Bury Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to boost affordable housing and avoid home repossession. 

The plans, launched by the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable MP and Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Teather MP, include: 

• providing refurbishment loans for owners of empty homes if the homes are leased to housing associations,

• boosting the amount of private housing for rent including using empty commercial property temporarily as housing,

• bringing in a new type of secure mortgage to help boost lending to house buyers,

• letting councils and housing associations buy up unsold private houses and allowing them access to funds to bring their homes up to social housing standards,

• making sure the courts allow repossession only as a last resort.

There are many people right across Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich who are struggling to get their own home or are facing repossession because of the recession. We must do all we can to help residents through these bad times. 

Many homes built just before the recession started lie empty, often because the banks are not lending to people wanting to buy, yet there are many people needing a place to live. We want to unblock the system and our plans will help to do that. 

Giving housing associations and councils the opportunity to buy up empty homes that builders cannot sell will mean hundreds of local families will be able to rent a place of their own.

Rick

This is the speech I made in support of the lIb Dem budget amendment on Wednesday night at the meeting of the Council. The amendment earmarked hundreds of thousands of pounds for extra road and pavement repairs, and for a crdie crunch relief fund. Depsite the support of the Lib Dems (obviously) and Labour, the Tories decided that Bury’s priorities are elsewhere, and voted against the amendment, preferring instead their own budget which saw a 4.79% Council Tax rise as well as significant cuts.

This was the speech…

“I’d like to start by adding my thanks to Mr Owen and the officers of the Council for their hard work in identifying potential savings options and then writing this budget.

They have done their jobs very well, and in a year when so many of our staff must have felt so incredibly under-valued and under-appreciated by some members of the Council, we should and I do appreciate their hard work

But for the members of the Council there can be little pride in what is proposed.

Cllr Redstone’s statement was delivered in a tone of triumph.

But all it announced was a massive council tax increase, some urinals and two apprentices, buried amidst the cuts.

I am ashamed that national policy and bad decisions locally mean that this is all we can offer Bury.

This budget cuts at the heart of vital services, does so without proper consultation, and will see damage done to the borough.

The unfair Council Tax has been raised above the rate of inflation, above last year’s rise, and above the amount even the Conservative party recommend at a national level.

I can only hope that this rise now, in a non-election year, isn’t a calculated fore-runner to ensure a much lower rise next year when votes are on the agenda.

To demand more tax from the people of Bury in the depths of a down turn when people are struggling to pay their bills, to build up reserves for a sweetener next year, would be politics of the lowest order.

Local people will see these tax rises, coupled with the service cuts proposed, and wonder ever louder where all their money is going.

This is another sad night for Bury.

It is the predictable result of combining an imprudent government with a Council Executive seemingly unaware of what matters to local people.

Mr Mayor this budget strikes against our priorities, ducks the tough decisions, and sets the borough back.

This borough’s priorities are clear. And yet this budget hacks away at them all.

I may be echoing Cllr Connelly here, but I think it bears repeating.

The borough wants to be cleaner, safer and greener, yet the Tories want to make permanent a cut in street cleaning gangs, cut tens of thousands of pounds from the parks budget, and collect blue bins less frequently.

The borough wants to promote healthier living, yet Cllr Redstone is happy to cut funding for PE advice in schools, make cuts to the Age of Opportunities budget, and tinker with Shopmobility.

Their priorities are not Bury’s priorities.

Bury’s priorities clearly state where we want to go. This budget clearly states the opposite.

We want to extend leisure opportunities, he wants to close swimming pools for longer.

We want to give children the best start in life, he wants to reduce the Education Welfare service.

He has not made the tough, priority-led decisions he claims.

He has put political expediency before necessary decisions.

This was never going to be anything more than a make do and mend budget.

We all know that, yet again, Labour in Westminster have given Bury a settlement that means that the only thing we get to do more of is make cuts.

Once again we fall further behind our neighbours, and once again we have to return to our wards shame-faced as service after service gets cut back yet again.

If the Bury Tories have neglected our priorities, then Labour’s same neglect is ten times worse.

Communities are crying out for better services. Labour respond by selling Post Offices to pay for ID cards.

But if it is Labour’s fault we’ve got less money, the Tories opposite cannot continue to heap the blame on them.

Cllr Redstone mentioned the word “Labour” 17 times in his speech. He mentioned Cllr Campbell’s name 7 times, and Gordon Brown’s name five times.

He only mentioned Cllr Bibby’s name once.

It’s time he changed the record because how we choose to spend our is down to the Tory members opposite.

And once again their methods do little to disguise their contempt for the values of Bury people and for the democratic processes that elected them.

An administration that valued the views of the public would not announce the savings arising from a review of the youth service before that review has even started.

And yet the Conservatives have done just that.

They claim to be about to enter the longest period of consultation ever.

But what is the point of that consultation when the outcome is already decided?

Mr Mayor, it’s little wonder that we’ve seen protests and petitions against it already.

If they had any bottle they’d just tell it to us straight. The Youth Service will be cut.

But they haven’t.

And they’ve done the same thing with street lights.

What could be a great idea, realised in partnership with the people, has been worked out on the back of a fag packet with some token consultation as an after thought.

Again, the outcome is agreed before the process is begun.

Cllr Redstone is running his whelk stall by serving the whelks before taking the orders.

That’s no way to satisfy his customers.

Mr Mayor, we agree that services should be reviewed.

Where they can be made more efficient, they should be.

But reviews should involve consultation, a range of options, and no defined savings in advance.

Anything else isn’t a review, it’s a diktat, and whilst the Tories have the mandate to set policy, if they’re going to dictate it they should be honest enough to say so.

Our amendment guarantees now that any savings generated from the review are kept in youth services, and that the review cannot be a back door way to service cuts.

It also provides extra money for two causes of enormous importance to local people right now.

Local people complain, perhaps more than anything else, about the state of our roads and pavements.

They’re accidents waiting to happen, poorly maintained and often crumbling.

This budget does nothing to address the problem, despite the growing demands of local people.

This year my entire Local Area Partnership had just £150,000 for road and pavement maintenance.

Our amendment would see that figure rise by 50%, and would see similar rises all across Bury.

People need to see that they’re being listened to.

This amendment will give them a rare bit of good news amidst the rising bills and shrinking services.

And Mr Mayor, the Lib Dem amendment gives further support to people struggling with unprecedented financial uncertainty.

They need advice on accessing help. This will give it to them.

To deny them the extra funds we propose, would be another cruel blow.

I defy anyone to vote against it, because a vote against it is a vote to keep the people of Bury in that state of uncertainty.

Mr Mayor this budget seeks to make something good out of a bad settlement.

But it fails.

Taxes up, services down, consultation mocked and people already angry.

We know how the Tories operate in Bury.

If we don’t like it, we have to lump it, no matter how much of a mess they make of it.

Radcliffe Riverside, Equal Pay, even the democratic arrangements of the Council itself.

The Executive’s attitude continues to be shockingly childish and arrogant.

For a Council leader to say he’ll just “take no notice” of amendments makes me wonder why we bother.

The Leader says “It’s my way or the highway.”

Well, for once, with this amendment’s highways provision, we can have both.  And I appeal to the better judgement of everyone in this chamber, to allocate more money for our desperately poor roads and pavements.

And for the people of the Borough struggling with the credit crunch

And for the young people up there who’ve put up with three hours of this meeting because they’re worried about their youth service.

This budget isn’t what I want.

It’s not what Bury wants either.

But I think this amendment improves it, and I am pleased to second it.”

Rick

Last night’s council meeting was yet another slanging match between the big hitters in the Tory and Labour parties. For people supposedly acting as leaders of the community, there are times when conduct in the chamber descends to the level of a bar-room brawl. We could alleviate some of the budgetary pressures by having council meetings sponsored by Barnum and Bailey, so circus-like are the performances.

It’s serious business we go about at the Town Hall. Last night perhaps more so than any other. We’re making decisions about cutting services, setting tax levels, and coming up with new ways to provide services. It shouldn’t be treated as a political points-scoring game, or as a contest to see who can come up with the most outrageous personal slur or jump up and down the most in indignation.

Fair enough we should level criticism at one another in meetings where it’s merited. And, because we’re politicians, perhaps we should level criticism even where it’s not merited, just to put across an opposing point of view. But there’s a way to do it, and the way that the Labour and Tory leaders and finance spokespeople go at each other like comic book villains really isn’t it. It makes even the House of Commons look sane.

