Quote of the day - transport technology and strikes

We are in for a decade and more of transport strikes as those working in that industry resist the technological changes - here's Tim Newman commenting about Paris and driverless cars:

I seem to recall Parisian taxi drivers rioting, tipping over cars, and burning tyres when Uber came to town, leading to the government caving in by lunchtime and banning the app in Paris. Presumably they’re going to take the introduction of driverless cabs without a murmur.

Add to taxi drivers the bus and tram workers, the train drivers and the lorry drivers - a recipe for industrial strife if ever there was one. And the nation that manages this change most swiftly and with least disruption is the one that will reap the quickest and earliest changes. It won't be France for sure and probably won't be the UK either.

....

We are reminded that unions are not in the consumer interest

****

Izabella Kaminska - whose trendy lefty ignorance we've touched on before - says that the good folk who drive cabs for Uber need to unionise:

In the first instance, the Uber drivers working on these systems aim to withdraw supply en masse if rates go below their average break-even rates exposing customers to surge pricing more regularly. But the aim eventually is to gain collective bargaining power against Uber in all sorts of worker-rights disputes.

The point that Izabella is making revolves around here belief that Uber has too many (or rather allows for there to be too many) drivers or "ignoring the law of supply and demand" as she ignorantly puts it.

...Uber doesn’t really care about how many drivers are in the market at any particular time because the company is more concerned about taking a commission linked to total utilised capacity than ensuring supply and demand is ever properly matched. Nor do customers care about market imbalances since they are the temporary beneficiaries of the app’s arguably unsustainable cost structures.

The solution is for the drivers to unionise and to use this 'collective bargaining' to force Uber to place a limit on the number of drivers in any given taxi market. The argument for this this limit isn't consumer interest but a belief that somehow Uber's drivers are a special case in the 'being-exploited' stakes. And that this will happen:

The fundamental truth being ignored in the “sharing economy” is that exploited labour always wises up. That open-ended supply markets always form licensed communities to protect jobs and minimum wages. That unregulated markets inevitably self-regulate from the bottom up. And that workers always have an interest in aggregating and sharing the cost of risk and insurance between them, which is ultimately factored into the cost of service.

Or as Adam Smith put it:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.

Indeed this is entirely what has happened in taxi markets - taxi operators and drivers, aided and abetted by local or national government, has placed expensive barriers in the way of market entry. And one of those contrivances - those conspiracies against the public - is the union. For the entire purpose of the union is to improve the lot of its members. For all the noble purposes laid claim to by unions the bare truth is that their purpose is seldom, if ever, in the interests of the consumers who use the services those union members provide or the products they produce. Indeed Izabella, in her lefty reverie concludes this too:

The core point really is that taxis can never serve customers as well as outright ownership of a private car in optionality terms — because taxis can never be perfectly supplied to meet peak rate time demand without somebody somewhere carrying the cost of off-peak idle capital. Nor can they, for that matter, ever be as cost effective as public transport.

If and when Uber drivers efficiently unionise to reduce the scale of oversupply in the market, we’ll finally understand that.

Let's leave aside the self-evident observation that this point is entirely contained in the fact that a train ride from Bingley to Leeds is less than a fiver whereas a taxi ride will costs you £40 or more. Instead let's consider what's being said here - essentially Uber, by not limiting how many drivers a market can hold, has pushed down prices. As a consumer this is excellent news - although the bus or the tube will still be cheaper, I'll take a 20% drop in fares as well as less reliance on surge pricing (because the increased demand for cabs on say New Years Eve means more drivers come out to meet that demand). If the drivers are unionised and succeed in 'reducing the scale of oversupply' the result will be a system more like the one we have.

It's clear that, wherever we look, unions - by promoting the interests of their members - act to raise costs, limit supply or otherwise act against the consumer interest. This is the case with doctors, lawyers and local government officers just as much as it is with taxi drivers. And this is why the activities of unions need to be regulated and limited - just as is the case with any rent-seeking anti-consumer cartel.

....

