Examiner Letters on Kirklees Leadership

Mr R J Bray of Shelley is a regular contributor to the Huddersfield Examiner Letters column and invariably supportive of the Conservatives. Obviously the Tories abstaining at the Annual Council meeting on the Leadership and allowing Labour to run the Council presented him with a bit of a dilemma. Here's how he dealt with/rationalised it and my response below that.
 

“Local people gave the Labour Party an increased number of councillors showing we’re in tune with residents,” were the resounding words of Clr Mehboob Khan after his re-election as leader of our council.
I and others were unhappy that the Conservative councillors decided to abstain from the vote.
This is to a degree understandable when all they would face would be derision at failing to oust Clr Khan from his secure seat.
If the Conservatives had voted against Clr Khan it would have made no difference whatsoever. He is leader by the constitution for four years even though he puts himself up for re-election each year it’s a case of the winner of this year’s one horse race is. The Labour Group has 32 members and the Conservatives have but 18.
If, however, Conservative Clr Robert Light had put up for council leader not one of the other groups would have supported him.
The Greens would not have voted for an alternative. It was the votes of the four greens three years ago which lost the Conservatives control of the council. The Lib Dems would not support the Conservatives nor would the Independents.
The four independents – three of whom are now in with the Green group – voted against and the other independent voted for Clr Khan.
This year was the first time the Greens voted against Clr Khan and the main reason being they did not get the chair of Scrutiny Panel or any chairs of major committees which they wanted.
They therefore voted as a matter of pique rather than policy.
Labour is the largest party and so by the constitution has to form the administration. All other minor groups would not support the Conservatives running the council.
Perhaps Clr Andrew Cooper and Clr Kath Pinnock would care to explain why they would not support the Conservatives in running the administration as the major opposition party thus trying to break the cycle of negativity from the clueless Labour party.

R J Bray
Shelley

 And my response


R J Bray says in his letter (Examiner, May 28) “Perhaps Clr Andrew Cooper and Clr Kath Pinnock would care to explain why they would not support the Conservatives in running the administration’’.
The fact of the matter is that they never sought support and never made a ‘pitch’ to other groups.
I tried to get the non Labour groups round the table on a number of occasions to discuss how to address the leadership of the council and to put pressure on the Labour Party on issues of mutual concern, such as the libraries, but to no avail.
There simply wasn’t the will for joint discussions from the Conservatives.
Personally I have no particular enthusiasm for either Labour or the Conservatives running the council but my prime concern, in a hung council, would be about the policies they were seeking to pursue and their willingness to involve other groups in decision making.
The Greens have supported (and opposed) all the other political groups on the council at different times on different issues on the basis of the policies and their impact on local people.
Another statement by Mr Bray in his letter was “the Greens voted against Clr Khan and the main reason being they did not get the chair of the Scrutiny Panel or any of the chairs of major committees that they wanted”.
This maybe what he believes but it simply isn’t true.
Clr Khan threatened to remove the Green Party from chairing the Resources Scrutiny Panel if we didn’t support him as Leader before we made our decision.
It would be true however to say that these threats did inform our view of his character as a potential leader of the council.
In the end we didn’t support him because we couldn’t get a firm commitment on policy issues, including the libraries.
As a consequence of our decision at the annual council meeting Labour voted in favour of the Conservatives taking the Chair of the Resources Scrutiny Panel from the Green Party and Valley Independent Group as punishment to us and as a reward to the Conservatives, for abstaining on the vote on the leadership, thus allowing Mehboob Khan to become Leader of the Council.

Councillor Andrew Cooper
Co-Leader of the Green Party and Valley Independent Group

2012 Local Elections Coverage - BBC & Election Tales

BBC Look North feature on 2012 Kirklees Local Elections. 3 Labour Cllrs including Cllr Khan can be seen tromping up Newsome Road. I feature towards the end with our new Cllr Robert Barraclough



At the count giving an interview for the Kirklees Election tales team.

Walking the walk

My preferred mode of travel

New Lib Dem Cllr and former Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate James Blanchard tweeted the following a few weeks ago,

"Fact of the evening (according to Cllr Khan at least): #Green Cllr Andrew Cooper has four cars #doastheysaynotastheydo"

It's difficult to work out who to be more annoyed with, Cllr Khan for lying or Cllr Blanchard for repeating it.

The truth is that we have only one car in our household and went down from 2 about 2 years ago and have never had more than that. Also I generally don't use it as I either walk to Huddersfield or use the train or very occasionally the car if I need to go somewhere where I'd need a car or to trasport something heavier than I could carry any distance. I also use City Car Club if I need a car but my better half needs ours.

My advice to Cllr Blanchard would not to necessarily believe everything Cllr Khan says nor to repeat it without checking it out first. He could also have a look at Cllr Khan's car. Very nice and flashy with a personalised number plate.

Greenbelt letters

Also available in pork!

Following the Lib Dem Manifesto Launch I wrote to the Examiner pointing to the contradiction between Coalition Policy on development and the professed desire of Lib Dems and Conservatives to want to protect the Green belt. Here's the trail of letters to date with a response from Conservative Councillor Christine Smith who seeks to foam at the mouth at the mention of the Green Party or me in particular.

