Transport planners are asking the wrong question - which is why their answer is always 'more trains'

Places of work are not conveniently distributed and, to make matters worse, where most people live is more disbursed than planners seem to think. Since most people don't live in dense inner-city suburbs and don't work in 'central business districts' (this is true even for a city like London), transport planning solutions founded on urban transit from suburb to city don't work. Transport planners are asking the wrong question and getting the wrong answer.

Here's Joel Kotkin talking about Los Angeles:

If you want a job in Southern California, it is very useful to have a car. The average worker in the Los Angeles metropolitan area (which includes Orange County) can get to fewer than 1 percent of the jobs by transit in 30 minutes. By car, the average worker can get to 33 times as many jobs, according to University of Minnesota research. In Riverside-San Bernardino, the average worker can get to nearly 100 times as many jobs by car as by transit in 30 minutes.

Yet, as Kotkin observes, the city managements in Southern California have "...decided only their solution — more trains — is an acceptable alternative." There's no consideration of ride-hailing, ride-sharing or private jitneys - responses that work with the dispersed nature of the place and the realities of how people live.

West Yorkshire is, you'll all agree, pretty urban in nature but its land area is a third bigger than Greater London with a quarter of the population. And, for all Leeds supposed significance (something I consider consistently overstated to the detriment of the region), the distribution of employment is such that the same applies to West Yorkshire as does in Los Angeles - if you want a job it's pretty useful to have a car.

Despite this reality, transport planners remain transfixed by the idea of the train (or some other fixed line system such as trams, streetcars or trolley buses) - transport solutions that, as one wag put it, "take people from one place they don't want to be to another place they don't want to be". We go to London, which has the most comprehensive public transport system of any major city anywhere, and say "let's do that" without appreciating the constraints of physical geography, where people live and where they work. We need a tram because Manchester has a tram.

But Manchester's tram system doesn't serve most of Greater Manchester:



So, because the tram doesn't go near where most Mancunians live, they do what they've done for years - get in their car and drive to work. Tram systems are great but still, for places that have them, represent fewer than 5% of commuter journeys.

The central problem here - one that transport planners must know but seem to ignore - is that the distribution of people and jobs simply isn't suited to the sort of mass transit solutions those planners like other than where population density is high and there has been a long history of major investment in transport infrastructure (London and Tokyo are the two best examples). Given that it is uneconomic to run relative cheap bus services into many dispersed parts of West Yorkshire what hope do we have of creating a fixed infrastructure transit system that can replace using the car?

Last night I had a conversation with some folk about buses and taxis (it started with us talking about getting the train to Carlisle). The conclusion of the conversation was that, if there were more than two of you then getting a taxi to Bingley station for the train is cheaper than using the bus. And, even with two people the extra cost of a cab is minimal (seven quid in a taxi, six quid and change on the bus). So you get a taxi that comes at your convenience, gets you there quicker and picks you up from your front door rather than have you stand in the wind and rain at a bus stop.

So the right way to think about transport in this case is "how do we make taxis cheaper, cleaner and safer". But that's not what transport authorities are doing - quite the opposite. When a system arrives (ride sharing) that promises to do just this the response of authorities is to try and stop the improvement. And the same goes for ride-hailing, jitneys and mini-buses - public authorities put regulatory barriers in the way, often at the behest of those whose interests are affected by these innovations.

This isn't to say you shouldn't have a tram (although I consider it the wrong thing for West Yorkshire) but to argue for transport planning to work with human behaviour rather than to see itself as trying to force people to change that behaviour. I never drive into Leeds city centre, not because I'm trying to save the planet or think cars are evil but because it's cheap and convenient for me to do so (especially when my wife drops me off at the station). I do drive into Bradford centre because the public transport option isn't cheaper or more convenient.

Joel Kotkin is right to criticise this sort of statement from transport chiefs (this is from the CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Phil Washington):

“It’s too easy to drive in this city. We want to reach the riders that left and get to the new ones as well. And part of that has to do with actually making driving harder.”

