Wall of separation – environment…

And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.

– Jeremiah 2:7

If the plethora of homogeneous portraits of a neatly-bearded Jesus are anything to go by – you know the ones: at the centre of stained-glass windows; coloured Catholic effigies; in Ladybird books… – the fading phenomenon that is ‘hipsterism’ didn’t originate in Shoreditch, in the 1990s; nor even in the 1940s, in America; but in downtown Nazareth, sometime around the year dot.

However, this doesn’t mean that there’s been the corresponding solid ecological patrimony you might expect (just the opposite, sadly…) at the sacred heart of organized western religion for the last two thousand years; nor that we particularly equate the church (more specifically, its ‘modern’ construct, the Church of England) with environmentalism. (Mind you, we don’t equate it with “a double upside down mocha macchiato with soy – low fat, no fat, no lid [and] make it taste like Christmas too”, either. Well, not really.)

Nevertheless, if the House of Bishops’ pastoral letter Who is my neighbour? is anything to go by, the Church of England is keen to make sure it now doesn’t get left behind in the race towards saving (what’s left of) our “green and pleasant land” – undoubtedly one of the many reasons Iain Duncan Smith (despite, or because of, his oft-boasted “Catholic background”?) rapidly attempted to bully yet another typically soft target he thinks(?!) won’t fight back. Methinks he may be in for a shock…

If the responses of the media and the PM are typical of our political culture, it is unfit for purpose. Thoughtful reflections on the electorate’s disengagement are conjured into party political statements to be rubbished on party political terms. Seemingly, the church’s views matter enough to raise alarm.

– Malcolm Brown: Director of Mission and Public Affairs for the Church of England

¶

Perhaps it’s because we are so divorced from the natural world that we consider ourselves immune to the damage we inflict. As the Indian proverb says: “When you drive nature out of the door with a broom, she’ll come back through the window with a pitchfork.”

– George Monbiot: The Guardian

When even the Labour party’s Protecting our environment election ‘issues’ webpage – “A Labour government will re-establish Britain as a global leader on climate change” (which almost sounds like it’s going to try and increase pollution and levels of carbon dioxide and methane…) – has no mention of alternative power sources, but instead leads with criticism of “fun and optimistic guy” Dave ‘Hug a Husky’ Cameron’s only slightly more feeble, flood-diluted policies; and the Green party is struggling both with credibility questions and “discovering that the road from being, in effect, a pressure group that puts up candidates to being a party with real ambitions can be punishing”; I am both gratified and grateful that there is still an established, public-facing organization that has the confidence to talk openly and urgently about one of the most pressing problems we have to confront. (Frankly, the planet can just about look after itself; and will recover – or re-emerge in a different form – once we have disappeared in a large puff of smoke of our own making. But, as a species of temporary inhabitants, we are rapidly approaching the point of no return with regards to our own viability.)

According to its own guide and thematic groupings, below are the sections that the House of Bishops highlighted under ‘Environment’ (in bold – although, as before, I have expanded their extracts to show how they fit within the complete numbered paragraphs):

[2] Followers of Jesus Christ believe that every human being is created in the image of God. But we are not made in isolation. We belong together in a creation which should be cherished and not simply used and consumed. This is the starting point for the Church of England’s engagement with society, the nation and the world. All that we say here follows from this. Anglicans do not have a single view on which political party has the best mix of answers to today’s problems. As bishops we support policies which respect the natural environment, enhance human dignity and honour the image of God in our neighbour.

[27] It is vital to find better ways of talking about many fundamental questions facing us today. To name only a few of the major questions which contemporary politics seems determined to avoid, we need a richer justification for the state, a better account of the purposes of government, and a more serious way of talking about taxation. Most of all, we need an honest account of how we must live in the future if generations yet to come are not to inherit a denuded and exhausted planet.

[117] People will commit to the long term if they have a stake in it. Intergenerational justice depends upon sharing power and decision making now. By enabling people to build a stake in the communities they are encouraged to live, not only for the day, but for their grandchildren’s future – and, on behalf of future generations, to cherish the created order rather than viewing our environment as a commodity to be consumed.

To my mind, the preceding two paragraphs in the letter are also relevant – completing the ‘Our grandchildren’s future’ page:

[115] Our grandchildren’s future, not just the wants of the moment, must be factored into economic and political priorities. When prosperity – and, for the least well off, survival – appears to depend more on luck than merit and when rewards seem divorced from virtue, there is no incentive to invest in a future we will not ourselves enjoy. Why build the foundations of the next generation’s future if it could be swept away by the throw of the economic dice?

[116] This shows why economics must be understood as a moral discipline. A thriving economy needs investors who look to the long term. But when the economy has pursued short term profit and stopped thinking long term, people’s rational behaviour follows suit. It is hard to promote virtuous living when the shape of the economy sends a very different message about human responsibilities.

Reading these, it’s not difficult to see why the supposedly “quiet man” IDS exploded, is it? “Will no-one will rid me of these troublesome priests?!” The Conservatives seem to care as much for the environment, for the long-term future, as they do for the deprived and disabled (and about as much as I care for the Conservatives – ‘care’ is simply Not What They Do (not externally, anyway…)).

¶

There are a couple of other paragraphs worth quoting from, I believe – before I go on to analyse my reactions to, and thoughts on, the bishops’ proclamation. Firstly, judging austerity in the section ‘Debt and a humane economy’…

[109] …Is it sustainable? Have the medium and long-term implications been taken fully into account so that the interests of our children’s and grandchildren’s generations are factored in?

