Petrol prices – action is needed

Today hauliers nationwide are leading a protest against the increase in petrol prices which have been prompted by the surge in worldwide oil prices to record levels.

Petrol prices in and around Weston-super-Mare are pretty much in line with the national average, unlike many south west towns, where the price per litre is higher still. However, since January, local petrol prices have on average risen by 8% for unleaded and 14% for diesel.

When you take into account the fact that oil companies have continued to make enormous profits running into billions of pounds and the Government continues to take around 60% of the at the pump price in tax – it is difficult to see how such continued pressure on motorists can be justified.

We have not seen improvements in public transport locally. Nothing has been done to make commuting to work easier and little to create local jobs to diminish the need for thousands of Westonians to out-commute in the first place.

The Government needs to continue its efforts to increase oil supplies and reduce crude prices – but it cannot hide behind international factors indefinitely. They must also take a lead and show that they are hearing the legitimate concerns of people across the country. The proposed 2p increase in fuel tax due later this year must be cancelled.

The oil companies must be made to share their profits with motorists through reductions in fuel prices at the pump and the Government must show that the taxes they take from motorists are truly being used to improve public transport and protect our environment.

Eight greedy councillors join pension scheme – but who they are is a secret

Eight North Somerset Councillors have so far joined the Local Government Pension Scheme following the authority’s decision at the beginning of April to allow elected members to join.

But their identity remains secret after Town Hall officials refused to provide the names of those who had signed up.

I’ve been challenging the decision to award councillors an inflation-busting pay and pension rise and am really disappointed that many have already started lining their pension funds with taxpayers cash too.

Not content with awarding themselves pay rises of up to 50%, they want their pension funds stuffed with taxpayers’ cash too.

Taxpayers will be paying 17.7% of these councillors allowances into pension funds – that will cost us all somewhere between £100 and nearly £500 a month for each councillor, depending on their position. It is disgraceful at a time when council tax bills are going up and services are being cut.

I asked the council’s director of finance, Phil Hall, to confirm the identity of the councillors who have signed up to the pension fund. He declined to provide the information, saying it was “personal to the councillors involved and I cannot therefore disclose it”.

Local residents have every right to know the identity of these councillors. How can we hold them to account for their money-grabbing ways if we don’t know who they are? I have submitted a formal request to the council today under the Freedom of Information Act for details of those who have joined the pension scheme.

Is the cost of democracy too high?

The story of Tory MP Derek Conway and his family is probably not typical of MPs. I am sure that they aren’t all fleecing the system for all it is worth.

However, it does raise a few serious questions.

Surely MPs should not have a total free reign to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash employing their family, friends and goodness knows who else at our expense? Surely there needs to be much improved arrangements?

As I understand it, MPs get their pay regardless of the hours they do. So the dedicated public servant who works in their constituency, in Westminster and elsewhere hour after hour gets the same pay as the guy (and its usually a guy) who turns up now and again because he’s got a safe seat and another job as a barrister or businessman or whatever. How can that be right?

So first off, surely it is possible to establish some kind of job description for MPs that would cover public expectations of them in terms of hours of work, commitment and so on. And then the pay packet could be comensurate with that. It works for almost every other working person in the world, why should MPs be different?

Second, MPs clearly should not be setting their own pay, pensions and allowances terms – however much they are supposed to be ‘independently’ advised (by people they appoint of course). Is it beyond the wit of us to have a genuinely independent pay review body who could determine pay and allowances for MPs?

Third, should MPs be allowed to employ their family and friends at all? Doubts about the nepotism will always abound. But there may be perfectly sound reasons why an MPs husband or relative is absolutely the right person for the job. Should they be disbarred just because they are related to their would be employer? Again, it should be perfectly possible to have independent oversight of recruitment of staff to ensure that job descrptions (not just standard ones that mean nothing) and hours etc are clear. And perhaps independent House of Commons adminstrators could sit in on interviews (maybe as part of a system of spot-checks) to ensure fair play.

Fourth, all of this must be out in the open. Public servants have to accept that their dealings are of concern to the public and we have a right to know where the money goes. MPs must not, as some of them have, seek to restrict access to their mileage claims and so on. I accept that the great majority have nothing to hide, but the point of principle is that they should be prepared to disclose this information – and in some detail – to their employers – us!

I want to get elected to Parliament. But I do not want to be part of a system where the public feel that we are only in it for what we can get.

If may well be that with genuine independent oversight our democracy is comes pretty cheap – but we need to get confidence back, and fast. You don’t trust a dodgy car salesman because you fear he is always out to diddle you. Do we want MPs to end up like that too?

Barrage – a fight for Weston

The Government has given the go-ahead to a two-year study into the possibility of a Severn Barrage.

