James Purnell's Vanishing Trick

Word has reached us that something fishy is going on over at James Purnell's website. You'll remember our post some days ago now included some links to James' website and his involvement with Sean Parker-Perry's Active Longdendale project.

Strangely, those pages have now been taken down within the past few days. We'll chronicle the changes below:

Firstly, a page promoting Active Longdendale's work at Lymefield on July 1st 2006. The original URL no longer displays the page, but for the time being, Google's cache has a version. To be helpful, we have a snapshot of the page to record it for posterity.

Secondly, a report on the work at Lymfield. Again, the original URL is now blank, but Google's cache is still there. And once again, we will keep a snapshot here for as long as necessary.

Lastly, the PDF of the AL flier that we mentioned was available on this URL, but that too has now vanished. We grabbed the flier and you can download it here.

Touché...

iBike MCR Festival - in the High Peak this weekend

Our comrades from Manchester Critical Mass have organised the iBike MCR Festival, which has been taking place since 28th March and winds up on 25th April. Full details of all planned events can be found here, but tomorrow (Sunday 13th April) they have organised a special 'Beer Ride', making it's way between New Mills and winding up in Glossop.

If you are interested in joining in, meet at the Beehive Pub on Albion Road in New Mills at 13.30 p.m. The ride will take in various drinking establishments before winding up at the Globe, Glossop on Sunday evening.

(Hopefully, this will inspire people to plan for the next Critical Mass in these parts, following the inaugural one last year - although the weather is contrary at the moment, it's lighter in the evening and long overdue!)

Pre-emptive war

The full implications of the Government's response to the WAIT e-petition are now becoming apparent. As ever, John Hall is leading the charge, and he has asked us to publish his email to Public Inquiry Inspector, John Watson:

"It appears that the Public Inquiry which you are overseeing has definitely been pre-judged by the Prime Minister as shown in his latest news release on the No. 10 Internet site.

The Press are also compounding the situation by now referring to Gordon Brown`s statement as "PM refuses to give way over need for a Bypass".

I believe this declared decision has completely usurped the Public Inquiry and your requirement to deliberate on the findings which would result from a properly conducted Inquiry,which as yet has not occurred.

No cross examinations of the proposers of the Road scheme have taken place, and no evidence produced by those objectors has been introduced into the Inquiry Public forum, therefore it is my belief that not only have the Highways Agency and Tameside MBC failed to produce credible suitable evidence in support of their proposals, but a close examination and scrutiny of what they still intend to produce as evidence will now seemingly not be accepted as cause for the Bypass Inquiry disclosures to be considered by the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister.

It can only be concluded that a deliberate attempt to negate the Public Inquiry has been shown by the recent announcement,in which case this also now reflects on your own credibility to produce a report on your findings knowing the issue has been pre-judged already.

The declaration signed by the UK Government accepting the Aarhus Convention Protocols have now been breached and disregarded,and the following is but "one small component" of what has been usurped by Gordon Brown MP"

The press article mentioned is predictably the Glossop Chronicle which, as usual, slavishly regurgitates the government's drivel.

glossop.com are also carrying John Hall's line, and though we try to avoid repetition, their quote is good enough to merit inclusion here:

"In view of the intervention by Gordon Brown who has decided to usurp the process of the Mottram Bypass Public Inquiry and seriously undermine the Public Inquiry Inspector, he has also chosen to completely breach the Government ratified Aarhus Convention Agreement which clearly denotes the importance of total participation in a Public Inquiry with Supporters and Objectors involved in the decision making process.

This therefore has exposed the Prime Minister's intention to not comply with existing protocols in an existing Public Inquiry which will result in the European Justice Complaints Organisation in Geneva being made aware of this irrational and declared pre-judgement of an existing Public Inquiry, without the objectors having been given an opportunity to openly disclose their evidence and scrutinise in depth the evidence again being produced in October 2008 by the Highways Agency which this time it's hoped is not seriously flawed and unsuitable evidence before a Public Inquiry.

The Public Inquiry Inspector has been informed of the announcement by Gordon Brown which has completely destroyed even the credibility of his observations and opinions which should have been considered by the Secretary of State when the Public Inquiry is concluded"

Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention deals with public participation in decisions on specific activities listed in Annex I which would include proposals for nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the provision of energy, water, wastewater and transport systems. It obliges the Government to inform the public in a timely and effective manner about a proposal and the procedure for dealing with it. Public participation should be early, when all options are open and when public participation can be effective. Procedures must allow the public to submit any comments, information, analyses or opinions that it considers relevant to the proposed activity at a public hearing or inquiry. Due account must be taken of the outcome of the public participation.

Councillor Ivan Bell - Breaking the Mould or not?

Councillor Ivan Bell is the Independent Local Councillor and prospective Independent parliamentary candidate for the High Peak. He hopes, as I understand it, to "break the mould" in local politics and offer High Peak voters something different and perhaps more meaningful to put their cross against than the rather remote and weary traditional options of Liberal Democrat, Labour, or Conservative.

Now nearly every time I read a statement in the press made by him for some reason the word “demagogue” springs to mind. So I decided to look to look it up and found the following definition: “leader of the populace; political agitator appealing to desires or prejudices of the mob” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary). Bearing mind Cllr Ivan’s favoured headgear I was led to ask “Does the cap fit?”

Cllr Ivan was recently quoted in the Chronicle with regard to the Glossopdale Housing Moratorium as wanting :-“Local houses for local people built by local people”. The article also said “Cllr Ivan Bell… supported local people being allowed to build small numbers of houses on their own land.”

The statements of the demagogue put under scrutiny usually prompt the question "what does an apparently significant populist statement mean in real terms", if anything? Does Cllr Ivan mean that he wants people to build freely or on top of their existing dwellings, or in their back gardens, without hindrance or interference from development control and irrespective of consideration of their neighbours? Or does he mean any large developer who has bought up agricultural land at a knock down price should be free to develop it, on the proviso that he is of “local origin”? Again it is possible, but we cannot be sure.

Does his emphasis on local extend to “local materials” manufactured by “local manufacturers”, and even to running on “local energy” or does he wish draw a line on his “local” concept at that stage and if so, why? I am afraid I suspect the only real content of the quoted statement is that the speaker wants to appeal through simplistic utterance to the self-interest of the man in the street.

This leads me on to the problem with so called “plain speaking”, which is another “hobby horse” that Cllr Ivan has championed in the local press. The problem is that this principle of “plain speaking” or “clear English” might seem appealing when forwarded against the mealy-mouthed “bureau speak” of the modern world, but it can lead to the equal pitfall of clarity achieved at the expense of meaning.