The Tories in particular seem incapable of saying anything out loud without lurching between arch-defensiveness and vicious personal attacks on anyone daring to question their complete mastery of both fact and public opinion. It’s like they’re hard wired to behave like schoolboys. They sometimes leave their dignity in their group meeting room along with their overcoats. For Council leaders to compare Bury with the Wiemar Republic and Zimbabwe, as occurred last night when the Tories got on their high horses, was fairly low brow and not very wise at all. We’re supposed to be the leaders of the community!

I join in the banter too, but I like to think I do it with some grace (although others may disagree - you can read my speech when I post it tomorrow!). And maybe it’s having an impact. Even though our amendment failed, it seemed so obvious last night that the Labour response to the budget statement was cribbed from (or at least based on) the contents of this website that the Leader of the Council himself commented on it! So maybe I am having a positive effect on conduct if not perhaps the budget… I know that sounds a bit arrogant, what with me saying “Ooh, you’re all naughty boys, but I have class.” But, frankly, I think it’s true, and if i go over the top I want people to tell me.

There were young people in the audience campaigning about the Youth Service. God knows what they made of it all. The way to make progress in Bury isn’t to shout and point fingers. Let’s hope they don’t learn by our example.

Rick

Last night’s council budget meeting cut services left, right and centre, whilst imposing a massive above-inflation Council Tax hike of nearly 5%.

The Liberal Democrats proposed EXTRA spending where it matters to people most, but our plans were vetoed by the Conservative Executive seemingly hell-bent on pursuing an agenda miles from what the people of Bury want.
Firstly, we proposed that a special “Credit Crunch Advice Fund” be established (initially for just one year) to provide a much needed boost for advice services to people and small businesses in Bury that are struggling because of the Credit Crunch. Thousands of people are being affected by unemployment, debt, housing problems and rising bills and our advice services just cannot cope. We proposed a £300,000 fund, for the first year, to give these advice services the boost they need. The Tories said no.

Secondly, we proposed a massive 33% increase in the budget for street and pavement repairs (£300,000 a year). All of us know what a terrible state some of our roads and pavements are in. They look tatty, and are dangerous to drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Last year, Prestwich was given £150,000 for the whole year for its road and pavement repairs. This wasn’t enough to repair the single neediest street! So we proposed this big increase. The Tories said no.

And they didn’t even say “No” politely. They didn’t even acknowledge that their budget prioritised other things. The Leader of the Council, Conservative Cllr Bob Bibby, stood up publicly last night and simply said he’d “take no notice” of what we had to say. Well thanks Cllr Bibby. The people of Bury will, I’m sure, be thankful for that spirit of cooperation for the good of the borough… 

Our third proposal related to the youth service. Protests have been growing over the proposed review of the service, which the Tories have pre-empted entirely by already earmarking £200,000 of youth service savings! We asked last night what the point of a review is if the amount saved from the service has already been confirmed! 

Whilst we welcome a review of the youth service, as we would with any service that might be delivered in a better way, we wanted a guarantee that any savings are RINGFENCED for the youth service so that we could provide enhanced services for the same amount.

Unfortunately, the Tories, once again, said “no.” They wouldn’t answer straight questions on whether or not they’ll be cuts, and the young people present at the meeting last night would have gone home none-the-wiser about the future of their service.

I know the Lib Dems aren’t in control of Bury. Democracy says that the Tories are, and that’s fine. But our budget amendment last night sought to address real concerns about the economy, the state of the roads and pavements, and the youth service. We weren’t asking for much. That the Tories rejected it would’ve been fine had they explained their rationale and highlighted which priorities they thought mattered more. But they didn’t do that. They scornfully threw our prioposals in the bin without the smallest bit of thought. That’s the real problem here, and is more clear evidence of an arrogant Executive putting itself before the people.

Rick

Last night was the Bury Council budget setting meeting, and the ruling Conservatives have lumbered the people of Bury with a staggering 4.79% Council Tax rise from April this year.

The headlines from last night’s meeting were:
- A massive 4.79% increase in Council Tax from 1 April 2009
- Cuts and savings, already announced, which include turning 40% street lights off during the night
- a welcome increase in funding in some areas, in particular much needed funds for disabled services and for child protection
- virtually no new schemes. In fact, the two ”flagship” schemes triumphantly announced by the Tories last night were funding for two (yes, two) apprentices, and a refurbishment of some toilets in Radcliffe and Bury town centre. Whilst these are both welcome, it’s hardly a brave new world, is it?

When Councillors arrived at the Town Hall last night, we were again welcomed by young people (and youth workers) protesting against the proposed restructure of the Youth Service. I had the chance to address the demonstration, and had great fun with a megaphone! But more importantly, I had the chance to say that Liberal Democrats will always support reviewing any service, to see if we are doing it right, but we don’t want to see a reduction in the money that is spent on young people’s services.

The young people, who had tabled seven written questions in advance to the Full Council, very probably went home disappointed as the Conservative proposals went through, but hopefully they were re-assured that the Lib Dems (and Labour, who also addressed the crowd) want to make sure that their services aren’t cut. We Lib Dems did make our own proposals, which I’ll write about in another post.

So, taxes up, services cut, and very little new at all. And all said in the spirit of the playground. A sad night for Bury.

Rick 

Only days after I said that maybe we should do something to honour Radcliffe’s own Danny Boyle after he won most of the available Oscars, Bury Council are putting together proposals which would see given the Freedom of the Borough. The Council is also considering bestowing the honour to the Brit award and Mercury Prize winning band Elbow, also from Bury, and the Paralympic champion Zoe Robinson to congratulate them on their individual successes over the past civic year.

Guy Garvey, Mark Potter, Craig Potter, Richard Jupp and Pete Turner from, the Mercury Award and Brit Award winning band Elbow, formed at Bury College in the mid 1990s and all have roots in the town. Zoe Robinson, lives in the north of the borough and attends Boccia training sessions at Bury’ Castle Leisure Centre on a regular basis. Oscar winning film director, Danny Boyle grew up in Radcliffe and his family still live in the town.

Borough Councils can admit to be Honorary Freemen of the Borough, persons of distinction and those who have rendered eminent services to the Borough. This is carried out at a specially convened meeting of the full Council, were the Freeman are presented with the honour.

The Freedom is the highest tribute that a Borough can bestow and although in modern times it is an honour only and does not confer any legal rights, Honorary Freemen are invariably invited to take part in all important ceremonial occasions in the Borough. The proposals are currently being drawn up so that they can be put before a special meeting of Bury Council for approval.

I wonder if the Neville brothers (and, indeed, the international netball playing Neville sister) will be similarly honoured at some point…?

Rick

Tomorrow is a special meeting of full Council, where the budget for the year ahead will be set. This includes what the Council Tax level will be next year, and which services get investment, and which will get cut.

The meeting will start at 7pm in the Town Hall in Bury, and it’s open to the public so you can come along and see it all for yourself!

Rick

On Thursday 5 March young people across Bury will be taking part in an election for the Bury Member and 2 Deputies of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. This year there are 14 candidates from across the borough.

Last year 7,500 young people voted in the election and we are hoping to improve on this figure this year. The count will take place on Friday 6th March from 1pm in the Council Chamber and the result will be announced by the Returning Officer at 5pm.

I think these elections are a fantastic way of getting young people involved in politics, and the issues that matter to people. They are a very worthy cause indeed, and some of the young people involved could teach a thing or three to some of us Councillors!

Rick

I think it would be remiss of me not to be the 1,058^th Bury-based blogger to offer my congratulations to local director Danny Boyle for his Oscar last night, and for the other seven that “Slumdog Millionaire” picked up. Mr Boyle was of course born in Radcliffe. And despite my own disappointment at not being able to think of a title for this post that wittily utilises the phrase “Boyle in the bag,” to describe the Oscar victory, I will continue regardless.

It’s not often that the words “Radcliffe” and “Academy Award” are found in the same sentence, although some of the Council Chamber theatrics over the Radcliffe Riverside High School saga are certainly worthy of a gong. But Mr Boyle has made the borough very proud indeed with his awards. I hope the Council does something suitable to reward him.

I imagine my recommendation won’t make anyone go and see the film, but I am going to give it all the same. I have seen all of the nominations for Best Picture this year, and whilst I thought Frost/Nixon and Milk were more thought-provoking, that’s probably because I am a bit of a political geek. Slumdog was easily the most enjoyable, and even though my recent engagement has somewhat curtailed the possibilities of my going out on any first dates in the future, were I to have to go on one at the moment, I’d treat said date to a ticket to Slumdog. And then a Nando’s afterwards and the cab fare home.

