The good citizens of Brighton and Hove have many bees in bonnets about various aspects of traffic and transport in the city: the 20mph speed limit, exorbitant car park charges, town-centre congestion, lack of a park-and-ride scheme, expensive and underused cycle lanes, high bus fares, parking zones, conflicts for space between cars, cycles and pedestrians, etc, etc, and, crucially for a tourist centre, the alienation of visitors.
Not only does this show how much the general public and local businesses are concerned about these issues, it is clear evidence that the city lacks a coherent and integrated transport, traffic and parking policy. Brighton and Hove seems to be slipping inexorably behind other English towns and cities.
This is not an easy matter, which may explain why successive administrations have failed to tackle it. Fear of upsetting one or other of the conflicting interests is an inevitable political reaction.
So I am proposing an Independent Transport Commission and have posted an epetition on the Brighton and Hove City Council's website, which you can access (and SIGN!) here: http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=398&RPID=10939932&HPID=10939932
This is what it says:
We the undersigned petition the council to appoint an independent transport commission to apply some bold and imaginative thinking in drawing up a comprehensive, integrated plan for the city's public transport, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
The city's traffic, transport and parking problems are tackled, if at all, in piecemeal fashion. The 20mph speed limit, exorbitant car park charges, town-centre congestion, lack of a park-and-ride scheme, expensive and underused cycle lanes, high bus fares, parking zones and, crucially for a tourist centre, the alienation of visitors are all subjects of regular comments and complaints in the press and in other e-petitions.
All of these are symptoms of the lack of a coherent transport, traffic and parking policy.
Successive administrations have failed to tackle the issues together in a bold and creative way. As a result, Brighton and Hove seems to be slipping inexorably behind other English towns and cities.
Effective management of the urban infrastructure is vital to the city’s future prosperity and quality of life. Too long has this been fudged and sidelined. Let’s make this the top priority at the next local elections.
The petition will be considered by Full Council on 30 January 2014.
There are no easy answers and no scheme will be perfect for everyone. If you think this is a Good Idea, please sign. Tell others about it. Tweet and re-tweet. If all those who are unhappy about the various aspects of an unjoined-up policy were themselves to join up and urge the Council to be positive and adventurous we might get somewhere—like, around the city without so many hassles.
TTFN
Monday, 21 October 2013
Thursday, 10 October 2013
What happened next
OK, so it's taken only three years and nine months to update the last post. For the record, you can read about the outcome of the successful campaign to save the Brighton History Centre at http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=83. This is reported to celebrate the revival of the Grumpy Old voter blog and as a reminder that citizen power can be effective. Watch this space.
TTFN
TTFN
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Save Brighton History Centre
Time to get back on the trail. There is so much that is not being done and so much that is being done wrong. All rather parochial perhaps, but for those of us who live in Brighton & Hove these are important issues.
To start catching up with pressing issues:
The council cabinet voted on 9 December to close the Brighton History Centre. This is a wonderful facility, full of all the resources the city owns in a purpose-converted space and with an experienced expert and helpful staff. It opened in the former reference library in summer 2002 and has featured on the BBC series Who Do You Think You Are?
It is probably underused because it is barely publicised. People I have taken there—including keen members of Friends of the Royal Pavilion and Museums (ie, friends of the estimable branch of city government that runs the Centre)—have been amazed at its existence. I have used it frequently and intend to use it a lot more in the near future for research on a book I have scheduled for this coming spring about one of the key aspects of the city's history and culture. The book would still appear without the Centre's existence but it would not contain much of the information.
More important is a letter to The Argus from Tim Carder, author of the incomparable Encyclopaedia of Brighton. He argues that this and his other books were only possible because of the resources that are now in the Centre. Ironically, the new edition of the Encyclopaedia is to be published in May by the City Libraries, who repay his efforts (and mine, come to that) by closing the Centre that makes such things possible.
The book I am soon to publish will make a small contribution to promoting the city's cultural tourism. A film festival I am organising for next year's festival fringe—in premises that are owned by the same council department as the BHC—directly links research done at the BHC to cultural events. We have applied for lottery funding with a specific aim of attracting visitors to the city. The BHC has been vital to allowing these things to happen.
