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.
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.
What became apparent towards the end of this topic was that was going to be no stretch target (aka a performance indicator) under the new local area agreement. No stretch target, the incentive to do things becomes seemingly diluted when it comes to funding bids. This would obviously be a bit bad given the nature of the subject.
I understand that 100% of the referals to the family intervention unit include D[omestic] V[iolence] in some way or form. We would be cutting off our nose despite our face.
Stabbed in the back by his own party, now Bristol’s Lib Dems have kicked Bradshaw right in the bollocks!
The Lib Dems have tonight announced their opposition to a BRT route on the cyclepath. Eastville Lib Dem councillor Muriel writes:
Dear Xxxxx,
Please be assured that, all being well, I shall be attending the
meeting. My attendance at these meetings is 100% returning on one occasion from Spain and from a works conference in Bournemouth!
I will be supporting Charlie Bolton’s motion as will my Lib Dem
colleagues. If it fails because of the Tory/Labour pact we will
instigate a named vote so everyone in Bristol will know the
councillors who support the scheme and those who don’t.
I would like this proposal knocked on the head, apart for the obvious heinousness of it I have no confidence that First Bus would comply with any agreement and, like its other service in city, would be a total disaster, would ruin the well loved cycle path, cause a whole lot of demolition - and for what?
You can guess I feel very strongly about this issue!
All the best
Muriel
The Lib Dems 31 seats combined with the six Labour rebels - so far - and Green Charlie Bolton gives the pro-Railway Path councillors a 38 - 31 majority in the council chamber.
Not even Bradshaw’s best political friends Bunter Eddy and the Tories can save him now!
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?
A grudging hat-tip to James Barlow for this story, although I don’t see why we should when it’s obvious he’s just signed up to the same ‘They Work for You’ alert as we are.
Anyway, very strange outburst from Bristol West MP, Stephen Williams in the commons on Thursday when he introduced what he described as a petition:
[The Petition d]eclares that despite ongoing human rights violations and the UK government’s own export guidelines, the UK has consistently licensed exports to Israel for military equipment, thus providing material support for Israeli aggression, and sending a message of approval for its actions; further declares that the Israelis have declared Gaza a “hostile entity” within a “conflict short of war” and that the collective punishment of a civilian population is prohibited in international law.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to seek to end the siege on the Palestinians and to support Palestinian democracy by stopping arming Israel; reconsidering the UK’s policy of refusing to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority following Hamas’ election victory in January 2006 and pressing Israel to release all elected Palestinian parliamentarians, as well as other political prisoners; to censure the decision by the Israel cabinet to impose sanctions on supplies of electricity, fuel, and other basic goods and services to the civilian population of Gaza, to cease colluding with this act of State Terrorism against innocent people; and to work towards a just solution based on international law and an end to Israeli occupation.
Now Williams’ underlying demand that those useless Oxbridge tossers at the Foreign Office stop issuing export licenses to UK arms firms and start earning their money by engaging in some seriously robust diplomacy with Israel instead is not itself unreasonable.
But the language he’s using is utterly absurd and straight out of the weally wadical end of the Student Union. Do serious politicians really come out with frothing swivel-eyed nonsense about Israel engaging in “state terrorism” before condemning only the “Israeli aggression” in this two-sided conflict?
Where does he get this stuff from? Off the internet? All he needs are a few knowing references to ZIONISTS; an argument that Hamas are a peaceful social movement providing vital social services to desperate Palestinians; claim that blaming these innocent victims for attempting to kill Israeli civilians is nothing short of immoral and he could get a job on Comment is Free for life!
And as for complaining that Israel has declared Gaza “a hostile entity”, what are they supposed to call it? What would Williams prefer? A Bristol City Council-style press release describing the place as an up and coming Mediterranean family holiday destination?
Come to think of it that could make a good post on a quiet news day: Simon Caplan press releasing Peter Hammond’s response to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Can you imagine ..?
Bristol City Council has expressed a formal interest in submitting a bid for most improved Middle Eastern “Hostile Entity” status for the Gaza Strip.
