With public sector strikes due to occur this week, the Labour party is in its normal state of turmoil and inaction. MP after MP have been hitting the airwaves this weekend but what have they been saying?
Not once have I heard any sort of condemnation of these strikes that will hit the people that they are so called supposed to be representing harder than anyone else, and why is this happening, simple really, they can't condemn this reckless action because the unions bankroll the party to the tune of 89% of their total income, and if the unions pull the plug the whole sorry lot would have to find a job and work for a living.
Then to pour more pressure on the hapless Milliband and his useless crew, we have seen this week a Freedom of Information request report regarding full time trade union officials working in the public sector.
There are a small army of teachers, nurses, and council workers that are paid to do a job, but in fact all they do is carry out full time union activities. In effect we have government paid officials being paid to agitate against the government, how crazy is that?
The FOI request shows that there are now at least 2,840 of these non-workers, who instead of being paid to teach or nurse, or regulate the paperclips, are funded to do trade union activity, on office time, in the office. Guido Fawkes the political blogger puts the suggested total bill to the taxpayer of £113m down as a conservative estimate. Several government departments did not respond to the FOI request, so it is inevitable that the actual figure is considerably higher
These individuals are using free office space, heat, light, IT etc etc that should be charged to the union at commercial rates which also bumps up the final bill considerably. In addition to this bill, we the taxpayer, are also paying for another individual to do the job that these full time union workers are failing to do because of their union activities, you really couldn't make it up.
If union members want people to work for them on their behalf, then they should fund them through their union subs, the taxpayer should have no part in it at all. In effect all that is happening is the taxpayer via the government are directly funding the Labour party, this has got to stop.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Skewered lIve on BBC Radio
If you want a good laugh, listen to one of the Liberal Democrats finest, Cllr Danny Unwin, Mayor of Wells, being interviewed live on BBC Somerset this morning about car park charges. The clip starts at 1:47:20 and lasts 4 minutes or so, I laughed so much I nearly choked on my meusli. I don't need to add anything. Here is the link.
Parking matters
As portfolio holder for Regulatory services at Mendip, one of my more challenging responsibilities is to oversee the car parking regime across the district.
Car park charges are like any other taxes and things like the bubonic plague and botulism, in other words, not universally popular. However as a council we have a duty to provide sufficient and well managed car parks that are properly maintained and controlled to ensure that the most valuable shopper’s and visitors spaces see a good turnover of clients, and that the long term parking for residents and workers are available and affordable.
In addition to the changes in the car park regime, the cabinet also voted to join the county wide Civil Parking Enforcement scheme last night. This means that as from the middle of next year, civil traffic wardens will be empowered to enforce on-street as well as off street parking. The police have told us that they will be withdrawing from on-street parking enforcement, they have other priorities, it will be for the county scheme to take over this task.
The actual on-street free parking areas will remain as before, however they will be routinely patrolled to ensure that they are not abused by long term parking blocking up valuable stop and shop spaces.
Perhaps the most interesting point of all occurred on BBC Radio Somerset this morning. I was interviewed at about 7:45am regarding the charges, the facts are as I've recounted them here, either car park charges go up, or cuts will have to be made elsewhere to cover the £117k increase in tax we have to pay. We have a stark choice, either the users of car parks pay, or we all pay through higher taxes or poorer services.
Now the Lib Dems are not well known for sound financial management, so when the afore mentioned Danny Unwin from Wells, who failed to attend the working party remember, was interviewed later on, he was speaking on "behalf of Mendip Liberal Democrats". When asked how he would cover the £117k increase in tax, he stumbled, blustered and didn't answer the question, when finally pushed for an answer he said that we should introduce charges for on-street parking to cover the shortfall!!
If charging for on-street parking that is currently free is not an increase in parking charges I'll eat my hat!!!
Car park charges are like any other taxes and things like the bubonic plague and botulism, in other words, not universally popular. However as a council we have a duty to provide sufficient and well managed car parks that are properly maintained and controlled to ensure that the most valuable shopper’s and visitors spaces see a good turnover of clients, and that the long term parking for residents and workers are available and affordable.
