20's Plenty for Us: new blog site

New Blog site from the 20's Plenty for Us campaign which is 'working with local campaigns throughout the UK to implement 20 mph as the correct speed limit for residential streets.' They will be using this Blog for the various comments made to campaigns during their work.

http://www.20splentyforus.blogspot.com/

Loss of quality of life in Redcatch Rd/Axbridge Rd/Friendship Rd neighbourhood

Its already been reported that Tesco's application to build a car park over part of the Friendship Inn garden was finally given planning permission by Bristol City Council. The pub will now rapidly be converted to a Tesco Express. Based on the rough notes I made this is what I said in person to the planning committee in addition to my written statement:

Here we are again. A whole range of people in very large numbers have expressed concern and opposition. Council strategies state the aim of improving neighbourhood quality of life and building a greener city but this plan, which would worsen both, could be given permission! You can ensure this does not happen by refusing permission.

Here we go again in a period when people want real and proper democracy (government by the people for the people) after expenses scandals that have brought politics in general to an even lower ebb than usual. Really listen to the people and you do your bit to boost politics. Really listen to the people and you'd reject this plan.

I note that members of the public dont get equal time and facilities when responding to planning applications compared to councillors and officers. I note that very often developers get lots of time and access to officers and councillors about their plans (including in this case, where inferior plans went back and forth between the council and Tesco) - this should give this committee all the more reason to give real weight to the number and range of people opposed to this plan from the public.

The councillors on the committee did not listen to the people - those from Labour (Sean Beynon and Colin Smith) gave particular support to Tesco's plans . Planning rules are truly out of date and badly out of tune with council policies, especially on quality of life and sustainability. The committee made their decision on a very narrow basis indeed, paying little or no heed to the context of the application and implications of giving permission. Another neighbourhood will lose quality of life and green character as a result and Knowle's local shopping will be disrpted by a giant supermarket chain with an anti-competitive attitude. It may not end here because several local people are wondering what plans Tesco might have for that part of the pub garden that wont be covered by the car park (room for expansion? room for a petrol station? room for...?).

The Bill for the choices we make

Interesting clip. Strike a chord with anyone??

Sustainable Communities Act successes

I'm very pleased to have received the email below today showing that two of the 22 proposals I submitted to Bristol City Council's Sustainable Communities Act process have been successful, passing the various tests (see the proposals described after the email). It will be very interesting to see what the Local Govt Association make of them.

Dear Ms White and Mr Vowles,

I'm writing to let you know that following decision at the Council's Cabinet meeting last night. I am pleased to say your joint proposal regarding reducing commercial and industrial waste and the seprate one submitted by you individally Mr Vowles on statutory biodiversity/ecofootprint data in planning applications have been submitted to the Local Government Association Selector Panel today.

We would like to thank you for your input to this process so far and will let you know as soon as we have further information from the LGA on the progress of these and other proposals the Council has submitted.

Kind regards,
Deborah

Deborah Kinghorn
Policy Officer
Deputy Chief Executive's Unit
Bristol City Council
0117 92 22792

1.The proposal is to establish statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications.

Submission of ‘before and after’ biodiversity and eco-footprint data to be a compulsory part of all planning applications – the data to be a statutory consideration for all planning committees.

The proposal would improve the eco-footprint of new development. In theory it should lead to an increase in resource supporting biodiversity, reduce the contribution new development has on climate change, might boost the local economy through local supply, improve the resource efficiency of the development.

People submitting planning applications for new development would need guidance on how to undertake this and what would be required. Therefore Officers and Members of the Council would also need training and guidance in order to implement this proposal successfully.
It would require a change in legislation to become mandatory.

2.Reduce commercial and industrial waste.

Give local authorities the responsibility for managing all commercial and industrial waste to ensure that the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle can be applied to commercial and industrial waste as well as municipal waste.

If local authorities are given this responsibility, establish a national indicator for waste minimisation that covers commercial and municipal sectors.

Municipal waste only accounts for 15% waste and Commercial and Industrial accounts for 39% with construction and demolition 46%. (WEP Joint waste strategy paper)

There is currently little influence on the commercial and industrial sector to minimise waste through the three Rs , reduce, reuse, and recycle. The main influence is the financial cost which is not prohibitive enough to encourage minimisation of waste to landfill.

If local authorities are responsible for the whole waste stream, it will enable waste to be tackled in a more joined up way and with more regard for the environment. Commercial and Industrial waste tends to have fewer waste streams and can often be easily recycled.

Save St Peter's Hospice in Knowle: online version of petition

You can now sign the St Peter's Hospice petition online by clicking the link below:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-hospice/

St Peter's Hospice, Knowle: petition opposing closure

I'm helping the campaign to keep St Peter's Hospice in Knowle from closure. Having already written to St Peter's Director of Patient Care I will also be attending, and helping to publicise, the public meeting at Windmill Hill City Farm this Friday (see details in the post below this one or click on the image, left) and helping to collect signatures on a paper petition that reads as below (copies available from me, or by phoning the number below if you'd like to help - I'm hoping to have the petition available to sign electronically within a few days and will post details here):

We, the undersigned, believe that the decision to close the hospice in South Bristol with the loss of ten beds in September will result in many terminally ill people being denied a specialist in-patient pain relief service and being left to die on busy hospital wards. We cannot understand why there has been no emergency appeal to save this essential service.

We call upon St Peter’s Hospice, Bristol Primary Care Trust and United Bristol Hospital Trust to consult the people of South Bristol about these plans and to work together to ensure that a full hospice service remains available in South Bristol.

If you are signing this petition, please tick if you want to help with this campaign. Please return the completed form to: Save Our Hospice, 15 Addison Rd, Victoria Park, Bristol BS3 4QH. To contact us, phone 07929 897149 or email: saveourhospice@hotmail.co.uk

St Peter's Hospice: public meeting about the proposed closure in Knowle

World Cup games in Bristol: case against

A powerful case against the World Cup coming to Bristol has been outlined by the Bristol Blogger! The financial case for having World Cup games in Bristol appears to be very shaky indeed !