My only regreat is that the Oscars doesn’t follow the example of the Eurovision Song Contest. There, the winner from one year hosts the ceremony the next. What a delight it would be to have the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony taking place live from Radcliffe Civic Hall. I could put Kate Winslet up in my spare room prior to the big event. Alas, it is not to be.

 Rick

A friend of mine came to visit yesterday. She doesn’t live in Prestwich, and hasn’t been here for the best part of a year. The first thing she said when she came through the door (after coo-ing at Tam’s ring for longer than necessary) was to remark that the graffiti in the area was absolutely shocking.

And she’s right. It’s appalling. Right the way up Butterstile Lane, down Lowther Road and Sandy Lane, into the Clough and along Bury New Road. Virtually every public surface and quite a few private ones are being spoiled and destroyed by criminal vandals. Garden walls, phone boxes and exchanges, street signs, even “for sale” signs, completely covered in it. And frankly the Council need to take action to clean it NOW.

I am sick of calling on them to do this. Their response to the increasing volume of graffiti so far has been to clean precisely none of it. They appear happy to see Prestwich descend into an area that looks like the criminals have the upper hand.

They have offered graffiti cleaning kits to residents, but this should be the final piece in the jigsaw, not the first piece. The Council have a responsibility to do something more, like actually CLEAN IT UP! I am elected to serve the people of St Mary’s ward and get this done, but the wall of inaction I am coming up against is a disgrace.

The Council need to respond to the (now very) loud calls or action immediately, and direct some resources to cleaning up the mess. We pay our taxes and deserve a service. That we aren’t getting one is a disgrace. That strangers to Prestwich are commenting about it when they come here is shameful.

At the moment, part of the Clough looks like the Berlin Wall – every surface covered in graffiti. What message does that send to local people? Tax payers think the Council don’t care, and vandals think that it’s ok to vandalise.

All the Council are doing is talking about a “graffiti policy,” which has yet to see the light of day. Policies are all well and good, but first of all they need publishing, and second of all they should go hand in hand with real action. Neither are happening, and it’s a disgrace.

And, whilst I am loathe to criticise them, I think it’s time the Police also directed some more resources to this. I know they’re stretched, but a short, sharp increase in patrols would send the message that this type of thing will not be tolerated in Prestwich. We work in partnership and their efforts have been very much appreciated in dealing with this in the past. Now we need them to catch the perpetrators and stop this happening again.

This is a serious and heartfelt request to the Conservative’s running Bury Council to respond to the wishes of the electorate. We want them to do three things:

1)     Take action NOW to clean up graffiti from council property, directing resources to pay for a clean up.

2)     Take action NOW to use the legal powers they have to force utility companies to clean graffiti from their property

3)     Set a deadline for the publication of the borough-wide Graffiti Strategy.

Graffiti is a blight on the area. It makes Prestwich seem uncared for, ugly and crime-ridden. It is none of these things, and it is a dereliction of the duty of the Council that they should let it appear so.

Rick

A while ago I wrote to the Highways Agency regarding the air quality in Prestwich. The convergence of three motorways, and awful traffic on several main roads in the area, mean that at times the quality of the air round here is pretty ropey. One of the targets in the Prestwich Plan is to try to improve it, so I wrote off to the Highways Agency asking about what’s being done by them. And now they’ve written back.

It’s a fairly detailed reply, the highlights of which are as follows:

The entire M60 is an “Air Quality Management Area.” This means that there are lots of initiatives being explored at the moment to improve air quality. These include an extra anti-clockwise lane between junctions 15 and 12 (heading towards the Trafford Centre, between the M61 and M62 junctions). They also include “managed motorways” between junctions 8-12 and junctions 18-20, with a commitment to explore managed motorways between junctions 12 -18 (which of course includes Prestwich at 17).

The improvements proposed are designed to increase traffic flow and thus aid air quality. Whilst the improvements can’t yet be quantified due to the early stages of the work, I think these are potentially good developments, even if they are a little bit limited. It’d have been nice to see a fuller commitment to managed motorways throughout the entire western and northern sections of the M60 which are riddled with congestion. But what’s planned is a start.

the Highways Agency also talk about combating air quality problems by reducing car journeys and the need to travel by private car. The Highways Agency can work with the Council on this by ensuring new developments are sustainably planned, promoting planned travel, and so on. Unfortunately the Highways Agency might be ploughing a bit of a loan furrow here. Because whilst their aims are good, the demand for car travel won’t diminish substantially without wider government efforts to improve public transport substantially. This means cheaper, safer, more reliable buses and trains, and the provision of them at the times and places people need. Continuing policies which refuse to re-regulate bus services and allow above inflation fare rises whilst services are cut seem to go against the Highways Agency’s plans, and also go against the wider efforts to get local air cleaner.

We’ll keep trying to find out more information, and pressing for the improvements to happen. Butt he real improvements to air quality locally will only come when there are realistic alternatives to us all travelling in our cars at the same time as one another. And that takes the types of effort which the current government don’t seem to want to make.

Rick

It’s nearly the weekend, which is a relief because today’s early morning pre-work ascent from bed was probably the most difficult thing I’ve had to do since my IKEA bookcase arrived with no instructions.

There is reason to repeat the “getting out of bed” trick over the weekend though. The new St Mary’s Focus is written (by me), designed (by Cllr Mary D’Albert), printed (by us), and now ready to go, and so that’s what we’re going to be doing with our collective Saturdays and Sundays in the main.

However, I am of course recently betrothed, and wedding plans stop for no man, even at the weekend and even with leafleting to do…

I am reliably informed that there is a “wedding fayre” on at the Trafford Centre this weekend, and so I will troop off there on Sunday to weep quietly in the gigantic foodcourt at the spiralling costs of my recently-agreed nuptials.

Preliminary research into the world of weddings has been both very illuminating and hugely alarming. Rather like the flash caused by the detonation of a nearby hydrogen bomb.

By the time I’ve rented a room, hired an officiant, bought the necessary clothing, and then fed the bare minimum number of people I can get away with inviting without it seeming positively rude, we’re looking at the thick end of more thousands of pounds than I enjoy thinking about spending. There will have to be some significant ground gained between now and “I do” for it to top Bury FC’s 1997 Division 2 championship victory as the happiest day of my life.

All this wedding lark has though awakened a potential solution to wider financial woes. I think the nation’s way out of this recession / depression / almighty economic shake down is simple. Rather than talking about “quantitative easing” as a coded way of asking to print more money, the Bank of England should just set itself up as a wedding venue, since this seems to be an actual licence to print money!

I thought I’d found the ideal website to plan my day. It’s called “frugalbride.com” and would, I assumed, provide me with a handy list of ideas to reduce the height of the rapidly increasing money mountain that will be my wedding. All of a sudden I am feeling mild empathy with Gordon Brown, as both of us see debts growing exponentially and seemingly beyond our control.

In these challenging times, perhaps frugality is the way forward, wedding wise. A frugal bride gets married in front of a dozen friends and relatives, somewhere where the primary material used for decor is unadorned concrete. She wears something from off a peg in Debenhams, and doesn’t quite manage to hide the crushing disappointment that financial circumstance has robbed her of a big church and a castle reception, and replaced it with the local registry office followed by vol-au-vents in the upstairs room of the Lamb and Flag.

Not that I want this for Tam and me, obviously. For one thing I don’t like vol-au-vents. In an ideal world I would like our wedding to eclipse Charles and Di’s.  But I am not heir to a throne of any kind, and so our budget is slightly more constrained, and thus I would like to rein in the expenditure a little. In essence I would like to focus less on the types of words that have been banded about this week, like “fireworks” and “harps,” and more on words like “home-made” and “Holiday Inn.” Basically I want all the glitz and glamour of Posh ‘n’ Becks, but with all the expense of cheese ‘n’ onion.

Unfortunately, the good folk at frugalbride.com and I disagree on the precise definition of a frugal bride, it turns out.  Having wandered around the site for a bit I came upon the “wedding checklist,” which lists everything that the (apparently) frugal bride needs for her big yet frugal day. It contains ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY items! One hundred and twenty items that I have to make sure are prepared, pre-ordered, and of course paid for, prior to the big day. One hundred and twenty! Twelve alone to do with flowers, and twenty more to do with stationery!

What, pray, is a “bouttoniere”? I need one of those, apparently. Oh, and “toasting glasses.” Toasting glasses? The bloke I’m paying for my glasses better not turn up and say “Toasting glasses? Nah mate, that’s not me. Ooooooh no… I’m just regular glasses. If you want to toast anything, you’ll need the toasting glasses man. I could get my hands on some I suppose, but it’ll cost ya…”

The truly frugal bride would make do with just the traditional type of glass. She’d pour any remnants of the wine from dinner into the father of the bride’s top hat, and re-fill with Tesco Cava for the toasts. And she’d smile as she did it, too.