Car park charges across Mendip with the exception of Clarks village in Street, have not been increased generally for the last 3 and a half years, the Clarks village car parks were reviewed earlier this year, we have a contractual obligation to review charges when requested by our partners, these new changes do not impact on those changes that have already been introduced.
The RPI Index for inflation since the last across the board price increase in July 2008 was minus1.4% in 2009, 4.6% in 2010 and 5.6% in 2011, If we were to have increased parking charges in line with inflation since the last review, we would be looking at an increase of 8.8% now, instead of the 7.5% agreed last night, far from being an inflation busting increase as screamed by the headlines in the Journal last week, still why let the facts get in the way of a good headline eh! In fact why don’t we compare our car park charges with the Journal’s price rises? The journal has been increased in price three times in recent years by 5p every time, giving them an average increase of 9.5% each time, and they have the cheek to call us inflation busters!
The 7.5% is NOT rounded up to the nearest 10p, again as quoted in the press, it is rounded to the nearest 10p which means in effect that many of our cheaper short term stop and shop charges will not alter at all, all of our 50p and 60p rates remain unchanged, I hope the press will find some space to rectify their errors under a nice big headline in this week’s edition.
In addition to inflation, we have seen a 2.5% increase in the VAT rate introduced on January 1st, that we as a council have to pay on all our car park charges. This will cost the council £50k in the next financial year. We have also seen this year a hike in the Non Domestic Rates that are levied on our car parks. All businesses have seen similar increases, this is not something that we as a District Council have any control over and have to pay them exactly the same as everyone else. This increase in NDR will cost the council £67k in the next financial year. If we do not increase charges to meet these increases, we will have to cut spending elsewhere to balance the books. I know balancing the books is a concept that is pretty alien to the Liberal Democrats, but we as a Conservative group always start with that as a pre-requisite.
There is no point in denying that car parking revenue is a significant portion of the councils overall funding, currently car parks contribute some £2.48 million to the overall budget, which equates to around £1.3 Million nett of VAT when the costs have been taken out. These revised charges will increase the overall revenue by around £100k gross, however when you take the increase in VAT and NDR into consideration you will see that this increase does not even cover those items, leave alone the inflationary pressure. This also has to be considered against a backdrop of a 28% cut in government grant over 4 years, a 11% cut in the next financial year and a freeze in the council tax, there are very few areas where we will see any increase in revenue at all, and ever increasing calls on our budget.
I fully understand that there will be many who will have issues with the changes that we have made, however these proposals were agreed by a cross party working group of councillors. After the elections in May, we contacted the leader of the opposition to ask for nominees to the Car Park Working Party, for weeks we had no reply whatsoever, when they did respond the nominated people then cried off for various reasons causing meetings to be postponed, and when finally the group did meet, Councillor Cottle (Lib Dem) sent apologies and arranged for Councillor Brunsdon to attend as a substitute, but we heard nothing and no substitute from either Councillor Unwin (Lib Dem) representing Wells or Councillor Hooton (Lib Dem) from Frome, all of the Conservative nominees attended.
I received numerous communications from Frome complaining that their interests were not represented on the working group, I have told them who that person should have been, and to contact him directly with any complaints that they may have.
We received representations from Frome Chamber of Commerce, Vision for Frome and Councillor Godman also from Frome requesting among other things that the implementation date of the increase to be postponed until after Christmas. We listened to those proposals and as a result we decided to delay the implementation of the changes until February 1st 2012, after the New Year sales period has ended.
The free Christmas parking that we have given in other years is extended to 2pm every day for the two weeks up until the festive season, and we have extended the free parking for the whole of New Years day so that no-one will have to worry about driving with even the possibility of having excess alcohol still in their system if they leave their car in the town centre overnight.
On other matters, the group decided that our permit prices would rise at the same rate as the other charges, rounded to the nearest pound, but our very generous discount scheme that is heavily subsidised by the council would remain in place, meaning that our most regular users would still be able to park at very preferential rates.
