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

Conference coverage

Some local press coverage of the Green Party Conference taking place in Bristol this weekend, here and here in The Post. Also coverage here on Bristol 24-7 and a variety of BBC stories listed here (including new leader Natalie Bennett's conference speech on iPlayer). Interesting video clips here on You Tube. There's substance to Green Mayoral candidate Daniella Radice's newly launched manifesto, which is more than can be said for some other mayoral candidates and indeed more than can be said for some online commenters http://tinyurl.com/8csopk4.  Green principles and policies and Daniella Radice's manifesto deserve genuine and widespread debate. People need to get past traditional allegiances, preconceived ideas and prejudices and look at all the evidence that strongly supports green social, economic and environmental policies.

Daniella details

Go here for the latest details of Daniella Radice's campaign to become the Green Mayor of Bristol http://twitter.com/Green_Mayor. Daniella will get my first preference vote, not least because she has been the most forthcoming so far with her policies. My second preference vote is most likely to go to George Ferguson, though I will be monitoring the election closer to the time to see who is most likely to be in first and second place after the first round of counting.

Poll of polls

Take a look at this poll tracker from the BBC website, especially the poll of polls. Now tell me the chance Lib Dem candidate Jon Rogers has of becoming the first elected Mayor of Bristol this November. Not looking good for them/him is it, struggling at around 10% nationally. Some people take a bit of convincing of the fact of Lib Dem present unpopularity (see this mini online debate here following a letter I had published in The Post). I think the Mayoral election will come down to Labour's Marvin Rees vs independent George Ferguson (pictured).

Candidate questions

Some interesting questions for elected Mayor of Bristol candidates have been posted in online comments on this Post story. Here's a selection of the best, sorted out from the silly, sarcastic, and more loaded ones...with the name of the contributors first:

·        Fishandchips  - “How will mayor candidates help to guide people to become confident, improve psychological access and strive to be successful in business or in their chosen subjects?”

·         Fishandchips  - “We need a leader who can work with people at every level. My question is how can they demonstrate this quality

·         green_man - “Will you resign, resulting in an election, if a sufficient proportion or number of Bristol's voters petition you to do so?”

·         BCFCfinker - “Will you do what's best for Bristol and not what's best for you?”

·         Kromax - “What will you do to bring employment to Bristol?
How will you open up south Bristol to employment opportunities?

Will you bring trams to Bristol? Will you bring an Arena to Bristol?

Will you bring secure parking for motorcycles/cycles to Bristol i.e. at Temple Meads/ in the centre?

Will you turn off traffic lights out of peak times or alter timing where appropriate?

·         Marshwalker99 - “What experience do you have of managing a complex operation which spends around £1.3 billion pounds a year

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.

Liberal lacerations

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

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

 

Pedestrianise please!

One of Bristol's busiest roundabouts might be scrapped – to make way for pedestrians.
Highway experts and environmental groups have been discussing the idea of pedestrianising part of St James Barton roundabout as a long-term aim to calm traffic in the city centre (full story here).

Pedestrianise? Is that a good idea? After all its not as if people evolved for walking upright is it!

Dishonest Democrats?

Just had a Liberal Democrat leaflet through my door 'Local doctor stands for Mayor...'. Its once again completely empty of how the aims of job creation, fixing transport and safer streets will be delivered. Large and full colour, the leaflet concentrates largely on the general background of mayoral candidate Jon Rogers [pictured], with a bit about Pete Levy for Police Commissioner. It says 'It's time to put people first not politics' on the inside but fully engages in party politics on the back by saying 'It's between Dr Jon Rogers and the Labour Candidate...'. Clearly this is an inaccurate and not completely honest statement because: it make no mention at all of any independent candidates of which there are several; independent candidate George Ferguson is said to be second favourite to Labour to win; this election is the first of its kind and uses a different electoral system where voters can choose both first and second preferences and so cant be fairly compared to previous council elections in the way they have done; the Lib Dems are struggling to get into double figures in the polls at the moment now that they are in coalition with Tories in the Government. Do the Lib Dems think that voters wont notice their skewing of reality?

