The lack of allotments

It seems strange to talk about allotments today – many people now have gardens or seemingly lack interest in gardening. However, there is a growing trend within Cornwall for people wanting to garden!

The latest figures from Cornwall Council show:

A large number indeed. But what, I can hear you asking, does this have to do with this blog? Well, actually, I’m complaining about it. And I’m also using this as an example where we, as voters, can help the council and better our own community relations. As well as have a lot of fun!

The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 states that is six or more people would like an allotment then the council has a statutory duty to provide them. To be fair it states:

23(2) On a representation in writing to the council of any borough, urban district, or parish, by any six registered parliamentary electors or [persons who are liable to pay an amount in respect of council tax] resident in the borough, urban district or parish, that the circumstances of the borough, urban district or parish are such that it is the duty of the council to take proceedings under this Part of this Act therein, the council shall take such representation into consideration.

A threshold that the council figures show has been met.

Now this may seem trivial in a time of massive public cuts. Indeed, earlier this year councils were looking at how to fund additional allotments through landfil taxes. The Local Governments Association's Environment Board Chairman Gary Porter said in August "Urgent action must be taken to meet this growing demand and allowing councils to use money raised from landfill tax to bring derelict land and empty spaces back into use would help meet this demand".

But why has the council failed to fulfil its legal duty over a longer period of time? The currnet number of puvlic allotments availble (below) does suggest that there has been a neglect of their obligations.Arguably, today, the council has greater problems and should be focussing resources else where. But the current allotment crisis is not new and has been developing for many years. Decades probably.

It’s not is there has not been national pressure. A petition to the Prime Minster gained much support and there is a national campaigns led by groups such as Allot More Allotments.

As a source of inspiration the council can use the many case studies provided in a government led strategy to provide more allotments. In one example, of Islington Council, the council led an inspired project on minimal resources that dramatically increased the number as well as meeting several other council objects.

In another, Tumbridge Wells (the home of complainers) gave a £800 grant for a shed and some tools to allow eight families to garden. The cost can be gained back through a small rent and eventually becomes a slight profit generating scheme.

Inspired leadership indeed – and not expensive either.

Yet the massive backlog of demand has not been met. So why has Cornwall Council seemingly failed?

In this case there is no need for additional evidence – the council figures show there is demand – but the time has come to led the solution ourselves.

The Cornish Complainer calls to you; if you know of a suitable site for allotments to write to the council and make them aware of it. Then, they no longer have an excuse.

Or, if you don’t want to be helpful, to write to the council and to pressure them to meet their obligations.

The number of allotments in Cornwall:

ps: It's amusing how the council have fugures for the number of allowments in Caradon but not a figure for the number of people waiting for one!

Gemma from Torpoint and more confusion about the role of MPs

It must seem like I’m picking on Sherrly Murray? Barely a week into this blog and this will be my second post about her! Well, I’m not – I’m using her behaviour as an example of how our expectations of MPs are not what our MPs should be doing.


Sherrly Murray made headlines when it released that she had been drinking at the House of Commons and was rude to a doorman. Murray denies the claim – fair enough, there is no reason to disbelieve her.

However, the comments section of thisisplymouth.co.uk (showing an article from The Herald) had some interesting comments.

Gemma, from Torpoint, said that this was a classic case of people jumping on the ‘we hate MPs bandwagon’. As if – If I was drinking at work I would lose my job, as I suspect would many others. But Gemma showed a complete misunderstanding for the role of an MP. Her comments can be found here.

For Murrays defence Gemma stated ‘Once in a 'surgery' to discuss why I a well educated, community spirited young woman was out of work for 11 months with no 'break' Sheryl was amazing and I am so pleased to say I am in full time employment and very grateful for her support and encouragement. Sheryl also helped judge a dog show I organised’. Great – organising a dog show is good community work. But it did nothing to help her decide which way to vote in the House of Commons – that is, after all, her job.

The job of an MP is not to organise dog shows. Although, this may form part of their research, but to man the House of Commons, to vote there, and to hold the government to account.

In a previous post, I raised this issue in another form; that we need to support our MPs far more with the kind of evidence that they need to work effectively in the commons. Gemma’s comments perhaps sum this up – it’s all OK because Sherlly organised a dog show.

The longer we continue to look at the ‘community work’ out MPs do – and the less scrunity we place on their appearances at the house – then governments will be able to get away with far more than they should.

