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."

Misleading mulling

We have an erroneous way of thinking about land and using figures relating to it. This erroneous thinking is used to 'justify' unsustainable building over green spaces, the green belt, parks and playing fields, allotments, farmland...In Bristol, despite the fact that our eco footprint is several times the land area available, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on the council all orginally backed a policy of flogging off our green spaces. This was despite widespread public opposition across the whole city. The Lib Dem council adminstration are still incentivising flogging local green spaces now and several Mayoral candidates have plans that will cut city green spaces and green belt land. We need a Mayor who will listen to public opinion, genuinely involve people in decision making and not bow down to any party political line.

On the Daily Politics a while back Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (who you'd think should know better) attempted to justify the liberalisation of planning laws by saying that only 10% of land in England is developed. A New Statesman leader said this back in March this year:  

‘Only 10 per cent of England (and 6 per cent of Britain) is developed... The UK is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "natural wast­age" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned by institutions such as the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence, and four million are the "urban plot", the densely congested land on which most of the 62 million people of these islands live...’ http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2012/04/land-government-million

In terms of whether to build on green land or not crude land area is not really the way to consider this issue. Look at these figures: average biologically productive area per person globally was approx 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita in 2006. Average ecological footprint in the UK is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). This means that not only have we used up all the available biologically productive land in the UK we are actually drawing greatly on large amounts of land from abroad as well as allowing carbon levels to build up in the atmosphere because there is insufficient productive land and water to absorb it fast enough. Our 5.45 gha/person ecological footprint is three times greater than the average productive land per person available worldwide.

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?

Growth equivalent to good??

Interesting story and online debate in this Post report in which a  '...cabinet councillor has answered critics who believe the city council is deliberately trying to slow down Bristol's growth and prosperity.'

The truth is that growth is not equivalent to prosperity, though this report suggests they are. Prosperity is a broader idea, encompassing general flourishing, thriving, general wellbeing, happiness and health as well as the economy.

Neither is growth equivalent to success. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY. You have to rein in growth in the genuine pursuit of prosperity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/23/properity-without-growth-tim-jackson

Political possibilities

My response to the view, expressed in an online debate here, that there will only ever be two political parties (ie either Labour or Tory) running the country: Given the huge and interwoven economic, social and environmental problems the country and the world has, new political thinking is now more needed than ever. New political movements, like the Green Movement, do come along and new parties do get into government at a range of levels. Liberals have a share in govt now and they currently run Bristol City Council and other councils - and Liberals have been in govt in the past, albeit a long time ago.The labour movement developed over the last 100 yrs, so there is no reason why other movements and parties cant do the same or better. 

The Green Party addresses the real world where other parties wish 'for exponential economic growth and endless population growth on a finite planet with dwindling resources' (see online comments here). Greens are making political progress - they have their first MP in Caroline Lucas in addition to Green members of the Scottish Parliament, they are now runnning the council in Brighton and Hove, have two MEPs (Jean Lambert in London and Keith Taylor in the South East), and have two councillors in Bristol (Gus Hoyt in Ashley and Tess Green in Southville) in addition to hundreds more on other councils around the country

Fairer future

Labour's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees has promised to introduce a living wage in Bristol if he gets elected to the figurehead post in November. He has pledged to bring in a rate of not less than £7.20 an hour for all council employees and hopes it will be extended across all firms and organisations throughout the city...'fairness will be an over-riding focus of my time as mayor'...(more here).
Good to see a specific, clear policy statement.  The emphasis on fairness is right and the living wage idea is a very good one, though I would argue for fixing it higher than the £7.20 that Marvin Rees proposes. At 60% of net national average earnings, a living wage would be just over £8 per hour.

I hope by taking this policy position Marvin Rees is saying that he wants to tackle unjustifiably high salary payments at the middle and top end, cut the difference between salaries at the top and bottom, and spread salary and other aspects of fairness for council employees out into the private sector.

City Conference

The Green Party Autumn Conference will be held at the Council House in Bristol from 7-10 September this year. Included will be policy debate on: working hours; economic democracy; making corporations responsible; international law of ecocide; end of life palliative care; animal racing; Aarhus Convention and environmental information and participation; natural resources; nuclear waste; libel law reform; crime prevention and justice; economics...

On the draft timetable the Conference Opening Speech will be from Daniella Radice, the Green Party Candidate in the Bristol Mayoral election followed by a speech from the Party’s newly elected Leader who will be introduced by Caroline Lucas MP, outgoing Green Party Leader.

Details via: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/conference.html

 

Realistic Rogers?

Lib Dem deputy leader Jon Rogers, right, has been chosen to represent his party in November's mayoral elections...asked if the Lib Dems could mount a realistic challenge to the favourites, he replied: "Of course. Just in terms of support we have got more seats in the council than anyone else. They [Labour] think it's going to be easy, but we are going to give them a run for their money."(full story plus comments here).

Has Dr Rogers not seen that the Lib Dems are on just 12% in opinion polls this summer? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/20/david-cameron-liberal-democrat-poll

Though he offers little or no indication of what his policies might be - following the pattern of almost every candidate so far - as Lib Dem mayoral candidate Jon Rogers would just be offering Bristol voters more of what they have already been getting from the council. As Lib Dem Deputy Leader and a cabinet member he is an intimate part of the way the city has been and is currently run and is most unlikely to depart from the policies of the current administration.