So I am in the process of setting up an epetition that will be hidden away on the Brighton & Hove Council website. Watch this space for details.
Meanwhile, to combat the council's argument that the BHC is underused (not helped by their hiding it away with minimal publicity), go and use it. Read the old newspapers on microfilm. They are unbelievably fascinating. Look in the old street directories to see who lived in your house years ago. Enjoy (while you can)!
To start catching up with pressing issues:
The council cabinet voted on 9 December to close the Brighton History Centre. This is a wonderful facility, full of all the resources the city owns in a purpose-converted space and with an experienced expert and helpful staff. It opened in the former reference library in summer 2002 and has featured on the BBC series Who Do You Think You Are?
It is probably underused because it is barely publicised. People I have taken there—including keen members of Friends of the Royal Pavilion and Museums (ie, friends of the estimable branch of city government that runs the Centre)—have been amazed at its existence. I have used it frequently and intend to use it a lot more in the near future for research on a book I have scheduled for this coming spring about one of the key aspects of the city's history and culture. The book would still appear without the Centre's existence but it would not contain much of the information.
More important is a letter to The Argus from Tim Carder, author of the incomparable Encyclopaedia of Brighton. He argues that this and his other books were only possible because of the resources that are now in the Centre. Ironically, the new edition of the Encyclopaedia is to be published in May by the City Libraries, who repay his efforts (and mine, come to that) by closing the Centre that makes such things possible.
The book I am soon to publish will make a small contribution to promoting the city's cultural tourism. A film festival I am organising for next year's festival fringe—in premises that are owned by the same council department as the BHC—directly links research done at the BHC to cultural events. We have applied for lottery funding with a specific aim of attracting visitors to the city. The BHC has been vital to allowing these things to happen.
So I am in the process of setting up an epetition that will be hidden away on the Brighton & Hove Council website. Watch this space for details.
Meanwhile, to combat the council's argument that the BHC is underused (not helped by their hiding it away with minimal publicity), go and use it. Read the old newspapers on microfilm. They are unbelievably fascinating. Look in the old street directories to see who lived in your house years ago. Enjoy (while you can)!
Friday, 4 May 2007
Shock horror!
15:20 The final ward to declare has produced the biggest shock result of the election, possibly unmatched anwhere in the country. The three long-standing Labour councillors, including the current and previous council leaders, have been ousted by the Greens.
That makes the final outcome as follows:
Conservative 26
Labour 13
Green 12
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
Conservatives gained seven, Greens gained six, Lib Dems and independents each lost one and Labour lost a whopping 10 seats.
That makes the final outcome as follows:
Conservative 26
Labour 13
Green 12
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
Conservatives gained seven, Greens gained six, Lib Dems and independents each lost one and Labour lost a whopping 10 seats.
Ward loyalty
15:00 Good to see that Councillor Juliet McCaffery was re-elected with a marginally increased majority. She was the Labour councillor who was ousted from the committee that decided on the highly controversial schools admission policy because she put the interests of her ward first and intended to vote against the plan.
Her Labour colleagues said she should have thought of the interests of the whole city. What utter nonsense! The scheme was devised, at least in part, to suit the interests of another Labour ward.
If councillors are not elected to represent the interests of their wards, what do we need them for? If the interests of the city have overriding priority, we should have elections for the whole city.
Her Labour colleagues said she should have thought of the interests of the whole city. What utter nonsense! The scheme was devised, at least in part, to suit the interests of another Labour ward.
If councillors are not elected to represent the interests of their wards, what do we need them for? If the interests of the city have overriding priority, we should have elections for the whole city.
Almost the end
14:30 Early results, with the winners declared in 19 of the 21 wards, show that the Conservatives are likely to be the largest single party. They have so far won five seats from Labour and one from Brighton & Hove Independents. The Greens have won two from Labour and one from Lib Dem.
