Struggling to embody kinder politics and deeper accountability

Well here’s a draft letter that I didn’t send because it didn’t model the generosity which I still aspire to stand for in uk politics; before Christmas 2020 I intend to insert a film that critiques this attempt at “kinder politics” and “deeper accountability“; your critique appreciated in comments below this blog post, please. 

Sally-Ann Hart (MP)

House of Commons

London SW1

17th September 2020

“Kinder Politics” and “Deeper Accountability”

Dear Sally-Ann

We last corresponded on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday, when politics wasn't so heated. It is becoming clearer to me that a significant part of my role in Hastings & Rye general elections is to take some of the heat out of the flashpoints, and do my best, as an imperfect idealist/mediator, to ensure that difference gets heard and individuals valued. I would suggest that my aims chime with those in the second question you put during the “Election Candidates: Protection” discussion in the House of Commons on 22nd January: “Does [x] agree that at times during the last election the commentary and actions of others were misleading, inaccurate and vicious, and that there should be no place for that in our politics, regardless of political persuasion? What steps does she think we should take to ensure that, as leaders in our communities across parties, we conduct our engagement together in an open, respectful and honest way?”

I wonder what answer to the latter question has so far emerged?

What I offer to get us “beyond polarisation in politics” is a “virtuous spiral” of “kinder politics” and “deeper accountability”; each approach having great potential to reinforce the other. When under attack, as you have been, it takes great courage and clarity to go beyond the merely defensive justification or counter-attack and step into the realm of what your higher self sees as “deeper accountability”.

An advisor suggested that I limit this letter to 500 words; imagining that effectiveness is about being “business like”. You'll see from how I end this letter that I'm reaching out to touch you personally just as you did physically at the election count on the morning of 13th December, touching my chest whilst calling me a “kind man” and with your husband coming up to me to shake my hand and introduce himself. “Kinder politics” doesn't make all parliamentary candidates into friends, but friendliness is always possible, even to those who have insulted us. 
I call for all who criticise to preface their critique with an offering of to what value(s) they hold themselves to account. When I announced my candidacy in the 25th October 2019's Hastings, St Leonards and Rye Observer I clarified that I was “standing for generosity – mine and yours.” 
Please hold me to account for this stand and please hold your party leader to account for the same claim that he made as a conclusion to his 10th May 10 Downing Street address, post-recovery from Covid19; that he was leading a government to be judged on being “More Generous More Sharing”.

Just as my contemporary at the Oxford Union in the mid 1980s, Boris Johnson, has done in 2020; I set myself up in 2019 to be judged on my generosity and on policy proposals promoting more sharing. I have drafted this letter many times in my attempt to find the most generous way to ask you to call yourself to account for the readiness with which you seemed to support the most cavalier proposal from the Prime Minister in relation to International Law. Of course, some MPs voted the “United Kingdom Internal Market Bill” through the second reading in order to then support the Bill Neill amendment intended to withhold the power to break International Law from the executive and ensure that power rests in Parliament. By thus asserting the “Sovereignty of  Parliament” in matters of “trade wars”, the legal requirements of  “Getting Brexit Done” will need to be convincingly articulated in Parliament if illegal means are needed to serve the national interest above others. It cannot be in the spirit of the best of Brexit for decisions of this magnitude to be made by the executive alone and brought back to the house for mere rubber-stamping? By the way, I must say that I valued the contribution that you made in the house yesterday, culminating in your rhetorical flourish: “Faced with a choice of supporting our Union or the European Union, I know whose side I am on; do you?”

I am confident that you would condemn the Beijing Government reneging on its international treaty with Britain? Whether there is a direct parallel with our country’s prospective reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement is perhaps a moot point. What I am clear about is that I took you to be an MP who would not break international law without holding yourself duly accountable. So my request to you is that you publish something on your website, or Tweet something, that includes the word “Accountability” and offers a way in which you will deepen your accountability to your electorate.

I too am deepening my accountability in following up in particular my words from the “HIP Hastings Hustings 5-12-2019” that were subsequently transcribed and reported back verbatim in the Hastings Independent newspaper in favour of a Basic Income scheme (13th December 2019 edition). No longer simply proposing universal basic income at the austerity level advocated by Professor Standing, I am now calling for UBI to be paid for by something more easily accountable than a wealth tax ie a 3% annual levy on the value of land owned -i.e. 3% Land Value Tax.  Meanwhile, since early on in 2020 my personal Facebook page (as opposed to that of Paul Crosland, Independent Candidate) is now in the name of Paul BasicIncome Crosland.