We discussed whether or not to introduce charges for disabled parking. Most of our local districts do charge for disabled parking, and the group felt that we should carry out consultations as to whether we should follow suit. We will consult widely with disabled groups and carry out an impact assessment before any changes are finalised. In any event our ticket machines are not suitable to be used by disabled users in their current state, and the areas around the ticket machines will also require adaption. We will have to assess the cost of carrying out these changes alongside the consultation and impact assessment.
It has been acknowledged that many of our regular users, especially many town centre workers, use car parks as a matter of habit, rather than seeking to find the best available rates, as a result, we will be introducing signage in some of our short stay car parks, that are primarily designed for use by shoppers and visitors, that there is long stay parking available elsewhere in the town at a vastly reduced price. This we hope will have the impact of saving our town centre workers money, whilst at the same time making more valuable stop and shop spaces available.
There will be a minor change to the parking regime in Shepton Mallet’s Great Ostry car park. As a result of representations that we received from local traders and the comprehensive Urban Design study carried out by the Townscape Heritage Initiative, it has been decided to amend the existing small “free parking“ area where currently shoppers can get free parking for an hour, but can then buy a ticket to extend the stay beyond that period, to a regime where it will be free for one hour, but with a maximum one hour stay. This will have the effect of providing a greater turnover of spaces for the most valuable stop and shop users, without these spaces being blocked up by paying clients over an extended period.
Vision for Frome have asked us to take a “leap of faith” and are saying that if we reduce parking charges we will encourage more visitors and therefore increase income overall. It is an interesting concept, but I am not a man of faith and take decisions on logic, however, if Vision for Frome with the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps the Town Council want to produce a plan that underwrites any losses we suffer, then I'm sure we will give it careful consideration.In addition to the changes in the car park regime, the cabinet also voted to join the county wide Civil Parking Enforcement scheme last night. This means that as from the middle of next year, civil traffic wardens will be empowered to enforce on-street as well as off street parking. The police have told us that they will be withdrawing from on-street parking enforcement, they have other priorities, it will be for the county scheme to take over this task.
The actual on-street free parking areas will remain as before, however they will be routinely patrolled to ensure that they are not abused by long term parking blocking up valuable stop and shop spaces.
Perhaps the most interesting point of all occurred on BBC Radio Somerset this morning. I was interviewed at about 7:45am regarding the charges, the facts are as I've recounted them here, either car park charges go up, or cuts will have to be made elsewhere to cover the £117k increase in tax we have to pay. We have a stark choice, either the users of car parks pay, or we all pay through higher taxes or poorer services.
Now the Lib Dems are not well known for sound financial management, so when the afore mentioned Danny Unwin from Wells, who failed to attend the working party remember, was interviewed later on, he was speaking on "behalf of Mendip Liberal Democrats". When asked how he would cover the £117k increase in tax, he stumbled, blustered and didn't answer the question, when finally pushed for an answer he said that we should introduce charges for on-street parking to cover the shortfall!!
If charging for on-street parking that is currently free is not an increase in parking charges I'll eat my hat!!!
Monday, 31 October 2011
The Nuclear Option
Today (Monday) should see the application for a new Nuclear Power station at Hinkley point submitted. If approved, Hinkley C will be built on the site where the old Hinkley A Magnox reactor and Hinkley B the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor, are currently located.
As part of my new "Community Safety" brief at Mendip, I was invited to attend one of the regular Hinkley Site Stakeholder meetings in Bridgwater last week. Although this is the first one that I have attended, they have been held regularly for many years, with representatives from all of the local councils, District Councils and County County present, along with activists from the various "anti-nuclear" groups such as Greenpeace and Stop Hinkley.
The meeting was very informative with much discussion about the excellent safety record of the plant, and what to expect over the coming weeks and months. Perhaps the most interesting contribution related to a review of site safety in the light of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami that devastated large areas of North Eastern Japan including the Fukishima Nuclear power plant.
Although there are similarities between Fukishima and Hinkley, I think the differences are perhaps the most important subject. Firstly Fukishima is a Pressurised Water Reactor, relying on water to cool the reactor core, Hinkley as a Gas cooled reactor uses Nitrogen to cool the reactor. The main cause of the problems in Japan were directly related to the fact that the site was swamped by the Tsunami, coming over a 7 metre high sea wall, killing the pumps that circulated the water by severing the connection with the grid.
