Gallery

An Open Letter to Ian Hudspeth, Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, About Proposed Budget Cuts

ian-hudspeth-david-cameron-388796

Dear Mr Hudspeth

I was the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Banbury in May. I’ve met you a couple of times, the most recent being after the public meeting held in Banbury Town Hall as part of Oxfordshire County Council’s consultation process on the proposed additional £50m cuts to local services.

So it was with great interest that I read your correspondence with David Cameron, splashed across national headlines last week, which painted a clear picture of a Prime Minister with only a tenuous grasp on the realities of the demands he has made on local authorities such as Oxfordshire, where he also happens to be an MP.

At the meeting we briefly touched on the magnitude of the savings being demanded in the context of our national finances. I made the case that with a national debt of £1.56 trillion – nearly half of which was added by our Conservative Chancellor during the tenure of the last government – a deficit of £83bn and annual interest payments of around £43bn, saving £50m from local authority spending was the equivalent of trying to pay your mortgage off by skipping breakfast once a year.

Whilst these cuts will have virtually zero impact on the debt left to future generations, they will have a huge effect on those who depend on the front line services being withdrawn. In particular on adult social care facilities and the children’s centres you plan to close which were amongst Mr Cameron’s principal concerns.

Your reply to me was that we all had to “do our bit”. Well it seems from your response to the PM that ‘our bit’ has already been well and truly done.

As a local politician expected to deliver on these impossible polices, I’m sure you know that they are economically illiterate. Cuts to social care will impact on the health service as a whole. Cuts to support for young people have potential effects on social order. Cuts to public transport have serious implications for the workforce and people in isolated rural communities.

I hope you’ll agree with me that there’s a point where cuts can no longer be the solution to balancing the books. Personally I think we’re already well beyond that line in the sand.

So I’m confused by your own position on government policy, given that you continue to publicly affirm that you share Mr Cameron’s blind faith in the blunt instrument of austerity as the answer to all our problems.

You’ve also made much of the statistic that 2% of the county’s population consumes 50% of the finances. I’m sure the old, the sick and infirm are a great drain on our public services, but in a modern society surely those people should expect to be looked after by those of us who are better able to do so.

Do you feel perhaps that this 2% should be prepared to support the more lavish spending plans of our government in other spheres? The wasting of hundreds of billions to allow us to play our part in a thermonuclear Armageddon maybe. Or vanity transport projects that will allow people to get from London to Birmingham 15 minutes faster, when Oxfordshire County Council has just voted to cut local bus subsidies in the county.

Should Oxfordshire pensioners be made fearful of putting their heating on this winter but be comforted as they shiver in the dark that they are ‘doing their bit’? All this while the government you support hands over £5.9bn to private oil and gas companies – a figure well over a thousand times greater than the cuts we are being asked to make – and slashes support for local renewable energy projects, meaning we will miss EU emissions reductions obligations and become the only G7 country to increase spending on fossil fuels.

I really feel that you have to come down on one side of the fence or the other here. You can’t continue to support the cuts in public whilst apparently opposing them in private. As leader of the county council, the people of Oxfordshire deserve an unequivocal statement of your aims and allegiances.

You will no doubt be aware that Mr Cameron’s intervention in Oxford has now prompted requests from over 100 other councils to have a similar direct consultation with him over budget pressures. He also faces accusations of ministerial impropriety over his intervention with you.

So perhaps now would be a good time for hard-pressed council leaders such as yourself to make a firmer stand. You could set an example and refuse to pass what you have already told the PM is an impossible budget to balance in any morally defensible way. I know such actions come with potential repercussions, but if other council leaders followed your lead, how many mutinies could Westminster really handle? This could be your place in history calling!

Alternatively you could join the drive for the abolition or raising of the now outdated 2% referendum threshold on council tax increases. As you hinted at in your letter to Mr Cameron, selling the family silver can only plug the gaps for so long. If we want well funded local services, we should all be prepared to pay ‘our bit’ for them. Polls carried out by the Oxfordshire Green Party, The Oxford Mail and at your own consultation events have shown that people would be prepared to pay more council tax if they saw the money going to essential services.

Of course this would require the government to square the circle of increasingly expensive public services without any rise in taxation. But if they truly believe in localism, councils should surely be free to set their own local levy, unhindered by ideological thresholds dictated by central doctrine.

I think the people of Oxfordshire would welcome your further engagement with the PM on their behalf and with local activists on these matters. I personally look forward to your thoughts on how best to capitalise on what has now become a national talking point, and how we can use this new focus in the best interests of Oxfordshire residents and other similarly concerned groups across the country.

Gallery

Cherwell or Fracking Well?

EPA-Fracking-may-cause-groundwater-pollution-TMMF9OP-x-largeHydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’ is a new unconventional and controversial technique for extracting gas and in some case oil from the deep bedrock.  It has serious environmental and quality of life issues for all of us, but particularly for those of us who live in areas that sit on top of these deposits.  Unfortunately for us, that included large areas of North Oxford and Cherwell.

Fracking has been sold as being the answer to the UK’s energy problems, but in areas like the USA where it’s been widely used, this has not been proved to be the case.  What has been shown is that it contaminates water supplies and creates huge amounts of noise and disruption for local residents.  It’s also been implicated as the cause land movements and in some cases actual earthquakes.  Indeed when the first test drill was sunk in the UK near Blackpool, they experienced one of the strongest earth tremors recorded in the area in decades.

