Member's means

Many MPs have second jobs eg North East Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg received around £132,000 in the year to August from his company Somerset Capital Management. The Conservative MP works 35 hours a month in return for the cash...(story here). As a matter of principle shouldn't we expect MPs to work full time for their constituency? Mr Rees-Mogg for example has time and energy that he could direct into working for voters in his constituency that he is directing elsewhere. Surely there are enough problems and issues to work on in his constituency, the SW region, the country, the EU and the world to keep this (and other) representatives busy for a lifetime! Docking some pay from MPs with second jobs is perhaps missing the point - they should not have these jobs whilst being an MP to begin with, so make it a rule that they cant.

People, power, parties

Interesting to note that all the main contenders for Mayor of Bristol have committed themselves to 'more people power' (here). I really do hope such a thing actually comes about. What I'd say to the three bigger parties, however, is: why have we had no significant and effective empowerment of people in Bristol if it's really what you stand for? Consultations are often a sham, voters are disillusioned and opportunities for genuine, empowered participation are poor. I have little faith that the big parties really want to empower people - if they did they would empower people to be able to remove them from office between elections through a recall/petitioning mechanism. Political parties want power for political parties in my experience.

The better, more specific ideas on participation and empowering people are with the Green's Daniella Radice (here) and with George Ferguson (here).

Inequality disempowers people, so its also interesting that this issue came up in the online discussion/comments on this story. Lib Dem candidate Jon Rogers raised the matter. Here's a copy of my response: @CllrJonRogers - The gini coefficient which is a measure of overall income inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any previous time in the last thirty years. See http://tinyurl.com/2wtjwcb . The Coalition the Lib Dems are in will be cutting billions more from public spending, including spending on welfare for the poorest, in the coming years. See http://tinyurl.com/8qs5bat . You, as a Lib Dem Bristol City Council Cabinet member have made well over £20 million cuts in council spending per year, including to services for the vulnerable.... See http://tinyurl.com/9oopcvo . Can you explain how all this helps to create a more fair and equal society?

Speed support

More people have had their say on proposals for the introduction of 20mph speed limits across Bristol. So far about half of people who have shared their views...which would see the reduced speed limits in place in central Bristol within a year – were in favour of proposals as they stand, while another 20 to 25 per cent have been said to agree to the scheme in principle but wanted to find out more. Here's a copy of my online comment on this story, which attracted a number of 'its a fix' type views which in turn generated this response from Tiny_Steve and from me:



Tiny_Steve - "It's obvious that the Council must have manipulated the figures and the people speaking to the Post were hired stooges. As everyone knows, these comment pages are the only true barometer of the opinions of right-thinking Bristolians. Especially those who have nothing to do all day but sit looking at the Post's website."
______________________________

Well said Tiny_Steve. And it could not possibly be the case that 20mph limits are a reasonably sensible move that therefore has a lot of public support could it. After all the findings of this current exercise aren't at all in line with the British Social Attitudes Survey run for the Department of Transport which found ' "the majority (71 per cent) of respondents were in favour or strongly in favour of speed limits of 20 mph in residential streets"...only 15% were against', or the University of the West of England's review which found ' "there are substantial majorities disapproving of breaking the speed limit, supporting reductions in speed limits including local limits of 20mph"...on residential streets, 76% of people are in favour of having speed limits of 20mph'. And there are no further examples of public opinion eg in York, Oxord and Islington supporting 20mph limits here - http://tinyurl.com/8krqfvq

And its obvious that a candidate stongly opposing 20mph limits will become the first elected Mayor of Bristol and stop this kick in the teeth for drivers...er...isn't it??

Status quo candidates

Only two Liberal Democrats have been short-listed to become the party's candidate for Bristol's mayoral elections in November (details). Selecting either Simon Cook (right in picture) or Jon Rogers (left in picture) as mayoral candidate would be offering Bristol voters more of what they have already been getting from the council - they are both an intimate part of the way the city has been and is currently run. Bristolians want change and rejected the current system by voting to have an Elected Mayor – and by the criticism of and lack of enthusiasm they have expressed about it for years. Neither, therefore, stands much chance of becoming Mayor. -
The appeal of these two is negative and undemocratic, suggesting that Bristol should continue to be governed as it has been in the past. I voted no to a mayor but also oppose the way the current city council works and what it stands for, so the appeal of Cook or Rogers for me is zero. Now that we have a different system I think people are likely to vote to make the best use of that system and choose a candidate accordingly - neither of these has the vision, policies, profile, standing or stature needed in an elected Mayor.

