Let the market decide?

There is a pattern that I'm starting to see in the city council that I'm really concerned about. The idea that the economic market should decide who is able to live here and work here, which is the basis of neo-liberalism and a major contributor to the decay of community life and heritage.

The idea that an "invisible hand" would guide a free market to make the best decisions was introduced by Adam Smith and has been used as justification for Tories to strip away public services and banking regulations. I'm never surprised to see it happen in a Conservative administration, but I am surprised to see go by unchallenged in a Labour administration. I would expect to see socialists attempting to buffer vulnerable people from the brutality of the free market, and on the whole Labour have been trying to do that in the face of massive central government cuts. But when officers write reports saying that it's possible to get a bit more money out of people because someone will pay the prices they're proposing, I would expect to see some push back.

That is what has happened recently with the case of the river moorings, and is also happening with the cost of renting market stalls from the council. The officers have presented evidence to suggest that more revenue can be made by squeezing a bit harder, and so far Labour seem willing to go along with it. They ruled out auctioning off mooring licenses, but the proposed price rises would just have the same effect more slowly. I don't really believe that Labour wants to pick on anyone, or wants to force anyone to move out, I think it's more the case that they are too busy and overstretched to see the consequences that price rises would have. I feel confident that they will overturn the river proposals now that CamBoaters have given a very robust communication of their situation at the River Review meeting last Saturday and also in the consultation responses.

But I still fear that the council might agree to put prices up for the market stalls again this year, following a crippling rise in fees that many of them faced last year. I wrote about this, and some of the problems faced by traders, at the time.

Since then, many of the problems have got worse. Evidence of any economic prosperity, or a boom, is nowhere to be seen. This week the market was half empty nearly every day. The stall coverings are still dirty, torn, and leaky. The boards are still worn and unhygienic. People have had nasty accidents tripping on the cobblestones that have become uneven and need to be reset. Traders are still coming into work, and spending time that they have paid for to clean up human faeces and hypodermic needles from their pitches. There is a sign in the antique Victorian toilets downstairs warning traders to beware of needles, the problem is widespread.

The benchmarking exercise that officers undertook to demonstrate that the prices could be increased for the Cambridge market didn't take into account the astonishing disrepair and dangerousness of the facilities. It didn't take into account the lack of convenient parking or promotional efforts. And it didn't propose offering a "cold weather" discount as offered by some other market towns. Some traders here have to pay a surcharge of 5 pounds to trade as casuals, if they want to trade occasionally on different days, even if they are here every week of the year. The adminstration fee for amending licenses is being raised from 25 pounds to 30 pounds, it's the kind of charge that estate agents and banks levy just because they have the power to do so. A trader who occasionally uses a microwave to warm up the 5% of his produce which is savoury is charged a 7 pound "hot food" fee for both of the stalls that he rents. Very unfair and bureaucratic.

Many of the traders are confused about why the council seems to want to kill off the market by the death of a thousand cuts. Residents and nearby business surely don't want this to happen? Cambridge BID has recently commented that it would like the market to run 24/7 but it is not even going to exist in the daytime if it keeps getting milked. People speculate about possible alternative plans for the space - somewhere for Hotpoint dishwashers and BMWs to be demonstrated to high-end customers? Perhaps another suitable space to build houses?

The market needs investment to make it look beautiful and to be a fitting centre for a city like Cambridge. Or if it is kept in service as a slum market then there should be a price freeze or reduction. There should be a consultation about how to do this, and the council should be looking for partners who can contribute to this without privatising it and spoiling it. But it also requires a review of how to treat the traders fairly, treat them as people, and how to keep the local economy strong and vibrant.

Free-market capitalist thinking isn't always a sign of cruelty, sometimes it is just laziness or a lack of inspiration. It has become the default with the help of right-wing media organisations, and it takes effort to prevent it from being ubiquitous. It threatens working class people, minorities, traditional ways of life and beloved heritage institutions. I believe Jeremy Corbyn would stand up against it, and I want Labour to do so locally as well.

Cambridge Past Present and Future gave a presentation at the Festival of Ideas last year called "How to build a better Cambridge" talking about the shameful state of the market which is the centrepiece of our historic city. The way that it is laid out is uninviting, and it's unlikely that many people will be tempted in to browse the goods. The photo on the left illustrates the point - what lies within?

They have been working for years to develop a plan for the market square which also brings the fountain back into use and provides a space for public gatherings and protests, making it more accessible without removing a single stall. They are now working with a local virtual reality developer to communicate their ideas. They also worked with students at the Judge Business School to produce a report which showed that investment in the market would have wider benefits.

"For example, if the regeneration increases revenue by 10%, we can expect £ 1.0~1.7M in wider benefits for Cambridge."

"For every £1 spent in the market, customers spend £1.75 in nearby stores." (Source: Research by The Institute of Place Management, Manchester Metropolitan University and National Association of British Market Authorities).

The city council has claimed not to have the money to invest in the market square in the past, but now it is actively looking around for good investments. A report to full council in October said:

"Another major problem for the council is the low level of income from bank balances we
hold. In recent years inflation has often been higher than interest rates, creating a loss in
real value of those balances as well as lower levels of income from them. The recent cut in
interest rates may be followed by a further reduction and there is a risk that interest will be
charged on money held in bank accounts."

Surely the market square is one of the most obvious investments the council should now make? There is no mention of it in the Budget Setting Report for 2017/18 but I believe there is still a chance the investment will come. I think that should happen, along with a consultation with residents and traders who must be allowed to set out their ideas for the future of the market. Perhaps after investment and regeneration there will be a moral and financial argument for raising stallholder fees, not before.

See also, our Green Party film about the market:
https://vimeo.com/199695803

And this petition to the council:
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/invest-in-the-historic-cambridge-market-and-stop-raising-fees

No chance of a zero carbon Cambridge

This is a report on the meeting of full council last night, October 20th.

