The Local Channel Chat

Recycle? Only if you live in the correct area!

TLCSupport — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:31:00 GMT

You would think that with the UK facing fines of £180m per year from the EU for failing to achieve higher levels of recycling, that Local Authorities wouldn’t be turning people away from recycling centres just because of where they live.
But, people living near borders of Local Authorities are being turned away from Recycling centres that are not run by “their own” local Authority, or are being forced to lie about where they live to enable them to deposit their recycling. Examples of this have been notified to us by people living on the West Berkshire and Hampshire/Wiltshire borders, as well as in the Newport Area.The recycling centre in Tadley (Hampshire) has recently been closed. This follows a survey last year which showed that 70% of the people that used the centre came from West Berkshire (Not Hampshire)In Plymouth many people in Flats (as opposed to Houses) are not being issued with recycling bins.
There are also examples of where some residents are being given recycling facilities within an area while others are not. Examples notified to us here include Plymouth, Stroud and Camden
I think this is an outrage, are we not encouraged to recycle, why would i want to travel an extra 15 miles if i've got a centre down the road, am i not contributing to higher carbon emissions by driving further to recycle, this country is becoming worse by the day! I wont be able to go to the toilet soon without filling in a questionaire before hand, its disgusting! Does anyone else know any examples of this in your area ??

Obese women could be deprived of IVF

TLCSupport — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:38:00 GMT

IVF experts reveal that women with a Body Mass Index of more than 35 could be deprived of IVF treatment. Only when a woman has a body mass of below 30 will they then be considered for treatment. Experts say that this is for the welfare of both mother and baby. Being overweight when pregnant could cause a number of problems such as decreasing the possibility that fertility treatment will be successful, it also increases the risk of complications during fertility and pregnancy says Mr Tony Rutherford, the chair of the BFS’s policy committee. Other problems such as failing to see ovaries on ultra sound scans and higher risk of miscarriages are also a concern with overweight women. Dr Colin Waine, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, disagrees and describes the new guidelines as ‘’troubling’’ and ‘’discriminating’’. Should IVF experts decide whether overweight women should have treatment or should the risks be discussed and left up to the individual to decide? Are they taking away the right for women, overweight or not, to start a family? Some women find it extremely hard to lose weight and are naturally overweight due to genetics so are they automatically cut off from IVF treatment? Is this a big enough incentive for the obese to lose weight in our bigger society? What do other people think?

Gordon Brown to tax local firms for going green!?

TLCSupport — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:25:00 GMT

Businesses trying to tackle climate change and installing greener energy technology face higher taxes, Conservatives warned today. The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills. This follows the news that Tony Blairs targets for renewable energy are set to be abandoned by Gordon Brown.

Higher business rates for green energy: The small print of the Pre-Budget Report earlier this month admits that “the installation of micro-generation equipment in business premises can trigger an increased liability for business rates”. It pledges not to increase bills until the next revaluation – yet the rates revaluation inspection process will start next year, with new bills issued in 2010.
Higher taxes wipe out energy saving benefits: Previously unseen research by the Renewable Energy Association, obtained by Conservatives, has calculated that the higher business rate liability "more than wipes out the value of the electricity generated". As a result a solar panel "will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company". A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates.

Eric Pickles MP, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, said:

“Rather than using the tax system to reward green behaviour, Gordon Brown is crippling small businesses who want to do their bit to tackle climate change, hitting them with unfair stealth taxes. Firms who install solar panels or wind turbines will face soaring business rate bills. This will wipe out their electricity savings and discourage them from going green, in turn increasing carbon emissions.

Can anyone shed a light whether this is true? I can't seem to find anything to back this up.

Are we not encouraged to do what we can to reduce carbon emissions? To help our environment that we all share and contribute to a healthier planet and now we're being charged to make these changes!?

I think our country has gone mad - introducing all these new legislations is like living under a rule book and our freedom seems to be slipping through our finger tips uncontrollably but thats another story!

Rising oil puts pressure on rural life

TLCSupport — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:41:00 GMT

The rise in oil price affects those in rural areas most but on the positive side it’s good for the environment and it might curb the obesity problem ?

Obviously those of us who live in the countryside over 20 miles from any major conurbation will be hit hardest by the recent hike in oil prices. We rely on our cars to get to workplaces, schools, the shops and for our general daily existence. The lack of public transport facilities mean that there is no other option for us but to dig deep and pay the pump price, now in excess of £1 a litre. Now that the £1 barrier has been breached prices will creep further upwards as the oil supply is squeezed yet further.

The good news is that we can now inadvertently do our bit for the environment by keeping our travelling to the minimum and thinking twice about shorter journeys – can we go by bike? Or can we walk? Perhaps this is the answer to the obesity problem too as we all take more enforced exercise. All transport costs are going to be affected by this oil shortage eventually and it won’t just be the squeals from the shires that tell us all the good times are over. Oil is a major heating fuel for many so it’s going to be an expensive winter keeping warm.

The price for a barrel of oil is about to surpass the $100 mark and this coupled with the weakness of the dollar means everyone is feeling the pinch. The oil supply is being squeezed leading to higher prices with less production in the US, and keenly controlled supply and prices via the Organisation of Petroleum Countries – OPEC. Many investors are holding oil stocks rather than dollars as a hedge against that currency too. A bad sign for the greenback and evidenced by the slide against the euro and sterling.