How public monopoly prevents transport innovation

****

For perhaps the wrong reasons we're focused again on issues relating to public transport. And this is done knowing that the majority of Brits favour the nationalisation of the railways and, I assume, believe that mayors or councils should run the buses, trams and tubes.

The problem is that we're in a time of new opportunity and change that challenges the dominant idea that city transportation schemes need to be planned. That challenge sits in our pocket or our handbag.

Just as we've seen with financial transactions, governments and the agency businesses that feed off the granting of monopolies are resistant to the disaggregated and dispersed self-service models emerging as a result of the smartphone's growing ubiquity. And in doing so we do the public a disservice.

Before I talk about some specifics - drawing on US examples where the challenge to public transportation monopoly is more developed - here's a section of Boris Johnson's 'tribute' to union boss, Bow Crow:

"Whatever our political differences, and there were many, this is tragic news," he said.

"Bob fought tirelessly for his beliefs and for his members.

"There can be absolutely no doubt that he played a big part in the success of the Tube, and he shared my goal to make transport in London an even greater success. It's a sad day."

Now I'm sure that these were nice words about the boss of a key London 'stakeholder' but it beggars belief to say that a union forcing costs up and resisting change or efficiency is in the interests of London's transport systems.

So to San Francisco where there have been a series of battles around what are know as "tech buses" - these are services, provided by Silicon Valley business, that take workers from the city out into the valley for work. And they are unpopular with users of existing (more expensive and less reliable) public transport systems. Resulting in a variety of bus-based class warfare:

This December, several anti-bus rallies were held in the Mission District by a group that called themselves the San Francisco Displacement and Neighborhood Impact Agency. The group blocked buses and held up signs with statements like “Warning: Two-Tier System.” One man made headlines by dressing up, and, after claiming he worked for Google, berating the protestors with appalling class rhetoric. But it turned out he was really just an imposter, having worked previously as an Occupy organizer. Another protest in Oakland led — as ones there often do — to bus vandalism.

Note the words 'two-tier system' - hipster techie folk who earn good money out in the valley get a lovely shiny bus service whereas the other folk have to make do with late, dirty buses. And it spills over into the Bay Area's gentrification rows:

“In case you’re wondering why this happened, we’ll be extremely clear. The people outside your Google bus serve you coffee, watch your kids, have sex with you for money, make you food, and are being driven out of their neighborhoods. While you guys live fat as hogs with your free 24/7 buffets, everyone else is scraping the bottom of their wallets, barely existing in this expensive world that you and your chums have helped create."

The problem isn't American capitalism though. The problem is the municipal monopoly - the unholy alliance between the city government and unions to deliver an inefficient, expensive and unresponsive transportation system:

Muni, the city’s local bus, rail, and cable car service, is similarly inefficient. A study last May found that its on-time ratings hovered around 50 percent due to rail cars that regularly broke down. These delays cost an estimated $50 million in productivity — yet Muni has California’s second-highest paid transit workers.

The government-run rail that follows a similar route as the tech buses is Caltrain. Today, its customers endure a plodding, 90-minute ride from San Francisco to San Jose. This same trip takes under an hour by automobile, helping explain why some companies now bus in their employees.

Those 'tech buses' are a response to a failed service monopoly (and that monopoly's owner - the city council - has got its rents from the 'tech buses' by charging them a fee to stop at a bus stop) that doesn't meet the needs of local commuters. Looking a little deeper we find that the San Francisco authorities want to stamp out any innovation - not just the 'tech buses' but the growing use of ridesharing, a business that threatens the lucrative taxi monopoly (a license in San Francisco is over $250,000, in New York the coveted 'medallion' sells at touching $1m).

Indeed the business threat of this 'sharing economy' (we've seen the same regulatory response to Airbnb, for example) is repeated across other US cities - Seattle, for example, has threatened rules that would limit the numbers of drivers using services like Uber and Lyft, and one Seattle councillor proposes that the cab drivers become 'unionized city employees'.

Back in San Francisco, where Uber started, the debate is stuck at finding ways to control these new private transportation systems, to force the 35,000 people using the 'tech buses' back onto the old creaking public system and to regulated cabs rather than find a neighbour to share your ride with.