The Great Bus Pricing Scandal

A return bus ticket from Hatt to Plymouth costs £5.80. A ticket from Plymouth to Manchester costs £9. What is there such a difference?

To be fair, many of the bus services in the South West are ‘rural’. This reduces the number of people who could use the services. However, when discussing bus policy, the (previous Labour) Government acknowledged that ‘centralisation of many public bodies, such as health’ services has made many people dependent upon public transport. The forthcoming closure and continued centralisation of many public services will increase this.

In an bid to reduce the general decline of (mostly loss making) public transport the government introduced bus subsidies to stimulate the bus companies into continuing rural transport. Nevertheless, the £6 return to Plymouth makes it nearly impossible to live in rural areas without a car. Sherlly Murray, MP for South East Corrnwall, rightly pointed out that Devonport naval base provided many jobs of Cornwall. But a worker from Hatt would pay £29 a week to get home and back.

The government call the subsidy ‘modest’. However, the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG – previously known as the fuel duty rebate) is anything but modest considering the high charges imposed by the bus companies.

The current BSOG is:

(Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/busgrants/bsog/rates.pdf )

This shows that every mile of a diesel bus journey costs the bus companies only £0.14p + the drivers’ wages and maintenance. It is a scandal then that it costs £5.80 for the 20 mile return journey from Hatt to Plymouth given this significant subsidy and especially so considering that they do not pay the toll on the Tamar Bridge.

Accross Cornwall it is time to look closely at what money public transport is receiving, the profits they make and the service they provide.

Investigations continue.

More on joint Cornish/Devon Constituencies

Another blogger has raised issues in resistance to the possibility of having a shared Cornish constituency with the mainland.

A classic case of mis-judged resistance?

This time there are two issues raised that need to be addressed as, at face value, it seems to be resistance based upon nothing but opinion and no facts.

Firstly, the blogger says ‘historic boundaries throughout the UK matters to many people’. Of course they do. However, this is not evidence that people consider these boundaries more important than the principle of equal representation, is it?

Secondly, and perhaps more important, it is suggested that there are 3.5 million people who are not registered (but should be) to vote. Apparently these phantom voters are in deprived areas mostly represented by Labour MPs.

But this seems a fuss about nothing – as soon as they chose, and it is their choice, to register and any constituency has 5% more or less than the equal number the Boundaries Commission will have to re-draw to represent this.

There is some potential through this to erode traditional boundaries further. But until there is strong evidence to suggest that the people would prefer unequal ‘traditional’ boundaries to equal representation then it is wrong of politicians to use this as a counter argument.

The choice for Cornwall seems clear: equal representation or a throw back to Cornish nationalism.

More Government logo costs (DiFD)

The Department for International Development (DiFD) is one of the departments that has had its budget ring fenced by the government as it attempts to make cuts. This is so the country can keep its commitment to give 0.7% of GDP in aid.

However, in July 2009 the department rebranded itself at the stunning cost of £130,000.

Danny Alexander, the Labour minister, stated that from this £98,000 was used designed and testing the new logo. Alexander continued that this money was used to ‘develop, design and test the logo to ensure that it was meaningful to the UK public’.

I struggle to see how a logo can be tested?? Or indeed how they judged if it was meaningful. A simple Union flag would be meaningful to most.

But this cost was just according to the Labour minister who said that the logo, which was commissioned from the Government’s Central Office of Information, followed ‘best practice and ensuring optimal value for money’.

I would, however, point out that the 25pound logo company mentioned in a previous post could have done the job far cheaper.

You can decide if this rebranding was value for money yourself.

Sheryll Murray / Devonport / and the need to be involved

We need more(d) more detail to put forward the case for Cornwall and we can longer rely on rhetoric and history.

Sheryll Murray, MP for South East Cornwall, used her maiden speech to emphasise the importance of Devonport to the economy of Cornwall. She stated that the naval base provided 24,000 jobs and warned that without the base Saltash and Torpoint could become 'ghost towns'. A fair point.

In a previous post I argued the case for locals to do more individual research into the political problems and to directly feed into the Westminster debate through our MPs. This is a classic example of the need for this; Ms Murray’s speech – whilst putting forward a good point – was hardly convincing on the detail. At times it varied its purpose away from the key problem of the closure of Devonport and towards issues such as the nuclear deterrent and the role of the Royal Navy.

