This weekend has seen more campaigning from both sides in the congestion charge debate. Yesterday I attended a debate on the subject, with Graham Stringer MP and Cllr Susan Williams (the Leader of Trafford Council) speaking on the “no” side against Roger Jones, the former Chair of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, and Ken Knott the Chairman of Ask Developments.

Obviously I have a view on the subject already, but it was clear from the arguments on both sides that nobody will be truly happy with a “yes” vote. Even the “yes” people acknowledged the clear injustices that it will create in terms of low paid workers having to find an extra £1,200 per year. In fact, the most compelling reason for introducing the charge is, according to the people voting “yes,” that it is the best offer we are going to get in Manchester.

Well I don’t think that we should lumber Manchester with a charge for that reason. We should be telling the government where to stick its blackmail, and to spend money on public transport ahead of expensive white elephants like ID cards. Roger Jones said that there is no way that Manchester can expect a £3bn gift, because other city regions wouldn’t get the same, and that would be unfair.

Well, frankly, until he was voted out of office this May, we in Manchester paid him to lobby for just that, so if he thinks it’s unfair then perhaps he is better out of that job. It’s no less unfair than the tens of billions earmarked for London alone. Nor is it any less unfair than the transport projects earmarked for specific cities in the past, like trams in Leeds and the Metrolink here. And it’s lots less unfair than teachers, nurses, and working mums on £6ph having to find £1,200 from somewhere to pay to go to work.

And besides, I don’t see that it has to be unfair. I don’t understand how people like Roger Jones, so admirably passionate about public transport, can sit by and watch the government offer such a paltry deal to Manchester, and not even offer that to anywhere else! Government claim to champion public transport and an end to congestion, but the facts don’t back that up. The government could afford to invest £3bn in transport for Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham AND Newcastle/Gateshead just by scrapping ID cards. But it won’t.

Instead, it is saying that unless we create the world’s largest congestion charge zone, it will deny us OUR money and let public transport continue to fail the public. We pay taxes to get the public services we want. We want public transport, so the government should give it to us. It’s as simple as that. Unconditionally. The money is there, it just needs allocating properly.

I have mentioned many reasons for voting no. Here’s another - voting “yes” will create the world’s largest congestion charging zone right here in Manchester. It will be 80 square miles. That’s ten times the original London size, seven times the current London size, and ten times what London will be again once the western extension is scrapped. It’s seven times the size of the Stockholm zone, and 40 times that of Rome and Singapore.

It will create a massive no-go area for the low-paid, and be an 80 square mile “no entry” sign for any new business thinking about coming to Manchester to invest. How will they attract staff when every job they advertised has a £1,200 additional tax on the salary?

I don’t want to live in a city breaking the wrong type of world records. That’s what we’ll be living in after a “yes” vote. A ludicrously large c-charge zone which is so incredibly over the top in size that it makes me wonder where they got the idea from! Does it really need to be FORTY times the size of the zone in Rome, a capital city famed for its traffic? Of course not. 

Another reason to vote no, and another indictment of these ill thought out plans.

Rick

Ballot papers will be arriving this week in the Greater Manchester wide referendum on the TIF Bid and Congestion Charging. Liberal Democrats in Prestwich and across Bury have been campaigning for a “no” vote in the referendum. All of us are part of the “Stop the Charge Coalition”. Find out more about how the charge will affect you, and download more information, leaflets and resources here.

My own ballot paper arrived today, and I have filled it in ready to be posted back. I voted “No.”

This is an entirely postal election, so you need to send your vote off to be received by the close of the poll on 11th December.

Rick

Another day, another good reason to vote “No” in the c-charge referendum. And today’s choice is… The silly way that they propose to collect it by monitoring our movements in a hugely expensive way that will leave us open to crime.

People familiar with the only other large scale congestion charging scheme in the country (London – where they have an extensive Tube, bus, train and boat network to make up for the charge) will know that vehicles are photographed using number-plate recognition cameras. If you drive into the charge zone, your number-plate gets recognised, and you have to pay the charge or get a fine.

There are three problems with this –

First, I don’t like the principle that people can track when and how often you go into the zone. Where I go is my business unless I’m committing a crime thanks, so keep out.

Also, number-plates aren’t hard to forge, and lots of criminals are doing just that. We all hear from time to time about people who’ve never been to London in their lives suddenly being sent demands for c-charge fines after someone’s cloned their plate. It happens frequently, and it’s because we rely too much on cameras and not enough on human beings.

Finally, the cameras cost an absolute fortune to install, monitor and repair. A very large chunk of every pound collected, in fact, is spent on servicing the cameras!

The people behind the Manchester charge have taken on board all of these concerns and… decided to introduce cameras all the same! So the people of Manchester will have the same intrusion, the same risk of number-plate cloning, and the same costs as London. In fact, about half of the money collected by the charge will be spent paying to collect it!

But this isn’t the worst part – because the cameras are in fact only the secondary method by which the charge will be collected. The main way will be by using a so called “tag and beacon” system. Everyone in the area will be asked to put a tag in their cars, and if they drive past a charge point, a beacon will pick up a signal and record the journey.

It’s even more intrusive than the cameras! And who will have to pay for the tags? That’s right, you and me. Who will pay if they break or are lost? Right again, you and me!

Tags and beacons are cheaper than cameras, but because not everyone driving into Manchester will be a regular, not everyone will have a tag and so the cameras are still needed! Not a single penny is saved using tags and beacon, and all we get is an additional cost!

It’s crazy, and it’s another reason why the proposed c-charge scheme is ill thought-out and bad for Manchester.

Use your vote to reject it.

Rick

People across Greater Manchester are taking part in a referendum on congestion charging, and will be receiving their ballot papers in the next day or two. My mother has just gleefully announced that her’s has arrived already. Mine is probably lost somewhere amidst the plethora of taxpayer-funded pro-charge literature being plastered across every flat surface in the north of England, but I am sure it will arrive soon enough.

There are plenty of reasons why I will be voting “no,” and I hope to be able to go through a few of them here in the coming days.

Today’s choice is… Because it’s another unfair stealth tax.

People driving from Whitefield into Manchester and back at the usual times for working people will be charged £5 a day to do so. That’s £1,200 per year, or the equivalent to a month’s take-home pay for an average earner in the region. That’s £5 on top of parking charges and petrol.

I have no vested interest in this financially - I do drive a car to work, but I won’t pass a congestion charge zone and so won’t pay a penny if this charge is introduced. But I do have a sense of social justice, and even though I won’t pay a thing but will benefit from improved public transport, I still think that the people of Manchester are being asked to pay far too much in return for far too little. It doesn’t matter if you earn £10,000pa or £1,000,000pa, it’s still a fiver a day.

It is simply not right that this additional tax is imposed. The cost of public transport is already sky high, and will not come down if the c-charge is agreed to. The price of a single Metrolink ticket into Manchester from Bury is three times the price of the maximum Oyster fare to travel across Zone 1 on the London Underground. The effects of the charge will be catastrophic for those on marginal incomes already paying through the nose to get about. Public transport run by profit making private companies is, sadly, often the least convenient and most expensive form of travel. Equalising that out by making cars more expensive is not the way to a better society. We should be making public transport cheaper by investing in it properly.

Road charging in principle is fine, but let it be a replacement to tax, not an additional tax. All the proposed charge will do is make it easier for the wealthy to drive to work, whilst turning trams and buses into mass cattle trucks for the poor. It isn’t what I want my Manchester to become.

The c-charge is meant to be part of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). But where’s the innovation in a single flat fee paid by all regardless of journey type of income or vehicle? It’s crazy, it’s about revenue raising, and it’s an unfair tax.

For this and the host of other reasons, use your vote to reject the charge. Vote No.

Rick  

There are some days when I am so busy with work and the rest of my life that I completely forget to think of anything to write on here.

