Co-operation and Cabinet

Bristol's Labour Party could decide tonight not to accept places on the new Mayor's Cabinet or to advise the Mayor (see here) and impose a ban on all its members. I hope they dont [**see the series of updates below!]. Local govt co-operation between parties is eminently sensible – and it’s what people have voted for, so this should be recognised provided the new Cabinet is: committed to taking decisions openly and accountably; and its members are able, diplomatically, to speak their minds and not own every single Mayoral decision.

Each individual Councillor and Party needs to change mindset and both scrutinise, criticise and support as appropriate. Conscience first not party – that’s what they are supposed to be doing according to the code of conduct they sign up to in any case! This code includes ‘making decisions on merit’ and reaching ‘their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions’.  Councillors have power through a vote on the council, through committee work and through lobbying the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Asst Mayors when in place. Hopefully some power will be properly and effectively devolved to local councillors and people in neighbourhoods soon too.

Labour were the party with councillors that got the most votes and in next May's local elections Labour are likely to make gains on the council - the Tory and Lib Dem vote has sunk and is unlikely to recover enough for them not to suffer councillor losses. I'm most in favour of people getting into the Cabinet on the basis of merit not party but having said that the Mayor should also take into account which parties the public are voting for.
______________________________
**
[Update 22 November: According to The Post Bristol's Labour Party last night voted against taking up three Cabinet seats offered to them and so have have refused the opportunity to argue for their policies directly with the Mayor and others. Its still unclear to me whether they voted to ban all members from taking part.]

[Update 23 November: According to The Post Labour Councillors in Bristol have agreed to join the Mayor's Cabinet and have gone against the local party vote. Its a good sign that Labour Councillors have asserted themselves. Its Bristol's voters they have to be listening to and not just the local party and they seem to have done that. Which Councillors finally end up doing what is not yet finaliised though.]

[Update 26 November (!!!): According to Bristol 24-7 and ITV West and The Post Labour's South West regional organisation, probably with some central party influence, has prevented Bristol's Labour Councillors from joining the Mayor's Cabinet. This has caused Cllr Peter Hammond the Leader of Bristol's Labour Councillors to resign. It remains to be seen whether individuals choose to defy this intsruction.]

Congratulations and commiserations

Many congratulations to George Ferguson and commiserations to the other candidates, especially to Marvin Rees. You have to work hard to become the first elected Mayor of Bristol - but the much harder work begins now. It's a new way to run Bristol with many uncertainties and it has to be made to work. I hope that people in all political parties will work well together and that George's cabinet has someone from each political party with councillors currently on the city council. I hope this is a victory for independent-minded thinking from political people inside and outside of parties. I hope that power is genuinely and effectively spread out into communities, with real opportunities to participate. I hope George's decent record on sustainable development becomes the norm for development in the city. I hope George takes full note of the very large number of votes given to parties (the Greens, Labour and the socialists) supporting the living wage and the fairness agenda and the good number of votes given to the only woman candidate, the Greens Daniella Radice (who was only one percentage point behind the Lib Dems). Feels good to have voted for someone who has won an election - after 30 yrs as a voter!

Very good, gracious speech from the new Mayor George Ferguson here and I agree particularly strongly when he said this,

"I want to use that mandate to go and ask the prime minister and the government in general for more powers for Bristol and for more resources. I think we deserve it.

"We have delivered what they wanted, now they have got to deliver what we want."

Men and Mayor

Daniella Radice, the Green candidate  standing to become Mayor of Bristol, has produced the most comprehensive and detailed manifesto of policies of any of the candidates and has made a lot more sense than other candidates at the many hustings meetings held.  All the other candidates have been more vague, generalised, wishy-washy, incoherent and in some cases populist, where Daniella has offered real leadership. She is the only woman standing, which is a story in itself.

It’s important to discuss the fact that only one of the fifteen candidates for Mayor is a woman because: just 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women and women aren't in many positions of power and influence across society; 3 million women in the UK suffer rape, domestic violence, trafficking, forced marriage or other violence; 90% of local authorities do not have a rape crisis centre; of 109 High Court judges only 15 are women; women’s average net income per week in 2010 was £180 compared to £231 for men; 20% of people believe it is sometimes acceptable for a man to hit or slap his girlfriend; 36% believe a woman is partly responsible for being raped if she is drunk; 83% of experts cited in news stories are men; 19% is the proportion of women in news stories portrayed as victims, compared to 10% for men...Clearly our decision making would be better if women were present in positions of power and influence on a par with men.

