Archive for October, 2007

h1

Now there’s a tree policy!

October 25, 2007

I’ve written and talked a lot about Michael Bloomberg’s plans and achievements in making NYC greener, but the facts really are amazing, and in such stark contrast to plans here in Manchester. Before anyone starts to use the pathetic counter-argument that we’re not New York, and therefore have no right to ambition just read some of the facts and have a long hard think about how different it is. Its not just a world city compared to a regional city, its ‘green city’ plans are just out of this world. Can’t we at least aspire to some of it?…..

Extract from the NYC parks website: 

Just in time for Arbor Day, Parks announces green news–New York City is already 100,000 street trees greener than it was ten years ago, and the City will plant a million more trees under Mayor Bloomberg’s recently announced PlaNYC.

The Parks Department announces the results of the second citywide count of trees that grow on New York City streets and are managed by Parks. The 2005-2006 Street Tree Census found 592,130 street trees–a 19% increase over the 1995-1996 census. Thanks to 1,100 volunteers and a sophisticated computer software program, New Yorkers now have a way to quantify the enormous benefits of New York’s street trees–from pollution reduction to savings on air conditioning bills. Street trees provide almost $122 million in benefits annually to City residents and are one of the best investments around. Over the past two summers, volunteers fanned out across the City to record information (such as size, species, location, and condition) for every street tree in New York City, logging a total of more than 30,000 volunteer hours. The United States Forest Service analyzed the data using a computer modeling program based on tree growth curves, climate data, and regional patterns of energy use, pollution levels, and building construction to quantify the dollar value of annual environmental and aesthetic benefits of each of the trees surveyed.

Check out http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/trees_greenstreets/ny_trust.html

WiFi access in parks http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/wifi/index.html

New York Greenways initiative http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/facilities/af_bike_paths.html

h1

Manchester City Council hung out to dry yet again by the government

October 15, 2007

Once more the city council seems to have been let down by the government. If it was a different political colour, the there ideological differences between the two this would be more understandable, however both being Labour I’ll repeat again what I’ve said a number of times – New Labour has abandoned the North.  Labour has now done a U turn over road pricing – central to Manchester’s TIFF bid, but an element rejected by other cities such as Birmingham which is seeking over £7 billion to our £3 billion. See article below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TQJVBWLILQXBZQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/15/nroads115.xml

Manchester city council seems so keen to jump on any lifeline thrown to it by the government, and then the rug seems to be pulled from under its feet. Can we expect this too with the announcement of £2billion for rail in Manchester (which in itself as an announcement makes a mockery of Labour’s, and Sir Richard Leese’s, statement that the congestion charge was the ONLY way to get any investment in Manchester.

Metrolink

Introduced and money allocated by the last Conservative government, allocating £500 million. Labour withheld the remainder of the allocation once it gained power. New money from Labour £0.00.

National Football Stadium

Again let down by the government. In my opinion there could not be a better place for a national football stadium than Manchester, the heart of the sport in our country with our two world-class teams. Manchester frozen out of an unfair bidding process, a flaw that has cost the tax-payer millions for the crazy scheme at Wembley.

World Athletic Championship

When London failed to come up with the goods in terms of a stadium, damaging national credibility, the idiot sports Minister at the time tried to blame Manchester for not being able to use the City of Manchester stadium for athletics, even though a key factor for Manchester was to find a sustainable use for the stadium (which it did in giving it to Sir Howard’s football team) as the government had made it clear it would not assist in supporting an athletics stadium there.

The Super Casino

Bidding and winning the super casino was a triumph claimed by the city council, beating Blackpool and London for the prize, only to have the prize taken away by Gordon Brown. Many dubious that it was the best way to regenerate that run-down part of Manchester anyway would still surely be angry that so much money had been spent on the bid that was then proved to be worthless.

