Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

Letterboxes

It would be a strange circumstance indeed that would see me become Prime Minister tomorrow, or indeed ever. But should that strange circumstance occur, my number one priority would not be the economy, schools or the NHS. It wouldn't even be electoral reform. It would be letterboxes!

Over the last 7 days I must have walked 50 miles and posted thousands of letters and leaflets through the doors of my neighbours. It has given me a new appreciation of the plight of the neighbourhood post-person. It has also given me a nice set of nicks, bruises and scars on the back of my hands and on my knuckles.

So, as your new Prime Minister, here are the new rules that will be introduced as of June 1st (see... I'm fair... I'm giving you some time to sort out your letterbox!)

1. All letterboxes must be in the middle of the door. No more letterboxes at the bottom of the door. How more posties don't throw their backs out or get assaulted by their bags as they bend down to access such letterboxes, I will never know.

2. All letterboxes must lift up rather than push in. Push in letterboxes are usually so stiff that you can barely move your fingers by the time your done. They also have a nasty habit of taking your fingers off. There is many a campaigner out there that is missing the end of a finger, or a whole finger, or even a hand!

3. There must be no sharp edges on any part of the letterbox. Brushes on the inside of letterboxes are increasingly popular - they are a good thing because they stop drafts and in these eco-conscientious times, who doesn't want to stop a draft? The side effect is that you usually have to shove your whole hand into the letterbox to get the letter or leaflet in. Sharp internal edges have drawn blood more times than I can count and have left me with many a battle scar.

4. On the subject of anti-draft brushes, can we have nice soft ones, please. Soft ones are nice on our weary little fingers. We don't like the kind that feels like scraping your hands on sandpaper.

5. Brushes make internal flaps unnecessary and it's hardly fair that you get to try and sever our fingers twice in one go.

6. Narrow letterboxes are forbidden. Only children can effectively use these letterboxes and we do not condone child labour.

7. All letterboxes must be hung horizontally. Vertical letterboxes are hopeless - especially the ones that are hinged at the top. Although side hinged ones are almost as bad.

8. In houses where there are dogs, a cage must be provided, either for the dog or for the letterbox. A third opportunity for finger severance in the form of a dog (or dogs) lying in wait on the other side of a door, is most definitely not acceptable.

9. As an alternative to the above, an outside box for post can be provided. And if you want to put it on your fence or gate to avoid the trek up (or down) a hill that's like the north face of the Eiger, that would be most welcome. There will be tax breaks for homes with long or steep paths that use this type of post receptacle.

10. A letter box must be provided. What's the deal with houses and flats with no letterbox? I can understand the attraction - no pizza leaflets, take-away menus and election stuff - but how the heck do you normally get your post? You are strange people!

11. Everyone must test their own letterbox several times to ensure full compliance with the above. Trust me, it will give you a whole new appreciation of the trouble this small, rectangular orifice causes.

Now aren't you glad you ended up with the present no-man's-land of politics, instead of me? :o)

Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.

A Reversal of 200 Years of 'Progress'

It's been a busy couple of weeks with a number of highs and not-so-highs.

Of the highs, the rehearsals for the Sing Live concert at the end of June are coming along nicely. Even the stress of a horrific day this Wednesday, when a simple airport pickup turned into a three hour nightmare, was very quickly eased by a few bars of 'It Had to be You'. My piano lessons are coming along similarly well - although I wish it was as easy to make my fingers move as fast as my mouth! Finally, Charly, survived a full service with no problems - what a relief!

In the not-so-highs category the top of the tree has to be the Irwell Riverside by-election. In case anyone has missed it, husband Steve was selected as the Lib Dem candidate. You can catch up on the events of the campaign on his own blog.

Being involved in his campaign - including helping to develop (or rather hone) the content of his leaflets and then 'on the frontline' posting those leaflets through the doors of the ward - has been a great experience. Watching the opening of the postal ballots was fascinating (I finally understand the need for all the bits of paper and those multi-coloured envelopes) while actually being able to attend the count in the evening was truly unique: not only because the media were circling like vultures awaiting the inevitable arrival of local political pariah, Hazel Blears, but also because so few 'ordinary' people get to see democracy up close and personal like this. In the end Steve came second behind the Labour candidate, Matt Mold.

All in all, it was a pretty positive result for the Lib Dems. This ward has traditionally been a Labour stronghold - last year they took a 51% share of the vote - so we were really taking the fight to them on their own territory. Steve attracted 18% of the vote (a reduction of only 1%) while the Conservatives and Labour lost out by 4% and 13% respectively. The recent Expenses Scandal has clearly taken its toll. It isn't just Labour that is paying the political price for the government's failure to set its house in order: every one of the major parties lost ground to the fringe parties (The Greens, UKIP and BNP all fielded candidates). Although we obviously hoped for better, given the circumstances losing only 1% share is an achievement.