Green view of Lib Dems - Examiner - 26/4/11


I SEE the Lib Dems’ claim to aim to protect the green belt in their manifesto.

This at odds with Lib Dem and Conservative Policy in government where brownfield quotas for building land are being abolished, putting more pressure on the green belt.

They also claim to want to protect services for the vulnerable, having voted with the Conservatives for huge cuts to these services in Kirklees.

People are not stupid and the Lib Dems and Conservatives should not only be careful in their public statements, but should also aim to be credible in their stated policies and not try to mislead people. Otherwise the view many people have of them following the tuition fees fiasco will be reinforced and politics as a whole will be further devalued in the minds of the general public.

Clr Andrew Cooper

Leader, Green Party Kirklees Council


We protect green belt - Examiner - 27/4 /11 


I SEE that Clr Andrew Cooper is once again castigating the Lib Dems and Conservatives over green belt policies (Examiner Mailbag, Tuesday April 26).

One of the most effective ways of protecting the green belt is by sitting on Huddersfield Planning Committee or the Heavy Woollen Planning Sub-Committee where decisions about green belt and brownfield sites are made. Yet no Green Party councillor will sit on any planning committee.

So, when Clr Cooper talks about responsibilities, policies and green belt, he needs to look to his own party first, particularly here in Kirklees.

Perhaps the electorate, whom he purports to represent, should start to ask questions as to why the Greens will not sit on any planning committees where decisions concerning green belt are made.

Clr Christine Smith

Chair of Planning and Highways Committee, Kirklees Council


And my response...............

Councillor Christine Smith , Conservative , criticises the Green Party for not having a Councillor on Planning Committee. As she well knows despite not being a member of Planning Committee I have been a regular attender of it, referring applications for decision and representing views of constituents. I was the only Councillor who was not a member of Planning Committee to make representations regarding the Tesco’s Development and the proposed replacement Hotel on Castle Hill. The real scandal here is that the larger parties rarely send anyone to Planning Committee to represent the views of constituents. As Cllr Christine Smith also knows being a member of Planning Committee restricts the ability of its members to represent local people effectively as they are bound by planning protocols. Ironically you can be a much more effective at protecting your local green spaces by not being a member of the Planning Committee and she knows this as someone who has voted for development on Lindley Moor.

I do notice however that in her criticism of me and the Green Party she does not contradict my view, and the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England’s view, that the latest Coalition Planning Policy statement made during the budget is a significant threat to our green belt and greenfield sites. I would be really interested in her role as Chair of the Planning Committee how she responds to CPRE’s and my concerns.

Councillor Andrew Cooper

Green Party Leader – Kirklees Council

Threat to greenfield sites from the Liberal Democrats



A bulldozer in Lib Dem yellow livery

 Here's a letter I sent to the Examiner in response to a Lib Dem Councillors letter praising the total hash the goverment seem to be making of planning policy at the moment. On the one hand offering 'localism' on the other making it easy for developers to build on green spaces:-

Lib Dem Councillor Tony Woodhead amazingly makes a virtue of the Coalition Governments relaxation of planning rules (Examiner Letters 4/4/11). He quotes proudly from the Government Website 'Councils must ensure that they are not imposing any unnecessary burdens in the way of development'.


Theses so called planning 'reforms' were announced recently as part of the budget statement. There is to be a presumption in favour of development, quotas for bulding on previously developed 'brownfield' land are to be abolished placing more pressure on greenfield and greenbelt sites. Councils are to be encouraged to auction off land in their ownership. I find it unbelievable that the Lib Dems and their Conservative masters regard this as good news. Are these the same Lib Dems and Conservatives who are saying how keen they are to protect the greenbelt in their rather misleading leaflets?

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England said of the Coalition Government planning statement,

"The planning measures present a potentially devastating threat to the countryside and are unlikely to boost long-term economic growth. To suggest, as successive Governments have done, that planning is a key impediment to growth is just wrong. The planning system exists to prevent unsustainable, unwanted and environmentally damaging development".


Councillor Woodhead and the Lib Dems/Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot claim to be in favour of protecting our local environment and be part of a government intent on selling it off for development.

Councillor Andrew Cooper


Green Party - Newsome Ward


Link to CPRE Website for referennce - http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/736

Thoughts on 2011

Labour off the hook due to the short memories of many.

2011 is going to be a pivotal year for the Lib Dems. The Oldham and Saddleworth Bye -election is not looking particularly good for them and its seems the Labour Candidate, the very pleasant, Debbie Abrahams (who stood in the Colne Valley in the General Election) is probably in with the best shot. The Lib Dems got the bye-election on the basis of Labour's Phil Woolas lying in his election leaflets. As people in the political scene know the irony is heavy given  the many examples of lying in Lib Dem leaflets. Of course since then we've had the student tuition fees vote and the Lib Dems are now dubbed the 'Fib Dems' by people outside the political mainstream.

Labour appear to have got 'off the hook' with many people which is odd given they introduced tuition fees in the first place against a manifesto promise. Many appear to have the memories of goldfish where Labour is concerned and of course we'll never know what the alternative universe would be like if Labour had won the General Election but I reckon it would have still been a slightly different but still the unpalatable cocktail of cuts that we are experiencing right now.