The electoral reform I favour happens to be the system practised in all elections within the Green Party; a candidate being elected only on receiving over 50% of the voters' support; often requiring voters' second preferences to be taken into account. In terms of Hastings and Rye contituency's 12th December 2019 voting you only cross the 50% threshold of legitimacy with my support as the only other pro-Brexit* candidate.

Returning to the reliability of Boris Johnson’s words beyond #MoreGenerousMoreSharing, the Prime Minister's words need to have credibility not only for the people of Hong Kong.  It seems possible that we will have in this administration a Government perfectly willing to renege on an international treaty in relation to greenhouse gases and ecological destruction. Certainly the Paris Agreement (within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) does not look to me like it is being implemented. Without a green economy, we are not only in danger of going over the 1.5 or 2 degree warming but well on track for 4 degrees warming by the end of the century! Indeed a scenario of 16 degrees warming in the following two centuries is also suggested in a Zoom conference, involving the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King; highlights of which were uploaded to the  PlanB Earth YouTube Channel. Unless Carbon Dioxide reduction targets are set to be met within your term of office, how can you be held to account? I look for you to adopt more accountability, not only in relation to Brexit, but also in relation to the climate crisis. 

 It was with great regret that I heard of your not attending the extinction rebellion hustings which I and my fellow candidates fully participated in. I heard that this decision was on account of safety concerns. I saw no grounds for such safety concerns and I feel strongly that unless every candidate takes part in such meetings that we will end up with more polarised politics and a society where it is no longer possible for discussions to take place. Thus, in the context of the next general election, I urge you to commit to engaging in and with a forum organised by “Extinction Rebellion - Hastings and St Leonards”; to mention them on Twitter please use @XRHSL. A commitment to being accountable for the climate crisis agenda is, I would suggest very important for your future as an MP. 
That you assured the electorate that you weren't a “career politician” should be a basis upon which your constituents can count on you to stand up for policies other than those handed down by your political party, yet so far I have not seen a single deviation in your voting from the voting that  the Whip's office would want of you. 
I don't expect you to be a “Whip-Free Accountable Maverick In Parliament”; that role I leave to my successor(s), but your constituents need to be able to trust that you will take an independent position, when principles and conscience require it.

Having written enough for one letter about “Deeper Accountability” I return to the other key aspect necessary for us to get beyond polarisation to a form of politics fit to meet the challenges of these times; “kinder politics”.  I think we both have a vested interest in “kinder politics”, although perhaps a different interpretation of how to do it.

For my part I will be saying clearly during the next election campaign that 'I don’t know best, we know better’. From this point of view I should like to work with you in putting forward our respective ideas about how kinder politics could work. There is much to be worked through at both local and national level so that those standing in each constituency work together to ensure that each candidate is given a proper hearing and treated with respect. Whilst presuming your intention to stand in the next General Election, I will hold back on my further ideas on this until you and other candidates have set out some suggestions for the agreements we may make. I will just say that in the wake of hustings I advocate for a chance to put right misunderstandings that may arise on the night and a way for each party to obtain further clarification the next day, if needs be. 
How does this land with you? I would appreciate an initial response first and then maybe later a more considered response. With your support a new style of kinder, more accountable politics can be co-created.

Regards to you and your husband


P.S. If first class post reaches you tomorrow, please spare a prayer for my Dad, whose funeral is then.

P.P.S. A copy of this letter will be published on the “Paul Crosland, Independent Candidate” Facebook page next week.

*Though, as you may have gathered:

 “I'm dreaming of a Green Brexit; 

  Just like the one in the 1991 Manifesto for a Sustainable Society”


If only there were hustings today

In the 2019 General Election in which I first stood, I admit there wasn’t a coherent alternative to Party Politics; just a protest vote or abstention.  These options accounted for a third of the electorate in Hastings and Rye constituency on that blustery and wet December day. 

The tectonic pressures of entering the #PandemicEra have now reforged #EthicsEconomicsPolitics and opened up something viable as an alternative to Party Politics as we’ve come to know (& distrust) it. 

Listening to the needs of these times I’ve arrived at a formula for effective politics in which the PartyWhip is anathema to the #DeeperDemocracy we need; a democracy in which politicians come to events such as this hustings to problem solve together, not to toe a party line. 

