Trams, eh? £268 million over budget (well, they won't let out with the figure, so my speculation is as good as any), two years behind schedule one month, six weeks ahead the next month, no outstanding disputes then 400 of them, buses in chaos and making a loss but they're supposed to subsidise the trams (which might, in any case, be illegal under section 80 of the Transport Act 1985), and Jenny Dawe thinks it's appropriate to say that it's fine to have people going out of business on Leith Walk because the recession would have done for them anyway; an ill-considered remark at very best. On top of that, David McLetchie on the same radio programme said he voted for the tram project to continue to make sure that the SNP Government didn't spend the money on something else (like something that would work, perhaps), but Sarah Boyack wasn't letting them get away without a Labour comment, she called it a world-scale and serious project. What does she mean by 'world-scale'? That is simply meaningless, but the project is serious, it's a serious mistake.
I wonder when those people who rammed this vanity project through Parliament and through the council will admit that it is a mistake and call a halt to the whole thing. Will it be after the construction cash has run out and there is not another penny to be squeezed out of Government? Will it be after the measures we've been warned about take effect? Lots of us have been pointing out that the money to build the thing just isn't there, but to find that the intention now is to build a fraction of the one line that was intended, that TIE wants to borrow against future profits (good luck finding a lender for that) and rent the tram vehicles instead of buying them. Most worrying of all, though, is that there is a proposal to cut other council spending to pay for the tram. Where will they cut that? Will the money for equalising pay be cut? Will the education budget be cut? Social work? Cleansing? The Festivals?
This project is years late, there are 400 points of dispute between the client and the contractor, diverting the utilities has turned out so far to be 170% of the job expected - and it's not finished, Shandwick Place works have now fallen behind to add to the problems at Haymarket and at Picardy Place. The utility diversion wasn't completed in time to allow the German contractor to start work on laying the track but TIE thinks the adjudication will go against the contractor - delusional behaviour. The Tram project director for TIE was warning that the target date has already slipped into 2013 while his chairman was saying no-one was contemplating that. If they can't even agree between them what they've already agreed in private, what hope is there that they will deliver anything?
On top of that, the dodgy business case is falling apart. The projected losses from the first year of operation have doubled - this on a business case that relies on passengers who don't exist yet but will magically appear to use the tram and on people who will be moving into the houses that haven't been built at Granton. It also relies on tram getting one quarter of its operating revenue from concessionary fares. In order to get that they will have to persuade the Government that rail services (which trams are) should be added to the scheme for concessionary fares for buses - who's paying for that?
Ill-considered and ill-starred, it's time to end this scheme now - it can be scrapped and we can save what's possible to save. It's clear that the money isn't there to build this fraction of a line and that the revenue stream does not and will not exist. Those who forced it on us should step away and let the scheme be dismantled, then I hope we can have apologies from politicians who think it's fine to watch people's shops (businesses and livelihoods) close and from politicians who thought it a great jape to force £500 million of public money into large holes across Edinburgh instead of letting it be spent properly. Then, perhaps, we can have a look at what's been going on inside TIE and how it could collapse from the healthy report it got in 2007 to the mess it's in now.
Above all, scrap the thing now and let us get our city back.
Friday, 14 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Same Sex Marriage
I'm in favour of same-sex marriage. It occurs to me that the fair society that I want Scotland to be isn't possible while I have a right that someone else with a different sexual orientation doesn't have.
I've heard it argued that same-sex couples have the option of a civil partnership and therefore don't need to be able to marry. I disagree. I'm not right up to speed on the differences between marriage and civil partnership, but I see one fairly major difference quite easily - they've got different names. If I drift this argument off a bit to something the beachcomber said a while back; after the laws banning inter-racial marriage in South Africa were abolished in 1990 there was no different name for inter-racial marriages because that would have meant that the apartheid was continuing in some degree. Failing to call the two unions by the same name would have left them as different entities - and the same applies to same-sex relationships.
