More shame for Reading Buses

Some more embarrassment today for Reading Buses, where it has turned out that instead of running their number 17 route buses on sugar beet waste from Norfolk, they are actually running on wood pulp from Sweden…

The song ‘it’s not easy being green’ comes to mind.

How they can confuse wood pulp imported from Sweden with sugar beet from Norfolk goes beyond belief. The fact that Reading Buses used the number 17 route with this apparent unique quality as their flagship service makes even more of a mockery of Reading Buses. Which is a shame. Personally, i love to champion the use of buses, even if they are run purely on petrol.

The main problem with Reading Buses however, is that they appear to have the idea that to make more money they need to raise prices. So a few months ago, to make up for the £40,000 they were reportedly losing per week they cut services and raised prices. Now, i know i only did economics at A-Level, but i am sure  even those more experienced with economic matters would agree with me that if prices were to fall, then it would entice more people onto the buses and therefore lead to a price rise… Maybe this would still not stop services being cut, but perhaps the increased demand would give Reading Buses more room for improvement…?

Power to the People

So it has been a relatively fantastic few weeks for the environmental movement, not just on a national level, but also on a local level.

Nationally, BAA have announced that they are scraping plans for a new runway at Heathrow and E.ON are throwing their plans for Kingsnorth power station away (at least for the time being).

This is fantastic news, as although blame has been put on the ‘credit crunch’, in reality, these are two projects that have drawn immense protest from the environmental movement, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that opposition to these projects did not play its part in their scrapping – although also ridiculous to suggest that other issues did not also influence the decision.

In Reading, after a 13 year struggle by campaign groups, Reading Borough Council have rejected current plans to build new homes on the Bath Road Reservoir. Elsewhere in Reading, groups campaigning to stop development on King’s Meadow have also recently enjoyed success.

In both these cases it previously looked as though Reading Borough Council were to give in to the developers, and although there is still a long way to go with both of these campaigns, their recent successes can only encourage fellow campaigners and local people in Reading that people power can win through. Exemplified further by BAA’s and E.ON’s recent news nationally.

So next stop is a campaign surrounding the future of Pincent’s Hill in Reading that i have previously written about (here, here, here and here). Blue Living, have recently put in a planning proposal, and the Save Pincent’s Hill campaign are working hard to ensure that as many letters of objection to this proposal are sent to West Berks as possible. Even Reading Borough Council are putting in a letter of protest to the plans.

Although i admit that my last few months in Reading i have been a bit lax in this campaign, i do know that there are some fantastic and committed people working hard to stop these developments in Pincent’s Hill, and i would ask everyone reading this to visit their websites, to send in letters of protest to West Berks Council (you don’t have to live in the area to do so) and to send messages of support to the group.

Let’s build on recent successes and really show what people power can achieve.

It maybe holywood but this is the speech of a true leader.

All you fascists (are bound to lose)

All You Fascists

I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose.

All of you fascists bound to lose:
I said, all of you fascists bound to lose:
Yes sir, all of you fascists bound to lose:
You’re bound to lose! You fascists:
Bound to lose!

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching ‘cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

I’m going into this battle
And take my union gun
We’ll end this world of slavery
Before this battle’s won
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

Song by Billy Bragg on Mermaid Avenue II, words by Woody Gunthrie

Ecosocialist

I am unashamedly an eco-socialist, and I would like to share with you two pieces that make interesting reading and which help frame my mind set. Saying that, my political mind set is a hectic place, so over the next few weeks I will hopefully show you what I specifically belief in and what I would do if I had the power on the page ‘Mattism’. Enjoy.

The Ecosocialist Manifesto

By Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy (September 2001)

The twenty-first century opens on a catastrophic note, with an unprecedented degree of ecological breakdown and a chaotic world order beset with terror and clusters of low-grade, disintegrative warfare that spread like gangrene across great swathes of the planet—viz., central Africa, the Middle East, Northwestern South America—and reverberate throughout the nations. In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestati

ons of the same structural forces.

Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

Reading Buses to increase prices again

In those high fuel price days of October/November 2008 where the price of fuel went up around 44%, you couldn’t blame Reading Buses on raising the cost of their tickets. Even though they proudly boast that their premier number 17 route runs on sugar waste- you couldn’t really blame them, the recession was hitting most companies in some way or another.

So, the current prices are £1.70 adult single journey, £3.20 for an adult ‘Busabout’ (means unlimited travel in one day in one zone) and £10 for a west Reading weekly bus pass.

But now the price of fuel has fallen drastically, you’d expect Reading Buses to pop along and say “hey, we have gotten through a period of high fuel prices, let’s reward you for your patience and lower our ticket costs to reflect this fall”.

Nah, not at chance.

It has now been announced that prices are in fact going to rise even more. The reason? Well they say they have lost £100,000 in single fares these last couple of months. Face of it, that sounds reasonable, but i want  to know more.

For example, who much money did they make on Busabouts and Weekly Passes? Do the maths quickly, and it makes much more economic sense to buy a Busabout than a single fare, so of course they are going to lose money on single fares, especially when people use buses more.

So perhaps it is greed? That was the charge levied at them when they rose the prices in November- but i gave them the benefit of the doubt, but now, now i am not so sure.

I would like to say as a user of the buses to get to and from work everyday i am generally pleased with them. After experiencing the services on offer in other towns and cities and the conditions on the bus, i think Reading Buses rank right up there with the best. But this price rise to me stinks- there is something fishy going on.

Plus, what good is it going to do for the transport problems there already are in Reading? There are way too many cars. The rise in bus fares is only going to put more people in cars. We are meant to be going green! The buses and other such public transport are meant to be one of the vanguards in reducing mans impact on the environment, yet price rise after price rise is only going to weaken this.

Finally, i wonder what makes better economic sense; raising the prices even higher to make more money (you hit those reliant on buses hardest while others move into cars) or lowing the prices to encourage more people to use the buses (especially during quieter spells and routes) and increase profit that way?

Do we really have to ponder that?

To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

How can i gain the respect of the local community with a dirty moat?

A couple of things strike me about the MP’s expenses ’saga’:

1) What do MP’s actually spend their wages on?

2) Why are leaders of parties and key politicans now coming out and apologising for what has happened? Acting as if this is a disgusting habit they pretend they did not know about that needs to be stopped now. Why were they so quiet before? Is it perhaps because we now know the full extent of what MP’s can claim? What else don’t we know about?

I honestly don’t really care how MP’s waste our money on their own lives, what i do care much more about is the amount of taxpayers money they are throwing away on stupid things like replacing Trident.

Anyway, i say get rid of all this second home nonsense (if you want a second home buy one) and build a huge halls of residence for travelling MP’s to lounge about in instead. Alongside this give MP’s an essential work expenses budget of something like £100 a week.

Good to see though my two local MP’s not claiming any second home allowance at all.

What do they need expenses for anyway? Oh yes sorry, to clean their moats.

Tory Pincents Hill Bulls***

I wrote a very short while ago about how the local Tories have betrayed the community by allowing the Local Development Framework to be voted through with Pincent’s Hill as one of the proposed sites to build on. Well now i dirtied myself by stumbling through the West Reading Conservative website where i found this.

There are two quick points i want to make. The first is the results of the survey they put round the local area about building on Pincent’s Hill, i think the results are pretty conclusive:

87% of respondents felt that the Government’s housing target of a minimum of 10,500 homes between 2006-2026 for West Berkshire was not reasonable nor acceptable to existing local residents
A massive 85% of respondents want NO development at all on the Pincents Hill Site
96% of the respondents are concerned about the impact of traffic from any development
87% are concerned about the loss of a green space
86% are concerned about the pressure on local public services such as education
82% are worried about the impact of development on the environment and wildlife

The second point is the comments by Birch Copse ward Tory Cllr Emma Webster. Before reading it remember that she abstained from the vote for the Local Development Framework because of a ‘conflict of interests’.

“I very much hope that Pincents Hill is not included as a preferred site in West Berkshire’s Local Development Framework plans (LDF) and the feedback from 896 local people clearly demonstrates the strong level of local feeling about this issue.  The battle to save the Pincents Hill site from development is one which we must win.”