The Bristol Blogger

Looks like Kerry McCarthy is having something of an Alan Partridge moment over on her blog …

A few offhand comments on Dutch coffee houses, cannabis and the smoking ban seem to have attracted the attention of those sane and rational folk at FOREST. So far today she’s had 61 comments and still counting.

Aaaah the joy of the internet!

Meanwhile the vegan MP is also reporting she’s turned down an invite to the National Pig Association’s parliamentary launch of “a report highlighting public sector procurement patterns of pork and bacon”. It’ll be interesting to see how they take the news …

Household fuel bills to rise 40%; food up 5-15% depending on who you believe; mortgage interest payments rising by the month; 10% tax rate gone; petrol prices way up. The list goes on …

Meanwhile at Bristol City Council - a Labour administration, remember, whose boss Gordon Brown promised “to listen” - Chief Executive’s pay is up 20%!!! chief officers’ pay is up 10%!!! And the Leader’s pay is up 100%!!!

So how is this all being paid for? Through increased taxation on us of course. Specifically we’re soon going to have to pay for our rubbish to be collected (Blogger Passim) and to park (or not) outside of our own houses. And in the not too distant future look out for that grandaddy of local government revenue raising scams - the CONgestion charge.

But don’t worry because, we’re assured, all these things will only be introduced after meaningful CONsultation with us. Indeed, someone who used to live in London has kindly written to yesterday’s Cancer to tell us how this CONsultation will work:

Having received the recent council literature about the proposal to introduce residents’ parking in Bristol, I would like to ask that when people fill out their consultation forms to consider this: in London, years ago, we had a similar survey and most people I spoke to were against it, but were concerned about the knock-on effect of streets nearby which did adopt the scheme.

As a result, people said no to the scheme, but yes to the scheme if neighbouring streets did it. That means it only took one street to vote in favour for the whole of London to eventually adopt the scheme. My street was in an area away from any local amenities and parking was tight but manageable, a bit like Bristol today. Residents’ parking was brought in and the result was that friends visiting from outside the area were less likely to stop by, delivery vans were frustrated by the need to pay, which often led to a game of “cat and mouse” with the wardens, and yes, there were parking spaces, but it became complete misery for everyone involved.

In addition although we all paid to park in our zone, the zones were so small that you had to pay again if you wanted to drive to the shops, less than seven streets away.

As with all things, this becomes a tax on the poor, as every house can only receive one permit at a cost of £40, so if you are renting a property and sharing with two or more, the second permit would cost £80 and the third a whopping £500. Is this fair?

It is interesting to see how parking problems arise.

In the last few years there have been a large number of properties that have been granted planning to convert into flats, which is of course fine, as there is a housing shortage, but why should the rest of us pay for a problem created by developers and the planning office?

Conversely, can I suggest that as petrol prices rise and with the advent of the new cycle scheme, that before we rush headlong into enormous costs for all, we wait and see whether we really need to go down this route.

The only real winner is the council, which earns a fortune from charges, parking meters and fines, and definitely not you and me.

Zoe Mack, Southville, Bristol.

By Chris Hutt from the Comments

It all started so well, with Charlie Bolton’s original motion getting beefed up by a Lib-Dem amendment which he accepted. Railway Path supporters cheered and clapped. It looked for a few moments like we were finally laying the ghoul of BRT to rest.

But then came Labour’s wrecking amendment which got through with Tory support. The voting was 33 for, 30 against (all Lib-Dems and Charlie Bolton) and 2 abstentions (both Tories I think, presumably the ones who recognised what a sordid business it was).

The Labour amendment is another example of Bradshaw’s weasel words, seeming to be pro walking and cycling but effectively keeping the door open for future bus rapid transit. But instead of using the Evening Post as his gullible mouthpiece this time he used Terry Walker, who almost seemed to believe that he was offering us something better.

The full resolution is as follows -

“Council notes the strength of feeling expressed by the citizens of Bristol against the possible shared use by rapid transit of the much loved Bristol-Bath cycle path.”