And of course there is the environmental case against: loss of green belt land to build the BCFC stadium that is essential to staging World Cup football in the city; stimulus to further loss of green belt land as development fills in much of the space in and around the new stadium and roads; large carbon footprint and other environmental impacts in constructing and operating the new stadium (neither BCFC not the council have fully committed themselves to the principle of any development fully compensating for total impacts); large increase in Bristol’s eco-footprint from developments that follow the new stadium. Many people in Ashton Vale and Long Ashton will be seriously impacted by a new stadium.

Can someone demonstrate net economic and environmental benefits to me?? I’d need to see this before I can support the World Cup bid. Several statements by local politicians and others would seem to presume that a new stadium for BCFC at Long Ashton is automatically highly likely and desirable. It isn’t. Has it been forgotten that building on green belt land is not really supposed to happen at all, unless circumstances are exceptional. Is it the view of all the big political parties in Bristol that the circumstances are exceptional?

Have BCFC come up with a new stadium design and construction process that is truly innovative and green (efficient, renewably powered, carbon neutral…and more), so much so that it can be quantitatively shown that most aspects of environmental impact have been fully compensated for?? Did they exhaust the options for redeveloping Ashton Gate, a ground with so much heritage value??

These are the considerations that I’ve had in mind for some time. Any administration running Bristol that considers itself green should have these considerations in mind. Have we forgotten our green capital ambitions?? Since the start of the new stadium process greens have contributed to the BCFC consultation, urging the use of green designs, processes and technologies – we will continue to make such points throughout the planning process.

Use and abuse of computer generated images of the proposed new Bristol City ground

This post is about the use and potential/actual abuse of pictures of proposed developments. Developers can and do use pictures to mislead people about the apparent nature and impacts of what they plan.


New plans will involve drawings and pictures and/or three dimensional models, these days often computer generated. The plans for a new Bristol City stadium are no exception to this (see aerial view left) - many have been featured very prominently and repeatedly in the local press (eg here) as well as in the architects report (here) and on the Bristol City FC website (here). Pictures are familiar and require little specialist training to interpret, making them a powerful communications tool (which developers, planners, councils and the media are of course well aware of).

Pictures are useful - but the viewer should consider both what is shown and what is not shown. Viewers need to weigh up how representative and realistic what someone has chosen to present to them for their chosen purpose, not necessarily the viewers purpose, truly is. People usually see things from the ground yet we are often given aerial views (as above) and not shown the view from residents back gardens (as is the case with the computer-generated pictures of the proposed Bristol City stadium the Evening Post has prominently featured).

Many images we are presented with are shown in isolation or with the visual context that those producing the pictures want to give. The picture above shows one approach to the proposed Bristol City stadium which includes: a) very large, mature trees that would take years to grow b) a couple with the children just behind them. None of the images of the proposed stadium I've seen show any traffic or crowds whatsoever. Its not that the images we are presented with are 'wrong' its that they are partial and are selected to show what a narrow range of people want us to see!!

How green is the proposed new Bristol City stadium design?

Saw this Evening Post report about how the proposed new Bristol City football stadium would be 'sunk into the ground' to minimise impacts. Subject to the full details, which I've yet to see, this is likely to be a good aspect of its design as visual intrusion, noise pollution and possibly light pollution would be cut. I made an enquiry to find out more via Trimedia (ashtonvale@trimediauk.com) who are dealing with a lot of the consultation/PR for BCFC and I was told the stadium would be sunk 3 metres into the ground. They also sent me further design information, which I'm looking over, and I sent the email request below for asking about a wide range of green design features/principles:

____________________________________________________
Thanks for this - I'll look over the attached information asap. I'd be grateful if you could establish which of the following you feel are a part of the BCFC new stadium plans:

*abiding by the concept of compensation for loss of green space in the green belt;

* a thorough ecological assessment of the whole area, at various times of the year;

*walking, cycling and light rail transport links;

*an unobtrusive external colour;

*use of ecological footprinting to measure impacts;

*permanently protected nature reserves around the stadium, designed to maximise biodiversity;

*aiming to be a carbon neutral stadium;

*avoiding any 'sprawl' in design;

*being an example of sustainable design (see examples below) - promoting sustainable economic activity, the latest energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport technologies.
Examples of football clubs who have used or attempted to use green principles, designs and technologies (this would fit well with Bristol's green capital ambitions and compensate to a degree for the loss of green space):

Dartford FC – living grass roof, solar electricity and heating, rainwater collection and low noise and light pollution design.

Ipswich Town – carbon neutral scheme.

Renewables in football clubs information.

Middlesborough – solar roof and wind turbines project.

Man City – community involvement, transport and waste initiatives (wind turbines were planned but sadly now abandoned).

Many thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles

Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion Into Ashton Gate: petition and newsletter

Opposition to Tesco on Ashton Gate is organising - see e-petition link and the newsletter from BERATE (Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion Into Ashton Gate) . I note George Ferguson's current position on this issue (the Bristol Evening Post had a story about George's view, headlined [somewhat inaccurately?] 'Cautious Support for Tesco Stadium Plan' on 3 June). If you can offer BERATE assistance please contact them (details below).

http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=262#sign

BEDMINSTER RESIDENTS AGAINST TESCO’S EXPANSION INTO ASHTON GATE.

NEWS
5th July 2009

Greater Bedminster Residents meet to form “No-Superstore” Campaign Group

More than 70 people from Greater Bedminster packed into a meeting room at the Southville Centre on Friday night, to hear more about the proposed Tesco superstore development at Ashton Gate Stadium.

Local residents, Chris Uttley and Tom Griffin, who organised the meeting said, “Whilst we are seeing plenty of information about the supposed benefits, there has been no opportunity for public discussion about the massive increase in traffic, noise, air pollution and disruption created by a store that opens 7 days a week for virtually all day.

“We wanted to give all residents and traders an opportunity to voice their concerns without the stage-managed atmosphere of the Public Relations devised consultation they have had so far”

Traders from North Street, people who live in close proximity to the stadium and residents from throughout the area, including many Bristol City Football Club supporters, heard more about the plans and were given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Many people at the meeting commented on how inappropriate the proposal seems. Abigail Stollar, a Southville resident said, “ I shop all the time on North Street. What’s being proposed will contribute very little to the local community and will have a massive impact on the existing shops and businesses. I like the fact I can walk round the corner with my kids to buy virtually everything I need”.