…and, secondly, discussing ‘The campaign ahead’:

[121] We believe that these points are crucial if politics is to rise above its present diminished state. Indeed, we can develop those ideas further. In July 2014, the General Synod debated how the church contributes to The Common Good. That debate suggested some further signs that political policies were moving in the direction which this letter outlines. They included… Reflecting the obligation to secure the common good of future generations, not just our own, and addressing issues of intergenerational justice. This must include a responsible approach to environmental issues.

¶

Returning to the “Indian proverb”, above, that George Monbiot quotes: around here, you would think that it would take real effort to be “so divorced from the natural world”; and yet, as I keep saying (increasing the dent in the nearest wall as I do so), we seem incredibly skilled at taking nature for granted. (Or are we simply taking the micturition: through habitual laziness and instant gratification…?)

So what is to be done to dissuade people from – or penalize them for (as this is where we really need a little proscription) – driving half a mile (or less) to the shop, to collect their morning paper or a loaf of bread; from driving their ill-exercised children short distances to the school or pre-school; or even, astonishingly, from transporting their dog in their 4x4 – which I have witnessed far too many times – to a nearby field for a short walk (and so that their pet can defecate all over some poor farmer’s crops, as well as the local footpaths), as they currently do…?

So, if those of us who live amongst some of the most beautiful and apparently idyllic fields that England has to offer, struggle to engage – for instance, why is there not a row of public electric vehicle charging points in the parking bay that stretches from the Peacock to the Reading Rooms: facilitating the hum of residents on their way to work…? – how do we genuinely and passionately reflect “the obligation to secure the common good of future generations, not just our own, and [address] issues of intergenerational justice”, in all that we do, as prompted by the House of Bishops? (And I don’t just mean rolling out detailed, beautifully-presented research on sustainability when we’re attacked by developers; only to then shove it in the back of a dusty drawer: never to see the light of day again.)

¶

Well, I think together with “prompting” us, the bishops also go some way to providing the answer – and you do not need to believe “that every human being is created in the image of God” (or need to drive to church every Sunday) to subscribe. As they say: to begin with “we need an honest account of how we must live in the future if generations yet to come are not to inherit a denuded and exhausted planet.” To which I would add that we also need an honest account of how we must live now.

Being political issues, though, climate change, as well as how we deal with it, are often discussed in fudged, rhetorical terms – and yet, being also blatantly scientific issues, backed up with incontrovertible evidence, there is nothing equivocal about them. It’s like that lump you can feel on your breast, or on your testicle – you’re frightened of the consequences; and yet you’re also ‘happy’ to let it fester until the time you eventually turn up at the doctor’s: when you’re told it’s too late, and you only have a certain, limited amount of time to live. Is it laziness? Is it embarrassment? Is it a feeling of powerlessness? All of these things can be overcome. Trust me. But not by some eleventh-hour, suddenly-newly-developed miracle cure…. The cost of doing nothing is far, far higher than the cost of doing something. And we’ve known this for years.

Perhaps a better simile might be be realizing that your customary fifteenth gee-and-tee of the night ain’t right. There are, of course, twelve steps for that – and the solution (sorry) is in your hands. This time, though, maybe the ‘cure’ is more psychological than physiological…? Similarly, there are twelve steps that you can work your way through, as an individual, as a household, to do your bit for climate change. Before it’s too late….

And, if we all carried them out (in unison; in harmony) – building “the foundations of the next generation’s future” – and the Government incentivized them with enthusiasm, and sensible economic policies: legislating for reward, penalizing nonconformance, and thereby encouraging us with both carrot and stick “to cherish the created order rather than viewing our environment as a commodity to be consumed” – who knows what might happen…?

Undertake these things community by community (as I have pleaded so many times before – and which, as the Church of England has obviously also realized, is crucial) – ‘gamifying’ those neighbourhoods’, villages’, parishes’, districts’ efforts… – and I believe we’d wake up one morning to find that it hadn’t been quite as difficult as we’d envisaged (and we’d all be sharing cute little Tysoe Energy LLP electric cars, powered by the beautiful, sleek, new Edge Hill windmills…)!

Baby steps for individuals; but requiring a mammoth change in the way politics is practised in this country, if it “is to rise above its present diminished state”. That’s the real stumbling block: simply believing that change can happen; not being frightened of it; and knowing that you can play a part in it.

“We have lost faith in any of the large available understandings of how structural change takes place in history,” the philosopher Roberto Unger said in a recent lecture in London,“and as a result we fall back on a bastardised conception of political realism, namely that a proposal is realistic to the extent that it approaches what already exists.” This is the whole of British politics encapsulated in two lines: unless a policy looks exactly like what the mainstream parties are suggesting; unless it can be funded by minor tootling on existing tax instruments (and even that will be called a “raid”); unless it will leave the fundamental structures totally unperturbed – then it is the most outlandish idea that anybody has ever heard.

     Therefore, nobody in opposition… should ever get into a conversation about how they will fund something without first underlining that the way things exist at the moment is completely wrecked. The status quo is broken; it’s not even static, it’s constantly worsening.