There were some very disappointing discussions:

• Failure of the administration to take any responsibility for the cruelty reflected in the consultation about to start about moorings on the Cam. Coinciding eerily with a range of eviction notices, wrongly labelling boaters on Riverside as 'illegal', and threatening to jack prices up to market rates. The option of auctioning mooring licenses has been scrapped, but the aim still seems to be to get the same effect.
• Denial of a proposal to seek permission to use Proportional Representation for local elections under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which would increase democratic participation and reduce the number of wasted votes. We were told that Labour felt the nation had decided about PR by voting No on the AV referendum in 2011 (not actually a PR voting system) and preferred top-down decisions from the Tories to grass roots decisions anyway.
• Rejection of a call to move from having an 'aspiration' to become zero carbon by 2050 to having a plan for it.

To understand the discussion about climate change and rapid decarbonisation, the reader will benefit from looking at the wording of the motion, an amendment from Labour, and officers' comments on the motion. (found in item 7 and then item 11 of the agenda)

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3052&Ver=4

I have a transcript of my own speech, but not the others. I expect that recordings of them will be provided by Antony Carpen who filmed much of it. On the night I actually skipped parts of my speech, realising that I needed to come in at under 10 minutes in order provide speaking time for Councillor Gehring who had kindly offered to second the motion.

"We sit here to discuss climate change a year after the motion which promised to divest Cambridge from fossil fuels, a worthy if symbolic decision. Since then, the focus of the media and the government has been largely on Brexit, although Climate Change has not stopped even though many have stopped talking about it. The debates for the American presidential contest have not mentioned it, alarmingly.

And we have a new report from the Committee on Climate Change one week ago, new record temperatures as usual, and a new executive councillor who I have a high regard for and who I know is an environmental campaigner himself. Labour have themselves stated that they would ban fracking in the UK, a promising step. So after discussing this at Strategy and Resources scrutiny committee in March (see http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=2875&Ver=4) I now seek to escalate it to this chamber for reconsideration and new ideas.

This amendment is effectively deleting the motion. So I need to convince Labour councillors to vote against their amendment. I'll assume they're free thinking individuals, who value the public good more than a frankly unconvincing sense of party unity. I'll try to argue that there is a public good from this motion.

I am in no way saying that the existing strategy is bad. It is extremely good, and together with the progress which is mentioned in the amendment, Labour and the officers involved should be proud.

But I think it's clear that we need to do more, and also there are some problems and inconsistencies in the strategy which bear consideration. I'll start there. I'm sure I will make some mistakes, and there will be some things that I was no aware the Labour group had already done, so I ask your forbearance. I wish that someone was doing what I'm trying to do, better than I'm able to, but I feel clear that someone has to do it.

Firstly, the report sets an aspiration to become zero carbon by 2050, but blames changes of policy by national government for limiting the options that the city has. Yes, I'm aware that the government has limited to power of councils to reduce emissions, as well as several harmful decisions on a national level.

The Committee on Climate Change reported one week ago that UK climate targets are not aimed at limiting global termperatures to as low a level in the Paris Agreement. They say that we need to get more serious about meeting current targets first, and then think about setting new targets. So fine, we need the government to give us more powers, which is something this motion was moving to do. The amendment will remove this, presuming that climate change is less important than any of the various things we have written to the government about in the last couple years.

What else? Well, the strategy claims that the city council will play a leadership role on climate change. Not a national role, or a global role on leadership, heavens forbid, even though Cambridge is one of the most wealthy, growing, respected, prospering, privileged cities in the world. Table 1 of the strategy shows that we are not even in the top half of the countries largest cities for CO2 emissions per capita, and our strategy shows only an aspiration of meeting the minimum legal requirements under the Paris agreement. Nationally and globally, we're not leading, we're dragging our feet.

But locally, leadership is important as well. The strategy says that we "call upon these stakeholders to collaborate with us to exploit opportunities and resources, in order to maximise our collective impact on greenhouse gas emissions from Cambridge.". I have been trying to find people who have actually been invited to work with the council to do this, and haven't been having much joy so far. The estates departments of the universities have been involved in difficult design issues and efficient power generation, which is work they we doing anyway. Perhaps six months hasn't long enough to send out other emails. Or perhaps this paragraph languishing at the end of the strategy document in a corner of the council website IS literally the invitation to work together.

The motion I have tabled is calling for a vigorous exercise of pro-active collaboration and engagement. Of course we can only reach zero carbon by involving people in behaviour change and difficult considerations of the future. Let's do it! That's leadership. I think the council are very shy about leading locally on climate change, because it's politically difficult. What if each party in this room issued a joint statement that we need the cooperation of residents to radically reduce CO2? There won't be a political hit if we share responsibility. And really leadership means taking difficult decisions as well as easy ones.

I also want to say that sustainability is about more than just climate change. The elements of this motion which talk about sustainability are about trying to link other issues such as resource shortages, air quality, soil depletion, inequality, fair trade, prejudice, illness, conflict and growth. The challenges to socialism and the welfare state come from all angles, and it is necessary to plan for the future and work with partners to protect the safety of future generations. Failing to plan is planning to fail. I would like an officer to providing leadership on these themes and ensuring that processes like the City Deal and the devolution deal do not fall into latent traps of unsustainability.

Finally the issue of our targets comes up. We don't really have targets. We have an aspiration, we need a plan. The biggest contradiction in the strategy is that we acknowledge what the science is telling us about climate change, and then propose to go about business as usual with no fundamental changes. We'll shave a bit off here, a bit there, but our way of life will remain in a bubble at the centre. Sooner or later, the Western way of life will change entirely. I don't know if it will be because we wait for climate change to make this happen. I don't know if we will voluntarily change it. God knows there are plenty of other scenarios that keep me awake at night, the escalation of nuclear weapons on the Russian border, antimicrobial resistance, the rise of the right, or true artificial intelligence.

But we seem to want to keep bumbling along, and nobody mention the climate. Keep putting your recycling out, meat-free Monday, hybrid cars, but nothing deeper.

I think the trend towards extreme racism and nationalism in the UK is part of a strategy for neglecting the climate further. It's no surprise that so many Brexit campaigners are also climate change deniers. Climate change is killing people now, threatens to destroy Africa before other continents, and is a major driver in the refugee crisis. Even if we find a working scalable implementation for Carbon Capture and Storage by the later half of the century it will be too late for billions of people. Theresa May's statement: "If you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere" is a terrifying portent of a world where climate chaos, borders and localised mitigation conspire to devastate races from the Earth. It's not by accident that Black Lives Matter closed down London Airport last month in protest.