Some residents highlighted the rushed manner in which they were being consulted and the ad-hoc way in which information is being released. In many cases, people who live very close to the stadium had not been consulted at all. Only 3 people raised their hands when asked how many had been approached directly for their views.

People were particularly angry at the way this development has been linked with plans for a new stadium and the Bristol World Cup bid and the attempt to brand those who oppose a new superstore as anti-World cup and anti-Bristol City. Many people said this was “cynical”, “ill-judged” and “divisive”.

George Ferguson, owner of the Tobacco Factory, summed up the feeling from the meeting saying, “There is nothing like a major threat to its future to galvanise a community. This is an appalling proposal – another giant shopping shed set in a massive sea of car parking. The potential economic and environmental damage to this area is immense. I fully recognise the importance of Bristol City’s success but it is quite wrong to imply that a new supermarket is something to do with the new stadium or the World Cup – the two issues have to be de-coupled. It is inappropriate and legally dubious to consider the applications for the new stadium and the new supermarket simultaneously”.

The proposal to create a group to fight the proposal was welcomed by all those who attended and many volunteered to be directly involved. BERATE has now begun a petition against the superstore and will continue to oppose the plans and gauge the response of a larger cross-section of the community towards the development.

For further Information:

Contact details: berate_ashtongate@hotmail.com

Or Chris Uttley on 07920 797110
Or Tom Griffin on 07772289718

'Answers' to questions on sale of Bristol to Bath Railway Path land

Copied below are some questions recently put by me to Bristol City Council Cabinet members. The reply to Q1 is in my view disingenuous. Whilst it is interesting to note that no Bristol to Bath Railway Path land has yet been sold the response to Q1 gives the misleading impression that the council is consulting about the future of all affected railway path land. This is not the case. The hedgerow section I refer to is not covered and that the sale of this land will go ahead has been confirmed to members of the Bristol Parks Forum. The only indication of this in the answer I got was this bit '...on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path.' This new consultation is quite unnecessary as the views of locals on all the land concerned was established in a consultation only months ago!!

________________________________________________________

C1. Glenn Vowles to ask Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety and Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability

Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses

Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.

Q1. Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?

C1.Q1 Reply:
No land has yet been sold. The Cabinet believe that, on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path. However, we are not persuaded that the design solution currently proposed represents the best balance between regeneration, environment and use of the Railway Path, and we are therefore seeking the public's views as to the respective merits of shared or individual access from the 'cycle houses' to the path.
This administration is also concerned that there remain aspirations for Bus Rapid Transit along the Railway Path. We are therefore also reviewing the terms of the access arrangements between the Railway Path and the Chocolate Factory development to protect the Path.

Q2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?

C1.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Liberal Democrats (and others) have raised concerns about the placing of the cycle houses so close to the Railway Path and the consequent loss of hedgerow. These concerns were raised as part of the planning process and in earlier consultation.

Cuts proposed in the 52 bus service

I've just sent the email below to Bristol City Council (publictransport@bristol.gov.uk) having picked up a consultation leaflet about the proposed cuts in the 52 bus service (pictured - click to get larger image), which many in Knowle use of course. The council are consulting on the change until Friday 3 July and want to hear about the incovenience and hardship this service cut will cause - so get your email in very soon or write to Public Transport and Park and Ride (CD/BH), FREEPOST BS6529, Bristol, BS1 5BR.

______________________________________________________________
It is with considerable dismay that I learned of the proposed cut in the 52 bus service, both as a Knowle resident and user of this service and as a keen green urging more, better and cheaper public transport. The council is minded to withdraw this bus service for Monday to Saturday evenings and all day on Sundays and Public Holidays despite having a policy of trying to encourage the public onto public transport! Government policy is also to encourage people onto public transport! If we are to have more people using buses (and trains) the council and government must put their money where their mouth is!

Its very hard indeed to square the use of the term 'service...withdrawn' with 'minimising hardship' on the consultation leaflet. The leaflet itself acknowledges that to access alternative services people would have to walk further. This is a disincentive on bus use of course but the picture is worse that just that. I have family and friends, including children, who would have the pattern of their lives disrupted and made less safe. They dont feel safe walking through certain areas at certain times yet they would be forced to do so if the changes happen in order to get a bus when they normally do. With lifts in a car unavailable some would at times be put-off going out altogether.

If the 52 bus service is cut, travelling back from town to Knowle is likely to take longer, with more waiting around. Friends and family currently travelling together but living in different parts of Knowle would, at times, no longer be able to catch the same bus - a service common to both would be gone.

The proposal to direct some 52 bus users to the Bristol Dial-a-Ride in the event of a service cut is inadequate. This would not cover all bus users as Dial-a-Ride is for those with mobility impairment. Those with mobility impairment would still experience service loss on Saturdays and Sundays when the 52 is currently available but Dial-a-Ride is not.

This bus service cut proposal is entirely inconsistent with the apparent drive to promote and encourage bus use in central Bristol, such as via a circular route or 'hub'. If we are to make significant overall progress in getting people onto public transport we must have properly coordinated improvements in services across the city.

Update on my Sustainable Communities Act suggestions - 14 out of 22 deemed eligible for Cabinet consideration!!

I reported here the 21 suggestions I submitted to Bristol City Council's Sustainable Communities Act process. I submitted 1 suggestion jointly with another person also. Had the letter (below) yesterday showing that 14 of my suggestions have made it through for further consideration. I'm

very, very pleased with this of course - and I'm hopeful that the Cabinet will include some of my suggestions on the shortlist it will send to the Local Govt Association.

Dear Mr Vowles

I am writing to thank you for participating in the Sustainable Communities Act process. We had a fantastic response, with 151 suggestions being submitted.

Suggestions made to the Council under the Act have now passed through the first stages of the Council’s evaluation process.

The Council’s Legal Services department has evaluated the suggestion(s) you submitted in order to identify whether they met the requirements of the Sustainable Communities Act, in that:

*It would need a change in legislation to be implemented
*It would contribute towards sustainability as defined in the Act

Your suggestion(s) listed here were deemed eligible under the terms of the act.