We need to address the issue of disempowerment and the facts clearly illustrate why. Without strong and positive action it could take forever to achieve fair and balanced representation. We don’t get the best range of candidates for positions of power now because we have a system that on the whole continues to favour men and disempower women. We are wasting half the talent we have. The social system and within it the economic and political system is discriminatory, not always in the legal sense but certainly in the sense of culture/traditions. The right to fair and equal treatment that I'm arguing for is a human right that putting into action would benefit every person.

In broad terms I am saying that if there was no sex discrimination there would be many more women candidates for Mayor of Bristol. Some question this, saying there is no discrimination in the mayoral process itself: doubtless the rules would be illegal if they were directly discriminatory so no surprise there!! But the mayoral election does not take place in total isolation from the social, economic and political context – and we can’t yet say that there is nothing in our social system at all that deters and discourages women from coming forward as candidates (see list and link below). For instance: the costs involved in applying to become Bristol Mayor are a deterrent to many who might otherwise consider standing – however the high cost will discriminate more against women than men because women’s average income and other wealth levels are lower. Discriminatory social, economic and political context deters and discourages women. Some admit that discrimination exists but stick to the unsustainable, implausible position that it has no effect at all on women coming forward to stand in elections such as for Mayor!

In 2008 an Inter-Parliamentary Union reported said that these factors deter women from entering politics to at least a fair degree: Domestic responsibilities; Prevailing cultural attitudes regarding the roles of women in society; Lack of support from family; Lack of confidence; Lack of finances; Lack of support of political parties; Lack of experience in "representative functions": public speaking, constituency relations; Lack of support from the electorate; Lack of support from men; Lack of support from other women; Politics seen as "dirty" or corrupt; Lack of education. See
http://tinyurl.com/8px89md

Take nursing and primary school teaching as examples in addition to being a Mayor. Stereotyping of male/female roles due to sexism results in men and women tending to be deterred and discouraged from coming forward for certain jobs, for example women for Mayor of Bristol - and elected and other positions of power generally - and men for nursing and primary school teaching. It’s not uncommon to find some arguing that not all jobs are equally appealing because of 'natural tendencies' ie women aren't coming forward to be Mayor because they are not 'naturally' suited to it – ‘men and women are different, in most ways’  as someone said to me recently. Different yes but different in most ways no – and of course there are differences between people of the same sex! Men and women have a huge amount in common - they are equally capable for example of being Mayor, though some suggest otherwise. Sexists argue that we have one woman candidate in fifteen for Mayor of Bristol because men and women 'want different things' and therefore women don’t want to be Mayor and its all down to inherent reasons with no effect from sex discrimination in our society at all. What a load of utter nonsense.

The sexists are assuming that what men and women do is what they want; is where their talents and abilities are; that they have no latent, suppressed capacity for anything else; that this wont/cant and does not need to change...and that its only what men and women inherently 'are' that affects what they do ie there is zero effect from the society, the economy and the political system that men and women live in.

My favoured party – the Greens - do not knowingly or deliberately (and certainly not blatantly) discriminate against women in its processes but  it does exist in a social, economic and political context which does discriminate and this does have effects. It is working continually to do better, has a women leader, Natalie Bennett...its ex-leader and its first MP, Caroline Lucas, is a woman...the Greens fielded a good number of women candidates at the last general election (a higher % than other parties I think) compared to the 20% of MPs that are women  but the Greens must do better as other political parties and society in general must!! 100% of Green MPs and 50% of Bristol’s Green Councillors are women by the way :) but the party can only choose from those who come forward not from its whole membership.  Even in the Greens fewer women come forward because the social context deters and discourages them. There is no inherent reason why they would not come forward.

People paramount

Bristol 1st indicates that the people of Bristol are paramount rather than any single political party. The logo marks out what mayoral candidate George Ferguson stands for: representing all Bristol's people and involving them in decisions - and involving in his cabinet, as a matter of principle, people purely on the basis of expertise and not party allegiance. I'm strongly in favour of this pluralist and inclusive approach.

See: stories here and here and Bristol 1st website here
http://www.bristol1st.com/

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?

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???? 

Jubilee've it ?

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

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.

Independence initiative

I'm a strong supporter of independence for Scotland and so am following this debate with interest. Nations should run themselves and determine their own future. I hope Scotland's people vote for independence - or at least for 'devo max'. I've always admired, whilst not always agreeing with, the SNPs Alex Salmond, now Scotland's First Minister, who has today announced the question he intends to put to the Scottish people in a referendum - "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?". Interesting day to make this announcement, with people celebrating Burn's Night tonight - though the timing may just be coincidence of course!

