Yet another note to self.
Not only do I have to start writing the outstanding post on dull urban architecture, and then finish the post on Fracking, but I also have two more ideas for post to write...
One on 'invasive' British spiders, and how the Media, in all its forms, seems to be embroiled in a conspiracy of disseminating lies and half-truths along with self-interested pest control firms.
And one on the ever-increasing sterile 'gardens' and open spaces in CBDs, and how a lack of interest, care, or finances is affecting our urban invertebrate populations.
All these are most likely best left to the new year as I am so disorganised right now that I doubt I'll manage one, let all four!
We'll shall see though I guess.
Best,
ZeeOx
Tuesday 24 November 2015
Monday 28 September 2015
Quick post to remind, well, myself really.
I am going to post an entry here soon regarding dull 'urban' architecture... and how developers decide to employ 'modern' styles under the moniker of "exclusive" or "prestige" without care or forethought concerning the reality of the design and/or the subsequent long-term effects or reception.
I'll be using a few examples from my home town of Cambridge, a place where you'd expect a bit more effort to be made!
Watch this space! (Yes, I'm talking to myself... as no-one else is likely to read this! Still... it's good karma to get it off my chest.)
I'll be using a few examples from my home town of Cambridge, a place where you'd expect a bit more effort to be made!
Watch this space! (Yes, I'm talking to myself... as no-one else is likely to read this! Still... it's good karma to get it off my chest.)
Friday 7 August 2015
Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?
Before I attempt to answer the question posed by this latest Blog entry, I think I need to sketch out a little bit of background first in order to help you understand where I'm coming from!
---
Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.
Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)... but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.
I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!
Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.
I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.
And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.
But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.
Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.
For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**
But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.
----
So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!
This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.
BUT...
I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...
Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?
I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.
Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-
1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)
And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...
These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.
These are undeniable problems:-
1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.
I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.
In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.
I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.
When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.
This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!
For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.
Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.
It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?
To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!
*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)
**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!
***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!
---
Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.
Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)... but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.
I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!
Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.
I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.
And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.
But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.
Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.
For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**
But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.
----
So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!
This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.
BUT...
I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...
Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?
I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.
Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-
1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)
And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...
These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.
These are undeniable problems:-
1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.
I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.
In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.
I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.
When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.
This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!
For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.
Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.
It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?
To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!
*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)
**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!
***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!
Sunday 28 June 2015
Missed Opportunity!
This year represents the second consecutive season for Swifts, an Amber-status summer-visiting bird in the UK, to successfully breed in the (now 4 years-old) Swift Tower on Riverside, north Cambridge.
Designed for 100 nesting pairs, this tower courted controversy when it was built due to its overall cost (during the early months of the post-2010 General Election austerity crisis) and coincidental (or not!) poor timing with the redundancy of Cambridge City Council's only full-time Local Nature Reserves Warden(/Nature Conservation Officer).
Currently used by nesting Starlings in the main (which is actually a Red-status bird!), about half a dozen Swifts are using the tower this summer, stopping miserable cynics like me from saying it was a complete failure. So: now it's here then, and working, let's hope the numbers of nesting birds continue to rise, year-on-year!
(The back of the tower, with Riverside Bridge's long adjoining, pre-river crossing, section behind.)
The tower is currently situated in a field undergoing radical change. In actual fact a flood plain, the field is separated from the adjoining River Cam by a narrow stretch of mature trees, including Weeping willow, and a newly cut 'relief-channel'- style stream (but more on that later). This field (and the neighbouring field beyond the bridge) used to contain sports pitches for the employees' use of the (now long-closed) Pye Electronics' Factory, and today also continue to provide (council-run) football pitches for public use.