Toasting glasses? Frugal my eye.

“Gifts for each other” is another one. For each other?? How about the gift of eternal togetherness? Will that not do? Is that not gift enough? Is the permanent sacrifice of man’s natural lustings for the female form, a commitment to eternal monogamy and a solemn vow of lifelong fidelity not suitable? No, apparently not. The truly frugal newly weds need to get each other something from John Lewis as well.

My list of needs for the frugal bride is thus:

-          1960s brutalist Registry Office

-          Something old – the wedding car (1978 Austin Allegro or similar)

-          Something new – the wonderful idea of marriage

-          Something borrowed – the rings

-          Something blue – Roy “Chubby” Brown Live at the Tower Ballroom DVD, inside the best man’s suit jacket pocket

-          Dress from Debenhams

-          Suit from wardrobe

-          Flowers from graveyard

-          Sandwiches from petrol station

-          “Disco” courtesy of pub stereo and my copy of “Number 1’s of the 80s”

-          Home in time for Match of the Day

I may float some of these ideas to Tam later on, and whilst I won’t insist on them, I think if we start with those and work up, it might lead to a happier scenario than starting with us riding in on bejewelled elephants and working down…

In the meantime, I am going to lie down.

Rick

The Executive of Bury Council met last night to agree a framework for the Council’s budget for the next twelve months. The Lib Dems were represented by the Group Leader, Cllr Tim Pickstone, who can observe but can’t vote.

The headline item was the proposed review and likely “externalisation” of the Youth Service, which the Tories have decided will save £300,000 in the future. It seems very odd indeed that a savings figure has been identified before the review has taken place! It hardly sets the stall out for a fair and unbiased review, does it? And, unsurprisingly given this fact, all hell has broken loose locally with young people, youth workers and lots of others protesting about likely “cuts” to the service.

Last night there was a demonstration of young people who use the service, and it was addressed by opposition Councillors including Liberal Democrats. Then, in the Executive meeting itself, the young people asked some more questions.

This is certainly a controversial issue. It’s only right that services are reviewed to make sure that they’re efficient. Wherever possible the Council needs to learn from the private and third sector to deliver services in more efficient ways itself. Where this can’t be done, maybe for legal reasons, then consideration should be given to whether or not increased efficiency is an acceptable trade-off for external service delivery. Sometimes it might be.

What’s not right is what’s happened here, which is that both a savings figure and a method of finding those savings have been decided upon before any consultation, before any elected member involvement (barring the Executive) and before the review itself has even happened! In addition, these savings have been identified, but what to do with the money has not. The Tories seem content to take these efficiency savings and give no guarantees that services for young people will benefit from them. We would not be so casual with this money, and would guarantee it for better services for young people, particularly in strengthening partnership working with the Police, NHS and existing youth service providers.

This youth service saving is not the only one identified for the future subject to a review yet to be undertaken. The Troeis are proposing the same thing around turning street lights off at night. This is potentially a good idea, but once again the Tories have identified a figure to balance the budget without any consultation, any review, or any scrutiny. These are big policy decisions, and I wonder how we can claim to have a balanced budget when so much of it rests on reviews that are yet to even happen, let alone go through the legally required democratic processes of scrutiny and consultation?

The Tories in Bury are once again showing their contempt for democratic processes, and ploughing on with potentially damaging service changes without the courtesy of consulting properly. Another example of the damage they’re doing to democracy in Bury

Rick

It’s budget season in town halls up and down the country, and in the rare moments of silence when Councillors stop carping on about stuff, those with super-sensitive hearing may be able to detect the tell-tale “snip snip” sound of Council accountants trimming service budgets to make up for funding shortfalls.

In Bury it’s no different, as another below average government grant this year has meant an even more challenging set of circumstances for the Council. Once again, I suspect, the budget will ask the people of Bury to pay more for less when it’s revealed to the waiting populous next Wednesday.

All parties grapple with what to do in these circumstances. How will the financial gap be bridged? Will we have to stop doing things, or just keep on doing them, only worse?

Neither of these solutions is ideal. But the worst solution of all would be to make swingeing cuts but then hide them away somewhere you hope nobody can find them, all the while boasting that the impossible has been achieved. Front line services appear untouched, but whilst they all continue, the foundations on which they rest creak ever louder.

Now that the Conservative’s are in control in Bury, it is their choice on how services are delivered in the future. And I hope that Bury Conservative’s won’t be following the example set by Hammersmith and Fulham’s Cllr Harry Phibbs . I won’t labour the obvious gag about whether or not one should trust a politician named Phibbs, but regardless of his name (even more unfortunate than my own, which is saying something), he has outlined some of the cuts he’d like to see happen “without cutting key services.” Some of them make sense, and have been thought of by many councils across the country of all political pursuasion. But some really are nasty, and show an unpleasant side that I hope isn’t repeated here in Bury.

Some of the “highlights” include stopping funding for opressed refugees and closing legal advice centres for the poor. Fair enough, Council expenditure will fall, but what is the point of having public services if they fail to serve the most needy members of the public? Cllr Phibbs and the Conservatives want to put short term tax cuts before these services which, whilst probably unused by most Tory voters, are absolutely crucial to lots of people with no other voice.

Elderly and vulnerable people don’t escape the cuts, with suggestions to cut the total spend on elderly people, and to cut youth services. And for anyone like me who cherishes public services delivered by the public sector, the suggestion to try to “put everything out to tender” sends shivers down my spine.

Aside from the fact that I am fairly sure that most of these cuts are indeed to “front line” services, much of the list shows us inside the mind of the Conservative Party, which seems to want to put lower Council Tax at the forefront of policies which will see services ropped to shreds. I’m all for efficient Council expenditure, but in proposing these cuts to services that are badly needed, the Tories not only cast themselves as villains, but distract attention from some of the good ideas found elsewhere in the list.

I’ll be watching carefully to see that the Bury Conservatives keep these nasty policies out of Bury next week

Rick

I have been very excited about plans for the regeneration of the Lower Irwell Valley these last few months. The area is home to Drinkwater Park, Phillips Park, Clifton Country Park, and Prestwich Clough. Bits of it are about to come under the control of the Forestry Commission, who have plans to invest nearly £4m in improvements to Waterdale and the former bleach works. I attended a consultation event back in the autumn with lots of other local people, and the plans really are exciting. Lots of pathways and woodland areas will be improved, and some of the old industrial wasteland transformed.

One of the plans is to use some of the money to create a mountain bike track. You can read more on the proposals here. I think this is an excellent idea which will provide a brand new facility on our doorstep to be used for fun, exercise and competition. We don’t have the best sports facilities round here, but this is a very positive development which could bring an improved facility to the area. Nothing’s guaranteed, but the idea is a proposal, and views are being sought now.

There are a couple of concerns I have though. Firstly it is a bit disappointing that, having engaged so well with us a few months ago with the consultation event, the Forestry Commission seem to have bypassed local people this time round, and are warning of “large vehicles” in the Clifton Road area as the development gets underway. I will check out why this has happened. Also, whilst a mountain bike course would be good news for the local area, it would be fantastic if there was some joined up thinking and the Metrolink reversed its ban on bikes on trams. Why put a great biking facility in Prestwich if bikers have to drive there rather than get the tram? With this in mind, I have tabled a question to our representatives on the GMPTA (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) asking if the ban could be reconsidered, particularly at off-peak times.

Rick 

Avid readers of the blog will have noticed a certain something missing these past few days, namely postings of any description. And I admire these observations, because they are spot on.

I’ve been on holiday for a few days, taking in some walking in the North Pennines, along Hadrian’s Wall. I shudder to think what kind of planning obstacles he would come up against were he to try and build it today… For one thing the insulation in those stones really isn’t up to scratch.

It was Valentine’s weekend of course, and I thought I would seize the opportunity to begin to make an honest woman out of young Tamsin, and pop the question. We have been seeing each other / dating / going steady / behaving with a shocking lack of morals (pick option which best suits the decade of your teenage years) for nearly 8 years, and it was becoming vaguely indecent that I hadn’t asked. And so I did. And she did what no Bury Councillor does when I propose something. She said yes.

And so we are engaged, to be married at some point between now and middle-age, depending on the school holidays, availability of nice venues, and the fact that under no circumstances must any wedding clash with the World Cup. 