Thankfully it is days like this that the Lib Dem website was made for, because I can reflect on what we’ve been doing nationally rather than what I’ve been doing locally. And today…

Too few men are working in childcare because of the stigma attached to men working with young children, Nick Clegg has said in a speech to the Daycare Trust.In a speech to the Daycare Trust about the vital importance of early years care, Nick Clegg will argue that the lack of men in the childcare workforce denies young children, especially those from single parent families, a mixture of role models.

Men make up just 2% of early years childcare staff and only 1% of childminders. Advocating recruitment drives aimed at men, Nick Clegg will speak about his own experience as a father. In his speech, Nick Clegg said:
“There is still a huge stigma attached to men wanting to work in childcare. Even just for men who want to take a more hands-on role in providing care for their own children.

“The Daycare Trust’s own research shows that one in four men would consider working in childcare. Sadly some worry that their motives would be viewed with suspicion.
“Of those who have done it, some say the only way they were accepted was by being seen as ‘honorary women’, rather than as men with perfectly legitimate and important contributions to make.

“Children need a mixture of role models. And for the one million lone parent families in this country, a male presence in the childcare environment can be hugely positive.”Rick 

It’s difficult to make an independent comment on the pre-budget report when everyone in the entire country seems to have already made one. It’s even more difficult when Vince Cable, the man whose views on the economy are derided and then quietly adopted by the government, is already on your side.

But on the plus side, I know what I think, and whilst it may not be hugely original, it is nonetheless this:

The Chancellor should have cut income tax to make the tax system permanently fairer today, rather than tinkering about with VAT as a headline-grabbing measure. Whilst those on low and middle incomes suffer, Mr Darling chose not to cut their taxes, but instead to make things easier for those with more spending power by cutting VAT. And who will pay for this bit of generosity? Those very same middle earners who will be hit with a National Insurance rise in a couple of years.

The Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable got it right when he said that the Government acknowledges that the UK tax system is inherently unfair, but then announces that it will hit those struggling to make ends meet with yet higher tax bills by increasing National Insurance. Everyone earning over £19,000 will be hit. That means that a huge number of people earning well below the average wage will have their taxes increased, to the tune of £5bn overall.

The Government has missed a golden opportunity to make the tax system permanently fairer which it could have done by cutting income taxes for those on low and middle incomes, paid for by getting rid of tax loopholes for the wealthy. The 45% rate for the top 1% of earners may seem a bit more redistributive, but is once again typical of a government who would rather tax more than make the system fairer by closing existing loopholes.

It’ll be nice to get a small discount on my Christmas presents, but at 2.5% off I doubt it’s going to make much of a difference to my spending. To put it into context, a typical £50 shopping bill would be reduced in price by just 53p by this rate cut, according to the accounting firm Deloittes. And besides, I am much more inclined to save now that I know there’s a tax hike on the way, which is absolutely not what the economy needs.

Once again I am sad that my government has missed the chance to reform the tax system in a positive way, and yet again tried to spin a solution when creating a problem. For a government infamous for its PR savviness and spin, I have never worked out why they always leak the good news and let us find out the bad news afterwards. They did it over the 10p tax rate, and they did it again today. We all knew about the VAT cut and the 45% rate, but none of us knew about the NI hike. Did they think we’d not notice? Well we did, and rather than feeling positive we’ve gone away feeling like we’ve been hit while we’re down.

Rick 

I was the victim of a drive-by earlier.

Not the type of machine-gun rattling, bullets-flying, flesh-spraying drive-by that you might find on the streets of South Central LA, but instead a much more genteel and Prestwich-esque drive-by which involved a taxi driver spotting me, winding down his window, shouting at me and then driving away waving.

I wouldn’t have minded going down in a hail of bullets at that moment actually, because it would have spared me the enormously unpleasant task of continuing to leaflet in the freezing rain. And it would probably have got my picture in the papers, which is always nice. But I had to settle instead with continuing to go about my business whilst digesting the contents of a verbal battering instead.

The gentleman concerned said “That bus is still driving past my house. You haven’t done anything for me!” His outburst harks back to a number of conversations I’ve had with him over the past few months. He’s accosted me three or four times now in the area, concerning his house and its position on a small suburban bus route. The bus comes past once an hour, and rattles the various objets d’art on his mantle piece. This he does not like, and he told me as much a few months back, asking that I request the bus’s re-routing to the next street along.

I told him that I would pass on his concerns and ask the question to the company that runs the bus. I also told him that I didn’t rate his chances, but that I’d try all the same. This I did do, and informed him a couple of weeks later of the predictable answer. Understandably he was still unhappy, and so I offered some advice. He could write again himself, and get into a dialogue with the company, with my support, to try and get them to change his mind. Or he could see if his neighbours were equally unhappy, and get a campaign going. I’d be happy to help there too. Or he could move.

What he couldn’t do, is expect me to change the route of a bus simply because he asked me to. After all, the Council don’t run the bus, and I don’t run the Council. And besides, what about the dozens of passengers using the route, the people on his street who might like having a bus come down it, and the poor people on the next street whose peace he’d gladly shatter by lumbering them with his unwanted bus? I serve all these people as well as him.

Unfortunately, as today and a couple of other run-ins have demonstrated, I didn’t fully explain the limits of my powers, and I am still being blamed for the hourly earth-movement. In a way it is an honour that he thinks me so powerful. But the reality is sadly different. I can go changing bus routes about as readily as I can order the sun to start orbiting the Earth tomorrow morning.

I suppose it’s part of the lot of a local Councillor to take the blame for things that are completely beyond our control, just like it’s part of the game to take credit for things we’ve had little to do with as well. But I wish it wasn’t. I wish that everyone, both politician and citizen, recognised and respected both the opportunities that good politicians can make, and also the limits of their powers.

I love being a Councillor. I enjoy sorting out people’s problems and trying to make St Mary’s better. I like working with community groups, and helping people put their case to the powers that be. But there’s no way on Earth I can get this bus route changed for this man, unless his view is shared by lots of other local people, and the bus company is willing to listen. I’d be wrong to proceed against the will of the people, and I couldn’t proceed anyway without the will of the bus company. And yet for some reason I am genuinely expected to do just that, and my man has made it clear that there’s a vote down the pan if I don’t.

I try to be honest, to give him his options and tell him that if he honestly believes someone else can do better, then vote for them. But we aren’t helped by politicians of all parties who pretend that they can be the solution to every problem and the answer to every voter’s every wish.

I have no problem with positivity. In fact, I’d have it no other way. There is enormous potential for good politicians to make things much much better. I have no problem with Obama-style attitudes that say that politicians can change the world. They can. But not by themselves. They can’t magic away problems and make the bad come good alone, whilst the people shout their orders at them and expect results. Politicians represent, advocate and enable the people to do themselves what they couldn’t do themselves before.

If my man wants his bus route changed, then good luck to him. I’ll write a letter every time he does, and I’ll get a petition together for him, and I’ll work with his neighbours to find a better route if that’s what they want. But he has to want it too, and to put the effort in with me. I won’t be shouted at in the street and expected to sort out a problem just because one man is irritated by something that actually affects many more people than just himself, lots of whom don’t find it annoying in the least.

It’s like the economy. To put it simply, politicians can do some things, but some things we can’t. Gordon Brown can cut VAT tomorrow, but people are still going to feel a bit of a pinch, and nobody can expect government to help them out if they don’t make some modest cut-backs themselves. Nick Clegg the same. We Lib Dems can cut income tax by 4p for low and middle earners, but the economy is up the creek for a year or two and people will have to do what they can themselves as well.

I speak in the most general of terms, obviously, but I think on a very small level my man and his bus is a symptom of a widening belief that politicians alone are the answer to people’s problems. They aren’t. Occasionally they can be, and there are things politicians can and must do - serving the vulnerable by protecting those beyond helping themselves, and leading the nation by implementing helpful policies for all in difficult times. But, for the most part, we politicians should ease the path of people and communities to help themselves, rather than be the answer to everything.    

Sometimes we get it just right - the Dig For Victory campaign (see below) is just such a time. Residents were stuck, and they got us involved. We got them together, brought in the Council, advocated on their behalf, and got a result.