Since no transport system based on fixed lines can serve a dispersed population as well as the car, this attitude condemns many people to a less pleasant, more expensive and slower journey that can't be substituted for a ride on a public transport system. Yes the new capacity will fill up (although it is interesting to note that most journeys on UK tram systems outside London are not commuter journeys) but it will be marginal to the totality of journeys.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the 'decarbonisation' of road transport (what you use to generate the electricity, how to keep all those cars charged up, power grid problems, etc.) but the intention of public authorities is to do just that - we're committed to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2040. It would be, therefore, better to invest in resolving those unanswered questions than to pile more billions into transport systems that don't even begin to answer the question we should be asking - how can people move around as they do now but more efficiently, more safely and more cleanly?

....

Why do public authorities have such a problem with motorcycles?

****

I've noted before that West Yorkshire police's press office dedicates a huge proportion of its press office resource to sending out press releases attacking motorcyclists. It's not just that the popular portrayal of motorcycling and motor cyclists is almost entirely negative but that this form of transport is almost entirely ignored - except as a line in the accident statistics - by transport planners.

The Leeds branch of the Motorcycle Action Group (I so want to call it the Leeds Chapter) staged a protest that called for a greater recognition of motorcycling and, specifically, for bikes to be allow to use bus lanes.

Scores of bikers have taken part in a "demo ride" calling for rights to ride in Leeds's bus lanes.

Organised by Leeds Motorcycle Action Group (MAG), the ride started from Squires Cafe, near Sherburn in Elmet, and finished at a pub outside Leeds.

The group is campaigning for all motorcycles, scooters and mopeds to be allowed to use the city's bus lanes.

The response from Leeds City Council (interestingly this isn't the body responsible for transport planning but we can't expect the BBC to actually know this - it's one of the reasons we need a metro mayor) is typical council-speak about 'harnessing' the views of motorcyclists. Probably because the planners have absolutely no intention of doing what Leeds MAG suggest - recognising that motorcycling has a real role to play in urban transport and especially the relief of congestion. These planners are wedded to trains and buses (including in Leeds having a bus on a string), plus pedal cycles their new favourite means of transport, and see motorised private transport as a bad thing, the main problem from which we all must be modally shifted.

The consultation - being conducted as we speak (I bet you didn't know, did you) by the Combined Authority - completely fails to mention motor cycles and only mentions cars as a problem. I attended a meeting of the Authority's Scrutiny Committee where a presentation about the new strategic transport plan - a good 40 minute long presentation - didn't mention the word 'car' once, let alone refer to motorcycles. Why is it these planners have such tunnel vision? And why do they hate motorcycles so much?

....

No Devolution devolution - the case of the Leeds City Region

****

I have a draft of the "Leeds City Region Agreement on Devolution". Those of you listening carefully to the Budget Speech today will have heard the Chancellor mention said 'deal'.

I am here, armed with a very large bucket of cold water, to explain the detail. But first we should note that, because the four Labour leaders in West Yorkshire don't want direct and democratic accountability there isn't any further devolution of powers.

Here are the headlines.

Joint commissioning of a "forward-looking FE system" and the devolution of the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers "working within the Government's reform agenda for apprenticeships in which funding will be routed directly to employers."

Consultation "about the possibility of joint commissioning for the next phase of the Work Programme beginning in 2017"

The Government "will work with LCR to develop a devolved approach to the delivery of business support from 2017 onwards, subject to the outcome of future spending reviews"

The Government will "explore options" on control of local transport schemes, tell Rail North and Network Rail to "align" with LCR's investment strategy, allow "improved liaison" with the Highways Agency on road investment, and actively engage with LCR on long-term rail planning

Changes to structures for the existing Joint Assets Board with Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) plus a new Joint Asset and Investment Plan

Promises of further talks about devolution with the observation that West Yorkshire Combined Authority will "consult of options for enhanced governance, decision-making and delivery arrangements that will be mutually agreed with Government

So many high level meetings. So much talk. Such a lot of shouting. And, because West Yorkshire's Labour leaders aren't prepared to consider some sort of directly-elected solution - either a mayor or an assembly - we haven't got any devolution. Just a deal for the sake of a deal.

