Vaping in Bradford. Why the Council voted down a more liberal approach.

Last week Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors voted down a motion I submitted to Bradford Council calling for a 'vaping friendly city'. This motion set out how Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians had described vaping as "at least 95%" safer than smoking and argued that we should be more positive about e-cigarettes as an effective aid to quitting smoking. The proposed resolution was to conduct a review of current policies with a view to being more open to vaping in public places.

Now the dust has settled I thought I'd share with you the main reasons given by those voting down the motion (other than the real reason for Labour's opposition - this was a Tory motion and we don't vote for Tory motions). This is from memory but I think captures the essence of the debate - supporters of vaping will be very familiar with the arguments.

1. "But 5% of something very harmful is still harmful"

2. "People don't like the smell of vaping - and what about asthmatics?"

3. "There isn't enough evidence that vaping isn't harmful."

4. "We've got used to people not smoking in offices, this is a step backwards."

5. "The flavours smell horrible and are targeted a children."

6. "Here's an opinion piece from the British Medical Journal that says vaping doesn't help people quit

7. "There's no evidence that liberalising rules on vaping encourages people to switch"

We then got three very specific arguments.

8. "It would confuse people because our neighbouring authorities have different policies."

9. "We don't have to lead, to fly the flag, all the time, we don't have to do this."

10. "Officers in public health* are too busy to conduct a review."

*Bradford spends best part of a million quid on smoking cessation.

And finally

11. "We should be talking about more important things for the District than vaping."

It was a pretty depressing episode. I've learnt that, even with a pretty modest motion asking that officers look at our approach to vaping, the controlling Labour group will vote stuff down - "Not-Invented-Here Syndrome" I call it and this combines with a knee-jerk tribalism ("must be a bad idea if the Tories are proposing it") to make it hard to make progress.

Where we go from here I'm not sure. Putting another motion to Council won't work and I'd already tried approaching public health and the council's HR department directly (they chose not to reply). We've made - and will continue to make - the case through the press. Maybe Bradford's vapers are happy to muddle through with a mish-mash of different attitudes towards what they do. And perhaps public health (and Labour councillors) are happy to conflate smoking and vaping because it suits their disdain for what seems like a decidedly working-class habit.

In the end any change will only come through the 20,000 or so Bradford vapers putting pressure on the Council to change. Right now I've gone as far as I can take it.

.....

In case you wondered what we do at Council meetings in Bradford

This is cross-posted from the Bradford Council Conservative Group's Facebook page. It's an illustration of the nonsense we get up to at our Council meetings. Most of the time we spend hours debating motions before resolving to write a letter to a minister. We spend very little time discussing things that we actually control like empltying bins, fixing the roads, looking after children and caring for the elderly. And when we do propose that the Council actually does something, the leadership arrange for it to be voted down.

"FULL COUNCIL MEETING – FIVE-AND-A-HALF HOURS TO ACHIEVE WHAT?

Yesterday Bradford Council met. All ninety of us gathered to, in theory, make decisions about the things that matter to the residents or Bradford. So what did we do?

The first part of the meeting was fine. We received five petitions asking for the Council to act on various matters and these were referred to committees for further consideration. We asked questions of the leader and received financial and corporate planning documents. From a four pm start we’d concluded this process by about ten to six.

The meeting however finished over three hours later during which time we:

1.       Agreed to write letters to the Home Secretary, the Education Secretary, and the Boundary Commission. In the last case the letter concerns issues not within the remit of the commission as it simply criticises the criteria given to that Commission by Parliament and Government.

2.       Rejected proposals to recognise and support e-cigarettes as an effective smoking cessation method that is used by 20-30,000 Bradfordians

3.       Turned down taking positive action against dangerous and anti-social driving

4.       Had an hour long debate about education that resolved nothing at all (except that a majority of Councillors don’t agree with grammar schools)

5.       Voted down the opportunity for the Executive to lead on Bradford Council’s response to the flooding in December 2015. Instead Council decided it was fine for an update to go to a scrutiny committee in six months time

6.       Agreed the salary packages of two senior officers 

We spent a whole evening failing to act on things that actually matter to the Bradford public like dangerous driving, smoking deaths and flooding. Instead the Controlling Labour group preferred to spend time debating a 1984 mass picket in South Yorkshire, moaning about national education policy, and moralising about refugees.