Record amount spent on TIFF/Congestion Charge bid 

Again a great deal of money spent on the bid (apparently about 3 times the amount Birmingham will spend) which is a cost to council-tax payers in Manchester, just as the government seems to be abandoning the concept. The idea of congestion charging for Manchester has been opposed by the Conservatives all along. I have continually campaigned on it ever since the council backed the idea. William Hague said it was ‘wrong for Manchester’ during his visit here at the weekend. Its funny, that’s what Sir Richard Leese used to say before the government insisted he support it……

h1

Council’s ASBO Team out of control

October 12, 2007

A couple of professional violinist have been threatened with a ‘Noise Abatement Order’ which could have led to the council seizing their instruments, as had happened in the past with professional musicians in Manchester. A neighbour had made a complaint to the council about the couple practising their violins between the hours of 9am-5pm, which seems to have triggered a series of automatic responses from the ASBO Team at the council. The Council would have the legal right to enter their home and take away their valuable and fragile violins that they use every day for their jobs under the order. Whats shocking is how un-measured and automatic the responses are.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1138237012/bclid1137745824/bctid1243684483

This clearly shows a lack of due process in the system. Manchester has the highest levels of ASBO’s in the country, and now we can see how. The ‘Final Warning’ letter to the pair says ” this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated”. It says of the Noise Order, “Failure to comply with the notice will result in Housing Services applying to the Magistrates Court for a warrant to enter your premises, by force if necessary, and seize any equipment we feel has been used to cause a nuisance”

 With the precedence already set by this taking place previously, the couple in question were horrified and afraid of the council removing by force their violins that they rely on to earn a living. Manchester has a fantastic Arts and music scene, supported by the council, which draws musicians from around the world to our city. How on earth could the council so casually terrorise people who are part of this vital artistic environment.

h1

Congestion charging – how the council is pulling the wool over your eyes

October 8, 2007

A key condition of the bid for congestion charging is that is is acceptable to both the public and the business community. The city council has no credibility that this is the case, and I’ll outline why.

 Several surveys have been done, with strong majorities in Trafford and Stockport voting heavily against. The Federation of Small Business surveyed its some 290,000 members who were 90% against. So how has the council produced figures from their survey that seems to contradict this trend? My first instinct was this couldn’t really be the case. Their survey also educates people as to the benefits they allege will occur, and so skews the survey in their favour anyway. However, all is still not what it seems.

 The council’s report shows that 42% said that congestion was a serious problem, while 49% said it was a problem but not serious. Even more significant than this is that the council’s own data shows traffic congestion in Manchester actually falling, by almost 15% in the city centre! http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1017746_survey_claims_less_congestion

Asked the question  “The principal of a combined package of £3bn improvements in transport in Greater Manchester that also included greater control over buses and rail and the introduction of congestion charging for vehicles using the busiest roads at peak times on week days” less than 50% of the public agreed.

Now in question of actually charging people, “… congestion charging would only operate at peak time, on weekdays, for inward journeys in the morning and outward journeys in the evening. For the longest journey, the maximum cost in the morning would be £3 and in the evening £2. These charges would only be introduced after there has been a large investment in transport in Greater Manchester. All of the money raised from the charges would also be invested in improved public transport.” The level of agreement was low(41%) but the figure disagreeing was (50%). In Salford and Bury, disagreement was over 60%, significantly higher than in most other districts.

This question is at best misleading, at worst dishonest. They can’t say that ALL the money raised from the charge will go on public transport in Manchester. The funds from the charge will revert to central government after 10 years, however it will take 20-30 years for Manchester to pay back the £1.9 billion it is borrowing. The council has requested to be the recipient of the funds for longer than the 10 years currently allowed, but there is no indication or guarantee that this will be the case.

The survey also talks about how at the events they staged where they conducted surveys on employers, the level of agreement with their plans went up during the process. Its incredibly cynical. If the ‘NO’ camp had a similar seminar the level of people disagreeing would rise significantly. Some other surveys that are much more conclusive:http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/569.htmhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1002/1002413_congestion_charge_survey__gtr_manchester.html?related_link http://www.rha.net/press-releases/manchester-s-congestion-charge-plans-are-fatally-flawed-says-rha http://www.e-couriernews.co.uk/content/view/628/The council’s flawed report ishttp://www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk/downloads/TIF_Acceptability_Research_Summary_Report.pdf

h1

To balance the Castlefield debate

October 7, 2007

Something I would have done had not Pat Karney’s cronies caused such disruption that I wasn’t able to speak at a public meeting, was to speak about the context, how we got to where we are now. We need to learn from what happened, good and bad aspects of what created the area of Castlefield originally and what has happened since.