*Reduce commercial and industrial waste: give LA's responsibility for commercial waste; introduce NI for waste minimisation [this one submitted jointly with another person]

*20 mph default speed limit
*Carbon budgets and carbon trading for all
*Statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications
*Government to assess capabilities of all technologies prior to implementation
*Ecological compensation for greenfield development
*Prioritising cycling and walking via a review of national and local transport policy and practice
*Immigration and emigration zero balance
*Broadening range of statutory planning considerations
*Criteria of fairness, openness and balance for government public consultations
*Transport costs to reflect total costs of travel
*Financial accounts to be accompanied by social and environmental accounting
*Councils to publish total ecological footprint
*Welfare or well-being index

75 suggestions overall were eligible to go forward and these have also been considered by the following:

Officer Panel – senior Council officers with appropriate expertise added factual comment where necessary. This panel did not recommend or exclude suggestions.

Local Panel - Bristol City Council commissioned VOSCUR (an independent organisation set up to support voluntary and community action in Bristol) to convene a panel including representatives from neighbourhood partnerships, equalities groups and councillors. This panel prioritised the suggestions prior to forwarding their views onto Cabinet Member, Councillor Jon Rogers.

Cabinet Member – all suggestions have been sent to Cabinet member, Councillor Jon Rogers. Recent guidance from the LGA has set out what sort of information will be needed to support a suggestion. Councillor Rogers will now use this guidance to review all the suggestions and comments made by the Local Panel and recommend a shortlist of the strongest and most feasible ideas to be worked up for submission to the Local Government Association. This shortlist and all other relevant information will be available on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca shortly.

The Council’s Cabinet will decide which suggestions the Council will adopt as its formal proposals. These will be forwarded to the Government via the Local Government Association (LGA).

The final decision will be made by Cabinet on Thursday 30th July at 6pm in the Council House. Cabinet meetings are open to the public, and any members of the public may present a statement or question. Statements must be submitted by 12.00 noon the day before the meeting, and questions by 5 pm 3 clear working days before (Friday 24th July). These should be sent to Ian Hird, ian.hird@bristol.gov.uk, tel. 0117 922 2384. Papers for the Cabinet meeting should be posted on the Council’s website on Thursday 23rd July.

The Council recognises the value of all suggestions received and appreciates the time that has gone into producing them. If your suggestion does not go forward, we will forward your ideas to the relevant council department for further consideration and respond to you in writing.

If you need any further information about this process, please contact Deborah Kinghorn, Policy Officer, on 0117 922 2792 or email Deborah.kinghorn@bristol.gov.uk or visit our Sustainable Communities Act page on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca

Yours sincerely

Deborah Kinghorn
Policy and Scrutiny Team
Deputy Chief Executive’s Office

Bristol 24-7 new online newspaper now live

Bristol24-7 - a new online newspaper for Bristol - has gone live today. Thought it well worth letting people know about this site - variety of information sources is a good thing after all! I'll be watching, and if/where appropriate be participating in, developments with some interest. Why not take up the online paper's suggestion of visiting their website and offering constructive comments/observations/criticism. I encourage and welcome debate on this blog about this new development in the local media (some further information here).

This is what Chris Brown, Editor of Bristol 24-7 told me about his new online newspaper:

Available and updated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Bristol24-7 will publish original news, sport, opinion and comment on all areas of city life - as well as promoting the best coverage of Bristol affairs from every available source on the web.

As the website develops, new sections will be added so that Bristol24-7 becomes the first port of call for residents and visitors looking for information and ideas to make the most of their life in the city.

The business side of the operation will come from a digital marketing service called 'Beyond the Ad', which will offer individuals, businesses and organisations everything from new websites, to email marketing to harnessing social networking to promote themselves and/or their products. Its premise is that, unlike a newspaper, my business will offer real solutions to marketing needs - rather than the hit-and-hope offer of space to advertise in a newspaper.

I am a journalist with 11 years' experience at national and regional newspapers. Originally from Somerset, I started my career at The Independent in London in 1998 spending three years in the news and features departments, before returning to the West Country. I joined the Western Daily Press in 2002, becoming deputy chief sub-editor. I volunteered for redundancy in April this year so that I could make my dream of starting a new online newspaper for Bristol come true.

While I may be running a small company without the resources of a large media organisation, I can assure you that I am very serious in my aim to produce high-quality journalism within a trusted product people will want to access on a daily basis.

I hope you visit my site from June 29 on and give me any constructive criticism you have. You can also follow me on Twitter at @bristol247.

--
Christopher Brown
Editor, Bristol24-7
---------------------------
PO Box 2930, Bristol BS6 9FJ
Tel: 0117 2309 247
Mob: 07766 752422
Skype: bristol247
Email: chris@bristol247.com

Strong-willed, independent-minded MPs - yes please!

The Bristol Evening Post has been doing its own examination of local MPs expenses. The other day it was my MP Bristol East's Kerry McCarthy's turn (story here). One thing that is striking about the whole expenses affair is how a large proportion of MPs are far from strong-willed, independent-minded individuals. Take this quote from the Post's story,

Ms McCarthy, 44, who won her Bristol seat in 2005, said: "When you get elected, you ask the older hands what you do and they were quite adamant that you should claim for this or that because that's what you were entitled to."

*

For me these words illustrate the point I'm making very well. Do we really want to elect people who cant find their own way and dont make up their own mind? Kerry seems to think it perfectly acceptable to go along with the crowd without thinking and questioning (Either that or she is giving us lame excuses for the choices she made). Surely we need our key decision-makers to have more character than this?? Mind you maybe the the qualities Ms McCarthy has are the reason she has become a junior whip.

Councillor Brown made "racial slur" and "breached code of conduct" but no sanction is required!?!

Can you square these two statements in todays local paper report about the council officer investigation of the 'coconut' slur used by Cllr Brown against Cllr Jethwa (pictured)? The council official first says,

"I am of the view that Councillor Brown breached the code of conduct for members in that she failed to treat a fellow councillor with respect by using a racial slur during the full council debate on February 24."

But goes on to say,

"If I am asked to recommend a sanction then I would say that no further action is required given that Councillor Brown apologised for her comments."