But the speech did not provide nearly enough evidence of the benefits of requirement to keep Devonport. In a parliament debating the need to cut c. 600,000 public sector workers will lose their jobs, and in the process turning many towns in the public sector dependent north into ghost towns, that South East Cornwall is facing the loss of a mere 24,000 could easily be considered small beer.

So, I call out to you, provide Sheryll Murray with the evidence she needs to convincingly put this case across. What skills are kept alive by the navy? How many? How much? The argument that its closure will disastrous is not sufficient with so much scrutiny upon the public purse. Together we have to do better than this.

Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry Tolls

The great scandal of the Tamar Bridge – a principle road into Cornwall – is that motorists are faced with a seemingly unjust 50% rise and that some companies do not pay the toll at all!

In a letter recently published Andrew Vallance, the business manager of the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee, stated that ‘For some years, all stage omnibus services registered with the relevant Local Authority have not been charged for using the Tamar Bridge or Torpoint Ferry facilities.’

However, in March 2010 the Secretary of State for Transport was satisfied that the proposed rises(below) in tolls were ‘justified’.

The Secretary of State noted that the, despite the hard economic times, the rise was ‘appropriate and proportionate’. That is to say the Secretary approves of the 50% (inflation is around 4%) rise for motorists. It would be fair to suggest that such a rise was justified given the need to fund a cash reserve and to plan for the replacement of the Torpoint Ferries in 2025. Additionally, the Secretary of State was concerned about the depletion of the Joint Committees reserves at the rate of £300,000 a month.

Nevertheless, the need for the 50% rise does not toll (no pun intended) well with the governments other conclusion that the ‘Joint Committee’s operation appears to be well run’. This is, after all, the first toll increase since 1994. If the organisation is ‘well run’ why have they not raised tolls in line with inflation over the years? Yet, when we look through the accounts we see that in the financial year 2007/08 the committee had only a decefit for the year of £79,000. A farcry from the £300,000 a month that is now being lost.

Why, then, is there a sudden need to raise fees by 50%?

The Tolls:

(Source: Department of Transport, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/statutorytolled/tollreviews/tamarbridge/doc/decisionletter.doc )

Elected Police Commissions in Devon & Cornwall?

One of the flagship policies of the coalition government is to allow elected police commissioners take responsibility for the police. The President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, has warned that this could lead to police forces being responsible to lunatics. However, maybe, just maybe, the evidence from Devon and Cornwall suggests that this is good move.

Devon & Cornwall Police face the twin challenges of urban policing in Exeter, Plymouth and Truro whilst needing to maintain control of the more rural areas that require specialist knowledge and a more local touch. The released crime statistics show that the majority of crimes are committed in the urban areas. Nevertheless, there is reluctance within rural areas to report crimes driven partly because the police have a more limited presence. It is a spiralling circle: the less confidence the people have in the police the less they are willing to report crime and therefore, the more crime rises.

More recently, the uproar at the curfew in Redruth has raised wider questions about the police and the balance between liberty and security. In the case of Redruth the police did not hold minutes of their consultation meetings and, because there is no elected authority to hold to account, are under no pressure to do so. Indeed, the police only released limited documents detailing what information they collected and how they implemented it. Interesting – but no substitute for the full accountability of an elected commissioner.

In theory, the case of Redruth, parents were able to opt out of the scheme. However a senior Devon and Cornwall Police Officer warned that is children whose parents had opted out continued to misbehave (no mention of the word crime) then ‘we can make parenting orderings if we feel it is in the best interest of the child’. That the police have taken this more intrusive measure tells us it is time for a more responsive police force and for more effective ways of directing the type of policing we want.

It is perfectly possible that the residents of the high crime areas in Plymouth would like to see a similar approach. However, at the moment – because there is no elected commissioner – the Police are under no obligation to heed to the calls from the locals about the style of policing they wish to see. The election of a Police Commissioner would allow residents a deciding voice in how they wish the police to act. Such accountability to the needs of the public is hardly sufficient to justify Hugh Orde’s claim that police forces will be run by ‘lunatics’.

