LOCAL ELECTIONS 2012
Tampereen Vihreät’s (Tampere Greens’) 2012 Local Election Manifesto can be found here. Anyone considering voting for me should probably read through this document for two reasons. Firstly, if you vote for me and I don't gain enough votes for entry into the city council or one of its committees or working groups, your vote will have, in effect, been a general vote for the Greens. Secondly, as a member of the party and one of its candidates, I’m in agreement with the contents of the manifesto and will be pursuing its aims if elected. That’s not to say I value equally each of the various aims listed in the document, and at times the manifesto is a little too vague for my liking, but it’s a programme I can live with, as it reflects my political convictions.
Instead of repeating the specific goals listed in the party’s manifesto, I would like to elaborate here on my three key election themes.
The Environment Isn't an "Optional Extra"
As I said in the "My Politics" section of this website, one of the main reasons I'm a Green is because I feel that the importance of the environment is taken seriously in this organisation. However, this is a mere starting point and needs to be followed by action. When decisions are taken at any level of government, possible effects on the environment have to be considered. This makes little sense to some and will often evoke calls to stop wasting time and concentrate on the issue at hand, when, in fact, if we are ever going to create a sustainable world this is exactly what is needed. Even the Greens have fallen victim to such a perception of proper topics of conversion in politics – for instance, I haven't heard key Greens spell out the environmental issues related to eurozone financial packages, immigration or care for the elderly.
In an age when the majority of political parties as well as a significant number of companies and individuals claim to be "green", it's easy to believe that the environment is being well cared for. This couldn't be further from the truth despite roughly 50 years of growing environmental appreciation in the Western world.
For example, Finland, along with all other countries, must stop emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 2050 if a 2% increase in the world’s temperature – the consensus figure considered safe in the field of climatology, though still with consequences for humans, non-human animals and the environment – isn’t to be exceeded. However, Finland is nowhere close to achieving this goal. In 2008, each person living in Finland emitted, on average, GHGs amounting to 13.22 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Although an absolute sustainable level of GHGs per person cannot be set due to it being determined in part by world population size, two tonnes per person is a good rough figure to aim for in the near future. And, contrary to what some like to claim about the country’s cold climate making cutting GHGs impossible, the average resident of Sweden in 2008 emitted 6.95 tonnes.*
Tampereen Vihreät are aiming to help our city become one of the first emission-neutral cities in Finland. That's easy to say but far harder to achieve. Our whole way of life is based on emitting carbon dioxide, the most-emitted GHG, even if, like the link between the environment and eurozone financial packages, immigration and care for the elderly, this isn't fully understood. True emission neutrality also means changing the consumption habits of the city’s residents, communities and businesses, otherwise such emission neutrality will be a pure facade made possible by outsourcing environmentally damaging production to elsewhere in Finland and the rest of the world. Tampere needs to become emission-neutral by 2050, but let's make sure emission neutrality will really be what the words imply!
* http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_greenhouse_emissions.htm
Empowering Immigrants
Immigration is a seriously simplified and misunderstood issue in Finland today. There are essentially two dominant immigration narratives, the first populistic/conservative/right-wing, the second supposedly progressive:
1. Immigration is out of control; Immigrants don’t learn Finnish to an acceptable level and steal Finns’ jobs but also [illogically] live off state benefits; Multiculturalism undermines Finland’s values and culture
2. Immigrants come here in search for work or safety; Finland needs more immigrants, as its population is ageing; Limited language skills and a lack of networks prevent immigrants from finding work in Finland
Neither of these treats immigrants as anything but one homogeneous group, while political parties and the media simultaneously see fit to divide Finns based on such factors as socio-economic status, geography, language and age. None of these matter, though, when it comes to immigrants. Furthermore, even the more progressive immigration narrative classifies immigrants as refugees or potential workers, as if we have nothing else to offer this country.
This needs to change, but waiting around for (more) Finns to start appreciating the issues facing Finland’s immigrants is far less preferable to immigrants getting involved in mainstream society, politics and debates on “immigration” themselves. Finns, even the most sensitive to the complexity of immigration, cannot properly comprehend what it’s like being an immigrant in Finland.
But to demand that we immigrants be given overly special treatment is wrong. To take part in Finnish society we need to do so on Finland’s conditions, meaning, among other things, we have to, at a minimum, learn the majority national language of our locality or resign ourselves to channelling our thoughts, frustrations and hopes through an intermediary. Finns, though, have to better understand that learning a difficult language like Finnish as an adult cannot be compared to learning generally easier languages in the safe confines of a Finnish school classroom over the course of 3-10 years. Few immigrants who move here as adults will ever master the language in its entirety, but falling short of this doesn’t mean an immigrant cannot speak the language and shouldn’t be given responsibilities in working life or society at large.