Rules for behaviour mean little or nothing if they are not enforced - ask any parent, teacher, lawyer...We need to expect and demand more from people elected to represent us, whether its over expenses, behaviour and language use in debates, behaviour that is reasonably consistent with policies they are advocating for the rest of us, or whatever.

Lib Dem fix for Bristol???

Can we fix it? Yes we can! So say both Bob the Builder and US President Barack Obama – and now that they have at last won overall control of Bristol City Council Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have a clear opportunity to fix Bristol. Their manifesto, called ‘Six to Fix’ gives what are in some cases pretty specific benchmarks against which we will all be able to assess their progress, though these most often relate to small scale change in the city not tackling a bigger or general problem and timescales for changes are, with one exception, absent.

To give them credit, Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have performed extremely well in order to get into this position. They know how to fight elections very well indeed. They took four seats from Labour in the recent local elections in addition to successfully defending all eleven of the seats they previously held, including a threat to their Ashley seat from the Green Party. They were helped by the very poor Labour performance – they lost eight out of the ten seats they defended (four to Tories, four to the Lib Dems) and only narrowly held on to the two seats they won. Thus ended years of a ‘hung’ council where no party had overall control, which featured see-saw politics and two parties always ganging up on the other through unholy alliance – this is a very good opportunity to give Bristol some firm direction and leadership.

There are some tough problems to solve. The Lib Dems have said they want to ‘Cut congestion and get better transport for all’ (including backing suburban rail; more money for road safety, pedestrians and cyclists; introducing a cashless ‘Oyster Card’ for Bristol buses). Under the transport heading issues like residents parking and air quality wont go away. The key benchmark of progress here is congestion.

Lib Dem policy two is ‘A clean and green city’ (which includes more money for street cleaning, getting tough on flytipping; a ‘parkie’ in every major park and more play areas for children; fighting the green belt grab and preserving our green spaces). It will be very interesting indeed to see the extent to which the Lib Dems oppose building on Bristol’s green belt, particularly since Bristol City Football Club propose to build a new stadium on green land in Ashton Vale, where many houses are also proposed and at least part of which is green belt. All party leaders except the Greens have given public and enthusiastic support to the proposed new City stadium in principle and they are backing a bid to bring World Cup football to Bristol, which a new stadium would be necessary for. Amount of green belt and other green space built on is a key indicator here. I’d also add that the total carbon emissions of the city are a key indicator because everyone recognises that low carbon emissions are a key feature of being green – and the connection with cutting congestion is obvious.

‘Boost Bristol’s Bobbies’ says policy three (including a fair share of police; campaign against ID cards; new crime reduction schemes on repeat offenders and violent partners). Police and Community Support Officer numbers are easily counted and tracked but this does not necessarily mean more peaceful, orderly, lower crime neighbourhoods, so the benchmark is not so straightforward. Real, effective leadership would give us less crime and more peace and order.

*
The Lib Dems get very specific about policy 4, which promises ‘Three new libraries, a new school [North Bristol] and a new pool [East Bristol]’. This policy includes a promise to ‘fix Labours school places mess’. This year saw chaos for parents and pupils trying to find the school place they need and want for their child and so this pledge to ensure that 2010 sees no repeat of the previous fiasco. The local press has described this as a poisoned chalice!! We will all be able to see whether the various facilities are built and whether school places – but there is no promise on an overall improvement in the quality of education and it looks like the Lib Dems will implement most if not all of the plans to create bigger primary schools which wont be popular in many places and is seen by some as going against the quality of the educational experience. Real, effective leadership would improve the quality of education, not that this is straightforward to assess!

The pledges in policy five ‘Beat Gordon Brown’s recession in Bristol’ (including keeping the council tax as low as possible and campaigning for it to be scrapped; extra help on debt for small businesses and individuals; investment in training and apprenticeships) are more nebulous and designed to pick up votes during a time of recession. We all know that the council cannot make Bristol a recession-free zone and everybody would subscribe to the other policies under this heading the way they are worded!

Policy six ‘50% recycling by 2010 and no incinerator’ (which includes switching from a large, dirty incinerator to clean and cheap new technology; free corn starch brown bin liner bags; reversing the recycling rate drop under Labour) really should be under the ‘clean and green city’ heading. Mass incineration has already been abandoned, though putting alternative approaches into practice within a decent budget is doable but not straightforward. ‘Free’ corn starch bags will need to show that they can more than make up for the carbon cost of producing and consuming them and for their financial cost to the council but its uncertain that all the required data to make the assessments was sought by the council beforehand. Improving Labour’s recycling record wont be difficult because their work on this was poor – achieving a 50% [household waste] recycling rate by 2010 would be great (and a target with a timescale makes a change!). We still need to push on a lot from there if we are to have a low waste city though and someone (central govt??) needs to get a grip on total waste, most of which is not generated in households of course.

Council Leader Janke backs new stadium and world cup bid

Stories relating to the proposed new Bristol City stadium and the possibility of World Cup football coming to Bristol abound - the Bristol Evening Post is really going to town on this one. Here (and here) are a few more stories in todays paper about Council Leader Barbara Janke support for the bid and new stadium and the support of a local publican (yesterday they had a story about support from 'Germany' as the Post exaggeratedly put it). My reaction to Barbara Janke's big involvement in the online comments is below.

Lib Dem Council Leader Barbara Janke is not the person who grants planning permission to BCFC. Permission is given or denied by the relevant planning committee following input from officers and members of the public etc. Planning committees are statutory not political in nature, at least they are supposed to be!! Whilst I hope that councillors also use their good sense when making judegments on planning applications they have to apply certain criteria - and world cup or premiership football aspirations are not amongst these (and in any case they are transient, uncertain factors).

Fairly assessing the proposed new Bristol City stadium

The Bristol Evening Post reports, again how a new stadium for Bristol City is crucial to the success of the bid to have World Cup football in Bristol. I think what we need to keep in mind here is how the city can best come to a fair decision. There are certain factors that, under current planning law and guidance, are not legitimate planning criteria against which the application should be judged. These include: World Cup games in Bristol aspirations; Bristol City FC premiership aspirations; support for the application from the local media for the stadium; support from political party leaders for the stadium; support from a multi-millionaire and major supermarket chain for the stadium proposal. These things therefore, at least in theory, should not affect decision making - I sincerely hope that this is the case.

