So Why Was I There?

So Why Was I There?

I’ve just returned from a county council cabinet meeting (in the public area – don’t worry.)  I didn’t have to be there.  There was nothing directly concerning my division being discussed and the only issue with which I was intrinsically involved (the Member-Led Procurement  Sub Committee report) was presently ably and coherently by my colleague Cllr. Nick Clarke.

So why was I there?

Far down at the other end of our county near a little-known and rarely-visited backwater settlement called Cambridge, rests Gilbert Road.  The county council, as part of their strategy to make the city more ‘cycle friendly’ and in cooperation with a national cycle organisation have been considering a plan to make significant changes to the road to allow this to progress.  The problem, as it stands, is that the existing advisory cycle lane is sometimes blocked by parked cars – forcing cyclists to weave in and out of the lane as they travel.  The desire to ’streamline’ the cycle route and thereby make it ’safer’ is the guiding light for the proposal.  The plan involves preventing parking along the road and this is where the argument begins.

Right now, most readers are probably nodding in agreement (or nodding off, perhaps).  The road is dangerous!  Solution = make it safer.  Right?  Except that the residents of Gilbert Road take a different view.  They consider that removing their parking amenities and thereby changing their use of their most local road is something they should have a say on.  They are angry on a number of levels and they maintain that; the consultation wasn’t handled fairly, their own representations have been ignored, they have not been properly represented by their local councillors, the evidence that the road is dangerous is not supported by the figures, the evidence that the proposed measures will make cyclists safer is not proven, local groups and organisations will be disenfranchised or even forced to close due to the changes.

I am uncomfortable with the shape of the public debate thus far.  Some very emotive charges have been made by pro-cyclists of the kind that goes: “If we don’t make the road safer then the next child to be killed will be on your conscience!”  It’s powerful rhetoric, but its unfair and misleading.  In fact, in ten years, there have been only six cycle-related accidents on Gilbert road – an area which apparently features 900 cyclists per day.  Now look – of course any accident is a tragedy.  But these accident statistics are actually low if you consider the huge volume of cyclists that reportedly use the route.  The only “evidence” of how unsafe this road is appears to be anecdotal.  So, perhaps we can turn the emotive logic on its head?  If we DO go ahead and make these changes and in the next ten years there are more than six accidents involving cyclists on Gilbert Road then each of those additional accidents are “on the conscience” of the pro-cyclists?  Because clearly, by their own logic, the changes they enact will be responsible for the difference.  Fair?

At the cabinet meeting the room was packed with members of the public.  There were a few pro-cyclists, but I would say the majority were Gilbert Road residents and people from the surrounding streets.  They had genuine evidence, a real case and a powerful gripe over the way they have been and are being treated.  I will not go into the details – they are public knowledge and if you are interested you can look into the issue or give me a call and I’ll fill you in.  I’m not actually here, on my blog, trying to make the case that the Gilbert Road residents were right.  My point is that what has happened here is worrying.

First, I lay the blame on the system.  A system which can take a perfectly honourable aspiration – to make a city more cycle-friendly – and get so bound up in it that it forces its policies upon an unwilling local population in a way that leaves them feeling bewildered, disenfranchised and desperately disappointed.  Instead of doing these things with the people we are doing these things to the people.  This is what the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville would have called “The Tyranny Of The Majority” where a majority, often ill-informed or at least unwilling to consider themselves in the other’s shoes, enact their will upon the rights or desires of a smaller group.  This is democracy at its most brutal.  It did not have to be this way.  The people of Gilbert Road are not unreasonable – nor do they entirely disagree with the aspiration of cyclists.  The compromise solution was that the “no parking” restriction would take place in time blocks; perhaps 8-10AM and 3-6PM, to protect the rush hour bike travellers and schoolkids while maintaining their right to park outside their houses in quiet periods.  This seemed to be fair and reasonable middle ground.  But apparently not.