“Council further recognises that walking and cycling are vital components of the strategy to encourage more sustainable and healthier travel behaviour in our city.”

“While fully recognising the vital importance of improving public transport, Bristol City Council will oppose route proposals which undermine the current and future expansion of walking and cycling in Bristol, and, in particular, will oppose any threat to the current or future use of the Bristol to Bath cycle path.”

“Council requires further information about the various route options, including those on roads and for these to be the subject of full public consultation.”

“Council fully supports the Executive Member for Access & Environment in making these views known to the West of England Partnership.”

The weasel words are “undermine” and “threat” - who is to say if a route proposal “undermines” walking and cycling or “threatens” the Railway Path? Why, the Council of course. So they simply decide that a route proposal won’t “undermine” cycling and walking and that it isn’t a “threat” to the Railway Path and away they go with BRT on the Path, or anywhere they like.

Please note moderated comments were for 1 April only. 

Get out writes …

I hear that the most serious concern within the leadership of Bristol Labour and Tory Parties right now is not the cycle path at all. By the sound of rumblings in the Council House the uppermost thing on the mind of the Labour Chief Whip Colin Smith, Lord Mayor Royston Griffey, Helen Holland and Richard Eddy is: a fabled photograph of Helen and Eddy looking extra friendly in a break of the Council budget debate. The villain is Lib Dem deputy leader Jon Rogers who apparently tried to take a snap on his mobile phone (despite the fact that meetings are web cast and the press and TV are admitted anyway). Serious threatening letters have been sent, apologies demanded and assurances sought that the photo will be destroyed - if it even exists.

Presumably the thought of the cosy picture being used in political leaflets caused panic! Mind you, considering Labour don’t even bother to use real photos in their leaflets (remember your story here?: http://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/bristol-labour-photoshop-horror/) it’s hard to see why they are so worked up by whether the photo exists or not.

And another Labour councillor jumps ship and rejects their own transport boss’s BRT plan for the Railway path …

This time, after only 40-odd years in the Labour Party, Labour’s Lawrence Hill councillor, Brenda Hugill finally manages an entirely sane, rational and commonsensical view on something.

She tells Bristol Indymedia:

“The people of Lawrence Hill are overwhelmingly against this proposal which seeks to destroy one of the few amenities they have. We have already seen the community divided by the M32 and the inner ring road. Now is the time to stop carving this area up.”

Brenda’s joined in her independent media photocall by Easton Councillor Faruk Choudhury and Bristol West PPC Paul Smith.

Smith is once again flogging his tired “This BRT plan’s got nothing to do with the Labour Party, honest guv” line, telling, what he hopes must be some very credulous readers, “The Path has been put under threat by consultants working for the West of England Partnership.”

As if.

Maybe Paul’s secretive consultants entered Bristol under the cover of night in order to evade all known authorities as well? And perhaps they drew up their evil, secret BRT plans using the blood of virgins on parchment made from the skin of innocent socialists from a top secret cave hidden somewhere deep beneath the Clifton Gorge too? And maybe these plans were then passed, via a complex network of agents sworn to secrecy, to those shadowy bureaucrats-of-the-night at the West of England Partnership?

Alternatively it could be that the consultants were invited by our local politicians to draw up the plans on their behalf because that’s how the system actually works.

St George West councilor, Ron Stone has now put his opposition to the Railway Path in writing:

My feelings on the issue tend to remain one of severe concern, and at present if asked to support this suggestion I would vote against it.

He also says:

I am due to attend a meeting with Mark Bradshaw the Cabinet Executive Member for Transport on Wednesday evening and this is the major item on the agenda.

So it looks like Labour councillors are meeting to arrange the inevitable climbdown.

And judging from Labour’s Bristol West Parliamentary candidate Paul Smith’s comments on this blog:

The plans are currently drifting in a virtual world of consultants, partnerships and council officers. I am not aware of any ‘political’ meeting that has endorsed these plan.