Other times, like today, I despair. Despair that I can do nothing, despair that we’re expected to do something so obviously unfair, and despair that the role of Councillor is so unclear to some of the people who elect us. It means we can only disappoint them, and that’s the biggest despair of all.

Rick

I was out leafleting earlier down St Ann’s Road, and it was marvellous to see the many “Dig For Victory” posters displayed in windows of the houses backing onto the Clough. I imagine it was just like Prestwich in the war, except without the rationing, the conscription, and the constant fear of death.

The “Dig For Victory” campaign, of course, is the name residents have given to their ongoing battle with the Council over gardens given over during the war for vegetable growing, and now belatedly reclaimed after 70 quiet and uneventful years.

A couple of months ago, someone at the Council woke froma decades-long slumber and remembered that these gardens were only loaned in the first place. The Council wrote to the residents giving them the option of giving up the gardens, or paying rent on them. Neither option struck the residents or me as fair, given that the wartime homeowners have long since moved on (and are probably no longer alive) and the current residents have enjoyed the gardens trouble free for generations.

And so a slightly more placid and certainly less dangerous new war was started, this time between us and the Council.

We haven’t won it yet, but it seems to have become something of a war of attrition, as for now the Council have back-tracked from the immediate demands for money that they were making a while back, and it’s all gone eerily quiet. I don’t think they were reckoning on the combined forces of three local Councillors and, more importantly, some startlingly determined residents. That, plus the helpful interest of various local and even national news outlets, made for quiet a climbdown from the original proposals.

The Council haven’t come back with a revised plan yet, but it was fantastic to see today that so many residents are clearly up for some good community togetherness, which with a small amount of help from us has, for the moment at least, scored them a victory. And even if the Dig for Victory campaign doesn’t win them the war in the end, it has at least brought people together and revitalised democracy on one quiet street in St Mary’s.

Rick

The people of Greater Manchester will be receiving their Congestion Charge referendum papers any day now. The referendum asks whether local people want £3bn invested in public transport, in return for the introduction of the charge. This £3bn will be made up, roughly speaking of a £1.5bn grant from the government, and a £1.5bn loan from the government which we will pay back using the charge.

Local Liberal Democrats have been leading the fight against the charge, and I will be voting “No.” Here are three reasons why:

1) The people of Greater Manchester deserve world class public transport WITHOUT another tax on local people already struggling to pay for fuel and food. The government should get its priorities right, and fund public transport properly to get rid of congestion and clean up the air. If it can find money for wars, ID cards and nuclear submarine replacements, it can find money for this.

2) The people of Greater Manchester deserve better than to be guinea pigs. No other city except London (with its substantial tube network, Oyster card system, buses, Crossrail, over-ground trains, boats and bikes) has a congestion charge zone of any notable size, so why should we? Manchester will become the least affordable place to travel to work in the country, and it will mean a £1,200 pay cut for everyone driving into town for work.

3) We should say “no” to government blackmail. Why should Manchester be bullied into accepting another tax when the government are withholding OUR money to pay for the transport we should already have? The government should be reminded that they work for us, not the other way round.

There are plenty of other reasons to vote “no,” and I’ll be writing about them between now and the end of the election period. But if you are voting between now and then, just remember - a “yes” vote will consign Manchester and everyone who lives here to another new tax which will probably never be repealed, and in all likelihood will expand in both cost and scope. Voting “no” will make government think again about how to give Manchester a public transport system it deserves without unfairly treating the hard-working citizens of our area.

Rick  

As part of the punishment for my many sins, I go and watch Manchester City, and last weekend they played Tottenham. Tottenham are a club supported by a large contingent of Jewish fans, and as a result there was some pretty outrageous anti-semitic abuse directed towards the away fans.

I won’t type what was said, but it was very offensive, and I was pleased to see that the fan nearest to me who was spewing out the nasty stuff was removed straight away.

I was sad though to see him back for the second half, and not frog marched to the nearest police station. So I wrote to the club, who have since been absolutely excellent both in their treatment of my complaint, and in keeping me informed. Unfortunately they report a disturbing lack of cooperation from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in dealing with this problem, and they share my frustration and upset about this.

Manchester City seemed angry that, for the fan near me, their steward had not taken stronger action. They wrote a letter back  to me which expressed in the strongest terms their intolerance towards racist abuse, and also their wish that I report both the location of the fan and the description of the steward so that they could take the necessary action against both. I wrote back to thank them, and now the club and I are involved in correspondence about the fate of some of the fans who were actually arrested. The letters don’t read well for anyone opposed to racist chanting.

Today’s letter arrived with a copy of another letter, sent by the club to the CPS regarding a 16 year old who shouted some abuse towards the Tottenham fans. He was arrested at the ground, taken to the police station, but released without charge, apparently after a decision taken by the CPS. This despite an agreement in place between the Police and CPS designed to stamp out hate crimes, which are, according to that agreement “any incident which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.” If screaming obscenities at people because they’re Jewish doesn’t fall under that description, I struggle to think what does.

I await the reply to the letter sent by Manchester City to the CPS, but like the club I am curious as to why this offender was let off, and why the CPS think it appropriate to take no action against him. The club themselves have banned him indefinitely, with a minimum three year ban applicable only if he apologises.

Football has run a very public campaign to stamp out racism in the past few years, and I cannot fault Manchester City for their efforts in trying to punish offenders and communicating with me on this issue. Unfortunately without a collaborative approach involving the Police, CPS and the clubs, we will not be able to stop people racially abusing others.

Rick

I have been at work today, drowning in a sea of meetings and really regretting not winning the lottery and emigrating some time ago. However, there are still a couple of things to report from around the ward.

First off, regular readers may remember a few weeks ago that I wrote about the poor family living in a damp flat at Sherbourne Court who have received scant help from Six Town Housing (the organisation that manages Bury’s council houses). Well today I hear that the problems are still ongoing, and have been hampered by some shocking customer service and a lack of care that borders on the negligent. The lady who lives there and is now about as pregnant as possible has been told to “wash away” the damp which infests her flat. This despite advice from her health visitor and just about every other sane human being around that this is not really an acceptable bit of advice when it comes to new born babies.

So I have contacted more or less everyone I know at the Council and Six Town to  try and sort it out for this family who should not be treated so shoddily. I have asked for real action to make the repairs necessary, and for a serious rethink of a customer care system which seems unable to prioritise the needy.

Also today I have seen the Bury Times, which has printed my letter about Job Evaluation / Equal Pay, and in particular the shameful silence from the Conservative leadership regarding the questions councillors and staff have asked about the process. I have been waiting months for some answers, as have the staff who must be going through a terrible time worrying about their future salaries. The Leader should answer questions. It is a shame for the Council, and an indictment of the Leader, that I have had to resort to embarrassing him in the press to try and get answers.

Rick

Great news for the ward today, with the confirmation that we have successfully sourced some enhanced litter enforcement patrols for the next couple of months.

Successive budget cuts over the last few years have meant that the chances of being caught and fined for dropping litter in Bury are now about the same as turning on the bathroom taps and striking oil. As a result, the centre of Prestwich is often indistinguishable from a Tracey Emin installation, with all kinds of litter tumbling around like the aftermath an explosion in a recycling factory.

The street sweeping staff have bucked up their act over recent months after a sustained campaign by the local Councillors. We now have a new and very conscientious street cleaner, and some better information for residents as well. I thank the Council for its work in improving. But there’s still nothing that actually acts as a deterrent to people who can’t distinguish between a pavement and a bin.

I have asked about the possibility that the range of enforcement operatives already strewn about the place like a money-grabbing army (parking enforcement people, smoking enforcement people, PCSOs etc etc and so on forever) be trained and empowered to give out litter fines as well. Apparently there is some reason why this can’t yet be the case, but it is the type of bureaucratic nonsense reason that make my brain shudder in my skull. So I am trying to get more action here, as it would make sense and save money to have one type of super-enforcer, rather than lots of different types.