Unfortunately, much as we might wish otherwise it is true that many issues in today’s world are complex, but I think we can draw some hope and say that whilst not as simple as envisaged by the demagogue and/or the childlike desires of our hearts, they need not be as ridiculously complex and intangible as the mealy-mouthed utterances of self-promoting officialdom would suggest.

However I would stress that to flee from this obfuscation into the arms of simplistic utterance, and appealing to simple self-interest is also a mistake. Politicians who spoonfeed the frustrated populace with what they want to hear irrespective of considered content are not in my view to be trusted, and perhaps need to be treated with something like contempt. If they have opinions, let them be well and fully thought out, and then clearly articulated. Just because Town Hall cannot speak clearly that does not mean that this is an impossible goal. It simply requires clear analysis of an issue, a draft statement or two, followed by a publishing a considered point of view.

We favour such an approach over either the “obfuscation” of officialdom or the “plain speaking” rhetoric of the demagogue.

As a footnote I would like to add that I have found Cllr Ivan when speaking publicly to be far more plausible and to live up rather better to the clear speaking principles that he avows. I do think however that if he is to stand as a convincing and refreshing alternative to the traditional parties of spin in the next General Election he has a lot to learn about policy making and its proper expression in the media.

Right of reply exists on this blogsite and there is a published email address, which I am assured will honour this according the true principles of fair debate.

Business as usual (or the folly of petitions)

The Government has published a response to the (now closed) e-petition against the Longdendale Bypass today. We'd rather comment on it before we publish it here, then you can choose to read it if you can be bothered.

Let's face it, you know how it reads, you've heard it many times before. But what is a real slap in the face is the last two paragraphs that appear to stamp out any hope that the government will listen to reason about Woodhead. Clearly, the time for polite campaigning and asking the government to do things is drawing to a close. Only today, NASA (of all people!) have pointed out that the EU's Carbon Emission Reduction targets are set far too low. In a phrase that should send a chill down everyone's spine, Dr James Hansen from NASA said further cuts were needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed".

Clearly, the future does not lie with those who will not change radically, nor their institutions. This veritable 'Gas Chamber of Commerce' that seeks to place the economic considerations of a few rich bastards above every other poor victim on this planet cannot state it's 'business as usual' - Rome is Burning.

Read it and weep...

The Government remains committed to a safe and reliable trunk road network as part of the overall provision of transport for the country, and will provide improvements to the network where they are shown to be required. However, this is subject to the need to show that alternatives to road building have been investigated and where appropriate can be implemented.

Any improvements to the road network need to provide the highest levels of environmental mitigation, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Peak District Park.

The Highways Agency (Agency) was asked to identify a Scheme that considers all these issues. A history of the scheme can been seen on the website http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/16360.aspx

The Agency does not believe that it is necessary to withdraw the A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass scheme as it remains firmly of the opinion that a bypass is the optimum solution to the problems of congestion within the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

However, the Agency is currently considering the alternatives proposed by other parties and will be responding to these matters during the Public Inquiry.

In Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle there are 446 properties immediately adjacent to the Trunk Road. These properties are mostly residential but also include commercial, community use and recreational facilities. These residents currently have unacceptable levels of traffic noise, visual intrusion and severance, poor environment, air quality, safety and accessibility problems.

The proposed scheme would remove a significant proportion of traffic including HGVs from the trunk road within these villages and the journey times for travellers on the trunk road would be improved. The Route Restraint Measures on the A628 would reduce the attraction of the route to long distance traffic, and the Safety Measures would offset the effects of additional traffic on the trunk road network.

Mitigation measures would include new speed limits, additional traffic signals at Flouch junction, Langsett and Midhopestones, signs, rumblestrips and safety cameras.

There are no plans to re-open the Manchester to Sheffield route via the Woodhead Tunnels (known locally as the Woodland Pass). The Government's strategy for the development of the railway is contained in the White Paper 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway'.

Although the White Paper seeks significant increases in capacity on Trans-Pennine routes, this can be achieved by running longer trains and by Network Rail proposing capacity enhancements on existing routes, should this be required.

Missing the Point

I have read the refusal - supposedly by the PM - to the petition to stop the plans for the Bypass, and unless other issues are still ignored completely, the Bypass will happen and no Woodhead rail scheme will be implemented.

The evidence substantiated by facts has been completely ignored up to now by most parties as to how the Bypass will impact once increased traffic is funnelled down the M67 towards Manchester.

The campaigns so far have not related to this problem, which surprises me because it's too obvious for words what will happen, not just based on rhetoric, but the recognised facts concerning the M67/M60/A57 major interchange. Could I remind all campaigners that Ministers and Supporters have completely focused on their continued themes of improvements for Tintwistle/Hollingworth and Mottram.

But how strange that there's no mention whatsover on the following substantiated and already known facts.

Denton & Audenshaw, adjacent to the M67/M60/A57 major routes, have 47,000 residents in a compact urban location, with no open environments for leisure or recreation, whereas
8,000 residents are spread throughout the Longdendale Valley which has vast areas of open land, vistas and recreation facilities, ALL of which need protecting.

In the main, the Hollingworth/Mottram region experiences 2 lanes of slow moving vehicles, but why ignore the 23 lanes of already heavily congested traffic encountered at the M67/M60 interchange?

If you check the HA/TMBC Map Evidence you will note the extended areas that comprise their evidence. But also note the deplorable & devious manner in which it draws a line straight through the M60 Motorway at the M67/M60 interchange - deliberately and disgustingly axing 11,000 people out of the picture in Denton West who live directly adjacent to the Interchange and Motorway. Compare this with references to Flouch etc, which are considerably further away in an extended area than Denton is to Mottram (5 miles).

Note how the DfT/HA/TMBC have deviously written off 11,000 people who live within metres of a daily minimum 220,000 vehicles, most stopping and starting at the interchange.

I am not deriding any part of the objectors concerns whatsoever because I support 100% all their claims, however I'm not sure whether everyone is aware of the substantiated facts - not by me, but by the HA/TMBC, that the largest Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which presently exists is in the M67/M60/A57 region where it's confirmed that Government Pollution targets will "Never Be Achieved".

If you check the AQMA maps provided by TMBC during the past 8 years, you will note how TMBC have used duplicity and devious methods to create false AQMA locations in the Mottram/Hollingworth location by falsifying comparisons between various localities and this is FACT beyond contradiction, as my evidence to the Public Inquiry will (eventually) show.

How Ministers can plead the case for Tintwistle/Hollingworth/Mottram residents experiencing 2 lane slow moving traffic as "their reason for the Bypass" and completely and totally ignore the impact on the location and residents in Denton/Audenshaw is an absolute scandal. Why should we have to daily ingest daily pollution from 220,000 vehicles with a further 35,000-40,0000 added on with the Bypass? Can anyone tell me that it is fair and provide any form of case? I think not, so why have all the aspects of the Bypass completely ignored such a deadly serious issue?