I don’t really blame the cabinet for this, actually.  I’m disappointed with their decision, but nobody could deny the way the wind was blowing.  Taking a more controversial stance would have been difficult, given the outcome of the official public consultation and the PDG discussions.  The cycle groups could afford to put out glossy flyers full of what some would call “information” and others might uncharitably deem “propaganda”.  The lobbying of members was fierce on both sides, but a cycling organisation has a lot more contacts that a single road’s resident’s group.  Local schools when faced with the rather leading question: “Do you support making the road safer for cyclists” or some variation on the theme unsurprisingly came out in full support.  The media decided early-on that there was more traction in supporting the emotive campaign of those whose own parking would be unaffected than the one being run by people who actually lived there.  In the end, the variation that cabinet agreed was better than it might have been. 

But there is one place where I do lay blame – and I lay it squarely.  On the heads of the Liberal Democrat councillors who are supposed to represent this area.  Their policy of not attending Policy Development Groups meant that the case of the Gilbert Road residents had to be made by a Conservative councillor and a UKIP councillor – both of whom live on the other end of the county.  Not that those Liberal Democrat councillors would have supported the Gilbert Road residents even if they had been there.  They are utterly blinkered on the issue.  But don’t get me wrong – they are entitled to hold that opinion.  They would argue, no doubt, that a majority of their voters are in favour of the changes.  But even if they disagree – they have a duty to support resident’s groups in their area in the democratic process.  While expressing a different point of view they must still enable their resident’s voices to be heard.  That’s their job – a job in which they fundamentally and desperately failed in this instance.  As a councillor you do not have the freedom to ignore your constituents simply because you don’t share their view.  They should come up here to Fenland.  As much as I disagree with them on many issues, our local Liberal Democrats could teach their Cambridge colleagues a thing or two about their democratic duty.

So, the people of Gilbert Road did not know where to turn.  Divorced by their elected county councillors, estranged from the public debate by an overwhelming larger interest – they asked for help.  There wasn’t much I could do.  I live an hour and a halfs drive from cosmopolitan Cambridge.  Out here in Fenland the events of that city can seem quite distant.  But I went along to the cabinet meeting, met them outside and supported them throughout the meeting.  Because nobody else seemed interested – and for democracy to function fairly and properly that just is not good enough.  And that’s why I was there.

Vigilante Politics

Vigilante Politics

Interesting news breaking that well-known, influentual and controversial right-of-center blogger Old Holborn is going to be standing for parliament under the <cough> Jury Team banner.  Where?  Cambridge!

The Jury Team, some might remember, were spectacular in the Euro Elections last year – throwing huge amounts of money in the hope of getting a host of “independent” candidates elected (can anybody be truly independent when somebody else is paying their ticket?) and in the end creating about as much of a wave as those loveable “Animals Count” folks. (Now if they’d actually had some animals which could count that would have been exciting… )*

Old Holborn is an interesting blogger and I read his posts quite often.  He’s a real hard-core Libertarian (far more militant and extreme in his position than my humble Libertarian leanings) and so, like most Libertarians, he’s always proposing something outlandishly shocking (to most people) or just railing against authority in a vocally furious way.  It may not be practical – but it’s fun to read.

Which makes me a bit sad is that he decided the Jury Team – or Believe Nothing Team as I like to call them - were the right party to campaign for.  Why not stand on behalf of the Libertarian party?  Money, I guess.  The Jury Team has deeper pockets than LPUK and have been touting about recently offering to help people put their name forwards.

But in the end, I just can’t see the Jury Team idea taking off.  It’s a meaningless banner.  They say they want to promote independents with strong ideals – and that they have no political position themselves.  That’s all well-and-good, but their banner is still there over the candidate’s name.  People will begin to associate it with the people who they choose to promote. 

Take Old Holborn, for instance.  He wears a mask in many public appearances making himself look like one of the bad guy’s from the old Batman cartoon.  But riddle me this – he styles himself as “Guy Fawkes – the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions”.  A creative and entertaining image, for sure, but how will that gel with other completely different candidates the Jury Team pick?  What if they pick a beardy tree-hugger and a lab-coated particle physicist in neighbouring areas?  Put them in a photo shoot and they’ll be like some strange political version of the Village People. 

