CCTV: Cutting Crime or just feelgood?

Chelmsford Weekly News reports "Cctv Cameras Are Cutting Crime Say Council" but if you read the story carefully it is mainly reporting that CCTV helped catch some criminals, which is not the same thing. It did not stop the crimes being committed! Clearly, it is difficult to prove a negative - that CCTV stops crime being committed. But some reports have tried:
More CCTV on London's streets does not help solve crime (London Lib Dems)
CCTV Does Not Reduce Crime (Daily Mirror, reported on Prison Planet)
CCTV cameras fail to cut crime - (Times Online)
CCTV security systems & their effectiveness in crime prevention (Video Surveillance Guide)
Most CCTV cameras are 'illegal', watchdog claims

Watching over us:- Ian Readhead, Hampshire's Deputy Chief Constable, has gone on record to say that the town of Stockbridge in Hampshire is overreacting by installing a £10,000 CCTV system.

Stop urban sprawl

The campaign "Don't Choke Chelmsford" is gathering momentum, as more and more people learn about Conservative plans for over-development in Chelmsford town centre as well as green field building. Our roads are already too crowded; there aren't enough reliable bus services; the cycle network is still incomplete.

The latest element of this is when people learn that the council wants to sell off half of the Riverside leisure centre site for 400 (yes four hundred) flats and spend the money on a reduced number of new facilities. People queued up to sign the Lib Dem petition on Saturday. See also more about the campaign to Stop urban sprawl.

Tories don't really care about the environment - part 2

The Chelmsford Community Plan to 2021 fails to put protecting the environment at the absolute heart of local strategy. It opens by saying:
Our Vision
Our long term vision is for Chelmsford to become the economic, cultural, leisure and retail heart of Essex and a leading regional centre in the East of England. It is a vision for the future of the Borough and its people – for Chelmsford Tomorrow.

Yes, the environment is one of five main themes later on (the fourth one, though), but when Chelmsford is facing massive development, you might expect the sustainability of all this development to be front and centre i.e. integral to the overall objective.

The Plan, in particular its impact on the North West Chelmsford, was discussed today at a forum meeting. The presentation from some residents of that neighbourhood was uplifting and can hopefully be copied elsewhere.

The community plan was adopted by the Borough Council on Wednesday night, and is linked to in the Council Agenda.

Actions speak louder than words on environment

Today we had confirmation that the Labour Govt. and Conservative Council do not really place a high priority on the environment. Today was day two of the public inquiry into the Borough Council's Town Centre Area Action Plan. The topic was a variety of transport issues.

The Chelmsford Cycle Action Group (to which I belong) was there, calling for improvements to the cycle network. For instance, north-south links through the town and making Sustrans Route 1 up to the proper standard for its full length through the Borough. Lib Dem Cllrs. Keith Francis and Graham Pooley backed this up and made the case for improved walking and bus links too. For instance, promoting the idea of a circular bus route to move people round the town centre. The Lib Dems also tried to make the fine words about cycle networks etc. into a firm objective "to be delivered within the timeframe of the plan" but the council and the inspector resisted this as 'outside their control'. So what is the point of the plan? Most of its objectives are outside direct council control - but footpaths actually are not!!

The Inspector's response? "I have to strike a balance between the different modes of transport. I cannot favour one over the other." Setting aside for a moment that the latter does not follow from the former, he and the plan clearly DO favour one over the other. The vast majority of the resources allocated in the plan are for more roads. Government policy, which he is supposed to be implementing, talks about making local development more sustainable. I asked him whether he accepted that that was a Government objective and that he is supposed to deliver it, but he ignored the point.

Under questioning from the Lib Dems present, Chelmsford council shifted their position from saying "High Bridge Road may be demolished" to it WILL be demolished, and replaced with a new road across the water meadow onto Chelmer Road. (The road is only 14 years old.) Clearly they have no idea what sustainability means in practice.