I agree with a lot of what Andy, Tony and Rob said (below), commenting on the Post story. Tony's blog is well worth a read (http://simplysouthville.blogspot.com/).

It is not the stadium plan that is the most contentious thing here; it is the way in which the local people and the council are being hoodwinked and pressurised into giving it a green light.The constant press releases from the football club, and the incessant white noise in the evening post serve to crank the pressure to approve the scheme. The England world cup bid could easily fail; the Bristol bid (dependent on the stadium) could also easily fail: then the football club will have landed their only real prize, and the rest of Bristol will be left with a vague sense of having been duped.Evening Post - wake up to yourselves, it is not your job to campaign for Bristol City Football Club, or Tesco. How about being impartial for a change?????

Andy, Bristol

The article says: "The council's local plan has Ashton Gate earmarked for housing. But times have changed since the plan was written."The times may have changed but the need for affordable family housing hasn't. One thing does remain and that is we don't need another supermarket in this area of Bristol.Are the powers that be really going to rush through a planning application that could damage the area forever, for the sake of two or three potential World Cup games in nine years time. Let's do it right. A development at Ashton Gate that will benefit the local community and a new stadium for City that it can afford. Tesco a 'white knight'? More like the Grim Reaper for Southville and Ashton.

Tony, http://simplysouthville.blogspot.com/

A large car park, a supermarket in a tin shed and a petrol filling station - is that the best anyone at Bristol City can come up with for their old ground?It would be a complete waste of a great opportunity. OK the World Cup in Bristol would be great, but it will only last for four weeks. We will be stuck with the consequences for a lot longer.

Rob, Crews Hole Report

Anne Widdecombe for Speaker !!

If I was now an MP I'd be voting for Anne Widdecombe to be the new Speaker of the House of Commons. She's not my political colour of course and I dont agree with her views on religion but she is of very strong principle and conviction, she is, as far as I am aware, completely untainted by the expenses scandal, she is very independent-minded, is well known by the public and connects very well with them. Its important that we dont get yet another Speaker from the Labour Party because the last two have come from them. Crucially Anne has said that she would only be Speaker up to the next general election, which is very important for me. Its not right for the current House of Commons, which has many discredited MPs and procedures, to choose a Speaker to serve a long term in office. Far better for the credibility and reputation of the Speaker and of the House of Commons for a new set of MPs to make a choice of Speaker for the more usual, longer period in office.

'Redacted Dawn' Primarolo's week

Its not been a good week for Bristol South MP and new Children's Minister Dawn Primarolo. The Bristol Evening Post reported on Wednesday that she is to lose her funding from Unison because the trade union are protesting against the privatisation of public services and only want to work with MPs who 'stand up for the union's values' ('MP will no longer be 'bankrolled'', Bristol Evening Post, 17 June 2009).

On Thursday Dawn was again under pressure about her expenses when the Daily Telegraph reported that 'Dawn Primarolo claimed on second home in Bristol. In 2004, switched to London flat and claimed mortgage interest payments'.

And of course House of Commons officials did Dawn and her fellow MPs no favours at all by blanking out huge amounts of information on expenses receipts they finally published - making it impossible to trace the presence or absence of abuse/wrongdoing. The Bristol Evening Post wont make the coming weeks that easy for local MPs either as they have said 'There are literally thousands of receipts and documents which we will plough through to report on each MP.'

*

Scrutiny of everything MPs do is great for democracy, whether by the media, unions or whoever. My concern about some of the proposals emanating from Gordon Brown is that they consist of more layers of bureaucracy which over time might turn out to be little better than than current House of Commons authorities. I'd like scrutiny and accountability to be much more direct to voters.

__________________________________________________

Asides:

Unison has done some very good green work, see http://www.unison.org.uk/green/ .

Further information on the work of the Green Party Trade Union Group,

http://www.gptu.net/pssess4X/3c/hpage.shtml

Questions to Council's Cabinet on: hedgerow loss; green belt; environmental decision making

Questions to be put to the Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting of 25 June, for the attention of Cllr Gary Hopkins:

*Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses
Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.

1.Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?

2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?

*Development on green belt land
1.Should large scale development be permitted on green belt land around Bristol, whether the development impinges on green belt in whole or part?

2.If development is permitted on green belt land should the developers plans and designs be required to compensate as much as is practically possible for all the environmental impacts they cause eg through maximising the use of green design, green technology and green schemes?

*Environmental decision making and corn starch bags
In a debate on Cllr Bolton’s blog I said ‘…the decision on the [corn starch] bags has been taken without full information being sought! This is irrational. Environmental decision making should be put on a firm evidence-based process. This has not been done by any party running the council…’ to which you Cllr Hopkins replied ‘I do not base my judgements on guesses but on evidence’. My subsequent request for data on the total environmental impacts of the corn starch bags in this debate was not replied to and so I doubt that full information has in fact been sought.

1. What figures does the council have for the carbon footprint of these corn starch bags, in order to assess whether they more than make up for their carbon cost?

2. What figures does the council have for any other environmental costs the corn starch bags may have eg water footprint, land take, biodiversity impacts...?

3.Can you outline if/how you intend to quantitatively and fully assess the net effects of corn starch bag introduction: on the environment; on the economics of waste management for Bristol?

Met Office climate change projections: serious consequences for us all

The latest climate science projections from the highly respected Met Office can be found here. Below I've reproduced the key Met Office findings for the South West of England by 2080. The graph shows the regional temperature increase by 2050.

Medium emissions scenario

*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 2.8ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.6ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.3ºC.

*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature is 3.9ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2.1ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 6.4ºC.

*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 23%; it is very unlikely to be less than 6% and is very unlikely to be more than 54%.

*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is –23%; it is very unlikely to be less than –49% and is very unlikely to be more than 6%.

The consequences for us all and for our society and economy are very serious due to more floods, droughts, heat waves, storms, impacts on health and public services like rail travel, impacts on food production....The costs of inaction on tackling climate change far exceed the costs of taking effective action now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/18/uk-weather-climate-impact-report

Bristol Airport submits expansion plans

The local paper today reports that plans for the expansion of Bristol International Airport have just been submitted. Included in the report is this statement,

Robert Sinclair, chief executive officer of Bristol International Airport, said:

“The application has been modified to address the key concerns raised.