For Britain (outside London) the situation remains more flexible with a mixed economy of provision as well as the widespread availability of mini-cabs as well as Hackney cabs. There are moves by public transport authorities towards more directed and planned models such as 'quality bus contracts' and local councils jealously guard the revenue generator that is the taxi trade. But what isn't happening - with one or two striking exceptions - is the exploration of new economy solutions to urban transportation. Indeed the debate, such as it is, seems to me moving more towards greater use of monopoly power to prevent innovation than towards actually meeting the transport needs of local residents.

But then, so long as we think union bosses like Bob Crow are part of the solution rather than an obstacle to better services we will be stuck in this dead debate. Even worse if we persist with the 'Big City Boss' approach to delivering those services that Boris Johnson (drifting ever nearer to Bloomberg's urban fascism) seems to prefer. The development of better transport really isn't down to pouring billions of borrowed money into the ground and cosy deals between union bosses and city mayors.

....

My new heroes - some Warwick University students

****

Who chose not to be bullied and to further their education:

A group of history undergraduates at Warwick are causing controversy by organising their own student-led lectures while their tutors go on strike.

It doesn't matter whether or not you support the reasons for the strike, these students show initiative, creativity and leadership. They have every right to take this action, just as the lecturers have every right to go on strike. And it sticks a couple of fingers up at the bullying nature of trade unions when it comes to what they deem to be 'strike-breaking'. 

And the response of the union is, as ever, to threaten:

“Further escalation of the dispute, including a ban on marking, will unfortunately lead to greater disruption. We urge students to contact their vice-chancellor or principal and ask them to lobby the national employers’ negotiating body, UCEA, to urgently reopen negotiations.”

The message seems to be: "do what we say students or we'll stop you from getting the education you're paying for".

Well done to those students for standing up and making clear that they are the customer here - as one student put it:

"This is an argument between the staff and governing body, not the students and it is not right that we are jeopardised. It is unfortunate that the education system seems to be neglecting its primary aim in the face of monetary conflicts."

Well said and quite understandable given £9,000 in fees!

....

Quote of the day...

****

From Boris...

They weren’t around in the 1970s. I was, and I remember what it was like and how this country was seen. Our food was boiled and our teeth were awful and our cars wouldn’t work and our politicians were so hopeless that they couldn’t even keep the lights on because the coal miners were constantly out on strike, as were the train drivers and the grave-diggers, and the man who was really in charge seemed to be called Jack Jones.

Some of the music was good though...

....

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.

....

No, no, a thousand times, no!

****

So Ed Miliband is in all sorts of a mess as a couple or three trade unions kick him and his party about, demanding policy changes, fixing candidate selections and generally behaving like the people who own and control the Labour Party.

The right response is to, as the saying goes, 'grow a pair' and deal with the problem. Instead, Miliband wants you and me - taxpayers - to pay the Labour Party's bills:

Any plans for state funding have not been drawn up, but could be modelled on a blueprint by the independent Committee on Standards on Public Life, which proposed parties be recompensed for a donations cap with £23m a year of public money. 

So some youngster on low wages, just starting out in life is expected to contribute to the funding of political parties - involuntarily? Put simply this is disgusting - because political parties have given up recruiting members and organising across the country (in favour of swanky London offices, shiny-suited Oxbridge graduates and endless, shallow spin-doctoring) doesn't justify simply dipping into the tax pot.

If you want to get the "big money out of politics" then what you do is agree a donation cap. And that's it. You don't need to compensate parties, you don't need complicated, corrupting formulae and you don't need to spend other people's money on PR executives and wet behind the ears policy wonks who have never held down a real job.

We don't pay taxes to fund politics.

....

About those teachers striking...

****

As you know I don't like it and see it as counterproductive - worse striking undermines the idea of teaching as a professional vocation. More to the point, the Unions are dressing the dispute up as something far grander than it is in reality:

“The teachers who marched are not political activists, they are here for education and are concerned about young people entering the profession and their future.

“This has been a very important show of solidarity, the two unions represent 90 per cent of all teachers, and we are standing up for education.” 