These folk will certainly liven up the political scene – but in the end I suspect people will view the Jury Team in one of three ways.  They’ll see them as an assortment of bizarre oddballs who make good news copy but no serious person would vote for.  They’ll see them as a brief protest vote.  Or they wont see them at all. 

Jury Team - a political party that isn’t a polital party.  Paul Judge (Jury Team bigwig)  seems to want to be the Simon Cowell of national politics.  Picking people he thinks might briefly flit into and out of the limelight.  I think there are better ways he could be spending his money.  But I’m not complaining – it’s all good solid entertainment.

And while I’d rather the Conservative candidate won in Cambridge – there would be something ironic about somebody who genuinely believes in liberty taking the seat from the Yellow Peril.  Old Holborn would be preferable to a Lib Dem I think.  He wants to let live pigs loose in the House Of Commons.  Now that i’ve got to see.

* I know I’ve made the Animals Count joke before.  But it tickles me.  Sorry.

The Small Print (legally required during election campaigns.)
Published by Mrs D N Clark on behalf of Steve Tierney of 111 High Street, March, Cambs PE15 9LH.

The Big Guided Bus Debate

The Big Guided Bus Debate

You know – I wasn’t going to get into this guided bus business because it’s not something I’ve been involved in.  It began before I joined the council and I haven’t been directly involved in its implementation at any point.  But, as has been pointed out by one of my more prolific commenters, tax-payers fund it and tax-payers are entitled to a view about it.  And since I’ve been asked I’m going to cover it very briefly. 

I’ve been to the briefings about the project, seen the official reports and looked over a summary of the contract and the figures.  It’s not perfect.  But then I’ve never seen a contract that is.  But the relentless criticism that seems to be being stoked mainly by opportunistic political activists and a main-stream media hungry for controversy really isn’t telling the whole story here.

First – let’s get this straight.  For Cambridge, our county’s flagship city, to have the longest guided busway in the world is a massive, exciting and visionary enterprise.  I don’t think anybody would deny that its a darn impressive plan.  Making the connectivity between Cambridge and other parts of the county and enabling people to travel to and fro comfortably, quickly and easily is the sort of thing that historic busy cities do – if they want to stay healthy, happy and prosperous.

The public in and around Cambridge are quick to tell us how serious an issue congestion is becoming.  But the majority seem to agree that a Congestion Charge would be distinctly unwelcome, unfair and unhelpful (except the Liberal Democrats, who think Congestion Charging is the best thing since sliced bread.)   The Guided Bus, when complete, will go some way to easing those problems – I hope.

The questions, then, aren’t about the idea itself – but centered around the cost and delivery.  And I can appreciate that this has caused some disquiet.  But large projects like this can run into snags even when respected large companies are chosen to handle the project.  The correct thing to do is to work with the contractor to resolve the issues – and resolve them correctly.

And if you have any disputes with the contractor, you need to resolve those before you take control of the project and make yourself (and therefore, indirectly, the taxpayer) responsible for those issues. I can assure you that nobody would thank the council for that outcome!

As a county council we want to adopt the busway.  Of course we do – its going to be an astonishing, revolutionary addition to the county and for the City of Cambridge.  Roy Pegram, Cambridgeshire County Council’s cabinet member for Growth, Infrastructure and Strategic Planning has put it far better than I in his official press release:-

“Cambridgeshire residents who have tested a section of the track have already told us how fantastic this system is going to be. I have ridden it myself and totally agree with them and can’t wait for it to open. However, I am clear that it would be unacceptable to open the system if we had to shut it again or pay out for maintenance to correct defects that you would expect the contractor to have rectified. After all you would not buy and move into a new home if you are aware of potential problems that could force you to move out while they are fixed.

“The Guided Busway is going to be a real asset to Cambridgeshire and will help people beat the queues on the A14.  All we now want is the contractor to rectify these defects so that Cambridgeshire residents will have the quality and reliability from the scheme that they expect and deserve.”