The #GrassrootsDemocracy of which I not only dream, but plan, do & review, combined with the ideas surrounding a #DemocracyOfNeeds ensures that a parliamentary candidate can represent their constituents like never before. What assists something to be done in politics like never before is not social media as we know it, largely a reactive medium, but a shift in consciousness and resolve (#SleepOnIt) so that it is used creatively rather than reactively, and alongside principled critiques,  a social obligation to say what it is for which you stand.

The local versions of the #GrassrootsManifestoes are called the #HastingsCitizenManifesto and for those in the constituency who don’t live in the borough of Hastings, the #HastingsAndRyeCitizenManifesto. Collecting these (4-10point #DreamBig policy proposals) together and giving voice to all the underlying needs my team of mediators will come up with a hybrid manifesto that I will demonstrate, a little later, to be something much richer than mere compromise. 

Compromise is not the essence of searching #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics. What is the essence of the higher third way? What I’m talking of here is a way that actually stands a chance of making an impactful and impressive contribution to tackling the scale of the global problems to be faced. Going #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics requires both a #KinderPolitics and a #DeeperAccountability. I wish to demonstrate how a  #KinderPolitics and a #DeeperAccountability go hand in hand. This can be shown first by the history of the delay in the first 2020 lockdown from 16th March to 23rd March* and then by the history of dialogue and action around safe Personal Protective Equipment or PPE....

*lockdown a week earlier has been estimated by Niall Ferguson as a measure that would have saved perhaps half the lives lost in the first wave of Coronavirus.


Daily Telegraph Attack on Extinction Rebellion Press Blockade - comments abound

And here’s what I added in the commentary below a clear commentator IMHO replying to Janet Daley’s hyperbole:

“Your piece has been called An Epistle; I find it a succinct and fair summary of the situation; only missing the route out, which is a shift in consciousness #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics. Joanna Macy taught most convincingly IMHO of the three aspects of The Great Turning from “The Industrial Growth Society”; only one of which is overtly political, I would suggest. Until we look to inspirational communities living more sustainably for models of respectful ways to co-exist and import the learning into politics, then the level of debate will remain reactive rather than provide a grounded creative route out. Amber Rudd asked me to send her a paper on a government policy for prompting sharing once I’d won the audience over of a Local Plan meeting in Hastings; quality of life can be maintained or improved if only we get serious about sharing & Care4Caring NonMonetary solutions to SocialCare shortages. It’s not rocket science; but the #MoreGenerousMoreSharing that Boris Johnson closed his most Churchillian speech (10th May from 10 Downing Street) has proved to be unsubstantiated; hence my call for any principled Tory to resign the Tory-Whip until Johnson shows integrity in the promise he gave after being returned from death’s door by two migrant NHS workers. Stick to #MoreGenerousMoreSharing and trust those in politics most who ensure their opponents’ voices get heard.”


To what extent has society lost touch with primary distillations of values?

Forgive the sweeping generalisations I’m about to make. Consumerism undermined our ethics; how much we cared for human rights in China was generally found wanting when weighed up against the cheapness of supply chains from China. For your money, what would you say President Trump has done of value to reshape the world in a direction it needed reshaping? For me, it is the break with China, heralding a break with globalisation that pre-dates Covid-19, and all the added impetus that pandemics bring for localised (& non-monetary?) economies.

The old world is gone” is the article by Elif Shafak in The New Statesman (28th August - 3 September 2020):
“For far too long, we in the West have consulted the same leather-bound dictionary compiled in the aftermath of the Cold War. Now our dictionary is in flames. We reach out to save what we can, but many pages of entries are scorched. Suddenly we realise we must redefine our most fundamental concepts. What is democracy? We thought we knew the answer, we took it for granted, but now we are no longer sure. What is normal? What is happiness? What are the values we should prioritise: ambitious trade agreements, financial deregulation, profit-driven business models that destroy the environment and pay no heed to co-existence? Or health and social care, diversity and inclusion, positive interaction with our ecosystems and purpose-driven business models?”

Thank you, Elif, for that distillation of the loci of concern. Am I allowed to assert that the latter direction of change is the one for which I was standing in the 2019 General Election?; no rewriting of old blog posts here.