Of course the whole fixed-penalty fine thing can be a bit dubious, in my view. I wish we didn’t have to have them, and I hope that when we get them they are sensible and reasonable, and punish real offenders whilst applying common sense. I am sure that the Council will ensure that this is the case. But I think that these enforcers are necessary to stop the casual and thoughtless dropping of litter. Hopefully we will see this campaign work and the litter bugs stop.

Rick

The Christmas Tree and festive lights in Prestwich Village Centre will be turned on 1 December, just before 6pm, by Paralympic Gold Medal Winner Zoe Robinson and the Mayor of Bury, Councillor Peter Ashworth.

The event will take place at the Longfield Centre between 4pm and 6pm. It will be hosted by DJ Dave K and there will be music from Besses of the Barn Brass Band, Kylie tribute act Natalie McGrath and Middleton Pop star Academy of Performing Arts.

There will also be hot food and refreshments on sale and a Children’s Fairground.

Father Christmas will also make a very special appearance and children will be able to receive a Christmas gift from him. Of all the Christmas lights switch on events in all the world, he has chosen our’s… Perhaps he is a fan of DJ Dave K.

For further information about the event please contact 07875 596713.

Rick

It’s interesting that when the BBC broadcasts inadvisable late night answer machine messages to actors who people like because they talked funny in 1975, the tabloid newspapers act as if they’ve been caught bolt-gunning kittens in the street.

It’s doubly interesting to note the complete lack of tabloid coverage of the excellent BBC Radio 5 Live Donal McIntyre programme last night about unnecessary workplace Criminal Records Bureau checks (check out the BBC IPlayer or look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7731237.stm).

This despite the fact that two people complained about Andrew Sachs before the Daily Mail caught onto it, and at least that number have complained about unnecessary CRB checks (me and Donal McIntyre).

This misplaced front page screechery is probably why tabloid journalists are trusted less than any other group of people in the country, including politicians, Radio 2 DJs, Donal McIntyre or the entire staff of the Criminal Records Bureau, according to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (http://www.public-standards.org.uk/Library/Survey_of_public.pdf)

The McIntyre programme exposed some of the worrying practices associated with CRB checks which, whilst absolutely valid and necessary for lots of jobs involving the vulnerable, are being used far wider than that.

CRB checks perform a necessary function, and although I’m sure we all wish that it wasn’t necessary to check up on people, there are times when it is. But I think that a lot of the CRB process is flawed, especially the enhanced declarations which can include police cautions and even “other information” which can be hear-say, rumour and unproven allegations which have come to the attention of the Police but which have never been anywhere near a court.

In simple terms, if I didn’t like the look of you, I could report my suspicions to the police, and if you ever wanted to work with children then there’s a chance my completely unfounded allegations could appear under the eyes of your prospective employer, if the police considered it proportionate and relevant.

As a member of the Licensing and Safety Panel at the Council, I see lots of CRB checks come back, because obviously we need to make sure that taxi drivers are fit and proper people to be driving folk around. And often the CRB forms are very useful, showing absolutely relevant convictions which mean we can make an informed decision.

But sometimes they come back with things on them that are virtually meaningless. Things like years old convictions for offences which have long since been spent. Things like cautions, a lot of which have been given to people who I honestly believe had no idea that they were getting themselves a criminal record without setting foot in a court when they agreed to accept one, and just wanted to go home. Things like, on occasion, simple rumour, put there before us and without any basis in proved fact whatsoever.

And now, as Mr McIntyre finds, more and more unnecessary checks are being undertaken, potentially barring people from employment that they are perfectly fit and proper for, and potentially highlighting to employers convictions that bear no relevance to the job.

There doesn’t seem much justice there. Where protection becomes disproportionate, we risk damaging applicants and their rehabilitation far more than we risk harming those they work with.

And I know that disproportionate checking can have an impact. Of course it can. On our Licensing Panel, sometimes convictions which just aren’t relevant are taken into account by some members, weighing against the applicant where really they shouldn’t even be mentioned. Luckily we have legal advice and sensible panel members. But in HR departments up and down the country there will be risk-averse, badly-advised or just plain unforgiving recruitment panels rejecting job applicants simply because of an over-zealous CRB.

I hope that last night’s programme starts more people thinking about this issue. I say again, my gripe is not with the CRB in principle. It does a valuable and necessary job, unfortunate though that job is. But guidelines should be tighter and better enforced. After all, even CRB checks won’t prevent abuses happening, because lots of crimes are committed by people without criminal records or any contact with the police before about anything. And we risk doing a disservice to rehabilitation, and an injustice to those who have rehabilitated, if we continue to punish people for irrelevant crimes committed years ago, or force people to disclose such crimes. And we risk losing out on that increasingly rare type of person who wants to work with the most vulnerable for all the right reasons.

Rick

The Annual Dinner on Friday was a success. A record attendance, and I haven’t gone down with food poisoning despite the fact that the chicken was so pink that I thought at first they had coated a blancmange in mushroom sauce. Although, it’s not yet been 48 hours, so the listeria microbes may be starting a disco dance of death in my stomach even as I type…

As expertly predicted, I didn’t win the raffle, despite buying three entire rows-worth of tickets to a competition with almost as many prizes as competitors. I am just one of those people born to never win in raffles. The polar opposite of several of the people present on Friday, who were clearly born to take the mick in raffles and waddle home weighed-down with half a dozen massive prizes. And strangely, my continuing lack of winning got worse ever after the good prizes had gone. Some of the lesser prizes were just the type of pointless tripe I could do with getting my hands on at this time of year, to give as Christmas presents to people I don’t really like. I was absolutely gutted not to win a set of decorative candles that was breathtakingly useless but which I knew would bring a yelp of satisfaction from someone I know who seems to delight in acquiring pointless rubbish. I will have to buy her something from the T K Maxx Clearance Centre instead. A disgusting ornament of some kind.

I met lots of our members for the first time, and caught up with a few I havn’t seen in a while. And much fun was had by all. And despite failing to win anything, I can say that I’ve had worse Friday nights. Usually involving girls I like who chat to me all evening before breaking my heart by getting off with my friend.

Our guest speaker was Greg Mulholland, one of our MPs from Leeds who shot into the headlines earlier this year by whispering that Bury South’s own Ivan Lewis MP is an “arsehole.” Unfortunately, Mr Mulholland did it where there were microphones present, and where people are paid to record verbatim every word that’s uttered. So he didn’t really get away with it. But still, it made for a topical after dinner speech, that’s for certain.

Other than Friday’s Lib Dem-a-thon, I have done a spot of leafleting this weekend, as the ominous pile of St Mary’s Focuses slowly drip-drip-drips its way towards the floor. It has been a largely uneventful trudge around damp streets tying unsuccessfully not to slip on leaves and hurt myself.

But this morning, whilst leafleting, I think I may have been responsible for a canine death. I delivered to one house, the doggy resident of which came hurtling towards the door at Usain Bolt-like speed, and hit it with an alarming thud before lunging for my arm as if it was coated in Pedigree Chum. I am fairly protective of my limbs, and don’t really want them ripped off by an alsation. But not to be deterred, I tried again. Cue another run up towards the door, followed by the second consecutive thud for this particularly dense dog.

At that point though, rather than the expected growls, there was just a whimper, followed by a crumpling sound and another, slightly less angry sounding, thud. And just a shadow lying fairly still through the glass. So there may well be a dog corpse there now. With a Focus on top of it.

Sorry about that.

Rick

Tonight is the third Bury Liberal Democrats Annual Dinner, at the Woodthorpe Hotel in Prestwich. The guest of honour will be Greg Mulholland, the MP for Leeds North West and our Shadow Health and Older People’s spokesman. It’s always great to have a visiting MP in our midst, and Mr Mulholland is no exception.

This promises to be the biggest annual dinner ever, as we have sold more tickets this time than ever before. It will be a great evening I’m sure, and fantastic to see so many local supporters and activists. After the dinner itself, whilst the obligatory profiteroles are still settling in my inadvisably stuffed stomach, there will also be the opportunity to indulge in some fun activities including things like the type of raffle that I never, ever win.