– Zoe Williams: The Guardian

Further comments…

Like many others in our village, I was initially delighted to see that the surveys, carried out during the summer, have already begun to morph into a concrete first draft of our Neighbourhood Plan. I really do hope that this itself continues to evolve, though, as is promised – “to reflect the ongoing feedback we receive from further consultation” – before a final version is issued; and that the opportunity is taken to reflect more of the three Tysoes’ special character, arresting qualities, distinctiveness and realities – their true “spirit of place” – rather than producing something almost generic: that could apply to any such group of hamlets, anywhere in the country, as it currently stands (well, apart from self-righteously demanding that “All new dwellings must contain an element of local stone” – which is, of course, impossible, as I have stated before). I also hope that, in its final form, it will pay more than lip service to environmentalism and sustainability – especially with regards to energy and its generation – and not continue to be so proscriptive.

¶

Before I go into these issues in more detail, I do think that one of the two most obvious problems with the Plan, as it stands, is that it only captures – as with most modern voting systems – the views of a minority of the parish’s residents; and it would be worthwhile, I think, therefore, to use the street champions in one of the rôles they were originally created for – that is, going door-to-door – to discern the views of people who didn’t respond to the survey; as well as perhaps ascertaining why they didn’t respond. This may also help to gain stronger ownership of, and investment in, the Plan (if that is what people want); and, subsequently, to deliver a more substantial and decisive vote in the referendum – scheduled for early next year – which decides whether or not villagers accept its recommendations, and allow it to come into force as a statutory instrument.

The second major issue is how much meaning – presuming it actually gains a majority vote – the Plan will have; and for how long. As the current draft states (on page 4): “…all Neighbourhood Plans must be in line with… local policy, in particular Stratford [sic] District Council’s Core Strategy.” But how can this be? In all probability, the Plan will be completed well before the Core Strategy sees the light of day (if it ever does). And I remain to be convinced that the Localism Act (which this Neighbourhood Plan is derived from) will ever hold much sway, anyway – in a political climate where the goalposts seem to have discovered how to thwart the impossibility of perpetual motion – especially when previous surveys and plans produced by the Parish Council have been superseded again and again (through no fault of their own). I am concerned that this could just simply be yet another time- and money-consuming exercise: designed to keep us “plebs” occupied, and therefore from being able to interfere in, or protest against, Tory diktats.

Green crap

Under Getting Around, on page 5, the draft states that “The Plan… looks at a wide range of issues, including: encouraging Tysoe to become a ‘greener’ village [and] how we should protect our natural and built heritage assets” – but I don’t see much evidence of this, even under Environment & Sustainability (on page 13). For example, on page 7, it says: “Now, being one of the most remote settlements in the county, residents have to rely heavily on private motor car usage” – but I do not see much in the draft that addresses this. It even mentions, on page 8, that “Cycling is possible…” – and yet it was strongly argued, when fighting Gladman’s proposals for Oxhill Road, that cycling to local employment was almost impossible because of the distances and gradients involved: something I would concur with. We are not all Bradley Wiggins or even Lance Armstrong!

I also find it astonishing that the draft states that “Wind turbine generators that require planning permission will not be permitted unless it is possible to demonstrate minimal impact on the amenities of the village of Tysoe” (repeated on page 22). Why so draconian and narrow-minded? What are the reasons for this: when it has been proven that onshore wind power is one of the cheapest and most sustainable forms of energy; does not impact nearby house prices; and can be used to create meaningful UK-based employment? How are we “to ensure that developments which include affordable homes do not contribute to future fuel poverty; given Tysoe has no mains gas…” if we do not consider all forms of power? When we are supposed to be drastically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, this seems extremely short-sighted and prescriptive. I presume, under these rules, that Tysoe’s most famous landmark – evidence that wind power is also quite reliable in this area – would never have been allowed? We are no longer living in the 17th century… – but perhaps the authors will change their tune when we suffer from frequent and regular power cuts. (Wind power could also provide the village with great financial returns, as well as cheap electricity, were we to invest in modern equivalents to the windmill – as I have previously written.) This, to me, smacks of politics and authoritarianism, rather than aesthetics or common sense; and is in direct contravention of the draft Plan’s own “Objective ES2: Encourage energy efficient and sustainable development”.

It is also stated, in this section, that “Residents can access the local services by walking. The services are within an acceptable walking distance of the majority of dwellings.” So what is to be done to dissuade people from – or penalize them for (as this is where we really need a little proscription) – driving half a mile (or less) to the shop, to collect their morning paper or a loaf of bread; from driving their ill-exercised children short distances to the school or pre-school; or even, astonishingly, from transporting their dog in their 4x4 – which I have witnessed far too many times – to a nearby field for a short walk (and so that their pet can defecate all over some poor farmer’s crops, as well as the local footpaths), as they currently do…? I am quite badly disabled, and yet make the effort to walk – albeit much slower, and in much more pain, than the “average person” – far beyond the distances outlined on page 20 of the draft: including regularly from Upper Tysoe to Lower Tysoe and back.

¶

Money’s too tight

Under the Housing objectives (page 12), I do not see any mention of affordable housing (although it appears, in passing, under Environment & Sustainability, on page 13; and again on page 19) – either as defined by law, or – preferably – as defined by local salaries. Prioritizing “1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings to encourage younger households to locate in Tysoe” is all well and good – but our local house prices are well above average for the region; and certainly not truly affordable to young people who would wish to stay here. (I know that the previous, superseded, Housing Needs Survey showed that there wasn’t much demand: but that is, I believe – from talking to residents with older children – only because they are conscious of the fact that “affordable” is a label, and does not reflect their, or their children’s, financial reality.) Do we not want to encourage local families to stay together? Surely the Town Trust could set an example, here…?