As a resident and voter myself I understand that it can be frustrating when things are delayed, or when obstacles seem to get in the way of delivery.  And yes, the guided busway is an expensive project that has taken a number of years to deliver – and is not quite ready yet.  But most reasonable people understand that delivering a project like this is not like setting up a tent.  Instead of being bogged down with negativity and pessimism we can just as easily look at the bright side.  This is going to be a stunning development – and its going to be ours!

Please take the time to watch this video and see for yourself.

Lister Wilson’s County Councillor’s Notes

This post has been submitted by a contributor. The author of this guest post would like to stress that it an expression of personal opinion and does not represent the opinion, official or otherwise, of the Cambs. County Council, of the owner of this blog (Steve Tierney) or of any other person or body. (Future guest posts by other contributors would certainly be seriously considered. If you are interested – email Steve Tierney with details of what you’d like to write about.)

Steve Tierney’s Comments:  This guest post features the New Year Message from my colleague and fellow county councillor Lister Wilson.  Lister is an excellent councillor and a man of strong convictions (most of which I share).  He is well known for ’straight talking’ and doesn’t shy away from difficult issues.  While this message was aimed at the people he represents, it’s content is powerfully persuasive (to me, anyway), passionate and interesting.  I present it here for your perusal and enjoyment!

Lister Wilson’s County Councillor’s Notes – January 2010

First of all a Happy New Year to everyone in Bourn, Cambourne and Caxton (and to readers of this blog from outside my home division, of course!)

2009 was an election year – this time for the County Council. I would like to thank everyone who voted for me and to acknowledge a good, clean campaign by my opponents. I would especially mention my Labour opposite number, Mark Hurd, for whom I have the highest regard as a man of complete integrity.

As I visited people on the doorsteps, there was one topic on everyone’s agenda – MPs expenses. Many were obviously angry that some MPs had taken their expenses claims to eye-watering levels, billing the taxpayer for trivial items; porn, expensive luxuries and mortgages which didn’t exist. This was not just a gravy train but a second income for the same job. As a local politician my experience was shared by many of the others. We were the opportunity for people to express their frustration. In some cases, it was futile to explain that Local Members are part-timers who have no possibility of dodgy expenses-claims. So I would like to put this misunderstanding to rest: we can claim for travel to Shire Hall and to official meetings elsewhere; we can claim car-mileage even if we arrive on a bicycle; and we can claim half the mileage-allowance of any fellow-member or officer if we give them a lift. We can also claim for meals. Let me state that I always claim for travel but never claim for lunch, dinner and so on. If I couldn’t claim for travel, then certain trips wouldn’t take place, as I tried to economise, and I don’t claim for meals because I’d have to pay for them anyway.

We cannot claim for journeys to Parish Council meetings, Governors’ meetings or for visiting constituents to discuss how to help them best. We also get an allowance of £10 a month towards broadband costs. How does that compare with MPs claims for moat-cleaning, floating duck houses and  phantom mortgages? It was the hardest election I’ve ever contested and I know why. I am still processing the Village Survey results and they will be the topic in the next Notes. Thanks to the many of you who sent them back and especially to those who made detailed recommendations.  As usual, I will respond personally to all those who left their contact details.

….and some other Rules

Councillors are governed by a Code of Conduct and several Acts of Parliament which seek to control what they say. The rôle of a County Councillor adds weight to the words of someone holding that position and so some care has to be taken when saying or printing anything public. I also see the rôle as someone who is able to speak for those he or she represents, fearlessly and without favour, because many do not have the same access to the press or to the machinery of getting things done.

Since 1997, anyone’s ability to express themselves has been sharply weakened by the rise of ‘political correctness’.  If our sensibilities have been trampled upon – meaning that someone has said something which we find annoying or offensive or just wrong – then we want immediate redress and the punishment of the offender through the offices of any one of the 529 quangos  set up to provide such redress. And it diminishes the freedom of speech and thought. Councillors are policed by a shady quango – the Standards Board for England. A County Council now has a statutory duty to employ a Lead Officer to police 18 local, national or supranational guidelines, by-laws or regulations, for example: United Nations Rights of the Child (1990), the European Human Rights Act (1998), the Learning & Skills Act (2000), the Children’s Act, the Sexual Orientation and Religion and Belief Discrimination Regulations (2003), the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) and 12 more.