Bristolians want change and rejected the current system by voting to have an Elected Mayor – and by the criticism of and large scale lack of enthusiasm they have expressed about the council for years. With former Liberal George Ferguson likely to take many votes standing as an independent and coalition govt unpopularity and failures on top of this, no Lib Dem stands much chance of becoming our first elected Mayor. In any case Jon Rogers has neither  the  vision, policies, profile, standing or stature needed in an elected Mayor.

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.

Council costs

The city council could close more than 20 of its office buildings in a long-term plan to save £40 million. The shake-up could mean a new lease of life for a former bonded warehouse next to the River Avon, which could revitalise a neglected corner of Bristol near the Cumberland Basin. (see here). Councillors should be asking a large number of questions about the rather bold statement of claimed benefits of this proposal and they should especially scrutinise these kind of figures/estimates:

 "The cost of the offices shake-up would be an estimated £70 million, with money borrowed at preferential rates over many years. But the council's treasury officials believe that within 15 years they will have recouped all the costs. And within 25 years the scheme would deliver an overall saving of nearly £40 million."

Could you not radically change the way the council works and use far fewer buildings in many different ways? Have other options been fully explored? Is this the best option? My concern is the £70 million cost and whether this would stay at £70 million and whether it would be paid back as officials estimate.

Surely not a decision for the council but for the Mayor elected in November in any case.

Tackling transport

Copy of my comment on this story, trying to bring Bristol City Council Cabinet Member and Cllr Gary Hopkins (pictured) back reality through proper transport performance indicators for our city:

@ gary_hopkins - can I remind you that we need to see positive transport outcomes in Bristol eg traffic reduction, significantly lower congestion and delay, much lower air pollution, carbon emissions falling in line with what best science says is needed and in line with the Climate Change Act...We simply aren't seeing significant improvements in the major performance indicators. I also remind you that part of the current transport plans includes building new roads - hardly likely to produce the transport outcomes I've indicated. If you have solid evidence to the contrary then I'd like to hear it.

Cllr Hopkins reply simply made no comments at all about traffic reduction - and no comments at all about carbon emissions. On congestion he said, rather lamely, ‘...conjestion [his spelling] and delays are down but not by as much as they should be because the dividends of these are for the time being being swallowed by First instead of being passed on to customers.’ This appears not to be about overall congestion and delays but in any case admits there is no significant reduction.

On air pollution he admits there is still a problem but that the European green capital assessment rates Bristol as best (!!!). In his words, ‘Air pollution is still a problem but it was interesting that the technical assesment for European green capital rated us best of any entrant on that area. The BRT will run on non fossil fuel and will make a significant contribution.’

Green capital assessment rates Bristol’s air pollution as best! This only goes to show how low their standards are. No evidence in his comment to back the claim that BRT will make a 'significant contribution'. It’s mere assertion therefore.

Cllr Hopkin’s denied it was mere assertion and gave some additional waffle and opinion but did not actually give any data or reference to data to back his assertions. It’s note-able that he simply did not comment at all on traffic reduction and on carbon emissions from transport which I specified along with air pollution and congestion as performance indicators. What forecasting/modelling has been done that shows that current transport plans will produce significant reductions in these? Does Cllr Hopkins have this data??

What Cllr Hopkins seems unwilling to recognise and acknowledge is that key transport outcomes such as overall traffic flow, air pollution, congestion and delay and carbon emissions are very unlikely to significantly improve under current transport plans such as GBBN and BRT with its associated road building. In fact some of them may well get worse. An RAC Foundation report in 2011 said there will be four million more cars will be on the roads in the next 25 years. It goes on to forecast a 43% rise in traffic volume by 2035. Department for Transport figures show that by 2035 traffic will rise by nearly 50% and delays more than 50%on average (more here). To make real and lasting improvements realities have first to be acknowledged.

Some useful information on transport in Bristol here.

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.

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.

Parking proposal

Plenty of whinges but not much in the way of constructive suggestions from commenters on this story 'Bristol businesses facing workplace parking levy'. Bristol's transport system has large and longstanding problems, such as from congestion and pollution. It costs city dwellers and workers a lot in money, health and environmental terms. What solutions do the whinging commenters propose?

For me the area shown in the map (above left) showing two possible boundaries for the workplace parking levy scheme is far too small and has many inconsistencies - and the city's proposals for 'sustainable' transport and 'green' taxes (if indeed they meet the proper definition of sustainable and green) are often too timid, unintegrated and lacking in coherence. A properly stategic approach is what is needed, so that all council policies pull in the same direction.

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)

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

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?

Efficiency drive

This sort of energy efficiency and renewable energy scheme (here) is long overdue but whilst the headline is current and active saying 'Ten-year energy efficiency drive will create jobs' the first sentence of the story immediately damps that down, referring to 'council plans to develop' the scheme.

Its good to see this project but £2.5 million over ten years, less than a quarter of a million per year, does not amount to a 'multi-million pound' scheme in my book - unless the council is going to get much more money from a range of other sources (are they?).

Work on 6000 homes and buildings is a decent start but Bristol has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings, which gives some perspective to this. The 1500 jobs figure sounds more like hope than realism given the amount of money per year mentioned here.

Though the council setting up its own energy company to operate at arms length is a good move I'd ideally like to see many community based energy companies in the city - and I just hope the council is more dynamic than it has proved to be and gets on with it! Having said that they have been and are not helped by central govt policy, so lets see that change for the better.

These developments should be driven by our need for energy security, community resilience and what best science says about the rate at which we need to be cutting fossil fuel use and carbon emissions - if you work back from what they say to the consequent energy efficiency and renewable energy plans you get investment figures that are much higher and orders of magnitude more installations.

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.