Bullshit Corner

Despite the Lib Dems taking control of Bristol City Council back in June, and even a recent plea from Venue magazine ("no more bullshit PR"), the tide of civic bullshit remains unabated. Even Cllr Jon 'openness and transparency' Roger's City Development department continues to insult our intelligence with such egregious extravagance as this below, highlighted by an opinion piece by Roger Tavener on Bristol 24-7.

TRANSPORT SERVICE DIRECTOR
(£92,000 a year)

Give 500,000 people the freedom of the city

One of Europe’s most successful, green and vibrant cities, Bristol’s progress is being slowed by congestion, with the associated issues of road safety and air quality. By delivering a visionary transport system which addresses these challenges, you’ll release opportunities, and give ½ million people the freedom to enjoy their city in the ways they want.

This is one of the biggest jobs in city transport. Spearheading one of the largest improvement programmes outside London, your remit is simply to drive a step change in the Bristol Transport offer, and deliver the 21st century system our residents deserve. In doing so, you will change people’s perceptions, influence travel behaviour, and prove that sustainable city transport is truly attainable.

Those of us who daily struggle with getting around this city might well be cynical. There are fundamental problems with reconciling the many contradictory expectations that people have when it comes to transport. We value personal freedom, in particular free (in both senses) access to the highway network where we like, when we like and in whatever vehicle we like. But we castigate the inevitable consequences of that freedom - congestion, pollution, social exclusion, conflict between different road users, obstructive parking and expensive and inefficient public transport.



The inconvenient truth is that no politician, even Honest Jon, is going to be able to deliver real change because when it comes to the crunch the turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas (as demonstrated by the Manchester congestion charging referendum), however much some might insist it's the only way forward. So the politicians have to resort to sleight of hand, making extravagant gestures to foster the expectation of some future transport fantasy (above) so that we don't notice that nothing much has really changed. Even the bullshit above refers to changing "people’s perceptions" rather than the reality.

Later edit - here's the result of an automated bullshit detector test, highlighted words being from list that Local Government Association says should not be used. (thanks to Woodsy for that).

The Ashley Dilemma

I'm not usually that bothered about who gets elected in local elections. Whatever the outcome the same tired old officers run the council with elected members being little more than rubber stamps who get rewarded once a year by being given a few percent of the budget to squabble over and play pork barrel politics. Of course I'd like to see environmental issues being given more weight and so am inclined towards supporting Green candidates, although politically they are too far to the left for my tastes.



However in today's election I am genuinely hopeful that Jon Rogers (above right), the Lib-Dem candidate for Ashley ward, will win through. That is not because he is a Lib-Dem but because he is Jon Rogers. I'm not easily impressed by local politicians but I believe he has genuinely tried to act as a bridge between the concerns of local people and the machinations of local government, making good use of the medium that matters most these days - the Internet. That is surely what councillors are there for, yet few perform that role as energetically and effectively as Jon Rogers.

He is also concerned about environmental matters and takes a particular interest in transport related issues including of course impacts on walking and cycling. He has taken over leadership of the Cycling City project and those involved seem to think he is doing the right thing there in getting some revision of the unrealistic plans adopted by Labour. As noted elsewhere he played a prominent role in defeating the West of England Partnership's plans to turn the Railway Path into a bus route.



It so happens that Ashley is also the ward most likely to be won by the Greens, whose candidate is Daniella Radice (above). I've nothing to say against her but a victory for her would mean Jon Rogers losing, which in my view would be a very sad thing. Jon has proved himself to be an extremely effective councillor and Executive Member whereas Daniella is as yet an unknown quantity. I know that many others take a similar view. We'd like to see more Green councillors but not at the expense of the most effective 'environmentalist' on the council.

Were I an Ashley voter I think I would split my vote - Jon Rogers for local councillor and the Greens for Europe. If you are an Ashley voter please think twice before giving Jon the boot. It really would be a great loss to Bristol.

Railway Path & BRT - Putting the Record Straight.

With electioneering in full swing and some marginal wards along the Railway Path corridor to be fought for, it's not surprising that Political Parties are playing up their involvement in stalling the plan to run Bus Rapid Transit down the Railway Path. The Greens are certainly entitled to do so, as are the Liberal Democrats who eventually came out against BRT on the Path despite their involvement in earlier stages of the plan's development.



But Labour have been trying to paint themselves as saviours of the Railway Path too, which might raise a few eyebrows amongst the hundreds involved in last year's hard fought campaign to persuade the Labour administration of Bristol City Council to drop the BRT plans. Mark Bradshaw, the Executive Member for transport from May 2007 until February 2009 has been prominent in making such claims and I've had a few run-ins with him on Twitter (see also my Tweets in the sidebar to the right).



But worst of all, as reported by the Bristol Blogger, was the leaflet distributed on behalf of Labour's candidate for Easton, Mohammed Arif. Apart from tastelessly using a picture of of a prominent local Green, Pete Taylor, who died recently, Labour were guilty of misrepresentation in that the petition being received by the Labour councillor in the picture was against the degradation of the Railway Path by the Chocolate Factory development and was nothing to do with the BRT plan.


Pete Taylor, supported by local campaigners including other Green Party activists, presents his Chocolate Factory petition to Labour Cllr Faruk Choudhury and Mohammed Arif (right) earlier this year.

So let's recap what happened over BRT and the Railway Path early last year.

From May 2007 Labour were running the council (with Tory support) and Mark Bradshaw was the Executive Member for transport and development. As such he also had a key role with the West of England Partnership. He 'inherited' a range of initiatives including the BRT plans to use the Railway Path.

Following widespread publicity from January 2008 onwards opposition to BRT on the Railway Path grew massively and the Green Party were early supporters of the campaign, although individual members of other parties were also prominent, for example Paul Smith, Labour's PPC for Bristol West.

