You might like to tell B&H buses that - they think they have grown steadily at 5% per year for the last 12 years - no mention that most of it was in the last four years which would be quite a good thing to boast about don't you think ?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Green Party Leader on LBC
- Thread starter Common as Mook
- Start date
You might like to tell B&H buses that - they think they have grown steadily at 5% per year for the last 12 years - no mention that most of it was in the last four years which would be quite a good thing to boast about don't you think ?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,315
the article doesnt tell us why this edge case took so long - maybe it was perpetual objections and re-applying for permissions, access to site, or additional works that didn't get permission, etc. putting a tax on that permission will only make it cost more, and feed into more expensive houses. taxes do not make things happen, they are normally very good at stopping things from happening though. the fact is, and the point im trying to make, is that planning permission is a very valuable commodity because it costs time and money to obtain. it is scarce, relative to the demand. it is the primary obstruction to more building, green or brown field, and until it is addressed, we cannot hope to build at the sort of rate that is needed.
OK - taking one example - Australia - property is growing in price everywhere but at very different rates. Except for the capital where it's decreasing. It's the ideal place to test the theory as each state or territory has a similar sized city and it fails the test despite there being masses of new land to build on.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Price-History
The Large One
Who's Next?
1 (though not supported by other parties), 5 (before govt funding was stopped), 7, 8, 11 (funding just received for that) and 13.
Don't know how they've done with '2'. '3' is in early planning. Don't know what '4', '6' nor '10' are.
Not bad for a first-time minority administration.
You've also overlooked the council's success - making the place the most visited coastal town or city in the country (and eighth overall) with increased visitor numbers, encouraging business (including lowest shop vacancies, thriving Chamber of Commerce), the Level, the Seven Dials, reduced road accidents, reduced road deaths, highest proportion of Living Wage employers in the UK, more sustainable transport use.
Just because these things aren't in their manifesto doesn't follow they didn't intend to work on them.
Last edited:
A very convenient dodge of point 9.
They claim they've met 4 ... but using some rather dodgy figures. I don't think everyone would agree with the Green interpretation of them
EDIT; Found the details
"He (Bill Randall) said that "In 2011, we said we would start 1,000 new affordable homes. In the event, and in the teeth of the recession, we have planned and produced a programme with our partners that will yield 750 new homes, plus the 15 pitches on the travellers’ site. In addition, 245 homes planned and approved under the Conservatives have been completed and we’ve also brought more than 700 empty homes back into use.”
In other words, by counting houses started by the Tories and traveller pitches, the Greens can just about meeting their targets. It's a wonder they don't count shoeboxes in middle of road
Last edited:
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
They don't need to include the cost of the land. Following the 'successful' plant pot pilot in Brighton, they simply plan to build them on the roads, thus solving the affordable housing challenge at the same time as softening the roads with calming reminders that they are residential areas and therefore the 20 mph limit should be observed. Every road will be redesignated a chicane area.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Number 1 was never going to work, if number 5 was centrally funded then they could hardly claim to have "created an ambitious programme", number 7 had cross-party support even before the 2011 election, number 8 (the 20 mph speed limit) is only in one or two areas in particular and controversially Lewes Road which isn't particularly pedestrian either.
I'll definitely applaud the council for the London Road/the Level redevelopment, that's a huge success but I sincerely doubt that the council can claim much credit for visitor numbers to the town. As with bus use, it was always high anyway. Encouraging business? No, not having that. This council is not particularly business friendly. The chamber of commerce is independent from the council anyway, isn't it? "Sustainable transport use" - Are you referring to the buses? I thought this was where we came in.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
This isn't turning into a scene from the Life of Brian is it...?
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
...and what about recycling rates?
Latest figures from SITA website
http://www.sita.co.uk/waste-as-a-resource/recycling-in-the-uk
Brighton ranked 306th out of 326th in the country and if that isn't bad enough they dropped 4 places since the Greens took power. No garden waste collected.. Compare with Conservative controlled Worthing which is 260th out of 325 and do collect garden waste. Conservative held Horsham Borough council 125th out of 326 and collect garden waste, Conservative held Mid Sussex District which is 161st and collect garden waste. Conservative held Wealden council which is 99th and collect garden waste. Lib Dem controlled Eastbourne council which is 264th and Lewes council which is 312th.