It looks like Labour are going to try and pretend its’ all the fault of officers who were working without the knowledge of councillors.

Mind you, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when your best defence is to admit to being an incompetent who doesn’t know what’s going on.

But then we’ve been saying on this blog for some time now that this is a Labour administration in office but not in power

Couple of interesting items on Bristol East Labour MP Kerry McCarthy’s blog.

Firstly, to give you a further idea of the chaotic, leaderless, anti-democratic shambles which is the BRT plan for the Railway Path we get this from Kerry:

I have fired off letters to various people, asking for more info about the West of England Partnership’s plans for the Rapid Bus Link, but haven’t had any formal response yet.

That’s right. Despite having spent a small fortune on CONsultants, council officers’ salaries, feasibility studies, drawings, plans, meetings, Project Initiation Documents, strategies, briefing documents, presentations, reports and god knows what other crap, nobody involved is capable of explaining to a local MP whose constituency contains the path what the fuck is going on!

Our city safe in their hands, eh?

Elsewhere Kerry has managed to run into a little bit of trouble on a couple of blogs over her views on MPs expenses. She’s even had to remove the links to the blogs because they “used incredibly profane language and lots of school pupils look at my website, e.g. in school citizenship lessons.”

Sod that. Here at the Blogger we’ll take the risk that the kind of school pupil with the wherewithal to look beyond the hell of New Labour’s demented school curriculum, its citizenship propaganda and its set texts can deal with the word fuck when they see it. So the blogs in question are here and here.

Anyway, McCarthy ran into these problems after announcing:

I don’t know quite know what the solutions are [to the issue of MPs expenses]

This is pretty extraordinary. Surely someone who’s openly pitching for a job in government - where they would be, at the very least, partly responsible for vast sums of public money - must realise a system of financial accountability based solely on trust is actually a form of institutionalised corruption?

Would anyone put their money in a bank where your money was not properly recorded and you just had to trust the bank staff?

The solutions Kerry seems to find so complex are actually perfectly straightforward. MPs’ expenses simply need to be fully recorded, accounted and independently verified. What does Kerry think every other public organisation publishes audited accounts for? Fun?

But then given her government’s apparent policy of getting any major problems or anomalies with their public sector accounts smoothed out by their auditor over expensive lunches in the very best Westminster restaurants, it’s hard to tell what they think isn’t it?

BRISTOL LABOUR PARTY ARE REVOLTING!!!

BRADSHAW ON THE PRECIPICE!!!

IT’S A BIG LABOUR NO TO BRT!!!

Dear oh dear. Another week begins with another THREE Labour councillors publicly rejecting their own transport boss, Mark Bradshaw’s BRT plan for the Bristol and Bath Railway path out of hand!

First up, from deep inside the old Labour territory of St George West, we have Councillor John Deasy writing on behalf of himself and his fellow St George West councillor, influential backbench old-stager Ron Stone:

—– Original Message —–

From: “John Deasy”
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Bristol Railway Path

Xxxxxx,

This idea was first put forward in the late 1980s, it failed then because of the same reasons being put forward by opponents today.

This issue has generated the largest amount of interest in St. George West we have seen for a very long time. No one has contacted either of us to give support to this idea - so it is logical that Ron and myself represent the interests of the people of St. George West and oppose this proposal.

From a personal point of view I have cycled on the track ever since it was opened and I would be very unhappy if it was disturbed in any way.

Best wishes

John Deasy

Then we have this from yet another Labour backbencher, Frome Vale’s Bill Payne:

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:59:39 +0000
From: “Bill Payne” bill.payne@bristol.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Railway path

Hi Xxxxxxx,

many thanks for your email. I will, of course, pass on your concerns to Mark Bradshaw, the Executive Member for Transport. I have already spoken to him to express my own concerns and fully support your opposition to the proposal.

I would remind you that that is all it is at present, a proposal. It was one idea among several put forward in a report from a group of consultants.