....

Devolution without democratic accountability isn't devolution...

****

This morning I was at the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel (I bet you didn't know this thing existed, did you) meeting. It was not edifying and, besides meeting a candidate for Britain's rudest councillor, I also found myself making common cause with a Green councillor from Huddersfield on the issue of democratic accountability.

This matters. It really does matter. And the system local leaders want (even the ones in Greater Manchester who reluctantly accepted an elected mayor so long has he was so hogtied as to be effectively powerless) is, as Green Cllr Andrew Cooper observed, 'a authority of the elected not an elected authority'. What these leaders (and all but two in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire are Labour leaders) are arguing for is the devolution of 'powers' - unspecified powers - to 'combined authorities' made up of those same leaders meeting together.

At the same meeting the chair - who is the Conservative leader of Calderdale Council - made the observation that he wasn't party to discussions at the Labour leaders' meeting prior to the main Combined Authority Board. In simple terms the decisions about millions of pounds of public money are being made in private by four men. For sure us scrutineers can look at what those four men have decided - we did that today with the 'Budget and Business Plan' for the Combined Authority - but it is essentially futile.

Everywhere I look there are meetings, workshops, gatherings and high profile boondoggles looking at 'devolving power to cities'. My in-box is stuffed (OK I exaggerate a tad here) with the brain-numbing output of think-tanks, conferences, academics and the grander sort of politician - all sreaming for devolving powers to cities. The excitement is palpable, almost sexual in its intensity. Dear reader you need to know why these folk are excited and you really couldn't give a toss - it is important. And you should give a toss.

Firstly these people - business 'leaders', senior council officers, management consultants, leaders of 'city' authorities and so forth - can see the opportunity to get their mitts on a whole pile of government cash without having those annoying, interfering local councillors asking difficult questions about what it's spent on or how it will help the people who elect those pesky councillors. I know, I know, the grand folk pushing city 'devolution' tell us it's accountable because of those four Labour leaders meeting in private somewhere in Leeds. I mean they're elected aren't they?

Well yes. Those leaders are elected. But they aren't elected to decide on policy and strategy for the whole of West Yorkshire (or Greater Manchester or South Yorkshire). There is nothing in the mandate given to those leaders by the electorates of Wibsey, Castleford, Heckmondwike and Kippax that creates sufficient authority or accountability to justify the devolution of further powers to a 'combined authority'. To create such an authority with the powers that leaders - and that circling flock of vultures I described above eyeing up a slice of the cash - want is to build even less democratic accountability into local government.

So, dear readers, you need to stop with the 'we don't need more politicians' nonsense and understand that unless you elect people directly to make decisions on your behalf, you make it harder to hold the decision-makers to account. And you need to tell your councillor and your MP that devolution is all fine and dandy, an absolutely spiffing idea, but only if the spending of that public money is subject to your accountability through the tried and tested method of having the chance to vote the bastards out if you don't like them.

Put simply, devolution without democratic accountability - without a directly elected mayor or council or assembly - isn't devolution but business as usual for the people who have sucked the nation dry over the past couple of decades. This isn't devolution but the great and good ramming their arms up to the elbow into the lucky dip of public funds - not for your benefit but for theirs.

....

Why are the police so obsessed with seizing motor bikes?

****

It's true that motor bikes - regardless of the number of wheels - can be really annoying and, handled badly, dangerous. It's also true that the quad bike has become popular with a certain sort in and around Bradford. You see them charge by with a sort of 21st century version of Mr Toad perched atop the quad bike - all toot-tooting and laughing at the sheer fun of a loud, open and unsafe motor vehicle.

We also see young traveller lads helmetless on trials bikes - flouting the rules (and probably unlicensed and uninsured) as they go from whatever dirty spot they've been riding to the lock-up on the council estate. And we tut and shake our heads as we watch them go by - can't be right we mutter to ourselves. Something should be done!

