Liberal lacerations

A recent Lib Dem leaflet promoting their mayoral candidate Cllr Jon Rogers says, 'Jon has taken a leading role [note - he's one of the people responsible then] in turning around the city's services...'. It goes on to say, 'The Lib Dems have protected local services from the kind of cuts we've seen in other cities.'. No mention whatsoever of the £28 million they/he cut from the budget last year or the £21 million they/he cut from the budget this year. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17197392. These cuts are pretty liberal lacerations, so how does one square them with the claim to have 'turned around' and 'protected' local services? The Lib Dem interpretation of the whole truth here, is, well, very liberal - and loose!

Limited, limiting Liberals

Bristol's Liberal Democrats have drawn up a shortlist of potential candidates for the role of Bristol mayor – but have refused to say who is on it...(full story here). Not a very open approach from Nick Clegg's party, whose constitution begins by saying' The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society...' !!

I'd like to to see the evidence that backs this statement on the [high on humility!?] Lib Dem MP for Bristol West Stephen Williams too '...my name recognition is incredibly high, and polling we have done shows people have a positive opinion of me in Bristol...'. Be open and release this information Liberal Democrats!!

Council cuts

Cuts in services locally and nationally have originally and primarily come about through gross errors and greed in the private sector, enabled and encouraged by a corrupt political system. Public money still props part of the banking arm of the private sector up. Money can be found for banks but not a whole range of public services - and meanwhile the rich in the banking system continue to be rewarded with high pay plus a bonus.

Despite the tough economic situation Bristol City Council need not have gone for a council tax freeze, resulting in spending cuts in health care and children and young people's services - and yet more job losses. This is not only wrong but will continue to help our economy to stagnate. There is, in effect, a local Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition that matches the national one it seems. 

Bristol's Council tax will be frozen for another year after Bristol City Council approved its budget for 2012.

An average band D homeowner will still pay £1,569.75 from April – the same as they did in 2011 and 2010.

As a result...there will be £27million of cuts to services and around 350 jobs are set to go, after an amended budget was agreed at a meeting last night.

A large chunk of the cuts – £8 million – will come from making savings in the council's "back office" operations.

There will be around £5 million less for health care, which includes moving increasingly towards privatisation, and another £5 million less for children and young people's services. A range of charges are also set to go up, including parking and pest control...(full story)

Swedish sameness

So, David Cameron is off to Sweden to attend the Nordic-Baltic Summit. Great place to go to learn a fair bit about equality. Sweden has much lower income equality than the UK (see here). Its gender equality is also much better: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/.

I doubt very much that our PM will be adopting the Swedish approach though. They redistribute wealth using taxes and benefits. Public services are provided by a very well developed welfare state. Sweden's state is large. Public services are well developed and there is effective legislation to ensure that both men and women can have reasonably balanced work and family lives and good prospects for fair involvement at all levels of society. This is the opposite of Cameron's Conservatism.    

Better Bristol

We need to talk about Bristol - and why it just can’t get things done like other cities. says the Post. Why can’t Bristol get things done like other cities? Not sure that Bristol is that much worse than the average - this would need quite a bit of looking into to establish properly. That aside however, I do agree that Bristol doesn't get things done. The key reasons as I see them: petty party politics and very poor cooperation between the parties; lack of vision and proper strategic thinking; frequently poor quality candidates coming forward to be councillors, spokespersons and cabinet members; relatively low status of being a councillor; ineffective and inefficient council systems and organisation; lack of joined up thinking resulting in lack of coherence and sometimes contradictory policies and practices; poor attitude towards consulting and involving the public genuinely - and poor attitudes in the public towards getting involved; being stifled and slowed down by the political system as a whole, in particular by central govt. These are pretty fundamental problems that only a large cultural change can solve - and I strongly suspect this is far from limited to Bristol.

Lord Mayor's limo

I see that Bristol's Lord Mayor may have to have his limo written off after an accident (see here). Er...why should Bristol's Lord Mayor be provided with a car in the first place? Or a chauffeur to drive it? And what about the expense of the Mansion House (pictured)? And any other expenses and trappings of Bristol's Lord Mayor...Why not sell the car and house, get rid of the Lord Mayor and use the money directly to help keep public services alive? No doubt some would point to the Lord Mayor's charity work or promotion of the city but there are too many unmeasurables to know whether having a Lord Mayor really pays its way - and we can easily see what the expenses are (see picture). Maybe having some other person from the council doing the basics of what the Lord Mayor now does without the frills would be better. These are hard times that will get harder in the coming years - and we are all supposed to be in it together!!