¶

Stone the crows

In Development Strategy (on page 15), the draft states that “All new dwellings must contain an element of local stone”. Why? The current village contains a wide mixture of building media; and such variety is a big part of its aesthetic and vernacular. Again, I state that “We are no longer living in the 17th century” – and modern building materials can be much more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective than stone; as well as ensuring that the village does not end up full of unimaginative, identikit buildings (which is the direction it is currently heading in). They can also “contribute to local character by creating a sense of place appropriate to its location” – providing, of course, that we think of “sense of place” much more widely than the materials delivered on the back of a lorry from the local builders yard.

What is “an element”, anyway? Will a foundation stone, suffice, or a doorstep? And what is “local”? The nearest ironstone – as I have written before – now comes from over the border, in Great Tew.

Finally – although going back to the Foreword, on page 3 – the draft states that “The development of the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan, being led by the Parish Council, started back in February 2014.” This is not correct: as the initial meeting with regards to the establishment of Tysoe’s Neighbourhood Plan was between a representative of the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group and “Fiona Blundell and Simon Purfield at SDC”, and was held on 14 November 2013 – as part of that group’s sterling work (which also included, of course, defeating Gladman Developments at the initial planning hearing). But this, to me, is just another attempt to disassociate the perceived success of the still-nascent Neighbourhood Plan from Keith Risk’s Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group – which, as I say, kicked the whole process off… – an act I think both sad and unnecessary; and which speaks volumes about its purveyors. It would seem that not only do the draft’s authors seek to write our future, but that they also wish to rewrite our past.

The stars are the street lights of eternity…

Moonlight is sculpture; sunlight is painting.

– Nathaniel Hawthorne

In this month’s edition of the Tysoe & District Record, Jane Millward, our hardworking (but, of course, voluntary) Parish Council Clerk, wrote that “The cost of providing street lighting around the parish has gone up by 40%”; and added that the Parish Council, therefore, “would like to sound out opinions from our residents on some of the options.”

I have posted about Tysoe’s “rude interruption of sodium” before; as well as describing my night-time peregrinations around the village: where “The pools of darkness, inbetween, highlight what a beautiful place we live in”. But I do accept, and understand, that, earlier in the night, there may be a need for street lamps – for example, where “continuity of lighting levels is important to pedestrians” – although our neighbouring villages of Oxhill and Pillerton Priors manage without them (as did the village of Fovant, in Wiltshire, where I used to live: and where the nightly view of the Milky Way was so much more than compensation for the dark – but not consequently mean – streets).

Many councils – regional, county, district, town and parish – are already turning off a goodly proportion of their street lamps between midnight and 05:00 or 05:30 GMT (with them not then coming back on if it’s already light, and the sun has begun to rise…) – for ecological reasons (the benefits to wildlife; lower emissions…), as well as economical; and without any obvious downsides. For instance, approximately 80% of Warwickshire County Council-owned street lights now operate on a ‘part night’ basis: leading to nearly 40,000 street lights being switched off for some of the night. And in Essex – contrary to what you might expect – “The experience to date is that there has been no increase in crime or accident levels which could be attributed to the introduction of part night lighting.”

There is, as well, no statutory requirement for local authorities in the UK to provide street lighting. The Highways Act simply empowers local authorities to illuminate our roads: stipulating that any “lighting units are kept in safe condition”.

I know that the Parish Council “will be checking to see we are on the best tariff available”; but I wonder if there are additional ways of mitigating costs. Part of the 40% increase is “due to increased VAT levels”; and I therefore would be interested to learn if the Parish Council is – or could be – registered as a charity: as, according to HMRC, “subject to certain conditions, your charity may be able to buy fuel and power at the reduced VAT rate”. There are probably details in the council’s constitution that I am not aware of that would make this impracticable – but I feel I should mention it for the sake of completeness: especially as any organization that is registered for VAT may also be able to claim some of it back.

Another possible strategy would be to change the source of the electricity used. I have written before about the feasibilities of generating our own wind power, and how this could be financed by the village. To simply fuel our few street lights – and for short periods of time – would not require the leviathans striding across the Edge Hills that I presume most folks would imagine: an image which seems to be the largest obstacle – and the “only one honest objection” – to onshore wind power’s acceptance and deployment. Or we could use solar-powered low-energy LEDs: which have a potential to generate excess – green – electricity that can then be sold back to the grid to raise revenue for the Parish Council, or provide dividends to residents who have invested.

Such lights might again raise aesthetic disapproval: because of the “bright white light” most of them are designed to produce. But I see no reason why high-wattage LEDs need be used; or why we should not break the mould (if we are to carry on lighting our streets), and keep to the dull orange we are accustomed to.

As well as saving money, it will be a boon to skywatchers in the surrounding countryside, as LED lights provide more illumination on the ground and less to the clouds. Close to 100% of the light goes downward, unlike conventional street lights which send a third of their glow into the night sky, causing light pollution.

