The Labour Conference in Manchester is over. There were full and frank exchanges of views everywhere. So full and frank that people were even stabbing each other (figuratively) in the chest - and Mr. Wolfgang managed to go through the whole thing without being thrown out once or even arrested for being unkind to Margaret Becket.
There were two undoubted stars. First was Bill Clinton, one of the most persuasive tricksters ever to occupy the White House. I actually prefer George W. Bush - at least he's a WYSIWYG president. Bill wowed them as he's done before. This is becoming fashionable - to have American politicians at British party conferences - I think it started when Caspar Weinberger addresses a Tory fringe meeting in the late 1980s.
The other star was undoubtedly Tony Blair. Perhaps he felt lifted by the prospect of never having to do it again. He was certainly more relaxed than Gordon Brown and more fluent than Alan Johnson - and nicer than John Reid!
But listening to Gordon Brown I was reminded of the performances of David Davis at Blackpool last year and I'm not in the least surprised that the odds against him succeeding Blair are lengthening. This could really mark the start of the travails of Gordon. Stay tuned!
My personal award for least convincing ministerial speech goes to the former chairman of the Young Liberals, Liberal candidate for Putney and menace of cricket pitches, Peter Hain. This is for his pathetic attempt to portray devolution as a Unionist policy and his suggestion that Tory objections to Scottish and Welsh MPs being able to vote on English issues while they (like English MPs) can't vote on a whole raft of things that affect their own constituents in Scotland and Wales was 'creating second class MPs' and damaging the United Kingdom. Is the man so purblind that he really can't see that the damage has been done by the constitutional dog's breakfast his ham-fisted master has created?
Friday, September 29, 2006
Curbing Livingstone?
See link http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19092006/143/tories-remove-mayor-s-powers.html.
This is a very welcome policy announcement from Jacqui Lait. Livingstone has been doing under the new dispensation exactly what he did as GLC leader 20 years ago - trying to expand his own powers at the expense of the Boroughs and citizens in general.
He's now even beginning to behave like a sovereign power, making treaties with fellow Leftie Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. We'll be back to 'nuclear free zones' and all the other apparatus of the 'Loony Left' before long unless he is curbed - and the Greater London Assembly, hampered by the effects of PR, is in no state to curb him effectively.
I'd be prepared to consider going a stage further - and get rid of Blair's Mayor altogether.
This is a very welcome policy announcement from Jacqui Lait. Livingstone has been doing under the new dispensation exactly what he did as GLC leader 20 years ago - trying to expand his own powers at the expense of the Boroughs and citizens in general.
He's now even beginning to behave like a sovereign power, making treaties with fellow Leftie Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. We'll be back to 'nuclear free zones' and all the other apparatus of the 'Loony Left' before long unless he is curbed - and the Greater London Assembly, hampered by the effects of PR, is in no state to curb him effectively.
I'd be prepared to consider going a stage further - and get rid of Blair's Mayor altogether.
Behaving ethically
Last night we had a training workshop on ethical behaviour. It was quite well attended and it was good that the lay members of the Standards Committee were there as well, though, considering that the Code of Conduct covers all who hold office under the Council, it would have been good to see more advisory members of Panels there.
The most entertaining part revolved around the question ethical standards and when thay apply and of 'personal' and 'prejudicial' interest.
It seems it was OK for Mayor Livingstone to indulge in anti-semitic remarks ('Hate Crime'?) when walking home tired and emotional after a function, because he wasn't acting in an official capacity at the time. Presumably the immigration 'judge' who employed an illegal immigrant as a cleaner (and was consoled by her other attributes) will be able to plead the same defence if anyone questions his fitness for his office.
The other fascinating discussion ranged around interest, especially in planning. One must enter a meeting with an open mind. If a firm you work for or have dealings with, or an organisation you belong to, has a planning application in you should declare a personal and prejudicial interest and leave the room. Fair enough. But what if a rival firm or organisation has an application in, the granting of which would/could give them a competitive advantage over yours, surely you would have a prejudicial interest in refusing the application. Apparently not.
We are told that the government is, like Fagin in 'Oliver' 'reviewing the situation'. So it should, and soon, because, although the intention behind the original legislation was undoubtedly good, there would appear to be glaring anomalies created by their failure to think it through properly in the first place.
