Hawaii Oh-Oh

I thought we'd seen it all, but this weekend's Guardian takes the biscuit with its recommendation of a "green" cycling and permaculture holiday in.....



....Hawaii.*


"Our sustainability tour is unlike any other", burbles Responsible Travel, who operate under the slogan "Holidays to give the world a break".

"Intrinsically political, it nourishes a fire of hope, inspiring riders to work towards making their own communities thrive. Many of our past riders have called the experience 'sacred'."

And who could blame them:

"Our riders quickly form an impromptu on-the-road intentional community... an incredible dynamic usually ensues together with campfire discussions where one is just as likely to hear about permaculture as a chat about situation in middle east or about the advantages of solar and wind energy....The group quickly comes to function as a self-sustaining pod on wheels seeking higher meaning, authenticity and community, as the ropes are learned."

And lest you scoffers out there think it's all just talk, the section "How this holiday makes a difference" helpfully explains:

"We believe that in order to affect sustainable changes, we must integrate our ideals into our daily lives. On this sustainable tour, by exploring Hawaii on our bicycles, we will be demonstrating the use of the bike as a sustainable transportation alternative, while pedal-powering ourselves to communities that are actively living, breathing, and teaching viable solutions to environmentally degrading lifestyles."

Thank goodness for plucky Guardian readers and their willingness to demonstrate that a bicycle can actually be used as a means of transport! Less hardy holiday makers need not fear though: this is very much sustainable travel in the David Cameron mode, with a van following our "self sustaining pod" of cyclists to transport their bags, tents, and (locally-sourced, organic, vegan) food.

Let's hope those campfire chats also cover the ethics of travelling 14,000 miles to learn how to compost.

*A return flight from Heathrow to Honolulu will produce about 3.5 tonnes of carbon.

Bristol Schools: ten solutions

So, if we can't blame the local authority for all the ills of Bristol schools, what is the problem, and what is to be done?

1. Rather than abolishing the local authority, it should be given more power. Schools need to be accountable and democratic - everything that academies are not. Local authority officials need to be able to go into schools, find out for themselves whether the head teacher's doing a job, and give a kick up the backside if they're not. This is far from the case at the moment.

2. Governors - the representatives of parents and the community - should be given proper training and be paid for their work. Governors are to all intents and purposes the non-executive directors of a school, and need to be able to afford the time away from work to do the job properly. (Just like jury duty.) Equally, no one should be allowed to to be a governor without taking a mandatory one or two week course in how the education system works.

3. Teachers should be allowed to teach. Like any other job, you get good at teaching by doing it. Teachers need advice and support from proven, experienced teachers, not educational theorists or university educationalists. Unfortunately Bristol teachers are confronted with a different fad at the start of each school year. Forget the endless initiatives and focus on what works.

4. Spend the education budget on teachers and smaller class sizes rather than flash new buildings and endless technology. Most of us learnt to read and write before interactive whiteboards were invented.

5. Scrap national testing and targets.

6. Scrap the national curriculum while you're at it.

7. Scrap state faith schools.

8. Abolish the charitable status of private schools and put the money into the state sector.

9. All children should go to school in their local area. If people want to move to South Glos or North Somerset, then let 'em. But you shouldn't be allowed to live in Bristol and go to school elsewhere.

10. Broaden the catchment areas of all secondary schools and have a lottery for the popular ones. Otherwise there's no getting away from selection by house price.

There's a lot here that would have to be done by central government. But Bristol City Council could change catchment areas tomorrow, it's possible for new academies to be opposed locally, and the local authority could and should change its focus from educational novelty to supporting good teaching.

For the rest, that's what you get your vote for.

Bristol Schools Mythbuster

Blimey. We all knew Bristol schools were in trouble, but the news that 40% of Bristol secondary school pupils are being educated outside the city's state schools (20% in the private sector, 20% in neighbouring districts) is still pretty stark.

On the face of it, the problem and the solution seem pretty simple. The Local Authority (LEA as was) is failing miserably in its duties. Get rid of it, give schools more autonomy, and watch standards rise. This is the Tory view, the government's view, and the view of many in Bristol.

