ELECTION SPECIAL: Why You Should Vote Green- Dave Cocozza

I wrote a piece on tactical voting and Greens for UKC Voice – read it here

UKC Voice

“I need to vote Labour to stop the Tories.”

“We need to vote tactically to keep Nick Clegg in his seat.”

“If you vote for the SNP, you’re anti-Union.”

“We need to vote Tory to keep out UKIP.”

Frankly, I’m fed up of it.

Not just because I’m trying to win an election in Canterbury and tactical voting is becoming my biggest barrier to success, but because it’s causing people to vote for the lesser of two evils and not for what they truly believe in – because what’s the point of voting for the party you want to win when we are told we live in a pseudo-democracy that gives them little chance of success? This isn’t an election anymore, but a tick on a sterile betting slip to predict a winner.

Since Russell Brand started his ‘Trews Politics Week’, the media has been swamped with speculation as to…

View original post 840 more words

Tactical voting is a terrible idea.

Today, I gave a short speech to some undecided voters and Green supporters at a Fayre in Canterbury. It really resonated with people and converted a few voters, so I thought I’d post it here for all to see.

——————————

“Sorry I can’t vote Green, I need to ensure we keep out the Tories”. “Vote Green, Get Tory”.

I hear it almost daily.

It is an absolute shame that people feel the need to vote tactically and not with their true heart. But, when the prospect of 5 more years of extreme ideological austerity is what faces us, I don’t blame anyone for being fearful of that and wanting to stop it.

A Labour government in power after May 7^th would be a moderate relief, for a fixed period. Then in another 5 or 10 years the right-wing ideology will take over again, and screw over the lower classes. We go in circles, with permanent and extended suffering. We need to break that cycle, and now feels like the best time in recent history to start on the road to progress. If not now, when?

By voting for the Green Party, you are making a difference, even in the safest of Tory heartland seats, because you are sending out a powerful message: that it is time for change. Somewhere along the line we’ve forgotten the power in voting, trading in meaningful ballot papers for sterile betting slips. Your vote doesn’t ‘count’ if you manage to vote for the winning party- your vote counts if you use it to make a statement about what you want your society to be, what values you think we should fight for. There’s nothing ‘tactical’ or clever about voting for a party that has been disappointing you for decades.

Politicians lost their fear of the electorate some time ago. It has given these parties a blind arrogance, but as they begin to see once more, what they are confronted with terrifies them.

We’ve ended up in a system of playground politics. The to-ing and fro-ing, the blue vs red. Over and over again.  People fear that voting any other way than the status quo would let the other side back in, but that’s just a message of fear those parties want you to hear to keep you from voting for someone else!

I say it’s time for change. A change from Blue vs Red. It’s time for us to come together and vote for The Green Party. It’s time for us to vote a new colour into our politics.

I’ll not be voting Green to keep the Tories, or the Lib Dems, or Labour out of government – that’s not the point of voting. I’ll not be voting Green because they’re the least worst of the options, but because in my opinion they’re by far the best option. There’s absolutely no way my voice could get confused with any other voice. I want Green policies enacted, so I’ll vote for them.

If you agree that tactical voting is an unfortunate consequence of a broken system, then please don’t perpetuate it. If you agree that the voting system needs major reform, then please, don’t vote for a party that isn’t offering it. Don’t make a tactical error.

We may only achieve a handful of seats at this election – but use it as a springboard into 2020. We have become stuck in a cycle of short-termism, but the Green view is much longer for the benefit of generations to come. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, you’ve still made a statement – one that with enough force can send a real tremor through the archaic system of Westminster.

Change can happen. We can make Canterbury the Greenest plot of land in the Garden of England. We can protect our planet. We can end austerity. We can provide free education. We can save our NHS and keep it public. We can renationalise the railways. We can stop a trident replacement. We can provide a living wage for all.

We can do this. Just Vote Green on May 7^th, not tactically.

Why tactical voting is a terrible idea

whats all this phd nonsense anyway?