It is difficult to justify keeping Councillors in the meeting for hours when all we do is pass motions instructing the Chief Executive to write letters to people. Yet this is all the current Labour leadership seem to want to do. This year we’ve written letters to a host of government ministers all of which are carefully crafted by officers and all of which receive carefully word answers that change nothing.

But when it comes to taking real action – doing things as a Council – the Labour leadership consistently vote down proposals. As a result, the Council is clear that it isn’t interested in reducing the harm from smoking, developing a more active road safety strategy and treating the risk of flood as a priority."

....

Disappointment. Or how Bradford Council gave up the fight over the Royal Photography Society collection.

****


Yesterday Bradford Council met and, amongst some other stuff, debated what has gone on with the National Media Museum through a motion I proposed asking the Council to, in effect, keep up the pressure on assorted London-based government agencies and ministers over the transfer of the Royal Photography Society collection from Bradford to the Victoria & Albert Museum. Our motion was amended by the Council's Portfolio Holder for (amongst other things) culture, Susan Hinchcliffe, and this amendment was passed.

In the end the debate was a little ill-tempered - not because of my speech but because of Cllr Hinchcliffe's attempt to turn it into a piece of party political yah boo. In summary I argued that the anger in Bradford - and elsewhere - over the manner of the Science Museum Group's decision needs channelling to the wider subject of how it is assumed that any new national institution has to be in London. And that it's our duty as the ninety people elected to represent the half million Bradford residents to lead the charge - however quixotic that charge might be. Oh, and that there are a lot of pretty angry folk out there.

Cllr Hinchcliffe saw things differently. She said she had acted - mostly by writing a letter and having a meeting. The museum was saved. Visitor numbers were up. And who wants a bunch of silly photographs anyway when we'll have lots of lovely sciencey stuff. Then came the crass party politics - apparently I hadn't done anything really and 'the Tories' probably had an ulterior motive about doing down the Council. Bear in mind that this ridiculous attack came after I'd praised one of Bradford's Labour MPs for her efforts and criticised the Secretary of State for Culture for describing the National Media Museum as a 'satellite'.

The result of all this - plus the tribal nature of voting on Council - means that the Council has made an expression of regret at the Science Museum's decision, committed itself to support the museum's new focus and undertaken to write a stern letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport saying how jolly bad it is that so much arts funding goes to London. The idea of a cross-party campaign to persuade the V&A to base a new centre for art in photography here in Bradford was lost. And it was lost because of a crass piece of party politics - plus a huge piece of self-justification - by Cllr Hinchcliffe.

Perhaps I was a little bit naive in believing that the Council - which sort of knew about the possible RPS decision a year ago - would commit itself to a campaign that set it at loggerheads with the Science Museum Group. But I still think I was right to make the noise I made - as Councillors we're not elected to act as local agents for national government, even the cuddly bits like the national museum groups. Yet this is how Bradford Council seems to want to behave.

I am, as they say, disappointed.

....

In which research shows (again) that I'm right and Bradford Council is wrong about hot food takeaways?

****

Bradford Council recently - along with other councils - introduced some supplementary planning guidance on hot food takeaways. This guidance included a ban of such establishments within 400m of schools, youth clubs, parks and places where there might be 'young people'. This is, we're told, part of the City's 'obesity strategy'.

The Conservative Group opposed the policy (I would add that the Liberal Democrats, not to be outdone by Labour proposed an even more frightening set of controls, licenses and rules governing everything from the calorie content of the food down to the wages of the employees). This opposition was on the grounds that there really isn't any evidence supporting such a ban. The Local Government Association and one or two other bodies cite some research in Cambridge looking at adult commuters as justification - this is for a ban based on reducing obesity in children. To give Bradford's Director of Public Health her due, she agreed with me on the lack of evidence and suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best strategy.

So despite the lack of evidence, the Labour leadership of the Council still introduced the policy - more-or-less on the basis that the lack of evidence didn't matter because it was for the children.

Today I read - via Chris Snowdon - of some research conducted at Leeds Beckett University that comes to the following conclusion:

The research study, led by Leeds Beckett childhood obesity expert Dr Claire Griffiths, measured the exposure of over 13,000 children in Leeds to supermarkets, takeaways and retail outlets in three relevant environments – their home, their school and their commuting route. These environments were then used to estimate the association between the food environment and the child’s weight status.