So clearly I'm not disappointed with the result for the Lib Dems, so why am I not happy? There are two elements of the result that are extremely disappointing: The BNP and the voter turnout.

Until this by-election I have had few encounters with the BNP. I've been aware of them, of course, and will freely admit that I have always held a pretty low opinion of them as a political entity. However, it is not until I actually came face to face with them that I realised just how vile, deceitful and disrespectful they really are. Without going into a raft of detail (which would take me all day to catalogue) I was astonished by the sheer volume of lies and half-truths that they spouted in their propaganda and online on their own websites and particularly on those of others. Worryingly, they also showed absolutely no respect for democracy, even going as far as to suggest that some people should not be allowed to vote. If it's possible, they showed even less respect for the voting public talking openly in a highly derogatory manner referring to the voters as 'stupid', 'thick' or 'sheep' just because they didn't vote BNP. Finally, (and I speak from personal experience) they are downright nasty. Ignoring the disgusting abuse that their cohorts posted in comments on many local blogs, their behaviour at the evening count was akin to the level of school playground bullies. They were both puerile and venomous to other people present at the count as well as the returning officer. It is not just me that has noticed: Leader of the local Labour party, John Merry, has commented on Steve Cooke's blog.

However what disappoints me is not the BNP members or the party as a whole - I would expect little else from an organisation that has its roots firmly embedded in the fascist British National Front - it's the fact that the people of Salford appear to be falling for their rubbish. I don't mind if you choose to vote BNP as long as you understand who and what you are voting for (that is your choice and your right!) but I'm concerned that many voters may not be looking beyond the glossy surface of the BNPs leaflets or beyond their diverting but deceptive propaganda stunts. For goodness sake, if you are considering voting BNP in any election, please please please, make sure you are fully informed. A simple search in google or on reputable websites such as the BBC should reveal why so many people are set against their organisation.

However, no matter what my personal feelings about the BNP (or the mafia that they sent to the count) happen to be, the far greater disappointment in this by-election was the turnout. Only 17.5% of those people who are registered to vote in Irwell Riverside actually went to the trouble of doing so - that's less than 1 in 7 people! As a result, a little over 600 people chose the councillor for a ward of more than 9000 registered voters: that's less than 7% of people in the ward choosing who dictates the policies that directly influence the lives of everyone else. This kind of apathy means that decisions are made by a tiny minority of voters and it also opens the door to the fringe parties making extremely limited public support seem much greater than it actually is. This is not democracy! I'm sure that there are many people who didn't vote that would say 'my vote doesn't count' or 'I don't know who to vote for' or 'nothing will change so what's the point' or any number of similar excuses but the fact is by choosing to not vote you willingly reverse almost 200 years of progress.

Less than two centuries ago only 1 in 7 men could vote. Just 125 years ago less than half of all men could vote and women didn't have any voting rights at all. It wasn't until 1918 - less than a century ago - that any woman could vote in this country and it was only 81 years ago that we achieved universal suffrage. Two world wars were fought to maintain our sovereignty and democracy. Even now there are thousands of British troops protecting our democratic rights against terrorists who would like to see their religious and political views forced upon us, and all around the world their are millions of people that still have either no voting rights or can't vote freely.

Therefore, to those residents of Irwell Riverside who did not vote in this election my question is this: what response could you possibly give me that would justify allowing less than 7% of your community to make this choice for all of you?

Charly Charly

Sad news.... my poor little beaten up motor, named 'Charly Charly' after the last two letters of her reg number, has suffered a severe battering this evening at the hands of mindless thugs. The little bar-stewards smashed the front driver's side and passenger side windows and the rear windscreen in an effort to make off with my valuables. Fortunately I am not daft enough to leave anything of worth in my car so they got away with only a couple of bags for life, a bottle of water and my sunglasses (worth about £20). They did lift my work security pass, OU course book and my music score for the upcoming concert at the Bridgewater Hall this June, but a local resident spotted the culprits dump the stuff at the top of the car park and returned it to me safe and sound.