Being engaged is lovely, I’ve decided. For one thing, people have been bringing me cake and flowers in a fairly steady stream of positivity. Tamsin herself is engrossed in wedding magazines all of a sudden, and I get to think about travelling from ceremony to reception in the type of classic car that I will probably never have the glorious opportunity to ride in again in my life. A strange calmness has washed over me, as if the great weight of hiding a diamond ring from her prying eyes has been lifted from my shoulders.

There are down sides though. For one thing, the ring I got for Tam is about four sizes too big. She isn’t the fat-fingered freak that the jeweller advised me she probably would be, and as a result the ring dangles round her finger like a hula hoop. We need to go and see about getting that fixed tomorrow before it flies off. And I becoming ever more aware of the scandalous prices that I am to be lumbered with for all things wedding. Photographers, for instance, seem to think that the word “marriage” actually means “license to increase fees by 1000%.” I suspect that this blog may become the repository for a number of my wedding-related moans in the coming months.

There is no date set, as yet. Nor have the exclusive photo rights negotiations reached the type of fever pitch I was hoping they might. The Bury Times picture editor may not know about it yet, but I am expecting a seven figure offer at some point. And possibly for as many as two of those figures to come before the decimal point.

Tamsin was brought up CofE and I was brought up Jewish. There is talk of a multi-faith ceremony combining the two. I don’t quite know what this means yet, but hopefully it won’t involve us circumcising the guests on the way in and then crucifying them on the way out.

The proposal itself was, even if I say so myself, jaw droppingly romantic. If she’d have said no I might have accepted it myself. I won’t go into the detail, because I might set myself off again with the weeping and the heart-clutching. Suffice to say it involved a series of rhyming clues, Chester Zoo, a scandalously overpriced Valentine’s meal, and an escape to the country where the question itself was popped. With me, all the while, hoping she wouldn’t guess. Apparently I failed with this last point, but she kept it to herself.

So I have been absent from the Council fray for a couple of days. I hope I am forgiven. I have come home to more emails than I can face contemplating right now, but I will be back on the ball tomorrow. In the meantime, my fiance and I have guest lists to trim down.

Rick

Last night I went to see Frost / Nixon, the Ron Howard film chronicling David Frost’s interviews with Richard Nixon in 1977.

At the end of the film the President expressed regret about Watergate and what happened thereafter. I won’t review the film, (suffice to say that I thought it was better than Benjamin Button!) but something that did cross my mind afterwards was the regret Nixon expressed at how his behaviour set a bad example for people thinking about entering public service.

I know that the film was dripping with historical inaccuracies, but the sentiment remains even if Nixon didn’t actually say it: The actions of elected office holders can and do influence those aspiring to office. I think it’s something we should all bear in mind, even in Bury.

This thought made me even more annoyed at the continuing games being played by the Conservative’s running Bury. I know that the Leader’s office at Bury Town Hall is about as far removed from the Oval Office at the White House as humanly possible, but the logic remains the same. Whilst every move that Cllr Bibby makes in Bury won’t make CNN, and whilst he can’t launch nuclear armageddon at the touch of a button, the Tories in Bury do still have the power to convey messages to the people of the Borough who might one day want to give some time to public service as a Councillor.

And what message are they giving out at the moment? Not a good one, in my book. It’s no global conspiracy, and there is no deep throat in a multi storey car park anywhere (no matter how much time I spend looking…), but the Bury Times is full of stories about the Tories restricting democracy, souring staff relations, and treating the power bestowed on them with quite a bit of contempt. Council meetings are full of Conservatives behaving like pantomime bad guys, flailing their arms about and sneering. And anyone on the outside looking in must think we’re all a bunch of lunatics.

Cllr Bibby’s no Richard Nixon. There’s nothing criminal going on, and I’d be very surprised (and worried!) if every conversation we had in the town hall was taped. But taking advantage of power at the expense of democracy is the same whether you’re President of the United States or Chairman of the Prestwich Model Railway Society. And it’s certainly the same if you’re a Council leader. And by telling the people of Bury that they can’t ask him questions any more, he’s taking advantage of that power. By ignoring scrutiny reports entirely, he’s taking advantage of that power. And by doing these things, he’s setting a bad example to the people of Bury.

Bury Council is very diverse, relatively speaking. On average, the English Councillor is a 58 year old white man. I’m all for 58 year old white men. My Dad’s one (well, he will be in July). We have plenty of them in the Council Chamber and that’s fine. But different people can bring different experiences and ideas to the table, and how can we best ensure that these people get involved?

The fact that the Council is so white and old and male isn’t because the voters are racist, sexist and ageist, even subconsciously. It’s because non-traditional people aren’t involved in local politics in anything like the numbers that the general population would suggest. Anyone deeply involved in local politics can get a seat on the Council before too long, because the pool of talent is pretty small. There just aren’t the people getting involved in the first place. Is the way we carry on helping with this?

It’s good to see that we in Bury have higher than average representation for women and councillors from ethnic minorities, and that our age profile includes three Councillors in their twenties and several more in their thirties.
It’s not enough though. The age profile is still too high, the groups too white and male.

How can we engage better with entire communities when “the Council” is made up of just a small part of them? That’s not to say that I can’t effectively advocate on behalf of an old woman, or that an old white person can’t represent the views of a young black person. Quality is more important than age or race or gender. But to really engage with harder to reach people, role models help, and too often they aren’t there.

In the film, Nixon realised how his conduct would have made these role-models even harder to find. Politics is public service. It’s about making communities better and improving people’s lives. He made it about corruption and lies. In Bury, being a Councillor is about getting involved for the good of communities. Cllr Bibby has made it more about getting involved for power and party political games. It’s a shame, because a more positive, open and inclusive Council, with good news about good conduct, rather than complaints about bad conduct, would encourage the next generation of Councillors to come out of the woodwork.

Rick

Last night was another meeting of the Council’s Resource and Performance Scrutiny Commission. This is the all-party body of 8 Councillors and one independent member of the Standards Committee who come together to scrutinise the work of the Executive with specific reference to the Council’s overall performance and its finances. And no meeting of this splendid body should go past without a bit of post-game analysis. So here that is…

There were a number of reports on the agenda, most of which were so laden with financial intricacies that I would gladly have offered a multi-million pound bonus to any financial whizz capable of dechipering them. I made a reasonable job of it (without payment…), and got to the bottom of reports on the current financial position of the Council, and the budget.

To be honest, it was quite a tame meeting all in all, and I’m glad. The last few meetings, when Job Evaluation has been on the agenda, relations have been strained. Last night there was some constructive scrutiny, and if the Executive take on board the comments we make, then that it good news for the Council and for Bury.

Rick

Local Councillors have reacted with anger after another spate of graffiti in Prestwich, and are calling on the Council to take immediate action to clean up the mess.

Cllr Vic D’Albert, Liberal Democrat Councillor for Holyrood ward and Chair of Prestwich Local Area Partnership said “I am disgusted that vandals continue to bring misery to local people by daubing our streets with graffiti. And I am equally angry with the Council’s woefully inadequate response. This has been going on for too long now, and it’s about time action was taken. The Local Area Partnership and the Police are already using very tight resources to try to manage this problem, but the Council need to take action now to help us and clean up the streets”

Liberal Democrats at Bury Town Hall have been campaigning for action for months. At a Council meeting in February they staged a demonstration displaying photographs of graffiti which has blighted Prestwich for months. The photo above shows the Liberal Democrat group at the town hall with their evidence. The Council have offered graffiti kits for residents and businesses, but have so far directed no extra resource to clear up a problem which is getting worse.

Lib Dem spokesperson for Environmental Service Cllr Ann Garner said “The graffiti is on everything from streets signs to walls, and from utility buildings to business property. Graffiti kits are not a suitable solution except in limited circumstances. The Council have the power to insist that utility companies clean up graffiti on their property, and need to direct real efforts into cleaning it from their own property. I am proud of what Prestwich has to offer, and it is being ruined by graffiti which goes uncleaned for months.”

Cllr D’Albert concluded “We need to work together on this. Prestwich Councillors are doing their bit by leading the community fight. The Police did their bit by catching offenders, and we are supporting them to try to catch the latest offenders. But the Council are letting us down. They need to take action to clean up Prestwich now. “

I was very shocked and saddened on Sunday to see evidence of a widespread graffiti attack across Prestwich which I guess must have happened on Saturday night.

I am very angry that people think it’s acceptable to vandalise public and private property, but clearly some of them do, and take delight in “tagging” everything from walls to street signs. The problem has been around for years, has been pretty serious in Prestwich for a while, and there was a blitz of it on Saturday.

Local Councillors are getting the blame for not sorting this out, and I can understand the frustrations of local people. But I am equally, if not more frustrated. It’s deeply disappointing when my colleagues and I spend so much time trying to work with local people and groups to make Prestwich a better place, that criminals undo that work and make the local community feel unsafe and look dirty.

