Search Results

Central Bedfordshire Council to cut more bus services in Bedfordshire. Biggleswade, Sandy and Potton are set to lose even more buses. Central Bedfordshire which has already seen savage cuts to bus services over the last 10 years is set to lose even more services in changes due to come into place on 30th September following retendering by Central Bedfordshire Council of the 85/85A town service in Biggleswade and the 188/190 bus routes between Sandy/Blunham/Everton/Gamlingay/Potton/Biggleswade. The 188/190 Route will lose the following services: 05.40 Potton to Sandy 06.02 Potton to Sandy (via Gamlingay and Everton) 06.30 Biggleswade to Sandy 06.31 Sandy to Biggleswade (via Gamlingay & Potton) 07.06 Sandy to Biggleswade (via Gamlingay & Potton) 07.20 Biggleswade to Sandy Sandy to Hitchin bus services from 30th September The first bus for Gamlingay to Sandy will now be at 07.33 rather than 06.13 and the first bus from Potton to Sandy will now be at 07.25 rather than 05.40 The first through bus from Sandy to Hitchin will now be the 07.58 rather than 06.31 Further to this Blunham and Moggerhanger loses their early morning 08.12/08.17 service with the first 188 service going through these villages at 10.10/10.16 Current 190 bus service Sandy to Hitchin – Mon to Fri Current 188 bus service Sandy to Hitchin Mon – Fri The Biggleswade Town service is also to be drastically cut with a service every two hours for most of the day and will also be starting much later – around 08.00 rather than 06.00 currently and also finishing much earlier – final stop will be at 18.49 rather than 20.34 currently. All this information is yet to appear on the Central Bedfordshire website – I can’t think why they want to keep it from us! Actions speak louder than words. Central Bedfordshire Council with great fanfare recently declared a Climate Emergency. If we are to cut CO2 emissions we will have to reduce our dependence on the car and have a modal shift to public transport. Bus services need to be a viable alternative for commuters across Central Bedfordshire, disappointingly it’s very clear that Central bedfordshire Council have no interest in providing this alternative. It’s also shocking that, to my knowledge, there was little if any consultation with the residents of the affected towns and villages. A council should be seeking and listening to the views of its residents. As the table shows below, Central bedfordshire already has one of the lowest passenger journeys per head of population in the country. How to complain? If you want to complain to Centrebus you can email them at: help@centrebus.com or phone them on 0116 410 5050 If you want to complain to Central Bedfordshire Council who retendered the contract this Summer you can contact them at: public.transport@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk or phone them on 0300 300 8308 The link to the upcoming 188/190 timetable (from 30th September) is below: https://www.centrebus.info/media/2074/188-190-hitchin-to-sandy-mon-sat-290919.pdf The link to the new 85/85A timetable (again from 30th September) is below: https://www.centrebus.info/media/2063/85-85a-biggleswade-town-service-mon-sat-290919.pdf It’s clear that we cannot trust the Conservatives with public transport. A Labour government will reverse the cuts to bus services and bring bus services under public, local control run for the communities that they serve. You can find out more about what a Labour government will do, including providing free travel to under 25’s by clicking the links below: https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-announces-new-funding-reverse-tory-cuts-3000-bus-routes/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/25/labour-reveals-plan-billion-pounds-local-bus-services-tory-cuts Julian Vaughan Twitter @juliman66 #buses #cuts #ruralisolation #Transport

Memories or Dreams? Wide awake I stare out at the houses in the harbour as my parents sleep on the empty boat, not sensing my fear. I hold my mother black and blue whisper in her ear. Bath-time bubbles fade into silence – no chatter to hear, I am alone. As I climb out into the street my parents sprint home, too late – I stand naked by the door. I am four. A child of the sixties,  I was brought up by my grand-parents from birth, partly as a result of both my parents consuming such high quantities of  ‘Class A’ drugs that I am sure they would have given Keith Richards a run for his money. Details of this time are scarce, but I know at some point I was taken from my grand-parents house by my parents, and from what I understand was taken to Ireland – via the occasional hippie commune. The above poem contains some of my fleeting recollections of that time, etched into my memory, but with a dream like quality. Much of what I experienced is lost, probably a good thing as you may gather from the above. Discussions about my parents, or details about what happened were frowned upon in the family and in those days there was no offer of counselling. I was told that when I returned I wouldn’t sleep in my own bed for months. Actually, probably my strongest memory of my dad was some years later. Returning from a summer holiday in Devon to find out we had been burgled and