Also alongside the field (on its western edge) is a Local Nature Reserve - Logan's Meadow: www.lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/reserves/logans_meadow/default.asp
Logan's Meadow is (quote, from the Council's website) "an oasis for nature within a recently developed area of the city", which is a bit of an odd summary really as the mainly Ash trees there are tall and old, and the surrounding road network and adjoining riverside infrastructure are well established. True, there are relatively new houses both beneath nearby Elizabeth Way and at the flats immediately behind it, but what I mean by odd is that it is not a new wild space for nature in the sense of those often created from scratch for new housing developments.
Indeed, Logan's Meadow has long been an important, albeit oft overlooked, integral part of northern Cambridge's overall biodiversity and its small network of (genuinely) wild spaces, and, due to neglect, abuse and lack of support, evolved into a bit of a lost treasure.*
(A BBQ and loud music in a nature reserve? - As observed from the other side of the river.)
But that is probably about to change...
After some work tidying up and adding new features to the reserve about 10 years ago, Logan's Meadow has now been linked up (by formal path access) with said adjoining field containing the Swift Tower and, at long last, additional work has taken place to try and improve the whole area along this stretch of the river, with wildlife specifically in mind.
You can now cross the fancy-looking Riverside Bridge and easily access both the reserve proper and the new field with the tower, stream and continuously developing and mature wild areas, along with access to open-access gardens to flats immediately to the east of the bridge as well.
(The River Cam passing underneath Riverside (Cycle and Pedestrian) Bridge. Note the gate-able 'cut-off' stream in the foreground.)
So... where am I going with this? Why have I called the Blog Entry "Missed Opportunity!"?
After all, the Swifts are nesting, a wild flower meadow and new reed beds have been planted, and Logan's Meadow has been re-invigorated...
(Shortly after the first meadow ploughing session. Note the dog!)
Well, because I believe Cambridge City Council, for want of a more mature term, have chickened-out of doing something really special here. Also, with what they have done, a few mistakes have been made... and these really undermine the current and future functionality of the place as an 'oasis for nature'.
What could they have done?
So, aside of the initial expense on the Swift Tower, with its artistic rather than practical slant**, and the loss of an excellent custodian of the City's wild places at the same time, the council have only used a small percentage of the available flood plain for the new wild spaces. My argument is that they should have used the WHOLE FIELD!
(Artist's impression? - The new site map for the whole site... doesn't it look good?)
The new stream cutting that will, in time, provide both shelter away from the river for fish fry, other marine animals, plus the birds and mammals that feed on them, could have been extended much further into the field, and have various channels and pools leading off it.
The reeds that will now grow alongside the stream will hardly be the most extensive, and the wild flower meadow will have a width of no more than 10 or so metres. Using the whole field could have created a significant stronghold for riparian wildlife in the city... and perhaps entice back the Otters and Kingfishers which once 'denned' and nested here not so long ago.
(Early doors: the reed and other water-loving plants' sectors.)
If the whole field had been turned over to reedbed, who knows what could have been encouraged in? Imagine Bearded Tits establishing themselves in Cambridge City for example! (Or even a passing Bittern in winter!) There is a site just outside of the city where you can see Bearded Tits occasionally, and Bitterns have also been seen at nearby Milton Country Park too, so I don't think it's within the realms of extreme fantasy personally.
You would also have had a valuable flood relief opportunity, on a part of the river that often floods its banks... and the houses on the opposite side of the river. The field, as it stands, often has open standing pools of water in the winter, and grass that is often so saturated after rain that you wouldn't want to walk on it, let alone engage in sport.
Lastly, imagine the educational potential of such a site, if properly thought out! Perhaps the construction of a couple of hides would have worked wonders, or maybe even just one, tall raised viewing platform or hide at the northern-end of the site that allowed the new (normally) hidden pools and channels (and their residents) to be viewed from a height and at distance... and perhaps even to enable the tower's Swifts to be seen flying past at eye level!
Why did they not do this then?
As far as I know, it was not an economic decision. At least, in terms of using the entire field. The argument apparently, was that the football pitches were still needed as there were no nearby pitches for the local community.