Appropriate aims?

Mayor candidate wants a conversation - The Labour Party's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees is leading a series of discussions...(more here).

Its all very well to seek ideas from 'business, experts and interested parties' but what are Marvin's own ideas for Bristol and those of the party he represents? Nothing in the Post report on this.

For myself I think the aim of making Bristol a 'world class city' is not appropriate because there are many ways in which the city could be made world class which dont improve peoples general wellbeing and security - in short put Bristol's people first Marvin!

Marvin Rees and Chuka Umunna et al who he has shared platforms with, are highly adept at speaking for a long time whilst saying little and committing to even less - like many politicians especially in the bigger parties.

Some conclude that Bristol needs an independent Mayor. This means backing George Ferguson, as he is the only independent - perhaps the only other candidate - with any chance of winning. George will get my second preference vote but stopping a 'Labour' win is going to be tough.

Pavements for pedestrians

Mayoral candidate Jon Rogers has called for Bristolians to name and shame anti-social cyclists...But Dr Rogers said he did not feel there was anything wrong with people cycling on pavements if they were not causing a danger to pedestrians...(story here).

Anyone who is really pro-cyclist should be saying cyclists should not ride on the pavements and amongst pedestrians.  Its what the highway code says and its what good sense says - cycling on the pavement carefully (Jon Rogers position) is in fact anti-social. In shared spaces cyclists should dismount and walk, pushing their bike. Cyclists doing the wrong thing gives cycling a bad name, when it needs a good name. Jon Rogers should be advocating a network of cycleways dedicated to cyclists alone - safe, effective, clean, healthy and away from cars, lorries and walkers. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

By the way, whatever you think on this issue is it not pretty illiberal of Liberal Jon Rogers to advocate 'naming and shaming' as his policy? Is consistency too much to ask for in a mayoral candidate?

Carbon killer

Air pollution causes the premature death of tens of thousands of people in the UK every year. Toxic carbon monoxide gas is one of the problem pollutants.

The way that even low levels of carbon monoxide can be fatal, by disrupting the heart's rhythm, has been unravelled by researchers in Leeds.

They found that levels common in heavy traffic could affect the way the heart resets itself after every beat.
...study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine...

Full story here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19093308

More on UK air pollution issues here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/28/uk-cities-ban-polluting-traffic and here http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news/air-quality-a-follow-up-report/

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.

Scepticism squashed?

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative = no change

Three top Tories have been shortlisted for the nomination to become the party candidate to fight in the mayoral election in November (story here). Selecting either Peter Abrahams or Geoff Gollop or Barbara Lewis as Conservative mayoral candidate would not be offering Bristol anything different. These are people who have been part of the council and local party political establishment for some time now. Bristolians clearly want change. The current council system was rejected by voting to have an Elected Mayor. Criticism of the council, low voter turnouts and general lack of enthusiasm has become the norm. With coalition govt unpopularity and failures on top of all this no Conservative stands much chance of becoming our first elected Mayor.

Road reason

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

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

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

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

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

Daniella debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green + Guidance

Congratulations to Daniella Radice, both on her selection as the Green Party candidate for Mayor of Bristol and for producing the most detailed and coherent statement of polices of any candidate to date and a promise of further detail in September. So, you get a Green plus guidance on what she will actually do if elected! Policies announced cover boosting the local economy, protecting and enhancing Bristol's environment, a fairer, more democratic city with power devolved to neighbourhoods, prioritising our health and wellbeing, and more...see Daniella's campaign website http://daniellaformayor.wordpress.com/. Also see local press coverage here and here and Bristol Greens website announcement here.