 The Castlefield meeting was designed to discuss why Castlefield had declined, and what to do next. The Labour Councillor from Harpurhey (not the city centre) had plenty to say, and was sure that the future of Castlefield lay with him (what about the people in north Manchester that elected him in the first place? how much of his time do they get?) perhaps the most memorable line from the councillor regarding one of the key players in the region, Peel  Holdings, was “get those buggers to give us their land” suggesting Peel should donate land it owns to the city for use as public space. Very ironic as land the city council owns is being used to build one of the most unpopular 28 storey developments in Castlefield!

You’ll see my point in another post about the Central Manchester Development Corporation. City development and regeneration was inventedby the Conservatives. Even though we have no MPs nor any councillors, Manchester is still something talked about in main conference speeches by the likes of Michael Heseltine, the man behind it all, creator of Albert Dock, Castlefield etc.
Why doesn’t the council have a plan to change the awful appearance of the empty commercial units in the ground floors of Castlefield buildings? (like the Bellway developments, Citygate etc) Its such a dreadful comment on the lack of vitality in that area that all these units have been built for years without ever having been occupied. Why not arrange a deal where new local businesses can apply, based on a business plan, to have the units rent-free to a period of perhaps two years (the crucial ‘incubation time’ for a new business) before it starts charging commerical rent – the units would be full within weeks, supporting Manchester entrepreneurs.
Peel Holdings clean the canals and basin in Castlefield once a month, but the canals still end up full of litter and debris. This is in no small part due to lack of litter bins, bins in the wrong places, and bins not being emptied enough. let me illustrate this visually.

enclosed-litter-bin.jpg

A litter bin enclosed by barriers so that nobody can approach it. The litter surrounding the bottom of the bin tells the tale.

An overflowing bin

overflowing-bin2.jpg

 litter-paton-st.jpg

This fire-house point gets used as a bin on the street next to my building because there isn’t one there. I’ve cleaned this point up before, as have my neighbours. I wrote to the council regarding this without response or solution

 canal-litter-rob.jpg takeaway-carton-in-canal.jpgThe take-away carton in Castlefield that probably began its journey closer to Piccadilly

h1

Manchester development – a context

October 7, 2007

Some people may wonder why I rant on about New Labour failing Manchester and why I think the Conservatives have any right having an opinion on the topic. It also relates to what I was trying to say at the Castlefield meeting, and why the Labour councillor and his cronies present were so desperate to heckle and prevent it.

The simplest way is if I just quote from the minister at the time regarding the Central Manchester Development Corporation:

“The corporation was set up in 1988. Its remit was to revitalise, and to bring private investment back, to an area of 187 hectares–an area which is immediately south of the city centre. This area was once the powerhouse of Manchester. But it had become run-down and neglected, with many under-used buildings and derelict sites.

This was a depressing and sad state of affairs for the centre of what was, and is, a magnificent and proud city. There was, therefore, a pressing need to tackle environmental decay, to promote jobs and tourism and to bring housing back to the city centre.

Anyone who has visited this area, as I have been privileged to do recently, cannot fail to be enormously impressed by the way in which the corporation has tackled these problems. It has transformed a once neglected area into a thriving, vibrant part of the city centre where developers are now keen to invest. It is wonderful not only to see what has been done but also to sense the enthusiasm, determination and pride of all those who have been involved and of all those who have been affected by what has been done. An important part of the corporation’s work has been to bring people and vitality back to the city centre. In 1988 the population of the urban development area was just 250. Now, eight years later, nearly 4,000 people live there. That is an astonishing change. Those people live in lively new communities with decent services and popular bars, pubs and restaurants.

The corporation has spent some £17 million on environmental improvements. These include such things as clearing canals, restoring towpaths and putting in new landscaping. Much of this work has been done in the Castlefield area, which is now a major leisure and tourist attraction and which is based around the historic canal network. These environmental improvement works have been vital ingredients in inspiring the confidence of investors and in creating an overall image of which local people can be proud.

The corporation has also succeeded in attracting new jobs and new businesses. Many under-used and neglected buildings have been converted into quality offices and hotels of varying sizes. New offices have also been built. Since the corporation started its work, over 98,000 square metres of offices have opened or are under way. That is a significant contribution.

In all, the corporation has attracted into its area private sector investment of £376 million. For every £1 of public money which has been invested by the corporation, nearly £4 will have been invested by the private sector.