In another example, boy racers plague many parts of the South West. The police response is to make available a phone number for residents to call and are trying to be seen to take action. To be fair, the police have responded more forcefully in some areas by, for example closing of part of Cambourne high street to allow residents to sleep peacefully. Nevertheless, there is still no obligation for the police to act and to be directly responsible to the requirements of locals. An elected Police Commission would be more responsive to the needs of locals because, unlike the current system, he/she would be dependent entirely upon the good will of the people to maintain their position.

Another reason to support the case for elected commissioners is the shift towards ‘intelligence led policing’ (ILP) and the potential to destroy civil liberty in the South West. ILP is a shift away from reactionary policing to a more pro-active stance. Police forces collect information about individuals and build up a pattern of life in order to predict future crimes. However, the risks of this are obvious – the police are looking to act on evidence that a crime will be committed as opposed to a crime being committed. In part, it means they can target efforts but it reduces the cover available for ‘beat bobbies’. There is also a strong case to suggest that this will lead to people being arrested having not actually done anything illegal; a close friend of mine was stopped and searched walking home from the local pub – not a crime that I am aware.

As we have seen, the current methods to hold the police to account are not working adequately. In addition, the record of the Independent Police Complaints Commission is not sufficient to allow for the argument that the police is capable of holding itself to account. This leaves only the election of Police Commissioners as one of the few options available to respond to the policing needs of Devon and Cornwall.

University places, A Levels and spin

Yesterday A Level results were released leading to the normal outcry of ‘it was harder in my day’ and another year of record achievement. This year, however, there is a twist in the argument; a larger number of applications made for fiercer competition leaving many applicants without places.

The BBC are perhaps the worst for spreading this. One of their articles is titled ‘University 'will be denied to 150,000 students’. No where in the article do they show where the ‘denied’ has been quoted from.

In any case, the figures speak for themselves and show much of the reporting to be sensationalist. The Chief Executive of UCAS – the organisation responsible for matching places with students – said that around 70,000 (of the 150,000 that have been ‘denied’ places) have opted out of their insurance choice. This says that many applicants placed all of their faith in their first choice and only paid lip service to their second choice ‘insurance’ application. They seemingly did not plan ahead as they were advised to do. This is even more worrying considering that students can apply for multiple courses before declaring their first and second choice. With such a high proportion opting out it is hard to sustain that myth that 150,000 are being ‘denied’ a university education.

Ed Balls has been spinning his normal message as well. In an interview with Simon MaCoy he said ‘it is obviously disappointing that compared to our plans there will be 10,000 fewer places’; completely ignoring that this year there are, in fact, still 10,000 more places available than last year. Even if Labour were still in power the extra 10,000 barely dents the 150,000 applicants who have been ‘denied’ places. That these extra places would be on science based courses that are not currently full (dealt with below) also suggests that even if there had been an additional 10,000 places available then there is no guarantee they would be filled. Spin at its best.

Although, from the deluge of raw evidence a more worrying trend is visible; that many top universities are still not filling their places. There has been much hype of several universities not offering clearing places. Unprecedented, perhaps, but not a true reflection of the overall picture. At 1500 the day after results day, the UCAS clearing website, which lists all available courses, is still showing many courses from Russell Group Universities. The Russell Group, made from the top 20 Universities, would surely be looking to extend offers to the 150,000 ‘denied’ applicants. Especially as 22% of them will have the new A* grade.

Perhaps commentators need to take into account the types of courses people are applying for. There are science and engineering vacancies through the Russell Group, and the UCAS clearing site also shows a large number of language courses available.

In part this reduces that number of overall places as many students will not have the prerequisite language qualifications. However, for science based courses there can be no excuse with biology entries up 4.3%, chemistry up 3.7% and physics up by 5.2%. Even this rise, it seems, have not been sufficient to fill the science based university courses at out universities.

Part of the reason that so many young people are shunning university is that they (finally) may have cottoned on that it has been mis-sold. A decade of New Labour spin telling students that they will earn up to £400,000 a year more with a degree and the 50% target have placed un-realistic expectations upon degrees. The current review into university funding, led by Lord Brown, has downgraded this to £100,00. I recently spoke to a careers advisor who was increasingly frustrated that schools were only advising students to go to university; instead of looking to place them where their skills and ability were best suited.

Ed Balls shows himself to be further from the mark when he states ‘it is important too to expand the number of graduates’. Is it really? What is wrong on the job learning? His governments target of 50% of students attending university has, it seems, forced people to forget and undermine other routes.

