August 2012

Police debate hardly an arresting sight

Labour PCC candidate snubs rival Tory's demand for public debates

One of the oddities of our political system is that rivals running for public office rarely, if ever, appear together to debate and answer questions about what they would do if elected.

They prefer, for obvious reasons, to stick to stage managed events in front of their own supporters where suitably anodyne and low-risk discussion can take place.

This is in sharp contrast to the norm 100 years or so ago, when extremely lively  meetings attended by candidates were a feature of elections for public office.

No great surprise, therefore, that the Conservative candidate for West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, Matt Bennett, failed to persuade his opponents to join him in a series of public debates in the run up to polling day on November 15.

Bennett was quick to label Labour candidate Bob Jones a “chicken” for turning down the chance to debate vital issues on a shared platform. Jones explained that he wouldn’t have time to fit in any more hustings, which given Bennett’s proposal for 14 public meetings in the space of little more than two months does at least have a ring of truth to it.

The words stones and glass houses spring to mind here. Matt Bennett was until recently a Birmingham city councillor and a member of the Conservative group which refused to publish a manifesto setting out policy proposals for the May local elections. The Tories’ coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, similarly snubbed electors by failing to produce a manifesto.

Mr Jones, a Wolverhampton city councillor, must realise that there is nothing he can gain from submitting to public debate with all of the PCC contenders. He is the clear favourite to win the contest. It would be astonishing if Labour could not engineer enough votes across the West Midlands to come a clear first despite the likely very low turnout.

The one exception to the no-debate rule in recent times, the televised discussions between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg during the 2010 General Election, demonstrated exactly why Labour and the Conservatives have always rejected appeals by minority parties to stage live debates. Mr Clegg may have something of an different record since becoming Deputy Prime Minister, but he proved adept at convincing a television audience and saw support for the Liberal Democrats shoot up accordingly.

Here is Matt Bennett’s press release commenting on his request to stage public debates:

“Last week I challenged the other PCC candidates to a series of public debates across the West Midlands. As everyone is concerned about the turnout in this election I thought it would be a good way of making sure residents across the whole area were able to hear the candidates set out their stalls and challenge one another. I proposed we have two per local authority area – fourteen in total.

“I’ve had no response from most of the other candidates but Labour’s Bob Jones has turned down the proposal. His agent tells me that “his many PCC election commitments ….will make it difficult for him to accommodate any additional hustings”.

“So there we have it. Bob Jones, who most commentators assume is the front runner in this race, does not wish to take the debates out to the public and is too busy to fit in more hustings. But this is not a surprise. Bob has been on the Police Authority for twenty-seven years and has spent most of the time sitting in meetings nodding through whatever the Chief Constable wanted.

“He has not bothered to engage with the public and debate the issues for 27 years, so he’s not likely to start now. And how often would we see him if he won? The chances are he’d spend most of his time in his office, doing what he does best – nodding.

“Clearly Bob doesn’t think it’s in his best interests for too many residents to see him debating in the flesh. But in any case, I’ll be holding my own public meetings – details will follow shortly.”

 

Curated from , written by microwale (Olawale Idowu)

The two previous twitts was from Birmingham mail and not Birmingham post. Apology!

The death of a national trust. The birth of an urban sitopia?

Does Birmingham know how it's going to feed itself in the future?

Three recent encounters:

  • First, I bumped into PB, last seen when she a sixth former and I a grubby little first year about (gulp!) 50 years ago. “Where do you live” she asked. “Birmingham,” I replied. Her eyes widened in surprise, her head jolted back in shock
  • Second, I was introduced to a branding guru. In Islington. A man of international renown. His particular thing is . London is a global city, he said. It’s not England, nor English. The opportunity for places like Birmingham , he continued, is to brand themselves as the real England. For you, you’ve got Stratford and Shakespeare, think of the Cotswolds, Leamington Spa – they are the real England. But where, I wonder aloud, is Birmingham in all of that. A waft of his hand, a passing reference top the Lunarmen, and that was it
  • And finally, I read Jeremy Paxman’s witty, perceptive book

17 million visit “historic houses”, some 50 million “open-air properties” belonging to the National Trust. Evidence, should you need it, of an English obsession with the past, and with the countryside. A rural idyll that never was- nor will be in

This Englishness, as Paxman points out, is a false preserve. Cricket on a village green. Thatched cottages with roses around the door.