discovering that the only thing that had been taken was the money from my piggy bank. I have no idea how, but it was soon discovered that the ‘burglar’ was my dad. Hardly crime of the century I know – as I wasn’t exactly Rockefeller – but I felt a line had been crossed! Who knows, perhaps this is where my sense of social justice began forming, recognised and described by my mum as if it were an affliction. I have never been keen to rake over the past to account for the issues and failures of the present and I seem to have come through the experience reasonably undamaged. However, when my daughter reached the same age that I experienced the above I was starkly reminded how vulnerable I was at that age to all that went on around me at that time and it did hit me hard for a while. It is startling how something from forty odd years ago can have such an impact. I’m certainly not a perfect dad, but my experience did give me an abundance of ideas about how not to be a parent. I have also learnt to appreciate the guilt that my mum felt and still feels about not being, or able to be, a ‘normal’ mum. So why have I written this blog? We are a product of our experiences and what I am, and am not, has no doubt been influenced by my early life. My dad, Spike Hawkins, was a poet – one of the ‘Liverpool Poets’ of the sixties. My sister is also a poet, less well known than my dad, but infinitely more useful as someone who holds regular poetry workshops for a wide range of people, including those that have experienced the care system – as she did first hand, to enable them to express their emotions through poetry. I guess I’m also finally conceding that we may benefit from exploring our past, as unpleasant as it may be, as well as promoting the benefits of ‘letting it all out’. This is not the same as allowing ourselves to pin all our failings on what has previously happened in our lives. As my grandmother said “life isn’t fair” and we do have to deal with it. The original purpose of my blog was to give people an understanding about my values and about what drives me. Of all the blogs that I have written, this is the most personal. Solidarity with all those that have gone through childhood trauma, many who will have endured far worse than what I went through. I am not a poet, but I can certainly promote the benefits of setting out your experiences and emotions on the page – and have huge respect for those like my sister and others who have such a positive affect on people’s lives by encouraging them to do the same. If I can do it, I know you can too. #childhood #poem #poetry

Listening to Nusrat Ghani during the Westminster Hall debate earlier this week discussing the lack of step-free access at Flitwick station, I was struck by how the ‘tick box’ mentality still remains when dealing with accessibility issues. Ms Ghani MP, who is Under Secretary of State for Transport, pointed out that six out of the eight stations in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency were step-free. Stations in Mid Bedfordshire Constituency – figures from the ORR While technically she is indeed correct, this is looking at the situation that faces disabled and elderly people in Mid Bedfordshire with rose tinted glasses which seems to prevent a true picture of reality. What wasn’t mentioned was that the two stations, Flitwick and Harlington, with the highest passenger figures, don’t have step-free access, dwarfing the combined footfall of all six step-free stations combined. The Government proudly announces on a regular basis that 75% of passenger journeys on the railway take place from stations that are step-free. Shockingly in Mid Bedfordshire this figure is only 7%. Harlington Station Platform 4 – the only accessible platform, but virtually no trains! Further, when you start looking at those stations in Mid Bedfordshire that do have step-free access a less favourable picture appears: Aspley Guise – unstaffed, no accessible toilet, no car park, no set down area Kempston Hardwick – unstaffed, no accessible toilet, no car park, no set down area Lidlington – unstaffed, no accessible toilet, no car park, no set down area Millbrook – unstaffed, no accessible toilet, no car park, no set down area Ridgmont – unstaffed, no accessible toilet Stewartby – unstaffed, no accessible toilet, no car park, no set down area. The lack of staff, accessible toilets, car parks and set down/pick up areas for mobility impaired people creates a significant barrier for disabled people to use these stations and travel independently. Harlington station in Bedfordshire is described in the National Rail Enquiries as having step-free access to the ticket hall and Platform 4 (it’s a moot point as very few trains stop at this accessible platform, but there you go) and it has a disabled parking bay very close to the station entrance – box ticked. However, the seeming inability of train companies to see their stations from a disabled person’s perspective is demonstrated when the lack of a dropped kerb from the disabled parking bay rules out many wheelchair users from accessing the station. Harlington Station Arlesey station ticks the ‘step free access coverage’ box, but again this only tells part of the story. Each of the two