Speeding = stupid

Interesting how people try to defend speeding when news stories such as this one (Rise in deaths on Bristol's roads) appear - just look at some of the online comments. Of course we should want everyone - all child and adult pedestrians, all cyclists - to use good road sense but no-one should defend speeding or other irrresponsible forms of driving, not least because it contributes to one in every four deaths as a result road collisions (see RoSPA link below). Speeding is unacceptable, period - it is an avoidable cause of death and serious injury if people show some responsibility.

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 13% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death. This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/default.aspx

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.

Limited, limiting Liberals

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

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

Drugs discussion

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

Supplementary voting system for Bristol's Mayoral election

Bristol’s first Elected Mayor (and the city’s first Police Crime Commissioner) will be chosen this November using a voting system called the supplementary vote (though I suspect many Bristol voters are as yet unaware of this due to the very poor level and quality of information that’s been made available). This system means you have votes to cast for two candidates ie you can choose first and second preferences. At the count the electoral authorities start by totaling all the first preference votes. Any candidate achieving over 50% wins, though with many candidates standing – including all the political parties plus independents - this is unlikely to happen. If no-one gets 50% the authorities eliminate all but the top two candidates, and in a second round redistribute all the votes for everybody else by the second preference on the ballot paper.

This means you can vote for your absolute first preference without worrying about wasting your vote because you know they can’t win this time. You have your second preference vote to cast for whichever of the likely top two candidates you least object to being mayor or don’t mind them giving them a go. In Bristol the top two look like being independent candidate George Ferguson and the Labour Party’s Marvin Rees, at least for the present (you could vote for someone else as a second preference or not cast your second vote at all, but then would not affect the result at all).

Here’s the Electoral reform Society guide to the supplementary voting system: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/supplementary-vote/

Mayoral momentum

George Ferguson was "bowled over" by the response to his mayoral campaign when he held a jamboree in the city (story here). Interesting that George has generated these numbers (500 in the report) and this reported, at least, enthusiam. He's gained some momentum in his campaign and some advantage through declaring his candidacy early on and being the first to send out a leaflet. Despite his Liberal background and pretty obvious broadly liberal approach to politics he is benefitting and will benefit from not being a candidate representing a political party. He also has a decent national standing and can point to a list of achievements that will impress some voters. My question to George however is - where's the beef?...please openly state your principles and convictions in a good deal more detail than you already have. He appears to be pursuing a strategy of trying to win the Mayoral election mostly on the basis of finding out what people want and then saying that this is his policy rather than getting elected because he is openly stating policy convictions. For me he is clearly the main opposition to Labour's candidate Marvin Rees though.

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.

Mother suckers

This story, on some breast-feeding mums 'flash-mob' protest at a Bristol cafe recently has generated significant online debate - including some wildy sexist and discriminatory rubbish from some readers of The Post. Breast milk is cheap, organic and local food - and it is what is best for babies and their mums. Our society should be doing all it can to encourage more breastfeeding of babies - including countering the ignorant and immature comments posted by some on this story who focus their criticism on stereotypes of people rather than on the facts and arguments. If you've got a decent argument why would you resort to unfair tactics instead??

The key, function of breasts is to provide milk for babies (believe it or not!). For tens of thousands of years there was no udder alternative - and those available now are really no match the amazing stuff they provide. See here for more:

http://www.lactivist.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding_in_public

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast

Eco-Bristol?

Bristol will continue with its 'green' plans even though it suffered a Green Capital loss (see story here). One commenter on the story (YourLakeshore)  said "...it is great news that Bristol came 2nd in the whole of Europe - particularly as it had tough competition and Bristol has made it to the final twice. It also presents Bristol as being the green city of the UK..."

If Bristol is the green city of the UK why then is its ecological footprint only 17th best out of 60 in the country (see ranking and figures here)? Why is Bristol's ecological footprint set to rise with new road building, loss of green spaces, increase in population...? Doesn't there need to be a committment to cut this footprint significantly if Bristol is to be credible in its green claims? It is after all 2.9 times bigger than a sustainable level!