The Highways Agency's reports over the past 6 years repeatedly state the insurmountable difficulties which exist at the M67/M60/A57 interchange, and my evidence contains the reference numbers of their detailed references, so why add to the existing tremendous congestion without a mention in their evidence?

I have asked 6 Councillors in this region (2 in Longdendale) and 3 MPs, plus 2 Longdendale Siege members, to accept my invitation to meet with me on the pedestrian road bridge at the M67/M60/A57 to observe the reality. But unfortunately, sheer cowardice resulted in no acceptances and no replies which tells me the type of cretins I have been communicating with.
I doubt if even one person in the Longendale Region has a clue as to how pedestrians in Denton West - 11,000 of them - have been "cut off" from a reasonable access to their local Denton town shops because the alternative is as follows:

Cross the A57 near the access to the Denton Golf Club and walk towards the M67/M60/A57 interchange, then halt at pedestrian signals before crossing onto the M67/M60/A57 major traffic island, surrounded 23 lanes of dense traffic circling around you. Imagine the elderly, infirm, children, mothers with babies having to walk onto this Major Interchange Island, then walk around the Island perimeter until you reach a further designated pedestrian traffic signal crossing, and then once again stopping the numerous vehicles circling the traffic island and exit to yet another route still at the interchange to again cross the M60 to then access the A57 route to Denton. I can state with confidence that this pedestrian route is amongst the most dangerous in the UK, so what alternatives are available? Well, a road bridge which entails a steep climb to traverse the M60 Motorway, then descend to a croft area and finally access the A57 approaching Sainsburys. Now I challenge mothers with prams, the elderly or the disabled to get across this enclosed road bridge known to the locals as "muggers alley" because of the climb to cross the road bridge.

There is just one remaining route - by walking through Denton West to its other side near Windmill Lane: walking along a 2 foot pavement on one side only (no pavement on the other side) and being within 2 feet of 2 lanes of fast (and I mean fast) moving vehicles travelling under the rail bridge tunnel on Windmill Lane.

Now if anyone wishes to make the short journey to what I have totally accurately described as our only pedestrian routes to "our shops", then I challenge anyone to see what the real road dangers are compared with Longdendale. It really is a pity that no-one (to my knowledge) has considered that the region I have described is worthy of a visit - some 15 minutes from Mottram - and recognise that the problems described are a valuable asset to halting the Bypass proposals, but it seems that we deserve no recognition as a completely justified objector because the problems have been ignored by some of those opposing the Bypass, whereas it could have been a tremendously useful tool in the armoury of the objectors.

At the Public Inquiry, my evidence will prove conclusively all my past statements, and it's because of the deliberate sacrifice of many thousands in this area by local and national Politicians that my intense contempt for these cowardly bastards exists. Hence my intention to prove conclusively what absolute shysters these beings are.

You may not have an interest in the major problems of others, but to fight effectively all battle fronts should be respected and utilised.

(posted on behalf of John Hall)

The Joke's on Siege

The less cynical amongst you may have noticed that this story that we published on Tuesday was actually an April Fool wind-up. That fact notwithstanding, we did spend a certain amount of time carefully crafting it so that it sounded quite convincing. Personally, we think we have Siege's Mike Flynn off to a tee, we even managed to bring the petition up - like they do at every opportunity.

To make the joke somewhat funnier, we tried to get it published. We're unsurprised to report that David Jones of the Glossop Chronicle (known round here as 'Chronic' from now on) didn't fall for it, and there's a feature in this week's paper about our 'hoax' (viewable here). It doesn't name us - after all, why give us free publicity - so we're adding this post to ensure that those curious enough to search the internet may land on this site.

But for us the funniest part of this story is the accusation that we 'hacked' into Siege webmaster Robin Haycock's email address to send the release. We only wish we had such powers, as if we did, we'd have got up to all kinds of mischief by now. So to slay this dragon and spell things out for the unimaginative (or the downright thick as pigshit) this is how we did it:

We created a (free) googemail account as close as possible to 'robert haycock' (bobhaycock@gmail.com - someone has already taken roberthaycock@gmail.com). We then placed robert's actual email address (robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk - lots of spam coming your way Robert) in the 'account name' bit, so that that would be the first thing anyone would see when they got a message from the (anti)bob. No hacking involved, just a confidence trick.

We subsequently received a message from Robert Haycock on the same day, it goes thus:

Hi folks

just like to say thanks for hacking into my email and sendind (sic) the spurious email to the Glossop Chronicle. If you are this desperate then no wonder that you do not have the support of local people. If you would like to contact me for any "quotes" please feel free to contact me and I will be glad to have the debate or meet face to face.

Regards

A long time resident of Hollingworth who lives on the A57.

Bob Haycock

Longdendale Siege Secretary

Whatever... we're game for a laugh, unlike Siege and their resident hack at the Chronicle. The spoof press release follows:

Longdendale Siege Committee call for donations large and small to ensure construction of the A628 Bypass

The Longdendale Siege Committee, who are campaigning for a Bypass to be built to relieve Longdendale of traffic, have today called for the general public to donate money to their campaign to ensure that the bypass is built.

Siege chairman Mike Flynn outlined the plan:

"We're obviously concerned about all of the delays to the scheme that seem to keep cropping up, plus the mounting costs. Although we think the potential benefits outweigh any costs, we're aware the government might not see it that way, so we're asking our supporters and anyone else who wants this road to donate what they can."

Mr Flynn envisages that a Private Finance Initiative could seal the deal, "a PFI is increasingly in favour in government circles, so rather than the taxpayer stump up all of the £184 million, we'd like to encourage companies, private investors, institutions and the general public to dig deep and help form a PFI to make sure the road is built."

Mr Flynn was hoping to meet with Tesco representatives, who are planning to build a store at Mottram over the next few years to ask for their support and possible donations: "as Tesco say, 'Every Little Helps'. They stand to benefit greatly from the increased custom at the Mottram site for their new store which the bypass will bring, so they might not be averse to helping us out a little".

"We've got 9,000 signatories to our petition that we presented to Parliament, and over the next few months, we'll be contacting them all to ask them to give what they can. If everyone who has signed our petition gave us £20,000, we'll be well on the way to paying for the scheme by ourselves. Obviously, we don't expect people to give that much, but the point is that some will be able to give more than others, and we may be able to reach our target before the Public Inquiry is over".

"Plus we'll be taking to the Streets all around the area again on Saturday mornings with our bucket if folk want to donate".

The Longdendale Siege Committee have a website at http://www.longdendalebypass.co.uk/ and pledges can be emailed to robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk.

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?!