Radical carbon emissions and global leadership are one of the few ways in which we can show solidarity with the EU citizens and the world citizens who are wondering why the UK is now against them.

So this motion is for the safety of Cambridge people in one or two generations time, and for the survival of many others right now. The Paris agreement has this incredibly important concept of equity. Developing nations have to put social and economic development and the eradication of poverty first. It behooves the richest parts of the richest countries to transition first. Does that sound at all like it might be your responsibility, in your power, in this very moment? The world is watching, although it might look like only ten or so people. I move this motion."

The main points from Labour were

• A motion to full council isn't the way to get this kind of thing done
• Some of things they are already doing are good
• The (single) climate change officer doesn't have time to do some of these things
• Officers' comments advise against the motion
• One of them thought that some of my recent comments about sea levels rising were funny
• They want to stick to their existing plan, rather than change it
• They don't want to set more ambitious targets when they can't reach the current targets

I tried to refute some of these points, but there are times in full council when you get a sense that the writing is on the wall, and no argument will sway the administration.

But I'm wondering what the right route is to get these things done after responding to the consultation on the draft version of the strategy, pleading with the previous executive councillor at the scrutiny committee, and exchanging dozens of emails with officers while waiting weeks for replies.

Some of the things they are already doing are absolute good and wonderful, there are some incredible carbon savings being made within the council's estate and the switch to renewable electricity is tremendous, something I have been pushing for all year. As I said, Labour should be proud of these steps.

But one officer working on climate change isn't enough. The medium term financial strategy report said that the council's money was earning next to no interest in the bank, and would work harder if they were investing it, and that staff were one of the best investments they were making. The officer is working hard, but has taken months to get the strategy online, and after several more months doesn't seem to have managed to make any contact with any of the expert research and community groups working on climate change. She needs more support.

I think that on a personal level, investing in your body and your health is one of the best investments you can make. It is something you are always going to rely on, it is your home for your entire lifetime. Similarly, on a societal level, investing in your planet and your environment is one of the best investments you can make. It is somewhere that you and your children, and your grandchildren, are going to have to spend their time. The medium term financial strategy is allocating £20m in investment for commercial property, but they won't invest £25k in support staff for the future of people and the planet. An additional staff member might even be able to pay for their salary by winning grant applications for decarbonisation projects.

There seems to be this strange coyness about the strategy as a whole, demonstrated by the amendment:

• They need more powers from the government to reduce carbon, but won't ask for them
• They need more money to reduce carbon, but won't apply for it
• They need more staff to do the work that is needed to reduce carbon, but won't pay for it
• They need more volunteers to work with them to engage the public, but won't ask for them

Is this shyness, complacency or pride? I am confounded.

Some of the officers' comments on my proposals are helpful new information for me, and some are inaccurate in my opinion.

The suggestion to apply for the European Green Capital Award was of course in the year after Brexit as stated, in 2017, not in the current year with two weeks time left to submit. That would be silly. By becoming the European Green Capital in 2020, in the year when the Kyoto agreement concludes and the Paris agreement takes effect, we would be able to take a lead on the global stage as well as attracting investment for innovation and green jobs.

The points about the proposed consultation and the proposed festival of sustainability conflict directly with the climate change strategy. The strategy says that the council will play a local role in leadership, whereas it seems as if they are actually giving out a little bit of cash to let other groups do it. It is under-funded, but even if it was better funded it still isn't leadership if you're getting someone else to do it at arms length.

The points about carbon budgeting, carbon accounting, extra staffing, and adding additional trees on top of the current plan are a plain matter of opinion, they could clearly be done but if officers don't want to then it will only happen with more political will.

The news that we are looking closely at working with the Robin Hood energy company is very positive. Although it is not based on renewables, and uses a dirty incinerator, local energy is important for sustainability as well as climate change. The feed-in tariff for solar has dwindled to a point where it's only a good investment if you're going to use it, which is why local energy companies based on renewables is the right idea at the right time. There won't be a report to Strategy and Resources committee about doing this though, the amendment says it's not worth looking at.

And the news that we might try again to find ways of doing clean energy switching schemes again is happy news to me.

The officers report includes an additional proposal at the end, not in my motion, which sounds like an interesting idea:

"To hold a referendum on climate change, to determine whether UK citizens and their dependents want to remain living on the planet or leave it."

I am not asking for the current plan to be destroyed, but to provide detail in the parts where there are vagaries. and to form a plan instead of an apology embellished with pictures and numbers. Climate science as well as the Paris agreement require us to reach zero carbon by 2050 to have any chance of staying under 2 degrees of global temperature rise, and I think that in a toss-up between the flexibility of the policy and the flexibility of the laws of physics, it is the policy which ought to budge.

I don't believe we will ever become a zero carbon city now, not because of a shortage of powers or money, but because of another resource shortage, which is courage. Cambridge is one of the most famous and respected cities around the world, famous for knowledge, beauty, wealth and heart. If we don't step up to the challenge of urgent decarbonisation, how can we expect anyone else to? The Paris agreement requires hope and ambition from cities as well as nations, how can we expect the goals of the Paris agreement to be taken seriously if they are derided by an amendment as "unrealistic targets"? Survival shouldn't be labelled an unrealistic target, it is the alternative which should be recognised as an unrealistic delusion.

More on Cambridge and Congestion

In my last blog post, I said that the City Deal was evil.

In saying that, I did't mean that I thought the Wicked Witch of the West was on the payroll, or that anyone involved has particularly mean or malevolent intentions. I think the councillors and officers involved are putting in an incredible amount of work and that they really think that they're doing something wholly constructive. I wouldn't want to do any of their jobs, as I don't think they can please everyone by any means.

What I mean by evil is the older meaning of the word, that it is bad, the whole thing is doomed to have destructive consequences. It's existence bodes ill for the world, because it is malfunctioning, and headed for some very expensive mistakes. It is bringing anguish and fear to thousands of Cambridge residents, with worse to come. And not set to provide the solutions.

In systems theory, the health of an system or an organism can be assessed by looking at how well information travels around it. A healthy and strong organism will process input well, reaching all vital components and informed by the whole, affect its outputs. A broken organism will allow input through only one narrow pathway, bypassing most of itself. The latter is the behaviour the City Deal has been exhibiting.