And something was done. West Yorkshire Police decided (given that there was no real crime to deal with out there in the county) to set up a Nuisance Bike Team to deal with the problem - complete with their own bikes and the powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize and destroy said 'nuisance bikes'. The result of this initiative looks something like this:

Officers called to Farlea Drive over complaints of an off-road motorbike being used on the road and causing a nuisance had to leave the bike because they could not disprove the owner's story that he had used it only in his garden.

But a Section 59 warning was issued, allowing officers to seize the machine when they were called back the following day over similar complaints about the use of the bike. 

So you've got a neighbour who doesn't like your bike. That neighbour calls the cops to complain and the cops call round and give you an order not to use the bike in an 'anti-social' manner. Next day the neighbour complains and the police steal - sorry seize - your bike. You've not committed any crime but the public authorities have taken your vehicle.

Yesterday in Bradford's local paper's online newsfeed there were three separate reports of the police showing off about them intervening to deal with 'nuisance bikes'. The typical action - showing just how busy these teams are - is along these lines:

They saw a man riding the bike on the grass land area, which had been churned up. They approached the man who was there with his three children and his female partner.

He was told the land was a public area used by dog walkers and residents, and the man claimed he thought it was a safe place to use the vehicles.

They were children's bikes but the man had been seen riding them around.

He was given a section 59 warning which allows officers to seize a vehicle if it, or the driver, are involved in anti-social behaviour during the following 12 months, and told to push the machines back to his address which was a short distance away. 

It's not just that this happened but that West Yorkshire Police deemed it to be an incident of such significance that they issued a press release. There is no suggestion that the man they've warned was acting unsafely or irresponsibly nor are we told there were clear signs saying motor bikes aren't allowed. Just that unspecified 'residents' had raised concerns.

The real problem here is summed up in another piece - another West Yorkshire Police press release - where it's clear why the problem has got worse:

New housing and increased protection for green spaces has caused nuisance quad bikers to take to roads and pavements in Bradford’s suburbs, say police.

Rather than using scrubland and unused fields, many now developed or secured with better fencing in recent years, anti-social motorbike and quad bike riders have been taking to the highways. 

We stopped the bikes going on rough land (under threat of their vehicles being taken) with the result that those bikes are now right in an amongst us - causing more nuisance that they ever did when they went to places like The Flappit at Cullingworth:

Mrs Bower began a petition to re-open the land for bikers in 2012, arguing that this would help cut the number of illegal riders on the district's roads and said it now has 500 signatures.

She added: "It is an online petition as well as a paper one so signatures are always welcome. This is not a forgotten campaign.

"Motorbiking is a sport and it's healthy for our youngsters to be occupied by things other than drinking copious amounts of alcohol, smoking cannabis and tobacco.

"As an off-road motorbike track The Flappit would be a great asset. It is historically a motorbike track, it has been used for almost fifty years. 

The land in question was closed a few years ago something that made Cullingworth a little quieter on summer evenings but which meant that there was no provision for off-road biking in Bradford. This suited the police and some pettifogging council officers (plus one or two vociferous residents) but merely shifted the proble - worse it was dispersed. Instead of one place where most bikers went, we have a multitude of places randomly chosen by the bikers. With the result that there's more nuisance, more annoyance and the need for an officious team of fussbucket coppers with the powers to take your bike.

Instead of spending huge sums of chasing anti-social bikes, it might have been a better to have worked with the bikers and other interested folk to develop a good, well-marshalled and accessible place where those bikers can go and ride. The opportunity at The Flappit has perhaps gone now but it would be a better use of council and police resources if they directed their efforts to making safe provision for off-road biking rather than threatening to take people's bikes away.

....

Devolution and the price of fish...

****

Yesterday along with fellow Conservatives from West Yorkshire (well, a couple of them) I headed to London to talk with the Treasury about devolution to West Yorkshire. We went there with the desire to explore the political, possible and practical knowing that our opposite numbers in Labour had already submitted some suggestions - I commented on the secrecy surrounding these proposals the other day.