The Labour Government has to answer for forcing students into this situation. The case of Das Bikramjit Gakhal illustrates that for young people it takes a strong will to avoid entering the university sausage machine. In this case, the student researched his own options are decided to learn on the job and will, in three years time, be in a similar position to his graduate peers only without the £25,000 debt. Not a bad deal.

 

Overall, the debate around university and A levels is coming to a climax. As a society the question of how many graduates we need has been answered this year, but this was because of competition for places rather than any government plan.

Something to Cut in Cornwall

Should language be cut?

From the start let me be clear that I am not doubting that some people will wish to speak Cornish but raising questions as to its funding and purpose.

Cornwall Council have a budget of £170,000 for the financial year 09/10 to promote the Cornish language. £20,000 of this comes directly from the Council and the rest is from central government. The recognition of Cornish under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 2002 has given a new lease of life and importantly protection to Cornish. The budget lasts until March 2010 when it will be re-negotiated.

Primarily this has been used by the Cornish Language Partnership. But this does not mean that we cannot question this. After all £170,000 is a lot of public cash. Especially at a time of forthcoming public cuts and the need to prioritise services and cash.

The uptake of Cornish has been relatively slow suggesting that there is limited interest in keeping the language widely alive. A report from the Government Office Network found that a ‘relatively small number of pupils’ were learning the language and this was mainly extra-curricular. (Figures to follow). This does not represent a massive demand, but arguably represents a good return for the central government investment.

The language has even been tough by two Welsh universities. But it was not until the creation of the Institute of Cornish Studies in 1972 at the University of Exeter that the language had any academic foothold in the South West.

There are two points that should be considered when deciding if this investment is worthwhile:

1. The provision of Cornish in Cornwall is dependent upon a Cornish speaking teacher being available. Especially as Cornish is not part of the National Curriculum – although this may change if Cornish schools are awarded freedom to set their curriculum under plans by the coalition government. This makes it hard to demonstrate that public money is being spent to enhance opportunities for all Cornish students.

Equally, as this is mostly national funding, why should pupils from across Britain be denied the chance to learn the language?

2. The use of teaching it. The Cornish Language Partnership list business who use Cornish! However, this is a limited number. Internationally, there are even fewer businesses prepared to accept Cornish. Essentially English is the predominate language and this is unlikely to change – how, then, can we justify spending such an amount on this provision?

Of course the counter is that the Cornish is part of the local culture. I agree, it certainly is. But culture is capable of looking after itself. If there are as many Cornish speakers as the CLP suggest then the language will be organic and will spread naturally amongst local families. No one has yet answered the question: Should the tax payer pay for what is, essentially, a luxury and not an essential school skill.

Secondly, the CLP seem determined to force Cornish into the county. They wish to see bilingual signs around the county and have discussed the processes for achieving this. This is perfectly fine –yet which should come first: the provision of a bilingual environment or a majority speaking a separate language?  Given that Mebyon Kernow received a mere 5379 votesat the last GE - 1.9 percent of the total Cornish  vote - there does not seem to be a strogn case at all.

A principle fear of mine is the Cornwall will follow the Welsh example. In Wales no one can join the public sector unless they speak Welsh. This is forcing a cultural change upon the people beyond its natural development. It is also isolating many potentially good workers who have no desire to learn Welsh. This is forcing a cultural change onto a community that has long since forgotten how to speak the language.

The Council post of 'Cornish Language Education Officer' is one post that the Council should consider cutting in order to meet the more essential services required by the Cornish. Given a choice between a culture that most only have a passing commitment to, or the provision of good roads and policing, I am sure the decision is a simple one to take.

But to give this idea some more consideration; Events such as the Celtic Film Festival in St Ives in 1997 do demonstrate that there is a small demand for provision of minority languages. However, at the moment in Cornwall, only a tiny minority speak Cornish and this does not warrant the spending of nearly £200,000 on the provision of services destined to affect the whole community. Especially when such funding is not targeting cultural events but instead being used to force the language onto the county.

Culture is not something we can throw away in a time of cuts. No one disputes this. Equally, we must be realistic. The country is broke and this budget (rather, what remains of it) should be a prime target for cuts. It is not a universal benefit, not does it add significantly to the employability of pupils learning it.

I applaud efforts to keep regional (or national) languages alive. But I do not accept that the public should be forced to pay for this.