The Government will make further money available where needed. For example, there is the Hulme City Challenge for which the Government are making available £37.5 million over five years. There is Estate Action where £54 million is being spent over this year and the next three years. There is the Challenge Fund, Round 1, which will receive £14 million over the next six years. In the second round of the Challenge Fund £28 million is being made available over the next seven years. And of course the Government contributed no less a sum than £75 million towards the Olympic bids. That was done over five years, from 1991 to 1996. Unfortunately, Manchester was not successful in getting the Olympic bid but because of that it got the Commonwealth Games bid, and therefore that has been a success. “

This is the Conservative legacy to Castlefield, Manchester, and city life. As mentioned previously, £500 million was allocated for Metrolink, compared to £0 of new money from our current New Labour government, even holding back some of the original money, causing inflation and downgrading what we can buy with that money. Now, Labour’s vision is for us to have no investment without the blackmail of the congestion charge. The point is that after a great start, the heat and direction has been taken out of Manchester, and Castlefield in relative terms has declined. Bring on the change!

h1

The Manchester Exhibition, the birth of the Halle

October 7, 2007

On Saturday I went to see a fantastic exhibition at the City Art Gallery celebrating 150 years of the Manchester Exhibition. http://www.manchestergalleries.org/whats-on/exhibitions/index.php?itemID=25 

The incredible array of artworks on display was as interesting as the story of the exhibition itself. In 1857 contained over 16,000 exhibits. It was pulled together by leading entrepreneurs of the city, keen to show Manchester in a different light, as at the time it was perceived as simply a city of commerce. Its ironic now that we’re primarily a city known for culture and not commerce. The feat was incredible, a huge building was constructed to house the displays of paintings, sculpture, photography, and even two instrumental concerts each day, with the best musicians from around Europe conducted by Charles Halle. This was the beginning of Halle’s desire to create a resident orchestra in Manchester, and therefore 2008 is the 150th anniversary of the orchestra’s creation.

Its all fascinating stuff and well worth a visit, for the history alone, although the collection is wonderful too. Its an incredible testament to Manchester’s wealth and ambition that it took only 3 weeks to raise the money to complete the budget for the great exhibition, could you imagine such a thing happening today! The other remarkable thing is that it wasn’t created by an arts council, or a city council, but by industrial entrepreneurs of the day not least Fairbairn, the designer of the famous boiler that helped to fuel the industrial revolution. 

I was rather horrified to discover the forward in the lovely handbook was by our own Sir Richard Leese, which nicely laid out an overview of the event. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony that such a thing couldn’t happen today in the days since the Labour movement in Manchester. Its no longer visionaries who drive our city forward, a city council would produce a politically correct version falling far short. The most recent incarnation of a Manchester Festival cannot hold a light to the original, and serves to starve funding from the most incredible Manchester institution that sprang from this great event 150 years ago, our own Halle orchestra, among others too.

Its well worth a visit, see some Manchester favourites that are resident at the gallery permanently, and soak up the pride of when Manchester was a great world city.

h1

make it easier to do without a car….please!

October 7, 2007

Today was such a frsutrating day, tryin to make a trip just outside Manchester by public transport. My parents are visiting  me for the weekend from the North East, and I’d wanted to take them to visit some interesting places near Manchester as we’d spent the day in the city yesterday seeing the fantastic exhibition at the City Art Gallery on the Manchester Exhibition 150 years ago.

I’ve done without a car in my life for some time now, and so we were to make the trip by train. We discoverec when we got to the station that there were no trains, but bus replacement services. Of the two ticket machines I found at Victoria one was out of order, the other wouldn’t accept payment unless it was the exact money in change, which had numerous people turning away from trying to use it. There was one ticket counter open with a huge que.

We got on the bus (which arrived late) and it took over double the amount of time they said it would take , and so we missed the connection to get another bus replacement from Stalybridge….the next one was over two hours away….so much for lunch in the hills! With the time already lost it made the journey really impossible, and so we simply took the replacement bus service back to Manchester. I asked the bus driver to let us off as he was virtually passing my front door but he shouted at us something like “you wouldn’t be able to get off a train would you!” which we took to mean that no he wuldn’t let us off the bus before standing stationary for a while in football traffic….I hope the travel writers mentioned yesterday didn’t actually try to travel anywhere today from Manchester using public transport!