So I'm delighted to hear today about a u-turn in one of its contrivances. The ability to change direction is of vital importance, but since the congestion plan was at the very centre of the City Deal I am now wondering if the wheels will fall off.

They obviously are listening, and there obviously isn't any madness in the City Deal troupe any more than there are miscreants. I think the criticism on those lines is more unfair than calling it evil (I will try to use less ambiguous words however). The process is just incredibly clumsy and anti-participatory. 

Tanya Sheridan was at the Rebooting the City Deal meeting last Friday, giving up her evening as she does often to try and engage with what people are saying. But until now it has seemed as if the City Deal vehicle only has one gear and no steering wheel. When Heidi Allen MP asked the executive board on Thursday if they had the courage to go back to the starting board, she was trying to make it easier for them to do.

Perhaps now with Daniel Zeichner MP and Julian Huppert agreeing that the City Deal is in horrible shape, joining Ed Leigh and the other speakers at the Rebooting the City Deal event, we're close to the level of signal which the City Deal team needs to process the message.

The meeting of Rebooting the City Deal was excellent, by the way. The overview of light rail, transport hubs, and outlooks on improved cycling propensity, were eye-opening and ingenious.

Ed Leigh's suggestion that express buses do a loop around the Cambridge ring road instead of coming into to the city centre is a masterstroke, with the elegance of a practiced ceilidh dance. People must be able to interchange between services, and effort must be made to provide comfortable and pleasant spaces to do that. If all the county buses go around the ring road, then all the bus stops on the ring road become highly multi-functional and the city buses can focus on serving the inner city.

Dr Colin Harris talked about a light rail and how it could eventually become a circle line, providing routes to the Science Park and the North Cambridge station, as well as connecting the city centre with the West Cambridge site. He talked about sustainability, a solution that could grow as the population of Cambridge grows, probably doubling within 15 years.

I didn't hear much discussion of what else will be different in the future of Cambridge though. For all the excellent thinking and wisdom, it still seemed as if there was an assumption that Cambridge 2050 would just have a lot more people but would be the same in other regards.

I would like to see the City Deal process recognising the fact that Cambridge has an aspiration (if not a plan) to be zero-carbon by 2050, and to envision a way to get there. I think Lewis Herbert should be pushing for proposals that provide infrastructure for electric vehicles, including e-bikes, and exploring more radical ways to share rides and create shorter journeys.

Climate change will bring more extreme weather, it is already getting more and more common to have freakish floods and storms. The City Deal should have plans in place to cope with flooding by having distributed transport networks, which can't be taken out of action by a single localised incident. The focus on radial routes and convergence of traffic in the city centre seem fragile in the face of the extreme weather we can expect.

Commercially run buses are likely to stop running if there are any adverse conditions, just look at the pathetic response of rail operators whenever there is something unexpected on the tracks. That is one reason why people hang onto their cars, because they know they'll be able to get into a car and drive wherever they need to get to, even if they have to take a slow and winding route. Real public transport or (public-exploiting private transport like Stagecoach) can provide enormous carrying capacity in the best-case scenarios, but they offer nothing in the worse-case scenarios.

In case of security challenges, either on a personal or state level, the same applies. Global resource scarcity is likely to make us all less secure. An autonomous motorised vehicle offers vastly expanded individual options to flee or to provide support to loved ones, people who anticipate this will be very hard to persuade to forego their cars.

There was a mention of driverless buses, as a possible way to get more capacity on the guided busway. It's right to think about this kind of thing now, but actually the arrival of driverless cars is set to become a paradigm shift in the way we get about. It can bring increased potential for safety eventually, lower margins on taxi services, and smarter scheduling for car clubs. Car travel as a service has the potential to fit along with buses or trains for city travel, and could be cheap, low-carbon, low-emission and scalable. Tesla expect to have fully autonomous cars ready near year.

Finally the population is getting older, and in 15 years time I expect us to have a very different balance of ages in the city. Young people are already getting forced out of the city in their droves, and the people who can afford to live here tend to be those with high tech jobs, with lot of savings, or who bought houses when they were affordable. Many of the young people who have come to Cambridge or to the UK have been European migrants, welcome by the city but not now by the government. And also after Brexit the low birth rate may well become even more low. So we can expect more people in old age, some living in care, but we don't know quite what that will look like as the NHS suffers further awful cuts and privatisation. Cycling doesn't seem like an option that will support many members of this population, Somehow the aged residents must have options to get around safely to prevent loneliness and isolation, and the solution is likely to look something like the motorcar. It isn't safe or fair for people to wait around in the cold for hours for a bus, which will often turn out to be cancelled.

I'd like to move away from cars, and I think we can achieve a degree of modal shift away from them, but I would like to see much more public interface about how to do that and exploring why people will find it difficult. I'd like to see visionary travel plans that consider the journeys needed by delivery vehicles at the same time as school users, at the same time as commuters. Which aims to minimise noise from large vehicles in the middle of the night. I'd like to see those who have offered their innovative thinking on transport empowered to lead community workshops and steer a new City Deal which is bottom-up.

Again, wanting to be fair, the City Deal started trying to do this with the Hack Cambridge event a year ago. I didn't see many of the ideas from the event develop further, and it didn't have the breadth of participants that it needed to be a resounding success, but the idea was good. If the process hadn't been forced through such a ridiculously frantic rush, events like this could have been just what the people of Cambridge needed to win them over and explore the challenges of meeting future transport needs together.

Market forces tend to be destructive. In commerce they give us clone towns, in housing they give us unaffordable property, and in the wild they destroy habitats. It is the job of government to protect us from market forces and try to steer a course for the good of people and planet. We haven't been seeing that so far, it has been like living in a democracy where buses vote and people don't.

But if we can scrap one part of the City Deal, perhaps we can scrap some more parts and begin again, then the game will truly be on.

"Evil is done without effort, naturally, it is the working of fate; good is always the product of an art."

- Charles Baudelaire

On Cambridge and congestion

I have been asked a couple of times recently why I oppose the City Deal plans to close roads during peak hours, and I'm only too happy to respond.

Actually, I think the road closures are better than nothing for clearing congestion, and may do some good, but it is very complex and the proposals have been handled in a disastrous way.