"It now strikes the right balance between allowing the sustainable development of the airport to meet the long-term demand for air travel to and from this region, while also reducing and mitigating the environmental effects.”

...The airport said it will also commit to maintaining CO2 emissions at or below 2007 levels...

*

This shows a complete (and deliberate??) misunderstanding of what sustainable development means. Maintaining carbon emssions at 2007 levels is the committment - but the new Climate Change Act states that we need to make deep cuts!! Cuts in emissions of 80% by 2050...are completely inconsistent with plans for airport expansion here and in many other parts of the UK.

Mind you, like several of the commenters on the Evening Post website, I do think the plans look 'wonderful/very good/fantastic' - I'd happily sell off the stabilty, security and sustainability of future generations in order to get what I want today - NOT.

Greens are about all issues and how they interconnect

Great article here (and reproduced below) by Jenny Jones, Green Party London Assembly member and longstanding senior figure in the party. She is right to say that Greens address all issues and how they interconnect and interrelate....you would not be able to build a sustainable society, reconciling the economic and social with the environmental, otherwise!!

There are many shades of Green:

It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning – that "the clue's in the name" – doesn't entirely stack up.

Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus. It would have no policy on crime, because crime isn't work. It could have no policy on defence, health or public transport, except insofar as wages and contracts were concerned. Is that what we would assume about a party called Labour?

Possibly the Greens are asking for trouble because they have a flower as their logo. But then, so does Labour. And the Lib Dems have a startled chicken, but would anyone say this aptly symbolised the Liberal Democrats? (Ok, I concede that particular point).

It always was strange that people would describe the Greens as "single issue". You only ever had to look at our manifesto to see policies on everything that everyone else had policies on.

It's also a fundamental misrepresentation. The Green party – formerly the Ecology party – formerly People – has an ecological perspective. Ecology is about everything and how it all interconnects. How could anyone ever see everything and how it all interconnects as a single issue?

This is what's distinctive about the Green party: it is the original party of joined-up thinking. The other parties have traditionally seen issues as though they were separate things in separate boxes. So, for example, transport policy was only about moving people and goods from A to B. But ask a Green to invent a transport policy for you, and they wouldn't know how to be so narrow. A Green or ecological perspective will, by its very nature, think of the thing itself and how it interconnects with everything else. Hence transport and climate change; transport and social inclusion; transport and congestion and the resulting costs to businesses; transport and disruption of communities; the impacts of transport's noise and air pollution on health; transport and external costs; and so on. That's how you end up with a Green transport policy, as opposed to endless roadbuilding, airport expansions and the highest rail fares in Europe.

That the party that blazed new trails and pioneered joined-up thinking was caricatured as single issue, against all logic, against all evidence, is one of the big ironies of modern British politics.

Most of the time, most people get most of their information about politics from the mass media. It's a relief to see that the media have recently been giving more attention, for instance, to the Green party's economic policies. Indeed, one highly respected journalist in the Daily Telegraph last week congratulated the Green Party for being ahead of the economic curve with its Green New Deal. But the reappearance of the "one-issue Greens" myth in the Guardian, of all places, in the last few days shows that the falsehood still lives.

Whoever this falsehood serves, it doesn't serve the British voter. Democracy depends on good information. The media acknowledge their duty to tell the truth. I think there's one major task the UK media could undertake now, while British politics is in such a state of disarray that the British voter is clamouring for sweeping reforms. It's this: tell the British voter about the Green party. Not about its environment policy, but about its million-jobs manifesto. Its commitment to re-regulating the buses and doubling the number of them. Its policy for re-nationalising the railways and slashing rail fares. Its policy of rescuing the NHS from privatisation, restoring free dental care and dramatically improving maternity services.

These are good policies, and they're policies only the Green party is offering. They're popular policies, and the readers and viewers and listeners would like to hear about them. Telling the voters about all of this can only be a good thing for British democracy.

Unelected master of manipulation Mandelson is really running the country

Give him credit (and his full 37 word post-reshuffle title), the Right Honourable Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not taken long since Gordon Brown brought him back from his unelected position within the European Union to become the unelected person who is really running the country.

We have been told by our politicians that they will change our discredited democracy to bring it closer to the people. In the new Brown Cabinet 7 members/attendees come from the unelected House of Lords: Mandelson (Business…plus kitchen sink!!), Adonis (Transport), Malloch-Brown (Foreign Office) , Drayson (Business, Innovation, Skills), Scotland (Attorney General), Royall (Lords Leader), Kinnock (Europe). This is a higher proportion than for many, many decades. Not a good start is it!!!

Tesco's revised plans for a car park on The Friendship pub garden

Copy of an email sent by me to Bristol City Council.

For the attention of Ron Moss, case officer now dealing with application 08/04903/F:

I'm writing to express my continued opposition to Tesco plans to build a car park over the pub garden of The Friendship Inn in Knowle. The revised plans recently submitted by Tesco are entirely inappropriate for this part of Knowle as they would make the roads less safe and local quality of life worse.

In April all councillors on the planning committee, with the exception of the chair, expressed big concerns about Tesco's plans, having gone to the site to assess things directly - and several of them expressed fundamental concerns, not just concerns about the design.

Both local councillors oppose the plans. A petition with thousands of names on it opposes the plans. Tens of locals have written to express road safety concerns. Local green campaigners have expressed concerns about further traffic and pollution, loss of trees and green space. Real Ale campaigners have told the council they want to see the a local pub survive on this spot. Bristol Civic Society has applied for the pub to have listed building status. The local shopping centre and small businesses in the area are opposed to the plans. Each distinct group agrees with the concerns expressed by the other groups!

What concerns me about the letter the council sent informing me of revised plans is this sentence,

'We may not contact you again until a decision is made, unless the application is to be considered by the Development Control Committee, or is withdrawn.'

This makes it sound like it is not definite that the planning committee will look at the revised plans and take representations from those concerned (or supportive) of what is proposed. There are major concerns about these plans from a wide spectrum of people and they certainly need to go to before the planning committee.