Op-Ed: Sean & Johnny - come on down

What follows is a post from the alternative Active Longdendale blog that has been set up to shadow the posts from Sean Parker-Perry's 'Environmental Clean-Up' and/or 'Community Tool Hire' official blog:

"... Just what is the point of Active Longdendale? What is its role or raison d'etre? What values and/or aspirations underpin its foundation? More intriguingly, how does it differ to already existing groups that provide a similar service?

Trawling the Internet in an attempt to find some answers reveals that information on Active Longdendale is very thin on the ground. What little information that is available tends to be somewhat contradictory.

Nevertheless, buried in the Minutes (paragraph 42) of the Longdendale and District Assembly, which was chaired by Cllr Sean Parker Perry (Labour) held on 07/12/2006, lies the following nugget in which the Town Manager appears to provide a succinct definition of its aims and purpose:

(Active Longdendale is a) "project that provides an opportunity for community groups and members of the public to participate in clean ups in the area". He qualifies this by quoting an example of their alleged work at Hurst Clough on 18/11/2006 which he states was "successful in dealing with undergrowth and flytipping". In a nutshell it's a tidy campaign group.

So far so good. This all seems to be innocent and innocuous enough - in fact it appears to be positively praiseworthy. Unless and until one realises that the local council (Tameside MBC) already provides a Countryside Ranger Service which is responsible for the management of the Borough's countryside and helps the local community and visitors alike to appreciate, enjoy and care for the natural environment.

Moreover, the Countryside Service comprises not only of full time rangers, information officers, admin support and an estate team but also has an additional 60 Voluntary Rangers that provide invaluable support and assistance to the Service.

The work of the Voluntary Rangers is of particular interest since the type and scale of the projects they tackle is quite comprehensive and usually of high conservation or amenity value. This link to the official Tameside MBC website lists many of these projects and explains the scope of their work more fully.

Suffice to say that it includes:

* Litter picking and rubbish collection
* Footpath and bridleway clearance and improvement

...which in itself appears to nullify any reason for the creation of Active Longdendale.

In fact it rather begs the question as to why its only known members Councillor Sean Parker-Perry (Labour) and Councilor. Johnny Reynolds (Labour) don't just simply join the Volunteer Ranger Service where, throughout the year, there is an opportunity to participate in conservation tasks with the countryside rangers and their team of dedicated volunteers (as opposed to showboaters).

If SEAN or JOHNNY would like to get involved they can apply online here or by phoning 0161 330 9613. Alternatively they can snail mail to:

Chief Rangers Office
Park Bridge Heritage Centre
The Stables
Park Bridge
Ashton-u-Lyne
Tameside
OL6 8AG

Yes, that's right, they have their own premises (and tools) so no need to lease expensive railway arches or to tap up the lottery for funds! ..."

We have our own take on this, with a little more background info. Firstly, below is a photo of a poster promoting one of AL's clean-ups in July 2006 (click for bigger version):

With this poster, Sean displays for all to see the somewhat contradictory nature of this organisation that scrutineer has identified above. Firstly, as a volunteer you are reassured that you don't need to join, there is "no joining fee or reason to commit to anything", you just register your interest and turn up on the day (that you will presumably be notified of beforehand). In other words, you do as you are told. But when one looks at the poster to find out "who organises the event", we're told "...the volunteers" - is this the same people who "don't have to join" and "just have to turn up"? How will they be able to organise anything in this way?

None of this is transparent. There's no suggestion you can participate in any other way than to simply come along and dig when you are told to do so.

Whether or not anyone turns up is another matter. In fact, we've been told by a reliable source that AL's work to clear Himalayan Balsam from Lymefield was actually carried out by contractors, who were paid for the work they did. Was this because not enough volunteers showed up? And who paid for the work to be done? It can't have been cheap. Or was this activity that was being done by TMBC anyway, and Sean decided to stick his 'Active Longdendale' badge on it? At the time, this work was fêted by Sean's boss, James Purnell, on his website. So he's implicated too.

Watch this space for more articles this month...

April is for Fools

Today is All Fools Day, and for the next calendar month we'll be focusing a lot of our attention on one fool in particular.

It's the local elections on 1st May, and the Longdendale Councillor, Sean Parker-Perry is up for re-election in 2008. Readers of this weblog will be more than familiar with this individual, but not so much with what we will be revealing over the next few weeks.

As a Longdendale Labour councillor, Parker-Perry has marched in step with his fellow councillors, and has always backed plans for the bypass. But his activities have always gone beyond those of a traditional Councillor. Last year, we revealed our suspicions that it was he that was the blogger behind the (now deleted) weblog 'Support the Hollingworth Bypass' (since restored to the internet by us). This month - a year on - we'll present the evidence.

Plus, we'll be looking in depth at Sean's own 'environmental' organisation 'Active Longdendale' - who and what are they, and what do they do? You've already had a taster.

We'll also take a look at Sean and fellow Longdendale Councillor Johnny Reynolds trip to Spain earlier this year - under the Active Longdendale banner - and the 'Friends of Moclin'. What kind of (self-proclaimed) environmentalist imports Olive Stones from Spain? We'll find out.

There are plenty of candidates standing for election in Longdendale that support the bypass, and very little to choose between them, but the few people that actually bother to vote seem to prefer this moron. In the hope that the open minded may Google Sean, there are plenty of results from pages with info that might put you off voting for him. We'll be adding to that tally over the next few weeks. Stay tuned.

Exclusive - Longdendale Siege's new fundraising drive

Word has reached us that the Longdendale Siege Committee are getting very worried about the PI delays. So much so, they have decided to do what they can to raise money in case the government decide the scheme is too costly.

In what must be a clear indication of discontent within their ranks, an anonymous source inside Siege has emailed us a copy of a press release sent out last night which reveals the plan. You have read it here first (click on the thumbnail below to get to the larger image). We'll see how this one runs...

Roadmunkey's Rail Conversion

Whilst doing a search for new local blogs I discovered that Longdendale Councillor and pro-bypass fanatic Sean Parker-Perry (nee Sean Perry) a.k.a. Roadmunkey, has a new web presence.

No, I'm not talking about the resurrected Roadmunkey blog, or even the blog of all Sean's Wikipedia edits, this is something entirely different. The road lobbyist-cum-fake environmentalist appears to have a new hobby horse which is the hiring out of tools to the local community. The website can be found here in exactly the same style and design as the old Roadmunkey blog!

Ironically, in his first and only post to date, there is no mention of his beloved bypass ('will fight to the end') but rather a picture of a railway arch in Broadbottom which is to be the home of Active Longdendale (AL), its 'community toolshed depot' so to speak. Indeed, Sean himself has sought and unsurprisingly achieved planning permission for the project himself (documents here).

So who's a good, public spirited, altruistic, community loving little boy then? Who indeed!