Good is the enemy of great. Putting a half-baked solution to congestion in place could obstruct the potential to put in a really satisfactory and lasting solution. This is what the City Deal should have started by looking at, instead of working backwards from the adulation of Stagecoach.

I'm afraid that the road closures have been decided long, conceived as a self-congratulatory expansion on the city Core Traffic Scheme, and will not be allowed to fail. Success will be defined by the City Deal in whatever way necessary to validate their results

The Cambridge Green Party have been trying for years to build political will for a fair congestion charge to allow traffic to flow and to tackle air quality. We're very pleased that the Lib Dems have jumped on board with the idea now, but actually the peak hour road closures may be the most effective means yet of persuading people that a congestion charge is needed. When drivers and cylists have to face down the chaos which will attend Autumn 2017, and incur severe penalty fees for journeys that they have to make, they will see the softer approach as preferable.

The peak hour road closures could in fact be understood as a sneaky plan for implementing a congestion charge in the long-run, although this may be giving the planners too much credit. One would think that the existing CCTV infrastructure provided by this scheme could be used to switch over to a congestion charge later on (as well as fining people who stop on box junctions!) but there seems to be such a political resistance to congestion charging that they will refuse to even put a contingency plan in place. I asked Tanya Sheridan, the City Deal Programme Coordinator at the West Central Area Committee meeting what Plan B was for congestion, and she declined to answer.

However the conversation about congestion charging has been basic, so far. The Lib Dems have issued an upsetting call to "End the road closure madness" and the leaflets they have distributed seem to be more about raising Nicola Harrison's profile than providing information. It strikes me that such an exercise in spotlighting is often a sign that someone plans to (re)run for office, and the County Council elections are coming up next year.

A plan to cut congestion in Cambridge must must take into account the fact that everybody's journey is different. Consider some possibilities:

• A diesel HGV driver, delivering goods to a supermarket on a busy road
• A local plumber, trying to get all of his or her tools to a house with a flooded bathroom
• A commuter, with an electric vehicle getting from a village into a city centre workplace
• A parent, dropping off children at a local school before going to work
• A commercially run bus, trying to carry paying passengers to maximise shareholder profit
• A blue badge holder, taking their car to carry heavy shopping
• A graduate, renting a car from a car club, to visit a relative for the day
• A sports car owner, simply out for the pleasure of driving
• A motorcyclist, delivering a package for a client
• A trainee teacher, commuting out of the city to a work placement
• A fire engine, needing to travel at high speed to reach an emergency
• A taxi, bringing a commuter from the railway to the science park

The point of this list isn't to say that anyone is good or bad - everyone is trying to get on with their life, look after their family, make a living and be happy and well. Very few people have enough resources to change their lifestyle overnight. The point is that road closures with a fixed fine treat everyone as if they deserve to be in Cambridge or don't deserve to be in Cambridge.

County Councillor have been adamant that they will not allow a congestion charge to be implemented which charges people more for living outside the city. This seems reasonable, some people do live outside the city but still their lives revolve around it. A congestion charge does not need to work that way.

The most helpful conversation the city could be having at the moment is how to apply exemptions and levies gradually, in a way that steers people toward a modal shift in a fair way. Ideally it would be means-tested, but the fine used by the peak hour road closures will not be means-tested so that horse has already bolted.

What a congestion charge could do, and the London congestion charge has in some cases already done is:

• Provide a discount for regular visitors, through a "season ticket"
• Provide a discount for ultra low emissions vehicles (ULEV)
• Provide a discount for pensioners
• Provide a discount for repeat visitors within a single day (if it is charged hourly)
• Provide a discount for blue badge holders
• Provide a discount for car club members
• Provide a discount for parents of children at local schools
• Provide a discount (rather than free travel) for commercially operated buses
• Provide a discount for motorbikes and other smaller vehicles with smaller engines
• Provide a discount for large delivery vehicles, as suggested by the Lib Dem candidate for London Mayor in 2008
• Provide a discount for key workers
• Provide a discount for licensed taxis
• Provide a discount for all users as long as the roads are clear and air quality is good, ensuring that the charge isn't levied "for the sake of it"

I have some views about which of these discounts would be appropriate, and to what extent, as I'm sure everybody else does. It would require consultation and discussion. And it could be phased in, so that the charges aren't levied for the first two years, giving time for the highways authority to get the infrastructure in place and the people to work out how they want to respond.

It is completely appropriate for people to think about how they can make shorter and fewer journeys, with less reliance on petrol, because we will run out of crude oil derivatives one day. It was made by dinosaurs, they are not making more. And if we decide to rely on petrol for another 10 years, which we may have enough for, we must leave fossil fuels alone in order to prevent the worst case scenarios of climate change and extreme weather. 

NASA scientist James Hansen warns that sea levels will rise several meters within a century on our current trajectory. Cambridge is six meters above sea level in places, so the City Deal will look like one of the great planning follies of the modern era when our £1 billion investment is underwater.

We should be planning for resilience and local community, not for fragile and whimsical commercial interests. We should be providing infrastructure for electric vehicles and car clubs, to allow people to maintain their independence while creating the kind of future that preserves some of the good bits of today.

I simply don't trust the City Deal to do this though. As an organisation, I have completely lost confidence in it, and I think it is evil. I really think it represents the sacking of Cambridge by the agents of the free market. The only good thing about it, apart from the modest improvements to cycling infrastructure, is the way that it has motivated and organised residents to fight it.

Just look at the way the process has swept aside the concerns and research of the Save the West Fields campaign, and consigned the beautiful cherry trees on Milton Road to removal. These kinds of decisions don't get made when local people have a say, local democracy tends to revere nature not just for its beauty but for its health benefits. These kinds of decision can only be made when the reins are handed over to machines, to markets, and to unaccountable bodge artists.

The political resistance to the City Deal has been tempered by the fact that the two parties with the most representation in the city are both playing a busted flush. Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems can now object to the City Deal without egg on their own faces because of the roles they have played in it.

The Lib Dems, as well as being the original sponsors of the City Deal project during their love affair with the Conservatives, also promoted the City Deal to the city council in 2014. They should not be surprised that a top-down Tory project for turbo-charged economic growth, urban sprawl, and civic exploitation has turned out to be toxic, false and undemocratic.