So now we head into May, the local elections and the Alternative Vote Referendum. This I think was the Lib Dems single biggest error during their coalition agreement negotiations. The inequities of the first past the post electoral system are well known. Governments can be chosen by a minority of the electors and most constituencies are 'safe seats' so it is only the votes in a minority of constituencies that decide the election. This is not a matter for a referendum it is about what's right. Either the Tories should have simply agreed to a system of proportional representation or there should have been no deal, this should have been a 'red line' for the Lib Dems. Instead we have a question on an inferior version of 'PR' on offer which is acually not even proportional. A binding agreement to support the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote was what the Lib Dems should have insisted on. Of course we need to back the improvement that AV offers in the referendum but it's association with the increasingly  unpopular Lib Dems might ironcallly work against it in the ballot. The word 'fair' has been so contaminated and misused by this government that valuing 'fair' votes and been seen to be rewarding the Lib Dems by supporting AV might not sit well with many people. I mean how do we feel about putting the duplicitous Nick Clegg in a position of power after the next General Election? Though electors may have the memory of goldfish where Labour are concerned I don't believe they are going to forget the broken Lib Dem pledges for a long, long time.

Thank Goodness it's not too bad in Surrey!

Today the Government revealed the impact of it's cuts on Local Government across the Country. As you can imagine I've been concerned about how leafy Tory Surrey might fare under a leafy Tory Government. I needn't have worried just a 0.3% decrease. Naturally I also was wondering what might happen to Dorset fortunately the Government saw sense and actually raised their funding by 0.25%. The good news just kept coming with Hampshire, West Sussex, Buckingham and Richmond Upon Thames all escaping the worst of the cuts.

You can imagine what would have happened if these Councils had received the same level of funding cut as Kirklees or Leeds or Bradford with all the job losses, cuts in services and closed libraries and facilities that these Councils are likely to face. Fortunately for us Northern types there is an answer for the jobless provided by David Shakespeare Conservative Leader of the Local Government Association. David suggests we could all come down south and pick fruit on their farms. This would have the added benefit of taking jobs away from Romanians. Smart eh! David is also the Leader of Buckinghamshire County Council with a very reasonable 0.6% cut so naturally he's fairly pleased and feeling generous enough to let us help out on their farms.

So are the Conservatives and their Lib Dem 'pets' out of touch? Well we are 'all in it together' but in the North we are up to our necks in it while in the south it barely reaches beyond the soles of their green wellies.

December Full Council report

Yesterdays Full Council was I think the first 'full on' Tweet Council with myself, Kath Pinnock from the Lib Dems and Leader of the council Mehboob Khan all participating on Twitter (plus 'LibDemKitty' I think I've worked out who that is!). Was there a value in it? Yes I think so. You could certainly get an insight into  our meetings you wouldn't have had otherwise. Take for instance the Lib Dem amendment on opposing the cuts to  provision for  Schools Sports Partnerships. The Greens supported their amendment. When I tweeted to this effect the twitterfeed from Kath Pinnock rather churlishly said 'Shame that 50% Green Group absent from Council'. For those of you who don't know there are only 4 us. One of our 4, Cllr Julie Stewart-Turner had to leave the meeting as she was a Governor for Newsome High School, a Specialist Sports College and had an interest in the motion, and Cllr Graham Simpson was late because he was attending a Tenants Association meeting. So a rather unpleasant attack on the Greens who were actually supporting a Lib Dem Amendment. I thought they could do with all the support they could get at present.

Another Lib Dem Amendment we supported was one on Planning Protocols. The amendment insisted that Cllrs on the Planning Committee attend training on Planning (what else). The Conservaties were opposed to this as many of them hadn't gone to training and were quite happy to spout away in an uninformed fashion at Planning meetings potentially leaving the Council open to challenge during an appeal process. My contribution to the debate was to point out that decisions backed up by knowledge should be more important than simple opinion on planning matters. This provoked a rather unpleasant verbal barrage on me by Conservative Councillor Mrs Christine Smith which I found fairly amusing to be honest. I'm not on her Christmas Card list!

During questions I asked the Labour Cabinet Member Councillor Mr Ken Smith what his opinion was of the impact of the rise in Tuition fees on young people in Kirklees. He gave his view that it was potentially disastrous and agreed to my request to write to the Government to express this view. This provoked much comment from Lib Dem Cllrs who defended the tuition fees policy. This directly contradicted the expressed opinions of Lib Dem Candidates during the General Election which I pointed out (and they ignored). I also asked Cllr Peter O Neill what his views were on 'The Big Society'. He gave me a very full response. So much so that I was unable to get my supplementary question in before time was up unfortunately.

Over 600 people watched the Council meeting on the Web but according to Kath Pinnock webcasting of Council meetings 'doesn't work'. Yes there have been some technical issues that some people have encountered but generally it has gone pretty well. I think the problem for Kath is that it was a Green Party proposal and that gives her a rather jaundiced view on the subject. Cest la vie.

After the meeting I collected a large sealed envelope with the papers for the 'Star Chamber' meeting on Friday and Monday to discuss the Kirklees Budget for the next year. In the envelope are the officers views of how we will acheive the Lib Dem/Con Governments spending cuts. This will not make pleasant reading.



Supermarket Sweep?

Dale Winton of Supermarket Sweep fame.