Now where have I heard that before?
The most entertaining part revolved around the question ethical standards and when thay apply and of 'personal' and 'prejudicial' interest.
It seems it was OK for Mayor Livingstone to indulge in anti-semitic remarks ('Hate Crime'?) when walking home tired and emotional after a function, because he wasn't acting in an official capacity at the time. Presumably the immigration 'judge' who employed an illegal immigrant as a cleaner (and was consoled by her other attributes) will be able to plead the same defence if anyone questions his fitness for his office.
The other fascinating discussion ranged around interest, especially in planning. One must enter a meeting with an open mind. If a firm you work for or have dealings with, or an organisation you belong to, has a planning application in you should declare a personal and prejudicial interest and leave the room. Fair enough. But what if a rival firm or organisation has an application in, the granting of which would/could give them a competitive advantage over yours, surely you would have a prejudicial interest in refusing the application. Apparently not.
We are told that the government is, like Fagin in 'Oliver' 'reviewing the situation'. So it should, and soon, because, although the intention behind the original legislation was undoubtedly good, there would appear to be glaring anomalies created by their failure to think it through properly in the first place.
Now where have I heard that before?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Sorry?
See http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16092006/325/pope-sorry-remarks.html.
The implication of the heading of this article isn't quite borne out by what follows. Benedict's regret is that his words have been distorted and their meaning misunderstood.
What we need now is for the people who have distorted and misunderstood them to come clean as to their reasons for doing so.
The implication of the heading of this article isn't quite borne out by what follows. Benedict's regret is that his words have been distorted and their meaning misunderstood.
What we need now is for the people who have distorted and misunderstood them to come clean as to their reasons for doing so.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Pope Benedict and Islam
See news story http://uk.news.yahoo.com/15092006/325/muslims-deplore-pope-speech.html.
On Tuesday Pope Benedict gave a rather academic speech in Regensburg University, where he once lectured. In it he quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor's comments on the spread of Islam.
This is what he actually said in the course of a long lecture:-
"APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of RegensburgTuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the UniversityMemories and Reflections
..................The university was (in the late 1950s when he started teaching there) also very proud of its two theological faculties...... It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ...................................'
The Emperor could speak with knowledge of the gradual conquest of the Byzantine or Roman Empire in the East by Islamic forces over the previous seven or so centuries. Readers of this can judge the Pope's words for themselves and in the context in which they were given.
I a nutshell, what Pope Benedict is asking for is 'Jaw, jaw, not war, war' between religions and mutual tolerance and honesty. This should give offence to no-one, unless they are either (a) looking for something to be offended at or (b) not in agreement with the propositions that 'spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable' and that 'God is not pleased by blood - and acting unreasonably.'
The National Assembly of Pakistan and others please take note.
On Tuesday Pope Benedict gave a rather academic speech in Regensburg University, where he once lectured. In it he quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor's comments on the spread of Islam.
This is what he actually said in the course of a long lecture:-
"APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG (SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of RegensburgTuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the UniversityMemories and Reflections
..................The university was (in the late 1950s when he started teaching there) also very proud of its two theological faculties...... It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ...................................'
The Emperor could speak with knowledge of the gradual conquest of the Byzantine or Roman Empire in the East by Islamic forces over the previous seven or so centuries. Readers of this can judge the Pope's words for themselves and in the context in which they were given.
I a nutshell, what Pope Benedict is asking for is 'Jaw, jaw, not war, war' between religions and mutual tolerance and honesty. This should give offence to no-one, unless they are either (a) looking for something to be offended at or (b) not in agreement with the propositions that 'spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable' and that 'God is not pleased by blood - and acting unreasonably.'
The National Assembly of Pakistan and others please take note.
What's this then?
Someone was paid £40,000 to produce this, it would seem. There's money in 'back of an envelope' logo design. It looks better with the word Conservatives in big, bold letters alongside it.
If we liked the oak tree as an emblem, why not something with clearly oak tree features, perhaps along the lines of the pleasing logo of the National Trust. And could we have something where the green didn't almost squash the blue into the ground?