Cue new local blog number two: www.activelongdendale.blogspot.com Yes, it's the same URL as Sean's but without the hyphen. The author(s) of the blog could be some of Sean's own customers for (s)he/they have been doing a spot of digging themselves and appear to have an handle on AL's activity.

The blog has clearly been set up to parody, shadow, imitate and mickey take. It is also scrutinising the motives behind AL's creation. It's opening shots note a political thread running through the organisation and muses over the usefulness of the small business enterprise/voluntary organisation/charity/co-operative when a full time Ranger service already exists supported by a small army of Volunteer Rangers!

So it's www.active-longdendale.blogspot.com versus www.activelongdendale.blogspot.com

With Roadmunkey (sorry, that should be Sean) coming up for re-election this May I shall be keeping a close eye on both these blogs and trust our readers will have their bookmarks at the ready. Let battle commence.

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...

We are one today

We're one year old today. Hasn't the time flown?

I'm not surprised we're still here - after all, unlike the opposition, we always expected the Public Inquiry to drag on (although it's now even surpassing our own expectations). Plus, we are in this for the long haul. The politicians may look forward to 2012/2013 (the planned date of construction of the bypass), but even if all goes the way of the destroyers of the earth A LOT can (and will) happen to try to knock this project off the rails. There is a war, this is a weapon.

One thing can be sure, if you want to know what's going on, you will read it here first.

Last year, we set out to fill gap that existed in the coverage of the debate about this road. This blog fully intended to become the only regularly updated website which tackles the core and broader issues of the bypass. 12 months later, it remains so. It's not that we want to hog the limelight, but given the glacial progress of this scheme, the devil often makes work for idle hands. Having said that, if the blog becomes an end in itself, then it will be time to end the blog. The contributors are all activists, but our activity must come before our contributions.

We have drawn some criticism for having anonymous contributors, largely from two sources. The first was High Peak Councillor Anthony McKeown, someone who clearly likes to keep his blog free from comments, so much so that you're only permitted to comment if you attach a name. How he knows any name that is provided represents the posters' real identity, we will never know but of course for Anthony having a 'real' identity is a condition for your freedom of speech. It's indicative of how far in a right-wing direction the Labour Party have travelled of late.

The other critic was the pro-bypass blog 'Support the Hollingworth Bypass' which we have evidence was written by the Longdendale Councillor Sean Parker-Perry briefly last year before being taken down lest he got the sack. This is ironic given that the blog was in itself anonymous. The blog has recently been resurrected by us (with a slightly different URL) so anyone can read what he had to say. Watch this space for more about him soon.

Over the last year, we have added more features to the site, including videos and selected brief insights into who is reading us (obviously focusing on the opposition). We've become technically more savvy, so that we now have a lovely counter that tells us how much the bypass is costing (25 pence per second - an educated guess, but we look forward to seeing how accurate it is). And we feel we now a have a broad range of (much valued) contributors.

We always welcome new readers, so if you haven't already done so please tell your friends, neighbours and colleagues of our existence

To all our contributors - your input is essential and valued. For all our readers - whatever your views - you know you need the fix this blog provides, so keep on reading and spreading the word. Here's to another 12 months.

Climate Change and the Decisions that Matter

The Acid Test - Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Before proceeding with this article it is best to state at the outset that the issues are qualified to some extent by prevailing uncertainty regarding Climate Change being man made/anthropocentric. Dripping glaciers and collapsing ice floes make the national and indeed global headlines with alarming - perhaps to some tedious - regularity. Two very recent examples were headline news recently, where the increased rate of melting glaciers was “bettered” by a gloomy prognosis on the decrease of even stable ice continents, that are not supposed to be so susceptible to fluctuations in temperature.

Seemingly, there is also little doubt that the consequences of climate change could be considerable in political, economic and ultimately human terms, hence the urgent need felt by many to “do something” to avert this crisis – i.e. promote the Nuclear Industry. Hence also the globe trotting Al Gore - hopefully not contributing too significantly to aviation emissions - and the Stern report, which being economic in its consequences tends to be treated seriously.

Climate Change a Natural Cycle or Man Made?

However one impediment to “doing anything” is the argument that the crisis is not of our making, and the author feels this viewpoint needs to be acknowledged. It is a minority viewpoint, apparently the scientific majority of around 80% see a significant correlation between human activity and the crisis, but it is a view that is held in some parts. Indeed nature columnists in certain local newspapers, who rub shoulders with such luminaries as David Attenborough and might be considered as having some influence, have quite recently expressed the view that climate change is simply part of a natural cycle. A natural cycle unfortunate perhaps in its consequences, but for which the blame should not be laid at our door, and seemingly one we can do nothing about.

Until such time as columnists adduce some evidence to support such views however, this article will follow the scientific consensus, in assuming that the scientific majority are right, though we append a useful link on the topic below. Overall also we will make the assumption that not all such scientists blaming mankind are likely to have been hired by vested interests to play a particular tune. It is possible of course, but the opposite influence of traditional vested interests, such as the aviation and automobile industries seems more likely, and the wish to continue enjoying such transport will drive such views.

Key Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Moving on to the central topic we wish to briefly examine the substance of government actions with regard to climate change and local and influential decision making.

The concerning fact is that whilst we have a large national budget being targeted towards the area, and we seek to promote the UK global trailblazers in the diminishing emissions, the actual behaviour on the ground is different. Two recent decisions by the government, both made by theSecretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Hazel Blears, alert us to this worrying discrepancy.

The Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry took Global Warming very seriously. On this occasion the Inspector even recommended that the Gateway proposal should, on this very count of adverse climactic impact, be refused. However, despite the Thames areas being particularly susceptible to heavy flood damage, the Secretary of State thought otherwise, and ordered a review of the decision.

At Lancaster, the Heysham M6 Link Road Bypass scored very badly on Global Warming, and again the Inspector Mr Tipping (Cantab) had little choice but to record this fact. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from the scheme, including an increase in CO2 emissions, would be a significant adverse impact of the road scheme IR8.3.37” (Para 31 of Inspectors Report). However, significantly she claimed that there were no alternatives, something that opponents of the scheme hotly dispute as they assiduously compiled a package of alternatives. The Inspector did not allow the CO2 consideration to get in the way of rubber stamping another “business as usual” road scheme. Would it have mattered if he had? Perhaps not greatly, we might at best have expected another review of the decision, but in fact the relevant Secretary of State was only too pleased to endorse his decision.

What does this tell us?

Whilstl it is tempting to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion, without spelling it out, what seems clear is that the UK policy on global warming and climate change is one thing, but practice is another. Where policy can be hidden behind small print budget mechanisms it allows for giving the “impression of doing something”. In fact it may only be serving to add to government coffers, a fact which is often seized on by the cynical road lobby. The real decisions, that is to say those which are not simply obscure pricing mechanisms, but exist in the tangible world of results and action, tell another story.