But I am sorry to say: this is poppycock (and I'm sorry for the use of another immature term in this entry!). For starters, the nearest football pitches are literally just 5 minutes walk away at the Chesterton Recreation Ground... and there is also the massive Stourbridge Common to the east for those wanting a more casual kick-about. Yes, there may be dogs there (see my point below)... but that's just an occupational hazard for playing 'free' football anywhere in Cambridge I'm afraid. Stourbridge Common is easily accessible using the new Riverside Bridge... or the Green Dragon Bridge just 5 minutes further along opposite the pub on Water Street.
Just how much organised football is played in this part of Cambridge then? Well, judging by the site's use currently, not that much, let's be honest!
What's wrong now?
So, you might think that a small start is better than none. And I guess you're right, if you just measure things at a macro level...
How is the site currently used then?
In short, it's used for dog walking. Every evening I walk home past the field, which is quite often, I might see some joggers, or maybe even the occasional informal kick-about (and even more rarely, Scouts, Guides, etc. on some sort of formal activity)... but, without a doubt, the biggest use of the place is for people exercising their dogs.
(Moorhen and dog prints.)
Combining walking dogs with observing wildlife is a massive activity in the UK, and I would say it challenges sports fishing in terms of overall numbers of regular participants... so I do know how carefully I have to tread here (pun intended)... But, regardless, this is not the site we should be endorsing this kind of activity! How can a place used primarily for dog walking truly combine with being an 'oasis for nature'?
Most dogs are off the lead as soon as they are led off the adjoining bridge, with its odd out-of-scale wheelchair slope that often leads straight into saturated mud! (see below, with attractive trolley cameo!). This leaves them loose to disturb wildlife straight-away (I'm worried about the nearby Water Vole - see below!), and also: to soil the football pitches.
What is it with this country doubling-up formally marked-out football pitches with places to exercise dogs? Not everyone 'poops and scoops' (and of those who do, I've lost count of the then non-disposed black bags thrown into nearby bushes)... and even those that do do it properly, what is left behind on the grass is not pleasant if you, say, happen to make a fine header in a football game and then land in a place that was recently popped and scooped by hand. Dog-owners are not clinical 'crime scene' cleaners after all!
(A discarded poo-bag... thrown in the water of the new stream's reedbed area.)
I have seen dogs of all descriptions attacking any bird that happens to be on the ground at the site, and also dogs going through the badly maintained wire fence around the new stream and into bushes and tree understories where interesting birds like Blackcap, Grey heron, etc. like to nest or take refuge.
If you're thinking dogs have to exercised somewhere... well, as I've pointed out already for the footballers, Stourbridge Common is nearby, and a large place full of lovely endless fields for standard dog-related activities... and from the north of town, the new bridge gets you there in no time!
On top of this, Logan's Meadow used to have an occupied Otter Den, or Holt, and a well-maintained Kingfisher nesting bank. But not now. I have seen the latter nest there, but not for while... and both the nesting bank and 'secret' Holt have overgrown and seen much neglect of late. I have also yet to see an Otter on the River Cam, despite their increasing numbers nationally after long-years of persecution... and, indeed, increasing numbers of them on the Cam's tributaries not far to the south of the city.
Personally, I think these Otters are put off by boats (rowers!) that use the small and narrow Cam for intense practice all-year-round. The rowing boats are environmentally friendly of course, and quiet too, but the associated noise of on-board - and mic'd-up - coxes and the cycling coaches that accompany them, put an end to the river being quiet until it's gone dark.
Regardless of this then (a rant for another day perhaps!), wouldn't it have been great if the whole 'Pye' field had been turned over to quiet backwaters and reedbeds for the Otters to re-discover and make a new, quieter, home away from the main river course? And also, how about a new, fully set-back, Kingfisher nesting bank too? (Perhaps right opposite a hide like at RSPB Rainham Marshes?)
(The old Kingfisher nesting bank - photo'd in early April, 2015... now even more overgrown!)