Global warming WORSE than estimated

Last Saturday I was in local shopping centres with fellow Lib Dems, asking for support for a "Fair Deal for Chelmsford" and for a "Greener Chelmsford". One person asked whether global warming really is as bad as some have said. "Aren't some scientists saying it's not true?" he asked. "A few" I replied "but the vast majority are agreed that there is a really serious problem." And today is an article in The Guardian from the Government's climate change expert suggesting it could be worse than thought: "I underestimated the threat" says Stern.

So instead of backing massive road building projects, perhaps local Conservatives should be looking at reducing the need to drive. (They want to widen the A12 all the way to Colchester; build a major North East Chelmsford by-pass and build two new roads in/out of Chelmsford town centre.) A mile of rail track costs £40 million and a mile of motorway £79 million. Can we not prioritise greater capacity on the rail network? It desperately needs it.

Poverty gap has not narrowed under Labour | Politics | The Guardian

Higher national taxes under Labour; higher local taxes under the Conservatives (up 5% in Chelmsford) and today we learn that the Poverty gap has not narrowed under Labour. A number of lower-paid people will be WORSE off next week, when the 10% starting rate of tax is abolished. Apparently some Labour MPs are surprised about this (according to the reports in The Guardian). If only they had listened to David Laws or Vince Cable at the time.

No wonder everyone is feeling under pressure.

The REAL issue at stake in Euro debate

There has been an awful lot of noise but very little light on the Euro referendum issue. A lot of the public support the Lib Dem idea of a referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU. But it all masks what the debate is actually supposed to be about: the Treaty of Lisbon. Which of course serves the interests of both Tories and Labour since they are, as always, split on the subject.

Most people know very little about it. But it will give MORE power to the people we elect - which is not what most of the media would have you believe. Sceptics should back the Treaty because, for the first time, it sets out a process whereby countries can LEAVE the EU - which has not been possible before.

Read more in the "True Guide to Treaty of Lisbon" (a 14 page PDF) written by Chelmsford's Lib Dem Euro MP Andrew Duff.

It's economic change not immigration that's to blame

This article articulates my reaction to the BBC's "white season" - that it seemed, like the tabloid press, to hype fears by failing to address the real causes of a genuine problem. That is to say, immigration is not to blame for the pressure on public services etc. (He omits to be blunt about who is to blame. Since the gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, it should be obvious!)

As the author says "the programmes have been focused entirely on the impact of immigration and race on the white working class" i.e. ignoring the main driver of change: market forces, which are not race driven. And goes on to say:

"It wasn't immigration that ripped the guts out of working-class Britain, white and non-white. It was the closure of whole industries, the rundown of manufacturing and council housing, the assault on trade unions, the huge transfer of resources to the wealthy, the deregulation of the labour market, and the unconstrained impact of neoliberal globalisation under both Tories and New Labour. Almost none of that has had a look-in so far in The White Season."

The article has some flaws, as discussed in the comments, but here it is in full:
Seumas Milne: Either Labour represents its core voters - or others will

Non-emergency number to call Essex Police

It should be easier to phone Essex police now when you have a non-urgent query. The new number is 0300 333 4444. This is one of the new numbers that begin 03: they are charged at the same rate as 'landline' 01245- / 020- numbers, so it is included in inclusive minutes packages from phone companies. (Further explanation on the police website.)

Well done Essex Police for keeping costs down for callers, unlike Mid Essex Hospitals who use the fairly expensive 0844 numbers (and, even worse, other organisations including some Government departments who use 0870 numbers).

Nick Clegg is campaigning against these cost burdens as part of the Lib Dem campaign against Faceless Britain.

To avoid 0870 numbers, I often use the excellent SayNoTo 0870 website.

Govt. gets it wrong again but won't admit it

Another breakfast-spluttering moment today. The Government says it wants police, NHS and councils more locally accountable. Yes, they should be and the Lib Dems have been calling for this for years. So why ON EARTH have they spent the last 10 years (and the Tories did the same in the previous 18) taking powers AWAY from local councils? Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious........

We need a fairer voting system for local elections (as they have in Scotland) and changes to the system to make it easier for more people of working age to serve as councillors. Then councils would be more representative of the communities they serve. That, combined with more power for local councils, would lead to better decision making and more openness.

The Lib Dem conference this weekend will debate a plan to make the NHS more accountable locally. See agenda.