Luckily for them, it's already happening. Practically every crap secondary school in Bristol is in the process of becoming an academy, and primary schools probably won't be far behind. New Oak Primary in Hengrove was saved from the clutches of the Christian Oasis Trust, but rumour has it that the city's academies may have their eyes on other primaries.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. The 'get rid of the LEA and all will be well' view rests on two myths:

1. The LA controls what happens in schools.

Sure, the likes of Heather Tomlinson certainly act - and get paid - as if they have a say in how Bristol schools are run. But in fact, the LA can only really intervene in a school if it goes into special measures. The real power in British education lies with central government and headteachers.

Central government's obsession with testing and targets has, according to a major review carried out by Cambridge University, led a rise in pupil stress and 'teaching to the test' rather than a genuine rise in standards.

Headteachers are held to account by school governors rather than the local authority. Governors are by and large well meaning amateurs totally overwhelmed by the workload and ever changing bureaucracy of modern education. Getting to grips with whatever the Department of Education is called this month is enough of a challenge, never mind truly getting to the bottom of what is going on in a school.

2. Schools outside of LA control will necessarily do better.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that, once freed from the dead hand of the LA, schools will flourish.

Bristol's own City Academy, under "inspirational" headteacher Ray Priest, is often held up as a prime example of this, and used as a justification for the transformation of other failing Bristol schools into Academies.

A much quoted statistic is the improvement in exam results at the City Academy - up from 33% achieving five GSCEs at A-C in 2004 to 50% in 2006. Not bad.

But how many pupils got five GCSEs at A-C including English and Maths ? 18% - a measly 2% rise from 2004.

So, three years after glorious liberation from LA control, 82% of its pupils are still failing to get the qualifications that might actually get them a job. Not a resounding success for a school where, according to its websites, 'learning comes first', pupils are 'learning about learning', 'learning today for tomorrow', and even 'learning to live together' in 'learning villages'.

Academies are nothing less than the privatisation of state education, handing over the education of the most vulnerable to shadowy coalitions of businessmen and the religous right. It shouldn't suprise us that a right wing think tank like Policy Exchange supports them. But it is more suprising that people on the left are in favour - particularly when there's bugger all evidence that they actually work.

So what is to be done? To be continued...

Ho ho hum hum

Gordon Brown's first speech on the environment yesterday was rather overshadowed by the failures of the government's internal mail system. (Incidentally, run by TNT. Is it any wonder Royal Mail's in trouble when even the government chooses to privatise their post?)

Anyway, back to Gordon. The message seems to be getting across that 60% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are not going to be enough, with even our dour PM accepting that 80% cuts 'may' be necessary.

Superficially heartening, and at least good to know that all the efforts of campaigners and the IPCC haven't been totally in vain. But what continues to beggar belief is the unwillingness to acknowledge what targets of 80% will actually mean.

According to Brown: 'I know this means facing up to hard choices and taking tough decisions. That it means governing not gimmickry. That is what we will do.'

But, as ever, this administration seems to think that governing involves handing out a few energy saving light bulbs. The really hard choices - like how such targets are compatible with continued airport and road expansion - are swept under the carpet.

Even a no-brainer like banning or levy-ing plastic bags - already successfully carried out elsewhere, and likely to enjoy far more public support than, say, road charging - is too tough a decision. Instead, Brown proposes to 'hold discussions' with supermarkets to see if we can all play nicely and phase them out on a voluntary basis.

If he can't stand up to business on a non-issue like plastic bags, then even a target of 8% looks too ambitious. So much for the vision thing.

Choose to lose?

Some interesting, and even thoughtful, debates about Chooseday elsewhere.

I've met a few of the people involved in Chooseday, and got the impression that they are basically well-intentioned and well-meaning. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

In fact, the most useful thing about Chooseday is that it shows just how silly it is to pretend that carbon cutting is or should be a matter of individual choice. This has become an ever present refrain in the last few years: choose to leave your car at home, choose to insulate your loft, choose to buy fair trade coffee, choose to carry a shopping bag, choose to fly less.