I always use trains, and even though they’re often late, its still the best way to get around in my opinion, buses are not just slower but less desireable for a

http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/huddersfield/standedge1.htm

h1

Bringing shame on our city – Andrew Grimes of the M.E.N

October 6, 2007

I often complain about the Manchester Evening News. This is for several reasons, usually because of lack of political balance in its presentation of issues and fact. Often it does a very good job, and certainly campaigns on issues which are of interest to many Mancunians. As a regional paper it is above average. However that’s not really good enough for Manchester, and a shocking pale version of the radical Manchester Guardian (even the modern Guardian in my opinion is no match for the original)

Occasionally, usually in the comment sections, things are printed which at first make me angry, and then embarrassed at how utterly dreadful, ignorant, bigoted and stupid some writers are  – Andrew Grimes is king among these. The irony of the strap-line to his comment page “opinions you can’t ignore”  – it should read, “if you have even one brain cell you’d ignore it, but only if you had the most sanguine nature possible.”  The fact its badly written doesn’t help his frankly childish obsession with ‘Tory bashing’ such as insisting on calling David Cameron ‘Duke Dave’. He is neither a Duke, nor blue blooded, nor a descendant of one, and who gives a damn if he is. This crazy idea that if someone comes from a good background, and is well educated that they should be banned from having any right to the political process is just the mirror image of disgusting attitudes and prejudices long ago against the uneducated working classes – nobody is asked to justify why they have political ideas and opinions, even though they’re un-educated and poor!

The straw that broke the camel’s back for me is this from October 5th.

Tories shoot themselves in the foot” reads the headline. “At the Tory conference this week, the wildest shouts of joy were for George Osborne’s promise (not true Grimes, I was there!) that as chancellor he would only impose death duties on millionaires.  Its funny, but also mildly worrying. All Tories, in the recent past, aspired to become millionaires, and considered themselves failures if they didn’t leave six figures in the bank when carried to the crypt. Given their new self-limiting financial outlook, what will they turn to instead? I wouldn’t rule out embezzlement, assault and battery or highway robbery” oh really Grimes? Get a lawyer……..

If anyone understands what the hell he’s talking about, please do enlighten us. How on earth did this guy get a job writing for ANY newspaper. If you were to employ an equal opposite right-wing nutter they’d be ranting on, airing racist views, so why do we put up with this drivel from someone who only uses our local paper to attempt to come to terms with the extensive chip on his shoulder? This week the Association of American Travel Writers is in town, and I cringe to think what they’d think about our city if they picked up the paper and read the idiotic prejudiced writing on this whole page devoted to this nutter. For goodness sake, get rid of him, he’s an embarrassment to our city!

I note he also questions Tony Wilson being added to the list of freemen of the city, alongside Churchill, Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson. He says of Tony “He was a fairly good television reporter and he created a record label” and then “Tony Wilson up there with Churchill and the Grenadier Guards? Call me old-fashioned, but it doesn’t seem right” 

No, I wouldn’t expect you to get it actually, I have a feeling that you and Pat Karney are good friends (with Pat’s obsession of people not criticising the city, ‘running Manchester down’ is his choice phrase), ambition for our city makes these people nervous, because they don’t really know what it means.

Knowing Tony cemented part of the desire to stand for council and try to change the monochrome politics in Manchester, and actually was a catylist for me to stay in Manchester as much as the UK’s best orchestra was, the Halle. His attitudes and passions fr the north fitted exactly with that of how I’d been brought up in the N.E. and my tied in closely with my experiences in the USA. Tony wanted to build a New York disco in Manchester (the Hacienda) when nobody here had any clue what it was! It was empty initially because it was so ahead of its time. Tony didn’t want to make do, he wanted to shake things up, and his inspiration was the greatest city on earth at that time – New York. His talk of loft-living in Manchester combined my desire for the north to grow, with my experiences of city life and civic pride in cities such as New York and Chicago.

Tony knew about these things,  and drove the culture in Manchester forward towards that. Current city leaders such as Sir Richard Leese don’t seem to understand this, and keep harping on about cities such as Stockholm and Amsterdam (with its commercial district outside the city centre) as their inspiration – give me a break, who on earth aspires to be like that! Manchester isn’t that kind of city at all, its a city without limits, a modern city, a city of immigrants where anyone can become a Mancunian just as you can become a New Yorker. So, no it doesn’t surprise me that Grimes doesn’t understand why Tony was so important for our city…..its just a shame that in all the furore over people trying to claim that they knew and understood him now that he’s gone, so many people still aren’t able to actually understand what he was all about.