There have been no decision made and my own feeling is that this particular proposal is a non-starter, there are too many difficulties (bridges etc.) to make it economically viable. However, we need to make it clear to the planners that this proposal would not be acceptable.

Again, thanks for your email; if there is anything else I can do don’t hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes,

Bill.

Cllr. Bill Payne
Councillor for Frome Vale
Tel: 07894 994 600

That’s now SIX Labour councillors against Bradshaw’s plan that we know of. It’s game over Mark. Quit now or you’re headed for a very public humiliation indeed sonny …

As Helen Holland motors down to the Council House this fine morning - no doubt with the strains of New labour-style socialist Mick Hucknall’s ‘New Flame’ blaring at full volume - to meet her new Chief Exec Jan Ormondroyd, apparently an alchemist with the ability to turn base metal into gold for £180k a year, perhaps now is the time to look at Jan’s idea of loyalty.

Take a look at this. It’s Jan introducing a conference on staff retention at Suffolk Coastal District Council when she was very briefly Chief Exec there:

SUFFOLK WORKFORCE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP

MEETING 26 NOVEMBER 2004

Theme of meeting:

Addressing staffing shortages in key areas such as Planning, Environmental Health, Social Work, etc.

 

9.45 Welcome and Introduction Jan Ormondroyd, Chief Executive, Suffolk Coastal District Council

 

10.0 Getting off the poaching merry-go-round

Lucy Ashwell, Regional Advisor, EERA will talk about a collaborative approach to tackling staffing shortages.

Within months of explaining the need to “get off the poaching merry-go-round” - no doubt with her hand placed firmly on her heart - Jan was off to a new post as Deputy Chief Exec at Hull after staying at Suffolk for all of nine months!

And two years later, what d’ya know? Jan’s been poached by top-of-the range recruitment consultants Rockpool to come to Bristol for £180k a year.

In the last ten years loyal Jan has also managed a stint working at Prescott’s Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and she was head of policy at Bradford for a while. That’s just the five jobs in under ten years then …

No sign yet of a formal press release announcing the arrival of “Junket” Jan Ormondroyd to run Bristol City Council.

So we’ll just have to make do with the one that the council’s PR girl Simon Caplan did back in December.

Presumably in the spirit of co-operation and compromise it lists the views of all the political party leaders at the council.

So Labour leader Helen Holland says: “[Jan] will bring to Bristol the skills and experience needed to support councillors in our drive to make a real difference to the lives of local people - and promote our city regionally, nationally and internationally.”

While Lib Dem leader Stevie Comer says: “I am very pleased to be able to welcome Jan to Bristol.”

Tory leader Bunter Eddy meanwhile says: ” I believe we have made an excellent appointment that will be good for the city council and for Bristol as a whole.”

And Business West boss John Savage says: “” I am delighted at the new appointment. Business West looks forward to continuing good partnership working with Bristol City Council and we wish the new Chief Executive every success.”

Hang on a minute …

Did we just mention unelected multi-millionaire Business West boss, Merchant Venturer and SWRDA Board member John Savage?

And since when did he become entitled to equal billing alongside Bristol’s elected representatives? What’s going on here?

And where’s the Green Party’s view on all this? Why don’t they get a say?

Usually we’re told that, legally and constitutionally, the Green Party aren’t formally recognised as a political party for funding and administrative purposes by Bristol City Council because they only have one councillor and they need at least two to be treated as a party.

Now it appears this situation around funding and administration has been arbritarily interpreted by Simon Caplan and the city’s council officers to mean that the Greens are not entitled to a formal voice in general city council press releases.

This is despite there being absolutely no constitutional or legal reason whatsoever why the Green Party can’t appear in this kind of city council press release.

And why - if the Greens are being denied a voice because they only have one elected councillor - do Business West, with no elected representatives at all, get an official voice on a Bristol City Council platform?

Can we assume then that the views of unelected millionaire businessmen are more important than elected politicians down at the Council House?