Financial help for such projects is now available – at least for local authorities: and I admit that I do not know if this applies to parish councils, or if they are allowed to borrow money (although I am sure that Stratford-on-Avon District Council could play a pivotal rôle here, if needs be…) – for making the switch to low-energy streetlights “with the launch of a new Green Loan from the UK Green Investment Bank (GIB)”: which offers “a low, fixed rate… over a period of up to 20 years”.

We have the means to limit climate change…. The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change.

– Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Having said all that – and having walked around Tysoe many times during the dark hours mooted by the Parish Council, and never met another soul, and encountered next to no traffic – I believe that (disregarding any other reasons) there isn’t actually any need or demand for street lighting then (if at all…): especially, where lamps generally are left on, by other authorities, it is principally to safeguard the interaction of large amounts of traffic and pedestrians.

And if you’re worried about the increasing number of vehicles parked overnight on the Main Street chicane, these should already be protected by the requirements of the Highway Code: that is, not parking “on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space” (so that their rear reflectors catch the attention of any oncoming headlights); and displaying “parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph”.

Mind you, keeping BST throughout the year, and limiting the centre of the village to 20 mph (as Clifford Chambers is in the process of doing) – which, realistically, is the maximum sensible speed for traversing it (at any time of day) – would also help; and, anyway, the current street lamps do little to negate the need for main beam headlights, if you are driving through Tysoe with safety in mind (and are not instead updating your Facebook status on your smartphone to “Currently in intensive care” or, perhaps, more likely, “Currently in custody”).

Whatever is finally decided, it must, I suggest, be uniformly applied (and policed); and follow an audit of the entire parish. As I have written previously, “Windmill Way must contain as many lamp-posts as the full length of Main Street”: and is therefore one of the largest sources of light pollution in the village. Subject to residents agreeing, the number of lamps that are lit there – at any time – could be reduced drastically and permanently.

It is especially important that, in historic towns and conservation areas, particular attention is paid to the aesthetic quality of street furniture and lighting. Care should be taken to avoid light pollution and intrusion, particularly in rural areas. In some cases it may not be appropriate to provide lighting, for example in a new development in an unlit village…. Where street furniture or lighting is taken out of service, it should be removed.

– Department for Transport: Manual for Streets

The decision must also apply to any new-builds. Imagine if Gladman’s proposed eighty houses were built, and all lit as densely and uniformly as Windmill Way. Upper and Middle Tysoe residents would drastically lose the number of stars they could count in the night sky, as would those living nearby.

Light at night not only disrupts your sleep but also interferes with your circadian rhythms. Recent research indicates that intrusive lighting may reduce the production of melatonin, a beneficial hormone, and a resulting raise in the rates of breast and other cancers.

– The Dark Sky Society: Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans

And, finally, villagers should be conscious that any lights they fit to their homes – for security reasons, perhaps (especially considering the recent heating oil thefts in Tysoe, highlighted by David Sewell, editor of the Record) – should not be excessive, and contribute to such pollution themselves: lighting only their own properties; not trespassing onto the public highway, startling motorists and passing pedestrians with their “unsafe glare”; and certainly not – as does one property in Upper Tysoe – flash on and off, every minute or so, like some Warwickshire Pharos, when it is gusty (not an uncommon occurrence at the windmill end of the village). There is nothing worse, once you have gotten your night eyes in – and “It takes between 40 minutes and an hour for your eyes to become fully adapted to seeing in the dark”– than then being blinded by such an unthoughtful and solipsistic installation.

An open letter to Ed Miliband…

Dear Ed… – is it alright to call you “Ed”? I don’t know you – although you seem a decent enough chap, with a sharp enough brain… – but you seem happy to address me by my given name: so I’ll assume it’s okay.

Firstly, many thanks for your recent email: Ten steps to rebuild Britain: Sign my cost-of-living contract and let’s commit to change Britain together. And I’m sure you’ll be delighted – even though the message itself is actually quite depressing – that I do agree with you, when you say…

In Britain today, we face rising inequality, a cost-of-living crisis for the many and an economy that works only for a few. The link between the wealth of our nation as a whole and the lives of British families has been broken.

You then go on to outline those “ten steps I will take immediately as Prime Minister” to tackle this crisis; and ask if I will “commit to change Britain” with you.

Sorry, Ed: the answer is “no”. And here are my reasons.

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

In an earlier email to me, you said that you “want to give working people a real choice about joining Labour and a real voice in our party because politics is too important to be left to politicians”. Although I agree with that last part – in which case, you seem to have sacked yourself with your own rhetoric…! – you made a big mistake when you assumed that all Labour party members and supporters are “working people”.

“Hardworking Britain Better Off” is your latest – ungrammatical – slogan. But we’re not all employed, are we – therefore not “hardworking” in the sense that politicians currently employ (sorry) that word? Not all working class heroes are in work. Some of the proletariat pay monthly direct debits to support Labour – because your party appears to be the only credible alternative, at the moment. However, for some of us, this takes a sizable chunk from our benefits – in my case, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – and your regular pleas for extra donations is insulting enough, without you appearing to have withdrawn your support from those most egregiously damaged by the Coalition Government – not the “squeezed middle”, but the long-term unemployed and sick, and the permanently disabled: both of which groups’ members I know would love to be in a job; but for whom merely existing can be extremely “hard work” indeed. (Getting out of bed is hard work, for me; putting on my shoes and socks deserves at least time-and-a-half; smiling, when pain riddles my body – which is always – deserves the massive bonuses I used to earn as a communication consultant. I loved my work. I loved the people I worked with, and for. Yes, the money was nice – but more so was the sense of achievement, the sense of meaning, the reward of graft and creativity, that employment gave me. Now, all gone.)