Hinkley has 12 metre high sea defences, more than enough for even the most severe Tsunami that could reasonably be expected, it also has its own power station that can run its back up systems if the grid fails, and can produce its own Nitrogen to cool the reactors. EDF are also installing massive gas tanks that can flood the containment building with Nitrogen if all else fails, in other words, they are protected against pretty much any eventuality.
What is also interesting when you look back at the hype surrounding the "disaster" at Fukishima, is that the latest published figures show that there were only 2 fatalities at the power plant, one killed by a falling crane during the earthquake, and one worker who died of a heart attack, 2 other workers are still missing, presumably swept away by the Tsunami. There have been around 30 other minor injuries and exposures to radiation that have required hospital treatment, although none required lengthy stays. Although each death is a tragedy for the family concerned, you would have thought by the media coverage that thousands had been killed by the "meltdown", when in comparison tens of thousands were killed by the Tsunami that got significantly less coverage.
The anti-nuclear brigade often quote the thousands or millions that die every year as a result of radiation exposure, however the latest figures from the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) show that the Chernobyl disaster actually killed 57 people as a direct result of the explosion and fire, and in the 30+ years since, there has been an increase of just about 6000 in extra cases of thyroid cancer in the 5 million people living in the contaminated area around the plant, all other cancer rates are broadly similar to unaffected areas. Thyroid cancer is eminently treatable with a 90+% success rate, meaning that so far there have only been 15 deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure. That gives us a total of 72 deaths in 30 years as a result of the accident, again a tragedy for the relatives of each victim, but compare that if you will with the thousands that die every year in coal mines, or working on gas and oil rigs to provide the alternative sources of energy.
More people are killed in this country every year falling by off a ladder doing DIY, sometimes we need to get a sense of proportion.
As part of my new "Community Safety" brief at Mendip, I was invited to attend one of the regular Hinkley Site Stakeholder meetings in Bridgwater last week. Although this is the first one that I have attended, they have been held regularly for many years, with representatives from all of the local councils, District Councils and County County present, along with activists from the various "anti-nuclear" groups such as Greenpeace and Stop Hinkley.
The meeting was very informative with much discussion about the excellent safety record of the plant, and what to expect over the coming weeks and months. Perhaps the most interesting contribution related to a review of site safety in the light of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami that devastated large areas of North Eastern Japan including the Fukishima Nuclear power plant.
Although there are similarities between Fukishima and Hinkley, I think the differences are perhaps the most important subject. Firstly Fukishima is a Pressurised Water Reactor, relying on water to cool the reactor core, Hinkley as a Gas cooled reactor uses Nitrogen to cool the reactor. The main cause of the problems in Japan were directly related to the fact that the site was swamped by the Tsunami, coming over a 7 metre high sea wall, killing the pumps that circulated the water by severing the connection with the grid.
Hinkley has 12 metre high sea defences, more than enough for even the most severe Tsunami that could reasonably be expected, it also has its own power station that can run its back up systems if the grid fails, and can produce its own Nitrogen to cool the reactors. EDF are also installing massive gas tanks that can flood the containment building with Nitrogen if all else fails, in other words, they are protected against pretty much any eventuality.
What is also interesting when you look back at the hype surrounding the "disaster" at Fukishima, is that the latest published figures show that there were only 2 fatalities at the power plant, one killed by a falling crane during the earthquake, and one worker who died of a heart attack, 2 other workers are still missing, presumably swept away by the Tsunami. There have been around 30 other minor injuries and exposures to radiation that have required hospital treatment, although none required lengthy stays. Although each death is a tragedy for the family concerned, you would have thought by the media coverage that thousands had been killed by the "meltdown", when in comparison tens of thousands were killed by the Tsunami that got significantly less coverage.