If the strike is about policy rather than the self-interest of teachers then, if my understanding is right, it is illegal. So it isn't about that at all:

We are asking that he establishes a series of meetings with the NUT and NASUWT, chaired by himself to address the issues under dispute and that he suspends the implementation of the changes proposed to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, pending the outcome of these discussions. We are also asking that he publish the valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme conducted on the basis of the 2010 criteria and factors.

Not about children at all. Nor is it about qualifications. Or free schools. Or academies. Or indeed the education policies of the government. It's absolutely and specifically about the proposed changes to teachers' pay and conditions.

And those pay and conditions result from the recommendations of an independent body - the School Teachers' Review Body. This body has proposed:

The STRB has recommended an increase of 1% from September 2013 in the values of:

• all points on the unqualified, main and upper pay scales for classroom teachers (including main scale points which will be discretionary reference points for pay decisions thereafter)
• the minimum and maximum of the pay range for leading practitioners and all pay ranges for individual posts set before taking account of the September 2013 uplift
• all points on the leadership pay spine
• any individual allowances in payment and to the minima and the maxima of the ranges of all teacher allowance

Get that folks - the STRB is proposing a pay increase! And - wait for it - the government has "...accepted all of the key recommendations in the report." Plus there's a consultation period with the Unions and other relevant partners running for a month.

What the teachers' unions want is for the government to ignore the recommendations of an independent body (and not one of recent invention either) to impose a more favourable settlement - one using up more of that precious resource going to schools.

Either that or the 'dispute' is simply a canard and this really is a political strike and not a genuine dispute.

....

The police, the unions, business and the public think it daft. Can we ditch the idea of plain packs for fags now?

It seems that everyone bar the paid lackeys of The Churchof Public Health is against the idea of plain packaging for cigarettes.

The police:

Health Secretary Andrew ­Lansley’s plans to force ­cigarettes to be sold in plain packets have been blasted by police.

Nearly nine out of 10 officers – 86 per cent – believe the move will lead to a rise in smuggling and sales of fake ­cigarettes, a poll claimed yesterday.

The findings also show that six out of 10 believe that the clampdown would drive teenagers towards illegal ­cigarette suppliers where they could buy counterfeit branded packs.

And senior officers make clear the problem – 24 of them wrote to the Times about it:

Sir, Plain packaging risks fuelling tobacco smuggling. We are concerned at the possibility of the Government introducing standardised packaging of tobacco products. We do not wish to get involved in the public health debate. However, our concern is very much on the impact that it could have on crime and in particular on serious organised criminals who are the target of the major law enforcement agencies.

Tobacco products are relatively small, high-value items and are smuggled in extremely large quantities, depriving the Treasury of billions of pounds in tax revenues. Those who smuggle tobacco products are often involved in other forms of serious criminality. The introduction of standardised packaging would make it even easier for criminals to copy and sell these products to the unsuspecting public, including children. This would place further pressure on already stretched law enforcement agencies and at a time when the Government needs to secure much needed tax revenues.

To my thinking that ought to be enough but we can add trade union opposition – they’re worried about jobs (like I am since 1000 of those jobs are in Bradford):

The FDT National Committee has serious concerns that these measures are ill-thought through and not evidence based, and in some parts of our sector, particularly tobacco and alcohol, could simply make it much easier for criminals to sell (unregulated and untaxed) counterfeit and smuggled goods and thus have flow-on affects such as a significant impact on jobs in our sector.

And the packaging industry agrees:

A considerable amount of the business of both Weidenhammer and Chesapeake involves the printing of cigarette cartons for the export trade. At Wiedenhammer’s Bradford site a large proportion of the work involves the production of drums for loose tobacco and, if this business disappeared, then it is estimated that turnover would decrease by at least a third. The threat to the business is, therefore, very real and...there would be major implications for investment, jobs and the tobacco packaging supply chain across the UK. 

So the police think it will increase crime and make it easier for children to get hold of tobacco; the unions and industry think it will result in job losses and the public? Well they think it’s a daft idea too:

72% of those questioned in Populus poll today say that #plainpacks will cause people to turn to the black market http://ow.ly/cqEgr

So there you have it folks – the police, the unions, business and the public all think plain packaging for cigarettes is a daft and counterproductive idea. Can we dump the idea now?