It may be that younger people will like it, in which case all's well, I suppose. But, to my mind, it does not convey an impression of durability - of being 'built to last', to coin a phrase - and a Conservative logo surely should.
It's a matter of taste, I suppose. Perhaps I'm too Conservative. I wasn't too keen on the hand and torch logo at first. Conservativehome.com has a much better tree motiff in blue. Perhaps this 'tree' will grow on me over time. I hope it grows on the country.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Selection for the Ashes
I enjoyed reading Andrew Flintoff's autobiography - though I expect a few more volumes to be forthcoming ere long! Good luck to him as England Captain in Australia and to the rest of the team selected.
Two things bother me, though. Though Flintoff's captaincy in the Subcontinent last winter was impressive - much moreso than I had expected - he still seemed to perform less well in his own game than when not burdened with the additional strain of the captaincy. Andrew Strauss's batting has noticeably not suffered under the same pressure and, from a spectator's point of view, I would say that there's not much to choose between the two in the area of strategy and tactics.
The second concern is around match fitness. Flintoff, James Anderson and Ashley Giles have been out through injuries for a considerable period and it will take quite a while out in the middle for their reactions to quicken up sufficiently to meet and beat a fit Aussie side, especially on their home turf.
I am delighted they are taking Panesar and Mahmood. Monty will wow the crowds in Australia just as he has at home and Mahmood can be a lethal bowler if he keeps his radar under control and has shown no mean talent with the bat against Pakistan, particularly in the last ODI.
Two things bother me, though. Though Flintoff's captaincy in the Subcontinent last winter was impressive - much moreso than I had expected - he still seemed to perform less well in his own game than when not burdened with the additional strain of the captaincy. Andrew Strauss's batting has noticeably not suffered under the same pressure and, from a spectator's point of view, I would say that there's not much to choose between the two in the area of strategy and tactics.
The second concern is around match fitness. Flintoff, James Anderson and Ashley Giles have been out through injuries for a considerable period and it will take quite a while out in the middle for their reactions to quicken up sufficiently to meet and beat a fit Aussie side, especially on their home turf.
I am delighted they are taking Panesar and Mahmood. Monty will wow the crowds in Australia just as he has at home and Mahmood can be a lethal bowler if he keeps his radar under control and has shown no mean talent with the bat against Pakistan, particularly in the last ODI.
Travails of Tony II
So the TUC gave Tony Blair a hard time. Some like RMT leader Crow even held up placards saying 'Go NOW!' Others staged a walk out - they're good at that.
If the Brothers keep this up, Tony's popularity ratings will soar. Those who remember the 70s will shudder at the prospect of the over-mighty Unions appearing again. Those who don't remember the 70's would be well advised to read up on it or ask those who do - then they can join in the shuddering too.
The leader of the First Division Association seems to have tried to preach 'quiet calm deliberation'. For those who think this organisation has to do with football, let me put them right. The FDA represents senior Civil Servants - Sir Humphrey Appleby types - powerful, permanent administrators, supposedly impartial. So what exactly is the FDA doing at the TUC Congress anyway, being addressed exclusively by politicians of one party?
If the Brothers keep this up, Tony's popularity ratings will soar. Those who remember the 70s will shudder at the prospect of the over-mighty Unions appearing again. Those who don't remember the 70's would be well advised to read up on it or ask those who do - then they can join in the shuddering too.
The leader of the First Division Association seems to have tried to preach 'quiet calm deliberation'. For those who think this organisation has to do with football, let me put them right. The FDA represents senior Civil Servants - Sir Humphrey Appleby types - powerful, permanent administrators, supposedly impartial. So what exactly is the FDA doing at the TUC Congress anyway, being addressed exclusively by politicians of one party?
Monday, September 11, 2006
Cricket lovely cricket II
See 'Cricket lovely cricket' below.
What a good one-day series ended at Edgbaston yesterday, and how appropriate that in should be drawn 2-2.
How appropriate too that the Man of the Match yesterday should have been Sajid Mahmood, an Englishman of Pakistani origins. As he's a Lancastrian he is bound to appeal to myself.