If elected, I will help promote immigrant participation in all areas of society as well as do my best to improve the quality of the council chambers’ handling of issues relating to immigrants.
Politics for Babies
Most politicians and political parties talk a lot about how they want to improve things for society’s most vulnerable members – for example, the elderly, low-income families, marginalised youths. And rightfully so! However, one group – probably the most vulnerable group of all – are generally completely overlooked, even by my own party. Despite all the playing and lack of responsibility, many under-3s actually experience a lot more stress on a daily basis than many adults do. They are totally dependent on others for food, clothing and shelter and too frequently go without the sensitivity and attention they need.
In Finland, one parent can receive money for staying at home until their youngest child turns three. This is a fantastic system even if it isn’t trouble-free. At the municipal level, this system can be propped up by an additional benefit, known in Tampere as Tampere-lisä. The combination of these benefits enables parents to stay at home with their children instead of forcing them to put their children into day care.
Although there is no international consensus, child psychologists in Finland argue that young children (i.e. under-2-year-olds, generally speaking) are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to attend nursery, especially not on a full-time basis, partly due to the stressfulness of being in a big group and the inability of nursery nurses to respond quickly enough to the needs of each individual child due to time constraints. Young children need the sort of safe surroundings and sensitivity the vast majority of nurseries cannot ever come close to offering.
At the same time, I’m not proposing a one-size-fits-all model, as the circumstances some families with young children find themselves in, for instance as a result of heavy indebtedness, single parenthood or finding it difficult to cope, may make full-time care unavoidable. Even in the case of families who could afford to have a parent at home, outside interference is ill advised. Also, family day care (perhepäivähoito) is an alternative to both nurseries and full-time parental care that could be used more often.
Some people, though, consider it more progressive to make staying at home with children harder than to increase opportunities for staying at home. Gender equality is understandably emphasised in this respect, as women comprise the vast majority of stay-at-home parents, and returning to the job market after a prolonged absence is made more challenging as a result. Making it more financially appealing for fathers to stay home – as a man is often a family's better earner – is rarely discussed, however. Neither is the issue of equality regarding young children: why should it only be the children of well-off parents who get to benefit from the love and attention of their parents during the daytime?
If elected, I will do my upmost to keep the Tampere-lisä off any list of savings in the municipality’s budget. More generally, I will support families who choose to keep their youngest members out of full-time day care.
Instead of repeating the specific goals listed in the party’s manifesto, I would like to elaborate here on my three key election themes.
The Environment Isn't an "Optional Extra"
As I said in the "My Politics" section of this website, one of the main reasons I'm a Green is because I feel that the importance of the environment is taken seriously in this organisation. However, this is a mere starting point and needs to be followed by action. When decisions are taken at any level of government, possible effects on the environment have to be considered. This makes little sense to some and will often evoke calls to stop wasting time and concentrate on the issue at hand, when, in fact, if we are ever going to create a sustainable world this is exactly what is needed. Even the Greens have fallen victim to such a perception of proper topics of conversion in politics – for instance, I haven't heard key Greens spell out the environmental issues related to eurozone financial packages, immigration or care for the elderly.
In an age when the majority of political parties as well as a significant number of companies and individuals claim to be "green", it's easy to believe that the environment is being well cared for. This couldn't be further from the truth despite roughly 50 years of growing environmental appreciation in the Western world.
For example, Finland, along with all other countries, must stop emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 2050 if a 2% increase in the world’s temperature – the consensus figure considered safe in the field of climatology, though still with consequences for humans, non-human animals and the environment – isn’t to be exceeded. However, Finland is nowhere close to achieving this goal. In 2008, each person living in Finland emitted, on average, GHGs amounting to 13.22 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Although an absolute sustainable level of GHGs per person cannot be set due to it being determined in part by world population size, two tonnes per person is a good rough figure to aim for in the near future. And, contrary to what some like to claim about the country’s cold climate making cutting GHGs impossible, the average resident of Sweden in 2008 emitted 6.95 tonnes.*
Tampereen Vihreät are aiming to help our city become one of the first emission-neutral cities in Finland. That's easy to say but far harder to achieve. Our whole way of life is based on emitting carbon dioxide, the most-emitted GHG, even if, like the link between the environment and eurozone financial packages, immigration and care for the elderly, this isn't fully understood. True emission neutrality also means changing the consumption habits of the city’s residents, communities and businesses, otherwise such emission neutrality will be a pure facade made possible by outsourcing environmentally damaging production to elsewhere in Finland and the rest of the world. Tampere needs to become emission-neutral by 2050, but let's make sure emission neutrality will really be what the words imply!