Over 93% of all other councils in the UK have better recycling rates than Brighton and relative recycling rates have actually dropped since the Greens took power. It's clear that Tory councils are better for the environment than this Green council and for that alone they ought to be slung out by their ear. It's a disgrace.
Latest figures from SITA website
http://www.sita.co.uk/waste-as-a-resource/recycling-in-the-uk
Brighton ranked 306th out of 326th in the country and if that isn't bad enough they dropped 4 places since the Greens took power. No garden waste collected.. Compare with Conservative controlled Worthing which is 260th out of 325 and do collect garden waste. Conservative held Horsham Borough council 125th out of 326 and collect garden waste, Conservative held Mid Sussex District which is 161st and collect garden waste. Conservative held Wealden council which is 99th and collect garden waste. Lib Dem controlled Eastbourne council which is 264th and Lewes council which is 312th.
Over 93% of all other councils in the UK have better recycling rates than Brighton and relative recycling rates have actually dropped since the Greens took power. It's clear that Tory councils are better for the environment than this Green council and for that alone they ought to be slung out by their ear. It's a disgrace.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Ouch, I've split my sides.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
So they took over Tory control with us at 302nd, and despite the biggest budget cuts in generations, they're the disgrace because we dropped 4 places!?
That makes sense.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Err...yes. All councils suffered budget cuts, Brighton wasn't alone in this. If there's one thing that you would think having a Green council should guarantee it's that the recycling rates would improve, it's part of their DNA and their mantra. They made it a pledge to hit the 70% mark according to their manifesto blurb. It's currently at 25%. Yes, it's a disgrace.
I totally agree that it's a disgraceful record but what do you think the council should be doing to improve recycling rates. Heavy fines for households? Weekly collections? An extensive propaganda campaign? In a time of budget cuts, the last two would be expensive and the first one would be very unpopular. Councils are on their own can do little to change mindsets, I'd have thought (which made the Green claim that it could hit the 70% mark, a rather foolish one)
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It's a failure, but the disgrace is at the feet of not just this administration, but at the feet of the administrations that have failed to implement a satisfactory service in the first place. I'm sure they are as devastated by this as anyone, but quite simply the council's budget is it breaking point, other services have had to be cut, they get out voted on certain things they want to do. I've never said they've done a great job, I don't think TLO is either, it's just the rhetoric that they're a disgrace and this and that, well, it lacks a bit of objectivity to be honest.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Focus on its core activities and the ones that people will vote for them. The 20 mph speed limit, for a start that has cost millions and no-one likes and has had questionable effect should have been quietly shelved. Invest that money in recycling and waste collection. We're a tourist town and clean streets help improve the ambience of the place.
I've pretty much (silently) agreed with everything you've said on this thread, but I've got to take a slight issue with this one. Why couldn't they have done what the more environmentally-aware Tory councils did and introduce garden waste collections? I've only got a small garden but it generates a surprising amount of waste - and yes I compost. In the time when I didn't have a car all I could do was discreetly put it in the normal bin. I shall be car-less again soon so I shall have to go back to doing that.
It IS a pretty poor show when the one thing you'd think the Greens would be really good at they've been absolutely pissed on by Tories elsewhere in Sussex.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
But as I've explained ALL councils have suffered the same cuts so the Greens are starting are on a level playing field money-wise with every other council. They are also starting with a very low base point because, as you rightly point out, we were 302nd when they took over so it should have been easy-peasy to implement some changes to move up that ladder and yet they still managed to make things worse. A Green council worse at recycling than practically every single Tory one. I think that's being pretty objective, don't you?
As election gets closer all Parties will promise money for Vote winners ie NHS,Teachers/education etc etc......They will all struggle to convince where the money is coming from..The idea of 1/2 million new homes for needy sounds magnificent but at 20 houses to the acre that equates to 25,000 acres or 39 square miles........
And there, precisely, is the issue with the Greens. Supposedly "progressive" they have effectively lied in their manifesto (just like everyone else) and failed to deliver on something that is their USP (not like everyone else at all, Labour was great at spending and the Tories have been super at cutting things they don't like).