Pure propaganda - Roy Oldham "aware of the beautiful countryside on his doorstep"

One of our contacts has passed us Roy Oldham's latest election leaflet for the local Council Elections, and it's a gem.

You can see the full leaflet here and here. Note that the only line about the Bypass is a solitary sentence - "In Longdendale, the Bypass is going through its procedures", which makes it sound like it's some kind of independent sentient being. We're willing to bet that behind closed doors, Roy carries on conversations with the Bypass - for all we know, he may even believe he sleeps with it, which perhaps may go some way to explaining his dogged persistent devotion to the "idea" over the years.

Equally bizarre though is the small series of vignettes which illustrate how Roy is 'working for you', and in particular the one on the left. Apparently, Roy is very aware of the "beautiful countryside on his doorstep". The problem is that Roy wants to introduce his jealous lover Bypass to the beautiful countryside -  it's one of Roy's sick, twisted fantasies - and we know how it's going to end folks don't we? Yes, the perverted Bypass will have his wicked way with 'beautiful countryside', making her tired, ugly and degraded - a shadow of her former self.

Now you would have thought that a perfect backdrop to illustrate Roy's love for the countryside would be - the countryside of Longdendale! The only problem with that is that many of the views you could pick would be spoiled forever by the Bypass. So Roy's played it safe and posed against the park at the junction of the A57 and A628 in Hollingworth.

We think this is no small accident: for politicians like Oldham, the mitigation for projects that entail environmental degradation and the destruction of open spaces in the countryside is the provision of dead, paved, ecological deserts such as the park in the photograph. We know which we prefer.

We hear that Roy's facing a showdown with Kieran Quinn on May 16th, only 9 days after the results of the Council Elections. He may have plenty of time to spend in his park after that.

High Peak Hustings - Bypass 2.0 is for "cars powered by wind turbines"

Yesterday saw 3 of the candidates from the main political parties contesting the General Election take part in a 'hustings' event on High Peak Radio. NMB audio faeries whipped out their copies of Audacity to make a recording, and we've edited the 'lowlights' of the proclamations of the three candidates - i.e. the bit where they reveal their plans to trash the environment of the High Peak in numerous ways - and you can hear this at the foot of this post on the mp3 player.

We'll be back soon with a fuller analysis, but for the time being, we'll leave you with Alistair Stevens' (Lib Dem) bizarre The Day Today-esque response to a question we posed (which begins at 7:14) - the Bypass he wants to build will be for "cars powered by wind turbines". Whatever next...

Tom Levitt's latest greenwash

He's at it again. Tom Levitt's 'green' pronunciations are starting to become a regular occurrence, along with those about the recession, and his latest bit of news sees the two converging in the usual ironic manner of his ham-fisted but contradictory announcements.

Levitt's helping to promote the East Midlands Regional Climate Change Programme which "details how regional, local and individual action can be co-ordinated to help tackle climate change". This is the same individual that only last week was declaring how furious he was that 4NW had put back funding for the Longdendale Bypass, the single most environmentally damaging project in his constituency, if not the whole of the East Midlands and North West. 

To remind Tom, the same Programme of Action he is promoting commits (at 1.3) to "mitigating climate change" which means "reducing greenhouse gas emissions". Yet the Longdendale Bypass will increase CO2 emissions in the area by 15,480 tonnes per annum. Levitt is standing in the way of the progress that the document he is promoting wants to make!

But there's more irony in store. The same article shows him wittering on about the 'Moors for the Future' project which aims to restore the peat moorlands in the High Peak. Yet those same moorlands in Levitt's constituency are threatened by the increased CO2 emissions the bypass will bring. 

The article also quotes a Lynne Cardwell, apparently Labour's spokesperson in New Mills and clearly born yesterday:

"As we know from the huge popular support for the Torrs Hydropower scheme, awareness of green issues is very high in New Mills"

Regular readers will know our views about the Torrs Hydro Project - we think it's a greenwash project, which explains Levitt's enthusiasm for it. It encapsulates the contradictions this man constantly promotes. You wouldn't expect a member of the local Labour Party to call out Levitt on his Greenwash, and Lynne Cardwell doesn't disappoint them in this respect. The toadies and lickspittles that surround Levitt help him to promote two contradictory viewpoints and the bullshit continues to issue forth. When will it end?

Andrew Gwynne the Eco-Tourist

We've rarely considered political figures beyond Longdendale and High Peak, since they are often shouting the loudest in favour of the Longdendale Bypass. But some new revelations lead us to turn the spotlight tonight on Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, another big supporter of the Bypass. 

The reason is that it came to light a couple of weeks ago that Gwynne took a trip last year to Svalbard, islands in the Arctic Ocean, and part of Norwegian territory. According to an article in the Tameside Advertiser, Gwynne and the party he journeyed with were invited by the Royal Norwegian Assembly to survey the damage being done to the island by climate change in April last year. The top of the article describes Gwynne as an 'Eco MP'. We'll demonstrate that he is actually at best an Eco-Tourist.

Now you may remember some time ago that one of David Cameron's first jaunts as leader of the Tory party was to go on a holiday - sorry! - fact-finding trip to Svalbard for similar purposes. So it's in vogue for the political class to go and look how bad things are somewhere else rather than looking closer to home. The fact of the matter is that Gwynne was so concerned about what he found in the Arctic that he didn't bother to report his trip at the time it took place and make the most of the publicity, only when he had to declare it to the Parliamentary authorities for the Register of Member's interests 7 months later. This was clearly more of a holiday/junket than anything else - if you type "Andrew Gwynne" and "Svalbard" into Google, all you'll find is the Advertiser article and articles about the entry in the Register of Member's Interests - there are no articles to be found in foreign press, tourist board websites, environmental journals and the like. 

This is not the case for the other MPs taking the trip. Jamie Reed MP had an article on a local newspaper website within a month of the trip. Kerry McCarthy MP blogged about the trip within a week. Not be outdone, Jo Swinson MP did a podcast whilst she was there! (see entry 7th April). Only Tory Boy Greg Hands MP and Gwynne failed to mention it, demonstrating the depth of their sincerity/pathetic PR strategy (delete as appropriate)

Regarding his 'eco credentials', putting aside the bypass, we find that Gwynne is a strong supporter of Manchester Airport, and if one wants to know his position on Heathrow, visit his voting record page on publicwhip.org.uk and use your browser to search for 'Heathrow' - you'll find Gwynne, like Tom Levitt, is completely loyal to the Government's position in favour of expansion. And of course, we all know about his support for the Bypass. So how exactly can Gwynne be realistically described as an 'Eco MP'? At least Tom Levitt can bleat in support of a local Hydro Electric Power plant (however lacking in credibility said plant is) -  Gwynne presides over the Junction 24 M60 Roundabout at Denton, a site which has disastrous health implications for his constituents, yet he wants more of the same for the area - the construction of the Longdendale Bypass will massively expand road traffic congestion in this part of his constituency, as will any expansion of Manchester Airport for air traffic. 

If Gwynne was sincere about accepting his invitation from the Norwegian Government to see what Climate Change is doing to Svalbard, perhaps he should invite Norwegian officials to Denton to show them how sincere he is about making their situation much worse. Not to mention ours.

Tameside's Woodland Greenwash

Above is the latest edition of Tameside MBC's "60 second news" (actually 120 seconds long). The first item (at 30 seconds into the video) is truly the best wind-up we've heard from TMBC in some time. For those who'd rather see it in Black and White, we have a transcript below:

Countryside lovers can explore Tameside's 18 Woodlands secure in the knowledge they are also being safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. The Council has achieved the UK Woodland Assurance Standard which acknowledges its commitment to managing the woods sustainably while making them as accessible as possible for local people

Excuse us while we do a double take - this is the same Council that wants to blight Longdendale with a bypass and destroy Swallow's Wood. You may remember that we commented on the irony of Tameside's 'plant a tree' campaign last December, but this is one better (or worse) than that. The line 'safeguarded for future generations' particularly sticks in the craw. 

Tom Levitt, Geoff Hoon and the logic of capitalism

As you'll see in the above extract from the House of Commons debate on Heathrow this Wednesday, Tom Levitt did his duty and supported Geoff Who?, as he had done previously in the local press. We'll regurgitate Hansard below in case you'd prefer to see the words spoken:

Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most polluting and wasteful practice by Heathrow is stacking, in which aeroplanes have to wait to come into land? That is because the runways are used at 99 per cent. capacity, which causes problems with the reliability of services. Is it not the case that the first impact of a third runway would be to reduce carbon emissions through the reduction and even abolition of stacking?

Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and one that was completely ignored by the hon. Lady. At any given time, there can be as many as four stacks of aircraft waiting to land. The average delay at Heathrow—caused by the capacity problems—is some 19 minutes, and some aircraft are delayed for far longer. Therefore it is necessary to address the question of capacity, in carbon terms as much as for any other reason.

The logic used is the same as used by the proponents of the Longdendale Bypass, which of course includes Levitt. That congestion - be it in the air or on the roads - causes pollution (in this case CO2 emissions) and the best way to treat this is by increasing capacity. The perverse and contradictory logic on display is their worldview turned on its head. They support capitalism, and support the infinite growth it seeks. But in this case, they seek to cloak that logic in the clothes of environmentalism. The truth is that expanding capacity will simply serve to increase demand - more planes in the air (or cars on the road) equals more pollution. 

Tom Levitt - Shite man speak with forked tongue

You may remember an article we published in July last year about how Tom Levitt was attaching himself to the Torrs Hydro Energy scheme in New Mills, hoping that some of it's apparent Green-ness would rub off onto him.

His first column in the Glossop Chronicle for 2009 is entitled 'Tackling Climate Change' - ahem - and with a completely straight face, goes on to say "reducing carbon emissions quite literally saves the planet"* and pays tribute again to the Torrs Hydro project. The irony that the Torrs Hydro project has cut a deal to provide energy for a local supermarket is completely lost on Levitt, as it probably will be on most people. 

But nonetheless, just re-read Levitt's words in the light of last week's announcement from Geoff Who?/Hoon about Heathrow - on the same day it appears in the local newspaper, Who? craps great blobs of Carbon all over Tom's lovely Greenwashed masterpiece.We wonder what went through Tom's mind? I wonder if he's forgotten that he also supports the Longdendale Bypass and the nigh on 15,500 extra tons of CO2 it will belch into the atmosphere? 

Levitt is perhaps one of the most perfectly formed examples of a walking contradiction we've come across. 

But it gets better. Just as we've been writing this, his column for this week's Chronicle has popped up on his website. And guess what it's about? Heathrow's third runway. 

Tom's keen to tell us he was so eager to support it that he signed a motion for it BEFORE Hoon declared war on the environment last week. We'll let you read this drivel yourself, but Levitt finishes it with a classic Orwellian doublespeak phrase "the greenest action is not always the obvious one" - he presumably thinks that the construction of a third runway at Heathrow and a proto-motorway here is somehow evened up by a Greenwash project that powers a supermarket.

Is that what he means by obvious? 

WILL SOMEONE TELL US EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS?

*We think Tom means 'humanity's future' here - the planet will sort itself out, whatever we throw at it, but we may not be able to dodge what it throws at us.

Sean Parker-Perry the rubbish rebel

Here's us thinking that Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry's career is virtually over and he sets himself firmly on the political centre stage in Tameside - at least for now. Not only that, but his 'green credentials' (such as they exist) are again at the centre of it all.

What are we talking about? Well Sean's decided to come over all rebellious regarding the recent conversion of Tameside MBC towards fortnightly bin collections. But as is usually the case with these things, you have to read between the lines. 

The Tameside Advertiser article makes it clear that Sean favours a weekly collection, but smaller bins which it says will 'force people to divide rubbish'. The current plan sees Tameside residents receiving a number of containers for different types of rubbish. Also, Sean says that recycling facilities in various parts of Tameside have disappeared.

And Sean seems to have hit a nerve - in the Reporter/Chronicle, there's a whole page devoted to the issue, with letters of support for Sean's stance. Or is there? The praise seems to have come from those who think the collections should stay weekly, rather than Sean's idea of smaller bins 'forcing' people to recycle. 

It might be easier if we get out own views on the subject out of the way first before we move onto the implications of this kerfuffle. 

Firstly, there's the issue of Public Services. The move to a less frequent collection is clearly an attack on a vital Public Service. There has been an increasing tendency over the past couple of years for Local Authorities to contract out their waste management services to private companies, with all the usual and predictable results, both for the public and employees in the public sector. Sean doesn't mention this, so presumably he's in favour of it. The idea that this is a clash of political ideologies is absurd - all the political parties agree with the continued privatisation of Public Services. 

Secondly, in this 'debate' there is a complete absence of analysis, both at the local and national level. Who is talking about the commodification of waste for example? 4 multinational corporations - whose turnover number in the billions of pounds - control three quarters of all refuse collection contracts (many of which are to last for 25 years). Rubbish is very big business. And whilst the contracts keep political responsibility for waste management with Local Authorities, they do not allow them to keep any direct operational control. That is determined by only multinational corporations in response to national regulations. 

Local Authorities simply have no power, and on a local level neither the Tories, Liberal Democrats or Labour can do anything about it. And last time I looked, none of them were arguing for returning waste management services to Local Authority control.

And this brings us on to you and I, and our 'responsibility' for recycling and waste management. We are continually told that 'we have to take more responsibility' for 'our' waste. That this is an individual problem, even a moral problem (i.e. it is we that are 'lazy' or 'wasteful'). But all of that misses the point completely and is in fact a smokescreen for what it actually happening. The fact of the matter is that 'we' have no control  - not only do we not produce the waste (excessive packaging, junk mail etc etc) but also it is actually the Local Authorities that have swallowed the government (Tory and then Labour) line on the commodification of waste and awarded lucrative and long-term contracts to private companies that can do exactly as they please.

Waste management policy wants to make rubbish into a profitable commodity. This is why the onus for sorting waste is being put onto us, and the collections are happening less frequently - so that capitalist enterprises don't have to employ as many workers to sort the rubbish and collect it on a regular basis. Which is in order for them to widen their profit margins. It has nothing to do with us becoming 'greener' or becoming more 'environmentally aware'. 

We don't see Sean Parker-Perry, or anyone else for that matter, talking about any of that.

So what is this argument really about? Roy Oldham's career is clearly in it's twilight months now. This could also be true of Sean - his credibility in the local Labour Party has nose dived in the past 12 months, what with his sacking from James Purnell's team, and the foundering of his relationship with the daughter of one of Tameside's most powerful political figures. It's do or die, and what better way to revive his fortunes - with a slanging match in the press with the leader of the Council over an issue neither of them have control over.

What a load of rubbish...

Tom Levitt's Xmas Wish

Admittedly a little late in coming from us, but we decided to record for posterity Tom Levitt's 'Christmas Wish' from a recent edition of the BBC Politics Show. 

Levitt calls for a 'Green Christmas', saying that people have opportunites to 'save the environment'. As a reminder, this individual advocates the construction of the most environmentally damaging project in his constituency for many years - if not ever. Given his power to effect environmental outcomes in this part of the world, should it go through he will be more responsible than any other individual in the High Peak for anti-environmental practices and outrages.

As a warning to viewers of a sensitive disposition, Levitt does sing at the end, which is almost as bad as his hilarious dancing (displayed below - hat tip to Anthony McKeown).

Tameside 'needs more trees' - laugh? we nearly shat...

This one seems to have slipped under the radar (thought not others - hat tip: Tameside Eye). You really couldn't make it up, the irony is so beautiful. Anyway, rather than explain it all, here's the article in the Tameside Advertiser from 20th November:

Council branches out for Christmas

’Tis the season to be green. Residents, schools and community groups are being given an early Christmas present next Sunday (30 November) in the form of 3,500 trees.

The giveaway, run by Tameside Council, hopes to give the borough’s tree coverage a much-needed boost.

Martin Watkins, the council’s environmental co-ordinator, said: “In relation to many other areas of the country and Greater Manchester, tree coverage in Tameside is poor. “We don’t have access to great big sweeps of land where we can go and plant woodland but if everyone puts one or two trees in their garden it’s the equivalent. It helps wildlife and it helps the planet as well.”

Residents have 10 domestic varieties to choose from - maple, hornbeam, alder, silver birch, hawthorn, bird cherry, wild cherry, crab apple, rowan and whitebeam.

The feathered whips, around 1.5m tall, are bare rooted and need to be planted as soon as possible after collection. Instructions for planting and fertiliser will also be handed out so all residents need to bring is a bin bag.

Well, well. What a classic line - "In relation to many other areas of the country and Greater Manchester, tree coverage in Tameside is poor". This is the same Council that wants to trash Swallows Wood for the Bypass - an Ancient Semi Natural Woodland and an important habitat for wildlife with thousands of trees. And this is ignored and instead, individuals are urged to plant trees in penny numbers here and there.

One is immediately reminded of Roy Oldham's comments during his 2006 State of the Area Address when he announced the eventual planting of 10,000 trees to 'compensate' for the loss of Swallows Wood and also to 'offset' the CO2 emissions increase caused by the bypass. Except his sums were wrong - one of our backroom pixies worked out that 6.7 million trees would be needed to accomplish this - they would cover 1600 hectares, an area roughly the size of Glossop!

But there's a seed of a good idea in there. How about we start planting and sowing - here there and everywhere? Without permission, without warning, we should take this plea literally... 

Bill Johnson & Sean Parker-Perry - bogus environmentalists

You may have noticed that not much that occurs in the local press escapes our attention. So we've decided to chronicle a series of little 'spats' taking place in public between a couple of individuals over the past few months who like to portray themselves as in some way concerned with the environment. 

One of these we all know far too much about - Councillor Sean Parker-Perry. The other person - Bill Johnson - is not someone we've looked at in detail before, but he certainly deserves more attention. 

It's possible to view these spats as a bit of a 'turf war' for environmental credibility. We've done a lot to document the history of Councillor Parker-Perry's Active Longdendale, but Bill Johnson has his own environmental organisation - Longdendale Heritage Trust (LHT) - which seems to have a record that Cllr Parker-Perry can only dream about. Interestingly, the LHT has also attracted funding from 'Awards for All' - in this case £5,000 to rebuild a drystone wall, a tad more tangible than Cllr Parker-Perry's spending of his grant (about which, at the time of writing details are still not publicly available).

The first of the latest spats come about in May 2007, when TMBC set about felling trees that lined the sides of the deep cutting at Mottram, ostensibly to prevent root growth from destabilising the masonry. Johnson was annoyed, and ran to the Reporter/Chronicle, who duly provided an article. 

Parker-Perry then replied to Johnson in the last 5 paragraphs of a letter on various topics in a later letter to the Chronicle/Reporter. One of them makes clear his priorities:

"Any loss of trees such as this is always a shame, but our engineers must do what is best to maintain major engineering works"

And then Parker-Perry pulls out the classic Greenwash trick - an offer to plant trees elsewhere to mitigate the loss. But in a response to Parker-Perry's letter, Johnson points out the folly of removing trees which stabilise the sloped sides of the cutting and also that cracked masonry has still not been attended to.

All had then been quiet until a couple of weeks ago, when the spats erupted again. This time it was over a request for funding from the Friends of Etherow Lodge Park, in order to fund an orienteering course. The minutes of the District Assembly clearly don't do justice to the passionate feelings in evidence in the local press over the following couple of weeks, and Bill Johnson's subsequent letter to the press is a well-argued illustration of the sound reasons why pathways in the protected woodland have been historically minimised. But then he blows it by attacking and insulting the the 'friends' group in a rather snobbish and condescending manner. 

We've no doubt that Bill Johnson has credentials - but it's always galling to hear someone flout them vainly rather than offer an argument based on evidence and facts. And whilst we tend to sympathise perhaps a little more with him in this dispute, it's all the more puzzling why he has taken a wholly contradictory stance with regard to Swallow's Wood.

For he has always shown much less concern about the fate of this Ancient Woodland. As recently as November last year, he was writing to the Glossop Chronicle to roll out the 'nature will recover' flannel we too often hear from Councillors and Siege, the fig leaf to cover their destructive urges. He even goes as far as to eulogise the M67 Roundabout at Mottram! Johnson's principles may be in short supply possibly because he lives on Ashworth Lane and the traffic queues outside his front door - but then we know he hasn't formally written in to support the bypass either. So where does he stand? 

We'd rather a little consistency was applied in Mr Johnson's concern for the environment, and given that Swallow's Wood is classified by the Woodland Trust as Ancient Semi Natural Woodland, we would have thought that fell under the remit of concern for the Longdendale Heritage Trust. And his eloquent argument against holding orienteering courses in Etherow Lodge Park must surely also apply to Swallow's Wood, where there are plays to destroy it for good. 

**UPDATE 28th October 2008: we are reliably informed that the same Mr Bill Johnson used to be very much against the Bypass - in the early 1990s, he participated in a fledgling (and now defunct) group called PATROL (People Against the Road Over Longdendale). We get the feeling he likes to monopolise concern for the environment if not personify it. But there's no hard feelings - there's room for all kinds of weird people and ego-tripping in this campaign, so come on Bill, get with the program!

Will Cosmetic Energy Schemes Save the World?

The artful reader will see that there is only one reasonable answer to this question, and that would be "no"! But what kind of scheme is cosmetic, and likely to prevent real measures that are really responsible and necessary reactions to climate change? And what is wrong with Gordon Brown being allowed to feel good about himself, by committing to 15% renewable energy? Surely no right minded person would quarrel with that?

Let us start our search for the right green energy strategy locally, with the Torrs Hydro Project and be as fair minded as possible. In New Mills, Tom Levitt has put his considerable parliamentary clout - although in the above video nobody seems to take much notice of him speaking, and the Speaker has to call the House to order to allow him to do so - to bring to the Nations attention a hydro-electric scheme in New Mills. Apparently this scheme can generate enough power for a few hundred homes - hardly a major impact on the 10,000 inhabitants of New Mills then and maybe why Jack Straw saw the funny side and can be seen laughing and joking throughout!

Although it is dubbed a "community project" it is probably safe to assume the energy would be simply handed straight over for a payment to the national grid, so where is the community in that - except the impact on the community resource of the Torrs, where visitors will apparently have an Archimedean Screw to negotiate?

So our verdict on the project, without wishing to be harsh, is that is probably more than a little "cosmetic" when one considers its size and the disproportionate amount one hears about it even at National Level. Why Tom Levitt has latched onto it with such vigour is fairly clear, as I will explain below, but it is worth pointing out that it would be not the only hydro electric plant in his constituency, perhaps not the most productive, but seemingly the one he likes to talk up his green credentials with.

And make no mistake Tom Levitt, whilst being a supporter of the highly un-environmental A628 Bypass, is very keen to be portrayed as an Environmentalist, taking pride in his roots as an erstwhile teacher of environmental science. As such, Tom Levitt is in our view completely symptomatic of the current national malaise of political groups stealing the green clothes of the "Eco movement" now that environmental concerns have suddenly become pressing, or as these people probably see it "fashionable". They like the idea of small unproductive projects simply because they allow development in green belt areas and allow them to avoid "biting the bullet" (as Tom would say) that one day will have to be bit - of reducing car and plane emissions.

In my view, a major part of Gordon Brown's entire "renewable energy strategy" is to offer respectability and careers to silence green groups that call for emissions cuts in transport, and who can be found to support cosmetic schemes at the expense of the countryside and the planet in terms of putting off what really needs doing.

My understanding is that there is a component of off-shore wind farms within the Bill that has a grain of sense in it, and that will be meaningfully productive, and to these I would cautiously lend support. However this component is completely undermined as I see it by the specious attempt of the Strategy - in partnership with the dangerous Planning Reform Bill - to gain infrastructure and planning access for developers into hitherto restricted open countryside and green belt.

The fact of the parliamentary exchange between Tom and Gordon Brown - set up through mention of the "tiny" New Mills scheme to allow the PM to put on his "green suit" again - is to my eyes a seriously worrying assault on the intelligence of the nation. Hopefully people are too smart to fall for this. Otherwise cue the "greying of the UK" courtesy of the Grey PM and his grey MPs, a "greying" where every sustainable project has to have a hidden agenda of allowing motorway junction expansion, or releasing some coveted but previously unattainable beauty spot to the JCBs.

Greenwash the United Utilities way

It seems the institutions that are for this road are really now stepping up their efforts to marginalise the public from the facts.

United Utilities (UU) have now brought themselves into the firing line. An article in this week's Advertiser - which is clearly a press release from UU - waxes lyrical about how the Longdendale Trail really is a wildlife haven. This is the same week that has seen an article in the Glossop Chronicle trying to demolish hope for any plans to reopen the Woodhead Tunnel to rail traffic. Is all of this press coverage a coincidence?

The position of United Utilities in this one is very curious indeed. Their links with TMBC are not that well know, but the most direct and undeniable one is the fact that they enrol their employees into the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, a fund that is administered by TMBC, with Roy Oldham as Chairman. We've heard mutterings about shady financial deals done between TMBC & UU over The Kingswater/Waterside Park development years ago, in which TMBC paid millions to UU via a front company, in order the buy their land, despite the fact that the project was subject to tens of thousands of objections from the public.

Why have UU been keeping silent about the implications for their assets that the bypass will bring? As one of the largest landowners in the area, acres of their assets will be detrimentally affected by this road. Isn't it strange that they have not objected? But by the same token, they haven't supported the proposal. Is that because they don't want to be asked tricky questions at the PI?

Interestingly, they have objected to the alternatives to the bypass. And this info is in the public domain.



If one looks at their objection, one is immediately struck by the fact it is in the language of a less than worldly or literate individual - the use of the word LOTS in block capitals is almost laughable. What's more, since alternative 1 envisages the construction of only a small bit of road from the Showground roundabout, we're at a loss to understand why this is more destructive than a dirty great dual carriageway across the North of Longdendale - i.e. the bypass. And we could go on about the fact that this objection amounts to 1 side of A4, but that's surely too obvious.

UU's website has a page for the Longdendale Trail, but not Swallow's Wood. Visitors to Swallow's Wood will know that the reserve is not exactly actively managed by UU. Has another deal taken place, whereby UU's silence has been bought? Has someone 'sweetened the deal' to make the compulsory purchase of thousands of acres of their land more palatable?

Keep that in mind while reading the article about the Longdendale Trail. Any 'neglected' area stands a good chance of 'returning to nature', but equally any plans to re-use an existing trackbed for trains are in no way as grievous as the plans to destroy Swallows Wood with a brand new road. UU's silence over the devastation of their asset, Swallows Wood, is both conspicuous and deafening. I for one smell a huge cagney-esque rat.

Say Goodbye to Woodhead?

Regular readers will be aware that we've written several times over the past few months about the plans that National Grid have to move high voltage cables into the 1954 tunnel at Woodhead, thereby ending any possible future use for the purposes it was built for - train travel and freight on the rails.

Over the past couple of months, things have got worse. In July, a variety of organisations joined with the Peak District National Park Authority to make representations about the threat posed by National Grid's intentions.

But by September, the Government had indicated it had no intention to intervene in the issue. Whilst this was reported and lamented over the other side of the Pennines, the local press over this side has been silent, until prompted by local campaigners. Indeed, the only other reference we can find to this issue locally is on Councillor McKeown's blog (upon which we blogged pointing out the contradictions inherent in the argument the Councillors put forward).

You don't have to be as cynical as we are to see how these delays have conveniently coincided with the Highways Agency's successful attempts to stall the Bypass Public Inquiry. The delays have meant that the timetable for the discussion of alternatives like the Translink proposal has been set further and further back. To those following the PI, it has been clear that the Inspector is keen to hear all about Translink, and he has made a lot of room for them.

But the clincher lies in National Grid's timetable for the planned legal vandalism. Whilst the PDNPA hint that the work will begin within the next 5 to 10 years, we have it on good authority that they are in fact due to start in February 2008. With the latest PI delays, there is no chance that the case for the alternatives will be held before then.

What is at stake in this veritable game of chess should not be underestimated. There is an already existing transpennine route that would require little comparable effort and expense to resurrect, utilising a comparatively environmentally friendly and sustainable mode of transport - which is badly needed. All of which is under threat from a multinational corporation whose only concern and responsibility is returning profits to shareholders. All of which is based on promoting the growth of unsustainable energy use.

We've already pointed out that the Government has indicated that it wants more roads and is indifferent about Rail. The High Peak MP, Tom Levitt, is busy attaching himself to a green energy project that's a drop in the ocean as to what's required to turn things around. But at the same time, he fully backs one massively environmentally damaging project (the Bypass) and remains silent about environmental vandalism (the closure of the Tunnel). What is accrued through this 'business as usual' approach is a huge pile of bullshit that the State is inclined paint bright green. But it still smells like bullshit to us.

There should be a huge head of steam built up around this issue (pardon the pun), not just here, but throughout the North West of England. But time is short. Bold action and initiatives are needed to prevent the destruction of a badly needed form of sustainable transport. Will we show willing? If you want to help, please get in touch. And watch this space for more news.

Does Ruth Kelly wear a hair shirt?

Perhaps more than any other in recent times, this government's attempts to resolve the inherent contradictions of capitalism through spin - if not concrete reality - are becoming less and less credible. Last week* saw the release of a discussion paper by the Department for Transport that is a perfect illustration of a new and what will prove to be intractable conundrum - how to expand road, rail and air networks whilst seeking to curb CO2 emissions.

The paper signals a disdain for the rail alternatives and sees a future where 'decarbonised' automobiles will need to be accommodated on an ever widening and expanding motorway and road network. Furthermore, they are seeking to fund this expansion through private investment - a logical conclusion to the 'Design Build Finance Operate' initiatives of the 1990s. It's perhaps not so coincidental that two of the largest private road building firms have been courting each other in recent weeks and now look like they will merge shortly: Carillion (contractors for the Longdendale Bypass) & McAlpine (whose 'Green' claim-to-fame is that they built the Eden Project).

Let's be clear: even if all motor vehicles became carbon neutral first thing tomorrow, we'd still be against the expansion of the road network. The motor industry has been a key staple of capitalism since the end of World War 2. Automobiles are the pre-eminent product in this economic system, and the motor industry itself is a key locus for the expansion of capital and the accumulation of surplus value (the primary preoccupation of capitalism). Nothing can stand in it's way, whether it is carbon emitting or carbon neutral, and it could quite conceivably be the latter within the foreseeable future.

The freedom that the car offers is an individual freedom only, and one that can only exist without taking away the freedoms of everyone else. In this way, the State makes a bargain that in return for the ability to go anywhere at any time you choose, unspoilt communal spaces will be increasingly tarmacked over. But now it seems the bargain is going to be even more bizarre than that - the State will guarantee both the freedom to travel and the freedom from anxiety that one will not be polluting the environment. As long as one closes one's eyes to the fact that the landscape around us is being destroyed, it will be possible to have a clean conscience about levels of CO2.

In this case, the empress who has no clothes is Ruth Kelly. In the recent past, she has had the gall to say she receives 'spiritual support' from an organisation that provided both spiritual & political support for the formerly Fascist governments of Spain and Chile. This presumably makes her well qualified to promote the cause of irrationality in the style of the Cosa Nostra, a hallmark of this government's authoritarian approach to almost any issue.

After all, if she has a pang of conscience, she'll no doubt just pull the cilice ever tighter.

*on no more a conspicuous date than All Hallows Eve!

Greenwash

The Highways Agency's latest publication about the bypass is interesting for a number of reasons.

Several people have proposed alternative road schemes for the bypass, and these have been collected in a booklet which is available as a PDF from the Public Inquiry website.

They range from the interesting and worthy of attention (alternative 1, page 4), to the frankly bonkers (920m tunnel under a hillside! - alternative 2, page 6), to the comparable with or worse than the existing scheme (alternative 4, page 10).

The most interesting aims to circumvent congestion by banning HGVs and creating a 'gyratory flow' system - stopping up some local roads, constructing very little new roadspace and removing traffic lights which create delays.

But the HA is keen to point out next to each one that they do not support each proposal. No matter, it's cost them time & money, and the 1990s remind us that a plethora of such tactics kill road schemes.

And there's also some psychology at work here. The front cover has a photo of standing traffic. The implication could be construed that these alternatives are bad, really bad, and lead to more traffic.

But the best bit is reserved for the back cover. On it, they proudly proclaim 'printed on recycled paper containing 75% post consumer waste and 25% ECF pulp.' Thank fuck they have somehow managed to do their bit for the environment...

The Kinder Mass Trespass & Labour's Greenwash

Today and Sunday, people will gather to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout.

Much is being made of this anniversary. Indeed, there are several guided walks, exhibitions as well as a 'celebration' evening at New Mills Town Hall tonight. The Trespass is rightly celebrated as a hugely important event in a struggle in which ordinary people strove to reclaim land which was once held in common, that which has been stolen by the ruling class and policed and treated as if it were their own back garden, leading eventually to the creation of National Parks.



The local MP, Tom Levitt, is making the most of the limelight at tonight's event. You wouldn't expect anything else from such an opportunist, always eager to be seen in the foreground at a photo opportunity.

But if Benny Rothman (one of the best known Trespassers jailed for riotous assembly in 1932) were here, I'm pretty sure he'd have cause to object to Levitt's presence. Putting to one side the issue of Levitt's lick-spittle like (continued) backing of the Labour Party's war in Iraq plus his advocacy for the spending of countless billions on the replacement of Trident Nuclear weapons, he is a leading advocate of the Longdendale Bypass. But doesn't an MP love a contradiction? It's called having your cake and eating it: the man who will be introducing tonight's soiree, celebrating the trespassers and the National Park, is also the man who is declaring war on that same Park. He's brought the Environment Minister with him especially. As if we need our noses rubbing in it.

Why am I sure that Benny Rothman would object? Because he dedicated his life to society's struggles, not least that of the destruction for the environment by the forces of conspicuous consumption and capitalist accumulation. He played his part in objecting to and campaigning against many of Manchester's road schemes, as well as the destruction of Ashton Moss byTameside MBC. But in 1994, at age 83, he took part in another Mass Trespass, this time upon what remained of Twyford Down, where construction of the M3 motorway was underway after protests and mass actions against it. At the time, he wrote an article for publication in the Countryman magazine about his day. He saw no need to make a fuss about his actions - for him, this protest was the natural thing to do and he was energised by the then nascent radical environmental movement whom he regarded as comrades in the same fight, a parallel that went completely over the heads on many so-called radicals on the left.

Although Benny's presence at the 1994 Trespass is not widely known, the relevance of this event to the situation we face in the Longdendale Valley andGlossop could not be clearer. Just as the Tories carved up many of the green places in this land in the 1990s to built pointless and ultimately fruitless roads, the Labour government and their Barons in local government are proposing a new wholesale onslaught on the countryside, and all of this at a time when they preach to us about preserving the environment, curbing carbon emissions, and consuming less. This road and others will fundamentally contradict each of those so-called priorities. It's a lie -Greenwash masquerading as 'business as usual'.

The Mass Trespass was a tactic in the strategy of reclaiming the land from those who accumulated it as conspicuously as they did their wealth. In the times of the 6 day week, Sunday held a chance to walk the wild land in order to defeat spiritual poverty and leave aside material poverty, even if only for one day. 75 years later, the struggles we face are about preserving what we have fought for as well as the land itself, and about advancing a movement to change a mode of production that threatens our very existence as a viable species.