The Con Dems (Greenest Government Ever?) have made a good decision regarding their developing Green Deal. This Coalition Government programme will be delivering energy efficiency measures to householders commencing in Autumn 2012. According to the DECC Minister Greg Barker Local Authorities will have a strategic role in the delivery of the Green Deal in their areas they will also be able to bid to become Green Deal Providers in their own areas and deliver their programmes on a street by street basis. Previously Barker had repeatedly referred to Supermarkets as the deliverers of choice despite their lack of experience in delivering these programmes and some fairly lacklustre attempts to deliver insulation to householders. There now seems to have been a bit of a change in tack. As always the devil is in the detail and there remains the issue of whether or not the Green Deal will actually be a compelling offer to householders.

We need to understand how 'the Golden Rule' will work, which says that any savings made will greater than the cost for paying back the measures. With so many different house types, with different usage patterns, different heating requirements this is going to be a tall order and if the golden rule isn't convincing for all householders whatever their circumstances then confidence in the Green Deal will be severely shaken. The other good news is that Private Landlords could be fined if they don't improve the energy efficiency of  their dwellings, with Local Councils being able to penalise them up to £5000 for non compliance.

This is all good stuff and credit where its due. I don't however believe that Greg's yet given up on his supermarkets as a major deliverer. Lets hope its not a clean (supermarket) sweep when it comes to who actually does the Green Deal and Local Authorities that demonstrate the capability to deliver also get the opportunity.

Feed In Frenzy?

A solar farm under construction

The Feed In Tariff for renewable electricity is working and working well. So well, that the Con Dems are already contemplating cutting back on it. When the scheme comes up for review in 2012 they are planning on ‘reducing projected costs by £40 million by 2014-15’. You have to wonder why though. Government does not pay for the Feed In Tariff through taxation, we all do through our energy bills so why is government so concerned? They would have been right to be concerned about ensuring that lower income customers benefit from the FIT through solar installations on their properties but fairrness doesn’t seem to be a priority for this government. 

Though 2014-15 sounds a long way off DECC Minister Greg Barker has said that,

“in the event of deployment running ahead of published projections would we bring forward that review. But, to reassure the industry further, we will announce the trigger for such an early review shortly”.

So there we have it if the policy is working too well the FIT will be cut and soon we will know the limit of the government’s ambition for FIT funded renewables.

Another aspect for concern is the Government’s desire to limit large scale ‘solar PV farms’. This statement by Greg Barker in the House of Commons last week sent shivers through the solar industry,

“we inherited a system that simply failed to anticipate industrial-scale, stand-alone, greenfield solar, and, although we will not act retrospectively, large field-based developments should not be allowed to distort the available funding for roof-based PV, other PV and other types of renewables.”

This is clearly nonsense. The Conservatives supported the Feed In Tariff in opposition and were fully aware of the 5MW limit on installations. What is described by Greg Barker as ‘greenfield’ developments could equally be large installations on derelict, brownfield land with little agricultural or amenity value. Far from distorting the market for microgeneration these large PV developments could help drive down the costs of renewables for householders by growing the solar industry and creating large economies of scale.

The Government, and particularly the Lib Dems, have made great play of the fact that they will now allow Councils to keep the revenue they make from renewables through the FIT. A prime example is Cornwall Council which is soon to install a 5MW array and this will be a real money spinner for the Council at a difficult time.  One of the greatest opportunities for Councils to make back some of the money taken from jobs and vital services in the cuts could be from large scale PV arrays on land that otherwise would have no value to them or to the communities they serve. It now appears that the Government are effectively removing that solar silver lining from their cloud of cuts.

Lib Dems - They don't like it up em!

Seeing a Lib Dem motion to Kirklees congratulating the Coalition Govt on it's commitment to tackling climate change was somewhat annoying having seen cut after cut in energy programmes and broken promises associated with the new feed in tariff. So the Green Party Amendment listed many of these and annoyed the Lib Dems because of the length of the amendment but then there were a lot of cuts and broken promises. They also claimed the amendment was inaccurate but never really identified exactly what was inaccurate about it. There was an inaccuracy in the amendment. It said that funding for the Green Investment Bank had been scaled down from £6Billion to £2 Billion. Following the Spending Review yesterday this figure went down to £1Billion. Our apologies!

The focus of the Lib Dem motion was the new right for Councils to sell renewable electricity they generate back to the grid and this is indeed welcome but there are a few 'howevers'. One particular 'however' is the fact that a promise to extend the Feed In Tariff to early adopters of renewable technologies such as pioneers like Kirklees has now been dropped by the Coalition government. This means that thousands of  pounds worth of funds that could have come to Kirklees now will not. The Lib Dems called for a Green Energy Action Plan to take advantage of the Feed In Tariffs. At no point in the debate did they mention the programmes already being planned such as the £650k worth of PV for Council Buildings or the £12 million for Council buildings, probably because they've had nothing to do with it. You can imagine however that a few months down the line a Lib Dem leaflet will appear somehow linking themselves with these developments. They do have some form in this regard. They poured scorn on the Green Party amendments for a free area based solar photovoltaic programme across Kirklees saying it was 'unaffordable' and a 'fantasy'. They are clearly not following developments in the capital financing of PV projects across the country where all the capital costs and more of the projects are being met by the feed in tariff. Indeed businesses are being set up seemingly weekly offering free PV. A Council led scheme could offer value for money and spread the benefit to households beyond those which are dead on due south with large roofs.