Overpaid Ormondroyd

Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates.Why have so many comments on this story simply attacked those asking the questions? Its the issue that counts and tactical rather than fair argument is a distraction from the very important matter of who is paid what and why - and whether its fair and deserved. The current Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd (pictured) is paid £107,000 per year more now than in 1998 - 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago. This £7600 a year rise every year for ten years, way above inflation and bearing no relation to the performance of Bristol City Council, cannot be right. Less than 10% a year says one person - but this sort of level of sustained increase has only been given to those already well paid and wealthy. Where's the justice in that?

Equality - not

I assume that those vehement critics of Occupy Bristol (see here) are happy with huge and unfair inequality that exists - perhaps they are even advocates of it. The 2010 report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK showed that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society - and comparison between the richest here and the poorest in the world is of course even worse.

Large scale income inequality cuts quality of life and eats away at the fabric of society. Look at the evidence here http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why . We should adopt income inequality as one of the key indicators of progress in our society and urgently enact measures to cut inequality (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies ).

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

Bigger Bristol??

Bristol's Tory leader Cllr Peter Abraham, says the council stands in the way of city interests but wants to extend control under one bigger Bristol authority to Kingswood, Keynsham, Portishead*... This potentially spreads the problems still further. He's been a very prominent feature of local politics on the council for decades but it appears it has not occurred to him that he is therefore part of the problem. He refers to the need for a new order so maybe voters should start by getting rid of him and the rest of the old order.

...Mr Abraham wants Bristol to be ambitious but feels the council often works against the city's best interests rather than for them.
He said: "I think my job as leader of the Conservative group is to get this council as a credible council.
"Bristol is a great place to work and live and even in times of great economic difficulties we are successful.
"But Bristol is successful in spite of the city council not because of it.
"I also want to be realistic. This is a city that seems to promise and not deliver.
"I think that's the perception. I think we tell people we're going to do things before realising we can't do them.
"How long have politicians been promising an arena? Then we had the Knowle West regeneration, with pages of Anthony Negus saying no one would be interested in doing it any other way.
"Then within three months it's all changed. Why don't we get it right?
"What I want is a new order in this city."


*Let's make Bristol bigger This is Bristol

Effective participation in planning: public information and workshop

How we can get involved in Planning

Date: 27th September 2011
Time: 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Venue: Coniston Community Centre, The Parade, Coniston Road, Patchway, South Gloucestershire BS34 5LP

The Environmental Law Foundation invites you to a free public information event and workshop.

Our upcoming event in Patchway aims to educate and inform attendees about effective participation in the planning system. This will be a great opportunity to find out how you can be involved in the decision-making process.

Presentations will be given on the South Gloucestershire Local Development Framework, the planning policy that will shape the way the area develops over the next 15 years and on how the planning process works. Potential changes in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Bill will also be considered. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

If you would like to attend please RSVP

Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any of your colleagues who may be interested.
If you would be able to advertise this event for us by displaying a poster please let us know.

For more information about the event or to book a place, please contact scp@elflaw.org or tel 020 7404 1031.

This event is brought to you by the Sustainable Communities Project funded by
the Department for Communities & Local Government through the Empowerment Fund.

Seven billion of us

Human population is currently 6.989 billion. It will reach 7 billion next month. You can see the statistics in real time here http://www.worldometers.info/ .

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon on Thursday singled out sustainable development as the top issue facing the planet with the world's seven billionth person expected to be born next month.
Key to this was climate change, and he said time was running out with the population set to explode this century.
"Next month, the seven billionth citizen of our world will be born," the UN secretary general said during a speech at Sydney University.
"For that child, and for all of us, we must keep working to fight poverty, create decent jobs, and provide a dignified life while preserving the planet that sustains us.
"That is why the sustainable development agenda is the agenda for the 21st century.
"Above all, that means connecting the dots between challenges such as climate change and water scarcity, energy shortages, global health issues, food insecurity and the empowerment of the world's women."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sustainable-development-worlds-top-issue-un-chief-2351721.html

Hackgate

It appears in our current system that the purpose of holding positions of power and responsibility in banking, the media, police and politics is to 'know little/nothing' and to resign. Useless, corrupt...

Phone hacking: MPs to quiz Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks [and Former Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and many others!!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14195259

Cut the power and influence of the Murdoch empire

Dear Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hunt,
Murdoch's empire is far too big and pervasive already, so I'm opposed to allowing it to own all of BSkyB. It's necessary to take a firmer line on media plurality as large corporations cross-promote, harm their rivals, cut the choice and narrow the range of information, its interpretation and any critique. In this way analysis and opinions available for consideration by the public are cut - taking us further away from a more informed and fairer society.