Results from the study, published today in the International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, revealed that there was no evidence of an association between the number or type of food outlets and childhood obesity in any of these environments. Additionally, there was no evidence of an association between the proximity to the nearest food outlet from the home or school and childhood obesity.

So we have a planning policy that has no evidence to support it - none at all. Yet is will be used to stop people opening new businesses. Moreover - and importantly - the study wasn't just looking at takeaways but at all food outlets, at the so-called obesogenic environment. And they found no link between any environment and childhood obesity.

Perhaps Bradford needs to rethink its obesity strategy. Perhaps by focusing on the problem - people who are seriously overweight - rather than trying to deny pleasure to people who don't have a problem.

....

On blocking access...a slight rant

****

I sent an email entitled "a slight rant". It went like this:

Hi,

Corporate Overview & Scrutiny are running a review of drugs and alcohol work in the district. The Council spends some £12 million every year on this work with similar amounts spent by health services. That's a lot of money and some important services.

 

However, if I want to do a little research into drugs policy - look at the case for deregulation or at some of the work being done by charities and health services maybe...

 

...I can't because the Council blocks just about every site and I'm not going to keep sending requests to the 'infosec' address.

 

I'm a grown up. I am not about to start up a drugs peddling site nor am I about to use council IT to make or promote the illegal purchase of drugs. The presence of drugs references - or alcohol or smoking, for that matter - on my screen is not about to turn me into some sort of crack-addled speed freak.

 

What exactly are we doing? Who exactly are we protecting? And how am I to do my job?

 

Many thanks

 

Simon

Nothing to add to this but am I alone in finding this stuff utterly maddening.

....

What Bradford Council said about Kings Science Academy in September...

****

Risks and weaknesses in financial systems, such as procurement authorisations, payroll and credit card payments were identified by EFA Audit - the governing body has since appointed key personnel, including the appointment of an RO (Responsible Officer), and is in the process of stabilising procedures to enable effective financial management.*

It seems to me that, if there were real problems in current financial management at the school, they would have been mentioned? More to the point, the school was seeking the Council's help and advice and, had Cllr Berry been doing something other than trying to get selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate, he might have noticed! It's clear that the school had some financial management problems that have been addressed - there is no suggestion of wrongdoing.

To suggest that the school isn't accountable - as Cllr Berry did more than once through his Twitter account - is a complete misrepresentation of the situation at the school. And - more to the point - the Council appears to have known about the position all along!

*Quote is from a governance audit conducted by the Council in September.

....

Subsidising union officials - time for Bradford Council to stop

****

New stats show cutting back on trade union facility time will save £400,000-a-year of taxpayers’ money.

This is at the Department for Communities and Local Government. We know that Bradford spends £500,000 of local taxpayers hard earned cash on full time union officials yet bleat and mithers about "the cuts".

Time to take that cut and stop paying the wages of full-time union activists.

....

Portion control is not the business of local councils...

About the right portion size don't you think?

Let's boss takeaways about then - it'll get us a headline or two and we can claim to be 'doing something' about obesity.

But first about that obesity. They (the Council that is) start with a fib:

Health bosses estimate that about 225,000 adults in the Bradford district are overweight or obese...

Bradford's electorate - as good a proxy for adult population as you can get - is 340,000. Now while there are quite a few overweight people in the Bradford district, I don't believe for a second that two-thirds of the population are overweight. Yet that is what "health bosses estimate". Indeed the actual statistics (from five years ago) had levels at just over 20% for men and 23% for women. But let's make the statistics up - so much simpler than actually using the real figures.

It really is none of the Council's business. While we fretting about keeping old people's homes open, providing children's centres and much else of real value, we really shouldn't be spending scare resources nannying the population about its chubbiness and takeaways about their portion sizes.

I'm with Abbas Ahmed on this:

At Royal’s Balti Restaurant and Fast Food in Great Horton Road, kebabs are sold in large sizes only in all but one flavour.

When asked whether their portions were too large, takeaway worker Abbas Ahmed said: “It’s the right size.”

He said people could have smaller portions if they asked for them. 

Absolutely Abbas - more power to your elbow!

....