Rest assured dear reader that the conversations we had down in London didn't come to any conclusions - we aren't about to rush through some secret deal for devolution. But there were some interesting aspects to the discussion.

Firstly, while there's an appetite for devolution in West Yorkshire and in London, there's a bit of a bother about the changes not being seen somehow as a 'new tier of government'. This echoes a familiar observation - "if the answer to your question is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question!" But the reality of course is that there is already a 'sub-regional' tier of government, it's just that you don't notice it much. We have the new and shiny 'combined authority' that has swept together what used to be the 'public transport authority' with some limited powers around regeneration and planning. This adds to some other West Yorkshire government bodies - the police authority (now with its 'Police and Crime Commissioner'), the fire and civil defence authority and West Yorkshire Joint Services.

At the moment the democratic cost of these bodies (i.e. how much cash it takes to have politicians sitting on committees and boards) is somewhere near £700,000 - to say that setting up a new body (or mayor or whatever) is creating a new tier of government is incorrect. If we replaced all that West Yorkshire stuff with a single body it probably wouldn't cost that much - even before we take account of all the other duplicated bureaucracy.

Secondly, however much we might be twitchy about elected mayors, the ability of a Boris with a big mandate and big boots to bully central government can't be underestimated. This isn't to say that a West Yorkshire mayor would carry the oomph of Boris but it is to explain that the big mandate matters nearly as much as the personality. For sure there are political considerations (we did talk about these) but the fact remains that a high profile individual elected by 2.5 million has much more impact that an indirectly elected council leader - even one with the grand title of 'Chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority'.

The deal presented as a revelation in Greater Manchester is something of a fudge - you get a mayor but that person's chained down by the regions council leaders making it hard to deliver real direction (especially if the City's residents decide to elect an independent or Conservative while all but one or two of the leaders are Labour). Even with the most likely outcome - a Labour mayor leading a 'cabinet' of mostly Labour leaders - the 'boot down the doors of Whitehall' factor is limited by local political consideration. And the mayor and cabinet's actions aren't subject to effective, independent scrutiny but rather to scrutiny by councillors appointed by those same leaders who sit on the mayor's cabinet.

Finally, the deals on offer aren't about - nor do they resolve - England's democratic deficit. For all that groups like Centre for Cities want to pretend that city and city-region devolution answers this problem, it remains the case that the devolution offer is limited (it doesn't include education and health beyond some administrative changes, for example). And the deals don't make much difference to the dilemma of financing capital infrastructure investment. What is offered is the chance to strengthen the delivery of current transport, regeneration and housing investment plus the ability to get plans drawn up, give them political backing and thwack them down on the Treasury table saying 'this is what we want funding'.

There's a long way to go - the best we can expect this side of a general election is some proposals. And the wider devolution debate - the one about England - moves on (unresolved so far). If we do move to a West Yorkshire (or perhaps a wider West Riding) model, I'm sure it will involve an elected mayor. The real question isn't this one but the rest of the governance - do we need a directly elected assembly as London has or will some sort of appointed system via existing local councils be good enough to hold a powerful mayor to account?

A long way to go yet but I know one thing - saying 'no, we don't want that sort of thing' really doesn't help the argument. The price of fish is simple - do you want a mayor plus elected assembly, a mayor plus appointed combined authority or nothing (and the joy of watching mayors from Manchester, Merseyside, Sheffield and Newcastle thwacking down their schemes and sucking up the infrastructure funding). Interesting times!

....

West Yorkshire's political leaders don't want to tell you about their plans for devolution

****

I'm a member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority's Overview & Scrutiny Committee and this morning (through the post rather than by electronic means) I received a document that you good folk don't even know exists. It's entitled:

Northern Devolution: West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership Joint Response

You don't know about this document or the proposals it contains because, for reasons that entirely escape me, the covering letter accompanying the report is headed:

Private and Confidential - Not for Public Circulation

I'm assuming that the proposals are marked as confidential because of the words 'negotiating document'. This is the pitch from our politicians up here in Yorkshire to those politicians down there in London. Now it's true that Calderdale Council at least had a debate about devolution but other than this there has been no public discussion of the issues involved - what the geography should be, what powers might be devolved, what it means for the broader issue of England's democratic deficit and how any devolved arrangements should be governed.