The city council will be seeking funds in order to introduce a number of dedicated IDF equalities outreach workers into Gaza who will aim to engage with some of the ongoing community cohesion issues within the entity and introduce initiatives aimed at supporting the “conflict short of war”.
A further £250k will be set aside to support the creation of a new Legacy Commission to help deliver greater equality and social justice for people engaging in martyrdom operations and the city council’s ‘Islamists who make a difference’ Awards will also be improved, expanded and developed into an annual entity-wide celebration,
Cllr Peter Hammond said, “The hostile entity has provided an extraordinary outpouring of energy, passion and talent and was - ” (that’s enough city council PR. Ed.)
Er, sorry … Back to Williams … And the final idiocy of the MPs embarrassing rant? What he’s calling “the Petition of constituents of Bristol West” that he presented to Parliament is in fact no such thing. Williams has never publicly collected signatures for the petition and there’s no reference to it anywhere on his website either. What on earth is going on with the man?
Bristol West MP Stephen Williams has slammed the plan to turn the Bristol and Bath Railway Path into a guided bus route as “daft” and “quite loopy”.
Williams visited the path, which is now in his constituency, during the morning rush hour last Friday with members of the Campaign to Save the Railway Path and was described by them as “amazed to see how popular the path actually is.”
Williams later told campaigners on Facebook (membership required) : “I rode along the path early this morning with some campaigners. There were lots of riders on their way to school and work and also lots of pedestrians. Mixing the path with a bus won’t work!”
There’s a brief interview with Williams from the Railway Path posted above.
Williams joins the slightly more circumspect Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, who gushed last week on her blog: “I’ve joined the Facebook group ‘I do not want the Bristol to Bath Cycle Path to turn into a Bus Lane!’”
What is this with local MPs and Facebook? Are announcements on this private and exclusive membership only section of the internet for students of constitutional significance now? Why don’t they post their thoughts where everyone can see them?
Back on her blog, McCarthy went on to say slightly more ambiguously: “I hope a solution can be found that will meet our public transport objectives and keep walkers and cyclists happy.”
McCarthy and Williams join Lib Dem councillors Abdul Malik and Muriel Cole, Green councillor Charlie Bolton and Tory councillor Lesley Alexander who have all now spoken out against the bus route.
Bolton has also organised a motion to reject the bus route on the Railway Path at the next Full Council Meeting on 1 April. As things stand, it appears Bolton and the Lib Dems will vote to reject the plans while the views of the Tories and Labour (who together hold a majority on the council) are still unclear.
The Save the Railway Path Campaign now has a website that is available on the ‘Bristol Sites’ sidebar.
Here we don’ t go again - Wrong turning on Bristol Rapid Bus
Bristol is in danger of losing government funding for a rapid guided bus network, the Liberal Democrats are warning.
Bristol and surrounding authorities could lose the funding because of the controversial choice of routes made in June 2007.
By artificially restricting the choice of routes to just the Bath-Bristol cycle path, we could end up losing funding if this route does not go ahead.
Liberal Democrats are calling for cycle path to be rejected as preferred option, and for all the original possible routes to be properly investigated.
Liberal Democrat Environment Spokesperson, Cllr Gary Hopkins, said:
“It is unfortunate that following the Greater Bristol Transport Study, central government restricted the choice of transport systems that they would back to effectively just buses, ruling out trams and trains. However, albeit with a restricted choice of transport we had got their backing for making progress”.
Liberal Democrat leader, Cllr Steve Comer said:
“By going down a potential blind alley Councillor Bradshaw could well leave us in a position where we get no new transport improvements, and a lot of people will have been upset along the way.
Whilst it may be technically possible to squeeze the buses and cyclepath together for most of the route, we would lose the huge environmental and cultural benefits the path gives us.
We demand that officers are allowed to properly investigate the other alternative routes and that the public are not presented with yet another bogus ‘consultation’”.
The first key route was to link Emersons Green with Ashton Vale, and a choice of paths including one down the ring road and M32 were available.
Following the change of political administration in May 2007, the new Executive Councillors together with the representatives of various agencies, decided that the least problematic route would be down the cycle path, ex Bath-Bristol railway path. This was settled as the chosen route and all other choices were downgraded.