....

Union in self-interest shocker!

****

Construction workers union, UCATT is in a tizzy at a trial being undertaken by Home Housing Group that incentivises tenants to do their own small repairs:

A government scheme to encourage tenants to carry out their own repairs has been branded ‘dangerously flawed’ by trade union Ucatt.

The construction union said tenant cashback, which will allow tenants to claim back up to £500 for carrying out small DIY jobs, could expose tenants to asbestos or other health risks.

Steve Murphy, general secretary of the union, said: ‘Councils and housing associations employ qualified repairs and maintenance workers who should be undertaking this safety critical work.’

Concerns have also been raised about the quality of the work that might be carried out by tenants.

None of this concern, of course, has anything to do with the possibility that housing associations and councils might need fewer repairs and maintenance workers if the scheme is a success!

....

So who is running Bradford? Looks to me like the trade unions...

****

Who of course haven't been elected and don't exist to serve the interests of Bradford residents:

Bradford Council leader Ian Greenwood said that he could not comment on the Conservative plans, because his group’s budget needed to be submitted to the Trade Unions first.

And you thought you elected us Councillors to run the City!

....

Do public sector employers "buy" union reps?

****

Not my usual source for interesting stuff but a very interesting observation from the loonier part of the left here:

My own experience of partnership working has been in the public sector. It was nothing more than a social club, monthly committee meetings, followed by a huge buffet and chit chat. The organisation decided that the senior union committee members did such a good job for the workers, that they would give them all a pay rise of between £10,000 - £15,000, over and above their substantive post and for the duration of their time in a full time union position.

All the facility time was given to reps that the staff side ‘leaders’ wanted, rather than who requested it. This meant that the union leaders would always win the annual election, as most of the reps had their facility time and other perks tied in to certain individuals winning elections.

All very cosy and, for the lefty agitator the result:

Certain individuals saw themselves as part of the board of directors, naively thinking they were part of making decisions, when in actual fact they were ridiculed and laughed at behind their backs. There was actually was ‘partnership’ working that took place. It was the board of directors and the unions working in partnership to try and soften the blow on every bad thing that was handed down to workers.

The union reps behaved like arrogant, pompous, slippery politicians. Never answering the questions of members directly, patronising workers, telling them that they ‘don’t understand’ etc. etc. They also colluded and collaborated with senior management when reps get out of line.

The solution? Stop funding trade unions representatives with tax money and start funding them from union subscriptions. Simple really.

....

It's not Unity if you achieve it through bullying....

Raise your banners high
Strength to strength and line by line
Unity must never die
Raise your banners high

Firstly – before I dive into the politics – a plug – folk legend Martin Carthy will be launching Bradford’s celebration of (mostly leftie) political song at the Topic Folk Club on Thursday. Sadly, I won’t be there as I’m already double-booked that evening. All the details of Raise Your Banners can be found here.

Next I shall speak of scabs, blacklegs and the evils of the political bully.

Regardless of the emotion, the history and the passion – the things that are celebrated in these songs. Despite the cry for unity and the desperation of the cause....

...you have a right to withdraw your labour, to strike. It is a right hard won by men and women in times past. It is a right cherished by everyone – a notion of liberty, if only group liberty.

But you have no right to bully, assault, ostracise, condemn or otherwise mistreat another person because they choose not to go on strike. 

That is their choice – their right - and if you use violence to prevent that choice, to remove that right, you are no better than those you condemn for removing or reducing workers’ rights.  You are no better that the fascist thugs you condemn.

There are no scabs, no blacklegs – just men or women who made a different choice from you. Men or women exercising their rights in a free land.

....

Bah, humbug!

****

The teachers union, NAS/UWT are having a Christmas 'go slow':

Members of NASUWT are to be ordered not to put up festive decorations or help produce Nativity plays and carol concerts in a dispute which could go on for months.