Who are we to turn to? Why have you fallen in to Dave and George’s heffalump trap of only discussing those in paid work (even if some of these earn less than the Living Wage – which all companies need to provide: not just those incentivized by “tax breaks” – or those on “exploitative” zero-hour contracts: which you say you are going to “ban”, but seem a little fuzzy when it comes to the detail…)? Shirkers and workers? What about the lurkers on the fringes of this cruel capitalist society?

The greatest challenge of our time is to create a new kind of economy that works for working people. The Labour government I lead will rise to that challenge and this contract is our promise.

Labour will deal with the cost-of-living crisis. We will take immediate action to deal with the pressures facing families, and make the big long term changes we need so that hardworking people are better off.

What about pensioners, like my mum and dad? What about those unemployed and/or disabled who rely on the State because they don’t even have families to look after them?

Sorry if I sound ungrateful. But I hope you can understand why.

The common account, according to a common plan

I am thankful, though, for your promise to “Freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017 and reform the energy market” – although I don’t suppose this means that you will revert to nationalizing the suppliers (or public transport, for that matter), to bring them under formal control?

Labour is a commodity

You say that you are going to “Cut income tax for hardworking people… and introduce a 50p top rate of tax as we pay off the deficit in a fair way”. Does that mean that we disabled and unemployed will not have our taxes cut?!

Seriously: it’s not just about funding the deficit, is it? Real socialism – the sort that, I think, your dad would be proud of; and that I imagine still flows through your veins… – would ensure that everyone could afford to live; that food-banks would be an historical blip. Are you courageous enough to make that happen?

Great palaces as communal dwellings

I also appreciate your pledge to “Get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020” and “Stop families that rent being ripped off and help them plan for the future with new long-term predictable tenancies”. However, how are you going to ensure that these houses and rents are truly affordable – and I mean so that real people can live where they want and need to; so that our children are not forced to rent in perpetuity (and not pay allegedly “affordable” monthly sums as defined by the current Government as 80% of the market-rate – i.e. sky-high…)? How are you going to ensure that housing developments are truly sustainable; and suitable for the area they are built in? Are you going to be the saviour that reinstitutes council housing; that sponsors a massive programme of state-funded residential development for those that need it; who finally pricks the seemingly permanent, expanding housing bubble?

Educating children on a communal basis

Ironically, even though all the children in my family are now grown-up, one of the vows you make – to “Help working parents with 25 hours free childcare for three- and four-year-olds” – does fill my heart with joy. A positive note to end on. Sort of.

My partner works in early-years education; and recently lost her job as a family support worker – employed by the local county council – because of the massive cut in funding for Sure Start Children’s Centres (one of the best ideas Labour has had since the introduction of the NHS…).

Please put these back on an even keel: by financing them as they were originally intended to be. In a rural community such as ours – where childcare costs are proveably higher – sometimes the few social, medical and education workers remaining, who travel out to see struggling, isolated parents and their families, are true lifelines: the only source of support and help; and the Children’s Centres themselves (where such workers should be based, and in much greater numbers) provide a resource that helps put disadvantaged young children on a firmer footing. The centres need to be local, though – not three bus-rides away, at the other end of the county: and therefore pretty much inaccessible to a young mum with a pram.

I think that’s enough, for now: so thank you for reading it all, Ed. Even if I sound negative, I hope my questioning will lead you to reconsider your party’s concentration on those gainfully employed (and therefore its shadowing of Conservative mores…); and widen your views to all levels of society, all classes of people. I believe you are more than capable of this; but I think it requires a strength, honesty and integrity currently lacking from mainstream UK politics to publicly discuss and implement the ideas that are really needed to get every single inhabitant of this country back on their feet (figuratively speaking, anyway).

Are you such a person? Is the Labour party willing to be so brave? Or will it continue to disappoint those who need it most?

I look forward to your reply. You know where to find me…

Power to the people…

I have already suggested how the residents of Tysoe could make concrete the sustainability we place at the heart of our response to Gladman’s rapacious development proposals: by placing a “wind-turbine, or two, on Tysoe Hill… generating profit for its residents, as well as power”. And, although this may have sounded somewhat tongue-in-cheek, at the time – especially considering how conservative (both small and large ‘c’) we appear as a village – I was actually utterly serious.

We cannot continue our lazy ways of driving our children to school; or arriving at village meetings by car; or nipping down to Bart’s for a loaf of bread in our 4x4s, when all of our local amenities are central, and easily accessible on foot even to those, like me, who walk in pain, and with a stick; and when the three hamlets – from Tysoe Manor to Lane End Farm – are less than two miles from end-to-end (and that’s using the roads; not cutting corners with our frequent footpaths, or as the numerous crows fly…). It is often, therefore, refreshing – and one of the advantages of being at the bottom of the Edge Hills – to see so many villagers cycling to and fro: even though our local roads are not the most accommodating for those on two wheels; and it is easy to feel trapped between rushing motorists, the larger-than-apparently-needed local bus, and our many (and often deep) potholes and ragged, infrequently-maintained road edges.