What should we value?” by Martin Hagglund faced Elif Shafak’s aforementioned piece on the next page of this latest “The New Statesman”; a magazine for which last week’s edition

was exemplary:

“Human beings are the only species on Earth that do not know how they are supposed to live. All other species have a natural environment and a natural way to sustain their form of life. While some animals have to build things to make their environment what it ought to be (as is the case with beavers building dams), there is no question of what they ought to build and how species ought to make a living for itself. As in all environments, things can go wrong: a falling rock can break the dam, the water can become poisoned, a virus may spread. Yet when something goes wrong in the life of beavers, it is not because they have the wrong idea of how to organise their lives. Indeed, beavers cannot have the wrong idea of how they should live, since it is set by their nature.
“For human beings, by contrast, the question of how we should lead our lives is always at issue, even if we try to forget that fact. We can discover the ideal conditions for other species by studying their natural way of life. But we cannot discover the best way for us to live simply by studying our present or past societies.”

Let’s not concur with the implied "illiberal liberal" idea that all ideas of how we might best express our nature are equally valid and therefore to be taken off all pedestals on which history has placed them.

I wish the dialogues and cultural exchanges would open up between the “chattering classes” (whose socio-political preoccupations generally reject hierarchical concepts) and the intentional communities which shock with what the individual surrenders in service of something with unelected leaders and ideas that seem more like fantasy than science. The Bruderhof Community of East Sussex as presented in a BBC documentary caught the attention of my social circle this week. I’m a little down-hearted that the dialogue hasn’t yet provided an opener for me to propose that Buddhist Intentional Communities be discussed. I've lived in such communities, once in London and twice in Bristol; I still smile at having come up with the name "Shanti Towers" and then interviewed an ordained Buddhist to live with by playing the (recommended) game Therapy, to get to know him. In such Buddhist Communities one finds, in response to the question of how to collectively cultivate human nature at its best and support the cream rising to the top rather than demand some pseudo-egalitarianism, I have found an inspiring array of answers being lived out collectively, whilst supporting the development of "The True Individual".
Where I’m heading now is back to the hippy times through which this talk on The Ideal Human was given by one of the two most profound and impressive humans I’ve met and talked with. 

For me, the direction is clear, finding a team sharing the journey to living the highest ideal known to humankind, the Bodhisattva Ideal, and able to deliver the grassroots changes called for by the onset of this #PandemicEra (& model it all in Hastings and Rye Constituency), is somewhat problematic still for me, Imperfect Idealist & #FreeRangeBuddhist 007.

Add caption

Beyond Polarisation In Politics - Acknowledging Patriarchy?

In the wake of a police officer in Minnesota applying lethal knee pressure on George Floyd's neck for 9 minutes, the twitter-sphere -among other spheres- appears to have polarised views. Reading words from screens I have been hearing “shouting” like I've never witnessed before; the volume of messages and the tone of insistence/dogmatism of protest and counter-protest. I've been taken aback a few times, not least by banners declaring “Silence Is Violence.

I stepped into the discussion hoping to do so with more creativity than reactivity. However, I ended up tweeting more than I intended. At best, my aim was to go #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics, acknowledge what sense I could see in President Trump's words, and adding what I thought might help round his proposals, encourage approaches that put everyone on the same side. Putting everyone on the same side takes more than the hashtag #AllLivesMatter as a response to #BlackLivesMatter.

The most visceral upset I experienced was in relation to this tweet:
[I find now that the tweet I was going to copy I can no longer see in my tweet-stream; presumably deleted by the author or by Twitter. It said it was from a woman writing of her being raped by a black man in Leeds on a given date and the lack of attention/support she received from others in contrast to the attention being put across much of the world on what happened to George Floyd.]

How long would you take to retweet these words, if you would, and with what comment appended? (May #SleepOnIt become a watch phrase for us before sending what we can reasonably expect to irritate others...) Around this time in the middle of the day, I lay down for about two hours without sleep in a darkened room processing the enormity of the stream of human suffering I was feeling in touch with via Twitter that morning.

Sometimes I retweet without comment, and, unlike many other Tweeters I do this also for many tweets with which I profoundly disagree. Rather than have the “retweets are not endorsements” type of comment on my Twitter profile, at the time of writing, I use the very limited micro-blogging persona profile space for these words: Founder(2011)StLeonardsSharing Consortium.Parliamentary Candidate2019(565votes)working with #NVC leaders towards #LivingPlanetPolitics
@2066Country @ceisenstein

By retweeting notable content, amongst other aspects of the Twittersphere I am currently noticing is, as I'm confident you'll be aware, the lull in “We're All In This Together” sentiments. In that vein there has sadly been no apparent take-up of the 3rd part of my General Election slogan/potted manifesto of “Pause5G, Citizens Assemblies Now, Move Forward More Together”.