I think there’s a place for street art, but graffiti tagging isn’t art, it’s criminal vandalism and it needs to stop.

In terms of stopping it, I am frustrated that this is a classic situation where the Local Area Partnership (local Councillors and local Police) don’t have anywhere near enough resources and decision making influence to respond adequately and significantly enough to make a real difference on our own. We can scream for it to stop for as long as we like, but we can’t stop it without concerted efforts and more resources.

The Local Area Partnership (LAP) has been working to try to lessen graffiti for a long time, including lots of publicity about the youngsters caught and made to clean up their graffiti, free graffiti kits and the Love Prestwich campaign.

But resources are very limited, for both the Councillors locally and the local police.

This problem has been highlighted to the Tory Council in Bury, and unfortunately they have not chosen to do anything about it yet. Their original response was to send threatening letters to the victims of graffiti, ordering them to remove it or face court action. We found this approach completely unproductive, and as a results of our complaints the Council decided on a “review” with the aim of producing a “strategy.”

I doubt the merits of this approach, to be honest. What I think would work better would be funding devolved locally to provide more cleaning kits, and a diversion of police resources for a short time to crack down heavily on offenders and then make them clean up the mess. It needn’t take long, but it would be effective at wiping out a big problem caused by a small number of people.

But even if the Council are insistent on a review and a strategy, they haven’t produced one yet. Where is it? When will it be in place? Will there be additional resources? Will there be joined up working with the Police? Prestwich gets filthier, we keep banging on about this, and not a lot seems to be being done by the people controlling the purse strings.

We did have some success last year, catching some offenders. But now that the targeting has stopped, so has the success. The strategy needs to come soon, and it needs to detail what we’re going to do. And then as soon as possible we need to get on and do it.

In the meantime, please report any graffiti to the police, and we will continue to pressure the Council to enable the wider Prestwich LAP to take action to stop this problem.

Rick

I am tired today. Last night I enjoyed the 50th birthday party of fellow Prestwich Councillor (and Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Bury South) Vic D’Albert a little too much, and was not in the least bit pleased to find myself awake and leafleting less than seven hours after doing some unwise dancing in his living room. But leafleting I was, in the freezing cold. Nothing beats that in terms of blowing cobwebs away.

I have spent a large proportion of the rest of the day writing St Mary’s Focus, which will be designed and printed in the next few days prior to being deposited on the doormats of the area in the weeks following.

It’s been quite a hectic couple of weeks for meetings, and they show no signs of abating this week either, with Scrutiny and Licensing on the agenda. I will keep you updated as to anything interesting that happens at any of them. Given previous experience, nothing even resembling interesting may happen at either of them. But you never know your luck…

Rick

I submitted a question to Council on Wednesday about Local Area Partnerships and the Prestwich Plan. The Council quite rightly talks about the success of partnership working and the importance of Local Area Partnerships which bring together all the public services (Council, NHS, Police etc), but I don’t think they necessarily back that up with action. At the bi-monthly Local Area Partnership (LAP) meetings, which are the most publicly visible bit of LAP working, the facilities are often inadequate, the papers are often missing, and the whole thing is a bit shambolic. The staff supporting the LAPs try their hardest and do a good job, but there aren’t enough of them and the whole process seems divorced from the other Council meeting process, which is better supported.

In addition, the Prestwich Plan, which is the strategic document for improvement that the LAP has signed up to, hasn’t yet been made available to the public. The previous version was, and this allowed local people the opportunity to know what was going on.

So I asked about these issues. There wasn’t enough time to get to it verbally, but the Leader has provided me with a written answer.

The question was:

“Will the Leader consider allocating more administrative and officer support to Local Area Partnerships to allow them to better serve the needs of Bury’s six towns, and when will the Council be producing copies of Local Area Plans for the public, and what guarantees can the Leader give that the targets contained within the Plans will be met now that they have been agreed locally and by the Council itself?”

And the answer was:

“Team Bury’s Local Area Partnerships each have a dedicated manager based within their relevant area.  Additionally, the Council facilitates each LAP meeting through the provision of appropriate administrative support.   The Local Area Partnerships are a key element of achieving Team Bury’s vision to make the borough a great place in which to live, work, visit and study.  They work directly to address our ambitions for Bury- each township thriving; an area where people feel safe and secure; and an area with first class services.   Over the past year a considerable effort has taken place to produce a comprehensive Local Community Plan for each area.   These are focussed Action Plans, agreed with our partners and the local community, with identified targets set over the next three years.   They are primarily working documents, circulated to all LAP members and available on the Council’s web-site.   Progress towards meeting the Plans’ targets are monitored by the LAP Managers- each target having a responsible lead organisation, drawn from the local partnership. The LAP Managers up-date the plans on a regular basis.  The Local Community Plans are working well with evidence that many priorities have been turned into successful partnership actions. The Local Area Partnerships and the local community planning process are now leading to a better shared understanding of our communities.  

The Local Community Plans include actions that are the responsibility of a broad partnership that, in addition to the Council, includes the Police, the NHS and various local community groups. Work is currently underway to ensure that our locally agreed priorities are aligned with the service planning arrangements both of the Council and our partners.  Progress on meeting the targets is reported to the LAP meetings, via LAP newsletters, press articles and features within Our Voice magazine.”The eagle-eyed amongst you will note that the question had three parts, and that the answer answered none of them. I still don’t know how much extra admin support LAPs will get, or when the Prestwich Plan will be given to the public, or whether the Council can guarantee supporting it.

I think this is political spin and bluster of the worst kind. Hundreds of words, none of them in the least bit relevant. If the true answer is that no extra admin support is available, and if the true answer is that the plan won’t be given a public airing or supported by the Council, why won’t they say so? I asked a straightforward question and I want a straightforward answer.

So I have asked the Leader again today, and I await his response. These are important issues deserving of an honest answer.

Rick

PROPOSALS from the Liberal Democrats for big improvements to schools and teaching will see around £11 million of extra cash for schools in Bury to boost the education and life chances of thousands of children say local party members.

The plans were launched by Party Leader Nick Clegg and Shadow Secretary of State for Schools, David Laws MP. They call for raising standards in all local schools; closing the gap between children from rich and poor families and ending the era of Government meddling in education.

Speaking about the proposals to a meeting of members and residents, Councillor Tim Pickstone, who leads the Lib Dems in Bury said:

“There are a number of radical ideas to ensure all young people get the best start in life. The extra cash will make a real difference in our local schools.

“I am particularly pleased that funding is proposed to cut infant class sizes to private school levels of 15.

“We will also introduce a £2.5bn Pupil Premium, to ensure that extra funding goes to the pupils with the highest needs, whichever school they are in. And some of that extra money will pay for after school and Saturday classes, and extended school days.

“We will also get central government off the back of schools, teachers and pupils. The days of ministers in Whitehall stifling schools and interfering with everything that happens in the classroom must end.

“Schools here in Bury need to be freed to teach children rather than spend their time obeying ministerial orders and trying to achieve government targets.

“The schools proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats will go a long way to ensuring that the many thousands of local children who go to local schools have at least as good a start in life as the small number who are educated privately.”

The proposals will be debated at the party’s spring conference in Harrogate in March.

Rick

As mentioned the other day, Prestwich has the worst air quality in the Borough, and I have written to the Highways Agency to try and find out why.

In the meantime, I submitted a question to the Leader of the Council last night about it.. In particular, I pointed out that one of the two air quality measuring devices in Prestwich (the one on the corner of Bury New Road and Butterstile Lane) has been broken almost continually since its installation eight years ago and has only been able to provide one full year’s data in all that time. I asked why has this been allowed to happen and what is the Leader going to do about it.

Because the Tory leadership now make it intensely difficult to ask questions in public meetings, the question didn’t get an airing. But the have generously provided the following written answer:

“The air monitoring facilities were originally funded by grants for DEFRA. They specified the design and monitoring equipment that the stations were to hold.

This small unit houses two analysers within a cabinet which also includes air conditioning and computer equipment to gather data. It is quite a complicated system within a small space which has led to a series of design and technical malfunctions.

In order to get meaningful results, the unit needs to measure pollution for at least 75% of the year. We worked closely with DEFRA, the software suppliers and designers to resolve the problems over this time but without success. However, DEFRA have now provided further grant funding which will see the installation of a more reliable long term monitoring facility on that site.

This Council is currently leading a collaborative procurement exercise to purchase a joint service and maintenance contract for the air quality monitoring stations at Bury, Tameside, Trafford and Salford. It is expected this arrangement will provide a more efficient support service for the monitoring stations in the long term.”