Bradford Council and e-cigarettes

****

I can now confirm that Bradford Council doesn't have a policy on e-cigarettes - this means, as the Council Leader told me, that people can use them on Council premises until such time as some nannying fussbucket introduces a policy to ban them.

This seems to be good news although I'd love to see if people have tried!

Let's remind ourselves why it's good news:

"Nicotine itself is not a particularly hazardous drug," says Professor John Britton, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians.

"It's something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine.

"If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today. It's a massive potential public health prize."

....

Bradford doesn't have a 'housing crisis' - not even a little one

****

Almost exactly a year ago, Cllr Val Slater, scourge of the middle classes (and Buttershaw councillor who lives in Bingley), had this to say about Bradford's "housing crisis":

“We do have something of a housing crisis and when there’s a shortage of any commodity, the prices go up"

This was in response to news that, in 2011 Bradford's house prices has risen by nearly 10% and Cllr Slater leapt on this to try and justify building 45,000 more houses in the District - mostly on green field sites in the Aire Valley.

Yesterday the same news story popped out - except that Bradford's house prices have fallen by nearly 10%. Surprisingly, Cllr Slater wasn't there to with draw her "it's a housing crisis" argument for building more houses.

But then Bradford doesn't have a housing crisis - we have a few problems, the historically large families in the Asian community have led to a shortage of large family homes and a degree of overcrowding and there are places like Holme Wood where the private market is almost entirely private rental sector these days. These are, however, problem that reflect the City's demographics and economy rather than any lack of housing supply. If I were to make a prediction, it would be that, if the City's economy picks up, we'll see abandonment in less popular areas with a large PRS and low demand (e.g. Holme Wood, Buttershaw, Allerton).

What we don't have is a crisis in housing supply. Not even a little.

.....

In which Bradford Council shows little interest in Bingley's future....

****

Bingley Market has been struggling. Despite the location in the fine new square, the market has suffered from the lack of footfall in the town. And from Bradford Council's lack of interest in the market - indeed in the idea of markets as a permanent feature of a town rather than as a flashy gimmick for a festival day.

Some business folk in Bingley would like to take on the market - give it a real boost and try to make it work free from the attentions of council busybodies:

Richard Holmes, who manages the 5Rise shopping centre, design firm boss Richard Tempest and market trader Dean McNally had proposed running the setting-up of stalls and collecting of rents themselves as a means of securing the market’s future and saving the Council some £40,000 a year in costs

Great news surely? Local people keen to take control of a local facility and save the Council some brass? The Council have bitten these business folk's hands off?  Er..no:

‘Any relinquishing of the market operation would require a Council decision and would have to go out to tender rather than just handing the operation of the market to just one group’

What nonsense - the Council has no absolute requirement to put business of this sort out to tender merely to have identified particular reasons why not and to have explained how the market has been tested.

It seems the Council would prefer to see the market die a slow death rather than respond to a positive offer from local traders. Pretty typical. And rather sad.

....

A thought on Council budgets and social services...

****

Councils spend a lot of money - £1.3 billion in Bradford's case - but the bit that matters is the "net revenue budget". This is the bit that remains after we take account of fees and charges, remove money that is simply passed through the books (e.g. the money that goes to schools) and adjust for things we do on behalf of government like pay benefits.

In Bradford this figure is £425.9 million of which 38% comes from the Council Tax with the remainder (bar around £6 million taken from reserves) coming from central government grants. Between friends we can call this a 40/60 split. And, assuming the finance director's guesses are more-or-less right, future reductions in grant will mean that this split will be approaching 50/50.

Which brings an interesting observation - the Council's spending on what we used to call social services (children's services and adult social care) is now some £203.3 million. This is around 48% of the net revenue budget. In simple terms, the grants we receive from government pay for social services.

All this rather begs a question - since there is a national debate around adult care and a move from council commissioned block grants to personalised, individual purchase, there is little justification for this being seen as a necessary council service. The private and voluntary sector are more than capable - as is the case with housing - of making this provision. Local government is superfluous except perhaps as a quality regulator (much better and fairer when the council is not also a major provider).

Children's services remain a problem but, given the nature of these services and the limited scope for any meaningful councillor input, there is perhaps an argument - I would need convincing - for child protection and services to be run by a government agency. Service provision - children's homes, adoption and fostering services and so forth - could be commissioned (perhaps from the big children's charities).