Unfortunately there are two massive problems with this approach:

1. It completely lets government off the hook. Let's face it, major social and economic change is not achieved by well-meaning individuals (although they may get the ball rolling). The welfare state wasn't set up by some voluntary organisations suggesting 'Wouldn't it be nice if we all paid some money into a national social fund? We could use it to pay for healthcare and pensions!' Segregation in the American South wasn't abolished by a public awareness campaign. Laws had to be passed, and individuals had to abide by them, whether they wanted to or not. Choice didn't have a whole lot to do with it.

2. People don't always behave as predicted. A report out today suggests that we use the money saved by energy efficiency measures in part to pay for other carbon-heavy activities. So you might get a council grant to insulate your loft, and then splurge the money you've saved on your leccy bill on a plasma TV or a holiday abroad. Hey, that's your choice, and if the prices of the TV or the flight don't reflect the damage done, then who can blame you?

Now I'm not suggesting that we ban cars - on Tuesday or any other day. But people need incentives, both negative and positive.

It goes without saying that the buses in Bristol should be half the price and five times as frequent/reliable/clean. And I speak as somebody who actually takes the bus on a regular basis, unlike many with opinions on this subject. Nothing ticks me off more than hearing 'I can't be expected to get the bus until the service improves'. (Well, maybe 'I can't be expected to send my kids to a Bristol state school.') What about all the people who have to rely on buses - kids, the elderly, those who can't afford a car?

But even with the best bus service in the world, people will still choose to drive. So let's make that choice a bit less attractive - congestion charging, workplace parking charges and residents' parking should all do the trick. And, while we're at it, let's not build any more roads for a while.

All of this, and more, can be found in the eminently sensible Transport Manifesto for Greater Bristol. Interestingly enough, when in opposition, the council Labour group set up an epetition calling for 20 mph speed limits in residential areas - one of the manifesto's key demands. Now they are back in power, they seem content with draping Chooseday banners over the Council House. Looks like they've passed the buck back to us hapless individuals.

a quick plug

Some shameless promotion here for an event coming up this Saturday.

Freshly re-elected Green Party Principal Male Speaker Derek Wall will be speaking this Saturday at Bristol's Green Future, a community day organised by Bristol Green Party at the Trinity Centre. Derek is a former resident of Greenbank, and his talk on 'Greening Bristol' is sure to be a highlight, but there's much more to the day, including workshops on community growing & permculture, transport, local politics, Transition Bristol, planning & housing, and alternative education, as well as apple pressing, tasty vegetarian food, and children's activities.

Recycled politics

The last three weeks in politics have been so exciting, even a Greengage couldn't fail to wake from its summer slumber. More (perhaps) later on election fever, the Tories' great green climbdown, and some inconvenient truths about climate sceptics.

But the mills of Bristol politics - rather like this blog - grind a little more slowly. It may seem like we've been talking about rubbish for years now, but the Lib Dems just don't want to stop. So enamoured are they by this topic, they want a special council meeting on the subject.

What's to discuss?

The waste management scheme introduced by the Lib Dems is still in place.

We have been told that the Citizens' Jury set up by Labour largely endorsed the status quo - as has been pointed out elsewhere, a rather expensive exercise in sham democracy at £45k. (Although the full report has its highlights. More on this in my next post.)

Of course it is fun to see Labour climb down from their ill-advised local election pledges about weekly collections in inner city areas like Easton - and we can only hope they will be soundly punished for this at the next round of elections. But it's hard to imagine that a special council meeting on waste will do anything other than give the Lib Dems gloating rights, and allow Gary Hopkins to mount his corn-starch hobby horse.

Hopkins is puzzlingly infuriated that his wrong headed demands to introduce corn-starch liners for kitchen waste bins have not been acted upon. Lib Dem freesheet The Bristol Reporter quotes him as saying 'Professional advice about how they [liners] would improve composting rates and please residents has been rejected'. But both the environmental benefits of these bags and their popularity are illusory. Hopkins has yet to rebut the Green case against these bags. And his e-petition in favour of the liners has collected a grand total of 17 signatories since August. Hardly a ringing popular endorsement.

There are real issues about waste and recycling in Bristol, but whether the Lib Dems will raise them is another matter.