I know we’ve been trawling round for months looking for good prizes, and I also know that I am cursed to forever lose in raffles, so with me in the room you’ve got a better chance than normal of winning yourself.

As well as Greg Mulholland, both of Bury’s Lib Dem Parliamentary candidates and all of the local Lib Dem Council group will be there this evening. So if the veg is a bit luke-warm we may propose an amendment and just get nuts from the bar instead.

All good fun.

Rick

It’s the latest meeting of the Prestwich Local Area Partnership tonight, at Prestwich Arts College, beginning at 18.30.

We will be providing on update about the “Love Prestwich” Regeneration Plans including:
* Number of responses to date
* What people like about the plans
* What people do not like about the plans
* Highlighted concerns
* The next steps

As usual the meeting will be split into two parts. The formal meeting (including the above) from 18.30, with public question time on anything to do with the work of the partnership from 19.30.

Rick

With Greater Manchester’s transport referendum three weeks away, a new survey reveals one in three Bury households would pay the congestion charge regularly.

Details of the congestion charge element of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid were explained to 500 Bury residents. They were then asked whether their household expected to pay regularly, and 33% said yes.
The results directly challenge repeated advertising claims that nine out of ten people won’t pay the charge.

The survey was carried out for the Stop the Charge coalition of MPs, council leaders and 260 businesses by independent polling company Populus.

Bury Lib Dem Leader Councillor Tim Pickstone is a part of the Stop the Charge coalition ”This survey makes it absolutely clear one in three households will be hit by the congestion charge. It is common sense that many will pay twice, if more than one person drives at peak times. One in 10 Greater Manchester residents will also pay the full charge of £1,200 a year.

“Hard working families will have to find up to £1,200 a year, that’s 8% of average take home pay for people in Great Manchester. Even paying £3 to cross the outer ring will be £700 a year, equating to 5% of the average salary - this would require a huge pay rise just to break even. This will also clearly have a strong knock on effect for our whole economy, leaving a lot less money in people’s pockets.

“Liberal Democrats in Bury are steadfastly committed to improvements to public transport and to tackling environmental damage. But this charge of working families is simply not a fair way to achive what needs to be done. I urge everyone to vote no in the referendum.”

Rick

The issue of the future of local Post Offices was in the news again yesterday, and particularly the future of Post Office Card accounts.

Thousands of Bury residents could lose their card accounts and many more local Post Offices could close if Government plans to scrap the Post Office Card Account go ahead.

Lib Dems in parliament have proposed an Early Day Motion calling for the government to increase the amount of government services accessible through Post Offices, and to award the new contract for providing the Post Office Card Account to the Post Office itself, rather than change the situation and award it to another organisation.

The Card Account is used for paying pensions and benefits to over 4 million people, and is a big money-earner for Post Offices, as well as offering a unique service to card holders, many of whom do not have bank accounts, and value its ‘instant cash’ access to their pensions.

There are currently thousands of card account users across Bury. Many would not be eligible for a full bank account, or have mobility problems that made access difficult. The loss of the POCA service would cost local Post Offices dearly – equivalent to a 50% increase in their business rate.

Across the country it would lead to 3,000 more closures, on top of the closures that have already happened and that are proposed.

I firmly believe that we should be attempting to make more services available through the Post Office, such as car tax and TV licenses, to help keep remaining branches open and profitable to run.

The government has the chance to do their bit with the POCA, and to recognise the inherent value to communities of a Post Office service. We’ve lost half the Post Offices in Bury since 1997, with more closures proposed.

It’s why local Lib Dems have been fighting the closures. We could easily lose more if POCA is switched to another provider.

It is clear that some inside the government support our views – Lord Mandelson has written a letter urging the Government to do more to support the Post Office network by letting it provide government services and financial products, and the Government’s majority was slashed to just 38 in the vote at the end of a recent debate on this issue. But the continuing policy of running down the Post Office network continues, and shows just how out of step the government are on this issue.

Rick

Last night I was elected as the party’s general election candidate for the Bury North constituency, at a special meeting of local party members in Elton, which followed on from the AGM. The picture above was taken at the event, and you can see me with the new Chair of the local party, Nissa Finney, and fellow Lib Dems including Council group leader Cllr Tim Pickstone, and my ward colleague Cllr Donal O’Hanlon.

Obviously I am absolutely delighted to have been elected to stand for Parliament in my home town and for a party that I believe in. It really is an honour, and to have been given the backing of my friends and colleagues is touching.

This is an exciting time for the Lib Dems in Bury, as we look to build on our strongest ever showing in recent local elections by improving our performance across the Borough. I have been active in many local issues in recent years, such as Lib Dem campaigns to save local post offices and schools, and I hope that I can build on this and work in the community and on Bury Council for the people of Bury North, as well as continuing the good work I think we’re achieving locally here in St Mary’s.

I look forward to working hard on behalf of the people of Bury North on the issues that affect us all, and where the Lib Dems offer real and sensible alternatives, like the economy, crime, education and the NHS. I know that I will be part of a strong Lib Dem team in Bury North, and I am very excited about the next election when we can take the fight to Labour and the Conservatives. I’ve been a Bury boy my whole life, and I am excited by the chance of making a real difference to the town I grew up in.

As well as the Bury North election, last night saw elections to the local party Executive. I stood down from my position as party Secretary, but was elected as an Ordinary Member of the Executive. And we welcome a new party chair, Nissa Finney, who takes over for at least the next year and to whom I wish the best of luck.

Rick

Tonight is the Annual General Meeting of Bury Liberal Democrats, in the wonderfully named Sinatra Room at Elton Liberal club. All members are more than welcome to come along and elect the Executive that will take the local party forward for the next twelve months.

Tonight marks the end of my tenure as Party Secretary, as I hand over the room-booking and minute-taking reins to someone else. It does mean I get to avoid having to stifle giggles when trying to book the “Sinatra Room,” but it also means that I don’t get to doctor the minutes to suit my own purposes. So you win some, you lose some…

Also at the meeting tonight is the chance to elect a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bury North, one of the two parliamentary constituencies that make up Bury. All local members have the chance to vote on that as well, so it will be an evening of ballots.

Today marks the start of a busy week that involves Scrutiny on Wednesday and the Prestwich LAP on Thursday, before culminating in the Lib Dem Annual Dinner on Friday night. Once again I win some and lose some, because whilst that kind of meeting frequency makes me groan with horror as my evenings disappear into the ether, it does of course mean that I don’t have to scrabble around for stuff to write about on here. Hooray for that.

Rick

This morning I attended the Remembrance Sunday service at Prestwich Congregational Church, and then joined the parade to the war memorial.

At 11am we stood for two minutes of silence, and then I joined other local Councillors, representatives of the Police, Royal British Legion, community groups, and cadets in laying a wreath. Mine was from Cllr Donal O’Hanlon, Cllr Mary D’Albert and me on behalf of the people of St Mary’s Ward, to remember the incredible sacrifices that have been made, and continued to be made, by those seeking to defend our country.

There are two things about today that I genuinely believe. First, that this act of wreath-laying, silence and remembrance is probably the most important single event in the year for me as a Councillor. Not just the symbolism of representing the community in remembering the fallen, but also in the actual act of pausing briefly to think about hardships I can barely imagine.

But second, I really do think that it is apt that we stop to think of freedom and all it means, in this week when profound positive change has been so clearly promised in America, and the hope that that engendered has been so keenly felt around the whole world.And for me, the promise of a better future, fought for long ago and perhaps realised overseas on Tuesday night, was brought home last night.

My extremely pregnant friend, the first of the gang of us who’ve grown up together, is no longer so, and gave birth to little Florrie at around the time I was buying a Sam Cooke album from Zavvi in town yesterday tea time. 

In doing so, she managed to lose 7lb 13oz in one go, which no amount of restriction on the number of times I go to Greggs at lunchtime seems to accomplish for me!

