Massive mudslinger

Believe me I'm no fan of elites but this is a non-story, saying, One of Bristol's leading musicians has claimed mayoral candidate George Ferguson's membership of Bristol's elite Society of Merchant Venturers is a conflict of interests. Massive Attack's lead singer Robert Del Naja... (here). There is no substance to it at all. Its all pure supposition and mere accusation, in this instance by just one 'famous' person throwing mud. So a candidate(Ferguson, pictured) belongs to a society (Merchant Venturers) and even if he resigned from the society he would still have friends in it. So what? There must be many, many candidates who are members of various organisations and who would retain friends if/when they left in the event of getting elected. Now, it really would be a story if there was any evidence of undue and unjustifiable influence or unethical practices - but there is no such thing! Or can someone provide evidence....?

Come to think of it aren't members of political parties members of a selective society, with a lot of friends etc etc...

Scepticism squashed?

The BBC report that: A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures...

...latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

...In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."...

Full story and access to lot of data, analysis, comment and debate via the BBC report here. Arguably it is because Prof Muller et al had a moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism that he reasoned that a change of mind was justified by the evidence. Long may moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism reign.

Road reason

A blanket 20mph speed limit on all of Bristol’s residential streets will be in place by 2015 (full story and debate here).This is a very good decision. For me the case for 20mph limits is that residential roads are for living not driving in. See here for why 20mph - http://tinyurl.com/bptjkoh
Many of the Mayoral candidates have been advocating it and are backing the decision because they know that its popular with the public. In the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey 71% of people asked were in favour of 20mph speed limits on residential roads - http://tinyurl.com/cx2r2ca.

Some persist in saying that here is no logical or proven reason for 20mph limits in residential areas  but in fact there's plenty of research around. See this analysis of the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (http://tinyurl.com/bqbdogs) for instance. Those opposing 20 mph limits seem to be driven by something other than the evidence and reasoning upon it - see the debate on this story on The Post website here - with even more here - for plenty of examples of abuse, avoidance, denial, misinformation and misunderstanding...

Some repeat myths in their comments eg saying that air pollution would be worsened. Actually 20mph limits will NOT increase air pollution, as shown here  http://tinyurl.com/7gp2j89 and are a key feature of a more sustainable approach to urban living. The key is that the streets involved in this decision are residential streets ie people live there. Living there need not and most often does not exclude driving there of course but lets not forget that cyclists and pedestrians and not just motorised vehicles use roads and that all sorts of community activities can and should happen on residential streets if they are safe enough - and this brings me to another reason why I say streets are for living (by which I meant primarily for living) and that is that if the speed limit is 20 mph, in the unfortuneate event of a collision the people involved are much more likely to live than to die.

Some still argue that roads/streets, even residential ones, are primarily for cars and not pedestrians, cyclists and a range of activities, potentially. However, many of the roads/streets in Bristol were there long before cars were owned and used on a widespread basis and some go back even before the invention of the car. Mass car ownership did not take off in the UK until the 1950's and many things have happened on the roads/streets before and since. A good proportion of Bristol's roads/streets were never designed for cars. Roads are simply thoroughfares, routes, or ways on land from place to place - and in residential areas and in cities serve a wider purpose, including easement. Even where they were/are specially designed for car use why should we not choose, with general agreement, to adjust and manage that, especially in residential areas, so that the balance favours human beings not motorised machines running at a speed likely to kill or cause serious injury? See http://tinyurl.com/2vd7pq and also http://tinyurl.com/cgphzz7.

Others say introducing 20mph limits is a waste of money, can't be enforced and everyone will ignore it. They seem to have forgotten the evidence eg from RoSPA on their effectiveness. 20mph limits have saved lives where they have been introduced in Hull, London and elsewhere. See here. No-one has been able to dispute this evidence in the two lengthy online debates I've taken part in.

Daniella debate

Debate about Green Mayoral Candidate Daniella Radice on this post story eg by FOX_Joe - “Out to lunch bunch of daydreamers! Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't. The most out of sync with reality 'political' party; in short communists with a slightly better education.”

My response: @ FOX_Joe - "Living in a bubble would be wonderful, but we don't."