Comhaontas Glas: half empty or half full?

Never work with children or animals? Think again. The cutest party political broadcast in recent history paid off, and the Irish Green Party entered government last week, in a coalition with Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.

It's hard to know how to feel about this. As someone who grew up in Ireland in the dark days of the 1980s, it's a thrill to see Greens in power in a country which, for all its plastic bag bans, still has a long way to go.

On the other hand, Fianna Fáil? Party of endless corruption scandals? Of personal condolences to the German embassy on the death of Hitler? Led by a man who was recently forced to admit that he did not have a bank account during his time as Minister of Finance?

As a friend of mine put it: 'Can they really put manners on the bricks and cement party?' It's hard to see how.

Bashing the bishop

Revealing interview with the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, in the Guardian today.

The dear old Bish got a lot of mileage out of his announcement last year that flying on holiday was 'a sin'. Now, I'm no fan of organised religion, but it seemed at the time to be quite a useful contribution to the debate.

Today's piece sheds a somewhat different light on the matter. (The fact that it's penned by Leo Hickman, as part of a seemingly endless stream of advertorial for his book on flying, is probably a subject for another post.)

It seems the Bishop only pledged to refrain for flying for one year. Even this, he moans, 'has produced all sorts of inconveniences'. These inconveniences, it transpires, consist of having to turn down invitations to speak at international conferences. But despite such cruel and unusual hardship, the Bishop remains stoic: 'The year comes to an end at the beginning of November, but I don't resent it because it's a fast.' So great is his concern for the environment that he's even considering cutting out recreational flying altogether.

Whoa there! Either flying is a 'sin' - religious or environmental - or it isn't. I'm not exactly up on the latest theological developments, but I wasn't aware that the church advised giving up sin for a limited time, only to return to one's wicked ways with a clear conscience. (Unless you're a Catholic, of course.) Surely cutting out recreational flights should be an absolute given for a man with such strongly stated environmental beliefs. And how much flying is really required in his line of work anyway? I wouldn't have thought that participation in international jollys was an essential part of tending to his metropolitan flock.

What irritates me is the implication that giving up flying is so difficult. Plenty of people have stopped flying. If the Bishop can't take this step, let's not judge him. But to set him up as a spokesperson for the anti-aviation movement is ludicrous.

Needless to say, the toothless Hickman didn't pick him up on any of this. He did, however, probe further on the environmental implications of the Bishop's decision to have four children. The Bish admitted that there were 'probably too many people in the world'. He then went on to add:

But we live in a continent which is not, on the whole, reproducing itself. There are so many people who are so bloody selfish that they don't even want one child. There is nothing that converts you to this cause more than your children nagging you at the breakfast table wondering what sort of life they are going to lead in the world that we have devastated.

What I love about this statement is that it contains three of my all-time Pro-Natalism Myths:

1. What the world needs is more Europeans. Not too hard to pick the holes in that one.

2. Those without children are selfish. There are all sorts of reasons for not having children. Infertility, allergy to garish plastic toys, love of expensive foreign holidays, environmental concern, and voluntary human extinction are just a few. Equally, people have children for all sorts of reasons: a workforce for your subsistence farm, a tribe of environmentally aware Monbiots, a reason to shop at Baby Boden. Selfishness or not doesn't really come into it.

3. That parenthood makes you more environmentally aware. In some cases, this may be true, and let's give the Bishop the benefit of the doubt. But look around you, dude. Plenty of those 4x4s have children in the back. And did Swampy have a kid? I think not.

promises promises

So. People are saying that Labour might reintroduce weekly rubbish collections. It's certainly true that promises were made during the election campaign. But it's hard to see how they could justify the expense, or defend weekly collection in some parts of the city and not in others.

What's often forgotten in the increasingly hysterical press coverage of rubbish and recycling is how well the new collection schemes can work, and how quickly people have adapted to them. First thing in the morning on rubbish collection days, I marvel at people's fastidiously arranged recycling bins and neatly stacked piles of cereal boxes. Incredible as it may seem, what other Europeans have been managing for years is not beyond us either.

