recruitment. As some of us argued at the last conference 2,000 members is a major under-achievement for an organisation with the potential of Respect.
• It must have clear socialist politics. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism at every opportunity, but Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework.
The current leaflet for the GLA campaign, for example, is politically bland -and does not mention socialism at all!
Almost all of it (apart from anti-privatisation) would be acceptable to a Lib Dem, and all of it would be acceptable to the Greens.
• Respect needs strong material on the environment and on climate change if we are to challenge the Greens across the country. The strong positions on climate change we have adopted are marginal in most of Respect's very limited literature.
Whilst being strong on the environment we have to be politically distinct from the Greens - otherwise what is the point?
• Respect also needs to address the issue of democracy, including electoral reform - which Brown is saying he will raise as a part of a constitutional convention - and the need for a referendum on the European constitution, which he has insisted he won't. Electoral reform is a key issue for the success of smaller parties.
On the basis of this platform, Respect should be seeking urgent discussions with left trade union leaders such as Bob Crow, and other currents and organisations to lay the basis for a new and more inclusive alliance at the next election, and for a new left party. Sheila Malone. I couldn't go to last year's climate camp at Drax power station, so was determined to get down to the Heathrow protest last month, even if not for every day.
A week of co-operative, sustainable living, with workshops, debate and protest action was something to look forward to, and I wasn't disappointed. The camp doubled the numbers at Drax to 1500 - mainly young activists.
I have to own up to not staying nights, since had I bedded down on a tent floor, arthritis might have stopped me getting up again the next morning.
But daytime life was fine -from collective preparation of local, vegetarian food to recycling to composting toilets (although these seem to have been designed by a very tall man, since the only way women could sit on them was with our legs dangling in the air!)
Especially well catered for were the many children present - lots of activities for them -and I regretted that the rain had put me off bringing my five year old granddaughter, who had been pestering me to come.
Daily workshops on site discussed the huge threat facing us, as our planet heats up towards the dangerous 2 degrees 'tipping point and including the part aviation is playing in this, as the fastest growing source of polluting greenhouse gases.
But doom mongers we were not. A wealth of inventive and imaginative solutions were debated - from the evident need to switch our fossil-fuel economies to renewable energy sources, to countless ideas for energy efficiency and reduction and the need for both political and personal action.
The need for socially just solutions also ran like a thread through these discussions, as it is the poor who are already suffering most from the effects of climate change - the increasing floods, storms, drought, disease and so on
This was clearly not to the liking of those with vested interests in continuing and profiting from excessive polluting BAA had tried to stop the camp going ahead at all, by attempting to injunct five million environmentalists and protesters. But they failed, scoring themselves a spectacular own goal, which instead gave massively increased publicity and sympathy to campaigners.
I spent Saturday leafleting and talking with local residents in the neighbouring villages. These include Sipson, where at
NO AIRPORT EPANSION *predict and provide. This falsely claims to be just keeping up with growing demand for air travel. But, as with roads, the more airports you build, the more the air traffic you create. So our quarrel is with those who are promoting and profiting from this artificially created demand ' - not with families taking a hard-earned annual holiday.
According to the Stop Stanstead campaign, the average annual income of the mainly business and long-haul travellers from Heathrow is £54,000 and from Stanstead (mainly leisure) £51,000.
These are people who can afford to hop on and off planes many times a year. However, as prices are driven ludicrously low binge flying is being held out as an aspiration for everyone.
Both airport expansion and the possibility of 210 flights around the globe are also being driven by the massive £9bn Serious and Organised Crime: are they really serious? government subsidy airlines enjoy, due to tax-free aviation fuel. This is an anomaly Gordon Brown could end immediately. However, our new Prime Minister is as staunch a supporter of big business and as dishonest a politician as his predecessor.
Last year Brown commissioned the Stern report on (albeit market-led) solutions to climate change. This year he approved a Climate Change Bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 by 2050. On each occasion he was able to present himself as seriously tackling the issue. Yet his promotion of GDP growth at all costs (whether social or environmental) causes him to ignore even these inadequate solutions. Greenhouse gas emissions in Britain are rising, not falling. And Brown's enthusiastic backing of aviation on the grounds that it is good for the economy will mean emissions from this sector will anyway cancel out all other possible savings.
This is a path to catastrophe, which we have little time to reverse. We need now to build on the success of the Heathrow camp and other growing protests.