A joint Cornwall/Devon constituency?

Equal Seats or an Infringement into Cornwall?

Mebyon Kernow has hit out over the Coalition Governments plans to equalise constituency boundaries across Great Britain. Cllr Dick Cole says it is ‘unbelievable’ that there could potentially be a cross Tamar seat. Cllr Cole sees great value in maintaining the integrity of Cornwall – a valid opinion it must be said.

Under coalition plans constituency seat will be around 78,000 strong and there will be an overall reduction in the number of MPs nationally to 600.At face value this appears to be a highly positive move – in the House of Commons each MP can claim to represent the same number of people and it will equalise the weight of peoples votes. The plan will end the anomaly whereby MPs need significantly different numbers of votes to be elected.

What is unclear is if this will actually affect Cornwall to the extent the Dick Cole suggests. In part this is driven by a changed perception of the role of an MP. Constitutionally, an MP should not have to be involved in much case work – their role is to vote on matters in the House and not to deal with individual problems which the public sector is there to deal with.

Given this, a cross Tamer MP would not make too much of a difference. A cross ‘border’ (used ironically) seat would not change this too much, but would potentially diminish the amount of time that an MP would have to investigate ‘Cornish matters’.

But this would certainly not appease those who believe Cornwall should have its representation. Cllr Cole wishes to keep Cornwall as a ‘political unit’ – given the role of an MP this doesn’t seem to be needed.

This is not to say I dismiss the need for MPs to be local. A local link is something that all MPs (rightly) protect and gives them their basis of support. But, I pose the question, why would an MP with part of Devon in their patch not be able to reflect the view of Cornwall?

There are few problems in Cornwall that are not common to Devon. We already have a combined police force.

Cllr Cole continued his critique of the idea this month: he blogged the Councils commitment that ‘Cornwall should 'manage it’s [sic] own Local Enterprise Partnership rather than one which combines Cornwall with any other part of the mainland UK’. Fair enough, but I am unsure as to how the Council’s authority over Cornish matters will be challenged. The coalition proposal seeks to rebalance MPs and not Cllrs – meaning that the Council will not be asked to manage part of Devon.

Against desires to keep Cornwall ‘independent’ we must balance the national question of equal representation. In any case, until the Boundary Commission reports it is still a question of principle over practise.

My question to Cllr Cole is do you support in principle the plan to equalise representation?

Logo Waste?

Communications Waste?


Often we are told that the problem with Government is that what ever good they do it is not communicated. I partly agree with this – there is a need to communicate what the Council is doing. But surely this is why we have Councillors?

Anyway, Cornwall County Council spent £7,249 designing their (our)new logo! A staggering amount.

A quick Google search finds a long list of companies who could do it significantly cheaper. Including one that I have used personally, that does it for £25.

Not a valid spend and perhaps part of the reason that we have such a large budget decifit.

Disgraceful.

On Cornish Waste

The Cornish Energy Recovery Centre

Cornwall, like the rest of Great Britain, is storing up an energy and landfill crisis. Each household in Cornwall, on average, generated 366.92kg of rubbish last year. Translated across the county this becomes an enormous amount for the country to process. Not many of us wish to see the continued use of landfill with the potential to ruin the Cornish countryside. Time is running out to find a sustainable solution as it is predicted that landfill space will run out by 2014.

To be fair to the Council there has been a solid attempt to encourage household recycling. Although, it would appear that this is more to do with cost than environment. In August 2010 the Saltash Journal reported that each black bag took £2 to process whilst recycling bags only took £0.41. This makes black bags nearly five times as expensive as ‘non-traditional’ waste.

On the 28th April 2008 SITA Cornwall Ltd submitted an application to build the Cornish Energy Recovery Centre (CERC). To be based at Roswell Farm near St Austell would have been able to provide power for around 21,000 homes and stop 240,000 tones of waste from heading to Landfill sites around Cornwall. Not an insignificant amount at all.

The planning application, released by SITA, took great pains to making the facility fit into the local environment. SITA stated that ‘The design strategy for the CERC has focused on creating a high quality innovative proposal, whilst being sympathetic to its surroundings. As a result the scale and shape of the building have been devised to fit with the surrounding topography and recognise the character and sensitivity of its landscape setting’. Of course, the buildings would be made from the standard industrial materials of steel and concrete; but the application promised to fit into the local environment with plants, native trees, and the construction of 1km of Cornish hedges.

