Organ Grinder - or (Road)Munkey?

James Purnell MP is in the news again. It seems there were more fake photo ops, and a BBC Freedom of Information request has nailed his spin that he had no idea about the plans to fake the photos.

But let's read between the lines here. Here' s a quote to savour:

"A spokesman from Mr Purnell's office said it was sent to a general e-mail address used by the constituency office"

His office says he doesn't deal with those emails. So in that case, who does?

Who answers the phone and deals with all James' emails? Stalybridge & Hyde Constituents will know that it's none other than our friend the Parliamentary Political Operative to James Purnell MP - Councillor Sean Parker-Perry (aka Roadmunkey). Oh dear. So did he not tell his boss about the Hospital's plans?

Once again, Parker-Perry is proving himself to be a huge political liability for his MP, the Labour Party and the people of Longdendale. We welcome his further efforts to secure a bypass for Longdendale, because at this rate his 'Midas Touch in reverse' can only scupper any plans for it.

'Fake Purnell' on the loose in Tameside

The media are all over the Stalybridge & Hyde MP James Purnell. It seems that the MP has been 'photoshopped' into a photo-opportunity at Tameside Hospital for this week's press that he didn't actually attend (dutifully carried by the Glossop Chronicle/Tameside Reporter).

And as we've been noting over the past few months, Purnell's staff love to mess with the internet. We chronicled how a member of Purnell's staff, Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry, had been behind the now dormant 'roadmunkey' weblog and was extremely active in altering wikipedia articles about his boss, as well as other articles like the Longdendale Bypass (some bright spark has begun to chronicle these edits here).

We wonder has this will all turn out for Purnell and his minions? We'll add more when time allows...

**10.30 p.m. update - the story's set to run, with Purnell employing the 'broken record' approach with Gordon Burns on tonight's North West Tonight (video below) - very reminiscent of Michael Howard vs Jeremy Paxman! Contradictions abound and Purnell is on the ropes. But will the media latch on to the equally dodgy meddlings of his underlings?

Darth Butler

Day 6 of the Public Inquiry, and Darth Vader is in our midst. Yes, it's Brian Butler - Vice-Chairman of the Longdendale Siege Committee.

But hang on, this is the Vice-Chairman appearing? And why has the Chairman - Mike Flynn - come over all shy? Is it anything to do with the fact that Roy Oldham is part of his family? Or perhaps that in the 1970s, he was against a bypass (when the proposed route went through his backyard - such a NIMBY!)? We may never know, because it seems he doesn't want to answer awkward questions...

Anyway, Brian was there, and he and John Watson traded pleasantries, mainly about the size of Brian's petition. Butler was keen to elaborate:

When the Labour Government came to power and announced a review of the roads situation, we raised 9,000 signatures and presented it to the Government (page 16, line 7)

Now we've heard a lot about this petition, but our spies tell us that John Watson needs to pay a bit more attention to it: on the day, Butler trumpeted that it had 9,000 signatures. Which is interesting, because if this is the same petition that Purnell, Levitt and Co were flogging it in Downing Street back in 2003, it had 8,500 signatures.

Plus, it wasn't presented to the Government - it was presented to No. 10 Downing Street. This is important - there's a public record of petitions presented to Parliament in Hansard, but no equivalent for No. 10. That's because it's largely a PR exercise for the cameras. Furthermore, there are very specific and detailed rules about the format of petitions presented to Parliament. But it would be too risky for Siege to subject their petition to proper scrutiny, so they stuck to the 'Rock Star' petition approach.

Further back in time (2001), the petition was said to number 6,900. Now you might say 'time has moved on, it's grown, they've got more signatures', which could be true. But if it was submitted to No. 10 Downing Street in 2003 with 8,500 signatures, then it cannot have grown - unless this is not the same document.

But if, as the Vice-Chair of the Longdendale Siege Committee, Brian Butler has said there are 9,000, then there must be. After all, if it's a serious petition, it will have been collated correctly. Surely, a serious organisation must be conducting their own evidence to rigorous analysis? One hopes so, because otherwise, Butler and the rest of the Siege will have been misleading the Inspector...