If this were the case then nearly 100% of Bradford Council's funding would be raised locally.

It's thought...


....

Stanley King, RIP

Yesterday died one of Bradford's finest. If you were to seek a role model as a Councillor, you could do little better than look at Stanley. Representing Heaton -  the place of his birth, where he went to school and where he lived his entire life - Stanley was the consummate ward councillor. Over his forty odd years on council, thousands of local residents will have witnessed his droll humour and will have received his letters - each one beautifully hand-written.

Stanley cared. Not that shout a lot sort of caring we see so much of these days but a quiet, understated and appreciative way of looking out for his neighbours, his fellow citizens of Bradford. Stanley's caring - for the people of Heaton and of the City - wasn't a reflection of ideology or of political passion but of a profound love of the place he lived and the City in which that place is found.

Looking at Stanley's political life, you see the true meaning of Conservatism. Stanley loved Heaton, was passionate about Bradford (and especially its now lost trolley buses and trams) and believed that if everyone looked out for the places they loved and cared for the country would be better for such attention.

Today the bells of City Hall tolled in remembrance of a fine man. Not a toff, certainly not wealthy but truly a Tory gentleman. He will be missed.

....

Bradford Council should pay for photographs...

****

Rock snapper and occasional civil liberties campaigner Nick Pickles explains that Bradford Council is using 'licensing' to get top photography for free:

The issue of ‘rights grab’ contracts is one I’ve blogged about before, and the issue doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon.

In essence they are contracts that you sign to photograph a band and as a condition of that contract you transfer your copyright to the artist, often without limitation. A milder version is where the contract requires you to license your work for free, while you retain the copyright. Not a huge difference in practice - the root of it is they get to use your work for free.

This is wrong. These photographers are not filthy rich paparazzi but mostly semi-professional and self-employed folk. And Bradford Council is ripping them off by requiring:

 7. I agree to forward to the Bingley Music Live organisers a copy of all photographs taken by my organisation at Bingley Music Live 2012. Images to be supplied in JPEG format and at not less than 300 dpi
 

Bradford Council should pay for photographs and respect the livelihoods of hard-working photographers.

....

People want their Council to fix the roads...

****

Perhaps not a surprise to those politicians and bureaucrats actually plugged into real life:

A poll by May Gurney suggests the British public believe highway maintenance and improving local road networks should be the top priority for councils.

The research found 41% of the population wanted local roads improving compared with 33% which wanted better services for the elderly.

 

Perhaps Bradford's leaders will come to regret that 50% cut in highway maintenance then?

....

Cullingworth Village Hall - a tale from the Big Society

Back in the early 1970s, the villagers of Cullingworth laid their hands on the redundant Salvation Army Citadel in Keighley and moved it, every last screw and post, to the village where it has served as the village hall since 1973. Not bad for a second-hand wooden hut!

Today, the hall is showing the wear and tear of time. All those plays, play groups, pensioner lunches, parties and parish council meetings have left their toll, the roofline sags, the wooden structure doesn't quite stand up straight and the running costs don't get any lower. The management committee - led by Bryan Hobson (the new younger chairman at a mere 80 years old - replacing Ken Batchelor, who'll be 90 this August) - have decided a new hall is needed.

Which rather explains why I was at the Hall this morning along with people from Bradford Council's Estates Management to talk about how this might happen and how the Council (which owns the land) can help us along. It's early days yet but we've opened up a dialogue and now face not just the challenge of planning, land swaps and sundry bureaucracies but the need to raise around £500,000 to actually build the new hall! Any help is, of course, welcome!

Afterwards, stood in the car park in the glorious sunshine, we spoke to the couple who look after the garden at the hall. Ken mentioned that they'd not really contributed much beyond a few Marks & Spencer's vouchers to the efforts in making the Hall's flower beds look great - and they do. Yet again, a couple of neighbours have been willing to put their own time, their own money and their own care into making our village look good.

Somebody once asked what the "Big Society" was - well this it it really. Ordinary folk caring for the place where they live and for the neighbours they live by - not for money or medals but because it's what we do. Long may it continue.

....

Bradford Council prefers front line cuts to back office savings...