And so from being a gaggle of half a dozen fresh-faced 18 years olds meeting on the first day at university many years ago, we now have the first member of the next generation with us. It’s spectacularly good news, and I think remarkably poignant that the journey our children make into the future begins in the very same week that we remember those who have fallen to give us this world of freedom and opportunity to live in, and in the very week when that world of freedom is renewed.

I don’t know what she’ll be when she grows up. But I do know that she could live to see the 22^nd century, to experience things we haven’t even dreamed of yet, and to travel a world full of promise and hope. She could work to make the world better in ways we don’t even know exist yet. She is what will keep us going.

She is 18 hours old. The sun has risen once in her life. I hope it carries on shining, and that’s why we need to keep laying wreaths, working together, and remembering why we’re all here.  She’s the future our old soldiers fought for.

Mother and baby are fine, apparently, which is remarkable given that one of them squeezed the other out of her just yesterday afternoon. The father rang me to let me know, and I was in the bath at the time, which makes at least two people he knows who have received a shock whilst naked in the past few hours. I can’t wait to meet her, and I hope all of our children grow up together in a world where they can achieve whatever their talents allow.

During prayers at the service today, we prayed for God to grant that for the sake of those whom we have named in our hearts, and for the sake of generations yet unborn, the nations of the world may live in abiding peace.

In this week when the nations of the earth have a new leader, and when I have said hello to the new generation for the very first time, let us all join in and pray for that abiding peace.

Rick

Question Time at Council is always interesting, as the Executive respond to the concerns of Councillors and residents alike. The Lib Dem group try to use this to the best of our ability, to raise issues important to local people. On Wednesday we asked five questions, but the fact that we got our questions in at all was as much to do with luck than judgement, after the Conservatives changed the rules of Council so that questioning their actions is limited.

Under the old rules, Councillors could ask as many questions as they liked, submitted in writing in advance. Unfortunately, sometimes this facility meant that one Councillor might ask half a dozen or more, but on the whole it worked well, and a good spread of topics, Councillors and wards were covered. Now though, the time is limited to just 30 minutes, and the questions have to be submitted further in advance. In effect this restricts the number of questions to just five or six, all of which are at least a week out of date.

A much better solution would have been to have stopped Councillors asking an impractical amount, but not imposed such a stringent time limit. Perhaps a maximum of two questions each, with an overall time limit of an hour? The new system is unfair to those who’s questions aren’t covered in the allotted time. Although these are all answered in writing, there is no chance for a public airing of the issue or for a supplementary question.

It was clear that there was a problem before, but the Tories have gone after the wrong solution in limiting time for questions. If the Conservatives are worried about the time taken on questions, their efforts should be directed at the Mayor and his assistants in Council, who should be much more rigorous in enforcing the rules as they happen during the meetings. Too often Councillors are allowed to abuse the system when they aren’t stopped from asking two or three supplementaries, or allowed to ramble on instead of asking a question when they should. A properly enforced question session would limit the time perfectly well, without restricting the questions themselves.

But worse still than the changes to Councillors’ question time have been the changes to public question time, and the time given to Councillors’ verbal questions without notice. Now, the public have to submit a question in writing a week in advance, with no supplementaries allowed. And the Councillors wanting to ask a verbal question without notice must do so in a 20 minute window, and only on topics discussed by the Executive since the last meeting. Thus, in effect, if the Executive wanted to avoid discussing a topic, they could just keep it off the Executive agenda and would always be allowed to duck questions on it. Thus on Wednesday, perfectly valid questions on the TIF bid (from me) and the Prestwich Regeneration Strategy (from Cllr Vic D’Albert) were not allowed because the Executive hadn’t recently discussed them. Anyone thinking rationally would agree that these topics are within the Executive’s remit, and their opinions on them should be public and questionable.

This approach is wrong, and the Conservatives should reverse their changes. I want a Council where the public can ask whatever question they like, without notice, and then follow it up with another. I also want a system which allows the Executive to be asked, without notice, about anything to do with the Executive, not just what had been discussed by them recently. The Leader shouldn’t need protecting from this, nor should he need Chief Executive hand-holding and pre-prepared, bland statements that can’t be challenged.

I appeal to the Conservatives to reverse these anti-democratic measures that they have introduced, and to open up Council to proper questioning from both the public and those whom they elect.

Rick

Wednesday night’s Council meeting was a success for the Lib Dems – two motions unanimously passed, and lot’s of questions asked of the Executive.

I asked about effects of the recent economic crisis on the assets of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. It was reassuring to note that the fund is robust and that the liabilities of Councils funding it have not grown as a result of recent market turmoil.

Fellow St Mary’s Councillor Mary D’Albert asked whether council vehicles will have to pay the congestion charge - the answer is they will - which presumably will have to be passed back onto us the people as higher council tax if the C-Charge referendum results in a yes.

My other ward colleague Donal O’Hanlon asked about the apparent bias in funding new projects away from the south of the Borough. It does seem odd that a lot of funding happens in the north, and less in the south of Bury, so rest assured it’s not going unmentioned!

Cllr Steve Wright asked about whether the council would consider a Borough-wide launch of the “authorised” pupil absence policy, and Cllr Vic D’Albert asked what had happened to the Council’s alley gating policy which is being repeatedly promised but never delivered. He told the Council about the problems around the ginnell going up to Danewsay near Polefield in Prestwich, and the number of incidents that have been reported to the police over recent years. Astonishingly the Council could only promise that a new policy would happen “sometime” in 2009. It’s not good enough and needs to happen very soon to stop crime and anti-social behaviour that is a blight on people’s lives and could so easily be stopped as has happened elsewhere.

The Lib Dems try to ask pertinent and probing questions of the Executive at each Council meeting, and always welcome ideas from residents. If you have an issue which you want to put to the Executive directly, you can do so in advance in writing. But we’d love to hear about it and to use it ourselves. So please get in touch.

Rick

Efforts by local Lib Dem Councillors to clean up graffiti in Prestwich came to a head at the meeting of Bury Council on Wednesday night, when Liberal Democrat Councillors presented the ruling Conservatives with a host of photographs of long-standing graffiti in Prestwich.

Liberal Democrat group Leader Cllr Tim Pickstone asked the Leader of the Council why so much graffiti remained on local walls and signs, four months after the Council promised to take action. Lib Dem Councillors alerted the Council to graffiti hotspots after a commitment to get them cleaned, and at last night’s meeting Councillors showed their dismay by holding up large photographs of the many areas still untouched by cleaners and blighted by graffiti.

Cllr Pickstone said “I am disappointed that no action has been taken to remove this graffiti even though we told the Council about it months ago. The Local Area Partnership has secured cleaning kits for local people, and we have worked successfully with the police to catch the offenders and have them clean u some of their mess, but we feel that the Council should be doing more to help us too. What was the point of us asking people to help by telling the Council of graffiti hot spots, when nothing was then done to clean them up?”

Cllr Pickstone continued: “Local people continue to suffer. The Council have not done as they said, and the problem remains. It seems that the only way to make the Tories take action is to actually show them the evidence of what local people have been complaining about, and embarrass them into taking the action they should have done months ago. I hope now they understand the concerns we all have, and take action quickly.”

Rick

Here is the speech I made last night to the Council, proposing the Lib Dem group’s motion on the Credit Crunch. You can read the motion itself by visiting http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/users/public/admin/kab14.pl?operation=SUBMIT&meet=48&cmte=COU&grpid=public&arc=71

“Thank you Mr Mayor.

Earlier this year I was lucky enough to be able to buy my first home.

Since then though, it’s fallen in value, and the identical house next door hasn’t sold despite being on the market all this time.

There is of course the very real possibility that I might be the reason people don’t want to live in the house net door, but for this evening’s sake, let’s assume it’s the credit crunch’s fault.

Because despite house prices across the country being 15% lower than a year ago, they still aren’t selling.

Across the Borough hundreds of new flats lie unsold or not even built, and those who’ve bought one watch its value sink like a stone in a pond.

The time taken to receive an offer on a house has gone up 50% in a year.

At the same time, the wider economy is entering a recession for the first time in two decades.