***
(Pointless wire fencing.)
I am not going to predict anything about these concerns here but, for once, I will try and look at the glass half-full as the place matures and more wildlife arrive...
The new meadow space has only just been turfed up, but I look forward to it maturing. I am also very much looking forward to seeing how many reeds grow alongside the stream and whether they manage to succeed in enticing in migratory reed specialist warblers like Reed and Sedge warbler to nest.
One thing's certain, I expect the sightings of the endangered Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) to go up. The adjoining field, with its small, but slightly longer and well-established stream, now has an easily observed full-time resident (along with several rats!) and I hope to see its future broods link up with those that hopefully also discover the new stream, and Logan's Meadows' ponds.
It's true that dogs will occasionally kill Water Voles (if they spot them!)... but I would say their main enemy is the Mink and the lack of suitable habitat.
***
One thing's certain, I expect the sightings of the endangered Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) to go up. The adjoining field, with its small, but slightly longer and well-established stream, now has an easily observed full-time resident (along with several rats!) and I hope to see its future broods link up with those that hopefully also discover the new stream, and Logan's Meadows' ponds.
(Water Vole and Brown Rat highways!)
It's true that dogs will occasionally kill Water Voles (if they spot them!)... but I would say their main enemy is the Mink and the lack of suitable habitat.
***
HOWEVER... all that said, my underlying point will always remain though: it was a missed opportunity.
A big one.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
P.S. I welcome responses to this piece. It could be that people will completely disagree with my evaluation and so, for balance, I will happy (sort of!) to see any decently-put arguments posted under the comments... as long as they're not rude!
--------
* Indeed, a recent report has shown its ponds to be a bit of a strong spot for the Smooth newt, Lissotriton vulgaris.
**... and a tower which took ages to entice the birds in through the use of a tape loop that only seemed to play in late summer when the Swifts had already migrated back to Africa (I am assuming it was solar-power triggered?).
Further interesting Swift Tower Links
http://actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/modifications-to-cambridge-swift-tower.html
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-swifts-have-landed
https://www.facebook.com/cambridgenews/posts/10152322106533031
(And yes, that's a Daily Mail link in there at the top of this entry... I am working on my absolutist Lefty bias!)
Cheers,
ZeeOx
P.S. I welcome responses to this piece. It could be that people will completely disagree with my evaluation and so, for balance, I will happy (sort of!) to see any decently-put arguments posted under the comments... as long as they're not rude!
--------
* Indeed, a recent report has shown its ponds to be a bit of a strong spot for the Smooth newt, Lissotriton vulgaris.
**... and a tower which took ages to entice the birds in through the use of a tape loop that only seemed to play in late summer when the Swifts had already migrated back to Africa (I am assuming it was solar-power triggered?).
Further interesting Swift Tower Links
http://actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/modifications-to-cambridge-swift-tower.html
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-swifts-have-landed
https://www.facebook.com/cambridgenews/posts/10152322106533031
(And yes, that's a Daily Mail link in there at the top of this entry... I am working on my absolutist Lefty bias!)
Monday 20 April 2015
Heading for a Hung Parliament...
A super-belated Happy New Year.
I have left behind the urgent need to finish my entry on Fracking for the moment to point out a quick fact: it's a UK Election Year!
On May the 7th, the Coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formally ends and voting takes place across the country in order to determine what will replace it.
It's highly unlikely to be a repeat scenario... and for the first time in a good while, the result is really hard to predict.
This is arguably mainly down to the presence of UKIP, and their success in the May 2014 European Elections has without doubt scared the established mainstream parties. Also, despite the failure of the SNP to secure independence after the Scottish Referendum on 18th September, 2014, the party has found itself in a strong, indeed arguably stronger, position ever since, and it is possible they may hold the balance of power come the morning of May the 8th.