****

Yesterday we witnessed Cllr Greenwood, our esteemed leader, spluttering and struggling to justify the closing of swimming pools at full council. I guess dear old Ian never expected to get heckled by the public upset at what his leadership is doing - lovely to see a Labour politician revealing his distrust of the public by calling them a "mob" and "here just to make trouble".

And, in serendipitous co-ordination, the Council announced (although by way of a note on the website rather than a debate in the Council Chamber) that it is giving up on securing back office savings through collaborative working with other public sector organisations:

Earlier this year Bradford’s 'Place Based' Collaborative Working Programme closed, which means there is no longer any formal steering of collaborative working between participating partner organisations in the district.

So there you have it - Bradford's Labour leadership prefer cuts to front line services to creating back office savings through collaboration and joint-working.

....

Lord, please save us from lawyers!

****

According to Bradford Council's top lawyer, a Councillor who signs a petition to save a swimming pool in his ward from closure has prejudged his decision and can't take part in the meeting.

Yes, dear reader, you heard that - how on earth these lawyers expect us to do our job as ward councillors god alone knows? Implicit in this lawyerly advice is that, as councillors we can't be allowed to take a position - to express support or opposition for something the council may decide on - ahead of the meeting where that matter is discussed.

This is beyond stupid. It is an affront to democracy. Lord, save us from lawyers. Please.

....

Campaign Diary: Proxy votes, planning and retired council officers

Another day on the stump! Chasing round getting the final bits of the main delivery finished - wandering up to bits of the ward I'd forgotten existed. A day of wonderful views as we walked up to the edges of villages, along dusty tracks, leaflet clutched in hand - and people welcome the effort.

Everyone got in a tangle over a proxy vote - amazing how one small, simple thing can get us all flapping about! And not helped when I turn up with a postal voting form not the proxy voting form that was needed! An easy mistake to make since the forms are next to eachother on the council website but definitely a case of 'less haste, more speed'.

Met some folk with a planning problem - in truth Lee Lane in Cottingley is one long planning saga. Originally sold in lots for holiday huts, the lane has over the years seen each of these huts 'transform' into large detached homes each boasting a fine view across Airedale. All this development happened in the 'green belt' passed first on an exception basis and subsequently through the inertia of precedent. The people I spoke with wanted to build a conservatory which isn't a planning concern in most places. But here the 'permitted development rights' were removed so they'll need a permission. I have no doubt that the initial reaction of the planners will be to say 'no' - it is 'green belt' after all!

There is, without doubt, some need for adjustment of 'green belt' rules to allow for limited addition to previously developed areas (this is 'brownfield land' in the 'green belt'). Indeed, when I look at the conversions of farm sites in my ward - at the hundreds of homes built in the 'green belt' without the loss of a single open field - I an struck by the opportunity to respond to housing need without indulging the big housebuilders' passion for easy access, green field sites.

Delivering in Harden and I bump into a former council officer - surprised that it was eight years since he retired! Nice little chat about what he was up to, about Phil Robinson (former Chief Executive of Bradford who also lives in the village) and about one or two local issues. Completely forgot to ask for his vote!

...

Campaign Diary: Lost count of the days! Some fine people and the excellent cake girls

War Memorial at Cullingworth

Another day out and about - glorious sunny weather (although the garden tells me it could use a shower or two) and plenty of smiling folk about. Here are a few I met:

• Attractive Asian woman supervising the refurbishment of a semi-detached house in Cottingley - very cheery and keen to move in (although from the look of it a bit to go yet).
• Lady in curlers chasing me down the street (well sort of) to tell me about the ongoing campaign to keep the heart surgery unit in Leeds.
• Rather annoyed bloke - not at me but at the idiots who threw an egg at his door while he was away. Quite a job to scrub it off. Why do kids do this sort of thing?
• Doug - who runs the police contact point in Cottingley which we hope to persuade them to keep open. A really useful service provided for just a few quid each year

And in all this I've found little seething anger at the government - some genuine concern about specific services and particular issues but none of the rage that pundits (left-wing ones at least) speak about. The angriest conversations have been about pensions, council tax and the smoking ban.

However, the day's highlight came in the early evening at home. Three girls - 15 years old or so - knocked at the door selling cakes. Not for a charity, not as some school project. But simply to make some money. I approve of this - initiative, production and chutzpah. These girls deserve to succeed - and probably will.

....