If I’d had the chance of a follow up question, I’d have asked quite how closely a large Council and a big government department were working when they couldn’t fix a software problem for seven years! But I have been denied that explanation. Still, good news that it seems about to be fixed.

The Lib Dem group submitted a few questions last night, of which mine was only one. My colleague Tim Pickstone has detailed the others, and you can read them here.

Rick 

The Conservatives recently introduced new rules which restrict the ability of Councillors to ask questions of the Leader and Executive at Council meetings. The deadline for receipt of questions for verbal response has now been extended to four clear working days (in effect, a week). The public now have to submit questions even further in advance, and no longer have the right to ask a supplementary.

I think this was a bad move, and have campaigned vocally against it since it was introduced. Last night’s questions were ridiculous, and showed just how silly the situation now is.

We have become used recently to seeing only a small percentage of the total number of questions received actually answered. Maybe half on a good night. Last night there were 16 questions received. Unfortunately, the first of five from the Lib Dems was number 7 on the order paper. We are told that the order is determined by the time of submission, but this is not strictly true because the first Lib Dem question on the list last night was actually the last one submitted!

It seems unfair that one group could have 6 of its questions answered before another has any answered. It was made worse though last night because the answer provided for the first question was insanely long. Almost twenty minutes, in fact, which meant that almost no others could be dealt with.

I wouldn’t want to suggest that this was a deliberate delaying tactic on behalf of the Tories. But I think that something needs to be done here. I appeal to the Mayor to intervene more at Question Time, and more effectively chair the meeting at what can be a tricky point. Answers and supplementary questions need to be brief and to the point. Officers shouldn’t provide answers which take five minutes or more to read out, and the Mayor should intervene to allow more questions to be reached. Members are allowed a supplementary, but no more than one. Yet the Mayor refuses to intervene as a second, third, fourth supplementary is asked and then answered. It’s no wonder we get no further down the list. It’s very frustrating.

A further concern relates to verbal questions to the Leader. These can be raised on the night, but the new rules state that they must relate only to the work of the Executive since the last meeting. I think this is a silly rule in itself, since the Executive are responsible for the entire Council. But the application of the rule is sillier still, as there is an insistence on the topic not just being related to the work of the Executive, but actually being directly related to a topic discussed at a meeting of the Executive! It’s just stupid, and once again restricts our rights to properly carry out our duties. And last night it was made worse because this rule appeared to be relaxed for a Conservative member who asked a planted question which had nothing to do with an Executive meeting. Such inconsistency drives me mad. The lack of clarity could, again, be solved with more effective actions from the Mayor in the chair. But, alas, each time such action is lacking.

The rules are unfair, silly, and need to be changed for the good of democracy.

Rick

Last night’s Council meeting was unusual. There was, for the first time in a long while, a motion of no confidence in the Leader. It was proposed by the Labour group, primarily due to the continuing cock-ups related to equal pay which the Tories preside over with an arrogance bordering on the gleeful. But there were plenty of other reasons to doubt the capability of the Tories, like their continuing attacks on the freedom of members and the public to question their actions.

The motion was defeated 26 votes to 25, the Tories clinging on by a single vote by using the Mayor who would normally have abstained. This margin, narrow but enough, was no surprise.

What was a surprise, and a disappointment which stands out even amongst the catalogue of disappointments that is this administration, was the continuing lack of any sort of humility whatsoever from the Tories. It is just beyond my comprehension how they can be so smug whislt the Council’s staff plummet to new depths of low morale.

The speech from Cllr Campbell, the Labour leader proposing the motion, was measured, I thought. He can go on at times, but he didn’t last night. Cllr Bibby’s (the Leader’s) response was little short of the preamble to a drinking house brawl. His pantomime references and shouting would have had me reeling all night, were it not for the even more outrageous antics of his colleagues. Cllr Walton, the Executive member for HR, spent nearly 20 minutes of the allotted 30 for questions to the Executive, providing an incredibly (and very unnecessarily) long response to a single question. It had me wondering if it was a delaying tactic to avoid answering any others. 

The answer included some fairly unpleasant accusations levelled at the Unions and at Labour, which were unfair at best and possibly quite false. Again, no semblance of humility or regret from a man who has been at the helm of this whole sorry saga.

But even Cllr Walton was eclipsed by the Executive member for Finance, Clr Redstone. His finger waving, shouting and heaving in the direction of the Labour benches was like something out of Punch and Judy. If this wasn’t so important, and if there weren’t members of the public in attendance, I would have laughed at his shameful childishness. But his petulance masks the nastiness of his views. His response to genuine, heartfelt please from staff losing money has never been what I would want from a leader. Last night he said that the staff should care less about their salaries and more about the “joie de vivre” that he could give them. That he said it at all was appalling. That he said it with a cheeky grin on his face was disgraceful.

My colleague Cllr Tim Pickstone said in the debate that this pay review had left him ashamed to be a Councillor in Bury. I agree. It has been badly mishandled, and the continuing antics of the leading group in deflecting all blame form themselves, makes me feel sorry to be part of the same group of people.

Rick

Here is the speech I made last night in support of the motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Council. The motion failed (see above for an account), but this was my contribution to it.

I don’t think it was my best effort at Council, to be fair. One or two slip-ups, particularly towards the end when, as I was saying one particular line it occurred to me that I’d actually said the exact opposite of what I menat. Never mind… I thought in the moment it lacked a bit of sparkle, but it must have had some effect because one Executive member was staring at me for the remainder of the meeting with such hatred in her eyes that I genuinely feared for my life!

Not quite what I joined the Council for, but at least it kept the adrenalin flowing! Here’s the speech…  

“Mr Mayor, I have no confidence in the Leader of the Council.

But blame should not rest with him alone.

The failings of the Executive as a whole, have harmed this Authority a great deal. 

Their failings aren’t personal, but they are important.

And these failings are many, and they must be held to account.

What I say is not borne out of party political rivalry.

Nor do I speak with anything but a desire for good in Bury.

But we have been forced to this point. Forced by the conduct of the Executive.

It is a shame that the most logical and fair way to review job evaluation - an all party group - has been rejected by the Tories already.

This motion, with its personal attacks and negativity, gives me no pleasure.

But I speak in support of it, because we have been forced to this point. Forced by the conduct of the Executive.

Publicising their mistakes won’t put a penny back into the pockets of the staff losing out in the pay review.

But I hope it might give them back some faith.

Faith in the democratic process – a faith which must surely have been shaken these past few months.

Faith in the conduct of elected Members, some of whom have not risen to the task of protecting them.

And faith in the compassion of Leaders who have not shown compassion so far.

The Pay and Grading review was not started by the Executive.

The decision to proceed wasn’t made by them, and the law forced their hand. And don’t they know it!

But that does not absolve them from blame.

Their failure to see that condemns them.

The pay review has been a catastrophe for this Council, but the Council has been further blighted by incompetence, presided over by this Conservative Executive.

It was allowed to happen on their watch, presided over by this team, and led by the Leader himself.

Their attempts tonight to blame the Unions for the delays at Christmas were a disgrace.

It was their neglect of process which caused the delays. Nothing else.

It’s like a building burning down, and the arsonist blaming the man who called the fire brigade.

This review was on the agenda from their first day in the job, and in the 21 months since, they have turned a potential disaster into an actual disaster.

Mr Mayor, the Titanic had to sail across the Atlantic, but if the look-out had spotted the deadly iceberg from Southampton, the crew steering the ship would have been expected to avoid it.

We told the Executive this problem was coming way in advance. They did nothing to avoid it.

They cannot continue to use the decisions of others to excuse themselves.

That offers us no solutions.

We have offered them ways out. Joint working groups, the assistance of scrutiny, the engagement of staff.

They have said no to them all.

And in doing so, he has lost the confidence of at least two of the parties in the council, and of a huge proportion of the staff.

Where the Executive could have stood with us and staff together against the wider injustice, they chose instead to excuse their own shortcomings.

If I were in their shoes, my pronouncements against the stupidity of this forced review would not have been confined to cowering defensiveness in Council meetings.

They’d have been the cornerstone of everything I did to keep the staff and members on the same side.

Equal Pay in its current guise is madness. The review is madness. If it wasn’t for the threat of being sued, we might not have done it.

We’re pretty much all agreed on that.  The Leader included.

That the Tories managed to create chaos out of this united front, was madness.

That they did not publicly agree with the Unions and the staff and the opposition that the process as a whole was flawed, and stand and fight for a better solution, perhaps the biggest madness of all.