An endorsement of either Jon Rogers or Simon Cook from Nick Clegg - in Bristol today - would have been the final nail in the lid of the coffin that is the Lib Dem campaign for Mayor of Bristol - and it's already quite firmly nailed down! Clegg is so popular in Bristol that even his own side are calling on him to resign! See story on prominent Lib Dem John Kiely's message to his party leader here.

City Deal

The £100-million Bristol Metro train network which will bring massive improvements to local railways is to go ahead with the first services running by 2016. It comes as a result of the City Deal agreed between local council and the Government which was announced yesterday...(more here).

Business rates to be kept in Bristol and used to raise more money for investment is very welcome. Plans to improve the local rail network are also welcome. Lets hope what is planned is effective and efficient. I do think there is a democratic deficit in all this thinking though and would like to see much greater and inbuilt opportunities for public participation, creating better openness and accountability - it wont be sufficient to simply lobby our authorities to use this money in the best way.

Details of the 'City Deal' for Bristol, according to The Post, are:

* A new growth incentive and the economic investment fund, which will allow West of England to keep 100 per cent of growth in business rates over 25 years to invest in projects, allowing authorities to deliver an investment programme worth £1 billion over 30 years.

*  Ten years of major funding allocation for the Greater Bristol Metro; flexible delivery for the Bus Rapid Transit Network which will allow savings to be recycled locally; and new powers over rail planning and delivery.

*— A Public Property Board will manage up to £1 billion of city council assets and an estimated 180 land and property assets to unlock more land for economic growth or housing and to lever in additional investment.

* A city growth hub with up to £2.25 million of government funding which will provide additional support to inward investors. This will be based in the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone and will work closely with UK Trade and Investment.

* The business community and local enterprise partnership will have more influence in skills provision in the city region, in particular the £114 million Skills Funding Agency funding for Further Education colleges for post-16 provision, to help capture employer demand.

Leadership logic???

Bristol's elected Mayor would be one of the most powerful figures in Britain according to Cities Minister Greg Clark . I doubt that very much. (full story)

Never saw it as logical to have an election for a Mayor without knowing beforehand what powers exactly the office would have. If the Govt are saying the decision can be taken before the Mayor is elected this November why couldn't that have been done before the vote in May??

Arguably if you not going to annouunce the powers of the Mayoral office from the off then its logical to wait to hear the views and ideas of the person elected before finally deciding on them. The Govt argue that Bristol's current local council leadership is unsatisfactory but is quite happy to negotiate with them the powers of the person that will take leadership away from them! Huh???? 

Leadership lark

Head of Big Green Week,Paul Rainger  has been quoted as saying, "Bristol is an incredible place. Whether it's grassroots environmentalism, or robust political leadership, Bristol's brand of sustainability is unlike any other."  (see the story 'Bristol's best place for green electricity, says power firm' here). However, Bristol's people dont generally think we have robust political leadership and the head of Big Green Week is therefore out of touch. Many have been critical of the council for years, the turnout in local elections is low - and we have just rejected the current council leadership in favour of an Elected Mayor, albeit on a low turnout.

Also,  its not going to be hard to be the 'greenest city in the country when it comes to environmentally-friendly electricity' because the general standard at the moment is very poor. Many cities simply dont have much green electricity generation at all.

By the way its not clear to me that a fair comparison has been made by Good Energy given the figures quoted in the story. They just give a raw figure for the postcode area not green electricity per head of population or similar.

Jubilee've it ?

                                 http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php

Leadership lite

Architect George Ferguson has launched his campaign to become Bristol's first elected mayor.
In a speech at the Tobacco Factory in Southville last night, he told supporters he would stand as an independent candidate campaigning under the banner Bristol First.Although he did not outline policies he would introduce...(full Post story here).

George Ferguson has some strong views and therefore already has policies in mind I'm sure. That he is not putting them forward now is, I suggest, part of his electoral strategy. He is perhaps intending to appear to be all things to all people. If he wants to lead the city then lets see him begin this process by telling us where he stands and what principles or rules will guide his decisions  ie give us some indicative policies and show that there is some substance and weight to his candidacy.
________________________________________________

Snippet of the debate I'm involved in on the Post website:

@PJ1979 '" the election is in November, so the policy issue should be parked until Aug/Sept.
Also what is wrong with a focus group"

Hmmm...little indication of any policies at all when you've gone to the trouble of appearing in the media, delivering a speech and launching your candidacy. No - its clear that if he is to lead all of Bristol he should give us a much better indication of what principles and rules will direct his decisions. The thing is that George Ferguson does have policy positions - he is a former Liberal, he's been a councillor, he's contested a general election, he is a director of the think tank Demos, he's been involved in a number of developments...in other words he occupies a distinct political position but is saying little about it. Why? Well, I assume its the political tactic he's chosen to use.