10 More Green MEPs across EU, Green vote in UK up but no extra MEPs

The five seats shown as Green include 2 Green Party, 2 Scottish Nationalist and 1 Plaid Cymru (these parties all belong to the Green/EFA group in the EU Parliament).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm

*

Full breakdown of Green/EFA results via this link. Ten additional Green/EFA MEPs, in the main due to significant gains in France (8 more MEPs).

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dok/288/288971.2009_european_elections_results@en.htm

Green local elections gains, including Devon and Glos, but not in Bristol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/local_council/09/html/region_99999.stm

Vote Green: positive, principled politics

News from the Green Party:

Green Party leader wins ethical politician award - again!

Observer ethical awards honour Caroline Lucas MEP for second time

On the eve of the European elections, with the Greens showing at a record 15% in today's ComRes poll, the Green Party is proud to announce that Dr Caroline Lucas MEP is to be named as the Ethical Politician of the Year in the fourth annual Observer Ethical Awards.

Caroline Lucas beat Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable and Conservative leader David Cameron to the top spot - picking up the prestigious award for a second time.

Caroline, a passionate campaigner on social justice, green economics, the environment and animal welfare – at both the grassroots level and in the European Parliament – also won the title in 2007 against David Cameron and Gordon Brown, and is delighted to have been chosen to receive the award once again by readers of the Observer.

Dr Lucas said: "I am honoured that Observer readers have chosen to recognise my work in this way – it means a great deal. At a time of serious political malaise, economic upheaval and environmental challenges, the Greens’ positive vision for the future has never been more important. The party’s policies to create up to a million new green jobs, tackle climate change, protect public services and safeguard civil liberties are at the forefront of efforts to create a new political landscape in which people and planet are always at the heart of decision making.

"I am proud to be a member of a political organisation with strong principles and clear ideas, which is driven by a determination to bring progressive, engaging and ethical politics into the mainstream."

For more information on the Observer Ethical Awards, please visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/observer-ethical-awards.

UKIP: we need genuine euro sceptics not this negative, reactionary, backward-looking mish-mash of mavericks

Searches on the web for information on the political parties before tomorrow's local and Euro elections shows that more people are now looking for information on the Green Party than any other party, except UKIP (graph here). Voters, apalled by the MPs expenses scandal, should beware of voting UKIP as an alternative to the Labour, Conservative or other parties however - not least because their record on personal ethics is a very poor one (see below)!!

UKIP centres mostly on what it does not want and what it is opposed to rather than putting forward a positive and coherent strategy (which they dont have anyway). We need genuine euro-sceptics to challenge the current grossly undemocratic EU. UKIP are a negative, reactionary, backward-looking mish-mash of mavericks who often have more in common with the notorious Republican candidate for Vice President of the USA, Sarah Palin, than British people with good sense who rightly question much about the current EU. Some key members of UKIP dont believe in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and are in denial about climate change despite overwhelming, independent evidence, which has been verified over and again - these are not people who are in the 21st century!! (See here).

Open Europe, an independent think tank which questions 'ever closer union' as a feature of the EU, ranked UKIP's leader tenth from bottom in a league table of our MEPs for transparency, accountability, democracy and waste. Of the bottom thirteen MEPs six are from UKIP. Green Party leader Caroline Lucas came top the British MEPs in Open Europe's league table.

In the 2004 Euro election UKIP had 12 MEP's elected - but now only 8 remain to represent us. Former leader Roger Knapman left, accusing current leader Nigel Farage of being more interested in plush offices than principles (Farage has reportedly boasted about using his £2million worth of EU allowances to finance his campaigning). Robert Kilroy-Silk left after his leadership bid failed. Ashely Mote was convicted of benefit fraud and kicked out. Tom Wise was charged with money laundering and kicked out. That these people were amongst those selected as candidates to begin with shows very poor judgement and standards (more here).

More analysis of UKIP as a party against progress here.

Labour voters badly let down by the ethics, economics and ecology of Brown and Darling

The two individuals in the Labour Govt people need to have trust in more than anyone are PM and former Chancellor Gordon Brown and current Chancellor Alistair Darling. Great power over us is vested in them. However, to put it mildly they are letting us all down very badly. Labour voters in very large numbers feel particularly let down and many are transferring their vote to the Greens, a natural home for the progressive centre/left (see here). I sense significant denial, the unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings, in Mr Brown and Mr Darlings ethics, economics and ecology (along with many other MPs and political parties in fact).

Alistair Darling's ethics have been seriously questioned. He is under fire for claiming expenses to cover accountancy advice. He has 'flipped' his Edinburgh/London properties four times in four years to great financial gain. The latest is that the far from right and honorable Mr Darling is to repay around £700 of wrongly claimed expenses, despite denying he had claimed for two properties at the same time!! This man is supposed to be in politics for social justice reasons for goodness sake!

Its not just Alistair Darling's ethical credentials that are under question. His economic and environmental credentials are under fire too. He has, along with Gordon Brown, presided over virtually unprecedented economic chaos and failed to put in place what is needed to give people secure, stable and sustainable livelihoods. Increasing numbers of voters, progressive [now former] Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters in particular, are looking to plans such as the Green New Deal as the best option (one million jobs for starters, and kick-starting a green industrial revolution involving: wind-turbine and solar panel manufacture; more trains, trams and buses; jobs-rich sustainable waste management systems; a revolution in UK agricultural output...).

The Aviation White Paper which laid the foundation for massive air travel and airport expansion, is apparently one of Alistair Darling's key 'achievements' during his period, before becoming Chancellor, as Minister for Transport. His work, that of Gordon Brown, and work done under their direction assumed: an optimistic outlook for the UK and the global economy; an ongoing rosy picture for the aviation industry; stable and fairly low oil prices...the exact reverse has happened! Neither Darling or Brown have environmental credentials to speak of, not least because the exploration of and planning for aviation expansion on their watch took little or no account of carbon emissions targets and the socio-economic consequences of climate change.
There are many further examples of the work of Brown and Darling I could detail such as plans to build hundreds of miles of roads and expanding the number of coal-fired power stations whilst simultaneously saying that climate change is the most serious threat we face...

With such 'leadership' its no wonder that half the public feel that half our MPs are corrupt and very large numbers want a general election before the year is out (see survey details here).