And the accuracy of the petition was questioned in John Hall's cross-examination:

Q. Of these 9,000, signatures, Mr Butler, do they all denote postcodes?
A. I believe so. (page 22, line 10)

Hmmn. John Watson might want to go back and have a look. If the other examples of petitions submitted by this crew are anything to go by (here and here), there are few postcodes provided...

Oh, and if their data isn't sound, Purnell and Levitt will have been lead up the garden path by them as well. Oh dear...

Anyway, more braggadocio issued forth from Butler's mouth in the shape of his comments about the (oft-quoted) 90% of residents supporting the Bypass. Here he is again, in his element:

This support was also reflected by a poll at the Highways Agency meeting held in Hollingworth in 2001 and was estimated to be supported by 90 per cent of the several hundred who attended (page 16, line 14)

Well actually, it was 250 people (section 2.3). So 90% of that is 225 - hardly 90% of Longdendale as has been stated elsewhere, and it wasn't a poll in the sense of a secret ballot, without the intimidation factor from goons like Darth Butler or 'Harry Potter and the Duncan Hollows' et al.

From then on in, Butler's speech is one big rant, chiefly aimed at the CPRE, who he seems to have a fixation with. Plus the well-worn 'objectors are all outsiders' whinge - & this from a relative incomer (who's only lived in the area for 30 years!). Anyway, we dealt with this hypocrisy here, and we'll be having a look at the petition to see how many names it contains that are from 'over 30 miles away' (his words decrying objectors - page 17, line 30).

But the clincher from Butler was given out under questions by Chris Eldridge from Friends of the Earth when asked if Siege had asked Longdendale residents about what they wanted as a solution to traffic problems:

We had already decided that we wanted a bypass and that was what we petitioned on. We were not there to discuss alternatives with people (page 32, line 15)

Of course 'we' means relatives of the Leader of Tameside MBC, and their campaign meetings are attended by local Councillors and members of the Highways Agency and Carillion (contractors), their lavish 'Dick Turpin' roadsigns being funded by TMBC. We know full well who wants this road - and nothing else - and now Darth Butler has had the front to stand up and admit that they are blinkered to a road 'solution'.

(article edited to aid reading, 08/08/2007)

Purnell's bleating in the Chronicle again

Purnell 'prematurely' begins work on the bypass. Is he premature in other respects too we wonder?

But he can't quite manage a front page like last week's article on the Peak District National Park objecting to the bypass. Though I'm in danger of boring you all to death, here's his letter in full:

"Bypass is now the only answer"

I write in response to your front page story last week regarding the Peak District National Park Authority and the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle Bypass.

I must insist that the record is set straight on the issue of possible alternatives to the bypass. All alternatives - including an HGV ban and major public transport improvements - have already been carefully analysed and rejected as being inadequate.

The forecasts showed that an HGV ban would only reduce the traffic flow in Mottram by two per cent. It is no longer enough for those who oppose then bypass to offer empty rhetoric in place of a solution. My constituents need relief from the traffic coming past their homes, and the evidence is clear that only a bypass will solve this problem.

As you'd expect of a politician, Purnell is using the research selectively. A response by the Highways Agency (HA) (opens PDF) to a Freedom of Information request in April last year shows his 2% reduction in traffic figure applies to the Hyde Road A57. Mottram is said to be 'negligible' (no figure given), but Tintwistle (not in his constituency of course) showed an 18% drop.

What he's not telling you is that the model the HA used was for a HGV ban on the A628 from the summit of Woodhead between the A6204 and the A616 - i.e. not the entire route. Unsurprisingly, the model showed HGVs using other routes to avoid it. And at the end of the FoI response, the HA trumpet that they are conducting a study into an 'Area Wide' HGV restriction in the Peak District National Park of which "the conclusions are not yet known".

So where is this study, and will the HA have it ready in time for the Public Inquiry? Or will it be conveniently be buried? In the meantime, Purnell's 'smoking gun' is clearly only 'half-cocked'.