What we have here is a summation of the problems we face with politics and why so many people are so fed up with us politicians. These are proposals for a very substantial change to government in West Yorkshire yet it hasn't be subject to consultation, let alone any recognisable process to secure a democratic mandate. The proposals are significant but have been agreed by a small group of Councillors meeting in secret plus a few select business folk who have been appointed (by those same councillors) to the board of the local economic partnership.

You the public are not to be trusted with any role or say in this matter. These leaders want to determine the governance themselves (in which case it will be a cosy secondary body that isn't directly elected or noticeably accountable) and through this to secure control of several billion pounds a year of public funding in West Yorkshire. All done in secret.

....

The failings of public transport revisited...

****

And this is despite all the old folk getting free travel during the period in question:

The new developments come after it was revealed that the number of bus journeys in West Yorkshire have reduced from 235 million in 1995-96 to an estimated 180 million in 2011-12. 

Not a very impressive record for West Yorkshire's public transport people. But somehow we're now going to hand over all the transport cash - you know for roads and cars as well as the buses they've screwed up on - to this lovely bunch (now calling themselves the 'Integrated Transport Authority').

Tell me it's a joke?

....

Public engagement - West Yorkshire Police Authority style

****

The great and good of West Yorkshire Police Authority are planning to descend on Keighley where they will present to us (or rather the dozen or so who know about the occasion and can be bothered to attend) stories of the wonders done by the Authority and the Police Force it doesn't really run:

Kiran Bali, vice-chairman of the committee, said: “This is our third visit to the Bradford district since we started taking this committee out into communities within West Yorkshire over a year ago, but our first visit to Keighley."

No idea who Kiran Bali might be - except that he's certainly not from Keighley and seems inordinately smug about three trips to the "Bradford District" (population 500,000). Apparently the occasion will feature a discussion on "public confidence in the police".

Unfortunately either the newspaper or the police authority have neglected to tell the reader when or where the consultation event is to take place. So those readers will just move on and live with the fact that they have a police force noticeable mostly by its absence. A police force that can find 1500 officer to police a handful of EDL demonstrators - and then spend endless hours bragging about how well it handled that problem - but can't find a copper to man a front desk overnight to deal with the desperate victim, the frightened old lady or the offender who hands himself in.

It really is a bit of a joke really.

....

How it works...

****

When we speak of how Brussels lacks democracy, we point to the opaqueness of its decision-making, its secrecy and the manner in which directives are spawned on the back of private meetings between ministers. We rightly – assuming we are wise – cry foul at the imperious, almost imperialistic, nature of the European Union’s project of centralisation.

But we don’t realise that this system, this thing we condemn so loudly (and rightly), merely reflects on a trans-national scale the system under which we live already? Let me tell you a little story to illustrate.

There is an organisation called the Association of West Yorkshire Authorities (AWYA) – it doesn’t even have a web site:

The AWYA is an association of the five West Yorkshire metropolitan local authorities – Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield.  It was established in 1993 to provide a forum for the discussion and co-ordination of matters of mutual concern and interest.
 

The AWYA acts as the local government voice of West Yorkshire, promoting and lobbying for its interests and identity. It provides a means for the five Councils to reach joint views on proposed legislation and other matters of concern to West Yorkshire, and to express these views to organisations such as the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly (YHA), Local Government Yorkshire and the Humber (LGYH), central government and other appropriate bodies.