Tony was a Labour member and supporter, but we had much common ground because he had insight that politicians usually don’t have – it was about culture, and how it relates to ambition for a city. Without that we are impoverished indeed, and we would live in the bleakest of all worlds, the world of Andrew Grimes.

h1

Join our petition to say “yes to investment in public transport, without the blackmail of the congestion charge”

October 6, 2007

The imposition of the congestion charge in-spite of local opposition is a great example of New Labour’s top-down style of government.

A poll for the Manchester Evening News online found 85% were against the charge. The Federation fo Small Business found their members over 90% against the charge. The council’s own figures show congestion has decreased, and already its costing us a fortune, with 3 times the recommended amount being spent on the bid 6.6 million pounds to be paid for by Manchester tax payers.

82% of people would rather the city sell the airport rather than have the congestion charge, which would simply be selling one asset for another – Sir Richard Leese shockingly said that our council tax would have in excess of a 20% rise if it wasn’t for the subsidy from airport dividends. In true socialist style, the council is using a great financial asset to prop up their public spending, and all the time the airport group suffers from lack of private money, interests and management. What an absolute scandal that we’re actually getting such poor value for money from our council tax that we’d probably have the highest rates in the country without such subsidy. The council claims a dividend of 25 million, however if the money was simply in the bank it would pay interest of 150 million….what economic incompetence.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1010/1010499_councils_dismiss_airport_sale.html

Sit Richard Leese has written in the past that a congestion charge would be a disaster for Manchester and the region, and yet is is forced to take up the cause of bringing the charge here in order to have a chance of getting any funding for public transport in Manchester.

There has been a shocking lack of investment in Manchester since New Labour took power. Brown’s naive and short-term solution to the North South divide was to pump money into the north in the form pf public sector pay (which is now coming home to roost in the form of strikes over pay rises far below other public sector rises in recent years). In  the NE for example there are areas where 55% of people are employed by the state – he has essentially created a false socialist economy in the north, while bolstering a healthy market economy in the SE. Apparently according to Gordon Brown we’re not worthy of genuine investment in the north, not mature enough to cope with a market economy, so instead he has patronised us by flooding the north with extra public sector money and jobs in order to give the illusion of a healthier economy.

What the north really needs is what was talked about at the recent Conservative Party conference by people such as Lord Heseltine, Eric Pickles and George Osborne – genuine investment in infrastructure, education and training.

The Development Corporations un Heseltine had transformed Manchester into what we see today. They created Albert dock in Liverpool, and Castlefield in Manchester and paved the way for the city centre living revolution. The Central Manchester Development Corporation created the Castlefield Arena, waterside attractions and living, the Roman Fort for example. Since then, the city council has allowed Castlefield to decline.

The last Conservative government saw the need for infrastructure and allocated £500 million for the Metro tram system. After the pilot of the Altrincham line, the money was to fund the so called ‘Big Bang’ that we are now still waiting for after 10 years of New Labour. Even a Labour MP, Graham Stringer, has gone on record saying that the reason the system wasn’t delivered was because the New Labour department for transport was anti-light rail, and the ’dithering’ of that department stalling the progress was what caused the price inflation leading to the eventual collapse of the system.

This pretty much brings us up to date today, far from the Conservative vision for Manchester with an extensive light rail system, and now unattainable, say Labour. unless we agree to be their testing ground for road-charging. The reason I cannot support this is because it represents Labour’s biggest failure, a failure to provide genuine investment in the North to help cities like Manchester grow. Cities of far less apparent wealth and importance such as Valencia have a subway system and trams, as does Milan, Vienna and a host of other European cities. No German city, with their system of greater autonomy for local government, would stand for such lack of infrastructure, and indeed its something Germans often comment upon when visiting Manchester.

My biggest fear is that we’ll get the charge, plummet even further down the rankings of economic competitiveness (only two UK cities other than London are in Europe’s top 50 – Leeds and Bristol) and STILL not end up with great transport infrastructure because if Metrolink has taught us anything its shown the money can be allocated, the will can be there, consensus drawn (far more than for the current Congestion Charge plans) and yet delivery can still be a million miles from satisfactory – 10 years late and over budget and counting…..come on Manchester, what will it be? Say YES to investment, but without the blackmail from the New Labour government who clearly don’t care about our city as they pretend, and try to take credit for everything about our city that is due to the previous Conservative government in terms of funding, and vision.