platforms are indeed step free, enabling disabled and elderly people and those with young children to board a train without too much difficulty. However, the return trip presents difficulties as, on arrival back at Arlesey you will always be returning to the opposite platform. This means you will be on the opposite side to your car if you have one – and if you cannot negotiate the 60 odd steps, be then faced with an extremely long trip (0.88 miles and a 17 minute walk along an unlit main road) to get back to the correct side. Information like this would be very useful, even if just to save you from an exhausting trip, but the National Rail Enquiries website offers no such advice or hint of what awaits the unwary traveller. The Train Operating Companies, who have responsibility for the website through the Rail Delivery Group seem content to offer customers a startlingly out of scale map, shown below. Arlesey station as per National Rail Enquiries website Sandy station, a few miles North of Arlesey, has similar issues with a lengthy journey to get from one side to the other and no mention at all of the adverse camber and steep slope faced by wheelchair users as they negotiate their way between the two platforms. These issues don’t require high-tech solutions or fancy graphics, they just need input from the perspective of disabled people to provide realistic information for all passengers. How many steps there are between platforms will mean nothing to many, but it means a great deal to those with impaired mobility, yet this information is absent from the National Rail Enquiries website which is in desperate need of a reality check. We need disabled people to be at the heart of station improvement planning, not consulted as a tick box exercise when all the work has been done. Those in charge of the railways (not an easy task to find out in itself) must follow the twin mantras used by disability activists: ‘design with us not for us’ and ‘nothing about us without us’. If we raise the bar for disabled people we raise it for all – let’s do it and let’s do it right! Julian Vaughan Co-founder Bedfordshire Rail Access Network Twitter: @juliman66 #accessibility #Bedfordshire #equalaccess #Transport

My brief notes below from the Westminster Hall Debate that took place earlier this week regarding the lack of step-free access at Flitwick station: ~ Westminster Hall debates are an opportunity for MP’s to raise local or national issues outside of the main chamber and receive a response from a government minister who is present at the debate. These debates are open to the public and members of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network were in attendance ~ Nadine Dorries proposed the debate and she opened it by discussing the history of Flitwick station and the experiences of one of her constituents who due to a recent accident had become severely disabled. Nadine said she will never give up the fight for step-free access for disabled people and those with young children who struggle to access the station. Steps from Platform 4 at Flitwick station Nadine then name checked the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network as well as the local Flitwick Town Councillors and went on to describe the problems disabled people have with taxis and the need to book 24 hours in advance. The challenge presented to station improvements by the layout and geography of Flitwick station was also discussed. Nadine went on to say that everyone thought Flitwick station had an extremely strong case to receive ‘Access for All’ funding and was extremely disappointed when it was overlooked for station access improvements in Control Period 6 (2019-24). Further, many enquiries had been made but no answers given on the reasons why Flitwick was unsuccessful with GTR and the DfT blaming each other. Transport Minister Nusrat Ghani then responded thanking Nadine Dorries for her campaign for step-free access at Flitwick and for her campaigning for accessibility across the UK rail network. The Minister then described how there were many stations that applied for funding and unfortunately Flitwick, although a lot of hard work was put in, was unsuccessful in the last round. The Minister stated that 6 out of the 8 stations in the Mid bedfordshire constituency were step free (more on this in another blog!) Nusrat Ghani advised Nadine Dorries to look to apply for the ‘Mid Tier’ funding which is a £20 million pot of money for funding improvements across the UK rail network. She also stressed the importance of ‘matched’ funding provided by Local Authorities and other sources. Westminster Hall Debate At the end of the debate we introduced ourselves to Nadine Dorries and I pointed out that, although we were grateful she had mentioned us in her speech, she and/or her office had blanked ALL our previous approaches to work with her regarding step-free access in her constituency – this includes meetings with GTR and Network Rail. I have to say the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network team were not aware of any previous campaigning around step-free access by Nadine Dorries in this area, but we are happy she is now on-side and her commitment seemed genuine – and we were very