If a city, it’s the dreaming spires of Oxford or Regency Bath. Or a fashionable London address along with a weekend place in the “countryside” away from jostling crowds and filthy air.

Countryside? More likely twee, affluent suburbia. Perhaps a child-free, chocolate box of a village within a few miles of the M4 or M40. Add in a strange proselytisation of green credentials, playing organic between breaks in Chamonix, New York, the Maldives. Or newbie country-dweller, chafing against the few lonely souls who manage our mechanised agriculture on a necessarily industrial scale.

Birmingham doesn’t belong to any of these Englands. Nor indeed do any of the post-industrial cities across the “English” landscape - Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds – all of them north of a line drawn roughly from the Severn to the Trent.

We Brummies live almost slap-bang half-way up that line, often uncertain of who we are. And who we’re not; over 160,000 people commute into Birmingham, preferring traffic jams and packed trains carting them from sprawling dormitory “villages” over the legacy of what Paxman termed “unrelieved grimness all round”.

“The cities grew as inelegant sprawls with a purely functional intent. As a result, England contains some of the most exceptionally hideous towns in Europe…Joseph Chamberlain became mayor of his adopted city of Birmingham in 1873, he demolished the slums, took over the gas and water companies and municipalised the sewage farms. Health improved as a result, but in Birmingham as elsewhere, the occasional city centre art gallery or library merely accentuated the unrelieved grimness all round”

Outside the rush hour, Birmingham is but an hour’s brief drive from London’s own escapees. The Cotswold weekend residents, or the Chipping Norton set, or those in Shakespeare’s country.

If these fashionistas think of us at all, it’s a sharp recoil from the brutal ugliness they’ve glimpsed fleetingly from motorways or railway lines. Minds shaped by Dickens’ Coketown, Blake’s dark satanic mills, Queen Victoria drawing the blinds on the royal train.

But by 2050, nearly all of the world’s 9 billion will live in cities. Only cities can provide the economies of scale to feed, water and shelter this vast population.

Odd though it may seem to the London barrister’s bucolic smallholder dream or the bankster buying a country pile or, indeed, the commuter in from Worcestershire, living in a city is already the best of ecological options. The green thing to do.

Unrelieved grimness? What do we need to do to make Birmingham an urbanite exemplar of living well? A melting pot of ideas, energy, influences. Lively streets. Playful, curious children. Heartfelt friendliness. A delight in immediate surroundings.

What will have happened here by the time PB’s response to  “Birmingham”  is a widening of her eyes in recognition, her head eagerly leaning forward to hear more?

Cities run on power. No, not the political kind, that national trust has gone, if it ever existed outside London.

I mean the joule kind of power. Calories, too, life-giving power to our bodies and minds. Without either, citizens must leave or die.

How are we going to generate and manage the power we need to live well here?

A radical idea is to think of city as “sitopia”, a term made up by Carolyn Steel. From the Greek, ‘sitos’ meaning food, ‘topos’ meaning place. Sitopia Food place.  (see her book ; her TED talk .)

Her assertion is that, even now, long past the days when geese and cattle had to be driven into towns, it is still illuminating to view a city through the perspective of food and food supplies.

And so it has proved.  has brought together over 50 people so far, many of them scientists, all living and working in the region, engaged in a year-long scenario planning project. Food futures for Birmingham 2050.

We’re bending our minds around logistics and transport systems, education, health, energy, waste, business and retailing, allotments and parks, streets and markets. Relationships, family, friendship. Eating as social glue.

We’ve learned there’s great success in today’s food supply systems  -  and that success includes supermarkets. A billion calories plus vital nutrients are consumed every single day of every year off Birmingham plates.

There’s concerns attached to this success too. What if there were a major breakdown in supply? Never has so much [cereal] been controlled by so few.

Are these systems too efficient, fragile rather than robust? Equitable? Sustainable? Will the preparedness of other consumers in other countries to buy less than perfect-looking produce scupper parts of our supply? Should we be eating kiwi fruits rather than Evesham plums?

And, when calories are cheap, how can we all ensure all our citizens have a nutritious diet?