When it comes to stark decisions, that will have to be taken if the challenge is going to be even remotely met , the record so far begins to look a little indefensible. The story so far seems to be “business as usual” and no change.

As long as climactic human calamity is far off, as with Bangladesh awash in melting the Himalayan glaciers, this will probably remain the likely course of events, perhaps until it is too late. Despite the many warnings, sadly it may require things to come home to roost even more clearly than the recent floods in the Midlands, to usher in the cold, if necessary, wind of change.

Tameside - bailing out the BOAT

In 2005, the Trail Rider's Fellowship (TRF) - an organisation set up to open up the countryside to motorcycles - applied to make Coach Road, Stoney Road and Rabbit Lane in Longdendale a BOAT ('Byway Open to All Traffic'). Although Tameside MBC have consistently objected to this, the TRF have so far succeeded in their plans.

In our view, Tameside's tactics and the way they have handled this matter have led to this outcome - they screwed up big time!

First of all they failed to advertise the issue so that people couldn’t object. When challenged over this by one of our readers, Tameside merely stated that there was "no provision in schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for giving public notice" - they didn't have to, so they decided not to bother. Great.

Secondly, they submitted evidence that the lanes in question were ancient highways. Now, because of that and as a direct result of the Council incompetence, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has decided in favour of the TRF that these lanes should be open to all traffic! The clincher is on page 14 (paragraph 43) of this document (opens PDF), and we quote (emphasis added):

Copies of some of the maps referred to in this appeal have been provided but not all. The two earliest maps, the 1777 Burdett map and the un-named map of 1831, were inspected by the Council but have not been supplied. However the details contained in the Council’s report [24] are not disputed by the appellant; in fact it tends to support his case.

We can only conclude extreme incompetence or deliberate tactics to allow traffic onto these country lanes in order to further the case for a bypass. Either of these conclusions seem feasible when buffoons such as Sean Parker-Perry ( the District Assembly Member given responsibility for dealing with this) and Bill Johnson (he of Longdendale Hertitage Trust fame and another pro-bypass 'green') are involved. Indeed, we feel that the hue and cry that Tameside have thrown up in the press since the New Year about this matter serve to cover up their own cack-handed way of dealing with it.

If we lose round two (which seems inevitable now), drivers would have legal permission to short cut Mottram Moor by heading up Coach Road, turning left or right onto Rabbit Lane and then heading off towards Ashton or the M67. Of course this would be difficult at the moment unless you own a 4x4, quad bike or motorcycle, but we are strongly against the use of these country lanes by all motorised traffic. If the route is used enough, over time it may have to be converted to a more general purpose road.

We believe it is vital to prevent these lanes from becoming BOATs. Please object ASAP to the following name/address:

Keith Davy
Tameside MBC
Council Offices
Wellington Road
Ashton-under-Lyne
OL6 6DL

Quote reference ETL/AKD/24860/1. The deadline is 21st April 2008, and the grounds upon which you object must be stated.

John Watson's lonely hearts club

We did promise more about the further postponement of the Public Inquiry and today we have the sad tale of the lonely figure that is the Inspector, John Watson.

What prompted the Highways Agency's latest announcement was in fact a letter from John Watson published the week before. He makes it clear that he has not heard from the Highways Agency by their promised date of February 2008 and published a series of questions, to wit:

Does the Highways Agency still intend to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry?

If the Highways Agency still intends to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, when does it intend to do so?

These are the words of a man kept hanging on. He has no role without his consort, and sounds rather lost and desperate. He is eager to please, but is really the Highways Agency's plaything. And they have decided not to play, at least for the time being.

The reason Roy Oldham and the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce are huffing and puffing and getting steamed up, and that the pathetic figure of Tom Levitt has to issue press releases reminding us that he still supports the bypass is because they are clearly not calling the shots. At a time of huge financial uncertainty, the government is prepared to put projects like the M1 widening on the back burner and move towards using the hard shoulder of motorways to 'take up the slack'. The Longdendale Bypass has become a 'wait and see' issue.

Those who are opposing the bypass must press on with the attack, to take the advantage. It's not time for a rest.

As for poor old John Watson, we hope he's making good use of his time, perhaps by writing another book?

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.

STOP PRESS! - Public Inquiry dead as a Dodo?

We've missed this one, but so has everyone else. On Monday, the Highways Agency informed the Inspector of the Public Inquiry, John Watson, that they will not be ready to present proper finalised evidence until OCTOBER 2008.

One wonders if the PI will ever reconvene. More soon...

John Watson's Worldwide Fanclub

Older readers of this blog may well remember the joke we had at the expense of the Inspector John Watson prior to the commencement of the Public Inquiry last year. We'd rumbled his textbook on road building and called for a book signing session on his behalf.

And he even commented upon our blog at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting:

I have written a textbook called Highway Construction and Maintenance which was last revised in 1994. You can still buy it, should you wish to. I will not be signing copies today because it is out of date, apart from anything else. (page 7, lines 9-12)

(Much to hoots of laughter & applause from the members of Siege Mentality who were present - not recorded in the transcript. The joke's on them anyway)

OK, it was a joke - but why not? After all, one or two visitors to the blog over the past few weeks have been seeking out this tarmac-junky-tome for far-flung shores. Here's one from Jakarta and another from Dubai.

Of perhaps John's on holiday and is looking himself up?

John Hall on TMBC's 'smoking gun'

February 28th 2008 in the Glossop/Tameside Advertiser saw Councillor Jonathan Reynolds belting out the rhetoric again regarding the Mottram Bypass. Well, it's time the confirmed and accurate truth was given out regarding the serious deception that has been produced concerning the Longdendale Valley which MPs, Councillors etc have been aware of and have decided to keep hidden from the electorate of Tameside and Longendale. So here it is.

The Bypass planned for the Longdendale Valley form part of a transpennine route linking the Humberside ports and their facilities plus all the Yorkshire Regions to the Western ports. It will provide road links to airports linking Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic with Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield & Yorkshire and from Eastern ports to further afield: Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the Balkans and other European Countries.

What is needed by the Government & TMBC is a Bypass to create an 'M62 mark 2' linking all these locations which include the M67/M60/M6/M5/M56 on what is called in Tameside Council's Documents the "West-East Eurocorridor" from Northern and Southern Ireland across the Irish Sea to the "Transpennine Corridor of Northen England" named NETA (North European Trade Axis) in Government and TMBC circles. TMBC are the actual NETA Secretariat for all interested parties in Europe such as business organisations and Regional Authorities. At the present time there are more than 50 partners from Germany, Holland, Ireland, Poland etc, and having met in Amsterdam, the scheme has been named the "North European Trade Axis" backed by Government money and TMBC as administrators.