But this is no accident. It has been deliberate Government policy and it’s expensive. We as a Council are facing the lowest Government Grant settlement of any Authority – a rise of just 2.2%. The average is 4.4% so you may draw your own conclusions as to who’s got much more than that to make the figures work. It’s the so-called Barnet Formula which effectively transfers large amounts of money from those who earn it to those who spend it. Cambridgeshire is now the engine of growth in the UK but we will see little benefit as so much is siphoned-off to sustain the rest. The low settlement will affect the size of any rise in Council Tax because we must still balance the budget.

We can trace the rise of political correctness to the collapse of Soviet Communism in 1989 . Up to that time, the Labour Party was heavily influenced by the Communist Party (including Jack Straw the present Justice Secretary) or were members of it (Peter, now Lord, Mandelson). The most influential Union in the Party was the Transport and General Workers Union (T&G) which gave its leader, Jack Jones (a Russian Secret Service Agent) and his deputy Alec Kitson control over safe Labour seats in Parliament. One of Jones’s brightest protégés was Gordon Brown and it was Kitson who gave Brown his first and only safe seat – Dunfermline East. Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Margaret Becket, Harriet Harman & John Reid, were all T&G people who made their Labour Party careers thanks to the Union’s backing.

Many of New Labour’s characteristics – its deep suspicion of outsiders, its in-built hostility to democratic debate, its secrecy, its faith in bureaucracy, its embedded preference for striking deals away from the public eye, and its ruthless reliance on a small group of trusted activists – result from the early Communist Party training of Mandelson and others.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and with it Soviet Communism, was an ideological earthquake for extreme left-wingers. Soviet Communism, some will remember, was the sort of government so controlling that border guards shot people trying to escape from it. So what was left in the ashes of this bonfire of economic failure?

It is the politics of gender, sexuality, life-style and rights, rights, rights. In the UK the ringmasters are the Equality and Human Rights Commission – the rebranded Race Relations Board – which costs £51 million a year to run. It must be a high-profile casualty for any Government wanting to save money. They also promote ‘positive discrimination’- abused when second-rate candidates get  favoured above the best because they’ve got some cause. I’ve yet to meet anyone who succeeded in this way and was proud of it.

……global warming, climate change and a new opiate of the masses

I write this as a fanatical re-cycler, ever since my Dad (who knew wartime austerity first-hand) taught me to straighten nails and re-use them. We, as a Council, have a commitment to reducing our ‘carbon footprint’ and why not? We also try to find better ways of working which save energy, including less car-use. But this is also an imposed agenda, again traceable to Labour’s dark history. The Left found in global warming, an appealing new anti-capitalist cause, and when EU governments and US Democrats adopted ‘fighting climate change’ as the badge of environmental solidarity, they were able to silence dissent and seduce or bully the media on a scale hitherto seen only in ideological or religious regimes. Only last month, a judge decided that one man’s belief in global warming was akin to a religious conviction and that his views were to be respected no matter how ludicrous they might be.

In contrast, amongst the climate change dissenters are many of the world’s leading climatologists, geologists, physicists, meteorologists and statisticians. But they have not networked effectively. They have had little money and no lobbying power compared with the alarmist non-governmental organisations, researchers, government departments and profiteers funded by taxpayers or investors. Even scientific research is compromised because preferment, careers and funding now depend heavily on state favour. The shambles of the recent Copenhagen Summit deprived the Government here of an excuse for new taxes on energy. We should at least be grateful for that.

….. and finally….

Just when you thought Congestion Charging in Cambridge was no longer a threat, the Agenda has been re-shaped and delayed. We will now not have to make a decision until 2017. Then we’ll take another look at whether there’s congestion or not. I remain convinced this is absolutely wrong and voted against it in Council. That didn’t help because most of the Councillors voted the other way.

Which brings me back to last June’s County election. The Lib-Dems are fully behind Congestion Charging and I need someone to explain to me why so many people in Bourn and Cambourne voted for them. After all, 81% of the residents drive to Cambridge every day and I can’t believe they’d willingly part with another £1,000 a year in taxes.