As for focus groups - they are a selection of group members. They may exclude some members of the community and not be representative. They require proper facilitation and serving - and can be time consuming. There are quite a few ways in which they can be manipulated to get the outcome favoured all along, or at least to get an outcome that is not hostile - surely the decade of Blair/Brown government taught us that. I'm not opposed to consultation but it has to be genuine.

Democracy dead?

Bristol has said yes to an Elected Mayor - just  - 53% Yes, 47% No, with the majority a mere 5152 votes, see here. Just one person in ten voting at worst and one in three voting at best is a very worrying statistic however (see here). Everyone involved in any way in politics and outside it should be thinking hard about what can be done to change things and get people enthused about and involved in the decisions that affect their lives and those of others.

I’d like to see whoever gets elected as the first Mayor of Bristol commit themselves to consulting the people directly on a lot more issues. The technology now exists to make this easy and cheap to do eg via laptop or mobile...

If the numbers voting stay low or decrease further perhaps we should make voting compulsory? I'd be happy to see this, provided ballot papers had a box with 'none of the above' where voters could put their cross. As it is people are entitled not to vote and that's our democracy - though problems of legitimacy must arise as the numbers voting fall.

If 'none of the above' was an option we'd have to decide what would happen if that option won the election though!

Democracy or ochlocracy?

Those who want a town green in Ashton Vale and not a new Bristol City football stadium have again been called NIMBYs (see comments here). Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way, including those in Ashton Vale, usually don’t hold such views and often have a well developed case with a range of reasons.

For example: if the stadium is built green belt land, which is finite in supply, will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health and wellbeing will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission for the Bristol City stadium was given.

A key feature of the UK democracy is the rule of law. The UK is not a straightforward ochlocracy, where there is dictatorship of the majority or rule of the mob. Protection of the law for individuals, minorities and society as a whole has some value here. The law around town greens is one small part of this.  

On another note: it was always a big mistake to assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we’ve heard about the proposed stadium is simplistic benefits - my point is ok but what about the complexities and the costs?? This means trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.

The planning process very often has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational. Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore pursuing it would be unwise? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all. Wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite might happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

The law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they don’t want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for green spaces to be protected. A real and proper democracy rightly has legal processes to protect a community and its space and the process is being gone through.

Blackmailing Bristol?

The Coalition Govt is attempting to coerce or force voters in Bristol into voting for an Elected Mayor. To coerce or force a particular action is called blackmail isn't it?

' BRISTOL is less likely to get new powers from the Government if it doesn’t agree to an elected mayor...Previously the official line from the coalition was new powers for local authorities like Bristol – to sort out the city’s transport for example – were not dependent on saying yes to an elected mayor in May’s referendum....Minister for Cities Greg Clark [pictured]...made it clear cities that had an elected mayor would be treated differently to those that didn’t.'(more)

Vote for an Elected Mayor because that's what central govt wants. If you dont vote for an Elected Mayor you wont get additional powers and will find it harder to get money from us. Do what we want or you will lose out - there's 'localism' for you !!! Cheers Greg.

Fairness and females

The current political system is very clearly skewed in favour of men, in terms of style, substance and structures. It is therefore undemocratic, with people chosen for their gender rather than their ability. Its logical to counteract this skewed situation through measures like all-women shortlists (as Labour in Bristol West are planning to use*). To call a measure designed to achieve balance and fairness between men and women sexist, as some do, is to ignore the current bias in favour of men and turn reality upside down. Lets remember that its not so long ago that women had no vote at all! There should not be any need for all-women shortlists but until prejudice is significantly reduced something needs to be done - only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women. Its unreasonable to say, as some do, that MPs who originally became candidates via all-women shortlists are somehow second class - because they have appeared on the ballot paper at a general election and have been put into power by voters in their constituency - presumeably any voter who felt they were not up to the job or were selected as a candidate by an objectionable process woud not have voted for them.

Politics in the UK is often overly and unecessarily macho and confrontational. Parliament has long been acknowledged as a 'boys club' or 'gentleman's club'. This is no way to address and solve problems and in part its down to the skewing of the system to favour men that is clearly shown by the stat that 4 in 5 in Parliament are men, including men with outdated, sexist attitudes. It is suggested that women candidates and MPs as weaker and second rate but many say that the performance of women MPs has been good and that Parliament with more women is better in several respects - a case of prejudice getting  in the way of reason.


