Mono Mania

A monorail goes up New Street - from 2025 Kirklees Transport Vision

 One anecdote from the last Full Council meeting was my mock proposal to have a monorail from Scapegoat Hill, through Golcar and Milnsbridge and on into Town. The idea was to highlight the fantasy proposal from the Lib Dems about having some flyover bridge over Milnsbridge by coming up with something similarly financially unfeasible. For more background see my 'What's pink and hangs from a lamppost' blogpost about the Golcar By election.

It was during my speech that Tory Leader Robert Light piped up and said, 'The monorail was our idea!'. Apart from completely missing the point that I was taking the 'michael' out of the Lib Dems he was also wrong. Back in the days of plenty, 2005 to be exact, I asked for a feasibility study to be carried out into having a monorail link between Huddersfield Railway Station going up Leeds Road and past the Stadium on up to Cooper Bridge and back. The idea was to provide an alternative link for people going to the shopping up Leeds Rd, going to the Cinema or to watch a match without using the car. Leeds Road is a hotspot for traffic pollution and is an Air Quality Management Area so it would be one way of addressing this. The following day from the meeting I put the word 'monorail' into my search facility in my Outlook account and hey presto on the 14/2/2005 popped up the Green Party Budget amendment for that year compiled for us by the Ex Finanace Chief for Kirklees Dick Hewitson and there it stated:-

Provide a detailed feasibility for a public transport link between Huddersfield Town Centre, Leeds Road and Cooper Bridge - The 'Cooper Monorail'

This was from the Press Release we put out at the time:-

Leeds Road is a hive of industrial and retail units, the Galpharm stadium and the UCI. With the possible expansion of industrial outlets on the Leeds Road corridor this puts increasing pressure on traffic congestion and increasingly dangerous levels of low air quality. “This is a typical example of the ‘build it and they will come’ mentality where no thought has been given to how people will be able to get to places other than by road. Greens are proposing a detailed feasibility study into alternative modes of transport from Huddersfield Town Centre up Leeds Road and to Cooper Bridge. These will include the serious evaluation of dedicated bus lanes, trams and monorails as alternatives to the car.” Said Councillor Cooper.

 I'm pretty sure I'd asked Dick Hewitson to take the 'Cooper Monorail' out of the final version of our Budget Amendment. At the time it was a bit of a 'mono mania' I had and the sort of Councillor enthusiasm that Council Officers may be sceptical about but can't really ignore if it is part of budget discussions. The reason I was pushing it was because whenever I saw a futuristic city ('Logans Run' springs to mind) they always had monorails as their preferred form of public transport. Electric non polluting and modern. The idea was taken up and some work was done on it during the Tory minority administration but like some other notable acheivements during their time such as 'free insulation'   their origins came from the Green Party.  

The thing to take away from all this is that with imposed local austerity, significant improvements to local transport are stalled and in some cases going backwards. Many local bus service are under threat and slow and unreliable train services like the Penistone Line limp on. Meanwhile the Coalition has its own 'mono mania' with the £50-80 Billion HS2 which it continues to bulldoze through despite robust evidence of its non-benefits. Governments should be judged, in part, by their vision of the future. For the Coalition it is big, national with highly contested benefits. The future has to be local, of significance to health and quality of life and benefit to communities and local economies. I think the 'Cooper Monorail' would stand up to scrutiny against HS2 on those parameters at least.

Kirklees is not the first place to consider a monorail the small town of Springfield in the USA also gave it some serious thought

Bridge over the River Colne

Last Wednesdays Full Council meeting saw a motion from the Liberal Democrats calling on the Kirklees Labour Cabinet to "undertake the work that is needed to build a second bridge in Milnsbridge" to help relieve congestion through the busy village. Just to recap, there was a by-election last month in the Golcar Ward which the Liberal Democrats won after promising to "Stop Labours Gridlock" in Milnsbridge, or so it said on the signs said which they plastered all over the lamp posts. Of course it would cost millions and one thing Kirklees has got a lot less of is millions, so it was never a realistic option. Say the Council were to pay for a bridge, what services would be cut to pay for it. Shamefully the Labour Party and the Conservatives backed a feasibility study into the unfeasible bridge during the By Election campaign. I tried to put a bit of 'realism' into the debate  by calling for a monorail from Scapegoat Hill through Golcar, Milnsbridge and into Huddersfield. My tongue was firmly in my cheek as I asked for something even more unfeasible than what all the other parties were asking for. Bizarrely Conservative Leader got up and insisted his Party were the first to think of a monorail.

It will be interesting to see what the Lib Dems put in their Council budget proposal in February on this one. If their government were to restore Council finances perhaps the Lib Dems could have a bridge.

PRESS RELEASE - Transatlantic Trade Treaty threatens democracy, say Greens

Cllr Andrew Cooper, lead Green Party Eurocandidate for Yorkshire & The Humber, has warned that an American-EU trade treaty poses a major threat to our country. The US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could be sealed in the next few days and under cover of the benefits of free trade, it is set to create an obscure process, known as the investor-state dispute mechanism, which could strike down the democratic wishes of British citizens.