The company did,  however, make the honest admission that even these efforts would only shield the ground level activities from site and would not cover the whole site. The local population would only be able to see the roof and some of the walling of the two building facility. Although, this could not really be considered a problem considering similar buildings such as Ginisters in Callington which has no shielding from view at all.

Given this it is remarkable that Council have rejected planning permission partly (in March 2009) on the grounds that ‘The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity due to noise both during the... operational stage’. In addition the Council also rejected the proposal on the grounds that ‘The proposal by virtue of its scale, size and proximity to surrounding areas would have significant adverse impacts upon the environment and setting of those areas’. Such environmental projects were designed to cover the damage from the china clay industry; such projects include this one which replanted many native trees but hardly seems a serious reason to hinder this necessary development.

The great irony is that this project designed to stop waste from getting to landfill was seemingly stopped by a desire to fill the holes left by china clay which many soon be needed again for landfill! The closure of the Native Mines landfill site in October 2009 ( 7 months after the rejected proposal) started a clock ticking to the end of Cornish landfill and the need for such facilities to be built to deal with our waste. The other irony, of course, is that the facility would have provided at least 48 full time jobs that could have replace those formerly in the china clay industry - not a bad dead in the current climate of public sector cuts.

It also seems remarkable that the Council rejected the proposal on the grounds that ‘The proposed development would be contrary to sustainable development objectives by its dependence on the transportation of waste by road, and increasing distances between the origin of waste and its disposal’. How else do they expect waste to be transported? Waste is already transported by road all over the country and the Council seem to expect SITA to devise some new strategy for its transport! SITA's evidence shows that they had plans to build a private road so lorries would avoid public roads (principally, the A30) and that the close proximity to the rail network gave much potential for the use of rail transport in the futire. To again draw the comparison with Ginsters, that company uses heavy transport to move its products, but there is barely a complaint about it – despite driving through several residential areas and on public roads.

On the other hand, it is possible to see the Council’s point of view. They are concerned that this waste centre will increase the level of heavy traffic and will not fit into the local countryside. Even a private road will not completely remove the additional strain on the current network. The Council have also set up various localised recycling centres for household waste allowing lots of its processing at site. Such sites make a useful contribution but do not do enough to reduce the level of landfill.

Probably bowing to local pressure and faced with actually having to make a hard decision the Council chose the short term and easy option. That they advised SITA to appeal and that their appeal would probably be successful suggests that the Council wanted the site but were not prepared themselves to bear the responsibility for its approval.

In the long term, this is a site that is badly needed. The Cornish countryside cannot continue to absorb growing amounts of landfill. The decision of the Council to reject the SITA proposal shows that we are not yet ready to tackle the many environmental problems we face head on.

Political Campaigning and Supporting

From effective supporters to effective campaigners

The recent election highlighted one thing; that members of the political Parties are not afraid to go out rally behind candidates. We are not afraid to put forward our vision and promote ourselves as political supports from all sides of the political spectrum. The number and quality of events during election 2010 was impressive; but it also highlights that people are now more dependent upon their candidates than ever before.

Election 2010 showed those of us with political interests are effective supporters but are not effective campaigners. All too often the real work of changing and challenging policy to candidates and fail to take a more assertive and leading role as individuals. Voters often take their lead and arguments from them. Which is fine assuming that there are capable candidates and not simply candidates, such as the Labour MP Ed Balls, who sprout crap all the time and rarely use sufficient evidence.

The strain of the party chain of command often means that candidates are ‘on message’ and rely on national policies and superimpose them to local issues. This makes for good and loyal supporters, but it does not make effective campaigners capable of sustaining a debate with hard facts and evidence. The voter at the doorstep, and at every event between now and the next election, requires more than this rhetoric and national understanding – they need detail and, importantly, evidence.

During the last election many were frustrated to hear the same old debate about ‘cuts’ and ‘spending’... ‘6billion this and 6billion that’ with no reference to much real information and any resemblance to local circumstances. It would be easy to justify policies by highlighting wastage in our own communities. Instead, the majority of political supporters wait for candidates to lead us to our arguments.