In a departure from my usual focus on my PhD in astrophysics, I wanted to write down my thoughts on tactical voting. Please note that I’m not a political commentator, nor was I ever trained in politics. This is my opinion, based on my new and strong engagement in politics over the last few years. My arguments focus on Green supporters voting tactically for Labour, but could just as easily apply to similar situations across the political spectrum.

Part of my political awakening was my involvement in the fossil fuel divestment movement.

Anyone I’ve ever spoken to about tactical voting agrees that it’s a shame that people feel the need to vote tactically. This, I think, transcribes into a relatively uniform agreement that our current electoral system in the UK is not fit for purpose. A system that sees some parties gain 5 times less seats than they win votes (e.g. Greens), and…

View original post 1,704 more words

Free Education: The Green View

Spring conference 2015 passed a motion which significantly expanded our policies on Higher and Further Education. These will be reflected in our General Election manifesto – but let’s have a quick look at some of the elements involved.

Greens feel that the fundamental purpose of universities should be to promote critical enquiry, social innovation and cultural renewal.  Too often these aims are sidelined in an atmosphere of managerialism and commercialisation. Higher Education should be about public engagement and social participation, not just a production line for degrees. Both the Coalition and the Labour Party are responsible for the current system of university funding, which is dependent on tuition fees of £9,000 per annum for undergraduates. This betrayal of a promise has blighted the future of thousands of young people who now graduate with a debt of at least £45,000.   The people that are benefiting from the current system are university Vice-Chancellors and senior bureaucrats who award themselves massive pay rises, while those who teach and research face punishing terms and conditions of employment; the quality of education is threatened by reduced contact hours with over-stretched staff. Zero-hours contracts are now commonplace and service workers are commonly denied a living wage.  Arts and Humanities subjects are now under threat, as there is a perception that they are an expensive luxury with no clear vocational route. The Green Party believes that the Arts and Humanities are an essential part of a more just and enriching society.

EDUCATION FOR LIFE?

The situation for mature students is particularly dire.  Over the past five years every continuing education department in the UK has been scaled back or closed down, often as a response to caps on student numbers and lower funding for the sector.  Adults wishing to return to education find that short courses and part-time study are considered not cost-effective. The courses that non-traditional applicants can enrol for, especially as a first step towards a full degree, are often hugely expensive when measured against the contact time with lecturers. ‘Lifelong Learning’ is a phrase that we often hear from politicians, but giving people the opportunity to be ‘second chance’ learners should be a crucial part of universities’ offer to wider society. A Green government would address this crisis through a number of strategies:

•  Ending undergraduate tuition fees. We believe that the current level of applications to study at university reflects the lack of other opportunities available to young people rather than a genuine willingness to enter into debt. It is neither ethical nor sustainable to expect people to saddle themselves with a huge debt for the right to access higher education. This would cost about £4.5 billion over the term of the next parliament, and in the long run around £8 Billion per annum.
• Cancelling student debt issued by the Student Loans Company and held by the Government. Taking account of loans that will never be repaid, the total value of these loans is around £30 billion.  Assuming that these loans would be paid off over the next 25 years, and including interest, this amounts to around £2.2 billion per annum in revenue that the government would not receive.
• Reintroduce student grants costing £2.2 billion over the Parliament.  In the longer run we would support student living costs through the Basic Income.
• Restore access to Lifelong Learning by supporting mature students and their families, and reintroducing the block grant to universities.

Caroline Lucas MP has argued that the costs of a free higher education can be met by increasing corporation tax to the level paid in other G7 countries and ring-fencing some of that money. Businesses depend enormously on graduates’ skills and knowledge, so it’s only fair that they invest in the higher education system from which they benefit.

Tristram Hunt MP: Despite your chiselled looks, your thoughts on education policy are highly unattractive

NB: Letter in response to Guardian article “Green party’s education policies are outdated and ‘total madness’ – Labour”. Please feel free to republish with credit.

Dear Tristram Hunt MP,

My friends think you are ‘fit’. Seriously, I know one girl who would rate you as a ‘9/10’!

Don’t get me wrong, you’re a very good looking man. Though I must say despite your chiselled looks, your thoughts on Green education policy are highly unattractive.

I’m sure that when Sam Pancheri, our Schools spokesperson, has her own interview with The Guardian it will show how truly progressive Green politics are, and how stagnant and unwanted Labour’s current ideology seems to be among the public, but let me perhaps tell you my own story in the meantime. This is something that, as a young person, I am extremely passionate about and will not stand for such an attack on common-sense policies.

I come from a very working class family and I’m proud of my roots. I am the son of an self-employed Italian immigrant father and mother who has been a public sector worker for most of her life; I went to TImbercroft Primary School (which, if you didn’t know, was in Greenwich, SE London) and was the only person in my cohort to pass the 11+ selective ability tests, thus went to Bexley Grammar School in Welling. My secondary education was driven by the need to pass exams so the school could continually boast about high performing GCSE and A Level Results, and ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted scores, not about developing my individual needs. At the age of 16, I started my own part-time business, selling eBooks and drop-shipping products online, alongside undertaking the I.B. I was told I needed to stop it or be expelled as it would impact my grades (it didn’t) and would look ‘bad on the school.’ I was taught to conform.

I took a few years out of education after finishing my International Baccalaureate, something which I do really value as being one of the reasons I am who I am today, though my admiration for my parents and their life and work ethics also plays a significant part. The I.B shaped me as a person; it was rigorous with six subjects but had a mix of philosophy, creativity and developing skills outside of the class room through volunteering thrown in to it. There were times during the I.B when I felt like I had control over what I was learning, and how I wanted to progress. Then, after almost 5 years working in London, I went back to education (the first in my family to do so) and it’s taken me around 3 years to realise the dire state of the sector and how students are used for their money in a commercialised and private system when you reach higher education.

This is why I joined The Green Party and this is why I applied, and became, the Higher and Further Education spokesperson. I’m not an experienced academic, I’m not a HE policy expert, and I’m definitely still learning. But, I am passionate about changing the current system that saddles students with oppressive student fees, rewards Vice-Chancellors with ever-growing pay packets whilst everyone else has to fight for a 1% increase, and silences those who attempt to speak out on issues they feel passionate about with ridiculously exaggerated court injunctions.

Green education policies are sensible, progressive, and would end the years of privatisation brought to market. The Green Party represents me, a lot of teachers, a lot of academics and certainly a lot of the “99%” of the world who have suffered from current and previous government’s austerity measures in the name of shrinking the state. Teachers are not paid enough, are forced to work long hours and be continually assessed and monitored to see if they are conforming to what the governments wants everyone to learn about. That’s not the education system I want to see, nor is it the one The Green Party will promote.

Mr Hunt, you state that voting Green would be a risk to our Education system and would cause more damage than good. Children DO start in education far too early, earlier than the majority of other western countries, and the first few years has been proven to be key in child development. So why must we force a national curriculum on them from an early age? Children can learn in many ways, they do not need a teacher suffering from low pay and extreme demands to be forced to make them conform.

“Nobody is voting green because they agree with their policies” says Mr Hunt. May I ask, have you looked at http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/? The Greens’ education policies score 37.64% – far above Labour’s 11.65%. I think that alone discredits what you say.

Teaching to the test is not satisfying teaching, and it’s boring for students, yet that’s what successive governments have obliged teachers to do. We need to free teachers and pupils to rediscover the excitement of learning, released from the shackles of a system designed only with economic competitiveness and preparation for work in mind, and with excessive teacher workloads burdened by bureaucracy.

Labour was part of the reason a bid to suspend fracking did not go through parliament yesterday and another reason to worry about the future. Clearly, right now, they are unfortunately a party heading in the wrong direction and I am so disappointed in that because I see so many of my friends struggling to be able to continue supporting them.

Mr Hunt, I’d like to thank you for your attack on The Greens. You’ve made a lot of people wake up to our sensible, evidence-based policies. There are plenty more available to discuss, and I would welcome any teacher, student, HE professional, mature student, lifelong learner to discuss them with us. In fact, I’d extend that invitation out to everyone – because everyone deserves the right to an accessible and free education, and we learn throughout our entire lives. Education is for everyone, and should work for everyone too.

Fancy taking on me and Sam Pancheri in a debate? I think the education bods would like to see it.