There are other unfair aspects to our system. It needs wholesale radical reform
*See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Labour-Party-select-MPs-women-list/story-15155549-detail/story.html

http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/women-in-politics/

Lessons learned?

Sadly few lessons seem to have been learned by Bristol City Council on flogging off green spaces as this Post report* demonstrates. We are not living in a city where people are genuinely listened to - and certain councillors dont know that they know almost nothing!!

* CRITICISM of the green spaces sell off plan has continued, despite Bristol City Council finally agreeing local people should have the final say.

There are 51 sites that are still under threat of sale, as part of the council's parks strategy.

The authority had hoped to sell the land to developers to raise money to improve other parks across the city, but there was a major public backlash from people who felt it was like "selling off the family silver".

After the Liberal Democrats lost their majority in last year's elections, they were forced to compromise and at Thursday night's cabinet meeting they finally approved giving the final say to Bristol's Neighbourhood Committees.

A timetable will now be drawn up for when these decisions will be made. Ward councillors for each area will have the final say, after they are discussed at local committee meetings.

But there are still concerns about the process, nearly two years after it began.

Avon Wildlife Trust has long called for green spaces with significant wildlife to be removed the process, but members are concerned they are still on the list of potential disposals.

Director of Community Programmes Steve Micklewright, pictured, said: "These include two Sites for Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and 10 Wildlife Network Sites (WNS).

"This is one quarter of the sites proposed for disposal. This indicates that the council is still not taking ecological factors into full account during the process as advised by their own scrutiny committee...

See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Concerns-raised-future-wildlife-sites/story-15096090-detail/story.html

People's paradigm

The idea to get lots of people involved in saying what they want Bristol to be like in the medium and long term is a really good one. See 'Occupy Bristol protesters draw up their vision for Bristol 2050'. There's no meaningful, democratic and effective medium and long term planning in the UK and this clearly needs to change. The intentions of Occupy Bristol are a bit different from the Post headline though - since Occupy advocate wide participation it wont be 'their' vision as such, it will be the visions of the people that come forward to make contributions. So, its over to Bristol's people...send your ideas to occupybristol@riseup.net  I very strongly agree that wider public participation means better decisions, not least because its more likely that local knowledge and good sense is included and people will have ownership of actions that result (as any exercise needs to go beyond ideas) and back them up in their own lives. Here's the story in the Post: 
PLANS to create a vision for the type of place people would like Bristol to be in 2050 will be discussed by protestors on College Green.


The Occupy Bristol camp is planning a series of open meetings to plan a future for the city.

A protester, who gave his name as Luther Blissett, said: "Neither the electoral cycle nor the product planning horizon are far enough away to allow us to be utopian, to hope for better futures. There is very little thinking about the medium and long term.



"The people's 2050 will try to inhabit this vacuum.


"It will not be a top-down document or plan that anyone tries to rigidly enforce, it will not be in that sense 'The Plan'. It will simply be a conversation that develops, spawning hundreds of little plans, counter plans and, crucially, actions.


"We hope that by looking forward 40 years we can provide a platform for the people of Bristol to come up with some interesting ideas about how we want our city and society to be organised."


This project has been inspired by the existing Bristol 2050 project but protesters say that only references the city's business leaders and should include the public.


Mr Blissett added: "There's plenty of evidence that wider public participation in decision-making means better decisions – because it means more knowledge and ideas go into the mix. The people's 2050 is an alternate vision, and we want your input."


The group asked people to send "utopian hopes and desires for Bristol 2050" in word or picture form to occupybristol@riseup.net.

Diversity and dynamism

Great column here by Peter Madden, Chief Executive of Forum for the Future, the sustainable development charity:

I WAS speaking at a conference in the Watershed recently, about whether Bristol should have an elected mayor. One of the delegates stuck up his hand and asked why there were so few Bristol-born people there?

He argued that there is a serious division in the city, with so-called 'incomers' pushing themselves forward to run things, ignoring what 'genuine locals' want.

Now, as an 'incomer' myself, I responded by saying that Bristol is – and always has been – an inclusive city. In fact, it has been from medieval times, when it saw the arrival of Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Jews, to recent decades, when it welcomed Afro-Caribbeans, Polish, South Asians and Somalis. Indeed, I subsequently discovered that Bristol has had ethnic minority citizens for centuries, with a person of African heritage recorded as living in Bristol as early as 1641.

Given this long history of people coming into the city, I said there shouldn't be some kind of 'birth-test' whereby only people who were born here get to have a stake in the city. Go back far enough and surely everyone was an outsider once?

OK, perhaps I am touchy on this because I'm originally a Londoner. But I have chosen to live here. My kids were born here and I'm bringing them up here.