Also, its not really about being in competition with every other city in the 'whole of Europe' but only about competing against those who entered - and on criteria still a very long way from genuinely sustainable cities.

Bank on bankers?

To 'bank on' something means being able to expect or rely with confidence on it. Given that: bankers have lied to make them look more secure during the financial crisis and to make a profit (here); and have mis-sold specialist insurance to thousands of small businesses (here); on top of PPI insurance mis-selling, taking huge, fat, undeserved salaries and bonuses, and helping to take our economy and others to the brink...we clearly can't be confident that they operate within a decent ethical code. Our banking system's reputation, integrity and trustworthiness sinks even lower. Culture change is certainly needed if we are to build an economy capable of being sustainable (more here).

Diversity dividends

"There's been a few incidents involving Islamic centres springing up around the city and also more mosques..." says Mickey Bayliss, on the English Defence League (EDL) decision to march in protest in Bristol this summer (see story and comments/debate here). What on Earth makes an Islamic centre springing up, or a few more mosques, 'incidents' ?? Just how does this add up to 'extreme Islamist terrorism' and 'preaching hate and terror' and 'Islamification' which is what the EDL are - apparently - opposed to?? Mr Bayliss reveals his prejudice and what he is really about in his own words, even though in the story he is doing his best to be guarded and 'reasonable'.

One of the defenders of the EDL (torysarecool) posted this comment on the Post story - "The fact is, the EDL simply don't like foreigners changing England and it makes them resent their presence. Who can blame them for thinking that? As others have mentioned, it often feels like foreign people, who speak little of our language and with whom we share few similarities are actively changing our home..."

This country has thousands of years worth of being a place where people from many different countries and of many different ethnic origins have come. Stone age people migrating from the Iberian peninsula and south west France, Celts, Scandinavians, Anglo Saxons, Normans, people from all over the Roman Empire, people from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan...Our home is what it is because of this and our home has always been one that changes over time. Whats the problem??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Stockwood Pete: Disappearing Data: how to rewrite history

Revisiting the webcast of the original meeting, I was surprised to see that it's just been wiped from the public record. It seems to have gone the way of many (but by no means all) BCC meeting webcasts over a year old. So the act of dodgy decision making is now kept from public gaze. Only the bare Minutes of the meeting are there – and of course they tell next to nothing of the whole story...

...It's not just webcasts that disappear from the record. For the last year or so, the 'Public Forum' Statements submitted to council meetings have been disappearing into a black hole – or, at best, a 'Minute Book' somewhere in the recesses of the council house.

Stockwood Pete: Disappearing Data: how to rewrite history

BRT = Busting relative tranquility

More news from the public enquiry into bus rapid transit (full story here - and large extract below). Cycling expert Mike Ginger, the Civic Society and Sustrans former boss John Grimshaw are spot on with their comments.

Experts and representatives of cycling organisations have suggested that the buses would put off cyclists and many objectors have focussed on the harbourside as a key battleground.


In documents submitted to the enquiry, Mike Ginger, a former council Cycle Project team leader, said:

"The calm and uncluttered ambience of this unique and historic harbour setting will be shattered resulting in a qualitative reduction in traveller and visitor experience."

He also questioned the general effect on cycling that the new buses would cause.

He said: "It is reasonable to argue that some existing cycling and walking demand will be 'choked off' as conditions deteriorate.

"If cycling demand falls by say a quarter, this would represent a health benefit cost of £8 million euros [£6.5 million] over 30 years."

In a separate document produced by the Bristol Civic Society, objectors said:

"It is proposed that both dedicated BRT buses and regular buses run along the road that separates the new M Shed from the future Umberslade development on WappingWharf.

"We question the desirability of running large vehicles across the new southern entrance of the recently opened M shed."

Finally John Grimshaw, the former Sustrans boss who helped to found the Bristol to Bath cycle path, submitted his own suggestions.

He said: " The proposals cause severance and delay to existing routes, fail to enhance cycling or to provide a continuous route parallel to the BRT, and would, in my view, comprise a worse situation than walkers and cyclists experience at present.