Yours Sincerely,

David Cocozza – Further and Higher Education Spokesperson of The Green Party. Also, a student.

 

Dave Cocozza selected as Green Party’s new National Spokesperson for Higher and Further Education

PRESS RELEASE: Dave Cocozza selected as Green Party’s new National Spokesperson for Higher and Further Education

After a surge in the membership numbers of The Green Party, leading them to become the third largest UK party, a new slate of spokespersons have been appointed – including a Young Green member in Canterbury as the new Spokesperson for Higher and Further Education.

Dave Cocozza, a 24-year-old student at the University of Kent and member of the Canterbury Green Party, is aiming to be one of Canterbury’s first ever Green councillors, and was appointed as HE and FE spokesperson on the 15^th of January 2015.

Mr Cocozza said:

 “The Green Party is the only party that are serious about providing a better future for the younger generation, and ensuring we have a well-funded free education system to shape and build the next leaders of the world.

We want every young person to have access to a quality education, no matter what their family’s income. That’s why we’re opposed to the government’s privatisation and commercialisation of schools, colleges, and universities which is making access to a good education dependent on financial privilege.

By scrapping unfair and oppressive tuition fees, replacing them with student grants to meet living costs, reintroducing the Education Maintenance Allowance for 16 to 18 year olds, and ensuring University students are provided with quality, affordable accommodation will ensure that anyone and everyone who wants to access higher education actually can.

Twelve months ago I was a Labour supporter, but I wouldn’t trust Ed Miliband to organise a kick-about, let alone run our country. With the Lib Dem support sliding ever lower in the polls, and the rest all continuing to sing from the same hymn sheet, the only party that will really support the young voice and provide an education system that works for everyone is The Green Party.

Seeing my name alongside such inspiring Green politicians is, frankly, mind-blowing. A week ago I was just a mature student at Kent – now I have plenty of political journalists following me on Twitter!!

I intend to do my utmost best to spread the Green message both locally and nationally. We have the chance to break into the Conservative stronghold of Canterbury, and I am so excited to be a part of this.”

Student actvists from across the country have congratulated Mr Cocozza on his appointment. Fiona Edwards from the Student Assembly Against Austerity said:

“It is an alternative of free education that students are fighting for. Last year the Student Assembly Against Austerity in coalition with other groups including the Young Greens organized a 10,000 strong national demonstration calling for an end to tuition fees, education cuts and student debt. As we approach the General Election we will be pressing politicians to support our cause.”

Deborah Hermanns from National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts added her thoughts and said:

“The Tories, Labour and Lid Dems have done nothing but refuse to deal with the mess they have created in higher education – no solutions have been put forward and they have spent the last decade commercialising the system and now are just playing political football which isn’t going anywhere. It’s time for real change and this is why we have to build a student movement on the streets for a different, free education system.”

With reports suggesting that the next few years will see a real decline in the number of engineering graduates, Mr Cocozza is also keen to promote the value of STEM teaching from a young age through to University onwards:

“Prof. Averil Macdonald’s ‘Not for people like me?’ report clearly shows a growing need to encourage take-up of STEM subjects across both genders, and we also need to do more to encourage young women to take them up. With estimates of a shortage of up to 40,000 graduates each year, we really need to look at changing the system for better.”

The Green Party’s new slate of spokespeople, in line with party policy on ensuring equal representation, has a 50/50 gender split. The list includes its current MP, Caroline Lucas (Economics spokesperson) and South East MEP Keith Taylor (Environment and Climate Change spokesperson).

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Full list of Green Party spokespeople available at http://greenparty.org.uk/people/green-party-spokespeople/
2. Mr Cocozza is available for comment on Further and Higher Education issues by email: dc420@kent.ac.uk
3. Professor Averil Macdonald’s “Not for people like me?” report on under-representation in science, technology and engineering is available at http://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/education/not-for-people-like-me

Dear Theresa May, Don’t Bring Students Into Your Immigration Rhetoric

Dear Theresa May,

It was widely reported just before the Christmas break that you are considering plans to try and force international students who study in the UK to leave at the end of their degrees, with a source close to you being quoted as saying “Making sure immigrants leave Britain at the end of their visa is as important a part of running a fair and efficient immigration.”