But it is really very sad that he should be subject to abuse from Pakistan supporters in the crowd. They should rather look to him as an example of what can be achieved by a man of talent in Britain regardless of his ethnic or religious background and, in the words of the New Testament 'go thy way and do thou likewise'.
What a good one-day series ended at Edgbaston yesterday, and how appropriate that in should be drawn 2-2.
How appropriate too that the Man of the Match yesterday should have been Sajid Mahmood, an Englishman of Pakistani origins. As he's a Lancastrian he is bound to appeal to myself.
But it is really very sad that he should be subject to abuse from Pakistan supporters in the crowd. They should rather look to him as an example of what can be achieved by a man of talent in Britain regardless of his ethnic or religious background and, in the words of the New Testament 'go thy way and do thou likewise'.
That butler again
See http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11092006/140/diana-s-ex-butler-hits-princes.html.
Am I the only person in UK who is tired of the outpourings of this self-appointed guardian of the 'sacred flame' of Diana's memory?
The lady aroused strong emotions both for and against. She died in not very edifying circumstances 9 years ago. I hope she has found peace in the loving arms of her Creator. It is surely time to let her sons get on with their lives, and for the media to stop pandering to the maudlin outpourings of a man who seems intent on using her memory to draw attention to himself.
Helen Mirren got it just about right when she said that the 'Diana maniacs' were like junkies deprived of their daily fix.
Am I the only person in UK who is tired of the outpourings of this self-appointed guardian of the 'sacred flame' of Diana's memory?
The lady aroused strong emotions both for and against. She died in not very edifying circumstances 9 years ago. I hope she has found peace in the loving arms of her Creator. It is surely time to let her sons get on with their lives, and for the media to stop pandering to the maudlin outpourings of a man who seems intent on using her memory to draw attention to himself.
Helen Mirren got it just about right when she said that the 'Diana maniacs' were like junkies deprived of their daily fix.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The travails of Tony
See link http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07092006/325/blair-quit-year.html.
I could almost bring myself to feel sorry for Blair. His premiership is ending in a way that reinforces Enoch Powell's jeremiad about 'all political careers ending in tragedy'.
Don't get me wrong. In my book he's the worst PM this country has had in 100 years, and he has had this distinction ever since May 1997 - indeed he had it before he ever took office. He has always been more interested in image than substance and such a person is bound to be seen through sooner or later.
The wonder is that so many were taken in for so long, both in Britain and overseas, especially in my much loved USA. I can only assume that the 'commentariat' here had invested so much emotional capital in the overthrow of Thatcherism and its Major offshoot that they were prepared to support almost anyone who was (a) presentable and (b) visibly not connected with either. Blair at first was a blank screen onto which they could project all their own desires and imagine to themselves that he felt like they did. He was at pains to foster and sustain this illusion throughout.
Americans saw in him the ultimate 'Friend of Bill' who was able with astonishing ease to become the faithful shadow of George W. Bush. That this inconsistency spoke volumes about his attitude to politics was ignored as he made all the right sounds about 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yet look at the substance. He has engaged in more foreign adventures requiring the commitment of troops than any PM since WW2. At the same time he has presided over the shrinkage in real terms of the Defence budget, putting the same forces under massive strain facing mortal danger with antiquated or inadequate equipment - Result ? increasing and avoidable casualties.
Blair claims to support the family as an institution. Evidence? He has 4 children. Yet the incidence of state interference in family life is on a scale never seen before, while we have daily examples of escalating violence being perpetrated by youngsters in primary school. They are often aware of their 'human rights' but have no conception of their responsibility to respect others' rights. Blair calls for 'a respect agenda' but his government's social policy seems designed to prevent the imposition of 'respect' by parents or teachers upon youngsters. Instead it sees salvation in another massive, costly and vastly intrusive Children's Index database and an Orwellian system of cameras.
How's that lot to be going on with - and I haven't mentioned the 'Open Door' and 'multiculturalism' yet
I could almost bring myself to feel sorry for Blair. His premiership is ending in a way that reinforces Enoch Powell's jeremiad about 'all political careers ending in tragedy'.
Don't get me wrong. In my book he's the worst PM this country has had in 100 years, and he has had this distinction ever since May 1997 - indeed he had it before he ever took office. He has always been more interested in image than substance and such a person is bound to be seen through sooner or later.