I don’t want to call it callous, because I don’t believe that it was.

I believe they were swayed into thinking there was no other way, when plainly there was.

They didn’t come to scrutiny for months.

They didn’t allow extra questions from the public gallery in meetings.

They didn’t appear here at the members’ briefing session.

And in not doing these things, he grossly underestimated the power of their position.

All too often, their attitude has been inconsistent with their role.

At the last full Council I asked the Leader what lessons he would learn from this fiasco, and he didn’t name a single one.

How can there be no lessons when staff morale has never been so low?

Not all of this is the fault of the Executive. But so much of it is.

Who was at fault when scrutiny was cancelled in favour of a dinner in Manchester? They were.

Who was at fault when calls for an all party working group were thrown out? They were.

Who was at fault when thousands of dismissal letters were suddenly, humiliatingly, shockingly, withdrawn? They were.

Mr Mayor, it was these dismissal letters which were the final straw.

But let us be clear, the catastrophic mishandling of the pay review, which culminated in that recall, is far from the only reason why Cllr Bibby commands no confidence from us tonight.

These letters represent the fifth, the FIFTH occasion under this Tory administration when letters to the public have had to be revoked because they’re wrong.

Cllr Bibby’s Executive threatened victims of crime in Prestwich with legal action for not cleaning up the mess the criminals left.

The Executive sent people in my ward demands for money for garden tenancies some had enjoyed peacefully for decades.

The single people and pensioners of Bury were frightened by letters from the Council querying their honesty.

 And the people of Whitefield were threatened with court proceedings after their bank failed to process Council Tax payments.

Each time the Executive charged forth, and each time they were forced to humbly retreat.

Who was at fault for all of these things Mr Mayor?

They were.

The Executive have shown a complete lack of control over the workings of this Council.

They’ve now had five chances. I don’t think they deserves a sixth.

I have no confidence in a Leader who tells this Council that it won’t happen again, only to preside over the same mistakes once more.

They have let letter after letter be humbly repealed.

They have let the pay review rumble on past the deadline.

They have seen Radcliffe Riverside school remain unbuilt.

And now they have seen delays in confirming a vision for Prestwich.

They cannot run this Council.

There is a culture of failure which we have seen lie at the heart of this administration, which must now come to an end.

A creeping culture of arrogance as well, that pollutes the Executive too.

And that too must come to an end.

The people of Bury have spoken, and in doing so have chosen to give the Conservatives the chance to govern.

As the Tory Executive preside over one calamity after another, they hide behind this choice.

But their actions in leadership have not been those of a party of the people.

Who made the decision to restrict the rights of the people to ask questions of the Leader?

They did.

That they made that decision despite protests from all sides including their own, was baffling.

That the Conservatives continue to back moves of this nature, more baffling still.

The Leader should bear in mind this principle. That though the will of the majority is always to prevail, that will must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights.

Violating them is a dereliction.

I have no confidence in the Leader when he chooses that dereliction.

The public now cannot properly question him or his colleagues.

The Executive have enshrined that rule, when they should be ashamed of that rule.

He has been given the gift of leadership, and has squandered it on that.

His is not the only voice we should hear.

His rejection, without discussion, of an all party scrutiny recommendation last week was the latest in a growing list of arrogant dismissals of all but his own view.

 Mr Mayor, our cosy world of elections says that the people of Bury chose the Tories, but they must remember, that far more people in Bury chose not to vote for them than chose to.

Even amongst those who voted, they have the smallest of majorities.

Their mandate exists, but it is slender at best.

Their tiny majority gives the Leader no right to restrict democracy here, but the Tories have let him do just that.

Cllr Bibby has led this Council to a low point for democracy.

Mr Mayor, I want confidence in my leaders.

But the Executive are all too willing to batten down the hatches of party politics when he should be extending the hand of partnership.

Resorting tonight to the politics of pantomime was an insult to every one of us.

Again I ask, where is his tone of solemnity when dealing with serious issues? 

They have turned the staff against us when, really, they are all that we have.

They have failed in the business of running Bury.

And the Leader has not grasped what it means to lead this Borough.

Mr Mayor, we have no confidence in him.

He should resign. “

Rick

Don’t forget that there’s a meeting of Bury Council on Wednesday night. If you want to see democracy in action, or simply if you want somewhere warm to stay for a few hours, head down to the Town Hall. It may be a night of high drama (relatively speaking…) because there’s a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Council. His cack-handed management of the Equal Pay Review warrants little else, so we’ll see how that goes tomorrow night. The Tories only have a majority of one, so it won’t take much to make it very interesting indeed.

The meeting starts at 7, and as well as that particular debate, there’ll also be questions to the Executive from Members and the public, and questions to representatives of outside bodies. Unfortunately the Tories have changed the rules so that you can’t just come and ask a question any more (they have to be submitted well in advance), but there is a loophole whereby if there’s a burning issue you have, you can get your local Councillor to ask a verbal question without notice on your behalf. This only applies to some issues, but if you have the question, we may be able to get it asked. Just come on down and try!

Rick

I was on a course with work today, and noticed with some alarm, during the first of several unnecessary coffee breaks, that I’d had three missed calls from Tam. Under normal circumstances this could only mean one of a small number of distressing things - death of relative / car accident / cat-related incident blown out of all proportion but still requiring the wiping away of tears.

Today though, it was an enquiry I hear all too infrequently in my day to day business. She wanted to know if I knew of anywhere that sold sledges, since she’d been sent home from teaching at a school deemed too snowy for education.

I said no, but apparently she used all of her teacher’s ingenuity and was later spotted careering down a hill in Heaton Park on a tea tray.

Yes, the observant amongst you will have noticed that the ward (and, though sometimes I like to believe that it doesn’t exist, even the world beyond the ward) has been blanketed with snow. Not the type of snow that peacefully co-exists with the residents of Canada, Scotland, Russia and Scandinavia for much of the year, but instead an evil type of snow that only lands in Britain and is capable of bringing complete chaos to all corners of society. Except, unfortunately, the boring course I was on.

I hope everyone’s remained safe in the snow, and continues to do so until it melts away. At times like this the Council’s Environmental Services staff do a grand job keeping the roads as clear as possible through gritting and patrolling, and other local partners like the emergency services also work even harder than normal.

The Council’s gritters were out all night, from 9pm Sunday to after 6am this morning. 137 tonnes of salt was deposited on the streets of the borough. Two more gritters were out all day today to cover as many side streets as possible, carrying out the procedures which try to ensure that streets and pavements are gritted according to priority need. Tonight they will be out again.

If there are any stretches of road that are grit-free when they shouldn’t be, or if you have any concerns, please call the Council on 0161 253 5000 for assistance. Do take care in the snow, and if you know of anywhere that sells sledges, please let me know!

Rick

I was out leafleting in the snow earlier. It was lovely to see once again that God’s continual gentle ribbing of me continued - He held off the snow until I was safely away from the shelter of the car, and then let rip with it. Now that I’m home, it’s stopped. But I’ll probably be out again before tea time, so expect some more then.

Whilst I was out we bumped into some Conservative leafleters in the area. They were obviously new to Prestwich, as they were busy consulting a map to find out which street they were on. But I applaud their efforts to reach out into Prestwich every once in a while.

The coming week sees another packed schedule of meetings. On Monday is a meeting of the local party Executive, followed by Licensing on Tuesday, when we will consider another slew of applications and reports. And on Wednesday it’s full Council. Labour have tabled a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Council, specifically citing the fairly calamitous handling of the Job Evaluation / Equal Pay process as the reason for it. I have about as much confidence in the Tory leadership of Bury Council as I do in the Tory leafleters’ ability to get around Prestwich without the help of the Ordnance Survey, so it’ll be an interesting night on Wednesday. And as well as that, there’s also the chance to have some questions answered by the leadership on issues pertinent to the local area.

I will keep you posted as the week goes on.

Rick 

There’s a great website called “They Work for You” which has lots of details on your local representatives and how to get in touch. Being an avowed egomaniac, I was on there today looking myself up (I’m not on there, it turns out, but it’s nothing personal, they just don’t include Councillors. For that, try here), when I found the voting records and other information on Bury’s two Labour MPs. They make fairly startling reading.

For instance, both Ivan Lewis (the MP for Bury South, Prestwich’s MP) and David Chaytor (MP for Bury North) have voted against a transparent Parliament. They has voted strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war, and strongly for ID cards. Are these the type of views that the people of Bury hold? I would suggest not, and yet our representatives in Parliament don’t seem to mind.

Why don’t you check out the site yourself. Interesting reading.

Rick