How might it be possible to cut across the polarisation that it might be too easy to fall into in relation to the #rape tweet above? The best added comment I could manage at the time was something that has now been removed (or I've mislaid), but it said that both concerns pointed us to the need to question patriarchy.

This was the first time I can recollect having written a word that I had previously avoided like the Coronavirus/Plague. The word that took so long to alight on my page (or flash in pixels) was patriarchy. I wouldn't be using that word if I hadn't discovered its meaning within a framework of #NVC i.e. the body of understanding proliferating from the legacy of Marshall Rosenberg.

The richest exploration, for my money, of the paradigm shifts that the world need now was provided  to the East Point Peace Academy YouTube Channel by Miki Kashtan. Miki Kashtan's previous blogging (from February 2013) around one of my poems I just hyperlinked so that I/we can return to extract more of its juice in showing the shortcoming of my compassion at the time I wrote that poem, and, sadly also in many subsequent times I have read words written by others not-trained as I have been privileged to be in the clarity of separation of observation/ judgement/ feelings/ needs/ values/ requests etc
So here's the UNMISSABLE (IMHO) Film of 2020, eclipsing the 007 movie, Spectre, that the #PandemicEra led to be postponed for launch currently to the 26th October 2020:

And here's just a paragraph from what I call “The Film of The Year so Far” (#PandemicEra #BuddhistEthics #SacredEconomics #LivingPlanetPolitics blog rating: 5 stars). This is the first section in Miki Kashtan's world-view that has got me, as I hope it will “get you”, looking more closely at what alliances might be formed in arriving at a shared understanding of, and addressing, patriarchy?
I put my hands in just about everything; I work from the smallest most-internal domain to global governance and it is always like a big choice what to focus on. I decided to focus on decision making because if we get decision-making right then we can go from there to making all the decisions that we need to make to create a collaborative nonviolent future. That's why I focused in this way and we'll see if that yields benefit. I look at the Coronavirus situation as something that is an opportunity in that exposes some things that were there for quite a while but were under the surface, and now suddenly there's crisis and there's the opportunity to see the cracks; so it's even more visible. We either have a nonviolent future or we have no future because the kind of present that we have -the way of living that is based on scarcity, separation and powerlessness- that comes from 7,000 years of patriarchy. The core essence of patriarchy is scarcity, separation and powerlessness. Patriarchy manifests in gender but isn't about gender; gender emerges from it. The two main things I see in patriarchy are control and either-or thinking. I'm going to try to show that in how we approach decision-making we can exit those and go to a nonviolent future of choice, togetherness and flow so that control is replaced by purpose and either-or thinking is replaced by integration.

1st Festival of the New Society #BeyondPolarisation

1st Festival of the New Society, #GrassrootsManifestoes and #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics  being held in 2020.

The Festival of the New Society, #GrassrootsManifestoes and #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics* is to be held #1stto5thSeptember every year; this year by Zoom + postcards etc snail-mailed to participants by Refuge Tree Woods host.
(Paul Crosland with Marshall Rosenberg at an event which he organised with Mediation UK and NVC-UK, May 2006)
During a particularly hot 2017 July (which was cooler in the wooded Ancient Woodland valley of Refuge Tree Woods, in Wales, with its refreshing stream, etc) a preliminary retreat was led by Alobhin.

The most notable talk there was given by Andy Slack and is available via the #PoliticsAndBuddhistEthics101 playlist:

2020 Programme 

The first three of the 5 days to be a daily talk on (mould-breaking) Triratna inspired themes for 1hour, with the remaining 30minutes of the session allocated to discussion with the other two speakers from the first three days:

Tuesday 1st Sept 
11am Alobhin - Title to be announced - though undoubtedly including A Vision for The Festival of The New Society as a vibrant network of those working beyond left-right politics and inspired by the Bodhisattva ideal.

Wednesday 2nd Sept 
11am Paul Crosland
 “Level-Up (Y)our Life” (talk outline below) 

Thursday 3rd Sept 
11am Andy Slack (TBC)-#PoliticsAndBuddhistEthics101 revisited in the light of recent Labour Party Election defeats and change of leadership.