I've committed to Bristol, and I do contribute as much as I can to making Bristol a better place.
Certainly, lots of other people who have chosen to live here – rather than being born here – feel the same passion and pride about the place.

And I do think that incomers bring lots of dynamism – not just to Bristol, but to cities in general. Cities are places people move to in order to improve their lot. If incomers weren't allowed to do anything leading in this city, what would the alternative be? Should we all just to sit back and let things float along? Is that really going to give us a dynamic 21st-century Bristol?

You wouldn't expect to hear people in London say: "Why aren't the Cockneys running everything?" A world class city is open and inclusive.

However, where I think the questioner did have a point – and it was one reinforced by the Dean of the Cathedral – was in his view that we live in a very divided city. Outside London, Bristol is the most unequal city in the UK and there are certainly big chunks of the population who feel that their needs and priorities aren't being properly met.

The challenge, then, is not so much about Bristol-born versus outsiders, but whether we live in a genuinely inclusive city, where discussions about the big priorities include – and respond to – all the people who live here.

So, maybe the next time there is a big debate on how to run Bristol in the future, it should happen in Southmead, Easton or Hartcliffe, rather than on the Harbourside?

Council Consultation Codswallop

Excellent letter from Anne Lemon Secretary of the Bristol & District Anti-Cuts Alliance here. Reproduced below,

BRISTOL City Council's process of scrutiny and consultation on the budget cuts proposed for 2012/13 is a sham. Discussions are taking place based on the absolute minimum of information that the Lib Dems think they can get away with publishing.

Unless there is a major fightback the budget, which includes the expected savings from closing and privatising care homes and day centres, will be agreed on February 28. But the details of the closures/privatisation and the impact on users and the community won't be announced until mid-March. You can already hear Barbara Janke and Jon Rogers telling us "It was agreed in the budget" if anyone suggests the facilities should stay open. Similarly over £1 million is to be saved by privatising Youth Services, yet no detailed proposals are available.

Either the detailed proposals on these important services must be published now, or the closure/privatisation policies should be removed from the budget. Any attempt by the council to approve the policies as part of the budget without being prepared to discuss the details in public is nothing less than underhand.

Planet, people, problem

Bit of discussion on population between me and rocketbob here following some letter about countryside protection from development. Here's my most substantial contribution:

Yes rocketbob population is a very sensitive issue in many ways, as you say for religion and racism, to name just two. All the more reason for wide-ranging, inclusive debate before any changes are decided on. It wont be easy. I would propose we aim for optimum population by reason, information, education and any changes we can establish a reasonable consensus on. This has the advantage of breaking the taboo on this debate and being less controversial but the disadvantage of perhaps not being enough to achieve meaningful change fast enough. Its better than no action at all and allowing problems to build such that we are forced into draconian action by events. The point is on a finite planet and in a finite city resources available are limited and so there are limits to population size and growth rate whether we like to acknowledge them, as you do, or not.

Dont take my word for it. In Sir David Attenborough’s view, there is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder — and ultimately impossible to solve — with ever more. We must find agreed ways to achieve optimum population in cities, countries and around the globe and especially those with already high populations, those with intense impacts and those with very rapidly growing population and impact intensity. See: http://populationmatters.org/

______________________________________________________

*We [Bristol] have a population of about 441,300 - the largest city in the South West.

*Bristol's population is expected to reach 559,600 people by 2028

*http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/4169

*World population reached an estimated 7, 000, 000, 000 ie 7 billion last month.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

*2 extra people every second, that is 200,000 each day or nearly 80,000,000 per year is human population growth on this planet - all needing food, water, warmth, shelter and aspiring to have good choices and a decent life.

Power to the people

This Post headline is not accurate. It says 'Move to give city greater power' when in fact its just city leaders that would get the power - and of course if we had an Elected Mayor as the govt want then that power would be mostly in the hands of just one person. Yes to more power locally - but give that power to local people, neighbourhoods and communities eg give them the power to recall local politicians who prove themselves inept or corrupt and genuine opportunities to participate in decision making between elections.

Elected Mayor for Bristol?

Change the way things are run locally:yes. More power locally:yes. Make decision making more effective and representative: yes. Mayor for Bristol, or perhaps Greater Bristol: no. The options on the referendum ballot paper for next May wont include those we really should be considering, such as proportional reprentation for local govt elections, a recall system for local councillors, proper devolution of power from city level to neighbourhoods and communities, additional mechanisms to facilitate participation in city-wide democracy between elections - these things truly empower people and so are real localism as opposed to the sham we get from the coalition govt.

Video: Should Bristol have an Elected Mayor? This is Bristol