* http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_greenhouse_emissions.htm
Empowering Immigrants
Immigration is a seriously simplified and misunderstood issue in Finland today. There are essentially two dominant immigration narratives, the first populistic/conservative/right-wing, the second supposedly progressive:
1. Immigration is out of control; Immigrants don’t learn Finnish to an acceptable level and steal Finns’ jobs but also [illogically] live off state benefits; Multiculturalism undermines Finland’s values and culture
2. Immigrants come here in search for work or safety; Finland needs more immigrants, as its population is ageing; Limited language skills and a lack of networks prevent immigrants from finding work in Finland
Neither of these treats immigrants as anything but one homogeneous group, while political parties and the media simultaneously see fit to divide Finns based on such factors as socio-economic status, geography, language and age. None of these matter, though, when it comes to immigrants. Furthermore, even the more progressive immigration narrative classifies immigrants as refugees or potential workers, as if we have nothing else to offer this country.
This needs to change, but waiting around for (more) Finns to start appreciating the issues facing Finland’s immigrants is far less preferable to immigrants getting involved in mainstream society, politics and debates on “immigration” themselves. Finns, even the most sensitive to the complexity of immigration, cannot properly comprehend what it’s like being an immigrant in Finland.
But to demand that we immigrants be given overly special treatment is wrong. To take part in Finnish society we need to do so on Finland’s conditions, meaning, among other things, we have to, at a minimum, learn the majority national language of our locality or resign ourselves to channelling our thoughts, frustrations and hopes through an intermediary. Finns, though, have to better understand that learning a difficult language like Finnish as an adult cannot be compared to learning generally easier languages in the safe confines of a Finnish school classroom over the course of 3-10 years. Few immigrants who move here as adults will ever master the language in its entirety, but falling short of this doesn’t mean an immigrant cannot speak the language and shouldn’t be given responsibilities in working life or society at large.
If elected, I will help promote immigrant participation in all areas of society as well as do my best to improve the quality of the council chambers’ handling of issues relating to immigrants.
Politics for Babies
Most politicians and political parties talk a lot about how they want to improve things for society’s most vulnerable members – for example, the elderly, low-income families, marginalised youths. And rightfully so! However, one group – probably the most vulnerable group of all – are generally completely overlooked, even by my own party. Despite all the playing and lack of responsibility, many under-3s actually experience a lot more stress on a daily basis than many adults do. They are totally dependent on others for food, clothing and shelter and too frequently go without the sensitivity and attention they need.
In Finland, one parent can receive money for staying at home until their youngest child turns three. This is a fantastic system even if it isn’t trouble-free. At the municipal level, this system can be propped up by an additional benefit, known in Tampere as Tampere-lisä. The combination of these benefits enables parents to stay at home with their children instead of forcing them to put their children into day care.
Although there is no international consensus, child psychologists in Finland argue that young children (i.e. under-2-year-olds, generally speaking) are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to attend nursery, especially not on a full-time basis, partly due to the stressfulness of being in a big group and the inability of nursery nurses to respond quickly enough to the needs of each individual child due to time constraints. Young children need the sort of safe surroundings and sensitivity the vast majority of nurseries cannot ever come close to offering.
At the same time, I’m not proposing a one-size-fits-all model, as the circumstances some families with young children find themselves in, for instance as a result of heavy indebtedness, single parenthood or finding it difficult to cope, may make full-time care unavoidable. Even in the case of families who could afford to have a parent at home, outside interference is ill advised. Also, family day care (perhepäivähoito) is an alternative to both nurseries and full-time parental care that could be used more often.
Some people, though, consider it more progressive to make staying at home with children harder than to increase opportunities for staying at home. Gender equality is understandably emphasised in this respect, as women comprise the vast majority of stay-at-home parents, and returning to the job market after a prolonged absence is made more challenging as a result. Making it more financially appealing for fathers to stay home – as a man is often a family's better earner – is rarely discussed, however. Neither is the issue of equality regarding young children: why should it only be the children of well-off parents who get to benefit from the love and attention of their parents during the daytime?
If elected, I will do my upmost to keep the Tampere-lisä off any list of savings in the municipality’s budget. More generally, I will support families who choose to keep their youngest members out of full-time day care.