I've also heard the contention that permitting same-sex marriage would devalue marriage. Perhaps there's something I haven't perceived but I cannot for the life of me see how my relationship is affected by another couple having the right to celebrate their relationship in a manner which society accepts as normal, and I can't see how anyone's marriage is affected by the marriage of another couple. If there are people whose dignity and self-respect in their relationship depend upon others not having the right to celebrate the same ceremony as they have then I would venture to suggest that there are, perhaps, some self-reference issues to be addressed. What my neighbours decide is appropriate for their relationship does not affect my relationship - I may not share their tastes, but that doesn't impinge upon my ability to enjoy my life.
That brings me to the oft-repeated argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that same-sex couples cannot procreate. I can't agree. Surely the purpose of marriage is to allow two people to make a public declaration about their relationship? Surely the related purposes in the legal field allow rights for spouses? Children are often born to married couples, it is true, but it wasn't the marriage that created the children it was, for want of a better terminology, sex - and that didn't need marriage to make it happen, as evidenced by the number of children born to unmarried parents. Nor does it necessarily follow that a marriage will result in children being born, couples may decide not to have children and there are couples who cannot conceive. Neither of these groups is denied the right to marry, offering evidence that the purpose of marriage might not be procreation.
Permitting same-sex marriage won't affect me directly but it will make my country a fairer and more equal place. There will, of course, be opposition to any moves to allow this equality, but there will also be support. I would expect to hear biblical quotations condemning homosexuality, particularly Romans chapter 1 although I doubt whether anyone would continue into chapter 2:
I also, however, remember that the Quakers - The Religious Society of Friends - have been celebrating same-sex relationships as marriages for some time and recently agreed to redraft "Quaker faith and practice" and to press for a change in the law to allow same-sex marriage. I also recall that the Unitarian and Free Christian Churches will bless same-sex unions and led the calls to allow religious celebrants to perform civil partnerships, so there may well be support from religious quarters for this equalisation of rights.
I believe in a Scotland free from prejudice and fear, a Scotland that ranks each and every one of its people equally and so I believe that it is not right that I should have a right that is denied to others who walk the same streets as me just because I am heterosexual and she or he is not.
I've heard it argued that same-sex couples have the option of a civil partnership and therefore don't need to be able to marry. I disagree. I'm not right up to speed on the differences between marriage and civil partnership, but I see one fairly major difference quite easily - they've got different names. If I drift this argument off a bit to something the beachcomber said a while back; after the laws banning inter-racial marriage in South Africa were abolished in 1990 there was no different name for inter-racial marriages because that would have meant that the apartheid was continuing in some degree. Failing to call the two unions by the same name would have left them as different entities - and the same applies to same-sex relationships.
I've also heard the contention that permitting same-sex marriage would devalue marriage. Perhaps there's something I haven't perceived but I cannot for the life of me see how my relationship is affected by another couple having the right to celebrate their relationship in a manner which society accepts as normal, and I can't see how anyone's marriage is affected by the marriage of another couple. If there are people whose dignity and self-respect in their relationship depend upon others not having the right to celebrate the same ceremony as they have then I would venture to suggest that there are, perhaps, some self-reference issues to be addressed. What my neighbours decide is appropriate for their relationship does not affect my relationship - I may not share their tastes, but that doesn't impinge upon my ability to enjoy my life.
That brings me to the oft-repeated argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that same-sex couples cannot procreate. I can't agree. Surely the purpose of marriage is to allow two people to make a public declaration about their relationship? Surely the related purposes in the legal field allow rights for spouses? Children are often born to married couples, it is true, but it wasn't the marriage that created the children it was, for want of a better terminology, sex - and that didn't need marriage to make it happen, as evidenced by the number of children born to unmarried parents. Nor does it necessarily follow that a marriage will result in children being born, couples may decide not to have children and there are couples who cannot conceive. Neither of these groups is denied the right to marry, offering evidence that the purpose of marriage might not be procreation.