Current seats:
Conservative 26
Labour 11
Green 8
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
In the remaining six seats still to declare, five seats had been held by Labour and one by the Greens. If none of these change hands (a big if), Labour would have 16 and Greens nine. The Conservatives would be two short of an absolute majority. If they win one more, they would gain control through the mayor's casting vote; two more would give absolute power.
However, it is worth noting that although the Conservatives have been winning seats, they have done so with fewer votes. Data are not available to say whether this is the result of lower turnout. However, in the Grumpy Old Voter's ward, the three Conservatives, although re-elected, saw their vote fall by a massive 25 per cent.
Current seats:
Conservative 26
Labour 11
Green 8
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
In the remaining six seats still to declare, five seats had been held by Labour and one by the Greens. If none of these change hands (a big if), Labour would have 16 and Greens nine. The Conservatives would be two short of an absolute majority. If they win one more, they would gain control through the mayor's casting vote; two more would give absolute power.
However, it is worth noting that although the Conservatives have been winning seats, they have done so with fewer votes. Data are not available to say whether this is the result of lower turnout. However, in the Grumpy Old Voter's ward, the three Conservatives, although re-elected, saw their vote fall by a massive 25 per cent.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Polling tomorrow
Days to election: less than one
So what's the verdict? On the basis of attention paid to this voter, not an easy choice.
The Grumpy Old Vote has gone to Labour for some elections past, since at least before the Thatcher disaster. But if the stories of gerrymandering by Labour councillors to get dodgy policies accepted (school admissions, the Frank Gehry development) are even half true, that would not be an appropriate response this time. Besides, ALL governments run out of steam after six or seven years and as my idea for a sabbatical year are not even on the political agenda (remind me to tell you about that), a change has to be as good as a rest.
Above all, with the serious possibility (even probability) of losing control of the council, Labour has not sent me a single election leaflet. So if they don't try to win, they may as well lose. I went to the trouble of looking at the website, which was mostly self-congratulatory about achievements over the past decade. Some of the policies were ones a council of almost any persuasion would have implemented, some are nationally imposed (like free bus passes for 60+s). Mysteriously, a claim is made to have established an 'elected Older People's Council to represent 60+s'. Elected by whom, may I ask? I am 60+ (just, though you'd hardly believe it) and I have never heard of this council. Window-dressing? Cronyism? Pointlessness?
The Conservatives may oppose the Gehry project but they were in favour of the schools policy until the last minute, and their policy about cars is likely to lead to worse transport conditions, rather than better. They are also the imcumbents in this ward, so voting Conservative would not bring about a desirable change.
The Lib Dems haven't bothered with leaflets, probably because they came fourth in the last local elections and so don't stand much chance, despite the city being surrounded by Lib Dem parliamentary constituences. The website's homepage has a link to a City Council Manifesto—dated 12 March 2003.
Surprisingly, the Greens, hoping to double their representation on the council, haven't bothered with leaflets either. Once again, I have looked at their website and read through the 24-page manifesto for this election that is so carefully hidden away there. OK, printing it out for everyone would use up trees but an advertising campaign to draw attention to its presence would have helped. It's very detailed, and much of it makes sense to anyone of a broadly liberal, social-democratic inclination. One policy proposal regarded as long overdue by anyone who has ever looked at the educational map of Brighton is that new educational facilities should be (re-)established in the city centre. Nonetheless, the Greens supported the new schools admissions policy that is guaranteed to increase school-run traffic—a most un-green idea. And the statement that 'Any money that has to be spent on yet another ballot for change is wasted money' (Manifesto, page 3) sounds suspiciously anti-democratic, whatever the context.
And finally, the fifth party: Brighton & Hove Independents. As previously noted, their policies are shared with one or other of the parties, so they could work on an ad hoc basis with any party that can gain control. But with only six candidates for the city's 54 seats and the dead weight of unthinking voter inertia working against them, the chances of making an impact must be slim.