Anyway for your delectation here is the Lib Dem Motion and the Green Amendment. For the record the Green amendment was defeated by the Cons and Lib Dems but was supported by many Labour Cllrs. The Lib Dem motion was passed.

Lib Dem motion

Coalition Government's Commitment to Tackling Climate Change


This Council congratulates the Coalition Government for their positive commitment to tackling climate change.

Council welcomes the decision by the Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne to allow local councils to sell renewable energy to the grid, overturning a ban on this activity by the previous Government.

Council recognises that we have a vital role to play in the switch to a new low carbon economy. This decision will allow us to take full advantage of the feed-in tariff and deliver long term benefits to support services delivered by this council.

The availability of feed in tariffs will provide this council with an opportunity to generate a significant income and reduce our energy bills via increased micro generation.

This Council therefore calls upon the Cabinet to urgently develop a “Green Energy Action Plan” to maximise the benefits and identify potential savings that can be delivered via the use of feed-in tariffs.

Green Party Amendment

Delete all after ‘This Council’ insert

‘questions the Coalition Government’s commitment to tackling climate change based on:-

• the breaking of a promise by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats prior to the election to include early adopters of solar panels such as Kirklees in the Feed In Tariff

• the abolition of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy which would have provided strong policies to encourage microgeneration in new buildings.

• the breaking of a commitment by the Liberal Democrats not to support new nuclear power stations the cost of which will now be borne by the public.

• the end of a commitment by the previous government to insulate all lofts and cavity walls where technically possible to 2020.

• the abolition of the Sustainable Development Commission which actually saved the Government money.

• Cuts of £12.6m from The Carbon Trust's grant for low carbon technology and business support funding from DECC

• Cuts of £4.7m by cancelling final rounds of Bio-Energy Capital Grants Scheme and Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme

• Cuts of £3m by reducing the scope of the Offshore Wind Capital Grants Scheme

• Cuts of £3m from closing the Low Carbon Buildings Programme early

• £2.9m cuts by reducing the scope of the government's Low Carbon Technology Programme

• £1m cut to funding for development of deep geothermal energy generation

• £700,000 cut by the closing of renewable technology trials early

• The damage caused to the solar thermal, biomass and heat pump industry by the long period of speculation over the future of the Renewable Heat Incentive

• The damage caused to the solar PV and small wind industry by long speculation over the future of the Feed In Tariff

• The reported reduction in the Feed In Tariff by 10%

• The halving in funding for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

• The reduction in funding from the proposed £6Billion to £2 Billion for the Green Investment Bank

• The proposed abolition of the Warm Front scheme for Low Income households

• The 10% increase in funding for nuclear decommissioning

• The cancelling of the Severn Barrage which could have provided 5% of the UK's electricity needs

This Council has the following concerns about the Coalition Government’s ‘Green Deal’

• An over emphasis on supermarkets as the deliverer of the Green Deal when clearly Council schemes such as the free insulation provided by Kirklees Council demonstrably deliver high numbers of measures while schemes lead by supermarkets have performed poorly.

• The reported omission of microgeneration from the Green Deal finance package

• A loan mechanism will not be the most cost effective way of funding low cost measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation.

This Council calls on the Coalition Government to ensure the Green Deal

• makes Councils a key partner and/or deliverer of the programme.

• enables area based approaches for the delivery of insulation and microgeneration measures

• has a cost effective way of delivering low cost measures such as insulation measures

This Council calls on the Cabinet to

• develop a free area based solar photovoltaic programme to be made available to all households where technically possible and where there is no impact on Council budgets.

• Add carbon reduction as a 5th Council Priority

• Develop a comprehensive action plan to reduce carbon which based including energy conservation, energy efficiency, behavioral change and green energy.

The pickled politics behind local government budget cuts

Jabba the Hut - Intergalactic Gangster

The annual Kirklees Council budget setting process has begun and early. It is usually another couple of months before everything kicks off from a Councillor point of view, but what with the governments cuts agenda it pays to start early I guess. Last Saturday we had a meeting at the Deighton Centre to kick the process off. The meeting was not an official Council meeting, no decisions are made there and the idea is to inform Councillors and to explore ideas for handling the truly terrible economic situation the government(s) have put us in. The meeting is held under budget protocols meaning that Cllrs are free to express ideas without them being reported wider so as not to 'send hares running' on things that may or may not happen. So what can I tell you? All Parties on the Council were represented, around 18 Councillors present, the Chief Exec and around 4 other Senior Council officers. The background to much of what was discussed is known with anywhere between 25% and 40% cuts in budgets. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this will mean some very difficult choices going forward and a lot of pain. You can imagine how I felt reading an article in'First' magazine by Eric Pickles MP, the Communities and Local Government Minister entitled, 'A new golden age'. It was all about localism or as Eric puts it,

"Instead of demanding that councils report back to me on everything they do, it means expecting that they become much more accountable to local residents instead"