"Overall the BRT provides almost no new benefits for cyclists, whilst at the same time causing considerable severance, delay and inconvenience to existing routes."

He added: "It cannot be desirable to promote an order, largely for the benefit of out-of-town travellers, at the expense of local people travelling by the most sustainable of methods - walking and cycling."

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.

Trains and planes

Improving the local rail network - great (see story here) Very consistent with cutting carbon emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, as outlined in the Climate Change Act. However, the Govt then faces in completely the opposite direction by supporting an expanding Bristol Airport - ten million passengers a year will increase not cut carbon emissions (as well as depriving our local and national economy of money and support for local businesses when people spend abroad instead of here).

BBC News - Rio: Worth the effort?

BBC News - Rio: Worth the effort?

Rio green summit dismissed as 'hoax that achieved nothing' - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

Rio green summit dismissed as 'hoax that achieved nothing' - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

George Monbiot – How “Sustainability” Became “Sustained Growth”

George Monbiot – How “Sustainability” Became “Sustained Growth”

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.

Marvin for Mayor??

LABOUR have picked Marvin Rees to be the party's candidate in the race to become Bristol's first elected mayor, (see story here). Almost no indication, again, of any vision or policy positions however. Marvin Rees suffers from the disadvantages of: representing a party that has already referred to using the Mayor as a political weapon; having no national standing; and not much of a profile in Bristol.

He does have the advantage of not being Peter Hammond, Helen Holland, Dan Norris or Kelvin Blake! Bristol Labour members thought so much of their current leader, former leader, a former MP and former councillor that they – rightly in my view - rejected them. I've seen Marvin Rees is a few debates and he comes across quite personably, but has no gravitas and has so far expressed little or nothing on what he’d actually do.

Sustainability summit sucks

UN talks on sustainable development are encountering disputes, delays and diplomatic wrangling, days before world leaders arrive to sign a new agreement.

The talks, in Rio de Janeiro, are aimed at putting the world economy on a more sustainable path, helping people out of poverty while protecting nature.

Yet developing countries have walked out over money, and the presence of Palestinians has brought complications.

Campaigners say there is little hope of momentous changes being agreed here...(full story)

Bendy buses

I'm an opponent of the current Bus Rapid Transit plans but as a keen advocate of communal, public transport I'd like to see investment in BOTH the Bristol bus and rail system (in addition to walking and cycling) and in combining all of these smoothly (see story and comments here).

Light rail is just about the most energy efficient form of motorised transport and it is likely to be more successful in getting car drivers to switch modes. However, it should not be a matter of rail vs bus, though I acknowledge that there is only so much money being made available.

FOSBR are right to oppose BRT, not least because of unsuitable routes and new roads,  but I'm not so sure about all their reasoning. The case I'd make against bendy buses is that they have potential problems with: insufficient effective motive power; slower speed and acceleration due to the extra weight; overheating leading to stalling, or even a fire if diesel fuelled; in crowded areas with narrow streets and tight turns the accident rate may exceed than conventional buses. Bendy buses are supposed to be highly fuel efficient but this must be dependent on the city and the system they are running on and so in practice I have doubts that they will be more efficient in operation than double deckers here in Bristol. Mind you some parts of FOSBRs rail alternative are non-starters - a tunnel under St Mary Redcliffe is both impractical and likely to be far too costly.

There is a problem with money availability if we are to invest in both buses and rail. Yet we need to invest several times what is available for BRT if we are to make a serious dent in Bristol’s traffic and traffic-related problems. It will be interesting to see how the Mayor elected in November approaches this. There is a problem with our congested roads because we need to make the existing bus system more effective and efficient and extensive, if we are genuinely trying to meet targets such as absolute traffic reduction and significant lowering of pollution - so are we willing to make a decent number of existing roads car and lorry free?? And would a Mayor be willing to bite this bullet?

More thoughts on sustainable transport here: