Oldham in desperate "I'll deliver Bypass 2.0" pledge - the Old Goat has shot his bolt

Predictably, Roy Oldham is using his secret weapon in a last ditch move to shore up any wavering voters in Longdendale. The best bit about the leaflet is that Oldham is saying that Bypass 2.0 will follow public consultation, almost like night follows day. Now we think this seems to be a case of him prejudging the issue, which could have serious consequences for him. We understand both Longdendale Siege and Longdendale Labour have chosen this moment to pounce because the Tory candidate Peter Hayes has been making it quite clear that he can't make any promises regarding Bypass 2.0

Meanwhile, the man who made all the promises for years on end and didn't deliver is making more of them. The Old Goat has shot his bolt.

The Inspector in his castle & the Inquiry that never was...

More interesting developments at the Public Inquiry. A new document has appeared at the Persona Website (can be found here - opens PDF) in which the Inspector, John Watson, virtually pleads with the Highways Agency & TMBC to withdraw the Draft Orders, which he considers will be the end of the Public Inquiry. What's amazing is that he's given them a 2 week deadline to get back to him. If they delay this long, that means the Inquiry will have rumbled on for 3 weeks after the HA stated their intention to withdraw. It's so much fun spending other people's money.

Watson comes across as so weak and subservient - he's not actually telling them to end the PI, instead he asks them to notify him of what they want to do. This reveals almost all you need to know about Public Inquiries. They are granted by the good grace of the State, and the State decides when they end, and even if it gives the PI a chance to conclude, it can (and frequently does) choose to ignore the 'recommendations'. 

So contrast Watson's pleadings with comments today in a letter to stalwart objector John Hall from the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Katrine Sporle (which you can read here in a PDF - the redacting and highlighting is ours). It is a response to a Freedom of Information request, but we feel the letter is more interesting than the information they refuse to release. 

Sporle says that the five-times adjourned Inquiry is "exceptional", and she goes further:

Indeed, I am not aware of this having occurred on any other case in recent years.

So much so that they are considering "issuing new guidance" to ensure that "all parties are fully prepared when they come to the Inquiry". She goes on to say that adjournments are necessary to ensure "natural justice" and that the Inspectorate does its best to avoid adjournments. 

Does anyone believe this crap? Individuals have had nearly two years of their lives caught up in this charade, whilst an Agency of the State has sat back and laughed. That the Highways Agency would have suffered any "injustice" had the Inspector been much more firm with them, is a joke. Sporle continues:

We will however be reviewing the handling of the inquiry to see if there are any lessons to be learned from the process and, where appropriate, we will be sharing these with the Highways Agency and others.

Hmmn, yes I imagine that will take all of 5 minutes given that the new Planning Act that we warned about last year is now the law of the land.

On a more confusing note, Sporle says that the HA have "withdrawn from the Inquiry" today. Does she know something that Watson doesn't? Or is she confusing Watson's plea to the HA with the response everyone else wants?

We know of 2 objectors who have been challenging the Inspector over the previous past months as to the legality of the Inquiry. It's noticeable that no criticism has been levelled at Watson by supporters of the Bypass. They have tended to voice their 'frustration' in general terms, not even necessarily attacking the Highways Agency too vociferously for the supposed 'errors' that have produced the delays (although it now seems open season following their withdrawal). 

It's possible to speculate about the reasons why Watson has not come in for criticism. It may because he's seen as impartial. But as far as we're concerned, his handling of this Inquiry has been entirely partial from the start. We've written at length about this, but what concerns us lately is how Watson has essentially pulled up the drawbridge and silenced dissent of his running of the Inquiry, or at least prevented the outside world from seeing that dissent exists. 

John Watson made moves to essentially hide dissenting correspondence from public view. Late last year, a series of conditions were added to the website clarifying what kind of correspondence would be uploaded to it, and we quote:

The scope of the website is as follows:

1 Evidence submitted to the Inquiry that is relevant to the proposals and Orders that are before the Inquiry;

2 Transcripts;

3 Questions of clarification of evidence that are put in writing;

4 Legal submissions that are put to the Inquiry;

5 Documents issued by the Inspector;

6 Inquiry news and programme, and links to related websites; and,

7 It is also useful, so as to keep parties informed during the current adjournment, for the website to carry information from the Promoters regarding their current reviews of their cases (if such information is presented by them in the form of an Inquiry document). 

We can therefore see that, short of a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the Inquiry (which was beyond the means of most Objectors, and seemingly beyond the will if not the means of the larger statutory objectors), dissent as to the process itself was not be allowed to be displayed to the public. Watson created a fortress to buttress the complete sham that is his Public Inquiry. The walls are still standing, and he's still behind them.

The sham will seemingly continue until the Highways Agency decides it has had enough. Did anyone really expect anything else?

"Scrapped" Bypass to cost £1.1 million over next 7 years...

...despite the fact it's been deferred. Yes, in their finalised funding advice (not the draft - opens PDF), 4NW has recommended that the Highways Agency should still be paid up until 2016, and we quote:

"The revised spend profile includes a nominal £100,000 per annum to cover ongoing Highways Agency administrative costs during the deferral period (page 14)"

That's £100,000 per annum between 2009/2010 - 2014/2015 and a final payment of £500,000 in 2015/2016 before the "deferred" funding comes on stream again (see the table on page 17). Even the most convinced pro-bypass individual must surely agree this is on a par with Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements in terms of an outrageous waste of money?

The scheme must be completely scrapped, and any further allocation of fund completely cancelled forthwith.

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?

Tom Levitt - the bad egg is 'angry' and it's no yolk

Well, our exclusive from nearly 6 days ago has started to filter out to the wider world at last. First the Campaign for Better Transport proclaim "National Park saved from damaging road"*, and Tom Levitt, the Politician that wants to both celebrate and begin the destruction of said National Park, gets himself all steamed up in a new press release.

Firstly, to clarify what's happened, 4NW did indeed vote to drop the funding for the Bypass beyond the 2015/2016 funding period - but they decided to drop this scheme alone and not others. This scheme is clearly now recognised as a bad egg. Furthermore, a very expensive and unpopular bad egg. 

Much the same can be said of Tom Levitt, but his angry press release has meant that his mask has slipped, and it exposes the true reasons for this scheme plus the usual idiotic contradictions.

Firstly, the contradictions. At a time of economic crisis and recession turning into depression, Levitt chooses to berate the 4NW forum for not pushing the North West Region beyond the 35% they are already over budget. Or perhaps he feels that other schemes should suffer to enable the bypass? Does he think 4NW should have chosen to drop the Metrolink Renewals or Extensions? The Blackpool & Fleetwood Tramway upgrade? The Crewe Rail Gateway? Or Yellow School Buses? All public transport schemes a lot 'greener' than a proto-motorway which were also considered in the Regional Funding Allocation. 

But Levitt's press release also exposes the truth of what the Bypass actually represents; one key phrase - "It is a road of strategic importance which must be built". 

That's it there - never mind bollocks about relieving 3 villages of traffic congestion - it is of strategic importance. And the strategy is to enable goods and freight to travel more swiftly between the East and West ports along Trans-European routes and to Manchester Airport. Thanks for letting everyone finally know Tom!

The truth is that as well as being a bad egg, Levitt is a bad loser. 4NW weren't convinced by the arguments, or all the politicians throwing their weight around in the preceding months.

So what are Levitt & James Purnell to do now (the latter is so 'furious' about it that he hasn't even mentioned it on his website, unlike Tom)? Why, they're off the see the Transport Minister, huffing and puffing and throwing more weight around. Plus ça change...

*entry on 26th February

**UPDATE, 27/02/2009: The Buxton Advertiser has the first online copy, and yesterday's Glossop Chronicle has an extensive article which doesn't credit us with the scoop (quelle surprise!)

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).

Derbyshire CC & Tameside MBC - Traffic Management fuckwits

Are there any people out there who seriously believe that both Derbyshire County Council and Tameside MBC  - 2 of the main sponsors of this planned bypass - have any credibility in terms of traffic management?

If there are such weird individuals, then please be my guest to take a stroll along the A57 tomorrow.

Essential work being undertaken by United Utilities in Hadfield and National Grid just over the border at Woolley Lane means that the A57 is effectively shut off for traffic coming from the Sheffield direction. Local traffic from Hadfield cannot similarly access the A57 to Hollingworth.

Tonight, I viewed traffic queuing all the way back from New Road, Tintwistle, along Waterside, down the length of Woolley Bridge Road, along Brookfield and into Glossop. 

What utter madness and bureaucratic idiocy has scheduled the closure of 2 roads along the same route at the same time? COULD YOU TRUST THESE TWO AUTHORITIES TO RUN A PISS UP IN THE PROVERBIAL BREWERY?

What's more, would you allow them to construct a pseudo-motorway on the basis of relieving 3 villages of traffic when that's clearly of no concern to them for the next 4-7 weeks in this neck of the woods? Wake up...

*UPDATE, 28th October 2008: we are reliably informed that the United Utilities work at Shaw Lane has been suspended, no doubt to ease the gridlock and filter some traffic through Hadfield towards Woodhead. Meanwhile, the work on Woolley Lane has not even started yet.

glossop.com is reporting that prior to this change, it was taking traffic 2 hours to get from Glossop to the top of Mottram Moor via the diversion in place. They have also pointed out that Local Authorities were given the power this year to co-ordinate roadworks to avoid such disruption.

It'll be interesting to see how many calls this creates for a bypass as soon as possible or similar twaddle. I'd like to ask anyone moaning in such a manner exactly what they think the disruption will be like once construction is underway? Do they also realise that the Highways Agency's evidence illustrates that the bypass will be full to capacity on the day of opening?

Sean Parker-Perry - 'I Quit my job to learn Sign Language'

One thing's for sure, Sean Parker-Perry has sure got a very 'active' imagination. A wonderful story in tonight's Advertiser has Sean issuing a press release about his departure from James Purnell's office, and we'll reprint it here for posterity:

A Tameside councillor has quit his post as James Purnell’s right hand man — for his love of sign language.

Councillor Sean Parker-Perry decided to seek a fresh challenge after several years working in Hyde town hall as parliamentary political operative for the Stalybridge and Hyde MP.

The Longdendale councillor is returning to college to complete his sign language qualifications.

But he has moved to quash rumours there was anything sinister behind his sudden move.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. I have not been sacked and the door is always open," he said. "I’ve been planning to leave for a while and I’ll be enrolling back at college to update my skills. It was purely my decision. Working for four years at that level in parliament is a long time. Most people take stock of their careers every few years and I’m no different. If it was 10 years ago, the obvious route would be to move to London and climb the ladder that way. But I’m 33 and have a young family so I have commitments here. That has to take priority. My first love is my job as a councillor and chairing the district assembly. That’s why I got into politics. It has been a juggling act. Now I can dedicate more time to concentrate on council business."

A spokesman in Mr Purnell’s office said: "We wish him every success for the future."

We have our own views about how truthful this latest twist is, and a prize of a limited edition 'No Mottram Bypass' badge (can't get them in the shops or anywhere else) goes to the first person to translate the above phrase, no doubt popular at Sean's BSL class. Answers in the comment to this post please!

Update, 6th October 2008: we forgot to note that the article was written by our favourite Advertiser journalist Adam Derbyshire. 'Nuff said...

Oh, and the Chronicle/Reporter have a run a similar article which, as Tameside Mafia have pointed out, has aspects which contradict the Advertiser article.

Longdendale Bypass 'to reduce traffic in London'

We should be grateful for press coverage - at least according to some we should. After all, in the past we've been constantly ignored, even on the occasions we have fed the press stories. Perhaps if we believed in copyright, this would be an issue for the thieves out there that have pilfered our work and passed it off as their own. However, we tend to believe the most important thing is that the info is out there, but giving someone credit does no harm - we prefer copyleft.

It's not nice to be ignored - even if you are thick skinned and have spent your life being ignored, there's still a little 'ouch' each time it happens.

Therefore, we were astounded that the Glossop Chronic(le) not only quotes a press release we issued about our blog on Monday about the latest Public Inquiry delays, but also gave us a namecheck (if not a full URL) - on the front page of the latest edition (yet to be published online)! Perhaps the fact that the article was not written by the pro-bypass journalist David Jones (big buddy of Mike Flynn of Longdendale Siege Committee/Mentality) played a part?

However, the Glossop/Tameside Advertiser let us down. The journalist in question claims he couldn't distinguish our PR from any other email, but he sees fit to quote us and there is no attribution. We'll let you decide if our PR looks like any other email, but the fact a quote has been used pertaining to an 'anti bypass website' indicates his argument is full of holes and something else it at work. Funnily enough, the same journalist wrote about the installation of the 'Roy Oldham plaque' after we scooped the story.

But what is worse about the Advertiser coverage is the image attached to the article - see the top of the blog. The caption reads "GRIDLOCK: pro-bypass campaigners hope it will make this sight a thing of the past", so we can only assume that the Advertiser considers the 'benefits' of the Bypass will reach as far as London, since the picture is quite clearly of a City street there. What's more devious is that the paper version of this article features a crop of the same picture, which handily removes the giveaway Congestion Charge Zone road markings in the online version.

All of this would be worse if we laboured under illusions about the role and function of the press in a capitalist society, but our reading list includes this devastating institutional analysis.

The no point in twisting the knife further because we feel what we have written so far speaks for itself. We're not about to stop feeding the press articles, but in future, they should keep in mind that each time they deny us credit, we will post a little story here which means it will be preserved for posterity.

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.

Ground Farce: Sean Parker-Perry's right of reply

Last week, the Tameside Reporter published an (unacknowledged) rejoinder to the articles we had published in April about Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry and his Active Longdendale (AL) project. Needless to say, the article did not acknowledge us directly, nor provide a reference point for where to read any alternative view of Parker-Perry's project.

Cllr Parker-Perry was scathing about criticisms the Active Longendale project had drawn from certain quarters recently. He said: “It has been hard work to set up this project which is for the good of the whole community. For the project to draw criticism from one individual who tries to remain anonymous and whose wild allegations are totally unfounded, is unfair. It is a pity these armchair critics do not utilize their energy by doing community work themselves, rather making outrageous allegations.”

'Certain quarters' is clearly us, and the spoof Active Longdendale blog. Our joint 'wild allegations' are merely a critical analysis of all of the information in the public domain about AL - an anathema to a politician, who hate being put under the spotlight. As for 'community work' we think this blog is just that, and Sean has no idea about what we get up to in our spare time - unlike him, we do not make it everyone's business. But his comments about the 'hard work' of setting up AL are a joke - it's been running for 18 months and in that time has carried out 3 'clean ups', published no material, has not met publicly, and used the services of voluntary rangers and a private company to conduct it's work. A piece of piss by anyone else's standards.

Following the successful retention of his seat as Councillor following the May 1st elections, Sean is clearly now conscious that he has to do a lot to whiten his reputation. However, we believe the article has merely served to bring up more questions than it does provide answers. Let's look at it in detail.

With a budget of £12,000 he has secured premises and a vast array of power tools for the benefit of locals

The article talks about "£12,000" of funding having being obtained - £3,600 more than we knew about. However, note that there's still no mention of the Awards for All Grant. The other implication is that the funding makes AL self-sufficient - that the cost of leasing the Railway arches is included. Sean's talk of negotiating a deal with Spacia may mean that he has negotiated a vastly reduced rent for the first year or two.

If that's the case, then Sean will have to recruit a lot of members to make up a future shortfall. Let's say he does need £6,000 per annum for the arch - that's 600 members in Longdendale renewing annual subs. He's certainly ambitious.

And also note that 'power tools' have crept into things. We understood the original purpose of the grant from o2 was the pay for gardening implements, not power tools. Speaking of tools, there's no mention that the 02 grant was meant to pay for tools - the article says they were 'borrowed from Tameside Council' - so was the grant spent on tools or not?

Residents wishing to benefit from the scheme will pay a token membership fee of £10 and then a small charge to use the tools as they need them

The article is full of the details of membership, but there still no details on how to become a member. And Sean's website still hasn't been updated since January.

Currently, Active Longdendale is seeking charitable status so it can be run more efficiently financially. It has also appointed auditors, an accountant and a committee that is required to comply with charitable status.

Sean's going legit. He'd better get a move on - the income in the last year was £12,000, and under the Charities Act 2006, registration is compulsory for charities with an annual income of over £5,000. We look forward to the AGM, plus the published accounts.

The only other thing worth noting is that the article has been written by our old friend Nigel Pivaro. We already noted the involvement of this (ahem) journalist once before, and he has made himself busy since writing several fawning articles about James Purnell. It seems Sean now has his ear, so we promise to display the banner (modelled on his Tameside Reporter column masthead) at the top of the blog each time he publishes an article worthy of the attention of our readers. Think of it as our bullshit detector (we'd do the same for David Jones, but we're having trouble finding a picture of Lord Longford).

Sean Parker-Perry - no Bypass Mandate

Sean Parker-Perry - along with the other Longdendale Labour candidates that support the Bypass - have always made much of their 'mandate' in the area. They trot out the typical refrain of politicians, that they 'campaigned on the bypass issue' and therefore they were also elected on the back of it, as if it is the only point in their manifesto, and as though the electorate have a huge choice to vote for those who oppose it (or at least actively oppose it, eh Green Party? - NOT).

Indeed, both Johnathan Reynolds and Parker-Perry have made their views known to the Inspector at the Public Inquiry, as has Roy Oldham (although rather oddly, his evidence has yet to appear online, though it is available for all to see in the library). So let's take a look at what they say.

First Reynolds. You can read his letter here. The best bit reads:

"...In addition, I would like to make a point about the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Longdendale. As a newly elected Councillor in 2007, who had until very recently lived on Mottram Moor, I made clear my unequivocal support for the bypass during my election campaign and the reasons for this. My support for the Bypass was the subject of a specific leaflet I produced and distributed in Hollingworth and Mottram. Despite claims from the organised opposition that local opinion is not in favour of the project going ahead, I received more votes than all the opposing candidates combined. If local people are against the bypass, as some would claim, then they are certainly not registering this view through the ballot box. In fact, quite the opposite is true."

Of course, as we've pointed out before, most people in Longdendale don't vote, and since most of the candidates are for the bypass, there's not really any choice if you don't support it. No doubt Reynolds would point out that if you don't take part then 'tough', but you can't crow about a 'mandate' if the majority of a minority of the total population voted for you.

And then we come to Sean's letter to John Watson, which you can read here. He doesn't waffle and come over all pro like Johnny, but here's his bit:

"The elected members of TMBC who represent the Longdendale Ward have done so on a mandate from the electorate of supporting the bypass. Both I and my ward colleagues have run campaigns of clear support for the Bypass at each election and we have been returned with increasing majorities." (our emphasis)

Well, it seems that isn't the case this time. Because we've had Sean's leaflet through our letterbox. We've looked high and low, and there's no sign of any mention of the Bypass, let alone transport. Most of it is about how low the Council Tax is and it brags about vile crap like ASBOs and IKEA, as if they are laudable achievements. If you want to scrutinise it, we've produced scans below (click through for larger versions).
















No doubt a lot of canvassing is going on, but you can bet that most of it is concentrated on known Labour voters. So if Sean wins this time, he won't be able to talk about a mandate, at least not with a straight face. We''ll be there to remind him - and everyone else at every opportunity...

Pull Your Finger Out

How's this for grabbing the headlines: whilst posting leaflets for the coming elections, a dog bites Andrew Gwynne MP's finger as he penetrates the letter box. He makes a rapid call to his Councillor wife and zooms off for medical treatment, but then what? ONLY THREE SEPARATE BLOODY PICTURES OF HIS FINGER IN A BANDAGE in the local press, plus also a picture pf him having a book presented to him by Gordon Brown - because of his bitten finger!

Now it certainly could be said that this MP should have pulled his finger out yonks ago for his constituents because in Denton West all 11,000 suffer in the worst air polluted locality in Greater Manchester, and he wants even more pollution stuffing into his constituents lungs (including children and babies) with the extra effects of the Bypass.

But what contempt is this when a Labour MP, whose party created a war in Iraq under false pretences, requires his bloody finger being photographed in all the local press, and the poor sodding Armed Forces sent out there are returning with missing limbs, in wheelchairs and with shattered bodies whilst this MP seeks public sympathy for his sodding finger. This is not an April fool, it's fact isn't it Mr Gwynne? - and being a disabled Army bloke myself, you can stick your finger where the sun doesn't shine.

Should you want another grotty Labour story read "labour kicks out the Councillor who disappeared" by Rochdale Labour group in the M.E.N April 3rd 2008 - where did he vanish to? Sod me it was Spain again, the home for quirky Councillors.

Come on Tameside Reporter, would you like pictures of my 14" scars as an ex-squaddie, or are you waiting for Andrew Gwynne to get a sodding cold at an election?!

Trying to hide the facts

Even after disposing of the Project Leader for the Mottram Bypass scheme Stephen Greenhalgh and appointing Alex Bywaters from Yorkshire to take over his mantle, the Highways Agency is still trying everything in the book to stop you knowing the facts. This latest example should appal everyone throughout Tameside and Longendale.

Because a Bypass will now cost YOU far more than the £200 million anticipated, plus of course the absolutely disastrous failure to back up the road scheme with factual evidence (which cost TMBC Council Tax payers around the £1 million mark for absolutely nothing), then of course the £16 million plus which YOU have paid for the absolute trash presented by the Highways Agency as evidence, I wanted to know who are the members of the Highways Tender Selection Panel and their specific backgrounds. Who are the people who are determining how and to whom YOUR MONEY is being allocated?

Back came the reply that we have been unable to offer the details as yet because we are considering the ramifications that such information may not be in the Public Interest. But they promised to correspond further later on in April.

What absolute bloody arrogance and contempt to now try and stop the facts being given because the details may well be "NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST".

Well, as a member of the Public who is contributing to the Department of Transport/Highways Agency/TMBC road scheme already found to have cost £17 million for absolutely nothing, I bloody well want to know who these Panel Selection Members are!

Could this Panel consist of Councillors, plus maybe Highways Agency Staff who previously were employed by large road building Contractors?

Are you prepared to permit these nameless and faceless quango members to spend such huge amounts out of your purses, wallets, pockets etc, and then turn around to you and say we need to be anonymous because "we believe" its not in our interest to allow the people who are paying these numerous millions to know who we are?

Now, who the hell do you trust in this absolute and contrived dictatorial regime we have in the UK (NOT ONE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED)?

Watch this space for the final response from the DfT/Highways Agency in April...

Siege must be choking

After a long, long wait, the Longdendale Siege Committee have finally updated their website, and the most noticeable addition is a new page about Nitrogen Dioxide pollution in Hollingworth.

From an academic point of view, the data they provide is useless - in the sense that they do not provide sources for their data. If there are no points of reference for the information they provide, then it cannot be effectively verified or checked.

Now don't get us wrong: we are not saying that there is not pollution in Longdendale or Hollingworth, but we would like to be able to examine the validity and accuracy of the data they present. We feel that this is not unreasonable.