We must practise what we preach on a larger scale, though; and, although I understand some people’s aversion to the change represented by the incursion of wind-turbines (sadly, frequently accompanied by naked nimbyism; and not helped by David Cameron’s thoughtless appeasement of climate-change deniers and voters defecting to those “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” in the Ukip camp), I, personally, find them rather beautiful and graceful: modern, mobile sculptures bestriding our landscape even more elegantly than the “iron men” that were originally designed in the 1920s.

As we have so gotten used to pylons, and as we so adore the few windmills remaining from our water-pumping and flour-producing (and occasionally bone-grinding) agricultural and industrial heritage, I cannot see why, eventually, we would not grow to admire – or just forget or ignore their presence… – what will surely become a fundamental and necessary safeguard for the future of the human race (and the planet, of course). As I say, it is the “change represented” I believe that causes repulsion more than the design itself, though; and it will be interesting – as they are adopted more widely – to see what reactions will be provoked by the modern replacements for supporting overground electricity transmission. I wonder if people will then start professing their adoration for the suddenly historical (and therefore belonging to our “olden days”), latticed giants: which are, supposedly, equally as abhorred, currently (if you’ll excuse the pun), as the modern bladed replacements for stocks and sails.

Before I forget, does anyone know what is happening to ‘our’ windmill?

As now – although for divergent reasons – the windmill was also at the centre of the village’s identity in Joseph Ashby’s time; as well as playing a key rôle in its economy:

…sometimes as he saw the miller struggling up the hill, getting daily now more short of breath, the latter would seem for a moment a Sisyphean symbol for the endless struggle of life.

For the old man himself his mill was a symbol…. “My mill ’ll lose its sails one o’ these days, like the ships, but the tower ’ll last ’undreds of years; wind nor wet can’t get a hold on it. As one wind wets,” he said as though reflecting on the wide world, “another dries.”

…and it this economic – as well as community-enhancing – rôle I would want villagers to think about and discuss before rejecting something just on the grounds that they don’t like the look of it (especially as this is one way, in our control, to help prevent the power-cuts that, we are told, may become even more prevalent).

Not all of us who live here are rich, or can afford to absorb the high costs associated with oil-fuelled central-heating; and many would therefore benefit from the return an investment in ‘alternative’ power could provide – as well as the parallel reduction in their power and heating bills. (The number of solar electricity and water-heating panels visible in the village testifies to this, already – even if the majority of them, currently, appear to be attached to social housing.)

With the proposed advent of peer-to-peer ISAs, next year: which could provide a tax-free way of funding “community-owned renewable energy schemes” – such as those at Findhorn, and, more locally, at Watchfield – we would be one small step closer to living in the world we say we want for our children:

International and national bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development. Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future set out five ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable development: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.

The bid by Ovo Energy “to boost local power generation”, announced today, would also help us make our giant leap into the future:

Ovo has invested in systems that can easily be scaled up to give community groups, local authorities and housing associations the tools they need to run a utility business, including customer service, billing and power generation. The company, through its Ovo Communities division, will also offer smart metering, power purchasing and energy efficiency installations.

A recent YouGov survey showed that three times more people believed they would get a fairer deal from a community-based energy supplier than a large company answerable to City shareholders.

The community model is already used in mainland Europe, especially in Germany, where more than half of electricity and gas is provided by local municipalities or other community organisations.

If we can grow our own fruit and veg, surely we can start to think about generating our own electricity, as another move, in Tysoe’s history, towards community cohesiveness and self-sufficiency?

In [the] 1880s Joseph [Ashby] made contact again with Lord William Compton; Lord William was at the time residing at Castle Ashby in Northamptonshire, and Joseph working nearby. Joseph had “stood in the road, waylaying his carriage. He met with recognition and welcome; an interview was arranged”. He persuaded Lord William (now a Liberal MP) to let a farm to the Tysoe Allotments Association for division into allotments and small-holdings, himself becoming one of the first tenants.

Bard & Tew (Part 1)

With Mike Sanderson

Tew had been thinking hard since the FSD skirmish on Oxhill Road. He had come across the Bard, out perambulating the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). “Good morning, Tew!” said the Bard, “I see you’re getting ready for the next harvest. What are you planting?” Tew responded, gazing towards his fields: “I’ve been persuaded to plant some of these GMO Ticky-Tacky seeds. They’re not what you’d call sustainable: but, give ’em time and there’ll be a whole estate of ’em – and they’ll all look just the same. Prime Minister is a big fan; and the high PanYan himself thinks they are as good as Hobnobs.”

Tew knew there had to be something in these so-called Neighbourhood Plans. They were brought in by the government back in ’10 to support their localism fad; but could actually confer a lot of power to the community. The problem was to get one before the ministry changed and it all started over again. The three strands of this localism gubbins were sustainable development; some climate change stuff; and a thing called social well-being (which reminded him how much he could do with a pint of Sewell’s Stout, right now). Tew and his colleague the Bard of Tysoe think it would be a good idea to get ruminating about these matters. Over the course of the next few months, we’ll be taking a light-hearted look at them – especially as there are lots of code-words and capital letter abbreviations (CLAs) to cope with (for example, the accursed FSD).

So this month, we’ll begin with ‘sustainable economic development’ (or SED). Tew came upon the Bard just down from Old Lodge Farm. As they stared across the Stour Valley at the setting sun, the Bard said wistfully: “So, Tew, what passes for SED in this neck of the woods?” Tew answered: “Well, you can see it below you. The ridge-and-furrow: that’s sustainable. They calls ’em Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). That’s after they’ve grubbed ’em out and laid shingle tracks leading to ponds. Shows there ain’t nowt new.”