Banks faced with unrecoverable bad debts tighten their lending to each other.

This means less credit for house buyers and businesses.

And as businesses can’t borrow, so they can’t trade.

Less trade leads to less growth, businesses fail, and jobs go.

Unemployment is now worse than it’s been for a decade.

It affects every part of every community, and hurts the people on the margins the most.

Looming recession leads to market volatility.

We have seen stock markets lose a third of their value in three months.

Pension funds wither, and investments dwindle.

Petrol prices up more in six months than in the previous ten years, and back down again even more rapidly.

How can people and businesses plan for that?

Our gas bills, up 40% in a year.

We should all spare much more than a thought for the people on fixed incomes who just can’t afford them.

Mr Mayor, the official inflation figures might be 4 or 5%, but it’s no use the cost of DVD players coming down when nobody can afford to drive to the shops to buy them, or to plug them in when they get back home.

Nationally and internationally, much of the situation might be beyond our control, and much of it beyond our understanding.

That doesn’t mean we should do nothing, and in fact it is our duty to help the government out by doing all we can for the people of Bury affected by these global events.

Whether it be my next door neighbour trying desperately to sell his house before the bank take it off him, the men and women of Bury facing redundancy, or our young people struggling to get a mortgage.

Whether it be our pensioners-to-be seeing their retirement income levels dwindle before their eyes.

Or our pensioners now who choose between heating and eating.

We are lucky that Bury is, relatively speaking, affluent.

But our relative success can make failure all the more unbearable as it takes us by surprise.
We need to be prepared for problems, and think hard about how to deal with them.

More people will need our help, and we must take proactive action to give it to them in the same way that we provide excellent services to those in need already.

Unfortunately many of the staff likely to be called upon even more in these challenging times - The Benefits Assessors, Housing Benefits officers and Council Tax staff - have suffered the most from job evaluation.

I am confident that the low morale these staff are currently enduring will not impact on their willingness to help local people.

But the leadership’s continuing refusal to answer questions on the pay review whilst staff will have to do more in the future, demonstrates again how short-sighted and wrong the Tory policy on that subject remains.

The Leader and his Cabinet need to ensure that our staff are ready to provide information on the full range of options available to people and businesses struggling in the current financial climate, and to do more things for more people.

There are Citizens Advice Bureaux in Prestwich and Radcliffe, but not in Bury or anywhere north of here.

We must make sure that where voluntary and other support agencies are not available for communities, we step in to help.

For many people, sadly, we are their last chance, the last barrier between them and ruin.

They have paid their dues all this time, and when it’s time for us to repay them, we should do our best, be innovative, be flexible, and remember that we are the servants of the people, not the other way round.

We must be there for people who may never have used or needed us before, and we must work with our partners to ensure that where they can extend their reach, we can help them to do just that.

If ever there was a time for real partnership working, this is it, as more people will come to need the whole range of Team Bury services.

And if ever there was a day when the power of politicians to inspire hope in times of trouble was clear to the whole world, then today is that day.

There are simple things that we can do.

Our Voice already goes to every home in the Borough.

It should communicate to local people where they can turn to for help, what that help can do for them and how we as a Council can get them through this.

Too often I hear people complain that they pay their thousand pounds a year in Council Tax and only ever see their bin emptied.

I know they’re very wrong, but I’ve never found a one sentence way of correcting them.

Maybe we can get them through the Credit Crunch, and that’ll give me one.

We can also do bigger things.

Councils across the country and starting or extending their own credit unions, giving local people the chance to save and borrow from a trusted source without having to go to loan sharks or take on crippling debts.

We should explore the same thing.

This Council has debated before the government’s and the Council’s role in analysing Bury’s private and social housing stock and consider more effective ways of reflecting demand.

That there are empty homes in the Borough whilst families are losing theirs and others are waiting on a list somewhere is not right.

Government has belatedly come round to our way of thinking on this, and the Council should do all it can to take them up on their offer of help.

We also need to make it known to all our local businesses that we are there for them now as well.

We are the biggest business, with the biggest turnover and the biggest reserves, around here.

We should do what we can to ease the pressure on businesses living from one invoice to the next.

Where we can hurry along payments due to local businesses, we should, and it was good to read today that a week after receiving notice of our motion calling for it, the Council has announced that payment terms for local small businesses have come down from 30 days to 10.

This small step may prove vital in sustaining local employers, and the people they employ.

But Council’s response so far has not gone far enough.

60% of businesses in the country are struggling to pay their business rates.

In times of trouble we must be more than a collection agency – we should be a place where businesses come for help, not just to pay their bills.

We should give advice on business rate relief, and be flexible wherever we can where local firms are struggling.

And we also need to remember that the Council has in its gift enormous power to help businesses in indirect ways – the power to direct resources to clean the streets, fix the roads, and keep them safe.

All of these things attract shoppers and trade to the Borough, and where there’s the possibility to prioritise improvements we should do that to help the wider community become more attractive.

We are fortunate that, like other issues pertinent to the Council at the moment, we do not face these problems alone.

We aren’t the first to go through this issue, and there are lessons we can learn from our neighbours that could make the difference between Bury weathering this storm, and Bury suffering from its ill effects.

We should work with all of our partners in Bury, in AGMA, in the wider local government family, and lobbying central government, to do the best for this Borough in challenging times.

Mr Mayor, I was in school during the last recession, and I have never had to live with 15% interest rates and 3 million unemployed.

But many here did, many in our Borough did, and just because I didn’t feel its effects the last time doesn’t mean I don’t know the value of stopping it this time.

These issues sit outside much of what the Council normally has to deal with.

Business normally takes care of itself, that’s how it makes money for itself and for us.

And unless they need us, normally we should leave the general public well alone.

Now though it might be that everyone needs us.

We have the power, the resources and the partners to help our community come through this, and I urge Council to use everything we have to do that.

Mr Mayor I have pleasure in proposing this motion.”

Rick

Liberal Democrats in Bury last night called on Council to help Bury residents through the credit crunch, suggesting new measures for local families and businesses.

In a motion to the Council which was passed unanimously, the Lib Dems noted the rise in local unemployment, the fall in local house prices and the threat to the survival of well-run and established businesses induced by the credit crunch and the economic slow down. In response to rising fuel and food bills, the Lib Dems also called on the Council to do more for those on low and fixed incomes.

The Lib Dem motion called on the Council to boost help for local residents, in particular to work with the voluntary sector to boost the amount of help available to local people on debt and financial matters.

I proposed the motion, and you can read my speech above, but the thrust of it was a call on the Council to step in now to help local people. The Council should be working closer with agencies like the Citizens Advice Bureau. There are no branches in the town centre or the north of the Borough, and we called on the Council to fix that last night by helping the CAB with rents and by encouraging them to move here. We also urged the Council to continue working hard to improve and expand the services we already offer such as benefits advice, and providing more affordable housing.

The motion also called for more help for businesses. It called for a reduction in the time taken to pay invoices from small local businesses. I am glad that the Council have agreed to do this. But they need to do more. We need to give help with businesses struggling to pay their business rates, and invest more in improving the local environment to make it more attractive to shoppers and to boost trade.

The Council agreed to adopt all of the Lib Dem proposals which will also see enhanced partnership working across the area to allow Bury residents better options and more help during the current financial difficulties.

Rick

Tonight there is a meeting of full Council at Bury Town Hall from 7. I don’t think there’ll be crowds there to match Chicago last night, but you never know.

I actually think that, since I stayed up til 4am this morning watching America, the most entertaining part of the evening may be keeping your eye on me trying to stay focused after two hours sleep. But the agenda is actually full of important things that I will do my best to cope with, despite my thoughts lagging about ten seconds behind where they should be due to sleep deprivation. John McCain lived off no kip for two years, and he’s 72. I have no idea how he did it.

The Liberal Democrats are putting forward two motions tonight. The first, jointly with the Conservatives, relates to blind and partially sighted people and calls for more support for them. The second is a Lib Dem –only motion calling on the Council to do more to help Bury residents during the credit crunch.