Permitting same-sex marriage won't affect me directly but it will make my country a fairer and more equal place. There will, of course, be opposition to any moves to allow this equality, but there will also be support. I would expect to hear biblical quotations condemning homosexuality, particularly Romans chapter 1 although I doubt whether anyone would continue into chapter 2:
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
I also, however, remember that the Quakers - The Religious Society of Friends - have been celebrating same-sex relationships as marriages for some time and recently agreed to redraft "Quaker faith and practice" and to press for a change in the law to allow same-sex marriage. I also recall that the Unitarian and Free Christian Churches will bless same-sex unions and led the calls to allow religious celebrants to perform civil partnerships, so there may well be support from religious quarters for this equalisation of rights.
I believe in a Scotland free from prejudice and fear, a Scotland that ranks each and every one of its people equally and so I believe that it is not right that I should have a right that is denied to others who walk the same streets as me just because I am heterosexual and she or he is not.
TV and football
Yesterday I mentioned that I thought that there was too much football on TV. Last night's game for instance ....
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
I've been asked
I've been asked, so;
1. I think Mary Queen of Scots bones should stay where they are. I seem to recall that it was her son who chose her burial place, and he certainly had the opportunity to move her if he wished. If her son wanted her buried where she is who has the right to move her remains?
2. I hold no candle for Mary's descendant, the current queen, nor am I particularly exercised by her position continuing. I tend towards being a republican but, since the royal prerogative is exercised by Ministers and the monarch doesn't have any real power, it could be argued we live in a de facto republic in any case.
3. Cricket - I once watched a test match with my grandfather and tend to agree with the suggestion that the English, being an essentially non-religious people, invented cricket to give themselves a sense of eternity (that should get me a thick ear from my mother), but I have no objection to it being on television - you can always switch over. Some of my colleagues have a different opinion - they like cricket! There's a Westminster candidate over in the west of the country who likes nothing better than to settle down and watch England play (he supports England at cricket, I don't know why), there's an SNP Parliamentary researcher who has an appearance on Youtube as a supporter at a cricket match (not supporting England), and there's an SNP councillor in Edinburgh who has been known to cheer on a cricket team playing for the Ashes (you'll never guess which team). I can't see what they get out of it, but there you go. I do like watching football from time to time, though, and I think there's too much of that broadcast on TV and on radio, we should have more elephant polo I say!
Mind how you go!
1. I think Mary Queen of Scots bones should stay where they are. I seem to recall that it was her son who chose her burial place, and he certainly had the opportunity to move her if he wished. If her son wanted her buried where she is who has the right to move her remains?
2. I hold no candle for Mary's descendant, the current queen, nor am I particularly exercised by her position continuing. I tend towards being a republican but, since the royal prerogative is exercised by Ministers and the monarch doesn't have any real power, it could be argued we live in a de facto republic in any case.
3. Cricket - I once watched a test match with my grandfather and tend to agree with the suggestion that the English, being an essentially non-religious people, invented cricket to give themselves a sense of eternity (that should get me a thick ear from my mother), but I have no objection to it being on television - you can always switch over. Some of my colleagues have a different opinion - they like cricket! There's a Westminster candidate over in the west of the country who likes nothing better than to settle down and watch England play (he supports England at cricket, I don't know why), there's an SNP Parliamentary researcher who has an appearance on Youtube as a supporter at a cricket match (not supporting England), and there's an SNP councillor in Edinburgh who has been known to cheer on a cricket team playing for the Ashes (you'll never guess which team). I can't see what they get out of it, but there you go. I do like watching football from time to time, though, and I think there's too much of that broadcast on TV and on radio, we should have more elephant polo I say!
Mind how you go!
Monday, 10 August 2009
Quantitative Easing - the old-fashioned way
In May 1275, Marco Polo arrived in Shang-tu and met the Kublai Khan and then went with him to Beijing - the new capital which the Great Khan had built for his Mongol empire, an empire begun by his grandfather Temujin - Genghis Khan.
Among the wonders seen by Polo were asbestos cloth (used as a tablecloth - thank you Stephen Fry and the team on QI), the Summer Palace (the Xanadu immortalised by Coleridge), the postal service, and paper money. Polo was so impressed he became a tax inspector (I know, but I'm winging it here). Salt production was enormous, iron production was five centuries ahead of Europe (Polo didn't know that at the time), canals made for an excellent transport system, and the empire was a single market of enormous size. Paper money and credit facilities were highly developed, and citizens could buy paperback books, fine porcelain and fine silks with the paper money.