Actually we do live in a bubble of sorts - the biosphere on our planet that provides all the resources that sustain our economy and society, has to take in all our wastes and pollutants and is the basis of our lives. Why call the people who plan to live sustainably and fairly in this bubble 'daydreamers' and unrealistic and not those who are squandering finite resources, blighting the world for future generations, building an economy that mainly benefits super-rich, corrupt and unethical bankers and their establishment politician and media friends and not general wellbeing...Your assessement is upside down FOX_Joe. Obviously I'm a green and so support Daniella and her policies but can you deny their rationale?
______________________________________________________

Copies of some further contributions I've made to the debate, which is pretty lively:

@ Richard34 - Daniella is proposing to go much further with devolving power than the current Neighbourhood Partnerships. She advocates creating - and Mayoral working with - democratically elected neighbourhood councils, which of course we dont currently have.

Current transport plans are hardly revolutionary and many aspects of the 'Greater Bristol Bus Network' and bus rapid transit - especially using bendy buses - have rightly been heavily critcised. There's been a lot of talk about public transport improvements in Bristol for decades and we have still got a lot of problems and a long way to go - thus the Greens proposals to create a major transport hub for local bus and train interchange at Plot 6 next to Temple Meads station and to develop the local economy in such a way as to improve local job creation, local shops and community facilities such that the need to travel long distances is cut.

On education Daniella will lobby the government to transfer the secretary of state's powers over free schools and academies to the Mayor, not to the council ie central government dictates are being opposed and local democracy favoured.
______________________________________________________

@ BCFC Finker - ok, still nothing on policies or principles, so no genuine substance to your comments. And dont forget that people will have two votes in the Mayoral election, one for first and one for second preference. People can therefore vote both with their heart and with their head. This may cause some interesting voting patterns, especially with the Lib Dems and Tories struggling due to the persistent failures of the Coalition Govt.
______________________________________________________

“@SouthvilleDav - Greens like Daniella and I have long been campaigning aginst biofuels - they simply aren't green at all - see http://tinyurl.com/88tf85o As for what you say on solar energy, you are absolutely right - and I'd go further and say that we should be investing in solar to grow the industry in this country so we can supply as much as we can for ourselves.
______________________________________________________

@ Richard34 - you are arguing against greater democracy and against democracy being closer to people instead of remote and in the hands of a few eg a single individual as Mayor. Its partly because democracy is not in people's hands in their neighbourhoods that voters have become disillusioned and politicians self-serving and unethical. There's nothing woolly about what Greens are proposing on this as neither you or anyone else have been unclear on what the plans are.

The current bus station is clearly badly located and our whole public transport system needs a redesign, including creating a proper integrated transport hub at Termple Meads, which is beginning to go through a redesign process anyway. We need to be much more ambitious with our integrated transport planning or we will never make a dent in serious problems of congestion, delay, air pollution, carbon emissions...Current plans wont make a dent in these problems and in fact will make some of them worse!!

Thinking that the current education system is 'wonderful' is a very big mistake. Conservatives once told us we needed GCSEs for instance and now have gone full circle to tell us we dont need them we need the old O'levels or similar!! Greens are not just talking about a transfer of power from central government to the Mayor but to the Mayor working in a partnership with neighbourhood councils and the parents, teachers, governors and pupils/students themselves given that the system is for them and their community not for ideologues in any political party, certainly in a remote central government. Lets have some parent, pupil and people power in the system.

Drugs discussion

Tory MP Michael Ellis has, as reported in this story, reacted to Danny Kushlik in the way many politicians - across political parties - have reacted on the issue of illegal drugs over many years. Its a shame that he's not more open to new thinking on this matter. Does he not realise that continuing on with more or less the same old, failed attitudes and polices, throwing a lot of - misdirected - money at the problem, is irrational? Politicians need to base their policies on drugs on the evidence, such as this research comparing legal and illegal drugs: http://tinyurl.com/3ao562j

Decision before evidence?

Bristol City Council rejected the chance to build a tram system despite figures showing it would be cheaper than the proposed new Bus Rapid Transit link, it has been claimed....Sustraco claimed that Mr Kent [Bristol City Council Cabinet Member for Transport, pictured left] announced at the end of the meeting that the council had already decided "before the meeting" that the bus option would be chosen. On returning from the meeting, Sustraco officials said they found they had been sent e-mails with a 34-page report attached. The report, which Sustraco said was written before the meeting, detailed the decision without considering evidence submitted in the meeting...(full story here)

Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, if what Sustraco say is true. Tim Kent and the Lib Dem Cabinet running Bristol made a decision involving many millions of pounds without considering the all the evidence. Kent met with Sustraco knowing that holding the meeting was pointless given that decisions had already been made! Unless Sustraco's description is shown to be wayward, this is irrational, unreasonable and deceptive behaviour whatever the merits or not of light rail vs BRT.