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.

Fair pensions

..."I believe that fair pensions are worth fighting for, so I will be joining the picket lines in solidarity with my constituents who have been abandoned by the other main Westminster parties.

"This isn't something I do lightly. I regret the disruption caused by industrial action and think it must only be used in special circumstances - and would urge trade unions to work hard to ensure support from the wider public...

Caroline Lucas "Fair pensions are worth fighting for"

Support your local library 5 Feb

BRISTOL City Council has admitted it may have to make up to £70 mil- lion of spending cuts over the next four years – £20m higher than previously announced.

I'm worried about the implications of this for vital services eg care for the elderly. Aren't we supposed to be remembering the contributions people made in the world wars? Many of these people are now in care homes or in need of care support to remain in their homes - we should be looking after them well.

BRISTOL City Council has admitted it may have to make up to £70 mil- lion of spending cuts over the next four years – £20m higher than previously announced.

Cuts threat to public order, public safety, public security

Spending cuts on this scale, at this pace, and of this nature, threaten many aspects of public life - not least public order, safety and security...

BBC News - Spending Review: Police 'not ready for budget cuts'

A police watchdog says it has "real concern" whether police authorities can manage cuts in the Spending Review.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) said less than one in five of the bodies it examined were ready to help forces cut effectively.
The Home Office will cut police funding by 20% over four years, with chief constables warning of job losses...

Poor suffer most from spending review cuts

Deputy PM Nick Clegg is very unwise and unmeasured indeed to launch such an outspoken attack on the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - using words like 'frightening people' and 'airbrushing' - because it is very widely respected for its expertise, independence and authority. This is not good leadership and in fact both Nick Clegg and Chancellor George Osbourne praised the IFS highly during the summer general election! Take a look at why the IFS regard the spending review as on the whole affecting poorer people more than richer people here. For me it makes very good sense to conclude that the poor will suffer most because they are the ones most reliant on the public services and benefits that have been savagely cut - and even the government's own figures (see image), calculated in their own way, show that the bottom 10% are hit hard. Government attempts at making the cuts 'fair' are far too small.

Spending review: Clegg attacks "nonsense" IFS warning - Channel4 News

More on this issue from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11598234

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6397563/ifs-the-spending-review-was-regressive-sorta.thtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9113000/9113265.stm

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2010/10/spending-review-progressive-or-regressive

Countering the cuts myths - Red Pepper

Excellent piece in Red Pepper: Countering the cuts myths

The government and the press say we are in the grip of a debt crisis caused by the ‘bloated’ public sector. Here, Red Pepper debunks the myths used to push cuts to jobs and public services...

Thanks to Charlie Bolton for pointing me in the direction of this article - its a good read with important information.

What public spending cuts will mean for you

JOB losses, service cuts and more expensive public transport are all on the way for the Bristol area as part of the government plan to slash the country's £109 billion deficit

For me yesterdays spending review announcements are a direct assault on most things that involve the concept 'public' - including the general public themselves.

Green view on today's spending review

Budget to destroy a million jobs

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP has called George Osborne's comprehensive spending review a "budget to destroy a million jobs" - and has again argued that the worst cuts could have been avoided by an alternative policy based on a fairer tax regime.

Caroline Lucas said immediately after the budget statement:

"This is a budget to destroy half a million jobs in the public sector, according to the government's own estimates. And the knock-on effects will be at least as many jobs lost in the private sector."

The Brighton Pavilion MP added:

"When those public sector workers find themselves out of work they will, along with disabled people, feel the full force of the additional £7 billion worth of cuts in welfare spending, on top of the £11 billion of cuts announced in June. The housing benefit regime will become much more harsh, risking a rise in homelessness.

"They will also find that the loss of public services that this budget represents will massively disadvantage them, and all the most vulnerable people in society who rely on those services."

She asked:

"Where's the fairness in a budget that lets vital public services go to the wall, hitting the poorest hardest?"

Britain's first Green Party MP concluded:

"This was a budget of false economies, undermining the economy and hitting the most vulnerable - and all, incredibly, under the banner of fairness."