So knowing the M62 is at saturation level and wanting more heavy traffic with links between ports, airports etc, the Longdendale Valley is the chosen local route to facilitate this multinational road route, hence the massive developments along the expected route for storage facilities (such as Rossington Park), truck stops, Motels plus service areas, and a host of other developments which will totally destroy thousands of acres of open rural spaces with beautiful views. So at last the truth is out, the politicians have deviously duped you, and have been deliberately deceptive, disguising the real objective as a Bypass to assist the 3 Villages. What they did was drip-feed so called concerned rhetoric to build up a head of steam up in the Longdendale Valley for a Bypass, because to simply state they wanted the Northern Way Route through the Longdendale Valley would have seen serious revolts against the scheme.

Because of these substantiated facts, which anyone can now source if willing, I have informed the Public Inquiry Inspector that he has been drawn into a scam: the PI was supposed to be totally related to the electorate of Longdendale and their concerns, whereas the absolute truth is that the PI is being held under deliberate and knowingly false pretences and the Bypass objectives have been kept hidden by TMBC Councillors and those within the administration, plus The Highways Agency, UK Government, and developers and speculators.

John Hall, Denton

What's in Action Man's pants?

Chronicle & Reporter readers had a rare treat last week from one of Longdendale's seemingly shyest councillors. 'Our friend from the North' Jonathan Reynolds - a trainee solicitor and seemingly a career politician in the making - clearly feels he has to do his bit to calm the troops in the pro-bypass lobby:

















His use of the term "unanswerable case" demonstrates his contempt for those who dare to dissent - something he has in common with his fellow Councillors and the Labour Party in general.

He clearly feels so strongly about this that he feels no need to put his "unanswerable case" before the Public Inquiry. He feels there in no case against the road, so much so that he doesn't need to answer any difficult questions. Or rather, that he doesn't want to. It seems he's a slimy as his former boss, James Purnell. He's been trained well. You'd have thought that a trainee solicitor would relish the opportunity - but not this one, it seems he's yellow.

Pro-bypass people of Longdendale - your councillors sold you out. After years of preaching the case for their bypass, they do not have the courage of their convictions. They deserve your contempt and outrage.

It seems that Councillor Reynolds has much more in common with Action Man than simply his looks. Yes, he has the dead eyes and thug haircut, if not the scar (which we've added using Photoshop skills much better than Purnell's), but he also clearly has no balls.

Village Green Preservation Society

There has been a lot of coverage in the press recently regarding the issue of housing in High Peak for younger persons from the locality who cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. MP Tom Levitt has added his voice to the debate, and put the boot in for good measure to the concept of Village Greens, which according to our MP have allowed a few selfish individuals to stop developments and sports halls in Buxton.

At first sight Mr Levitt’s indignation with such selfish individuals seems wholly in the right, but sometimes - or perhaps quite often in his case - it is worth looking that little bit further, and this seems one of those instances.

It is worth noting that there are many houses in High Peak, which are not in the complete sense of the word “homes” because they are wholly or mainly unoccupied. These are second homes or houses bought as investments. It is not unusual in fact to find a worryingly high percentage of the housing stock on many local streets out of effective circulation for one reason or another, predominantly due to absentee or landlord ownership.

This might not seem a relevant concern for Mr Levitt and the government when they advocate more local housing supply for local people. However it should be, as the policy described below indicates something of a contradiction in their position. Whilst bemoaning the lack of supply the government will from this April start increasing subsidy to such unused stock by cutting the capital gains tax on 2nd homes. This practice that can only inflate prices and reduce the availability for local people , so it does not sit well with Mr Levitt's complaint.

MSN Money reports, and we quote in case the the link seems dead -

Good news for landlords

This is great news for landlords and owners of a second non-residential property. Investors pay CGT on the difference between the price they paid for the asset and the price they sell it for. As it stands, the tax rate is 40% for the first three years of property ownership, falling by 2% a year to a minimum rate of 24% after 10 years of ownership. The new system means that the length of time a property has been owned will be irrelevant; someone who has owned a second home for one year will be taxed at the same rate as someone who has owned theirs for 20 years. The capital gains annual exemption will continue to apply which (in 2008/09) will mean the first £9,200 of the gain is exempt from the tax charge. As far as the buy-to-let market is concerned, landlords will certainly emerge as the winners of the situation, as they will see a significant reduction in tax should they decide to sell a property.

In fact the selfishness which Mr Levitt deplores in one case – assuming it is selfish to care about precious green open spaces and voluntarily make unpaid efforts to protect them– is being actively encouraged by fiscal measures promoted by his government to enable people to have more homes than they actually need, either as capital investment or for personal use.
It is a somewhat weak position to adopt really, trying to expand the new build on the back of the needs of local people yet at the same time allowing, in fact encouraging, the removal of large amounts of housing stock from the same local supply.

We believe Mr Levitt adopts such a cockeyed or contradictory approach towards housing supply - i.e. abetting private ownership yet seeking more social supply - because there is a subtext behind his utterances which we would spell out as follows

The subtext of Mr Levitt’s approach is to support the construction industry and developers at all costs, and use the plight of local people to do so. Also throw in a swipe at environmentalists if possible and try to undermine their legitimate use of village green legislation that developers see as obstructing invasion of rural areas for profits. Who suffers from this cockeyed thinking? Well above all the environment, which is generally overlooked by the politician, leaving it to allegedly selfish people to use their own time and unpaid labour to try and find ways to keep the area somewhere that people actually do want to live in. How very selfish of them!

And this really is the crux of the issue, because assuming that new build is given a free rein on village greens and the green belt, and the current attitude towards housing as capital rather than a home is continued, it begs an interesting question.

14,000 homes on down the line - and that is the plan for High Peak in the coming years - will anyone, local or otherwise, very much want to live in High Peak Borough anymore. There is after all a distinct lack of buyer enthusiasm for over housed places like Droylsden or Dukinfield. Sadly such a sorry outcome can be the only outcome of Mr Levitt’s position, which is why it must be resisted. Despite the many shots of beauty on the MP’s web site these are simply gratuitous in this case, and the vital remit to protect the environment remains the remit of unselfish volunteers, who deserve our full thanks

With regard to Village Greens, they require our utter support and it is very important that they are assisted and this legislation safeguarded. It is meanwhile it is time locally and nationally that a coherent and environmentally responsible policy in the field of housing is developed, where local people can enjoy a local home without being forced to sign up to environmental destruction to get it. If we can’t have a reasonably buoyant economy without environmental destruction then there is something seriously amiss.

TMBC, Longdendale Siege & David Moore: the truth

Hands up who believes the propaganda of Tameside MBC & Longdendale Siege Committee that the Longdendale Bypass is meant to relieve the three villages of congestion? If there are any that read this weblog, then this post may make you think again. For those who already suspect it is lies, here is the evidence that seems to have lain buried, until now.

