4 - 2017 | Julian Mellor

Why I’m standing in the Somerset County elections

I’ve decided to stand for the Green Party in this year’s Somerset County Council elections on 4th May.

Green Party Logo

I’m not standing where I live but in another electoral division, Bishops Hull and Taunton West. That may seem strange, but here’s the reasoning.

If I was standing in Wiveliscombe (the Upper Tone division), where I live, I would want to stand to win. But that brings two challenges. Firstly, Wiveliscombe has a strong tradition of electing independent councillors and, at District level, Steve Ross and Eddie Gaines have done a good job. In the last County elections in 2013 Steve stood as an independent candidate and came close to winning. I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of competing with or taking votes from him this time around. The second reason was that I was far from convinced I wanted to be a Councillor. In these troubled times I want to make a difference, I want to try to change the course we’re on. But the demands of being a Councillor that start with endless induction (that takes place at weekends) and continues with either daytime meetings (cost to my business) or evening meetings (cost to my family) was too high to bear.

So if I don’t want to be a Councillor, why stand in Bishops Hull and Taunton West? The answer lies in our electoral system. So often I have found that I haven’t been able to vote for the party I support because no one has offered to stand. So even in the polling station I’m looking, at best, for second best. We don’t have a sensible electoral system where you vote for a party that puts its best candidates into the alloted number of seats. Instead we rely upon each party finding members to stand in as many divisions as possible in the hope that some of them get elected. It’s crazy, and it doesn’t lead to a balanced representative democracy. But it’s what we’ve got. So I decided to offer to stand as a paper candidate in Bishops Hull and Taunton West so that local people would at least have the choice and opportunity to vote Green.

I’m standing for the Green Party because that’s what I’ve belonged to for many years (I first joined in 1981) and it best reflects my views. I don’t agree with it all and I get endless stick from friends who are Labour Party members. But the environment needs more prominence in our decision making and the Green Party offers the best way of achieving that.

This is my election statement:

Election Statement of Julian Mellor

As Green Party candidate for Bishops Hull and Taunton West I am standing, first and foremost, in opposition to Brexit.

I’ve been living near Taunton with my family for the last 13 years. I started my career working as a Chartered Surveyor before moving into planning and economic development, eventually setting up my own consultancy in 2002. Most of my work is with community organisations in the South West, helping them improve the facilities in their local areas.

I have always believed that environmental issues need to be given much more prominence in our decision making but also that people’s rights must be respected. Withdrawal from the EU presents a massive challenge to environmental protection, tackling climate change, preserving workers' and consumers' rights and creating a society that benefits and protects everyone not just the privileged

Brexit and austerity go hand in hand, and both will damage our local services: social care, education, heritage etc. I will urge Somerset to fight Brexit and austerity. Instead of isolation, uncertainty and risk we need to work with, not apart from, our partners in mainland Europe to ensure that our environment, services and children have a better more secure future.

There won’t be any leaflets or door-knocking on my behalf. If I’m invited to take part in a hustings I’ll turn up. And if anyone writes I’ll reply. But otherwise this is it. Vote Green, Vote Mellor!

You’ll be able to click here for the results. And finally, as I don’t expect to have a chance to say it on the day, thank you to Craig and Hannah who proposed and seconded me, to Chantel, Matthew, Vanessa, Natasha, Helena, Mrs Brown, Polly and Roy who nominated me and to John my agent. Top dogs!

Is the Brexit tide turning? Ask the Don’t Knows.

Looking at the latest YouGov survey it would seem that the tide is far from turning. Although there’s some uncertainty.

In June 2016 the UK voted 51.9% to leave and 48.1% to stay. The majority was 1.27million voters. The turnout was 72.2%.

According to YouGov, who have been polling repeated questions since August, 44-46% of people think the result was right while 42-45% of people think it was wrong. 9-14% don’t know.

The gap is perhaps narrowing, but overall people’s views seem very entrenched. It does however indicate that the ‘Don’t knows’ are the people who decide the outcome. In the run-up to the referendum the polls fluctuated enormously with both sides attracting predictions of 39-55% while the don’t knows were anything up to 16%. But it seems that as the referendum campaign ran its course the Don’t Knows gravitated towards the Leave camp, for whatever reason. This is what swung it.

The YouGov polls suggest that the ‘Don’t Knows’ have now returned to their uncertainty. If they represent 10% of the electorate that could be as many as 4.6m people, way more than the Leave majority. Anything that persuades them to crystalise their thoughts will help consolidate the position of one camp or the other. If they vear towards an anti-Brexit position it will be a problem for the Government. Having said that, every opinion poll seems to have 10% don’t knows, so maybe there’s not much hope there.

And to make it worse, another YouGov question finds that even those who didn’t support Brexit now want to see it implemented. Only 21% of people want to see the result ignored.