Andrew Cooper said:

“The Government has repeatedly promised a referendum on any big changes to the EU, but, TTIP poses by far the biggest potential threat on the sovereignty of Britain in decades and it seems ready to just sign our rights away. The treaty is supposed to harmonise regulations between Europe and the USA, but it will also create the legal right to rip the heart out of any Government policies or laws which big businesses decide are not in the interests of their shareholders.”

Many of TTIP’s provisions are being kept confidential at the moment, but they are known to include a right for private companies to sue Governments that introduce any policies that go against their business objectives, especially if they harm their profits. Under the investor-state dispute mechanism, private investors will then be able to take legal action against Governments to reverse policies and claim compensation from taxpayers.

Andrew Cooper continued: 

“Look at the current debate on energy policy and the different choices for Britain's future. Well, a few years ago, Argentina introduced a range of policies on energy and economics to rescue the country from a national financial crisis. Because they were unhappy with these, five international energy companies used a similar treaty arrangement to TTIP to sue the Argentinian Government, which has just agreed to pay them $677 millionsto settle their claims. There are similar examples with plain cigarette packets in Australia and cyanide water pollution from gold-mining in El Salvador.”

“If the TTIP passes, companies based anywhere in the world would be able to sue over laws on environmental protection, renewables commitment, health and so on, whenever EU rules are tougher than US ones or affect profit. For example, in food, Yorkshire consumers could be forced to accept hormones in beef cattle and chicken meat washed in chlorine and our farmers could have to surrender any freedom to choose about GM crops.”

The US and British Governments argue that the treaty will create jobs, but there is no evidence for this – indeed, similar agreements in the past in other countries have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“The Green Party is raising the alarm – the other parties aren’t,” said Andrew Cooper. “The costs will dramatically outweigh any benefits. Jobs could be lost here in Yorkshire as well as elsewhere unless we accept lower and lower standards, and even potentially dangerous ones, in both consumer and employee protection.”

“Caroline Lucas, Green MP, has tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament expressing concern about the investor-state dispute mechanism – but she has received no support from the Coalition or Labour.  Apart from the Greens, the other parties at Westminster and in Europe seem spellbound by the desire for free trade at any price, and the price could be high indeed.”

 ENDS

----------------------

Contact: Andrew Cooper, 01484 667519 | 07721 348619

Green Party Energy Spokesperson; Yorkshire & Humber lead Euro candidate.

ECO - Seeing Red over "Green Crap"

2010 - David Cameron announces the "Greenest Government Ever"


It's difficult to know where to begin with the complete shambles that is the Government's policy changes on domestic energy efficiency and the Energy Company Obligation in particular. Where I will start is on the subject of  'policy stability'. Last year I was part of Government delegation to Germany. The mission was to get German companies to invest in the UK energy efficiency and renewables sector. One of the messages that came back to us from German business was about the uncertain policy landscape in the UK for renewables and energy efficiency support generally and that this was seriously discouraging inward investment. It was a fair point and difficult to answer because it was true

The energy efficiency sector is a very changeable business to work in. The first stage of the £1.3 Billion/year Energy Company Obligation has barely begun. Companies delivering schemes are still ironing out issues with the rules and regulations which govern it and trying to develop, design and deliver workable projects which save carbon and energy for domestic householders. Some companies which were delivering energy efficiency schemes and measures have shut up shop unable to make a go of it, others have found ways to make ECO fly despite the bureaucratic nature of complying with its regulations. Now huge funding cuts to ECO have created another hurdle to overcome.

The large price rises from the utilities had very little to do with the Energy Company Obligation. Some estimates put only 1/6th of the increase as being attributable to green levies yet the energy companies, 'The Sun' and other right wing media were successful at getting the focus of debate on energy bills to be focussed on it. There was strong speculation that Ed Miliband's call for an 18 month energy price freeze might actually have sparked this round of big bill increases with utilities banking our money earlier for the 'rainy day' which might be the first year and a half of an incoming Labour Government. A  Government at ease with its own policies would have recognised the misdirection and misinformation from the press and its own right wing for what it was and addressed it. The cut to funding itself was bad enough but the message it sent out to the energy efficiency industry on its lack of resolve was worse. Imagine you were a company that was considering investing significant sums of money in new plant and equipment to insulate homes. Within the space of a few weeks the whole policy landscape supporting your industry has changed. Companies don't invest, homes don't get insulated and it is the fuel poor who lose out.

As is common when introducing new policies particularly bad ones they are now badged as 'reforms', I guess this is 'reformed' as in "I dropped a jelly on the floor and my 5 year old tried to 're-form' it". It never turns out looking too good. One element of the reform is the new £500million financial incentive for new homeowners to insulate their homes. Several issues with this. People who are purchasing new homes are far less likely to be fuel poor as they have found enough money for a deposit and have means to pay a mortgage. So this is not a scheme targeted at the people who need it most. How long will it take to spend the £500million on energy efficiency measures in a housing market which is hardly very buoyant. You almost think that this is part of the plan. To give a headline big price tag on a measure which is going to take forever to spend and therefore not be that big a burden for the Treasury. All the illusion of action required for a goverment statement with none of the inconvenience and expense of actual activity.