So lets get this right, the Coalition Government cuts funding to local authorities and then Councillors have to be accountable for the 'choices' they make. Of course there's very little choice in reality. This week has been redundancy/retirement week at Kirklees Council. The numbers of staff leaving the Council is huge,  around 500 are gone with around another 1000 to go over the next few months but even this will not be enough services will have to be cut further to satisfy government demands or as Eric puts it,

"For the first time, councils will have real power and a real say over how money gets spent. "

another particularly irritating quote,

"We've cut the apron strings which have tied (Councils) to Whitehall for too long, giving them freedom to act on behalf of their residents,"

This is just utter tosh and a degree of spin that would make Mandelson blush (OK maybe not). People are being 'freed' of local facilities, services and income. He makes a virtue of getting rid of reporting such as that needed for the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and more reporting to citizens on how ther money is spent. OK but we do need to report on the impact on public services, the jobs lost, the impact on the wider economy, the health and social impact of cuts, the loss of public facilities. The Conservatives and their Lib Dem henchmen should not be allowed off the hook for their actions.

They are accountable too!


,

"We're all in it together" - if you use Public Transport

Huddersfield's Free Town bus

I was contacted this week for comment by 'The Examiner' on the cuts to bus services by the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority - Metro. There are proposed cuts to the Free Town Bus Services in town centres around West Yorkshire, including Huddersfield, reductions in early morning and rural services. Interestingly one of the comments on the Examiner Website article says,

"Cllr Andrew Cooper is playing party politics as it is not the government that is choosing to cut this service. The decision is a local one!"

 

You have to ask yourself what cuts passed down by national government could the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authortity make that aren't to public transport! It is what they do after all. If the government gets off the hook as easily with the chap who said this they can cut us to oblivion with impunity.

Of course the people who rely on these bus services are often people who don't have access to a car and in many cases that is because they simply can't afford it. Huddersfield Town Centre is built on a slope. From St Patricks Catholic Centre down Westgate to the Beast Market you are walking down hill. If you go shopping at theKingsgate Centre and are getting the bus home then its a long way uphill especially if you have mobility problems or are getting on a bit. For these people the Free Town Bus Service is a godsend. Ultimately this is down to Government spending cuts and cutting the budget deficit. Of course politics is about choices so lowering the upper tax threshold to incomes over £100k? No. A Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions? No. Tougher action on banks and bankers bonuses? No. Cutting bus services? Yes!

Then of course there are the environmental implications of a diminished public transport sector but then this is "the Greenest Government ever".

Green Deal or No Deal?

We've had the first 100 days of the "greenest government ever" and  following on from my post on the subject last month we have a number of other green question marks over the Coalition Government's commitment to addressing climate change.

 In abolishing the Regional Spatial Strategies, where the primary purpose was to abolish housebuilding targets, the government have also abolished the regional renewable energy targets. These were supposed to drive the installation of wind turbines, solar panels and other clean energy sources. With this gone there is very little hope of the UK hitting the EU's 2020 target of 15% of the UKs energy from renewable sources unless government acts quickly to put new policy drivers in place.

There is also concern over the government's commitment to high Environmental Performance Standards for new power stations and whether or not carbon capture and storage technology is yet mature enough as a technology to make coal fired plants viable. It is likely that though the Lib Dems supposedly are against using public money to finance new nuclear power stations that ways will be found in making them a reality. This will probably be though our energy bills. So no public money just the publics money. Fiendish or what!  Despite all the public statements by politicians on the need for nuclear the case has never been properly made. Most opinions on this seem to be based on belief not facts. Lots of evidence contradicting assertions that we need nuclear energy 'to keep the lights on' can be found at http://www.noneedfornuclear.org.uk/

So we are left with reducing energy demand in the home as our best hope for reducing carbon emissions. The 'Green Deal' not the 'Green New Deal' (as promoted by the Green Party at the last election) is what the Government is pinning its hopes on. Roughly the Green Deal will be a loan arrangement linked to the properties energy bills where the cost of measures will be recovered at a rate no greater than the cost of energy saved making it a win win scenario. This is due to be introduced in 2012 as primary legislation will be required to establish the property linked loan. So far so good but the devil is as always in the detail. There are contradictions to overcome. Within a month Greg Barker MP, Tory Climate Change Minister has said solar panels/microgeneration will not be part of Green Deal's finance package and Nick Clegg, Lib Dem leader has said they will. There are questions over whether simple cost effective insulation measures are best dealt with through loan arrangements in value for money terms compared with public/CERT funded area based initiatives like Kirklees Warm Zone. The answer is probably no. So if microgeneration is not to be included and low cost insulation measures are not appropriate that leaves us with solid wall insulation which may be a 'hard sell' for many households. So there are more questions than answers yet and the governments stated belief that somehow finance packages and project management by supermarkets hold the key to reducing household carbon emissions does not bear much examination. If anything it is local authorities in conjunction with energy utility partners that have the best models for delivering mass energy efficiency measures to households not Tescos.

There is always hope however and we need to see what can be done to steer the Green Deal on the right path in a world where public money is tight and where the risk of a double dip recesssion is ever present. There are more questions than answers at present and the danger is that models for delivering energy efficiency to householders are designed by people who have never had to deliver a successful energy efficiency project of this kind using untested policy models but I'm sure the government wouldn't do that!