To judge by reports of political activity from friends in other wards, efforts have at best been patchy and sporadic, at worse non-existent. Perhaps politicians don't think the electorate is interested, or maybe that it's not worth making the effort to try to interest them. If so, writing 'none of the above' in big letters across the ballot paper would be an appropriate response. Unfortunately, a lot of people need to think that's worth doing just to shake the system up a little. Thousands of deliberately spoilt ballots would have an impact that abstention by absence doesn't. 'None of the above' is, in fact, the policy of the Protest Vote Party, but they have candidates in only two wards, not including mine. Good luck to them.
I predict that turnout may be marginally higher this time because there have been recent issues of strong and divisive local concern. And I shall be there tomorrow, with my polling card in hand, making my mark for . . . well, let's leave that until tomorrow.
So what's the verdict? On the basis of attention paid to this voter, not an easy choice.
The Grumpy Old Vote has gone to Labour for some elections past, since at least before the Thatcher disaster. But if the stories of gerrymandering by Labour councillors to get dodgy policies accepted (school admissions, the Frank Gehry development) are even half true, that would not be an appropriate response this time. Besides, ALL governments run out of steam after six or seven years and as my idea for a sabbatical year are not even on the political agenda (remind me to tell you about that), a change has to be as good as a rest.
Above all, with the serious possibility (even probability) of losing control of the council, Labour has not sent me a single election leaflet. So if they don't try to win, they may as well lose. I went to the trouble of looking at the website, which was mostly self-congratulatory about achievements over the past decade. Some of the policies were ones a council of almost any persuasion would have implemented, some are nationally imposed (like free bus passes for 60+s). Mysteriously, a claim is made to have established an 'elected Older People's Council to represent 60+s'. Elected by whom, may I ask? I am 60+ (just, though you'd hardly believe it) and I have never heard of this council. Window-dressing? Cronyism? Pointlessness?
The Conservatives may oppose the Gehry project but they were in favour of the schools policy until the last minute, and their policy about cars is likely to lead to worse transport conditions, rather than better. They are also the imcumbents in this ward, so voting Conservative would not bring about a desirable change.
The Lib Dems haven't bothered with leaflets, probably because they came fourth in the last local elections and so don't stand much chance, despite the city being surrounded by Lib Dem parliamentary constituences. The website's homepage has a link to a City Council Manifesto—dated 12 March 2003.
Surprisingly, the Greens, hoping to double their representation on the council, haven't bothered with leaflets either. Once again, I have looked at their website and read through the 24-page manifesto for this election that is so carefully hidden away there. OK, printing it out for everyone would use up trees but an advertising campaign to draw attention to its presence would have helped. It's very detailed, and much of it makes sense to anyone of a broadly liberal, social-democratic inclination. One policy proposal regarded as long overdue by anyone who has ever looked at the educational map of Brighton is that new educational facilities should be (re-)established in the city centre. Nonetheless, the Greens supported the new schools admissions policy that is guaranteed to increase school-run traffic—a most un-green idea. And the statement that 'Any money that has to be spent on yet another ballot for change is wasted money' (Manifesto, page 3) sounds suspiciously anti-democratic, whatever the context.
And finally, the fifth party: Brighton & Hove Independents. As previously noted, their policies are shared with one or other of the parties, so they could work on an ad hoc basis with any party that can gain control. But with only six candidates for the city's 54 seats and the dead weight of unthinking voter inertia working against them, the chances of making an impact must be slim.
To judge by reports of political activity from friends in other wards, efforts have at best been patchy and sporadic, at worse non-existent. Perhaps politicians don't think the electorate is interested, or maybe that it's not worth making the effort to try to interest them. If so, writing 'none of the above' in big letters across the ballot paper would be an appropriate response. Unfortunately, a lot of people need to think that's worth doing just to shake the system up a little. Thousands of deliberately spoilt ballots would have an impact that abstention by absence doesn't. 'None of the above' is, in fact, the policy of the Protest Vote Party, but they have candidates in only two wards, not including mine. Good luck to them.
I predict that turnout may be marginally higher this time because there have been recent issues of strong and divisive local concern. And I shall be there tomorrow, with my polling card in hand, making my mark for . . . well, let's leave that until tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)