This is good news for Weston – up to a point. If built in the right location and in the right way, a barrage has the potential to be a huge force for good for our economy, tourism and for our sea defences.

But we must not make the mistake of believing that all this will all necessarily work out to our local advantage. No one in this London-based study group will be looking to do Weston any favours.

Already campaigners in Burnham-on-Sea want the barrage built further west, others may well argue for a more easterly location.

There will be those who will make the case for a smaller barrage or a series of tidal lagoons. They will be cheaper and easier to construct. They may see Weston missing out on local benefits altogether.

We must not let that happen. The community must stand together to argue our corner and make sure that a barrage, if built, doesn’t just deliver wider economic and environmental benefits but delivers real change for Weston.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to create jobs, generate investment and transform Weston bay. We must not let it slip by through complacency or because the doom mongers say it will never happen.

EU Treaty Referendum

A few people have contacted me to ask my views on the Lisbon EU Reform Treaty, and more particularly the decision of Lib Dem MPs not to support a referendum on the treaty.

<>Personally, I am disappointed by the decision made by Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty because I disagree with it. I have written to Nick Clegg today to express that view.

There should be a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty, in my view it is insufficiently different to the EU Constitution which the then Prime Minister Tony Blair (and the Lib Dems and Tories) promised a referendum on.

If I was an MP today, I would not have supported my party’s line and would have voted for a referendum on the treaty.

That said, I do agree with Nick Clegg that what we really need is a full referendum on Britain’s continuing membership of the EU – in or out. We have not had any national vote on the issue since 1975 and I believe it is time for a proper national debate on our continuing membership of the EU.

For me, politics is about determining principles and then arguing your case in favour of them. All political parties and politicians need to start having the courage to make their principles clear and having the courage to argue for them.

Those who are enthusiasts or sceptics where the European Union is concerned should not have any reason to be fearful of a democratic debate and vote. They must set out their stall and argue their case. I fear that semantic arguments about what means what and whether a treaty is a constitution or vice versa help no-one.

How many mayors does it take to run Weston?

Apparently North Somerset’s Conservative leader from Portishead wants the council to become a Borough so it can have a Mayor instead of a Chairman.

He says it’s confusing that the district council has a leader and a chairman. I’m puzzled as to why he thinks having two mayors – one for Weston and one for North Somerset – could be less confusing.

What’s more wasting money on a change to Borough status, repainting all the signs, printing new letterheads and giving us another Mayor seems to be a very strange set of priorities for a council that claims to be hard up.

More worrying though, is that this suggestion shows the increasing ‘anti-Weston’ feeling there is amongst senior Conservatives – most of who live and represent areas outside our town.

They aren’t bothered about undermining Weston’s traditional Mayoral post because they aren’t really bothered about the town at all.

An interview with the manager following the defeat to …

Weston-super-Mare football club’s effervescent communications officer Alan Cooper has started a blog on the Weston & Somerset Mercury website. Commendably, it is updated a lot more regularly than this one – I just hope that every entry won’t begin with “an interview with the manager following the defeat to” …

In fairness, the team are doing tremendously well this season, all things considered. If only we could get more than a couple of hundred people to turn up to the stadium. Without bigger crowds, and the extra income that generates, we cannot hope to build for the long term. More Westonians travel to Bristol every week to watch City or Rovers than go down the road and support their hometown club. How do we change that?

CH v NC: what’s not to like?

I watched the Question Time leadership special last night already well in the Nick Clegg camp (despite his second best performance at the Bristol Hustings).

So where does an hour of the BBC’s flagship politics programme leave me?

Firstly, fed up with the BBC’s political coverage. David Dimbleby is just not suited to the job of presenter/chairman. Whoever selects the questions obviously hasn’t got much of a clue. And QT is followed by The Week – which thanks to Portillo and Abbots, is just a couple of unrepresentative has been talking heads boring us all to sleep.

But I digress. What of Nick and Chris? Well they were both ok, not brilliant, but ok. They both flapped around a little and seemed to be trying a little too hard to be passionate, committed and a little dominant. But when the questions are pants and the chairman is hopeless there is a limit to how much shine you can put on show.

On the whole, as in Bristol, I thought Chris delivered the more impressive performance. He was confident, commanding and now and again witty. Nick seemed more reserved and particularly struggled to deal with previous views being quoted back at him.

The big plus having seen them both at hustings and on QT is that they are both perfectly capable. I don’t think either of them will turn people off, I don’t think either will be a disaster and I don’t think if either is elected as leader that we’ll need to worry about another contest for a good few years. I’d be perfectly content with Chris or Nick.

So what’s not to like? Well, bluntly, Chris Huhne. I don’t know what it is, or whether anyone else shares the view, but I just don’t find Chris likeable. He’s clever and speaks with passion and drive. But, I just don’t warm to him as a person. And when it comes to connecting with people, that is important.