Labour, as well as unanimously approving the City Deal in 2014 have ended up precariously in one of the three driving seats of the process by taking control of the city council soon afterwards. Councillor Herbert, leader of the Labour group, must be feeling something like Keanu Reeves in the 1994 film Speed as he tries to steer the vehicle in a sensible direction with no ability to apply the brakes and a malevolent voice from the central government in his ear. Labour are compromised by their role in the City Deal and now forced to make astonishingly strange arguments about the benefits it will bring.

Perhaps the situation will be saved yet by residents organising in greater numbers, protesting and preventing the continuing corruption of the city by the City Deal. The question is whether they will be deterred by the idea that "progress must go on", "more roads must be built" and "there's no other way". Or whether they will say "enough is enough" and stand by their convictions this time.

More clarity will emerge from an event in a week organised by Smarter Cambridge Transport, called Rebooting the City Deal. I'm extremely grateful that there is enough grassroots passion and knowledge to organise this, free from political spin and corporate obfuscation. Do come.

http://www.smartertransport.uk/event/rebooting-city-deal/

Devolution

While it might be more interesting to write about #brexit and the incredible bonfire of the loyalties which is unfolding in Westminster, local council business doesn't wait and the devolution deal is still rumbling on, now without a driver.

The wave of recent devolution deals and the silly "region x powerhouse" branding have been the pet projects of George Osborne, who is currently hiding under a table hoping that he won't catch any of the airborne ordure from his awful efforts in the referendum campaign. While we will hopefully never see him again, we have the latest version of a deal for Cambridge, now covering Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, to discuss in the Guildhall tomorrow evening.

The first version of the deal was something that a graphic designer might describe as having "hairy arms". It was so lamentably wrong, geographically and economically, that it could only be sent back. Now we've got the new version, which is what the first version should have been, and the problems are more subtle.

1) Labour have put a lot of work into trying to get something out of the deal for Cambridge, recognising that the deal could be imposed on the region without consent if the government wanted to force it. The issue of affordable housing is desperate at the moment, and an obvious popular choice to try and negotiate on. What the deal now offers is a relatively small amount though, £70m, which will all be spent after 5 years. The 500 council homes that it provides will be wonderful, but the surrender of power and the mandate for over-development will be indefinite.

2) That's the frightening thing about the deal - it is about putting a rocket under the growth agenda. Shadowy development programmes like the City Deal and pollution generators like the A14 upgrade have been moving too slowly apparently, There aren't enough cranes on the skyline. The newly appointed mayor will be responsible for making sure nothing stands in the way, and all the funding for the Combined Authority pot will be dependent on contributing to national growth.

3) There's very little in the deal about contributing to national or regional happiness. Growth isn't interchangeable with happiness, or even fairness. The main beneficiaries are likely to be a few developers and employers, with most people suffering environmental degradation and pollution. The deal should have much stronger ambitions for managing sustainable growth. It shouldn't just claim that it has a low-carbon, knowledge-based economy, it should spell out measures or incentives to ensure that. The devolution deal plans about 30 years ahead, taking us up to roughly 2050. We may not need a Combined Authority for the area after that unless we make a radical and thorough transition to a low-carbon economy, as it will be reclaimed by the sea.

4) The deal papers contain an evaluation of the four different options for the future: The status quo, an Economic Prosperity Board, a Combined Authority, and a Mayoral Combined Authority. The advantages of each are explained quite cogently until the mayor comes in - the reason for his or her inclusion is that it would "afford additional flexibilities". In other words, the Tories have set the system up this way because they want to have mayors swanning around like quasi-dukes, calling the shots. The evaluation doesn't argue that it's the best choice for the region, but that it's just what they like.

I contest that real devolution would be about giving power back to the people, and having a Combined Authority using Proportional Representation to select a diverse and inclusive group from across the region to govern. It wouldn't be that confusing, that's how we used to elect MEPs. It would also involve giving more power to raise taxes in the area, in order to have some form of independence.

Instead, the government are starving local authorities of funding in a cruel and manipulative way to try and leave no option but to take the Faustian pact offered by devolution deals. Forced to cut services, barraged by endless schemes to rearrange the way things are done, it's no wonder the status quo is struggling. But the terms of these deals are the puppeteers strings, with which the Tories hope to make councils follow their wishes and act against their own self-interests. The voters will see councils making more and more decisions that exploit and degrade their regions, like fracking for example, with few of them following the trail of culpability back to Westminster.

So it looks like we might get forced to go through with this anyway, I would have liked us to fight harder though for environmental protections, workers rights, proportional representation and more guarantees of lasting funding.

One last note, which casts doubt over this whole messy exercise, is that the devolution deal places great stock in Local Enterprise Partnerships as a vehicle for funding and collaboration. These organisations exist to share out EU social funding, and will be of questionable purpose once we go through with #brexit. Perhaps the Tories plan to channel funding directly into LEPs now instead of letting it go via the continent, or perhaps we'll find out we were actually getting more out than we put in.

The EU is on trial for a crime it didn't commit

We're just over a day away from the EU referendum now, and I am fairly sick of the whole thing. The debate has been dire, the campaigns have been dominated by mansplaining, and there has a tinge of fear and division to the whole thing.

I'll vote to remain, and of all the reasons for this, I think the least frequently mentioned is the wish to share what is Great about Britain. I think we do have a country to be proud of, with a few bad apples, and I'd like it to remain easy for the rest of the world to see what makes us so special. I'd like tourists to be able to see our architectural achievements, our stunning natural heritage, and our technological ingenuity. I think British welcomes can be among the warmest and most genuine in the world, and our sense of fair play is strong, among the ordinary folk at least. If we shore up our borders and exalt our islandness, we'll be coyly hiding away all that we have to offer the world.

What really startles me about the referendum is that it isn't really about the EU though. The Leave campaign have fairly successfully managed to heap the blame for a number of dreadful problems at the door of Brussels. All of these could more aptly be left on the pavement of Downing Street.