The main process involves drilling large bore holes, often sideways underneath properties not owned by the drilling companies (as right that has now been granted to them by the government) and pumping a cocktail of water and up to 90 different chemicals, many of them highly toxic, into the ground under immense pressure.  This cracks the rock and releases trapped gas.  The water is then recycled back into the normal water system where it’s treated and used again.  That is apart from the water that leaks into local water courses and along with some of chemicals and the gas.

If you want to see how this process affects local people watch the film Gasland and Gasland 2, clips of which are available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Another main method is something called underground coal gasification, which involved drilling into coal seams and then setting them alight.  The controlled burn then generates coal gas which is extracted.  This process is often hard to control and becomes every bit as horrific as it sounds.  This is the type of extraction that we could see being used in areas like Bloxham which sits on large coal deposits.

A national pressure group has also been set up called ‘Frack Off’.  They recently released a short video that explains what we may see in our area if fracking is allowed to go ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYniYtJEeeI

government’s presumption against fracking in designated areas, such as national parks, goes to show that the Coalition recognises that hydraulic fracking will harm the environment and presents significant risks.

The Green Party calls on the government to offer all communities the same protection from dirty and dangerous fracking and shift energy policy focus instead towards clean, renewable energy sources and energy conservation.

The latest bidding process for licenses to extract shale gas from large parts of the UK is under way.  The government is also proposing to pay large amounts of money to local councils that support fracking, regardless of local residents wishes.

About half the UK is open to exploration, but tightened rules cover areas of outstanding beauty and large areas of Cherwell. The Green Party is the only mainstream political party fighting to stop fracking being pushed through by a government which consistently puts corporate profit over people.

Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“While the Government has signalled an intention to ensure some protective measures, we can have little confidence in promises of a robust regulatory framework.

“We know fracking can cause water contamination and shortages, as well as air and soil pollution. And this is an industry that’s made a catalogue of errors already. But legitimate concerns over its very real environmental and health risks are falling on deaf ears.

“By seeking to lock us ever-more firmly into fossil fuel dependence the Government is turning a blind eye to reason. It’s crystal clear that we need to be shifting to clean, renewable energy sources.

“We need a rapid shift to a zero carbon economy and that is not going to happen by pouring resources into establishing an entirely new fossil fuel industry.”

As your MP I would fight tooth and nail to prevent our wonderful communities and countryside from being torn apart by this ‘bottom of the barrel’ technology.  The Green Party is the only major party standing up against these proposals and we need support of local communities to help us stop these wells from being set up before it’s too late.  Once the process is begun we may all live to regret the fact that we didn’t stand up to be counted when we had the chance.

Gallery

Visit to Banbury Market 17th January 2015

market sheetLast week myself and John Haywood from the Banbury and Cherwell Green Party visited the market in central Banbury to speak to the stall holders about the changes being proposed to this 1000 year old tradition in the heart of an historic town.

We spoke with all the stallholders present, although sadly they were only 10 of them trading on the day.  They were all all opposed to Cherwell District Council’s illogical and damaging decision to restrict the stalls to the Cornhill end of the Market Place.  A plan also supported by the Conservative controlled Town Council.

I started my own 25 year long retail career on a market stall, and worked it for 7 years with my partner though rain, hail sleet, snow and sunshine.  I know how difficult it can be to make a living and how fragile the trading environment can be.  Your livelihood can depend on so many variable factors, and one of the major fears is losing your regular pitch, for whatever reason.

It may seem silly to anyone who hasn’t traded in a market themselves, but where your stall sits can make all the difference between success and failure.  The location of competing trades, the flow of people moving through the market, who your neighbours are, your visibility and prominence in the market as a whole are all desperately important.

There appears to have been absolutely no consultation with stall holders or customers about these unpopular changes, and based on what stallholders and visitors told me I foresee them being the death knell for this historic trading post as more and more traders fall by the wayside.

So what seems like a minor change to the council, will probably be anything but to the people trying to make a living out of the market.  This move could likely kill it off!  it’s already become smaller and therefore less popular, especially over the last 20 years. In 1997 there were 120 stalls, now its down to less than 20.

Considering it’s reduced pull for consumers it’s completely incongruous that the rents being charged by the private firm managing on behalf of the council are almost double that charged by neighbouring markets such as Abingdon, Aylesbury, Hinkley, Oxford and Thame.  And as with most things these days, the rent goes up every year.  Meanwhile trade is slowly dwindling away to nothing, leaving regular and loyal traders quite literally out in the cold.

saleThe Council’s plan includes opening the Market car park for use on Thursdays and Fridays. There is no evidence to suggest this will increase car park usage and revenue to the Council – people already using other car parks such as that near to the Matalan Store will simply park in the market place instead.

Government initiatives on town centre regeneration called for more emphasis and support for market days and the traders that build and run these vital hubs of trade and local amenity in our towns and cities.  The Portas review cited markets as one of the easiest ways that town centres could be revitalised and kept alive.  Why then is the Conservative run Cherwell Council ignoring the views of it’s own established market traders?  Why are they proposing moves that could potentially irreparably damage trade in such an established and once vibrant local fixture?

Banbury market should be seen by Cherwell Council as an asset to the town.  They should be supporting it actively and engaging with the traders and customers to find ways of safeguarding the it’s future, rather than taking unilateral actions with no consultation.

This is a Charter Market, which bestows on Banbury the status of a Market Town.  By birthright it should be located in the Market Square.

I would urge Cherwell councillors to do what I did.  Take a walk around the market and speak to the people whose livelihoods are in their hands.  Speak also to the local residents and patrons of the market and ask them what they think about the priorities that they are planning to enforce on everyone.

This is not a decision that can be taken just by moving squares on a map.

me and john landscape