Happy New Year

Lister Wilson
County Councillor for Bourn, Cambourne and Caxton

A Conservative For Cambridge

A Conservative For Cambridge

I notice that the short-list of names for the Cambridge open primary have been published this week.  The Cambridge Conservative website has them all here.

Cambridge is nominally considered a “safe” Lib Dem seat, although in the strange current political climate i’m not sure there is any such thing.  I actually believe that Cambridge would benefit greatly from, and possibly even welcome, a Conservative MP.  But it would have to be the right candidate.

So it was with great interest that I looked over the brief bios and pictures (yes, how you look shouldn’t matter, but in the real world, perhaps sadly, it does) and considered their profiles in relation to a chance to win Cambridge.

If I were a Conservative based in Cambridge I’d keep quiet, rather than express views on the candidates.  But since I am as far away from them as it is possible to be and still be in the same county I don’t suppose a personal overview from a distant colleague in the North will worry them too much.  I must stress that I’ve never met (or seen personally) any of these candidates.  My opinions are based entirely on the limited information given in their respective blurbs.  But first impressions do matter, so perhaps there’s some food for thought here. 

Eve Conway – Bio Here

Describes herself as a journalist and broadcaster and says she is: “a good communicator.”   If this bio is an example of her communication skills it left me a little nonplussed.  She doesn’t seem to say anything concrete and her argument for selection seems based on the fact that time working for the BBC as a journalist means that she “knows what the public wants.”  Really?  I’m sure she’s a perfectly good candidate, but I think I’d have written that bio differently if I had been advising her.

Sarah El-Neil – Bio Here

Sarah makes a big deal out of being local, which seems a good approach.  I like the fact that she speaks three languages, which will be useful in a multicultural city like Cambridge.  But which three languages?  It’s not a lot of use if they are Ancient Egyptian, Mongolese and Welsh.  Or maybe it is?  Cambridge is an interesting city.  Sarah is a paediatrician which gives her an insight into children and the NHS – useful!  She’s into singing and am-dram too which I rather like the sound of.  Her babble about Carbon Footprints will go down well in Cambridge, I expect.  All in all, she sounds like a pretty good candidate for the place in which she wants to stand.

Chamali Fernando – Bio Here

Chamali’s bio has a byline – “more than just a Cameron cutie!”  I’m not sure she really needed to point this out.  Her write-up is snappy, sassy and interesting.  A barrister for eight years she will know the law and be able to frame an argument well.  She’s another environmental activist which, although it leaves me cold, will be well-received in Cambridge.  I like her attitude but I think she went over the top with the ’style’.  Still, an interesting candidate.

Jane Gould – Bio Here

Jane Gould’s bio is impressive.  Great education, business experience, charities and boards, job club founder, she is also decribed as “an authority on age-related issues.”  Furthermore, she’s been a working single-mum.   She ticks just about all the ideal boxes for a leading public figure in the current climate.  It’s interesting stuff.  But is she as impressive in person as in writing? I have no idea, having never met her.  If she isn’t, then all the hard work and achievements still wont get her elected.  If she is, then she will be formidable.  I particularly like the closing remark: “In her elusive spare time, she plays flute in her Church band, grabs a round of golf and makes cakes.”  She’s like Super-Candidate!  All this and cakes too?  What’s not to like?

Mark Higgins – Bio Here

Mark is another barrister.  There seems to be something about the legal professions which draws practitioners into the Conservative party.  But that’s no bad thing, knowledge of the law and experience of making a strong case are powerful tools in a political career.   Mark Says: “My overriding commitment is to social justice and giving people the tools to succeed.”  Okay.  That’s all well and good.  But one man’s social justice is another’s high taxation.  A little more detail might be useful.  But then Mark goes on to say: “That is why I will jealously guard the reputation of Cambridge as an academic powerhouse and technological pioneer, press for immediate resolution of the student finance difficulties, advocate a reversal of the closure of special schools…”  Okay, that’s better.  So Mark thinks the way to deliver social justice is through education.  That’s a solid line of thought.  I particularly like this: “It means being more thoughtful about our lawmaking and not enacting rushed measures that so often encroach on our civil liberties…”  I like the sound of that!  I’m not quite as sure about Mark’s closing statement which begins: “Whilst I inevitably won’t always be popular.”  You’re a glass half-empty sort of guy then Mark?  Have some faith!  I’m sure you’ll be popular forever.