The Khan printed more and more money - vast sums - the beginning of the end of the Mongol Empire lay with Kublai Khan, and paper money was to be devalued and vanish from China by 1455 - 161 years after Kublai Khan's death.
The first European paper money was issued by a Swedish bank in 1661 - it ended up needing a Government bail-out. See this printing too much money? Never been a good idea. There have been devaluation crises like the Kipper- und Wipperzeit where the coins were debased (just like quantitative easing, really), the sub-prime lending of Peruzzi and Bardi in the 14th century, Overend, Gurney and Co. taking down a whole load of banks in 1866, the City of Glasgow Bank in 1878 overstretched itself, the 1873 US banking crisis (which might have been caused in Europe), the US had a wee fleg in 1907 as well, the Wall Street crash, BCCI and Barings caused by speculative investment.
Building societies were the very epitome of upright probity, the model that banks should have been following. America's Savings and Loans were just like them until financial deregulation in the US in the 1970s and 1980s led them into the nod-nod, wink-wink, camel-hair coat deals that led to the collapse beginning in the mid 1980s ($132 bn bailout that time). Learning the lessons of this, of course, the UK Government pressed ahead with deregulation of the financial markets.
Even Kublai Khan wasn't that extravagant!
Mind how you go!
Among the wonders seen by Polo were asbestos cloth (used as a tablecloth - thank you Stephen Fry and the team on QI), the Summer Palace (the Xanadu immortalised by Coleridge), the postal service, and paper money. Polo was so impressed he became a tax inspector (I know, but I'm winging it here). Salt production was enormous, iron production was five centuries ahead of Europe (Polo didn't know that at the time), canals made for an excellent transport system, and the empire was a single market of enormous size. Paper money and credit facilities were highly developed, and citizens could buy paperback books, fine porcelain and fine silks with the paper money.
The Khan printed more and more money - vast sums - the beginning of the end of the Mongol Empire lay with Kublai Khan, and paper money was to be devalued and vanish from China by 1455 - 161 years after Kublai Khan's death.
The first European paper money was issued by a Swedish bank in 1661 - it ended up needing a Government bail-out. See this printing too much money? Never been a good idea. There have been devaluation crises like the Kipper- und Wipperzeit where the coins were debased (just like quantitative easing, really), the sub-prime lending of Peruzzi and Bardi in the 14th century, Overend, Gurney and Co. taking down a whole load of banks in 1866, the City of Glasgow Bank in 1878 overstretched itself, the 1873 US banking crisis (which might have been caused in Europe), the US had a wee fleg in 1907 as well, the Wall Street crash, BCCI and Barings caused by speculative investment.
Building societies were the very epitome of upright probity, the model that banks should have been following. America's Savings and Loans were just like them until financial deregulation in the US in the 1970s and 1980s led them into the nod-nod, wink-wink, camel-hair coat deals that led to the collapse beginning in the mid 1980s ($132 bn bailout that time). Learning the lessons of this, of course, the UK Government pressed ahead with deregulation of the financial markets.
Even Kublai Khan wasn't that extravagant!
Mind how you go!
Not my problem says Tram boss
My regular email from Leith Business Association left me dumfoonert. LBA, as always, is agitating in the interests of its members and invited Richard Jeffrey, Chief Executive of TIE, to walk the Walk and see the problems being caused by the chaos of the Tram. He washed his hands, saying it wasn't his problem:
So TIE causes the problem through its contractors but accepts no responsibility for solving it. Holes are dug all over the place but no work goes on in them and the communities alongside the current route are expected to suffer it and look forward to at least another two years.
This project is a disaster, the business case was fantasy when the economy was strong and is doubly so now, the route is the wrong route, the funding is not in place, the works are behind schedule and over budget, the thing still isn't fully designed, the intended revenue stream includes a subsidy from the Scottish Government which has never been promised, it's sent Lothian Buses into the red, and there's no indication that the expected passenger footfall will materialise. Stop it now and let's see if we can save some businesses, thereby saving some jobs, let's see if we can get the city moving again, and let's not start out on any more ill-thought-out half-baked hare-brained vanity schemes.