Green Councillor Charlie Bolton submitted a motion to the April 1st 2008 Full Council meeting which was subsequently amended and supported by the Lib Dems to read (my emphasis) -

Council notes the strength of feeling expressed by citizens of Bristol against the proposed bus rapid transit route along the much loved Bristol-Bath railway path. Council further recognises that cycling is a more sustainable transport solution than the use of public transport, and that as well as a ‘commute route’ the railway path is a valuable resource for local people for walking, cycling and enjoying the countryside in the heart of the town.

As such, while recognising the vital importance of improving public transport in Bristol, council regards the use of the railway path for bus rapid transit as an inappropriate solution. Council demands that the railway path option is dropped and concentration is given to other routes.

Council calls on the Executive Member for Access and Transport to pass these views on to the West of England Partnership and to make clear to partners and government that this route is unacceptable.

Council further calls for extra investment in the path to enhance the experience of walkers and cyclists including measures to improve public safety and believes that this will enhance Bristol chances of becoming Britain’s first cycling city.

The strong wording - "inappropriate; council demands that option is dropped; unacceptable" is unequivocal and would have killed off the BRT on Path plan completely. However Labour, with Conservative support, defeated this motion by bringing in a 'wrecking amendment' which read as follows -

"Council notes the strength of feeling expressed by the citizens of Bristol against the possible shared use by rapid transit of the much loved Bristol-Bath cycle path."

"Council further recognises that walking and cycling are vital components of the strategy to encourage more sustainable and healthier travel behaviour in our city."

"While fully recognising the vital importance of improving public transport, Bristol City Council will oppose route proposals which undermine the current and future expansion of walking and cycling in Bristol, and, in particular, will oppose any threat to the current or future use of the Bristol to Bath cycle path."

"Council requires further information about the various route options, including those on roads and for these to be the subject of full public consultation."

"Council fully supports the Executive Member for Access & Environment in making these views known to the West of England Partnership."

There was a long debate on this on The Bristol Blogger but most commenters seemed to agree that the Labour motion consisted of weasel words which could be interpreted in whatever way suited the politicians and were basically meaningless, so keeping the threat from BRT to live another day.

Airport Expansion under the Spotlight

At last night's full Council meeting of Bristol City Council the following motion, tabled by Bristol's only Green Councillor Charlie Bolton, was debated.

This Council does not believe that expansion of Bristol International Airport is necessary for the economic success of Bristol, nor does it believe it is compatible with the target of 80% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008.....

As expected the motion was supported by the Lib-Dems but then defeated by a Labour 'wrecking amendment' which was voted through with Conservative support. A familiar pattern, mirroring the events of exactly one year ago when Charlie's motion to 'save the Railway Path' was supported by the Lib-Dems and then defeated by a Labour wrecking amendment supported by the Tories.

However these debates are by no means a waste of time. On each occasion the overall agenda moves forward a few more inches. The Green Party position gains credibility, the Lib-Dems move towards a greener agenda, the Labour Party are exposed as fundamentally anti-environmental (clumsy word that) and the Conservatives are shown to be largely bereft of environmental awareness despite Cameron's efforts.



Whether such inching forward will lead us to a sustainable model of social and economic organisation in time to avert the worst effects of Climate Change is doubtful, but change for the most part consists of such modest adjustments. We either support it, ignore it or oppose it. So let's give credit to those who have supported change in this case, to Charlie Bolton for tabling the motion and to the Lib-Dems for supporting it.

I was planning to continue this post with an exploration of the issues, but they are too complex to be touched on lightly. Don't underestimate the difficulty of this issue for politicians, especially those appealing for support from a broader constituency than the Green Party. Few of us have not taken advantage of the opportunities for cheap and fast travel afforded by Bristol Airport and many of us regard it as our gateway to the wider world. The contradictions with sustainability cannot any longer be brushed aside.

Lib-Dems bounced into power?

This evening's budget debate at Bristol City Council has upset the apple cart. The Lib-Dems have secured Conservative support for their budget amendments, defeating the budget of the minority Labour Cabinet. A particularly critical element of the Labour budget concerned the proposed incinerator favoured by Labour but fiercely opposed by the Lib-Dems. The successful Lib-Dem amendment said

No Incinerator: suspend any spending on phase 3 of waste procurement, with the aim of reaching consensus on phase 3 across all four authorities (£389,000)

The Labour Cabinet have decided that they cannot continue administering what has effectively become the Lib-Dem Budget and have resigned. the ball is now in the court of the Lib-Dems who, as the largest group, will be expected to form a new Cabinet. This follows a series of recent decisions by the Lib-Dems not to take control despite the withdrawal last year of Conservative support for the Labour Cabinet and even a motion of no-confidence in the Labour leader Helen Holland (below) tabled by the Tories earlier this month.



So it seems that the Lib-Dems may have been bounced into taking control of the council in the run-up to June's Council elections, something the Tories presumably wanted for political reasons (the Lib-Dems being their principal electoral rivals) and something the Lib-Dems didn't want, since the incumbent Party is bound to be associated with the many unpopular policies being pursued by the Council.

All is yet to be revealed, but did the Tories vote in support of the Lib-Dem amendments to achieve this outcome? Did the Lib-Dems know where it would lead? Were Labour in on it, indicating to the Tories that they would resign if the Lib-Dem amendment was successful? Will the Lib-Dems take control under their Leader Barbara Janke (below) or will they hold out for a coalition with another Party so as not to appear to be The incumbent Party in the run-up to June's elections? (see * below.)



Thanks to the diligence of James Barlow in following the web cast and breaking the news.

*The Bristol Blogger says that Barbara Janke's has been voted in as the new Leader. Later edit - this is confirmed by several sources. Post report here and BBC here.