It’s not as if we don’t have the tools for this task. The Freedom of Information Act means we can route through Council documents and critique MPs decision making. Many Government documents are also available under the act. There are multiple websites revealing information that is not deemed important by the national media. Whilst I am not critiquing her directly, the blogger Michelle Donelan’s article shows that many are content to distribute generalised literature with more emphasis on design and little notice of hard evidence. As campaigners we are missing a major trick; we are simply relying on our ideology and general swathes of policy instead of campaigning effectively with evidence.

In another blog, the Conservative Owen Meredith, used poll evidence to show that many people (students actually) will not vote. But the principle extents to the 40odd percent who did not vote in the last election. Meredith placed the emphasis on voters themselves by critiquing that their enhanced education has not caused them to be interested in politics.

But can we blame them? A majority of supporters rely on the lead of their candidate and the lead of national figures such as David Cameron & previously Gordon Brown. Whilst this leadis often strong, it also bears little relevance to the daily concerns of many people. Such characters often do not reveal the kind of detailed information that actually convinces people. Indeed, many are turned off by this debate and consider it the ‘Westminster bubble’.

One other factor is also deeply worrying when examining this rut of political inactiveness. That political campaigners often take areas for granted. I was shocked to discover many of my local Labour Party supporters being briefed on local issues for a constituency ballot many many miles away. They were bussed there and then campaigned on local issues that most will have no idea about – not the local touch that an interested local would, I imagine, appreciate.

I find myself agreeing with Alistair Campbell that ‘old-fashioned door to door, face to face campaigning in the community is going to be more important than ever’. Where I find a problem is that most of this campaigning ultimately fails because it does not address the central concerns of many voters, lacks sufficient evidence to CONVINCE voters and ultimately does not enhance the general debate because a majority of supporters will/do not effectively challenge their own preconceptions.

If we switched to becoming campaigners and used the tools available to us we would be able to effectively articulate our message using cold hard facts. This has the additional benefit of inspiring confidence in our voters at a local level. Conversations in which we present convincing evidence will have the effect of building our support at grass roots level.

We need to be more profession and become more inclined to do a little detailed research ourselves. We need local evidence to back our opinions, we need to ask challenging questions about where money is spent and who made the decisions. Without this we cannot hold people to account nor can we effectively show people that we, as a party, have a detailed grip of detail to become their representatives.

As it stands, we are good at supporting candidates. The recent election has shown that Conservatives are once again willing to pound pavements for support. But we are generally ill prepared for the kind of debate that people expect. We need to professionalise ourselves and develop a bank of local detail and research in order to show people that we are the right party to represent them.

On Chilcote

I am of two minds about the Chilcote Enquiry. On one hand, it has brought many of the key (British) players to the table to be questioned for their actions; everyone can remember with joy John Prescott squirming and talking about his doubts about the intelligence etc etc. On the other, the enquiries terms of reference are limited to ‘as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned’. Chilcote himself defends his enquiry from this accusation:

"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

(source http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx)

However, given the level of questioning so far – which has only appeared to be robust, and has made limited reference to the documents published on the enquiry website – it does seem as if nothing new will come out of the enquiry that isn’t already y known. Indeed, Chris Aimes of the Guardian says the enquiry is in danger of becoming a ‘sideshow’.

There is no doubt the Chilcote has raised many valid questions. The upcoming round of witnesses, the last I believe, set to appear will therefore be the litmus test for the final report and the credability of the whole enquiry. Since the appearance of Tony Blair much has been said to raise doubt and concern over his evidence. If Chilcote makes the bold move to call back the former Prime Minister then things may just work out OK – if Chilcote fails to do so, then it is fair to suggest that the enquiry will be a side show.

But I have a little insider information to offer - that I unfortunately can offer no proof for. Chilcote was involved in the Butler Enquiry which contained a few cutting paragraphs. I am reliably informed that it was Chilcote who wrote these paragraphs giving us an insight into his mindset. At face value it does appear that Chilcote will look to critique the politicians as well as the process involved. Such a move would be groundbreaking; an official enquiry openly critiquing the mindset of a Prime Minster and would be a devastating torpedo into the side of a party who all now appear to no longer support their decision to go to war. Indeed, at face value, it would appear that Chilcote could plausibly launch such an attack without leaving his terms of reference.

Nevertheless, the terms of reference stop him from drawing the key conclusion that many –including the current Deputy Prime Minister - wish to see: was the war illegal of not? Need we be too surprised; the enquiry was set up by a Government that had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose from this enquiry.