All rather grand! But the truth should be more worrying to those who believe that transparency is essential to effective democracy. The AWYA meets periodically – attended by the Leaders and Chief Executives of the five West Yorkshire local councils. It is currently chaired by Ian Greenwood, leader of Bradford Council. It meets in secret and its minutes are not published. And it makes major decisions without reference to the processes in the five local councils (hiding behind words like ‘subject to ratification’ or some such). And these are big decisions:

The Association of West Yorkshire Authorities, with Bradford Council leader Ian Greenwood as chairman, met last month to discuss setting up the West Yorkshire Transport Fund.

Documents obtained by the T&A show a £1bn fund could have a “transformational impact” equivalent to 33km of light rail network, a 60km network of high quality bus rapid transit, or 43km of new roads.

The aim of the fund would be to address the region’s key economic barriers and drivers and, if investment is well targeted, it could add £1bn a year to the region’s economic potential as well as creating 20,000 jobs in the medium term.

It may well be that setting up such a fund is a stonking idea but the way in which the AWYA has arrived at the decision to progress its creation isn’t remotely democratic nor is there any evidence that public scrutiny is possible or of a train of accountability back to the voter. It is, to be blunt, a stitch up promoted by vested interest without reference to the real transport needs of the “sub-region” let alone the specific interests of local communities that actually elect the councillors who are supposed to take these decisions.

And the AWYA is just one such body – we have others in West Yorkshire: the Police Authority, the Local Economic Partnership, something called the Joint Services Board and assorted “City-Region” panels and boards. And below that – at the district level – there’s a further set of such boards, panels and partnerships, all distant from the voter and all designed allow decisions to be made with the minimum of examination by voters.

So next time you rail about Brussels, take a look at your local area and remember that the system there merely reflects the way in which government operates under social democracy and the corporate state.

....

Things that West Yorkshire Police could safely cut...

****

Received an e-mail this morning from Bradford Council's press and marketing operation - telling me about the latest of West Yorkshire Police's jolly campaigns: "Neighbourhood policing: here for good!"

You may already be aware, that the Chief Constable, Sir Norman Bettison, has launched a Police campaign, ‘Neighbourhood Policing Here for Good.’ Please see the attached poster.

The campaign will aim to reassure the public that West Yorkshire Police is still committed to Neighbourhood Policing and the principles of 'Our Commitment.'

The campaign will be driven by the Force’s 48 Neighbourhood Policing Teams who will be provided with materials such as posters and flyers. The message will also appear on the Force website, social network sites and be distributed via Bluetooth messaging.

 
And you wondered what your local police were up to, didn't you? Posters, flyers, grand tours by the top brass, receptions for us councillors (and others of the local 'great and good') - I'm curious as to how many criminals this will catch and how many crimes it will prevent. Approximately none at all, I suspect.
 
....

West Yorkshire - what opinion polls might mean in our marginals

I've been wasting a little time doing some psephology - trying to get a better handle on what the current opinion polling might affect the outcomes in West Yorkshire's cluster of marginal constituencies. My little model (and I won't bore you with the details except to say is applies the variation from 2005 actual results implicit in the current polling. So here are the results using Saturday's YouGov rolling poll:

Bradford East: Liberal Democrat Gain (maj.1118)

Bradford West: Conservative Gain (maj. 1369)

Calder Valley: Conservative Gain (maj. 3867)

Colne Valley: Conservative Gain (maj. 2922 over Lib Dems)

Dewsbury: Conservative Gain (maj. 241)

Elmet & Rothwell: Conservative Gain (maj. 333)

Halifax: Conservative Gain (maj. 1097)

Keighley: Conservative Gain (maj. 757)

Leeds NE: Labour Hold (maj. 1439)

Leeds NW: Lib Dem Hold (maj. 6450 over Conservatives)

Pudsey: Conservative Gain (maj. 567)

Shipley: Conservative Hold (maj. 5313)

I'm not going to update this every day but you get the gist I'm sure - most of the Tory key targets look likely to pretty close run affairs. There's no doubt that the effort on the ground - the 'get out the vote' effort, the canvassing, the knocking up, the local campaign will be important. Right now, the Conservatives and Lib Dems seem ahead - more leaflets, more posters, more positivity. Nevertheless there's all to play for in many of these places.

....