(Pictured Noel Edmonds creator of Channel 4s Deal or No Deal gameshow and of course Mr Blobby, proponent of cosmic ordering and also an anti wind Campaigner who created the Renewable Energy Foundation that campaigns against renewable energy. I'm not a fan,)

How is the "Greenest Government Ever" doing?

It is still early day for the new Government but the early signs are not good for David Cameron's claim that  this would be the 'greenest government ever'. There have been several damaging cuts to what were already pretty miniscule programmes to support low carbon technologies. These have destabilised small renewable industry installers particularly with regard to biomass. With the cancellation of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme grants and uncertainty over the Renewable Heat Incentive struggling biomass installers are up against it.

There was hope by some that the Lib Dems would make the Tories  green rhetoric a reality but little evidence is forthcoming yet. During the election campaign Friends of the Earth released lots of yellow balloons outiside parliament representing all the Lib Dem candidates who had signed up to their key election asks (and a few blue ones). When I asked them why they hadn't released any Green ones for all the Green Party Candidates who had signed FOEs asks (like me!) they said that they went out to buy green ones but there weren't enough. Hmmm..... with 'friends of the earth' like these who needs enemies.

Cuts to low-carbon technology programmes:
- £12.6m from The Carbon Trust's grant for low carbon technology and business support funding from DECC
- £6.1m 'efficiency savings' and under-spending on programme budgets within DECC
- £4.7m by cancelling final rounds of Bio-Energy Capital Grants Scheme and Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme
- £3m by reducing the scope of the Offshore Wind Capital Grants Scheme
- £3m from closing the Low Carbon Buildings Fund early
- £2.9m by reducing the scope of the government's Low Carbon Technology Programme
- £1m cut to funding for development of deep geothermal energy generation
- £700,000 by closing the Energy Saving Trust technology trials early

Kirklees Leadership - You can have any colour so long as its red!

Kirklees Council’s Annual Meeting, following the last local elections were in many ways business as usual and in some ways very different. As usual no Party had an overall majority on the Council. In fact no single Party had even a third of the seats. Labour were the largest Party following the election with 24 out of 69 Councillors and they put their leader forward to lead the Council for the next four years. The Conservatives with 19 Councillors did not put a candidate before the Council to lead Kirklees and instead, and bizarrely nominated the Leader of the Liberal Democrats with 20 Councillors forward. What was bizarre about this was they hadn’t even asked her before the meeting whether she was willing to be put forward and of course she wasn’t. It was just some strange political game being played out.

So the Labour leader Mehboob Khan was the only one put forward. His term is supposedly for 4 years but local elections and votes of no confidence could conceivably bring that date forward as could Cllr Khan’s promise to submit himself for re-election before the Council each year despite their no longer being any legal requirement for him to do so.

So the only option put before the Councils was a Labour leader. The four Greens on the Council backed the Labour leader on the basis that we would work together on protecting the local economy as much as we could from the effects of the recession.

(The picture is from Star Wars and is Garven Dreis who narrowly missed blowing up the Death Star and was shortly after killed by Darth Vader. And the relevance is? His callsign is 'Red Leader'. I guess I could have just put a picture of Mehboob Khan up there but where would be the fun in that?)

Con-Dems. Where's the fire?

The Con-Dem Coalition Government has a large section on the environment. Leaving aside for a second the fact that the targets they have adopted for reducing carbon emissions are inadequate it is certainly more ambitious than the Labour Govt's programme. As always implementation is the test. It will be interesting to see how the Cons try and get round the financing of nuclear without using public money. No doubt there will be some dodge somewhere that they have in mind. We'll see.

There was specific mention in the Con-Dem agreement for support for a "full establishment for a feed-in tariff for electricity". What this means we will see but if the Tories are true to their word this will mean that solar photovoltaic installations installed prior to the 15/7/10 will qualify for the feed in tariff. There are lots of ways that this could be interpreted to be more or less generous so the devil is as always in the detail.

The Environment section on Energy covers most of the main high level policy areas but oddly there is no mention of the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive due to come into being next April under Labour's timetable. In what has been a fairly lacklustre performance on the renewable energy agenda by Labour this was a real innovation a genuinely ground breaking proposal. It promised a huge growth in the biomass, heat pump and solar thermal industries with users of renewable heat being rewarded with a dedicated tariff.Of course it's omission does not mean they won't pursue this policy but it certainly worth a Parliamentary Question at the very least.

The other Labour Government target (which they had no plan to acheive) was to insulate every loft and cavity wall in domestic properties by 2015. It would be interesting to see if this policy is retained and how it will be implemented. The Kirklees programme is due to finish in about 6 weeks with over 50'000 properties insulated in the last three years. So we have acheived the Government target 5 years ahead of target! So another Parliamentary Question worth asking Mr Chris Huhne.

If only we had a Green Party MP. Ah we do!

Back to the Future.. Again!

Gordon Brown is (we are told) going to put us out of his misery tomorrow and call an election. We know it must be on the cards because he's running out of time anyway and he's really being practicing 'that smile'.

What can we predict over the next few weeks. Lots of muscle flexing over who's toughest on dealing with the deficit is a sure thing but of course tough in a 'responsible' fashion. The truth is that a double dip recession is already in the pipeline. Hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs are certain to go within the next 2 years. This goes way beyond the efficiency savings we would all like to see in Councils and the Health Service. The loss of these incomes will impact on the spending power of many households and have a knock on effect on the economy as a whole. Have political parties not learnt anything about how you come out of recessions e.g Keynesian economics? the New Deal?