It all happened this evening in the visitors' car park at the Royal Apartments while I was having my piano lesson. The apartments are a stone's throw (or perhaps a brick's throw) from Encombe Place, the current site of the Salford Youth Offenders Service. This office is currently the subject of a hotly contested restricted document that has found its way into the hands of local residents in the Blackfriars area of Salford - where the council proposes to resite the Youth Offenders Service office. I understand that the document notes that within a half-mile radius of the YOS office there is a significant hotspot of crime - particularly opportunist crime like theft from a vehicle. Local Labour councillors are trying to suppress the document as it is a clear indicator that such a service should not be sited in a residential area. They have even tried to skew the figures (reported in the Manchester Evening News tonight) by saying that these crimes are the fault of vehicle owners for not carrying out basic security. I would like to ask Councillor Lancaster if I deserved to have three windows smashed in my car for the sake of a bottle of water and some books?

Fortunately, the fateful tale of Charly Charly has a happy ending. Thanks to the angels of Autoglass who came out at midnight, my car will be fixed and returned to me in a matter of hours. In the meantime I remain grateful to the two separate residents of the Royal Apartments that witnessed the crime and reported it to the police. Also a big thank you to the police that attended the scene - they were friendly, helpful and professional. And finally a huge thanks to hubby Steve for fetching me a dustpan and brush and doing all the ringing round and fetching and carrying for me. Because of him I was still able to make it to a very successful rehersal for the June concert. Yippee!

No Pain, No Lane Gain

It's not often that local interests cross over into my work but current plans to widen the M60 between Jct 15 and 12 seem to be doing just that. Over the last few days I've been following the local backlash against the Highways Agency scheme which will see an extra lane introduced on the anticlockwise carriageway through one of the busiest and most congested sections of motorway in the North West. The concerns of local residents are, quite rightly, air and noise pollution, with a secondary concern about the 'accident blackspot' between Jct 13 and 12.

Firstly, these are genuine concerns and I applaud those who are campaigning on behalf of the residents. It's important that the resident's views are aired and not allowed to be ignored by the H.A. and those responsible for this scheme. However, it's also important that those same concerns are addressed, not merely pandered to. There are a number of ways to improve air quality, including planting and fencing, and of course, faster moving traffic will help dissipate emissions, and smoother flowing traffic means less braking and accelaration, which also means less emissions, so these improvements should improve air quality in the area as a matter of course. There are also ways of reducing noise pollution, such as noise reduction fencing and special surfacing and the improved junction layout should also reduce lane switching, which is the cause of most of the accidents in this location.

Any such measures will likely have a relatively minimal effect on the impact of the scheme, especially for those residents living closest to the motorway, as I understand the plans will virtually put the road in people's back gardens. However, the proposed improvements are essential to local, North West and national transportation and the decisions that are made now will directly influence the local and national economy well into the future. This scheme will go ahead because it is vital. The best that the residents can hope for, and what their representatives should be pressing for, is concessions that will minimise the impact of the work on the local area.

A Social Conscience

It's been a while since my last blog post - following a lovely weekend visit by my parents I fell ill with a throat infection so I haven't been spending much time at the computer. This weekend we are up at my parents in Scotland for a well deserved Easter break but I have a bit of time on my hands (with the boys out and Mum watching Holby City) and shock, horror, I have some political views to blog (or whinge!) about.

Wednesday saw hubby selected as the Lib Dem candidate in the local by-election for the Irwell Riverside ward. The recent Clifton and Pendlebury by-election results were disappointing for the local Lib Dems (coming fourth behind Labour, Tories and BNP) despite the current Labour council's insistence on insane spending that sees money squandered on 'tourism' (ice rink!) while essential services are cut back. However, I am increasingly amazed, esepcially while visiting the Highlands, by the widening gulf between the social conscience in England and in Scotland.

I am the first to admit that Salford Council does some things exceptionally well. The refuse collection in Salford is probably the best I've experienced in 10 years living in Manchester, and Salford is one of the few councils to offer energy grants, in the form of totally free loft and cavity wall insulation, to the over 60s. My parents would fall into this category and are far from infirm, but there are many over 60s that are already quite vulnerable, especially those with serious or terminal illnesses. It is a great comfort to me that older people living in Salford can take advantage of schemes like Heatseekers, even if they are not necessarily that vulnerable now. These schemes will allow them to stay in the homes in comfort as they do become more infirm and will hopefully help them to maintain financial and physical independance into their later years. However, Scotland seems to be doing so much more.

My Dad, SNP council member for Badenoch and Strathspey, is always talking up a storm about the great things the SNP are doing for Scotland. These days my political allegiances may lie elsewhere - it'd be pretty difficult for me to support the SNP from Salford - but I can't deny that he's got a point. Council tax has been frozen - a vital relief in tough times that I'm certain most Salfordians would praise - business rates have been cut to boost the Scottish Economy, prescriptions are free now and so is education. All part of a series of improvements that benefit every Scot while free nationwide public transport has been available to the over 60s for several years while. It almost seems, in some respects, that England has lagged behind while Scotland marches forward. There is still plenty of room for improvement in Scottish politics but there is a different air here. There is a freshness while English politics grow stale and stagnant. The difference is social conscience.

