9 sustainable agriculture
10 forestry and timber use
11 countryside management
12 housing - new building and refurbishment
13 improvements to visual environment
14 public transport
15 education and training
16 counselling, caring and healing
17 community work
18 leisure and tourism
19 innovation, research and development
20 any business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.

In political terms, it means changing the benefit system so that it behaves more like Citizen's Income.

I believe that these changes, as part of a broader anti-austerity package, an economic Plan B, This should be raised as a standard that everyone who disagrees with austerity can rally around.

By showing that ecology is about action, not just words, we can transform peoples' understanding of what Nature means for them. By showing that household incomes can rise, that people can actually create a happier world, and get paid real money for it, we can get a hearing.

I was unable to get this point across in the one brief question that I was able to put at the beginning of the week. At present, I am incubating a plan to actually create, with others, a pilot of the Green Wage Subsidy.  This intent is again down to what I heard at a Schumacher lecture in the Big Green Week. Tim Smits said Just Do It. He also said that he is angered by negative people - the people who just love to say it cannot be done. In future, I am going simply to ignore these naysayers. They do not matter. What matters is that we should take practical, non-violent, action, to make the situation better.

Greens should think globally and also act globally

"Think Global, Act Local" is the time-honoured Green slogan. It is a good slogan, but it has tended to blind us to the necessity of acting globally at the same time as acting locally.

Global action is necessary given that the world is ultimately a single system - an infinitely complex inter-relation of physical, biological, social and economic interacting parts. Each of the parts is local, but the localities summate into the single global system.

"Globalisation" is an ugly, cumbersome word to describe the ugly, cumbersome way the human economy on the planet has evolved into one single powerful marketplace. We Greens have rightly been critical of the way this single market has overridden the need for environmental and social protection, but our opposition has perhaps tended to put us off from grasping the opportunity to act at the global level. Which is a pity, because Greens have an annual Congress every three years. the next is to be in Dakar, Senegal this year, 29 March to 1 April.

I attended the last Congress in Sao Paolo Brazil in 2008. The resolutions we passed are here, and at the same time we set up a small international secretariat.

It is remarkable that with huge diversity of Green Parties from all over the world, (there were 75 parties in 2008) we should have been able to agree on so much. This year the need for us to have a global voice is even greater, not just on climate change, but also on human rights, dictatorships and the global economy.

In Sao Paolo the Global Greens adopted the Global Human Rights Index, which has  a real bearing on the Arab Spring and similar movements against dictatorship and for democracy. The paragraph in the 2008 resolution reads: In order to lead the UN from a reactive to a pro-active stance on human rights, we will press for all countries’ human rights records to be expressed quantitatively, so that they can be published annually by the UN in ranked order, revealing the relative standing of each country, which will exert a continual persuasive force on all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights. (source)

This year we need to build policy on a global tax framework to match the de facto economic globalisation that exists. Tax havens and tax loopholes create a race to the bottom, where countries compete to have the lowest tax rates in order to attract multinational corporations to their shores. This leads to a haemorrhage of wealth from the national economy into offshore bank accounts, as any skuleboy kno.

The Green Party in England and Wales is a latecomer to the Global Greens - I was the first delegate we sent -  and this year we are sending Ricky Knight and Gina Dowding. We must hope that from the deliberations we get a clear message to save the ailing world economy from the debilitating effect of domination by self-interested multinational corporations.

Citizen's Income, Land Value Tax, and Green Party Policy

Dole Moors (in the distance) from Dolberrow

A green party member has been asking about the connection between ecological sustainability and Green Party policies like Citizen's Income (CI) and Land Value Tax (LVT).

CI can be developed from the idea that every human being has a right to eat.
In subsistence societies this translates into a share of the results of the communal hunting and gathering.
In pastoral societies, it translates into each family being given access to a section of land for growing food.

I live in Dolebury, near the Dole Moors, which take their name from the practice where sections of land were parceled out to the people.

Quick Google of Dole Moors yields:

There is a strange account in the Every Day Book of the annual apportion- ment of some commons, called Dole Moors, belonging to the parishes of Puxton, Wick St. Lawrence and Congresbury in Somersetshire.http://www.archive.org/stream/englandundernorm00morguoft/englandundernorm00morguoft_djvu.txt

1 The question as to the dimensions of the " hide " has been a fruitful subject of controversy. It was originally that measure of land which was considered to be sufficient for the support of one family, and its extent varied in every district according to the local custom and according to the qualit)'- 
of the soil. Bede (Hist. Eccl. i. 15) estimated the contents of the Isle of Thanet at 600 hides, which were afterwards found to contain nearly 70 " sulings," or Kentish ploughlands, each containing 210 acres according to the measure used in Thanet. In this instance the " hide " is shown to have contained less than 25 acres. In a poorer district it would contain much more. There was a later use of the word which made it equivalent to a "ploughland," or as much arable as a team of oxen could plough in a 
year: in this case the "hide" represents quantities varying, according to the district, from 100 acres to 210 acres, or even more. 


...in some cases been annual, and in others having originally been held once in three years but afterwards at longer intervals. It is true that there is hardly any documentary evidence to show that the arable in England was ever divided in this way. But the pastures, and notably the lot-meadows and dole-moors, were treated as common property : a primitive usage determined the division of 
the common-fields into strips and blocks, the rotation of  the crops, the erection of fences, and the use of the land after harvest bv the cattle of the whole community ; we see that the same usages prevailed in the German districts where the ownership was certainly collective ; and we are 
thus led to believe that the English farmers were at first joint-owners of all the arable land as well as of the pastures and waste-grounds in the township." 

There are many popular customs of which the origin must be attributed to a time when the villagers were united by the sentiment of partnership and the tradition of a common descent.

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/charles-isaac-elton/origins-of-english-history-otl/page-33-origins-of-english-history-otl.shtml 

In our post-pastoral times, the wealth of the land is represented in terms of money, and this can be represented as Citizens Income. 

At the same time, this line of approach gives validity to the LVT - we rent the land which is our "personal property" from the community. 

The perceived problem with CI is that it is perceived as impossibly expensive, and that it is nothing but a Ligger's Charter. 

In spite of the best efforts of the Basic Income Earth Network, and the support of various economic thinkers, it has rarely surfaced in the UK public debate, (though Comhaontas Glas (?sp)the Irish Greens, did get a report on CI out of the Government which they participated in) and if it did it would undoubtedly be immediately rubbished on by conservatives in all the main parties as being prohibitively expensive, especially in these times of austerity.

Which is why I developed the Green Wage Subsidy proposal (presented to the DWP consultation process as Work Stimulus Scheme.
This has the merit of sidestepping the cost and Ligger's Charter objections. 

It also converts benefits like JSA etc from being an administratively complex, dead, grudging dole given on condition that the recipient does no work (aside from a tiny Earnings Disregard) into a meaningful stimulus to the Green sector of the economy. 

It is therefore of help in dealing with the coming recession, and when/if we emerge from recession, will enable a mature public debate on CI to take place, with a good chance of seeing it rolled out in its full form.

It is not full CI, but is a practical effective and attractive transition policy.