But of course, in Daily Mail land, RECYCLING WORKS is about as attractive a headline as WOMAN SUCCESSFULLY COMBINES WORK AND FAMILY or SICK MAN GOES TO HOSPITAL: GETS BETTER.

Ray stopped play

So now the Tories support academies too. Let's not dwell on the exquisite irony of David Willetts pleading that "academic selection entrenches advantage". Surely, chorus the Tory faithful, that's the whole point of grammar schools? How far Cameron can drag the party with him is one of the few interesting questions left in national politics.

What's maybe more pertinent here is how this will play out closer to home. There's much debate about whether academies really do raise academic achievement. The disadvantages of taking control over children's education out of public control are certainly well rehearsed. But the effect on the broader local community rarely gets discussed.

The City Academy in Bristol - formerly St. George Community College - was the first academy in the South West. As a flagship project, it's got tonnes of positive press coverage, not a little government spin, and a visit from David Beckham. The headteacher, Ray Priest, is by all accounts a fine and inspirational man, although why he couldn't be equally inspiring within the state sector has never been fully explained.

The Academy opened in 2003 and quickly found itself in dispute with sections of the local community over the use of Packer's Field, a local green space. Originally used by the workers of the Packer's chocolate factory, it was sold to the city council in the 1930s, with the proviso that it should be used for the recreation of local people. In 2002, however, Bristol City Council handed the field to the newly fledged City Academy on a 99 year lease.

To cut a long story short, the Packer's Field proposals divided the local community down the middle. A consultation in 2003 saw 58% in favour of the plans and 42% against. Those in favour pointed to the problems with drug dealing and dog mess - that constant of local government - and the fact that the plans would give local primary schools access to the field. Those against wanted to see the field given town green status, and open access preserved.

Unsurprisingly, the City Academy won the day, and was given permission to go ahead with the developments, subject to a Community Use Agreement, which would give locals access to the field.

Since then, progress has been slow. The field has languished as a wet and muddy morass for much of the intervening period. The contractors given the job of remodelling this space went bankrupt. Not only were the large lakes in the inadequately fenced field a danger zone, the boundary with neighbouring Whitehall school was not properly maintained, creating a security hazard.

Work has now restarted, but a recent stroll around the field reveals that any child could easily squeeze through the gates. Standing water remains a problem, and a Community Use Agreement has not yet been finalised.

This tale of woe shows how divisive academies and related developments can be. Perhaps even more worryingly, it shows just how acrimonious such disputes can become. Opportunity for some can be loss for others. In inner city areas, with precious little green space, it's easy to understand how access for all vs. sports facilities for kids can become a zero sum game.

Such divisions are easily exploited. Once an academy is established, they become a disproportionately powerful player in local affairs. Unlike schools under local authority control, their governing bodies do not have to include representatives from the local community. In any case, a majority of governors can be appointed by the sponsor, giving them effective control.

We in the environmental movement are quick to see community and localism as the answer to almost everything (the Transition groups are a prime example of this). But we also need to recognise that locals can disagree vehemently, and that, even without an academy to stir things up, communities don't always want the same things.

Easton folkie Eirlys Rhiannon's song* about Packer's sums it up nicely:

"It's got so local's just a badge you wear
To show that you know how to care."

Rather than romanticising the "power of community", perhaps we need to start thinking about community competition too.

*(You can listen to it here.)

I snooze, you lose

To: sepp.blatter@fifa.com
From: Greengage
Subject: Something must be done

Dear Herr Blatter,

Even from your Alpine eyrie, it surely must be obvious just how boring so-called top-level football has become. We need not waste time thinking back to the negativity-fest of last year's World Cup. Saturday's FA Cup final and the ongoing snoozesome Champions League final should be enough to refresh our memories. Luckily, the valuable minutes and hours of my life spent watching overpaid primadonnas losing the ball in midfield have not been entirely in vain. I have formulated a plan to save world football, which I am prepared to share with you. For free. Contrary to my usual practice, no brown envelopes bulging with Swiss francs need change hands.

My plan is a simple one. Any cup match which ends in a draw should go to extra time. If, after extra time, the scoreline is still drawn, both teams should be eliminated from the competition. The result: positive, forward play and the sense that the match actually means something.

No need to thank me, virtue and innovation are their own reward.

Yours,

Greengage

P.S. I think it goes without saying that the group stage of the Champions League should be abolished forthwith.

Hodgeson's choice

Extraordinary article by Margaret Hodge in yesterday's Observer on council housing. With, one might venture, an eye to certain sections of her Barking consituency, she proposes that 'indigenous' families be given priority over immigrant families, even when their need is greater:

We prioritise the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement others feel they have. So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded, privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants.

So it seems that the concrete needs of the asthmatic immigrant children should take second place to the felt entitlement of the 'indigenous' family. Heartwarming. Where might this logic take us? Will the wheezing tots be denied inhalers on the basis of their recent arrival on our shores? Should 'native' children be given first choice of books from the school library?

In any case, as some of the comments on the article pointed out, it is based on a dishonest premise: that recently arrived economic migrants are taking up all available council housing. In fact, as a quick browse of Barking and Dagenham housing policy shows, there already considerable restrictions of the kind Hodge proposes. Those who are under immigration control, do not have a 'local connection' to the area, or are not 'habitually resident' in the UK are not presently eligible for council housing. One might think that a government minister would know better than to recycle tired old BNP propaganda, but then again, maybe not

Be Careful What You Wish For

In the absence of any grown-up behaviour from the mainstream parties, the Bristol Blogger has unveiled a cunning plan: plucky lone Green Charlie Bolton for Council Leader.

Now, the Blogger's been less than complimentary about us Greens in the past. But everybody's allowed to change their mind, and it's not hard to find reasons why the old curmudgeon might have come round to our way of thinking. Could it have been our radical 10 point manifesto for Bristol? Our snazzy dress sense? Or our wicked sense of humour?

No matter. Life's a journey, not a destination (as Aerosmith once sang), and we welcome all comers. Or, as LBJ put it rather more prosaically, 'It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.'

But I couldn't help but wonder whether the Blogger had really thought the consequences of his campaign through to their logical conclusion. Sure, a Bolton-led Bristol would a happier, greener, friendlier place, where Home Care would remain unprivatised, children would skip merrily to school munching on unusual varieties of apple, and City and Rovers would meet in the Champions League final every year.


But life's not just a bowl of locally grown cherries. What about the potential drawbacks of a Bolton administration?

• Southville to be rolled out across the city. The more observant will already have noticed this happening by stealth in parts of Bedminster and Windmill Hill. With Bolton in charge, no part of the city will be safe from affluent buggies and the £5 fried breakfast.

• All mentions of the Nazis to be expunged from the school history syllabus in favour of a thorough exploration of the life and works of Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno, leader of the original "Green Army".
  

• Car use to be eroded to the point where 'car lanes' are built to protect vehicles from the cycling hordes, and an annual Drive Your Car To Work Day has to be instituted to keep the quaint tradition alive.

Like Zinoviev and Kamenev, I'm experiencing some last minute jitters before the revolution. I hope I avoid sharing their fate.

local news values

Very interesting goings-on down at the Council House tonight.

The LibDems have lost control of the council, and Labour have refused to form a minority administration. This despite Helen Holland's pledge just a few days ago: 'We will not rest until this battle is won.' Labour's selfless struggle does not seem to involve actually taking charge of the city and sorting out the mess they created in the first place.

Not that you'd know from our local news hounds. The top story on bbc.co.uk/bristol/news and PointsWest is David Farr's criticism of the Old Vic closure, reported in the Guardian last Friday.

Over at the Evening Post, the news agenda is understandably dominated by headlines like: 'Clamped as I sat waiting for my wife'. (' A motorist has spoken of his disbelief after he claimed he was clamped as he sat in his car reading the Evening Post.' The readers' debate that follows it is the best thing about this story by a mile.)

Meanwhile, back in the mundane world of local politics, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the sight of Labour and the Lib Dems tossing the city's governance around like a hot potato.