Frankly, how pathetic can you get. Also those children looking forward to the festive season, excited at the prospect of giving and receiving and Miss says:

"Sorry, Children. No tinsel, no nativity play, no party on the last day. I'm not allowed to help with these becasue all the teachers are cross with a man down in London."

Dreadful. Almost unforgivable.

....

More on those interests (just for the lawyers among you)

****

Following Bradford's recent debate on what have been dubbed 'pilgrims', I commented on the somewhat odd advice regarding interests:

I found it exceedingly odd how the City Solicitor deemed that receiving a declared donation to an election campaign or other political activity isn’t a prejudicial interest. I’m pretty sure that the same answer wouldn’t apply to me if the matter concerned say, Cullingworth Conservative Club (I sort of asked but got something of an equivocal answer from the City Solicitor).

So we asked for a definitive answer and here's an excerpt from the City Solicitor's response:

I stated at the meeting that I felt the creation of a prejudicial interest was ‘borderline’.  There are two reasons for my view.  Firstly the Code of Conduct states that a Member does not have a prejudicial interest in any business of the Authority where that business does not affect their financial position or the financial position of a person or Body described in paragraph 8 (the trade union).  It is debatable whether the withdrawal of facility time would automatically have a financial impact on the trade union.  It is not payments made directly to the trade union, but rather the provision of facility time for trade union officials.  Whilst I appreciate this represents a cost to the tax payer, it is by no means certain that that would automatically be reflected in a cost to the trade unions. 

Secondly, I considered the significance test in terms of whether the interest created (the payment towards election expenses) is sufficiently significant that it is likely to prejudice the judgement of what is in the wider public interest.  Standards for England have considered this significance test and their advice is that almost any degree of personal involvement or knowledge of a particular circumstance is likely to affect a Member’s judgement.  However, they recognise that a Member may well have been elected precisely because of his or her local knowledge or position/opinions on particular matters.  For an interest to be prejudicial it must be ‘likely to prejudice’ the Member’s judgement.  In other words the interest must be likely to harm or impair the Member’s ability to judge the public interest.  Standards for England are clear that the mere existence of local knowledge or connections with the local community will not normally be sufficient to meet the test.  There must be some factor that will positively harm the Member’s ability to judge the public interest objectively.  Further, Standards Board for England consider that if a Member shares a personal interest with a large number of people, it is less likely that a prejudicial interest will exist.

All very lawyerly but still pretty odd. But this little paragraph did make my eyebrows twitch a little:

Having regard to this guidance in the context of the matter under debate, although I agree it is borderline, my opinion is that the payment of election expenses is not sufficiently significant to create a prejudicial interest.

Bear in mind that we made a distinction between mere membership of a trade union (where I guess the individual gives the trade union money) from having your election expenses paid by the union.

As I said, I bet this wouldn't apply if Cullingworth Conservative Club were to pay mine!

....

In which the Labour Party put their union paymasters before the Bradford public...

****

Yesterday Bradford Council debated the £438,000 (or more) that it spends on funding full-time trade union officials. It was a time of much gaiety as Labour councillor indignation levels ticked ever higher leading to ever more fanciful interpretations of our motives for moving the motion.

We began by explaining how this wasn’t about the “reasonable facility time” that trade union (and other staff) representatives are granted in law but concerned the 15 or so full-time trade union organisers paid for by Bradford’s hard-pressed council tax payers.

Labour wouldn’t have this and chose instead to build a vast army of straw men – the motion was an attack on unions, the Labour Party and democracy in the UK according to Labour council leader, Ian Greenwood (former full time Union official, recipient of a Unison pension on health grounds and dweller in a council flat despite earning well over £50,000).

Indeed proclaimed said council leader, the motion was an attack on the “human rights” of union members by denying them representation (there are some 200 union representatives in the Council – the motion concerned only the 15 full-time officials).