Readers of local newspapers may be familiar with one David Moore. A person of that name used to regularly write in to advocate pro bypass views, as well as launch vitriolic attacks on anti-bypass campaigners (to be fair, we could be said to be the 'anti David Moore' in that respect, as it's our style too). Some examples are here and here (notice the classic Chronicle/Daily Mail/Fascist headline for the latter - 'Minority views are not valid'). We're not sure whether or not he had any direct affiliation with the Longdendale Siege Committee, but given his views and willingness to write to the newspapers (and regularly get published) we'd be surprised if he didn't. The fact that he lives in Hollingworth makes it seem highly unlikely that he is a stranger to them.

But what can be revealed with certainty is that someone called David Moore (with the fizzog displayed above) used to work for Tameside MBC. His contact details are on this page of this website. Go on, take some time to read what the website is about.

Yes, he was the Project Manager for the North European Trade Axis (NETA), an organisation seemingly run by TMBC from their offices. He also clearly has affiliations with the North West Regional Assembly, given the alternate email address on the contact page.

So what is NETA about? Lots of things, full of awful public language, the new bourgeois coded speech. But looking at the website and the conference reports, there talk of Transpennine Corridors, and 'management of M62 traffic flows'. But next to David Moore's face on the 'welcome' page is this more intelligible blurb:

"The NETA project seeks to develop and promote a West-East Eurocorridor extending from Northern and Southern Ireland across the Irish Sea to the Transpennine Corridor of Northern England and thence via the Humber ports and North Sea to the Netherlands, North Germany, Poland and beyond"

Given that TMBC are the facilitators of this project, we can now clearly link them with a project to develop their leg of a 'braided' (their terminology) trans-european transport network: in this context 'management of M62 traffic flows' can only mean one thing - diversion of key (trade) traffic elsewhere. Clearly, leaving the M1 to avoid the M62 and thereby accessing the M60 to head to the Western ports for Ireland and vice versa: the Longdendale Bypass.

Because the website was last updated in 2005, it looks like the project isn't exactly thriving, and we're not sure why this is. We wonder if the project is on hold, given the delays of the Public Inquiry.

We feel that this post is not the end of this issue, and we hope to return to it again in future.

In the meantime, if you really do believe the Longdendale Bypass is meant to relieve the three villages of congestion, ask Tameside and David Moore for explanations as to what NETA is all about. And come and tell us what they said. Food for throught.

NB: since we originally posted this article, the NETA website has mysteriously disappeared! We have changed the links to point to the pages captured by the internet archive.

Free Speech for the Dumb or 'If you don't like bad news, don't shoot the messenger'

Our spies have reported that Longdendale's biggest mouth, Roy Oldham (after his brother-in-law Mike Flynn) has been throwing his weight around again.

At the last full Council meeting on 14th February, Roy Oldham poured scorn on the recent Manchester Evening News article about TMBC's costs for the Glossop Spur. He reportedly said that the MEN journalist Brian Lashley was 'biased' and that he should 'reconsider his job' and also said that he would be 'speaking to the editor'.

The MEN get a lot of shit from both sides for their bypass coverage - including us, for differing reasons. But just who does Oldham think he is? He's so brazen that he thinks he can call for the resignation of a journalist on a regional newspaper for merely reporting how much TMBC have spent on their pet scheme.

But we're not going to call for Oldham to resign or even shut up. Because these bully-boy tactics can only further tarnish his already shitty reputation as an intimidating gobshite ... and help us and our cause.

Much more of this crap and we'll be mounting a campaign to defend Brian Lashley.

Mottram Tesco - update

You may remember our exclusive article back last month about TMBC's plans to bring Tesco to Mottram.

Well now the press has caught hold of the story since the issue was raised at last week's Longdendale & Hattersley District Assembly. And quite rightly, concerns are being raised about the increased traffic it will bring to the area. And it seems Tameside will have a fight on their hands if residents like Jane Whyte have anything to do with it:

"If I have to walk round every house on this estate and Broadbottom and Mottram and get a petition, I will do that rather than see these children hurt."

Jane wants an entrance/exit to the store either on Mottram Road or Stockport Road, rather than Ashworth Lane. But that will clearly really mess with traffic projections - if they aren't already hugely affected by this development. And we revealed last month that this is the reason for the delays in the Public Inquiry into the bypass, as the existing traffic models will be severely compromised.

The clincher is this quote in the article:

"Although no planning application has yet been received, the council as a promoter of the regeneration of Hattersley supports its development."

Indeed, no application has been received because they have been told to wait until after April by Tameside - when the Public Inquiry will have resumed.

This is going to be very, very interesting indeed...

Glossop Spur costs & Tory opportunism

Today's Manchester Evening News has a story which is well-known in anti-bypass circles, but perhaps less so more widely: namely, that Tameside Council's costs for the Glossop Spur have reached £800,000. There are two aspects of this we would like to concentrate on in this post.

Firstly, that this is in fact old news, to us at least. Indeed, our fellow campaigner John Hall submitted a Freedom of Information nearly 2 years ago and received a response indicating that the projected costs to March 2007 would be approximately £836,000. Given the hiccups with the Public Inquiry, the costs must surely be far more by now.

Perhaps it's time we rigged up another cost-counter for the Glossop Spur?

The second aspect is the fact that this article is effectively a press release for Tameside Tories. All you need to know about this lot is summed up by these words in the article:

"Councillor Bell said while the Tory group supports the proposal..."

We'd have to assume they do because there's been no opposition from them. It's hard to imagine what points they are trying to score here. Would they have done anything differently from the Labour Party? If they are committed to it, then surely that means they support it to the end - there's no implication that they would pull the scheme because of costs. This is simply a party political matter for this lot.

And who can be surprised? The 1990s Tory road policy got a bloody good hiding from environmental direct action campaigners, to the extent that most of the schemes were shelved by Labour upon coming to power in 1997. That's how unpopular they were, and still are. Why should anyone think this lot would be any different from Labour, should they come to power?

Time for a quote from Thatcher in 1990:

"We are not going to do away with the great car economy."

Any argument that advocates 'changed priorities' as a way to transport and ecological salvation really does not understand the central relationship of the car industry to modern capitalism. The answer lies without politics and capitalism, not within.

Carillion's big visit

Around the time of the visits to the blog about James Purnell last week, we had one particular visit that really stood out. Carillion - contractors for the bypass (and not an 80s prog-rock group) - spent a lot of time on this blog, checking all the contributors out (to no avail) and also trawling through our archive. Yes, they spent nearly 90 minutes here.

If only they knew the time (and money) we spent trying to get the correct matching typeface to détourne their logo (info for font nerds: ITC Giovanni).