As we've seen all too clearly in the case of the phone hacking scandal the Murdoch empire lacks scruples, ethics and decent standards. There should be tougher penalties for breaches of standards and more teeth for the Press Complaints Commission. The Murdoch empire is unlikely to stick to decent standards without tougher penalties and an empowered regulator - it might not do so even with these things and so reviewing the law may necessary.

Please refuse to give Murdoch full ownership of BSkyB. At least have the proposed deal reviewed by the competition commission. I ask you to arrange for a full judicial inquiry into the hacking scandal and not to make any final decisions on Murdoch and BSkyB until it is full and complete.

Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles
85 Somerset Rd, Knowle, Bristol, BS4 2HX

http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/?rc=fb&pv=42 - go here to send a message to the government on Murdoch fully owning BSkyB. Be qucik though - the deadline is approaching.

New beginnings?

“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.” said Seneca, the stoic Roman philosopher, in the mid-1st century AD.

In this new year of a new decade can we begin the green society and bring to an end an age we can’t in any case maintain for much longer? This would mean putting the concept of sustainable development into action in place of just signing up to the concept, speaking warm words about it but carrying on essentially with business as usual!

Its long been put about that sustainable development is a slippery concept, hard to define fully and properly, not well understood. But is it really? I think many people have a decent general grasp that it’s about achieving a balance, giving as well as taking and ensuring a decent future for generations to come ie not more and more jam, for some, today but an ongoing availability and decent supply of jam, fairly shared.

The features of sustainable development are good sense and not rocket science. It’s clearly not a good idea to be wasteful, yet one bag in every three bags of food bought in the UK ends up being thrown out, many buildings rapidly leak heat and we still don’t make products to last. Efficiency must replace waste.

It’s irresponsible to rapidly squander resources, especially those whose supplies are limited or those that require careful, sensitive management if they are to remain available. Yet we remain hooked on high use of oil, coal and natural gas, build over the limited supply of green spaces and take from forests, soils and seas faster than resources are naturally replaced. Renewability must replace squandering.

Sustainable development means assessing progress through the health and wellbeing of people and their environment. Yet we continue to pollute on a scale that causes human sickness and environmental imbalance and we retain increasing the flow of money as the number one political and socio-economic aim despite coalition government warm words and research into assessing wellbeing. We must live within environmental limits and set new social and economic goals.

I assume no-one wants to see growing dependence and poor community development. Yet we see power centralised, local character and variety eroding, goods and services imported and many jobs exported and we encourage other regions and countries to do likewise, so they suffer dependence and sagging spirit too. Strong local communities need to be built.

Waste, resource squandering, pollution, money for a few before health and wellbeing, weakening community, means people and environments in this generation and those to come, the world over, are not getting their dues. Fairness is inseparable from sustainable development – in fact all the features of sustainable development are interrelated so solving problems and taking opportunities requires joined up thinking.

Enacting and practicing the required combination of behavioural and technological changes on the required scale, at all levels of societies, across the globe, in the face of entrenched vested interests, takes leadership we are just not getting however.

Happy New Year??

So, its not going to be a 'happy new year' then! The Coalition Govt say they believe in measuring the progress of society via wellbeing and happiness but have no policies likley to improve either of these. I have to say that I agree with the general view of the TUCs Brendan Barber here - he's also probably right to say, "It's hard to pick out the unkindest cut of all, but a top contender must be the 10% cut in housing benefit that kicks in after someone has been unemployed for more than a year."

BBC News - Union leader says 2011 will be 'horrible' year

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, has said 2011 would be a "horrible" year of cuts. In his New Year message the union boss claimed there would be cuts in jobs and real cuts in living standards.

He added the year could also be a tough one for the government, which may face further angry protests.

Meanwhile, another union leader, Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union said strikes next year were "inevitable".

"The more of us that stand together against the cuts, the more problems we can create. Unless you look like you want a fight, they won't negotiate," he told the Times newspaper, predicting that the disruption would begin in the spring. "The Government has to see we are serious."

The TUC's Mr Barber said a demonstration in London in March against spending cuts looked like being one of the biggest events his union had ever organised.

In his New Year message, he said: "It's hard to pick out the unkindest cut of all, but a top contender must be the 10% cut in housing benefit that kicks in after someone has been unemployed for more than a year."

The Times reported senior union figures would meet at a TUC meeting early in the New Year to discuss their response to the cuts.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/

Also see this comment from Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/31/dilemma-of-labours-opposition