In their desire to appear 'tough' things could get very tough indeed. What we are experiencing now is the logical conclusion of policies started by the Conservatives in the 80s and embraced by New Labour. The lack of financial regulation got us into this mess and now we are going back to the regressive public finance constraints of the Eighties.

Instead of the Labour's rather barmy idea of comparing David Cameron to a politically incorrect but popular figure (Gene Hunt - Ashes to Ashes) they would have been much better comparing him to a vacuous american getting into a De Lorean that flies! But then it would be equally fair to superimpose their faces over Marty McFly's visage.

Back to the Future indeed!

Carry on Planning!

The people of Huddersfield have strong views on Castle Hill and quite rightly so; it is a site of great historical significance, as well as being very much part of Huddersfield’s heritage. People who don't want a public house/hotel there have strong arguments, which I also happen to share. I do, however, accept there are also many people who would like to see a hostelry of some sort built there and have perfectly valid reasons for holding that view. The common factor though, is that people really care about Castle Hill and what happens to the site.

With this in mind I was therefore absolutely astounded by the turn of events at today’s planning meeting, when the subject of Castle Hill came up. The two Liberal Democrat Councillors from the Almondbury Ward had to leave the Planning Committee; this is even more outrageous as one of them is Chair of this Committee. They had no option but to leave because they had prejudiced their position by stating prior to the meeting, in one of their election leaflets what their views were on developing the site. They had effectively ruled themselves out of having a vote on a subject which is so vitally important to many people, because they wanted to simply and irresponsibly posture in one of their leaflets. What exactly is the point of voting for Councillors who through their own irresponsible publicity remove their own right to vote.

The Almondbury Liberal Democrats irresponsibility on this matter is truly staggering especially as they are supposed to be experienced councillors.

Kirklees Budget Amendments - Good, Bad and Bogus

So all can now be revealed. The time for amendments to the Kirklees Budget has passed. We will go the budget meeting next Wednesday with a Labour budget based on the financial constraints forced on us by this Government following their mismanangement of the economy. There are 3 amendments, the Conservatives, the Green Party's and the the Lib Dems. We have gained some things out of the budget process. In our amendment we have the extension of the free insulation scheme Kirklees Warm Zone for another 3 years. I tried to get them to rebrand it 'Green Zone' to avoid confusion with the Governments 'Warm Zone' scheme but also to annoy the Lib Dems (see previous posts!). Of course they weren't having it but the issue of confusion between the 2 schemes is genuine and will have to be addressed at some point soon. Not least because 'Warm Zone' is a brand that we have to pay for. There are also opportunities to bring new measures to the scheme free draughtproofing for vulnerable households, electricity saving measures such as Real Time Displays and Powerdown and deliver them on an area by area basis.

Other things we acheived were in the 'side agreement'.

We have a commitment to continue to support the core funding costs of 'Build' the body which provides training in skills for the building trade for brickies, plumbers and decorators until these are picked up thorugh supportive contracts such as Building Schools for the Future further down the line. This is exactly the sort of project we should be supporting at these times.

We also have a commitment to develop support for projects promoting local food producers in the area. This has been a strong theme for Julie Stewart-Turner our first Green Party Mayor during her year in civic office.

There is a commitment to come up with proposals for a free bus link from Huddersfield Town to the Galpharm Stadium possibly electrically powered. This would provide a link to all the sports and leisure facilities in the area and reduce the need for car travel at a venue which isn't directly served by Public Transport and where the car parks are often full at peak times.

Our big hope is that we will be able to establish a free solar panel scheme for private householders with the capital costs for the Council being met by the new Clean Energy Cashback being introduced this April. We are due a report in June on whether or not it is a goer. The Lib Dems don't like the idea of this scheme and didn't believe it was much worth pursuing. No doubt if we make it work it will be appearing in a Lib Dem leaflet as one of their initiatives. Bitter? Moi? You bet I am!

We have already established the principal of self funding capital for solar projects with the £5million agreed for solar panels for council buildings last year. Providing free solar panels at no net cost to the Council for private householders is more difficult but I don't think impossible.

So what of the Lib Dems Budget amendment? Well surprise surprise we have £2 million to upgrade the insulation of Council Tenants. But I hear you say 'Didn't they claim they had already acheived this in that scurrilous leaflet they posted in Almondbury in December?' (see December post 'Dem Fibs from the Lib Dems') Well yes they did. So they lied, it's what they do. More energy stuff from them £300k for Solar PV for community buildings, some additional monies linked to the boiler scrappage scheme and an energy advice project for the elderly. All good but there is nothing else! If you didn't know better you would think they were desperately trying to win back lost ground on the energy agenda. No matter, if that's the case then the Green Party has acheived more in this budget than simply getting our own initiatives passed we've pushed the other parties on or agenda and got gains for local people.

The Conservatives submitted an amendment it means their Council Tax is a 1% increase instead of a 2% increase. To do that they have further decimated jobs, services and cancelled anti recession measures, but they have the cynical 'We're cheaper' headline for their leaflets.

I'm definitely getting grumpier as I get older.