We’ve learned that a mere 10 people can live off a hectare of highly fertile, intensively farmed land. That the West Midlands conurbation is roughly 60,000 hectares. So without the million or so of us, without any of our built environment, also without Wolverhampton, Stourbridge and the Black Country, Coventry, motorways, 3.5 million people….the land itself could, if highly fertile (which it isn’t) and if it were intensively farmed (thumbs down to the Soil Association), it could only feed 600,000 people on a very restricted if sufficient diet.

We’ve learned that the global food supply, give and take, matters greatly to us. That the UK imports less of our food (40%) than it has for generations.

We’ve learned there’s difficult-to-get-your-head-round, counter-intuitive stuff. That its not in UK interests to be self-sufficient in food. Not for us, not for others across the world.

That however romantic the World War II Dig for Victory campaign seems now, getting food on the table then was a precarious matter. A close run thing, the population could easily have starved; indeed many on the Continent did. We had rationing. A highly restricted, meagre diet.   Government food supplements for the vulnerable, vitamins, cod liver oil, virol, orange juice. Over dependence on local harvests which sometimes failed.

And 13 million fewer mouths to feed than now.

We’ve learned too that urban agriculture, though providing diddley-squat (a tiny fraction of 1%) of any city’s food requirement, has profound social, civic and health benefits for whole communities. And it makes an area suddenly, wonderfully attractive to look at and be in.

That , late on this scene, has 7.5k allotments (and counting), community orchards, veg patches in schools, farms (yes farms), Winterbourne’s urban farming centre opening in September, Birmingham Botanical Gardens with imaginative projects, a city Parks Department already playing a significant part and keen to do more.

Plus a brand-new opportunity. Carbon-negative energy generation within our boundaries. . Aston University’s EBRI technologies.

What will Birmingham be to the likes of PB and a London branding guru in the middle of this most trouble of centuries?

We’re on our own. It’s up to us.

 

Constitution unreformed

As PCC election approaches tumbleweed moment, RJF Partner reviews Government reform

One of the defining characteristics for the Lib Dems’ participation in a Coalition Government would surely be to oversee political and constitutional reform. It’s what they were most famous for and the new DPM was given personal charge of the .

Half way through the Parliament and the record is not too clever. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a Nick Clegg basher. I admire his response to Cameron’s appeal on the morning after the election. It was far more difficult to take up than to decline with an offer of a confidence and supply arrangement. His party was very well organised going into the Coalition negotiations in stark contrast to Gordon Brown’s team. If you look at the policy priorities on the front of their 2010 manifesto, they should have a good tale to tell at the polls in 2015.

But university tuition fees and the state of the economy may rather stand in the way of that message. As might constitutional reform. It started badly with the AV referendum.

Continues…

Curated from , written by (author unknown)

Whether we agree or disagree on the need for such positions, one thing everyone will agree on is the importance of the police to the public, and that November’s elections usher in the single biggest change to policing accountability for nearly a century. Another point of agreement for those of us with doubts about police …

Three simple steps to help Brum keep the Olympic flame alive

What Birmingham needs to do to create its own Olympic legacy

Ever since the flame was doused, almost every commentator and politician has been wondering how to bottle and build on the success of London 2012.

It’s worth suggesting at the outset the principal reasons for the success of the 30th Olympiad. In three words: organisation, spirit and performance.

Locog and host of others – from Governments to volunteers – delivered on their planning and execution. The Olympic spirit was there at every turn, from Games Makers to athletes, commentators to spectators. It was all topped off by the success of Team GB.

Continues…

The excellent reports today that the Conservative Party has launched an investigation into its candidate selection process for the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner elections in November.

Eventual West Mids Tory candidate Matt Bennet was elected after a series of public meetings in July, narrowly beating rival Joe Tildesley in a process that was notably short on clarity, as we noted here.

TOTC blogger Sam Chapman writes:

Matt Bennett, who won the selection, didn’t want to say anything on the subject. Joe Tildesley, the runner-up, gave an answer that was a tad more revealing:- “‘I have been sworn to secrecy and told in no uncertain terms that I am not to speak to the press. I have submitted some paperwork to the party but I am not prepared to say anything more at this time”.

Continues…

Curated from , written by Rupert Myers

Your local council owns prime real estate and could sell it to build new social houses. Housing Minister Grant Shapps says the appeal of this is ‘obvious’. With a potential pot of £5.5bn to build up to 170,000 affordable homes, what’s not to like? Plenty, apparently: Labour MP Karen Buck warned of a risk to communities, and the importance of mixing groups within our population. Lord Prescott called the idea ‘gerrymandering’.