In our house, we have a running joke at Hazel Blears' expense. We never see her, we never hear from her, in fact, we often wonder what exactly it is that she does for Salford. And then we open the Salford Advertiser and see her face over and over in photo-op after photo-op. It seems that she has a sixth sense for getting snapped and comes running back to Salford only when an opportunity knocks (or snaps!). While this is only a joke, there is also a disturbing element of truth to it that isn't just limited to one woman, or indeed one political party. These days it seems like all Labour and the Tories care about is looking good on TV or in public. They carefully craft their public image. They are careful to say and do they right thing - not for their constituants, but for their political careers - all hoping one day that they might be... who knows? I have no problem with ambition, but in local and national politics, the ambition should be to 'change the world': to improve the lives of the people around you, not to make more money or be more popular or more powerful.

We live in a self-centred, target driven, money orientated, selfish society, where everyone cries out 'What about me?', usually while climbing all over someone else. Look to your left and you will see the benefit leach popping out kids to claim more benefit just so that they can have the new car or the big TV, while the rest of us have to work damn hard to earn it. Look to your right and you see the NHS and social care networks trying their best but unable to deliver really good care because they are targeted like sales people on how many people they can get through the revolving door. In front of you is the company you work for that has cancelled your annual pay review in the name of profit, while your food and fuel bills escalate (also in the name of profit) and the banks collapse and take your savings with them (in the name of profit). Finally, behind you is the politician, slyly weaving his propaganda and whispering sweet nothings and empty promises in your ear, more interested in his own position of power than in solving any of these problems.

We need a change. We need a breath of fresh air. We need honesty. We need to demand it - from our politicians, from our neighbours and more importantly from ourselves.

Roads? Where We're Going We Don't Need Roads!

Ok, enough of the frivalous fun stuff... the cow story and my iTunes whinge were the blog equivalent of chocolate. Today is time for the meat and two veg.

This week has been a most frustrating week for me politically. And surprisingly (or unsurprisingly?) my frustration is not with national government! Hubby has recently become politically active. I suspect that this is partly inspired by my Dad, who became a local councillor last year, but mostly inspired by his ongoing crusade to address the shocking condition of Salford's local roads.

To provide a little background, anyone who lives outside of Salford and has cause to regularly travel into our area will be able to identify the border based solely on the condition of the roads. Salford's roads are a mixture of potholes, exposed cobbles and surface defects interspersed by speed bumps. Urban Vision, who are responsible for maintaining Salford's roads claim that they have a regular programme of inspection and repair but our road has been seriously pot-holed since the day we moved in (over two years ago) and the only repairs that they have carried out were the ones that we complained about in July last year. It took 3 months or more of complaining before they were eventually patched - poorly! This week hubby went to a local community committee meeting to see a presentation of 'Salford's Draft Integrated Transport Strategy'. He returned shaking his head.

It appears, from what he has seen, that the purpose of the so called 'strategy' is to make travel a living hell for anyone heading into central Salford and Media:City... unless they are travelling by bicycle! The plan includes the narrowing of Langworthy Road - already a slow moving artery into Salford Quays - by introducing cycle lanes and 'traffic calming'. Langworthy Road is already quite congested in the morning and it seems that the Integrated Transport Strategy will not only direct more traffic down this route, it will also reduce the traffic flow. This is a ludicrous plan tantamount to closing a lane on a motorway in rush hour. There also appears to be little consideration of the local economy in this plan, since the introduction of heavy congestion combined with increasing thru traffic will only harm the businesses on the road.

As if this wasn't insult enough to local residents and road users, we also found out this week that Salford Council intends to increase our Council Tax this year, while reducing Council spending on education and social care. They have already terminated a community policing trial that was universally heralded as a success. So what are they going to spend all this extra income on? If national government is anything to go by - on themselves!

Don't get me wrong, I believe that we should adequately reward people who work in local and national government, but at a local level, I expect and demand a certain service for the money I pay in. I want police on my streets, schools for my kids, my bins emptied every week, and maintenance of public property, including parks, council housing and offices, and our streets. I don't think that is too much to ask. Instead I get a community policing service canned, schools being closed and consolidated with little regard for the problems that might create, houses demolished around me, roads that are in such a poor condition that you find yourself doing a slalom down the street and a crazy 'plan' that will cause traffic chaos.

The most frustrating thing is that in the midst of this I don't have the time to commit to trying to make any of it any better!