pleased she has highlighted the issues at Flitwick station. It was disappointing that the hall was so empty for the debate, bearing in mind the huge effect the lack of step-free access has on so many disabled and elderly people and those with young children across Bedfordshire. I asked Nadine and the Flitwick Town Councillors to work with the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network to help obtain the funding that stations like Flitwick and Harlington so desperately need. I discussed that we had liaised with Alistair Burt, MP for NE Beds, on the successful bid for Biggleswade station and will continue to work will people from all political parties for improved access across Bedfordshire. Many thanks to my brilliant BRAN colleagues Ben and Sean who also attended the debate and so clearly set out to Nadine the many issues faced by disabled people attempting to access the transport. Julian Vaughan Co-Founder Bedfordshire Rail Access Network Twitter: @juliman66 #accessibility #Bedfordshire #equalaccess #Transport #Flitwick

As a child completely obsessed by all things weather related, I first came across the concept of ‘global warming’ while reading a book which contained a chapter entitled ‘Fire or Ice?’. At that time in the late 1970’s there was actually some uncertainty about which type of climate emergency we were heading for, as there was a view among some scientists that the planet may be heading towards a ‘mini ice age’ as temperatures had been falling from a peak reached in the 1940’s. Since first reading that chapter all those years ago global temperatures have shown a steady rise – and this rise has also been accompanied by an alarming rise in CO2 levels. On researching for this blog the incredible scale of the issue becomes apparent, one which presents difficulties when attempting to distill a huge amount of information succinctly into a bite size blog. However, this challenge is dwarfed by an impending sense of doom when the depth of what faces us – and the forces preventing a solution – become apparent. I certainly can’t cover all the bases, but will stick to giving a brief outline of the potential disaster ahead, how we ended up here and what is required to bring us back from the brink, or if this is not possible, how we can lessen the worst effects. We may not succeed , but we must try. Since the first Climate Change conference in Geneva in 1979, there have been numerous summits including the ‘Rio’ summit of 1992 which in turn led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement of 2015. However, while there has been much talk about what to do about CO2 levels, they continue to rise and apart from a rare decline in 2009 due to the global financial crisis, the rate of increase shows no sign of slowing down. Global emissions of CO2 surged 60% between 1990 and 2013. CO2 levels were approximately 338 particles per million (ppm) in 1980. By 2019 this had risen to 415 ppm with the rate of increase rising. These levels of CO2 are the highest levels seen for over 14 million years and the rise has taken place in less than two hundred years, an infinitesimally small time in geological terms. There are a number of challenges in dealing with the issue of rising CO2 levels: Unlike pollution from cars or heavy industry, CO2 is not visible and doesn’t have any immediate effects on our health or our daily lives. Humans are effective at dealing with immediate and tangible threats to our way of life or existence. However rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere are not perceived as a ‘clear and present danger’. Fossil fuel energy companies spend vast sums of money to influence politicians at the highest levels of government to play down the effects of CO2 emissions and to continue to receive tax breaks for fossil fuel extraction. Effective action against climate change will require significant changes to our way of life which will be unpopular among voters. Any political party pushing an effective CO2 emission reduction agenda risks losing political support, while parties that take a less hard-line approach are likely to prove more popular, but won’t deal effectively with the problem. By the time we see the significant changes resulting from climate change it will be too late to stop the catastrophic changes in upcoming years – we can’t adopt a wait and see approach. The global economic system is not sustainable in its present form if we want to effectively combat climate change. The Paris agreement of 2015 aimed to pursue efforts to limit temperature increases to +2.0ºC above pre-industrial levels (with an aspiration to achieve a 1.5ºC limit) although the signatories could not reach agreement on when emissions have to peak. Global temperatures, have already increased by around 1ºC, so these limits already seem extremely ambitious and likely to be exceeded. The question seems to now be how close we can keep temperature increase as close to 2ºC as possible. However, before looking at what is possible let’s take a look at how a warming world potentially affects life on Earth at between 1º and 6ºC of warming. + 1º Centigrade A warming of +1ºC does not mean that the globe warms up equally across its surface. As we already approach