The empty slogans come from both sides. When someone says ‘nobody has a right to live in’ Chelsea they ought to remember that some people do have a right to live there, and that they pay for that right. This is a significant debate clouded by the use of language like ‘cleansing’ which is most harmful to the credibility of people using the word.

Anyone who has ever looked for property in London has found the location of council housing in prime areas of London staggering. Millions of working taxpayers couldn’t afford to privately rent the sort of council housing locations that some Londoners enjoy. It’s not about jealousy: it’s a problem of scarce resources. Too many opponents to Policy Exchange’s suggestion live in a state of economic denial in which you have the cake and eat it in SW1.

The most bizarre objection to selling overpriced land is that it will result in segregated communities. London is already segregated, in fact every part of the country knows what the economic segregation of the housing market is like. Look in an estate agent’s window That segregation is the symptom of a need for greater levels of employment, economic growth, and prosperity. There are certain parts of London where you can only live if you’re at one end of the spectrum or the other. The squeezed middle in this debate are the middle classes, and yet that’s a segregation which many on the left seem ambivalent about.

Those who condemn the idea as ‘cleansing’ inner cities of council accommodation celebrate the notion that some council tenants live in the smartest areas of London, as if it’s somehow more democratic to have a housing lottery which can drop a tiny few in Kensington, rather than an affordable solution for all. Nobody sensible wants ghettos, and we all understand that the architecture and design of housing are important factors in how the inhabitants feel and act, but the need to find efficient, cheap solutions to the affordable housing crisis shouldn’t be met with slurs from the opponents.

Wouldn’t it be great if we focused not on how many council tenants should live in central London, but on how to house all the people who need to be housed? People who worry about segregation should be worrying about the cost of living. The notion of ‘segregated’ and ‘mixed’ communities is unhelpful. After all, if you want to run the housing market as an exercise in social engineering, why stop with council tenants? Why not start worrying about how many disabled people live in a particular area, or establishing a quota system for ethnic minorities? The desire to intervene on allegedly ‘principled’ grounds to the detriment of the housing system is what’s at stake here, and it’s the right sort of battleground for the next election.

The post appeared first on .

Move along now, nothing to see here

Police chiefs and politicians pray that apathy will protect status quo in PCC elections

With the Olympic Games safely out of the way, I wondered how long it would be before the looming prospect of the first elections for police and crime commissioners would become a topic of debate.

The Electoral Commission duly obliged by publishing a pessimistic forecast that only 18.5 per cent of electors will bother to vote in the PCC polls on November 15.

My gut feeling is that the commission’s forecast is weighted on the high side. If the average turnout was 15 per cent, and considerably lower in some areas, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Of course, all of this is guesswork. The commission arrived at its prediction with a series of assumptions based on

Continues…

Curated from , written by Isabel Hardman

The staggeringly low turnout that the Electoral Reform Society is predicting for November’s Police and Crime Commissioner elections comes as little surprise to those involved in organising the vote. In fact, I was quite surprised that the ERS expects a turnout as high as 18.5 per cent, and I suspect the Home Office might be, too.

Nick Herbert betrayed his nerves about the turnout earlier this week when he was . Today the ERS’ chief executive Katie Ghose predicted that this could be a ‘perfect storm, which could result in the lowest turnout for a national election in British history’ and could ‘degenerate into a complete shambles’. That extremist candidates could gain an unfair advantage in some areas is just one problem with this low turnout: the legitimacy of the decisions that the new PCCs will take is another. Ghose has a fair point when she asks ‘if the people elected to localise decision-making over how our streets are policed, do not represent local people, what is the point of having them?’

It was always going to be a struggle to pull in the voters in the middle of November, and if the Tories fail at their conference to muster the necessary enthusiasm for these elections, it will be read not just as a failure of the government’s policy, but also as a symptom of the growing disconnect between the party’s leadership and its grassroots.

The post appeared first on .

  • Published by

  • .

  • NEW: Weekly bulletin

  • Subscribe by email

    • Police debate hardly an arresting sight: One of the oddities of our political system is that rivals running for ...
  • Archives