Other Labour councillors rose to their feet expressing their undying love for trade unionism and the absolute rightness of spending your and my taxes on funding its activities, recruitment and organisation. One councillor – Gill Thornton – catalogued why unions were so important. After all they’d funded her seven or eight election campaigns! (Every single Labour councillor declared receiving funding for election campaigns from unions)

I found it exceedingly odd how the City Solicitor deemed that receiving a declared donation to an election campaign or other political activity isn’t a prejudicial interest. I’m pretty sure that the same answer wouldn’t apply to me if the matter concerned say, Cullingworth Conservative Club (I sort of asked but got something of an equivocal answer from the City Solicitor).

In the end, Labour won its vote – backed by Bradford’s rather supine Liberal Democrats and the watermelons in our Green Party. We will carry on spending approaching half-a-million of taxes taken from struggling Bradford residents on preening trade union officials while Labour – locally and nationally – benefits from the largess of those unions.

Until earlier this year when, by chance, we discovered about the full-time union organisers on the rates, it had never crossed my mind – not for a second – that the Council was paying these wages. Our concern isn’t an attack on trade unions but – in tough financial times – recognising that we simply can’t afford the indulgence of paying for union officials using taxpayers cash.

Instead of taking this saving, Labour prefer to shut libraries, close swimming pools and remove support from disabled adults. All so their mates in the unions keep their well paid jobs.

....

...and it rained

We gather, all looking a little ragged, tousled, perhaps a mite hung-over. Tom’s late with the leaflets, the clouds rolling across the Bradford skies are that dark, steel grey colour – the colour of rain.

Another weekend, another delivery of leaflets – this time with the headline screaming; “union bosses on the rates”. Telling the good folk of Bradford how their council prefers to fund Labour’s mates in the trades unions instead of keeping open libraries, swimming pools and centres for disabled adults.

The price of politics in a place like Bradford – opaque, secretive decision-making where Labour leaders gather in private cabal to spend huge sums, great wads of other people’s cash, on their favoured schemes, their preferences and, of course, on making sure important Labour-voting blocs are protected.

And I guess those Labour-voting blocs don’t include the old lady in Denholme who wouldn’t have a library had not the Town Council and local volunteers taken over running it. Those blocs exclude a different woman now denied the chance to swim close to home as Labour close down the last swimming pool in Bradford’s inner city.

But those blocs do include town hall union bosses. So the union bosses get their money.

We gather, smiling at a little gallows humour, at the prospects of further years of deadening Labour rule in our great city. A return to those years – I call them the “years of complaint” – when the City’s Labour rulers admitted to no power in running the City, moaned about how government elsewhere was the cause of our problems and create a self-image of supplication. The image of a broken, failed city.

I glance at the back of the leaflet. “Positive Bradford” it proclaims – let’s talk the City up, focus on our strengths, on the exciting things that happen in business, in the arts and among our citizens. A message the City needs but, I fear, a message that will be drowned out by Labour’s obsession with victim status – wallowing in the deprivation as if it were some badge of achievement. A City whose leader proclaims with, it seems, every public announcement that he represents one of England’s poorest communities.

An admission of failure – of the pointlessness of Labour’s political mission, a drear, negative and depressing mission to drag us down to a lowest common denominator. Snidely looking at successful places in the City, suggesting that they succeed at the expense of other places and must be punished – services closed, funding withdrawn.

And as we deliver those leaflets – a promise of a City that takes command of its own destiny, that stops looking elsewhere for a salvation that never comes, that smiles a little. We deliver to back-to-back houses accessed down damp stone-lined passages leading to a little oasis of colour and hope. We drop leaflets into the letter boxes of the semi-detached suburban homes, some cared for and loved, some showing signs of the economic struggle that ordinary people face. And we call at the old folks flats and bungalows filled with people looking back on a tough life lived well.

We see a bit of a great city. We get a glimpse of its variety – Pakistani mums, the broad Irish-looking faces of older people, the Polish shop and the black man in a suit stood on the corner seemingly uncertain as to whether to cross. A variety that has always been there, that’s part of the City’s success. But now, trapped in the weasel words of “community cohesion” and “diversity”, it is a variety our leaders see as a problem, something to be managed, worried about, endlessly debated and turned into strategies that serve only to justify a purposeless intervention into the lives of ordinary people.

We delivered those leaflets, we met people who smiled and we had our little say about the way our City should be run.

And it rained.

....