Loss of sovereignty is often mentioned. The rate at which the UK government are selling off assets and services, and selling out our industries is where we should all be looking when we talk about sovereignty. The TTIP treaty is being bandied around as one of the evils of the EU, although most of Vote Leave were talking about TTIP in reverential terms until it became politically useful to turn on it (and also at a time when it was looking increasingly likely to fall apart due to the patient and vigilant campaigning of a few MEPs who actually turned up for their jobs). Something resembling TTIP, with all of it's worst features, is likely to crawl forward in a UK/USA format if we leave the EU. That format, like NAFTA, is the preferred format of neoliberal elites, as they can more efficiently asset-strip countries who are alone and exposed. So the EU is on trial for the crimes of Tory and UKIP MEPs who allowed TTIP to get so far through the EU without being shot down.

Red tape is also mentioned. This does seem a naked allusion to worker's rights and environmental protections, as if they're getting in the way of real progress. They're framed as bad things, but if we were having a referendum about them in isolation, I think most of them would be plainly good things. I'd prefer that we were having a referendum about staying on the planet, rather than on the EU, because #gaiexit would have far bigger economic and social impacts than #brexit! The EU is also commissioning research to find new ways of doing things, in ways that the UK parliament never has. In December it is commissioning a scientific conference on "Non-Animal Approaches - The Way Forward" with huge potential to identify and develop new methods to prevent human diseases based on human models. Just implementing bans and regulations in law is not effective on it's own, we need to find new and better systems as well which make the old ways obsolete. So the EU is on trial for the most basic and barbaric practices of British industry.

Furthermore, the the EU is being portrayed as a money vacuum where British pounds are posted off to get smelted into Euros. The Leave campaign aren't putting a lot of work into this, but it is given ready credence by people who see absolute wreckage and decay around them. Although the EU spends enormous sums on regeneration and social investment in the UK, people tend to see it as an elite institution which only spends on universities and arts projects. But the real culprit here is the UK government's policy of austerity and targeted economic growth. Huge parts of the country are being left to managed decline, barely seeing any investment or return on their taxes, while a few square miles of "privileged" property are seeing far more frantic investment than they can actually take. Cambridge is one such example - it is very lucky to be able to live here, and even more lucky for the few who own homes here, but we are in the midst of an attempt to fit several cities worth of jobs, homes and roads into a tiny historic settlement. This is how the government deal with prosperity - make the successful bits of the country bigger, and leave the unsuccessful bits to atrophy. Never mind treating the country as a whole and trying to cultivate a prosperous and sustainable system. So the EU is on trial for the Tory crimes of austerity and "managed decline".

This is why Cameron's and Osborne's role in the Remain campaign has been so weak and false. They can't admit that they're really to blame, so they have been fudging it. If we do vote to leave the EU, then the far-right austerity apologists will find the next in an increasingly implausible series of scapegoats, so that the blame never falls on the perpetrators. The tools of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are powerful, so nobody should feel safe from being used a scapegoat for the next wave of divisive hatred. Nigel Farage has proven just as capable as Donald Trump in kidding people that he's not part of the establishment. Not a central part of the problem. And pointing angry fingers at other "elites".

And even if the UK votes to remain, we still have a huge challenge to face in undoing the division which has been sowed, and we can't expect help from the newspapers or television outfits who trade here. Somehow we need to pin the blame where it really lies, and hold austerity and capitalism to account. And we need to acknowledge the few things with the EU that aren't working and fix them, something UK can genuinely contribute to. The referendum campaign has been so negative that we've heard a lot about what's worst in the UK and the worst in Europe, but to overcome the real problems in the world we need the best of the UK, and the best of Europe.

The forgotten market in Market Ward

The community services scrutiny committee yesterday approved a proposal to "bring charges into line with other markets" by introducing a range of new charges.

I'll borrow Jon Vale's summary of the changes, and link to his write-up of the meeting before giving my perspective.

Introduce a two-tier premium and standard rate

Bring Sunday rents in line with those charged on Saturdays

Adopt a £7 per pitch premium for traders licenced to sell hot food

Adopt a £5 per pitch premium for traders operating on days not licenced

Agree a 4% rebate to all traders that pay by direct debit and are trading at financial year end

Withdraw credit of two weeks absence charges

Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Traders-damning-assessment-Cambridge-market-rent/story-28944977-detail/story.html#ixzz43GGMkYng 

Follow us: @CambridgeNewsUK on Twitter | cambridgenews on Facebook

I've tried to speak to a good number of the traders in advance of the meeting, to speak up for them as ward councillor, and to try to put a true account of the situation forward. While this has been difficult, I've certainly spoken to a lot more than the 27 out of 195 traders who responded to the consultation

(reference: section 4f http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33263/Market%20Report.pdf)

The responses were more diverse than I expected, but there were themes that came through clearly.

1. The council don't speak to us, they just make the changes they want to make. Many traders weren't sure what the four market officers did.
2. Many traders have been working there for decades, it's a family business and a livelihood
3. Traders nearly always leave their pitch in a better state than they find it - it is often covered in all manner of mess at 6am in the morning when they arrive
4. Maintenance is also neglected, the cobblestones are a trip hazard, the canopies let in rain, the fountain is tatty and disused. A trader brings in flowers to plant in the soil in the fountain to try and make the centrepiece look tolerably attractive
5. The market is half-empty during the week, visitors can't tell if it's in the process of closing down.
6. Proceeds are down - it's hard to make a living when there are so many high street shops undercutting them and the markets team do very little promotion on their behalf
7. There are no official numbers for the stalls, and no map, so it can be difficult for visitors to find what they're looking for even if they know it's there
8. Charging 7 pounds per pitch for hot food is quite unfair, since it will put some traders out of business, and doesn't correspond very well to the energy use or the waste impact of the stalls affected

Some traders were keen to see a radical revamp of the market, some were keen that it stayed as it is and that rates remained low. Some wanted to bring cheap car parking back and improve vehicle access, some wanted to make the area more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Some traders were keen on a more extensive roof covering, some were not.

This just makes the importance of genuine consultation more clear. The market team hold a weekly surgery on a Friday which is intended to gather feedback from the traders, but this is an example of a strategy that works for the officers but not for the traders. A small percentage of the traders are actually in the marketplace on a Friday, and some of those who do come in are unable to leave their stall because they run it on their own.

Perhaps it changes to different days sometimes, but you would expect to be able to find this out by looking on the council website, where there is no mention of it.
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/market-and-street-trading-licences

There is an issue with the statistics on occupancy which were provided with the proposal to the scrutiny committee as well. It paints a picture of a healthy market which is always full, which is at odds with the comments of the traders.