The anti-nuclear brigade often quote the thousands or millions that die every year as a result of radiation exposure, however the latest figures from the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) show that the Chernobyl disaster actually killed 57 people as a direct result of the explosion and fire, and in the 30+ years since, there has been an increase of just about 6000 in extra cases of thyroid cancer in the 5 million people living in the contaminated area around the plant, all other cancer rates are broadly similar to unaffected areas. Thyroid cancer is eminently treatable with a 90+% success rate, meaning that so far there have only been 15 deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure. That gives us a total of 72 deaths in 30 years as a result of the accident, again a tragedy for the relatives of each victim, but compare that if you will with the thousands that die every year in coal mines, or working on gas and oil rigs to provide the alternative sources of energy.
More people are killed in this country every year falling by off a ladder doing DIY, sometimes we need to get a sense of proportion.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Opportunity Missed
After the May elections this year, and the dust settled allowing the new batch of councillors to settle in to their new roles, Stuart Brown, CEO of Mendip District Council offered each and every member the opportunity of a "walk about" around the ward, to look at issues first hand and to discuss with the newly elected councillors their vision for the future.
During my walkabout with Mr Brown, I took him around our town centre and highlighted some of the problems we face, and discussed a number of potential ways that we could look at to move the town forward, these we are still working on, however at the same time I spoke at length about the poor relationship between Shepton Mallet Town Council and Mendip District Council and discussed some methods that could be employed to improve matters. Mr Brown agreed during those discussions to attend a Town Council meeting at the earliest opportunity, which after finding a suitable date occurred this week on Tuesday evening. In addition to Stuart Brown, Harvey Siggs, leader of Mendip Council and Cabinet member at County, three elected District Councillors, plus myself as District and County Councillor for the town, the Town Council had direct access to the most important decision makers in the District.
So did the council make the best use of this huge opportunity? In my view absolutely not. Yes there were a few discussions about joint working on various projects and discussions on how the District Council can help to make some of the Town Council's aspirations a reality, but the huge disappointment was there was absolutely no discussion about the future of the town, the Local Development framework and the Local Plan, the most important subjects for the future of the town were barely mentioned. Several members were merely interested in trying to score points on pretty trivial matters, that could be dealt with by officers at a much lower level, but there was very little that warranted the intervention or the influence of the Chief Executive or the Leader or the Council.
I can but hope that this is the start of improved relations between the two local authorities, I know that Mendip wishes a more harmonious existence, there are a great many challenges ahead, the the development of our town foremost among those challenges, I just hope that some of the members of the Town Council grow up, start acting like adults, and put in the work that is required to make Shepton's future secure. I have to say I didn't see much evidence of that on Tuesday evening.
During my walkabout with Mr Brown, I took him around our town centre and highlighted some of the problems we face, and discussed a number of potential ways that we could look at to move the town forward, these we are still working on, however at the same time I spoke at length about the poor relationship between Shepton Mallet Town Council and Mendip District Council and discussed some methods that could be employed to improve matters. Mr Brown agreed during those discussions to attend a Town Council meeting at the earliest opportunity, which after finding a suitable date occurred this week on Tuesday evening. In addition to Stuart Brown, Harvey Siggs, leader of Mendip Council and Cabinet member at County, three elected District Councillors, plus myself as District and County Councillor for the town, the Town Council had direct access to the most important decision makers in the District.
So did the council make the best use of this huge opportunity? In my view absolutely not. Yes there were a few discussions about joint working on various projects and discussions on how the District Council can help to make some of the Town Council's aspirations a reality, but the huge disappointment was there was absolutely no discussion about the future of the town, the Local Development framework and the Local Plan, the most important subjects for the future of the town were barely mentioned. Several members were merely interested in trying to score points on pretty trivial matters, that could be dealt with by officers at a much lower level, but there was very little that warranted the intervention or the influence of the Chief Executive or the Leader or the Council.
I can but hope that this is the start of improved relations between the two local authorities, I know that Mendip wishes a more harmonious existence, there are a great many challenges ahead, the the development of our town foremost among those challenges, I just hope that some of the members of the Town Council grow up, start acting like adults, and put in the work that is required to make Shepton's future secure. I have to say I didn't see much evidence of that on Tuesday evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)