It was pretty miraculous that Labour managed to get through the election without the collecitve penny dropping that homecare privatisation was their idea in the first place, but perhaps it will turn out to be a bit of a Pandora's box for them after all.

nettles R us

I have to say I was a bit worried about the nettles. Once I'd blanched and liquidised them, they smelled rather fishy pungent. As one of my dinner guests is vegetarian, and the other had expressed strong skepticism about the concept of eating something that stung, I did experience a moment of doubt. But once mixed in with the rest of the risotto, the effect was rather nice: a very deep green colour, and a tasty, but not overpowering, flavour.

Next stop, nettle plant food. I think I'll build up to the World Nettle Eating Championship slowly.

a sting in the tale

National Be Nice To Nettles Week is coming early to Bristol. Tomorrow, I'll be trying out this recipe for nettle risotto. I'll let you know how it goes.

a PR disaster

'Go back to 1997. Think back. No, really, think back.'

Typically tetchy it may have been, but this line was the highlight of Tony Blair's resignation speech for me.

I remember walking home in the early morning of 2 May 1997. It was a balmy night. I was a student in a seaside town. The Labour landslide was juddering into place, and I was on top of the world.

I still remember that election night as one of the most heady evenings of my life. I had abandoned my ecologically minded housemates, who must have been heartily sick of my exhortations to vote Labour, to spend the evening with my most political friends. Wine was drunk, cigarettes of various degrees of legality were smoked.

We were young, we were dumb, we were up for Portillo.

Cynicism went out the window as seat after seat fell. In retrospect, the only note of sanity was provided by a friend of a friend, recently released from prison, who grumpily told us nothing would change.

Ten years on, it certainly feels as if he was right. Where did it all go wrong? It's easy to blame 9/11 and the Iraq adventure for the nation's disenchantment with Tony, but for me at least political disillusionment set in a lot earlier.

I watched the 2001 election slumped in bed (perhaps an appropriate reaction to having voted Lib Dem for the first and last time). I was lucky to stay awake long enough to hear Mandelson's cringeworthy 'I'm a fighter, not a quitter' speech.

By 2005 I was at my first general election count, tentatively tipping my toe into Green Party activism.

Everybody has their own personal 'I've had it with Blair' moment. For me, it was the decision to renege on electoral reform. The manifesto promise of a referendum on electoral reform was a key ingredient of my post-election euphoria. Even as an avid Labour cheerleader, I believed that proportional representation would transform British politics. Barring some freak of electoral maths, leaving Labour or the Tories dependent on Ming's increasingly unconvincing troops, we're unlikely to find out in a hurry. Labour got greedy, and we all lost out. Thanks, Tony. Now piss off.

Shoulda Woulda Coulda

In the aftermath of the Bristol local elections, it's all too easy to dwell on what might have been. Losing out to Labour in Southville by six votes hurt. Even coming second to the Lib Dems in Ashley, objectively a good result, felt a little bit like a defeat. Once you're in the fight, you want to win. And it's frustating to know what good councillors our candidates in Southville and Ashley, Tess Green and Daniella Radice, would have been.

So it's hard not to have a few regrets.

Could we have done more to keep our campaign under wraps? Perhaps we should have printed our leaflets in invisible ink, visible only to our core voters when exposed to the fumes from their compost bins?

Should we have taken a more aggressive approach to campaigning? What if Charlie Bolton have seized the opportunity of a chance canvassing meeting with David Milliband and challenged him to an impromtu slow bicycle race? That would have shown who's really comfortable with sustainable transport.

Maybe we could have played it just a little dirtier? If we had clandestinely replaced the LibDem office coffee with organic Barleycup, might they have missed their 4am alarm calls on election day, and failed to deliver that crucial 'good morning' leaflet?

What about our media profile? Would Green Elvis, a stalwart of previous election campaigns, have made the difference between success and failure?

We'll never know. But as Beverly Knight perceptively put it, 'shoulda woulda coulda are the last words of a fool'. Now, our Bev might not be the first person a disillusioned Green turns to for inspiration. Some might see Jello Biafra, Dead Kennedy's frontman, and former US Green Party presidential candidate, as a better choice. But frankly, for all the wisdom in the lines 'you'll work harder with a gun in your back, for a bowl of rice a day', I don't think it's going to go down that well with our leafleting team.