Nick Hillman – Bio Here

Nick’s schtick would appear to be his background in Westminster where he specialises in university policy.  You can see why this would have special appeal for Cambridge.  He makes an argument that Cambridge “doesn’t always get it’s fair share of resources.”  Well, duh!  That’s true of the whole of Cambridgeshire, which is expected to absorb endless growth with a second-rate government settlement.  But if you really want to see a lack of resources in the county, Nick, come to Fenland.  Cambridge is positively engorged by comparison.  But I’m being unfair.  This is obviously a good approach for the city.  Unfortunately, Nick’s bio is a little bare of detail from there on.  He talks briefly about his connections to the city and promises to “move there later this month.”  Fair enough. 

All in all there do not seem to be any ‘bad’ candidates here, which (I suppose) says good things about the process which got them this far.  The selection via Open Primary should be very interesting indeed. 

I almost wish I lived in Cambridge.  Of course, if I did, I’d be having a go myself for the spot.   I’m sure the city would just love my brand of Eurosceptic, Climate-sceptic*, free market, low tax waffle.  Not. 

*Note:  When I say ‘climate sceptic’ I obviously do not mean that I doubt there IS a climate.  Otherwise, we’d all suffocate, burn or freeze in a second or two.  <ahem>

County Cabinet Give Green Light To Transport Plans

I didn’t write this.  It’s a breaking news press release from Cambridgeshire County Council. 
“Getting The Message Out” by name, “Getting The Message Out” by nature.

County Cabinet Give Green Light To Transport Plans

A half a billion pound bid to revolutionise transport in Cambridgeshire was backed today (Tuesday) by Cambridgeshire’s Cabinet.

Cabinet members agreed to press ahead with a Transport Innovation Fund (TiF) bid on terms that were best for local people to help stop congestion from bringing Cambridge to a grinding halt.

Following a report from the independent Cambridgeshire Transport Commission in July, Cambridgeshire’s transport bosses revised their proposals for a TiF bid to include a ‘trigger point’ for a congestion charge when congestion reached a critical level and nothing else would help.

Cambridgeshire’s bid echoes the Commission’s recommendations, but it will be broken down into two parts so the public, businesses and partner authorities can be properly consulted on exactly when the trigger point is reached.

As a first stage, Cambridgeshire is asking for early confirmation of Government funding for Chesterton Station which would begin to be built in 2012 – three years earlier than planned.

A second stage will follow at the end of 2010 with a full bid for the remainder of the £500 million package. This will include a trigger point for a congestion charge to be introduced that will need to be agreed by the public, businesses, partner authorities and Government.

The earliest a congestion charge would be introduced is 2017 – eight years time, and only as a last resort if the record breaking TiF investment into transport does not help and the agreed trigger is reached.

Roy Pegram, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cabinet Member for Growth, Infrastructure and Strategic Planning, said: “Getting Chesterton Railway Station delivered as quickly as possible is a top priority for us. Around 80% of people who use the station at the moment travel in from north of the city and the new station will immediately help reduce congestion.

“Although I do not welcome the prospect of a charge we need to recognise now that this is what might be needed in the future to keep Cambridge moving. This unique opportunity for funding would help us transform transport in Cambridgeshire. It is vital that the public in Cambridgeshire, councils and organisations set the point with Government when enough is enough and congestion charging must be brought in. Congestion will not go away, but neither should we bring in a congestion charge without first revolutionising transport choice. We must address the serious problem we have here, but not at a cost to local people, and a two part bid does exactly that.
 
“If people are not persuaded out of their cars in significant numbers by the transport improvements and we allow the city to come to a grinding halt nobody would thank us as this will damage the prosperity of the county, and in fact the entire country.”

The decision taken by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cabinet will be taken forward to Full Council on October 13.