The ruling Labour administration did not inform other political parties or the general public for some months that they had a preferred route.
Since their preferred route came to light there has been widespread concern and anger. Bristol City Council Labour Executive Member, Cllr Mark Bradshaw, appears now to be trying to distance himself from the decision that he endorsed, despite the written records clearly showing his involvement since
June 2007.
Indeed, he chaired the meeting at which the decision was made.
It looks like cash-strapped Stephen Williams MP has come up with a new and imaginative way to squander taxpayers money.
How about paying to publish - in the local glossie for the yoof, Venue - a sartorially challenged picture of yourself hanging about in Clifton looking like yet another overpaid and underworked middle class local? Then, to cover the £500 cost, plonk a contact phone number on it and charge the whole thing to your brand new £10k MP’s communications allowance.
MPs were given this new allowance from April last year “for the purpose of assisting members with expenditure incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in communicating with the public on parliamentary business.”
Quite what Parliamentary business Williams thinks he’s urgently communicating by standing in front of the suspension bridge wearing Harris tweed and announcing “I’m on Youtube kidz” is not immediately obvious to the casual observer. But hey, what do we know?
Further news on Williams’ and his fellow MPs expenses also emerges. On top of the “paltry” £61k salary, the tax free £18k housing allowances and the receipt-free £250 a week cash mountain comes news of heavily subsidised parliamentary refreshments.
Just a week after revelations that the Frenchay and Southmead hospitals were spending just 50p on each patients’ meal, The Blogger’s reminded that hard done by MPs get subsidised meals and drinks at the House of Commons. A massive £5m a year is spent on this, equivalent to a 40% subsidy.
This works out at around £7k a year per MP or enough to buy 14,000 dinners at Frenchay hospital!
I recently received my copy of ‘Our City’, which replaces the former Bristol News. I would like to compliment the officers who worked on the publication for a job well done. Explaining the City Council’s Draft Budget is not an easy thing to do and there are a good many councillors and I suspect officers, who struggle to get to grips with it.The officers responsible for preparing ‘Our City’ have succeeded in explaining where the money comes from, where it goes to and in accessible bite sized chunks just what spending pressures face the City of Bristol. They then go on to explain the important changes that are proposed in the Draft Budget in similar bite sized chunks
The statement [about the budget] from Helen Holland (republished through Our City magazine) gives a false gloss that is the hall mark of Labour obsession with secrecy and spin.
It conceals her proposal to end Adult Learning Services - that had to be teased out by the all party Scrutiny Commission.
It conceals her savage cuts in the funding of many valuable voluntary sector groups, such as Grounds4Change and St Pauls Study Centre in Ashley ward.
We know of many other valuable voluntary sector organisations around the city, doing good work, that are being cut by this wasteful Labour administration.
It conceals the savage cuts by the Labour Government on the most deprived areas of our city.
It conceals the lack of ambition on the environment. No extra street cleaning. No commitment to save money by recycling more (we have pledged to help Bristol recycle 50% of our waste by 2010).
It conceals the huge costs of the Labour and Conservative mad rush to build a PFI funded mass burn incinerator in Avonmouth when our own reports suggest that generating energy from our residual waste using pyrolysis offers a better, modular and more sustainable
option (and is in use in a number of countries around the world).
It conceals the subsidies having to be made to deliver inefficient services in Adult Community Care, with no guarantee that those inefficiencies will be addressed.
She fails to mention that her plans will close Marksbury Library. The Liberal Democrats have pledged to amend that decision in Full Council.
And finally, and most damning of all, is her failure to deliver a single one of the Labour election promises. She has continued privatising home care with proposals to deliver 80% through the independent sector within 5 years.
She has failed to save the four residential care homes earmarked for closure; instead she was secretly planning to close all 13.
She has failed to remove charges for bulky waste; instead she proposes to charge £20 for a replacement bin if it is lost.
She has also failed to deliver their promised council tax rebate, instead she is sticking rigidly to the 4% in the medium term financial plan.