The Bard said – after a brief pause to watch a mewing buzzard fly by – “Well, that’s fine now; but what about in 10 or 50 years time: what would SED look like then, down below?”

“Um,” he said. “Me gran knew a thing or two. When she came here there were no gas, no inside loo, no pipes. There still ain’t no gas, and mebbee we’re still short of a few water pipes. So in my opinion, we need more houses to make things sustainable. But since there’s no gas, the new houses need more than one source of fuel. They need to re-use rainwater, too. ’Cos if they don’t have these things, then nobody young can afford to live here. There aren’t enough jobs either: so they need cars to go to work. What do you think?” “Well”, he replied, resting his chin on his gnarled stick, “if it ever stops raining and we see the sun again, some of those solar thingummies you have on your roof might work. And perhaps we could convert the windmill to generate some power or pump all this water away? Be good to have the bus come more often. But it doesn’t really need to be so big, does it?”

Tew said, “I read your piece on Seeger. Seems like Master Risktaker had it right, when he said: ‘the circumlocution officers quote the word ‘sustainable’ in their PDF documents, meaninglessly; but we need to give that word meaning’. We have to ask the rest of the villagers what they think. Light’s nearly gone; footpath’s a bit boggy down below. Mebbee that’s something else we should be doing for ourselves!”

– Originally published in the Tysoe & District Record (March 2014: no.742)

What do we want? When do we want it? Never…

Playing devil’s advocate, if – and I stress (again), if… – Gladman were to be successful, what sort of development would we want (or need) to appear on Mr White’s field: given that we would have no choice in whether building took place; but we might have one when it comes to what building took place, courtesy of our nascent Neighbourhood Plan?

Watching the first half of Jonathan Meades’ Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness: Concrete Poetry, last night, on BBC Four, it struck me that we could use the opportunity (should it arise – and I, for one, sincerely hope it does not) to build something out of the ordinary.

What do I mean by that? Well, firstly, I have to concur with Mr Meades, and admit to being a lifelong fan of what was misnamed ‘New Brutalism’ (a misunderstanding of ‘béton brut’: meaning, simply, raw concrete – which would make the Pantheon ‘brutal’…): my personal favourite being the Barbican, in London (which I know at least as well as Arthur Scargill…). Secondly, I am not proposing that we build a mini Unité d’Habitation – however stunning – on the outskirts of Tysoe. (That would be stretching the elastic band of suitability beyond breaking-point.) Thirdly, nor am I in favour of a Poundbury-pastiche-style of housing estate (again, a place I know well – and hate – principally because of its Legoist ‘New Urbanism’ so-called architecture; but also because of the ruined views from, and contexts of, Poundbury Hill and Maiden Castle).

There is, of course, a final proviso – which was also pointed out by Meades – that whatever art is now popular (and, believe me, architecture is art), it was frequently misunderstood, derided, even hated, by the majority, at the time of its creation. This goes for music – e.g. Beethoven’s fifth symphony – and literature – Ulysses – as well as the obvious examples of Picasso or my beloved Henry Moore. It takes a long time for people to move beyond inherited opinion; for progress in any of the arts to reveal the splendour that was there all along; for it to be understood and appreciated. (This is not to say, of course, that all of what passes for modern art – e.g. chainsawed sharks; coloured dots; jingly-jangly, non-tonal ‘music’ – will be seen as classical, or works of genius, in the future. Some of it will undoubtedly be seen as crass and talentless; and will fall into the Room 101 of already-discarded, faded-from-memory, trash.)

Parallel with this is the fact that we don’t expect art, film, literature, or music (just) to be beautiful (depending on your definition of beauty…). Emotional: yes. Engaging: I would hope so. Effective and expressive: of course. Elegant (or pretty): why…?

So we come back to the subjective subject of suitability. Tysoe is surrounded by beautiful countryside; rolling hills; the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); the fertile flood plain of the Stour – and is therefore not deserving either of little urban boxes “all made out of ticky tacky”, and which “all look just the same” (think Trinity Mead: a cloned nightmare of thoughtless, lack-of-designed, front-garden-less, enclosed misery); nor of a “concrete monstrosity” (as some would have it…).

According to Meades: “something that is universally tolerated is likely to be pretty boring. Anything that’s any good, and original, is going to incite hatred as much as it does adoration – because of the very fact that it’s so unfamiliar.” And, as you’ll have guessed by now, I agree.

It would be easy – and obvious – to just copy the style of some imagined Olde Tysoe; learn it by rote; and then reproduce eighty examples of it all mindlessly over the field (not that we are a village of uniform styles: having evolved over centuries). But should we be so led down the path of least resistance by “universal toleration” and sameness? Our victory at the planning hearing was led by a full-frontal charge of sustainability – and this could be our sole chance (until, perhaps, legislation catches up), as a group, to develop something with this as its lead objective. Couple this with a power-generating wind-turbine, or two, on Tysoe Hill, and Tysoe would become a shining, green beacon: generating profit for its residents, as well as power; and publicity (of the good kind) for a community that actually practises what it preaches.

There are many such examples already out there… – not that we should repeat them by rote, either. We should be leaders; not followers.