The wonder is that so many were taken in for so long, both in Britain and overseas, especially in my much loved USA. I can only assume that the 'commentariat' here had invested so much emotional capital in the overthrow of Thatcherism and its Major offshoot that they were prepared to support almost anyone who was (a) presentable and (b) visibly not connected with either. Blair at first was a blank screen onto which they could project all their own desires and imagine to themselves that he felt like they did. He was at pains to foster and sustain this illusion throughout.
Americans saw in him the ultimate 'Friend of Bill' who was able with astonishing ease to become the faithful shadow of George W. Bush. That this inconsistency spoke volumes about his attitude to politics was ignored as he made all the right sounds about 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yet look at the substance. He has engaged in more foreign adventures requiring the commitment of troops than any PM since WW2. At the same time he has presided over the shrinkage in real terms of the Defence budget, putting the same forces under massive strain facing mortal danger with antiquated or inadequate equipment - Result ? increasing and avoidable casualties.
Blair claims to support the family as an institution. Evidence? He has 4 children. Yet the incidence of state interference in family life is on a scale never seen before, while we have daily examples of escalating violence being perpetrated by youngsters in primary school. They are often aware of their 'human rights' but have no conception of their responsibility to respect others' rights. Blair calls for 'a respect agenda' but his government's social policy seems designed to prevent the imposition of 'respect' by parents or teachers upon youngsters. Instead it sees salvation in another massive, costly and vastly intrusive Children's Index database and an Orwellian system of cameras.
How's that lot to be going on with - and I haven't mentioned the 'Open Door' and 'multiculturalism' yet
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Scrutiny on Waste Management
We had the third meeting of the new Scrutiny Panel this evening. It was the longest so far but we gave the future of waste management in the Borough a very thorough airing, hearing nine separate witness statements on the situation as it has evolved over the last four years and the way the Administration intends it to develop in the future.
It would appear that the statistics on recycling, which purport to show a leap from about 18% to just under 24 % in a little over a year are a little less flattering than was thought as the basis of calculation was not the same each time. We have been comparing apples with pears, so to speak.
The future seems to centre around a partnership with three other London Boroughs (Merton, Sutton and Croydon) which will handle the problem of disposal in new ways as opportunities and permissions for landfill diminish. This will undoubtedly involve a largescale capital outlay - rather more than the theatre has cost - so far!
The contribution from Friends of the Earth was impressive, especially in pointing out what might be done (or have been done already) to minimise waste in the first place. It was pointed out that many small local businesses were only too willing to help, especially those which mend things like shoes and electrical appliances etc.
The constitution of the partnership of Boroughs and negotiation of new and probably very long term contracts will be a legthy process which we shall monitor continually over the next 2 years. It was a long meeting but I think one that went well as the Panel (the Conservative side anyway) got its teeth into the meat of the problem. The Lib Dems were a bit disappointing; they seemed a bit touchy and defensive over the Administration's record and didn't really make much of a contribution over the plans for the future - perhaps they'd already done so in their private Group meeting.
It would appear that the statistics on recycling, which purport to show a leap from about 18% to just under 24 % in a little over a year are a little less flattering than was thought as the basis of calculation was not the same each time. We have been comparing apples with pears, so to speak.
The future seems to centre around a partnership with three other London Boroughs (Merton, Sutton and Croydon) which will handle the problem of disposal in new ways as opportunities and permissions for landfill diminish. This will undoubtedly involve a largescale capital outlay - rather more than the theatre has cost - so far!
The contribution from Friends of the Earth was impressive, especially in pointing out what might be done (or have been done already) to minimise waste in the first place. It was pointed out that many small local businesses were only too willing to help, especially those which mend things like shoes and electrical appliances etc.
The constitution of the partnership of Boroughs and negotiation of new and probably very long term contracts will be a legthy process which we shall monitor continually over the next 2 years. It was a long meeting but I think one that went well as the Panel (the Conservative side anyway) got its teeth into the meat of the problem. The Lib Dems were a bit disappointing; they seemed a bit touchy and defensive over the Administration's record and didn't really make much of a contribution over the plans for the future - perhaps they'd already done so in their private Group meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.0.jpg)