Demand for oil in the tiger economies of China and India mean that the oil price will remain high and rise higher still whilst those countries keep booming. The Chinese are looking to Iran and Iraq for their future oil supplies as the amount produced within China for the domestic market is expected to run out in 14 years time. However now that the US and EU are suffering from the credit crunch there will be a cooling in demand for imports and this may in turn slow down the global economy. I found this great article about the credit crunch which explains how it happened - have a look at this link:

http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/general/the-credit-crunch-explained.html

Understanding how we got to this point is all well and good but how are we going to get by - got any suggestions for how to cope let me know?

Housing policy built on sand

kcooper — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:39:00 GMT

You may be wondering why, on a blog dedicated to Regional Assemblies, the top article is headlined "Housing".

Well from the Queens speech - A Housing Bill will also create a new Homes and Communities Agency "that will deliver more social and affordable housing, and promote regeneration" she said.

Brown has promised three million new homes, with an annual house-building target of 240,000 new properties by 2016.

NOW. Let's think about that and see it from a Local Authority point of view and imagine the conversation: -

"Mr Local Authority how many of the 3 million news home would you like built in your area?"

"Hmm let me think???? I know NONE MATE"

So given that Local Authorities are very unlikely to actually want major new housing developments in their area, how on earth is the government going to implement this policy? Yes the only way to do it is going to be through the Regional Assemblies. Who by the way are being given complete control of planning!

So here we go, we have a body on people in a position of power and who are completely un-elected to this position. Now some of these people have been elected (Local Councillors etc) but not by us to the assembly. Others are appointees (Totally unelected)

So if you want a policy of house building (and if you're a natural born sceptic like me) I wonder what sort of people you may appoint to these assemblies. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have for example a builder, perhaps a builder's merchant a local land owner, a developer, and perhaps even an estate agent?

Of course you may want to balance that with a few environmentalists, a representative from the country side alliance and Parish Councillors, no don't be silly.

But this is the whole point about Regional Assemblies. No one wants them (Except the government), They cost a great deal of money, they are formed from people who are un-elected to the post, formed from some people who are completely un-elected and were actually voted out by the north east.

On the subject of cost for regional assemblies I had a little look at the South East Regional Assembly (SERA) It is described as a small team, well let me tell you there a 50 of them and I don't consider that a small team in any way shape or form. In addition to that at an average salary of say £35k per year (I bet that's a major under estimate) the salary bill alone is going to be one million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds!!

Now there are 8 of these things so id SERA is representative we are talking about a salary bill of fourteen million pounds per year!

That's just salaries the running costs are going to be enormous, let's say there are only 400 people making up the Regional assemblies and each one costs (excluding salary) it is about 32% of salary so £10,240 each a total of another £4 million so were are looking a people costs of around £18,000,000 Yes Eighteen Million pounds just in people costs. That's before they actually start spending our tax money on projects! By the way this is probably a very low estimate.

So are you getting value for money and are these people in such a powerful position representing you?

Answers on a reply please

So the Housing policy is not so much built on sand but forced through by undemocratic means, with no account of local input and by passing the Local Authority. It's built on a dictatorship.

The death of on-line voting

kcooper — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:46:00 GMT

On-line voting in Local Elections may well be scrapped

Government in this country can give one the right hump!. The latest piece of policy concerns E-government and E-voting. Why is this such an issue? Well in the last election turnout was somewhat low not only in the general election but in the more recent local elections. And what is our government going to do about it, stop E-voting.

The Electoral Commission has published a review (2nd August 2007) criticising the e-counting and e-voting pilots at the 2007 local elections. Commission chief executive Peter Wardle said: "We have learnt a good deal from pilots over the past few years. But we do not see any merit in continuing with small-scale, piecemeal piloting where similar innovations are explored each year without sufficient planning and implementation time, and in the absence of any clear direction, or likelihood of new insights.

Small scale ? – This from 2003 - The Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 121) on Invest to Save Budget Round 5 Projects, Local E-Government Programme and E-Voting report provides 18 local authorities with about £18.3 million of funding to support the enhanced programme of e-voting pilots that took place during this May's local elections.

In total, 59 local authorities, covering more than 6.4 million voters, held electoral pilot schemes; making it the biggest ever test of national e-voting technology. E-voting pilots included digital television, internet, touch-tone telephone, text messaging and, in the counting of votes, e-counting machines and all-postal ballots. If this is small scale I’d hate to think what might happen and what it would cost if they did it on a grand scale!

The schemes were aimed at modernising and reinvigorating the electoral process, making it easier for people to vote. As the programme develops, they say “we wish to see widespread e-enabled elections to local authorities and the devolved administrations. The ultimate objective is to hold an e-enabled general election at some time after 2006.”

Local Government Online set aside £10 million in each year (2002 to 2005) for e-voting. In 2004, the North West E-Government Group (Just one of 8 Regions) allocated £1m to support for e-voting quality assurance alongside the £12m allocation for 2005 e-voting pilots. So having spent £58.3m and involved 6.4 million people in a “small scale” operation the Electoral Commission is proposing scrapping E-voting. This is much to the disgust of Swindon. Deputy returning officer Alan Winchcombe said that while it may have failed elsewhere, it worked in Swindon. "Everybody does things on the internet or by telephone these days and if we don't bring the voting process into the modern age, the younger population in Swindon won't bother to vote," he said. "That's what they're telling us, they won't go to one polling station on one day to do it, they need to have some choice and flexibility. "We had some people voting at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning because it suited their lifestyle."

Come on guys get into the 21st century, if you want people to be involved in local and central politics and cast their votes make it easy for them to do so. Standing around polling station on a cold night, possibly raining is not the ticket. In this day and age where everything can be performed for home from shopping to watching a movie surly casting a vote, which after all is only putting a cross on a piece of paper, should be done on-line and goodness only knows when we can all do it maybe the bill for elections will be radically reduced.