Edinburgh's transport needs sorted out and it needs proper consideration to make sure we get it right. There are miles of unused and underused rail track in the city and miles more track bed, there are stations still extant which haven't been used in years - and they would serve much more of Edinburgh than the current idea of ramming a bit of street rail down some of our busiest streets. How have they got it so wrong?
When it was pointed out to Mr Jefrrey that the local businesses and residents were being forced to bear the brunt of this impact, for something that was, 'not their problem', Mr Jeffrey responded, "It's not my problem either."
So TIE causes the problem through its contractors but accepts no responsibility for solving it. Holes are dug all over the place but no work goes on in them and the communities alongside the current route are expected to suffer it and look forward to at least another two years.
This project is a disaster, the business case was fantasy when the economy was strong and is doubly so now, the route is the wrong route, the funding is not in place, the works are behind schedule and over budget, the thing still isn't fully designed, the intended revenue stream includes a subsidy from the Scottish Government which has never been promised, it's sent Lothian Buses into the red, and there's no indication that the expected passenger footfall will materialise. Stop it now and let's see if we can save some businesses, thereby saving some jobs, let's see if we can get the city moving again, and let's not start out on any more ill-thought-out half-baked hare-brained vanity schemes.
Edinburgh's transport needs sorted out and it needs proper consideration to make sure we get it right. There are miles of unused and underused rail track in the city and miles more track bed, there are stations still extant which haven't been used in years - and they would serve much more of Edinburgh than the current idea of ramming a bit of street rail down some of our busiest streets. How have they got it so wrong?
Friday, 7 August 2009
Every silver lining has a cloud
Wendy Alexander, who was once the next First Minister, has taken her famed intellect out for another turn around the block. The Paisley Daily Express has reported that Paisley got £1.8 million of town centre regeneration money. The council leader (Derek Mackay) was delighted with the money - but you might have expected that from an SNP councillor. His welcome was echoed, though, by the depute leader of the Labour group on the council, Jackie Green, who said
Everyone together and working hand in hand to improve Paisley then? Nearly. In comes the Wendibles:
What a gymnast, what a scorching wit, what a fine, soaring examination of evidence from Labour's leading light who, when she was Communities Minister, made sure that town centre regeneration schemes got ... oh, hang on ...
We know that Wendy Alexander demonstrated a commitment to Renfrewshire Renaissance - but we didn't know that she resented other areas of the country getting their fair share. If she thought she was stealing a curmudgeon's march on her Labour colleagues, though, she was in for a surprise when Hugh Henry, Labour's answer to Droopy Dog, got stuck right in as well, welcoming the money for Paisley (did they not compare notes first?) but
Not to be outdone, her favourite brother, Douglas, came right across her bows with
Strange how impotent UK Ministers are, I thought, but there you go. How is it, though, that it's Labour's councillors who are showing leadership in that party just now while their parliamentarians are proving themselves to be petty? Here we have Councillor Green looking for the opportunity for the area he serves rather than party political advantage while the parliamentarians just whinge. Councillor Pat Watters has been leading COSLA with grace and some distinction, getting the best possible deal for local government by working with the Scottish Government while Labour's MSPs have sought only some petty points.
There's a lesson that Labour needs to learn - they need to offer some positivity, welcome things which are good, praise things done well and offer an alternative, positive vision for Scotland. We've not seen any Labour policy being developed since Jack McConnell left office and we've heard little from them about what they'd like to see done differently. labour appear to be frightened to engage anyone in debate about what they believe in or any ideas they might have. Labour members are afraid to speak to the public, but it seems that they are also unable to take back control of their own party.
Leaving aside the incidents like Walter Wolfgang's eviction, it's clear that there is a fear in Labour and a bullying culture similar to that disclosed by Dennis Canavan recently still pervades Labour's structures. That is part of the reason that the life is being choked out of what was once a decent party - and all for the sake of a few political careers.