Friday 4th Sept 
Chaired Discussion between the Zoom audience from any of the previous 3 days

Saturday 5th Sept
3x15minute talks from the 3 Speakers as to what we each take away from the 1st Festival of the New Society followed by panel discussion & networking next steps discussion including setting up Facebook group onto which to load the Zoom footage of the 1st Festival 

Talk Outline:

Level-Up (Y)our Life -being delivered on 2nd September by “Paul BasicIncome Crosland”* Independent Parliamentary Candidate, Hastings and Rye, 2019-2029(?) -promoting #GrassrootsManifestoes etc

Intro: Whose Life Is It Anyway?

1. Join any two (safe-ish) “cults” & distill the differences. 

Or (intensive) Pressure groups, Alternative Health groups, Stop5G?.

2. Build a model of Integration that works for you, 

so that your disparate parts cohere, widen and deepen you.

3. Stand For Something (in the spirit of Educate, Agitate, Liberate.

eg when I was asked to declare in a workshop a lifetime ago what I stand for I proclaimed “I stand for Generosity” & that memory I’ve made into a sort of backbone or return to my heart.

4. In Receiving Feedback (which may well include imprisonment): “I don’t know best, we know better”

Develop your own version of what excellence looks like in hearing others’ response to how you appear to them, at your “best” & “worst”. Recollect when you changed your views and keep that antidote to polarisation alive. Remember that leadership requires taking others’ in and following too.

5. Repeat 1 to 4 (3 times?)

6. From the Reactive to the Creative

7. From the Creative to the Communitarian -“Educate, Agitate, Organise” & Matching Energies etc

8. Ensuring that the Communitarian empowers the True Individual:

9. In Touch With The Transcendental

10. The Festival of The New Society, beyond polarisation, via “Grassroots Manifestoes”, “Deeper Accountability” and #WFAMIP?

*For further info, Facebook message me -“Paul BasicIncome Crosland”, text me on Zero7807-066-202
& email me at paul.crosland{at}

Also &


 * Aspiring to establish these hashtags for The #FestivalOfTheNewSociety: , #GrassrootsManifestoes , #BeyondPolarisationInPolitics and #FOTNSgmBPIP


Call This Democracy?

On getting elected to represent the constituency of Hastings & Rye with just 49.6% of the ballots cast, Sally-Ann Hart said that she “will be representing all of you regardless of how you voted.” As the Parliamentary candidate (2019-2029?) who stood for the decision making processes that enable us to “Move Forward More Together” , and has now taken the energy of the “Hastings Citizen Manifesto” to generate the UK-wide stand for “Grassroots Manifestoes” I want to know what policies you’d need the local MP to support for them to represent you? 
Democracy need not be a choice of three or four “set menus” but built up from below with a choice of policies only limited by our creativity in meeting the extraordinary challenges of our times.
I will work hard to give voice, as best I can, to the 32.4% of the Hastings and Rye electoral roll - that’s 26,250 people - who didn’t vote in the 2019 election. 

I stood because Politics in the UK seemed broken and the possibility of Independent Candidates giving power back to the constituents seemed to have been forgotten. To show a glimpse of what could be achieved by voting for a truly accountable Independent Candidate, let me know what policy or policies being implemented by this government would be what you’d want any candidate holding a balance of power -even the 1% of the vote I gained in 2019- to push for so that the MP acts with the consent of the majority; not just 33% of the vote. Those who voted Independent and those who didn’t vote together almost outnumbers those who voted for the current MP. Democracy has a long way to go. Subscribing to this blog is one way to join a journey which seeks the most positive use of social media to bring out the 10 policies that matter most to every constituent and have meaningful dialogue between all those who differ. Your considered thoughts and best intentions please, you in advance for your comments below,Paul


All power to the (Extinction Rebellion) people?

-Or 2/3rds of the power to the other wings of the movement needed to get from here to the Zero Carbon future?
As a member of the Hastings & St Leonards Extinction Rebellion discussion group I sent this message this morning:
“I celebrate Extinction Rebellion plans for the August Bank Holiday locally and onwards into London. I acknowledge that some people may find it obnoxious: 1) to have posts from the Independent Candidate in Hastings & Rye 2019-2029(?) put up here & 2) that I post in the form of verbose YouTube clips whilst working 70hours a week Shielding my disabled & dementia-suffering Dad:

What I’ve just pasted is, I’ve just learned, an “intuitive story telling” and the importance of closing down capital cities begins at  8minutes in. I’m with you in spirit. I have already registered my support for the Three Demands Bill when asked to by an @XRHSL member in 

All power to 1) your campaign  & 2) the other wings of “The Great Turning”