As well as the motion-related hi-jinx, the meeting will of course allow for the usual questioning of the Leader, both from us Members and from the public (provided they submitted their questions long enough in advance to satisfy the Tory democracy-crushing machine).

You can read the write-up tomorrow, but if you want to experience it first-hand, the meeting is open to the public, so come on down and see democracy in action! It ain’t Barack Obama, but we try…

Rick

The most defining political moment of recent times will be written about for years to come, and by people with a better and wider grasp of its significance and ramifications than I will ever have. But there is a sheer, simple symbolism in waking up this morning to an America which has elected as its President a man so steeped in the politics of hope and optimism. And it is a joyous pleasure which anyone who wanted him to win can revel in.

Never in my lifetime, and rarely perhaps ever, has the promise of one man’s leadership stirred so many. This is what politics should be about – a rousing, positive enunciation of everything that we can achieve together if we try. It’s as if I’ve woken up in my own real-life version of The West Wing, the best political drama I’ve ever seen, and the inspiration for many an over-the-top Council speech I’ve written. That show was full to the brim with stirring oratory, gestures of hope and change, and the promise of what a true liberal giant might do for the world if he was planted in the Oval Office. The West Wing’s President Bartlet is everything I want in a President (probably because he exists in 50 minute chunks with neat endings, rather than for four solid years and all the mess the events in them can bring). He managed to solve Middle-East peace, fix social security at home and intervene internationally where required and nowhere else. And he did so whilst reconciling his deep religious faith to the pragmatism of modern society, whilst keeping a staff around him of good, honest people, and whilst buoyed down by a real consciousness of his responsibilities to the country and the world. Many’s the time I’ve wished he was the real President, and I know I’m not the only one.

These last few months of massive crowds and “Yes We Can” and hopes and dreams have painted a picture of what President Obama might be like that reminded me of The West Wing’s set pieces – the States of the Union painting a picture of a nation progressing, the Presidential flashes of inspiration to light up a dark time, and the whispered conversations between an honest President and his trusted advisors about how to weather a storm. A head of State who is respected and admired, not one disliked around the world and cast into the shadows even by his own party’s candidate.

I know it’s probably rubbish, and that this view of Obama is as fictional as The West Wing itself, but if what he has promised in his campaign summons up these feelings in me then I hope it does the same to others too, and inspires them to do good. And whilst this promise alone might be enough to convince me that the real President Obama might be as respected and loved as the fictional President Bartlet, the final season of the show portrayed a long, tortuous Presidential election campaign so similar to this real one in many ways that it almost obliterates the line between fact and fiction.

Like Obama’s campaign, The West Wing’s eventual victor in the battle to replace Bartlet, Congressman Matthew Santos, started the long road to the White House as the largely unknown, inexperienced underdog in a primary campaign against more seasoned (and certainly more nasty) opponents. Like Santos, President-elect Obama came through triumphant, winning unexpectedly by feeding the voters an unceasingly positive diet of radical change and youthful hope. And of course, Obama is African-American, whilst Santos is Latino.

Like his fictional counterpart, Barack Obama only emerged as his party’s clear nominee late in the day. Whilst The West Wing stretched the drama into day three of the Convention, real life was less scripted, but only a little, as Hilary Clinton hung doggedly in for almost as long. And, like Matt Santos, Obama went into the General Election campaign against an old, white, maverick Republican man with a record of service as unashamedly long as his opponent’s was worryingly brief.

The West Wing’s Republican, Arnold Vinick, made no Sarah Palin-style choice for running mate, but even here the thought of what might have been is worth considering. In one marvellous episode of the show, Vinick is presented with a choice of candidates – one from the centre of his party who is “the best choice,” and one from the right, who is “the best bet.” Vinick chooses the centrist, and fights Santos all the way to the end. Perhaps if John McCain hadn’t gone for the “best bet” himself in trying to energise his base rather than bring the country together, his might have been a more successful election day. Vinick was honourable to the end, whereas McCain looked desperate.

And even the tragic loss of Barack Obama’s grandmother has echoes of the fictional story. On election night in the world of West Wing, Leo McGarry, Vice-presidential nominee and svengali to Santos and his predecessor, passes away. The comparison to a real life loss may seem trivial, which of course I wouldn’t want it to be, but it wasn’t lost on me last night when Obama paused to think of his inspiration as Santos had done in the show.

We never got to see if President Santos lived up to the hope, the hype, the promise of his campaign. The West Wing ended on his inauguration day. President Obama won’t have that luxury, and now has to deliver on his promise of change. Again, the commentators paid to judge him will write of his achievements, and the people he serves will make the final call. I’m not a commentator, nor am I an American. But I am a citizen of the world, and he now leads the most powerful nation in it. He has promised change, and much of the world is joyous that he will have the chance to make it happen. There will be disappointments, of course there will, perhaps more at home than abroad. But I for one hope that my West Wing moments continue, and that the message and promise of hope becomes as fulfilled in reality as it was in fiction.

Rick

Apologies for no posts for the last few days. There has been a server upgrade which has meant that I couldn’t update the site. It rumbled on a bit, to the extent that I was unsure this morning whether the server was serving me, or the other way round… But I think it’s sorted now. Hurrah, and thanks to ALDC for the upgrade.

Rick

I am back from London.

I won’t rattle on about it. There was family involved. And a trip to Kew Gardens. And a couple of friends, and a new pair of curtains for the spare room, and tea last night at a place in Golders Green which saw me eat more than is strictly necessary in a week. If you’re anything like me, you won’t want to hear any more than that about my break. Suffice to say that nothing scandalous or salacious happened, the same number of people came back as went in the first place, and there are no juicy details with-held.

Unfortunately most of the people I know are under the couldn’t-be-more-false illusion that even though I deal with my own holidays in less than ten words, I still want to hear about every day trip, pool-side cocktail and attractive Turkish waiter that they encountered on their jollies. Tomorrow when I return to the office, the other half-term holidaymakers will drown me in photos, and smother me in stories of the HILARIOUS people they met and the AMAZING sun, setting behind the thirty-four storey concrete monolith hotel at the end of the plaza. I know I should rejoice in their enjoyment, but honestly, as long as nobody got hurt I would just like to rest unbothered in my assumption that the holiday was fine, relaxing, and definitely not worth recounting to me. 

Perhaps I can start a competition at work to see who can tell me about their holidays in the least number of syllables. I doubt it will take off, but I will try.

I have returned to the ward pleased in the knowledge that the local dynamite box (AKA the portakabin selling fireworks on Bury New Road) has been removed, and that the shop it was outside of is now selling the fireworks instead. Whilst this is a partial victory, it still doesn’t get to the heart of the issue, which is why on earth the Fire Service give out temporary licences to retailers who don’t do anything in Prestwich the rest of the year. It doesn’t sit comfortably with the message of responsible firework usage, does it? So I am trying to get some answers on that one.

This week sees a meeting of full Council (again) on Wednesday. There are a couple of motions up for debate that have been put forward by the Lib Dems. Firstly one calling on the government to help people who are blind or who have other sight problems. And also one on the credit crunch. More on both of these as the week progresses. The meeting will be a bit less controversial, I hope, as Job Evaluation is’t on the agenda, which means the Tories can go at least a couple of hours without plunging the staff into a raging furnace of despair.

Also whilst I’ve been away, the Ruskin Road gardens issue has meandered on. The local residents have formed an association called STAR (St Anns and Ruskin Road Residents, which is, I suppose, close enough, acronym wise…), and are continuing to fight the proposed rent-impositions / increases with gusto. Which is great. The Executive Member for Environmental Services, the wonderfully determined Cllr Dorothy Gunther, has once again offered to meet to take the issue forward. Unfortunately the Leader of the Council has still not come good on the promise he made to the papers to meet with us all about this, and so he got another reminder from me today on that one.

Right now I have to unpack and get ready for a joyous return to work tomorrow. Nothing beats waking up at 7am in the freezing dark and heading to the office. Except, perhaps, dying in my sleep.

Rick