The democratic centralism and central control dominating Labour is clearly stifling debate - but it's what the leadership want and need. It is time for Labour to show that it is a forward-thinking party willing to debate ideas for the future. They are two years into opposition, soon they will have to start their own manifesto process for the next election. There’s a general election just months away and a referendum not long after that. Surely, If they are truly serious about what Labour now stands for and converting the open minded, then they should start debating Labour vision for Scotland's future. It isn't clear what Labour's vision for Scotland's future is, of course, other than the continuation of the UK, so let's start there. Does Labour believe that the Union is an end in itself or is it merely a means to an end?
I'm glad I'm perfect!
“We very much supported the application for the money, and we are really pleased we’ve got it.”
Everyone together and working hand in hand to improve Paisley then? Nearly. In comes the Wendibles:
“I am sorry to see Paisley lose out to the likes of Alloa, Ayr, Kirkcaldy, Dumfries, Edinburgh, North Lanarkshire and Glasgow – all of whom got more than Paisley.
“How can the SNP justify Paisley’s need being less than Alloa, Ayr or Edinburgh?
“This half-hearted commitment to the town only convinces me to redouble my efforts for Paisley to receive the full amount bid for in the next bidding round.
“Paisley’s need is greater than many others who have benefited today and I will continue to work tirelessly to make that case.”
What a gymnast, what a scorching wit, what a fine, soaring examination of evidence from Labour's leading light who, when she was Communities Minister, made sure that town centre regeneration schemes got ... oh, hang on ...
We know that Wendy Alexander demonstrated a commitment to Renfrewshire Renaissance - but we didn't know that she resented other areas of the country getting their fair share. If she thought she was stealing a curmudgeon's march on her Labour colleagues, though, she was in for a surprise when Hugh Henry, Labour's answer to Droopy Dog, got stuck right in as well, welcoming the money for Paisley (did they not compare notes first?) but
“I am shocked that Johnstone is being sold down the river with a paltry sum of money.”
Not to be outdone, her favourite brother, Douglas, came right across her bows with
“I welcome this vital investment in Paisley Town Centre, although I would have wanted a higher award for Johnstone Town Centre when compared with awards to other Scottish towns.
“As I said in Wednesday’s Paisley Daily Express, I have been campaigning for many months for the town centre cash. The challenge will now be to spend this cash effectively to the benefit of the Renfrewshire Community.”
Strange how impotent UK Ministers are, I thought, but there you go. How is it, though, that it's Labour's councillors who are showing leadership in that party just now while their parliamentarians are proving themselves to be petty? Here we have Councillor Green looking for the opportunity for the area he serves rather than party political advantage while the parliamentarians just whinge. Councillor Pat Watters has been leading COSLA with grace and some distinction, getting the best possible deal for local government by working with the Scottish Government while Labour's MSPs have sought only some petty points.
There's a lesson that Labour needs to learn - they need to offer some positivity, welcome things which are good, praise things done well and offer an alternative, positive vision for Scotland. We've not seen any Labour policy being developed since Jack McConnell left office and we've heard little from them about what they'd like to see done differently. labour appear to be frightened to engage anyone in debate about what they believe in or any ideas they might have. Labour members are afraid to speak to the public, but it seems that they are also unable to take back control of their own party.
Leaving aside the incidents like Walter Wolfgang's eviction, it's clear that there is a fear in Labour and a bullying culture similar to that disclosed by Dennis Canavan recently still pervades Labour's structures. That is part of the reason that the life is being choked out of what was once a decent party - and all for the sake of a few political careers.
The democratic centralism and central control dominating Labour is clearly stifling debate - but it's what the leadership want and need. It is time for Labour to show that it is a forward-thinking party willing to debate ideas for the future. They are two years into opposition, soon they will have to start their own manifesto process for the next election. There’s a general election just months away and a referendum not long after that. Surely, If they are truly serious about what Labour now stands for and converting the open minded, then they should start debating Labour vision for Scotland's future. It isn't clear what Labour's vision for Scotland's future is, of course, other than the continuation of the UK, so let's start there. Does Labour believe that the Union is an end in itself or is it merely a means to an end?
I'm glad I'm perfect!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)