Nick is a risky choice. He isn’t the polished article he’s made out to be. He’s new to Westminster politics and, unlike with Chris, it shows. But there is that certain something there that makes me want to give him a chance.

He’s got that Kennedy-esque (JF not C) personal touch, despite privileged background. He’s the guy who comes across as though he hasn’t got all the answers – but he’s damn well determined to work to find them. And I like him. When Dimbleby is putting him on the spot, I feel sympathy not amusement. You can’t buy that, you can’t learn it. You’ve either got it or you haven’t. And for me, Nick has got it in spades.

UPDATE: I’m backing Nick. That much is clear. But can his campaign try at least to maintain some sense of proportion? “Nick’s performance on Question Time tonight was electrifying”, so Julia Goldsworthy is quoted as saying in an email in my inbox this morning. Come on. Electrifying? He was second best out of two!

Bristol leadership hustings

I walked in the door likely to support Nick Clegg – and I walked out with the same feeling. But Chris Huhne was excellent and, insofar as its possible, won the bout comprehensively.

<>We began with 15 minute speeches from each candidate. Chris went first and was passionate, entertaining and engaging. He outlined a number of key pledges and ideas and conveyed a real hunger for the job.

<><>However, I found two aspects about his speech disappointing: first, were the couple of digs at Nick Clegg. I appreciate the desire to demonstrate differences – but I am not sure that open attacks on individuals is helpful in politics at the best of times, but certainly not when you’re on the same side. Never speak ill of a fellow liberal, as Ronald Reagan should have said.

The second, more substantial concern, was that Chris’ speech was very firmly aimed at pushing the buttons of Lib Dem activists. Now in one sense, that is commendable and sensible, he after all talking to us and seeking our votes. However, I am not sure that this was a case of Chris shaping the message for the audience, I got the impression that his language and his priorities genuinely are those that he spoke about.

It felt a bit old fashioned, a little, dare I say, in the language of the left, and a little bit preachy. Sure he got strong applause for his attacks on Trident (though no explanation of what he was going to do about it), strong applause for the need for environmental action (though nothing new there) and strong applause when talking up the importance of public services (and implicitly knocking those – perhaps like Nick Clegg – who might want to manage things differently). But I’m not sure a public meeting in my constituency would have been as excited by those issues.

Chris made no substantial mention of crime, health, education, immigration, or Iraq (except to say, I was on the march you know), Afghanistan and the war on terror. And yet despite this, he was impressive, polished, engaging and genuinely good in a way that I had not expected.

Nick Clegg spoke second. His style was different, he focused on the five themes from his manifesto and used examples from his own experience to illustrate them.  He spoke without notes (as, it appeared, did Chris) and seemed to speak from the heart. His style always comes across as if he is thinking on his feet. The frequent “umms” and “ers” illustrate this in a slightly annoying fashion.

Nick didn’t particularly offer any startling ideas or solutions, he wasn’t as entertaining as Chris and didn’t offer any good one-liners or soundbites. He didn’t speak at length about any of the issues that get Lib Dem hearts-a-beating. And he didn’t get any applause during his speech.

But one thing he said, and that he repeated later, really struck a chord with me. “We must start where the people are, not where we want them to be.” He was illustrating the need to make the case about the green agenda and carry people with us, but as a general point it is a good one.

Leadership is about leading of course – it is about new ideas and bold approaches. But it must also be about recognising and instinctively sensing where the British people are and what their hopes and aspirations might be. On that score Nick did well.

On the questions – which were typical Lib Dem fare, world debt, the environment, targeting strategy, etc – Chris was better in every case.  He has some excellent lines and, particularly on the environment, seemed to have the facts and figures at his fingertips. Nick floundered a little and sometimes drifted away from the subject to make some other point.

And yet, good as Chris was – and he was good – I still didn’t feel as though I had heard someone who could connect with ordinary people. He could say things I wanted to hear – but as the chairman rightly said at the beginning – we Lib Dems are abnormal. We’re members of a political party. We’re the kind of people who travel for miles to attend a leadership hustings.

We need a leader who can talk the language of ordinary folk. Someone who is instinctively in tune with the aspirations of the British people. Someone who understands that political leadership needs to be about listening and persuading and not just lecturing. Someone with a vision of where the party and the country needs to be headed. Someone who can make their case in terms of how things affect the man in the street.
Nick Clegg may not be that man – but, in my judgement, he is closer to it than Chris Huhne.

TropicanaWatch launched

I’ve set up a new website to keep residents informed about progress on the Tropicana and to keep a watchful eye on the council and Henry Boot to make sure they deliver what residents want.

Visit TropicanaWatch to find out more.