So in the absence of proper references, we can only turn to the information put before the Public Inquiry. The Highways Agency's Air Quality expert, Mr Bean (seriously), presented a lot of information about pollution. The accuracy of his data and the methodology deployed may be looked at in a future post here, but for the time being, we'll accept his figures as accurate.

That being the case, Longdendale Siege choose two particular areas to demonstrate their data - Green Lane & Market Street. In Mr Bean's supporting data, these sites are given the designation R8 & R30 respectively.

Regarding Green Lane, where Siege have provided a figure of 21 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in the year 2000, whilst the Highways Agency say it is 31.4 μg/m3 in 2005 - a rise (page 51). But their own study goes on to show a drop to 24 μg/m3 by 2015 without the bypass, owing to anticipated improvements in Car Engines etc. Add the Bypass, and it only achieves a further drop of 1.2 μg/m3 by 2015 to 22.8 μg/m3.

Regarding Market Street, Siege provide a figure of 46 μg/m3 in 2000 and 85 μg/m3 in 2007. But the Highways Agencies info is much lower - 23.1 μg/m3 in 2005, with a drop to 18.8 μg/m3 with or without the bypass by 2015 (page 51). In this case, the building of the bypass makes no difference by 2015 to literally 'doing nothing'.

Two quotes from the article are highly significant (emphasis added):

"There would be a small increase in NO2 concentrations along all road links due to an increase in road traffic with the operation of the Scheme" (i.e. the bypass - page 42, paragraph 5.7.2.9)

"The regional assessment indicates that the Scheme would result in an increase in all emissions compared to without the Scheme for both the Main and Air Quality Extended Study Areas" (page 47, paragraph 6.1.12)

So the Highways Agency's own expert says that the Bypass will entail an increase all forms of pollution in the area they have studied.

Returning to the Siege website, the key here is Siege's chosen year of 2007. This suggests they have access to data that not even the PI has before it. Either that, or it is a fabrication. Our contacts have emailed them to ask for more information., but have not had replies.

All of this leads us to two conclusions. Firstly, why are they publishing this data on their website and not at the PI? Is it because it will not stand up to scrutiny, or is there some other reason? Their submission to the PI does not mention pollution, or quote any data, although presumably it was as much of a problem then as it is now.

Secondly, if we accept that emissions from slow-moving vehicles causes pollution along the A628 and A57, then why not implement a HGV ban now? It's no use demanding a bypass that is at least 4-5 years away if you want to lessen pollution now - if it's bad enough now, advocate a trial HGV ban now.

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.

"It seems to me it is, in the literal sense of the word, an extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves..."

Those of you that have been following this farce that calls itself a Public Inquiry know the drill by now. The Public Inquiry re-convened today. So, right on cue, the Highways Agency admit that even more of their figures are wrong. Over to the Inspector, John Watson:

Yesterday the Programme Officer had a telephone call from
Louise McCawley, who I understand works for the
Highways Agency. She told him and asked him to tell me, which
is why I am mentioning it now, that more errors had been
found in the traffic modelling and that there may be a delay
in presenting the Environmental Statement later than
30th November. I know nothing more about this. (p.3, line 22)

'lah-de-dah' Charles Calvert for the Highways Agency professed his client's complete incompetence (or wilful tactical ploys...):

it is nigh impossible for us to achieve the date that was set at the last meeting. (p.4, line 10)

And guess what? This also means that their amended evidence, submitted since the last adjournment, is now invalid. Great.

John Watson's view on this (and a priceless quote):

It seems to me it is, in the literal sense of the word, an extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves (p.9, line 21)

Do you think he's pissed off with this charade? He must be at least simmering. But he went on to say that 'the rules' can cope with this situation. The bourgeoisie will always cling to their 'rules' when all else is clearly lost.

The fact of the matter is that the State, represented here by the Highways Agency and their local manifestation TMBC, is playing a game to frustrate the Objector's case. They clearly do not want to the evidence to be heard, but the cold hard fact is that the longer this thing stretches on, the more diminished the resources of the 'official' opposition become.

This is now an all but official war of attrition.