The Energy Company Obligation changes are focused on the Carbon Emission Reduction Obligation (CERO) element of ECO. This was originally supposed to subsidise the Green Deal to make it work but seeing as the Green Deal is a bit of a flop there was a lot of brass sloshing round that needed using so Energy Companies could hit their targets. This funding went on a variety of different projects but as social housing was not eligible for the Fuel Poverty focussed part of ECO many social housing funded projects could well be funded through CERO. Now CERO is being cut as is the funding for solid wall insulation this is more likely to disproportionately impact on projects to improve the homes of social housing tenants on lower incomes.

What is really frustrating about all this is that the Energy Company Obligation as it stood before the cuts was difficult enough and it lacked the ambition and vision we need for improving the energy performance of the nations housing stock. Ultimately saving households millions of pounds a year, avoiding unnecessary excess winter deaths and rapidly reducing our carbon emissions is not a priority for the 'greenest government ever'. Perhaps the clue to trying to make sense of all this is in the word 'obligation'. Obligations are things which people, and in this case energy companies, are morally or legally bound to do. Obligation does not require enthusiasm, belief or passion, that should be the role of government, but instead they have been obliged to set that nonsense aside in the name of expediency, bluster and populism.

The Restoration? When are the poor going to get their money back?

not that I ever did mind!

I got an unsolicited email circular from Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg today asking me if I wanted a £100 tax cut. He wasn't actually offering it but just asking me if I wanted it. Very much a 'jam tomorrow' offer This apparently would be my reward for coping with the suffering caused by their austerity programme. Nick says,


"Think of it as a workers’ bonus.  The British people have lived with austerity for three years. Your sacrifices are making it possible for us to fix the economy. This is your recovery and you deserve to feel the benefits – without delay."


  The message from Government is that we are now turning a corner and that 'growth' and a recovery  is supposedly happening. The problem is for many that this 'good news' is not relevant to them. Many of the people who have suffered the most are those for whom a £100 tax cut is utterly meaningless. The people who have had a bedroom tax imposed or who have lost disability benefits due to the punitive ATOS regime. For many of these people a £100 tax cut will never have any relevance at all. The justification for cutting peoples benefits was supposedly not at all ideological or a 'war on the poor' but because 'we're all in it together'. If that situation has changed and the Lib Dems can offer goodies shouldn't it be the poorest who benefit first?

Of course the right wing media would say its 'our taxes' that pay for these benefits but that ignores the fact that many people have worked and contributed taxes thoughout their lives and that many cannot find work because of their disability or because the work simply isn't there.

With thousands of public sector workers around the country about to become unemployed because of government cuts it seems crazy that the Lib Dems are floating the idea of tax reductions. It has all the hallmarks of a cynical gimmick and is not the behavior you would expect from a responsible party of government but then that is the Liberal Democrats for you.

Will Labour save Golcar Library?

The Labour Candidate in the Golcar By Election is saying he is campaigning to save Golcar Library.

 With £129million of Kirklees cuts coming through from the Lib Dem Conservative Government then cuts to local Library services will be back on the agenda. The question Golcar electors need to ask Labour canvassers directly is, "I know that the Labour Candidate says he supports the retention of Golcar Library but does that mean that the Kirklees Labour Party Policy and therefore the Kirklees Labour Cabinet  support saving Golcar Library?"

In my experience Labour Candidates, in particular wards, are sometimes given permission to take a particular stance on an important issue which is not necessarily the same as the policy adopted by Labour on the Council. Its what is left out of election literature which can lead to people being misled.

PRESS RELEASE - Give MPs Fuel Expenses to Food Banks say Green Party

Huddersfield Methodist Mission - Home of  our local food bank 'The Welcome Centre'

Green Party Energy Spokesperson, Councillor Andrew Cooper has called on MPs to donate the money they have claimed for gas and electricity on second homes to be donated to their local  Food Banks

Councillor Cooper said.

"The news that 300+ MPs are claiming expenses for gas and electricity costs on their second homes has gone down particularly badly with many people at a time when energy costs are rising by an average of an inflation busting 9%. MPs from Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems have all claimed this perk including Huddersfield Labour MP Barry Sheerman and the Tory MP for Dewsbury Simon Reevell . For you and I, we would simply have to pick up the costs of paying for our fuel bills out of our own pockets so its clearly an allowance that needs to be abolished to give MPs a greater appreciation of how difficult it is for many to pay for rising fuel costs. I do believe there is a way that these MPs can redeem themselves in the short term and that is by donating all the money them have claimed for fuel in their second homes to their local Food banks. In this way they can direct the public money they have claimed away from those people who really don’t need it  to the people who need it the most"