If the Brexit tide is to turn it is the 25% of Remain voters who must be persuaded to actively oppose it. Talk of ‘the people’s will’ and the national good has, for the moment at least, cajoled them into supporting something they don’t believe in. They need to be persuaded that Brexit is not in the national good and that the referendum result was really down to people making snap decisions on the day, which could so easily have been different on a different day.

In the rest of the questions the UK public seem to take a hard line. They support May’s negotiating approach but think she should be doing it quicker. However, only 30% think a deal where Britain leaves the Customs Union and Single Market and faces customs checks and tariffs would be good for the country. Maybe soft Brexit is where we will eventually land.

I just want some reason and sense to come back into our lives.

This is stolen from Facebook but says it all:

I don’t want a blue passport (at the cost of £500m)
I don’t want Imperial measurements
I don’t want asylum seekers beaten up
I don’t want 92% of European NHS staff to make plans to leave the UK
I don’t want to go to war with Spain
I don’t want to live in some glorious Imperial past that never existed
I don’t want everything to get more expensive
I don’t want to be on the side of Trump, Putin, Wilders and Le Pen
I don’t want to live in an isolated monolingual, monocultural country
I don’t want all this time, money and energy to be spent on this suicidal farce when so many public services are in crisis (and not because of migrants – whatever the Mail says – but because of decades of underinvestment)
I just want some reason and sense to come back into our lives.

Credit: Bev Brown

The language of Brexit suggests we’ll lose the negotiation

It’s interesting to compare the language of Brexit in Britain and the language of Brexit on the continent.

Granted, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter was measured and calm (in an interview last week, Guy Verhofstadt described as a good arguement for staying in the EU), but much of the debate here has been dominated by sound bites, name calling and hyperbole, the calls for military intervention in Gibralter being just one such example. In contrast, the comments coming out of mainland Europe, on the whole, seem to be considered, reasoned, informed and encouraging of debate.

Someone recently wrote (I forget where, but it’s not important) that as the political norm on the continent is for coalition government there is a requirement for people to work together, even if they are sometimes in disagreement, in the interest of their greater aims and ambitions. It’s a strategic approach. In the UK however our government rarely relies on coalitions. Instead it adopts the crude techniques of the debating society, getting the chamber to cheer and jear, verbally hitting any opponent as hard as possible and once they’re down keeping them down. Trying to understand the other side is not a commonly deployed tactic and is instead seen as tedious weak.

So how will this pan out in the Brexit negotiations? One side shouting and brawling, the other trying to explain its thinking and find areas of compromise and agreement. The trouble is, the latter side has 27 members and the former only has one. The likelihood, therefore, is that the brawler will be rapidly ignored and in all likelihood sent to bed without any supper. So will the Brexiters get what they want (whatever that actually is)? Very unlikely.

How Brexit now leads to War

60 years of peace in Europe, and this weekend we see two astounding quotes.

Firstly Aaron Banks, public enemy number one (jointly with Farage), describes the Brexit campaign that he funded and the battle for public opinion as a war from which there is now no turning back.

Secondly, Michael Howard conjours up the Falklands Task Force as a likely reponse to any threats by Spain to Gibralter’s sovereignty.

How did we get here? Was the referendum really about taking us to war? Is this what people voted for? It’s astonishing and frightening that this is even being said, let alone by people who are so influential in the public mind-set.

How to Protect Gibralter

The EU’s Draft Guidelines in response to the UK’s Article 50 letter include the paragraph:

“After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.”

Gibralter

The meaning needs a little thought but I take it to mean that any agreement made for the UK will not apply to Gibralter unless both the UK and Spain agree to it. This has been interpreted by many, especially the Brexit press, as a threat by Spain to Gibralter’s status as an overseas territory of the UK. So what to do?

Michael Howard has, unfortunately, taken it upon himself to rattle Theresa May’s sabre. Speaking to the BBC he said that Thatcher “sent a taskforce halfway across the world to protect another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country. And I’m absolutely clear that (May) will show the same resolve in relation to Gibraltar.”

So is this Howard going off-script, or is he Number 10’s messenger? If the latter this is indeed an unexpected turn for the already fraught Brexit process. Not only are we seeking to do untold harm to our own country, we’re now talking about going to war with one of our allies. How the **** did we ever get here? Was this in the referendum back in June?

Gibralter stronger in Europe Aside from Howard’s outburts, May has made much of ‘defending‘ the sovereignty (that word again) of Gibralter and of stopping the nasty Spanish from getting their hands on ‘our’ rock. Back in 2002 the residents of Gibralter had their own referendum on whether Britian should share its sovereignty with Spain. 98.5% they said ‘no’. Last year they took part in that other referendum. And 92% voted to stay in the EU. So it’s really quite clear; they want to stay part of the UK and they want to stay in the EU. The two are totally compatible and work in the interests of the residents and, I imagine, the surrounding parts of Spain.

So how to avoid this potentially very nasty spat with the Spannish and protect Gibralter? It’s simple. Do what the Gibraltarians want: stay in the EU. Job done.