Please do not bring the students and graduates who finance a huge portion of our Higher Education system into your immigration rhetoric. They should be valued, not shun away.

A survey by the NUS earlier this year revealed 51% of non-EU students in the UK thought our own government was either “not welcoming or not at all welcoming towards international students” – and this figure is already worrying. Our country has a proud tradition of welcoming those into our land who contribute positively to the economy and state, and you want to turn away the future wealth creators and make it harder for them to settle here? I appreciate the Conservative Party (and, well, in fact a lot of the main parties) consider immigration a huge issue, but can you tell me why you want to send home those people who positively make a difference to the local economy instead of focusing on real issues such as reducing financial and social inequalities, regulating banks and putting much needed funds into our already-teetering public health system?

Here in Canterbury at the University of Kent, 41% of academic and research staff are of foreign nationality and over 150 different nationalities make up the hugely diverse campus that just couldn’t exist without the incredible and highly valued financial benefit International and EU students bring to it. Our students get the chance to learn about cultures from all across the world, form alliances with the future leaders of new nations and interact with people of all walks of life. This is something that should be embraced and welcomed, not feared. The high majority of these students would like to settle in the UK after they complete their degrees, and you want to make it harder for them to do so by making the visa process already more complicated than it currently is?

I want our local community to intergrate more with the student population, who are often seen as “transient residents” that do not add to the local economy. Truth is, without the 25% of the city that are current full-time students – regardless of their age – our businesses would be failing. You only have to see the difference when you walk through town. We should be building better relationships with international students, and home students, encouraging them to get more involved with their local community. We shouldn’t be adding to the consumerism that Higher Education has become.

Many of my close friends are international students and also immigrants, and I’m also heavily involved with some of the international student societies. They are some of the nicest and most welcoming people you could meet, and the chance to explore the cultures of the world is something that I value and makes me a better person. It’s a real shame that I cannot say the same about our own government.

Please, rethink your disasterous plans before it’s too late.

Yours Sincerely,

Dave Cocozza

Protect our right to a public debate

This evening, I was alerted to an article in The Guardian which stated that a peaceful, public debate held here in Canterbury around the issue of fracking was of interest to the police as a matter of “public safety”.

The debate held at Canterbury Christ Church University was well attended by over two hundred people and had experts, lecturers and professors, campaigners and a Green councillor on the panel. I cannot comprehend as to what reason the police find it necessary to ask for details of who attended.

As quoted in The Guardian, ‘”Kent police said they needed to assess “the threat and risk for significant public events in the county to allow it to maintain public safety”.’ I’m not sure what risk is involved with a public debate in quite a stable University building that has it’s own security if there is a need for it. Kudos to CCCU for not handing over names to the police, and I commend them for that decision.

Healthy debate forms a signifcant part of the learning process within Higher Education, and is a great way of engaging academics, students and the public on topics that are important to understand as we go through a changing economy, climate and society. The police have no need to be interested in this, and it’s a total intrusion on the privacy of an individual to attend these public debates without fear of reprimand.

We should not need to live in a police state where everyone has their details stored on a mega database. The freedom to campaign and protest peacefully on personal issues is not the business of the police. The Guardian earlier this year disclosed police who were ‘attempting to recruit covert informatives’ who are within Higher Education, and it’s a worrying state of affairs. One 23-year single mother said she abandoned campaigning against racism after police threatened to prosecute her if she told anyone, including her mother, about the attempt to persuade her to become an informant (SOURCE: The Guardian).

Stuart Jeffery, Canterbury and Whitstable’s PPC for The Green Party agrees with these concerns, and said to me: “This is an appalling intrusion into people’s personal lives and should not go unchallenged. We do not live in a police state and we should not be held on a police computer for attending a public meeting at a university. I’ll be asking why they want to know and for copies of emails and minutes of meetings where thus was discussed.”

This is totally, wholely unacceptable and I will be ensuring that Kent’s Police and Crime Commissioner Ann Barnes is held to account for these actions.

—- David Cocozza