(reference: section 3.3 http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33263/Market%20Report.pdf)

The discrepancy seems to be because traders are frequently paying for weekday stalls which they don't intend to use, because it gives them more power to get the more desirable stalls at the weekends and in the summer. Empty, paid up, stalls are good for income, they're even good for sustainability, but they seem like a waste and a disservice to the traders who are turning up. In fairness, the restructure of rates through the week may do something to address the weekend rates which don't follow the "market value", to use the word in quite a different context. The fact remains that the rules are not working, and the officers have brought some misleading statistics to a scrutiny committee.

What else? The report to the committee also mentions some other markets around the UK where rates are higher. This is intended to give a sense of context, and encourage the committee to bring the charge level with other marketplaces.

(reference: appendix 2 http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s33266/Appendix%202%20Market%20Operators%20Comparison.pdf)

It's good research and helpful to provide data for comparison, but seems a bit selective. It doesn't acknowledge the other factors that affect the ability of traders to do business. It doesn't mention how much easier it is for visitors to park at rural markets. It does mention in the small print that Northampton marketplace offers reduced rates over the winter, but makes no mention of offering the same benefit. It doesn't mention the fact that some of these markets have enjoyed major regeneration projects which make them more attractive to visitors and residents. 

Norwich marketplace was redeveloped in 2006, believing that pods of four stalls with enclosing walls was right for the area. The Norwich Guildhall offers an elevated view of the marketplace, and indeed it looks modern and vibrant, although of course the same approach is not right for Cambridge. Kingston Upon Thames marketplace was redeveloped in 2014 and includes water, electricity and gas supplies, recognising that gas is the best form of energy for stalls which prepare hot food.

(reference: https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200170/kingston_town_neighbourhood/855/kingston_ancient_market_place/4)

So it seems only fair to me that if the market is squeezed further and further, that something should be given back to traders, at last. Some of the proposals for restructuring the rates make sense, the proposals for charging £7 for hot food and removing the holiday allowance don't really. But these have gone through now and will go into effect soon. I would have liked investment to go into the market before this happened, but I'll do my best to make sure it goes in now to soften the blow.

Regeneration of the Cambridge markets would not just benefit the traders but would benefit residents and local businesses. If it goes ahead, then the emphasis should be on reducing harmful impact to traders while works are done. and doing a proper consultation, rather than the half-consultations which have taken place recently. By blogging and leafletting about this, I'm hoping to draw attention to it so that participation is much higher than it has been, from all stakeholders.

People in the city should be aware of the work that Cambridge Past Present and Future have been doing to try and provide leadership and to build consensus around the future of the market square. 

(reference: http://www.cambridgeppf.org/planning/projects-and-campaigns/#placecheck)

Having spoken to the person leading the project, Helen Bradbury, I am certain that there has been an attempt to include people in the process rather than to exclude people, it is just difficult to reach as many people as you would like. That's why I'd like the city council to work with Cambridge PPF on another round of consultations which considers the intersecting desires that people have for the marketplace.

People should also be aware of the report done by the Judge Business School which includes research about how the market square is perceived, including quotes from respondents such as "sinister", "unsafe" and "the biggest lavatory in Cambridge". It talks about refreshing the cobblestones, restoring the fountain to working order, and moving it to create an open public space which gets some sunshine, at the North side of the market. The same number of stalls would be kept, and facilities and accessibility would be improved. I will link to this report as soon as I'm able to, I don't think it's online yet. People need the benefit of looking at it directly to make their minds up.

It reports that every £1 spent in the market, customers spend £1.75 in nearby stores, and also that a portion of this is invested in the local economy. So if regeneration increases revenue by 10%, we can expect £1.0m to £1.7m in wider benefits for Cambridge. It forecasts that an increase of revenue of £190k to £320k is possible just through footfall and usage, while also benefiting the people who make their living there.

This kind of revenue stream is going to be increasingly important, since the 2016 budget has a very vicious clause which says that councils will basically have to sort themselves out for money by 2020.

(reference: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/16/osbornes-budget-contains-nasty-surprise-local-services)

This makes the project look quite hard to ignore. I would have liked the report to say more about the local economy, because I think this a key point. The marketplace helps to keep local goods and local money in circulation, which provides resilience against any significant economy or fuel shocks. The supermarkets and high street shops have very little local interest, and are likely to let us down as soon as things start to look difficult.

I would have also liked the report to say more about the opportunities to make the market "greener". I think it would be possible to fit lightweight solar PV covers on the canopies, guttering to collect and store rainwater to use for cleaning, and to introduce biodegradable and ethically sourced packaging which is available to traders as part of a package. I'd like to do more to encourage sale of local produce. I think there is a big discussion to be had about the future of vehicle access to the market, and the opportunity of using bicycle couriers to bring goods in, but I expect some strong responses from traders about that. Discussion and transparency are good things.

I've been told that a project along these lines could cost anywhere from £3.0m to £5.5m and it's clear that the council doesn't have that kind of money sitting around. It could invest a large amount of the general fund in this, but it would leave very unsafe levels of reserves. So some sort of partnership would be necessary. The report suggests that a return of 5% could be found, which again needs to be researched and verified by officers, but it is apparently too low for more of the typical big investors who look for a return of 10% or more. To people with small amounts of savings in building societies and ISAs, it may look like a very good return on investment!

So it looks like the way forward is to look for smaller, local, partners who have an interest in the market square. The Business Improvement District and the university are two obvious candidates. I'd also like the council to investigate a community share option scheme, similar to those used by the Save Our Space campaign and the Reach solar farm. I believe that facilities which are owned by the community tend to be run better and promote better values than those with private investment.

(references: http://www.sturton.org/ and http://reachsolarfarm.co.uk/)

Councillor Benstead, the Deputy Mayor, commented that a project to regenerate the marketplace had been on the cards in the 90s, when the council had much less money but no overall control. It very nearly moved into construction, but the Lib Dems and the Conservatives were able to block the investment and divert the money away from the market. Labour do have overall control now though, so the fate of the market is in their hands. Councillor O'Reilly says that she'd love to redevelop the marketplace, and I believe her, I'll be continuing to push for it to happen in our lifetime and to work for everybody.