Whilst, as I said, it's hard to predict the outcome, and despite the occasional spats taking place in the various televised Leaders' Debates currently taking place, it is relatively easy to consider who may work with who (and who may not) in the case of there being no overall victor after it.
Labour have made it clear they are targeting an overall majority and do not wish to work with the SNP, but UKIP have said they would consider a partnership with the Conservatives... and Nick Clegg (as LibDem Leader) still has faith that his party will prove the Kingmaker, regardless of who that main (but not overall) victor is.
As a Greens' supporter for 2015, I have been happy with what I have heard from Natalie Bennett et al. Whilst a lot has been said of her "interviewing skills", she has performed well enough in the debates, and we must remember that, either way, we don't vote for people, we vote for parties. This is not The Voice, after all.
I suppose what really annoys me right now is that a lot of detractors (who, at best, 'skip read' the various Party Manifestos), are attacking the Greens for being potentially economically disastrous...
Now, no matter what you might think about that, or indeed whether you think it was US sub-prime mortgages, Gordon Brown selling gold or just plain bad luck that caused the economic crash of 2008 in the first place, you must admit that it is rather sloppy to worry about the Greens creating an economic mess when we are already in one.
I say: give them a chance! If they fail then we can at least all say that they had a go. It gets me down when people say "it's time for something different"... and then don't see it through.
Of course, saying that, I'd rather people voted Labour than UKIP... but then, I'm not bonkers.
So: 1. Remember to vote! It CAN make a difference no matter what Russell Brand might say as there is always a wide-range of options on a ballot paper. The last day to register to vote IS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!
And: 2. Read the manifestos rather than just relying on TV performances to help make up your mind.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
I have left behind the urgent need to finish my entry on Fracking for the moment to point out a quick fact: it's a UK Election Year!
On May the 7th, the Coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formally ends and voting takes place across the country in order to determine what will replace it.
It's highly unlikely to be a repeat scenario... and for the first time in a good while, the result is really hard to predict.
This is arguably mainly down to the presence of UKIP, and their success in the May 2014 European Elections has without doubt scared the established mainstream parties. Also, despite the failure of the SNP to secure independence after the Scottish Referendum on 18th September, 2014, the party has found itself in a strong, indeed arguably stronger, position ever since, and it is possible they may hold the balance of power come the morning of May the 8th.
Whilst, as I said, it's hard to predict the outcome, and despite the occasional spats taking place in the various televised Leaders' Debates currently taking place, it is relatively easy to consider who may work with who (and who may not) in the case of there being no overall victor after it.
Labour have made it clear they are targeting an overall majority and do not wish to work with the SNP, but UKIP have said they would consider a partnership with the Conservatives... and Nick Clegg (as LibDem Leader) still has faith that his party will prove the Kingmaker, regardless of who that main (but not overall) victor is.
As a Greens' supporter for 2015, I have been happy with what I have heard from Natalie Bennett et al. Whilst a lot has been said of her "interviewing skills", she has performed well enough in the debates, and we must remember that, either way, we don't vote for people, we vote for parties. This is not The Voice, after all.
I suppose what really annoys me right now is that a lot of detractors (who, at best, 'skip read' the various Party Manifestos), are attacking the Greens for being potentially economically disastrous...
Now, no matter what you might think about that, or indeed whether you think it was US sub-prime mortgages, Gordon Brown selling gold or just plain bad luck that caused the economic crash of 2008 in the first place, you must admit that it is rather sloppy to worry about the Greens creating an economic mess when we are already in one.
I say: give them a chance! If they fail then we can at least all say that they had a go. It gets me down when people say "it's time for something different"... and then don't see it through.
Of course, saying that, I'd rather people voted Labour than UKIP... but then, I'm not bonkers.
So: 1. Remember to vote! It CAN make a difference no matter what Russell Brand might say as there is always a wide-range of options on a ballot paper. The last day to register to vote IS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!
And: 2. Read the manifestos rather than just relying on TV performances to help make up your mind.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)