this level of warming we are finding significant variations in the level of rises, which is particularly pronounced in arctic areas such as Greenland, Alaska and Antarctica. This has resulted in the significant reduction of sea ice particularly in the summer months, as well as causing entire lakes to drain away into the ground as the permafrost underneath them thaws. The reduction in sea ice creates the first tipping point: warmer temperatures melt the snow covered ice (which reflects more than 80% of the sun’s heat that falls upon it) and is then replaced by the darker open ocean (which absorbs up to 95% of the incoming solar radiation) warming the sea and making it more difficult for ice to re-form during the next winter. At current rates of ice melt we are heading for a summer ice free arctic between 2030 and 2050. This warming of the arctic is likely to lead to significant changes in the weather patterns of the mid-latitude areas such as the USA, Europe and Japan. The circulation of the atmosphere is governed by the contrast in temperature between the equatorial and polar regions. Excessive warming in the polar areas will reduce this contrast which will in turn have an effect on the jet streams which circulate the globe and influence our weather systems such as the ‘low’ and ‘high’ pressure systems that we see on the TV weather. Small temperature rises also affect coral reefs already affected by overfishing, sewage and agricultural run-off. The numbers of ‘bleaching’ events where the algae is expelled from the coral polyps is on the increase and the death of the coral occurs unless the waters cool again quickly. A warmer world at this level will present challenges, but will not exceed our ability to adapt. + 2º Centigrade So how does increased CO2 and increased temperatures affect us in a +2ºC world? Around half of the carbon dioxide released every time we jump on a plane ends up being absorbed by the oceans. Ocean chemistry is complex and being slightly alkali allows many animals and plants to build calcium carbonate shells. However CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. This increased acidity means that by around 2050 large areas of ocean will become effectively toxic to organisms with calcium carbonate shells. Go above the levels of CO2 which would produce a +2ºC rise and most of the world’s oceans will eventually become too acidic to support calcareous marine life. This will affect plankton, perhaps the most important plant resource on Earth, as an essential part of the food chain of numerous species from mackerel to humpbacked whales. Their calcium carbonate structure makes them especially vulnerable to ocean acidification, essentially dissolving them. Phytoplankton are crucial to the carbon cycle, removing billions of tons of carbon from circulation as their limestone shells rain down on the ocean floor. As the oceans turn more acidic there will be fewer plankton to remove the carbon in the oceans, increasing the problem even further. Warmer surface waters also stop the upwell of cooler nutrient rich waters that the phytoplankton need to grow. These two factors mean we are potentially altering the entire chemistry of the oceans, without any idea of the consequences. A 2ºC rise will mean summers across Europe like those in 1976, 2003, 2006 and 2018, will become the norm rather than the exception, devastating crops, causing wildfires and increasing mortality among vulnerable people unable to cope with the excessive heat. This heat also stresses plants, causing them to emit carbon dioxide rather than absorb it, adding to the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The Greenland ice cap contains enough water in its three kilometre thick bulk to raise global sea levels by around seven metres. Climatologists have put a figure on Greenland’s critical melt threshold at a regional warming of 2.7ºC. Due to polar amplification warming occurs at a far faster rate in polar latitudes and a global warming figure of 1.2ºC would result in the above regional threshold being crossed. At this point we could potentially get another positive feedback loop due to ‘albedo-flip’ caused by wetter, darker ice absorbing more energy increasing melting rates. This could result in far greater sea level rises than the 26 to 82 cm by 2100 as predicted in 2013 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This in itself is a higher rise than the same Panel’s projection, made just six years earlier in 2007 of an 18 to 59 cm rise. + 3º Centigrade If governments meet their current pledges it is forecast that there will still be an average global warming of 2.7ºC by 2100. To go back to similar temperature levels we have to go back around three million years to a period of time called the Pliocene. Analysis of sediments from this time, both in Antarctica and the Northern tip of Greenland, show shrub growth in the former and pines and conifers in the latter, hundreds of miles North of the current tree line. Analysis of fossilised leaves can identify the number of stomata which in turn indicate the levels of CO2 at the times the leaves were living. Fossilised leaves from the Pliocene period indicate concentrations of CO2 between 360 and 400 parts per million, a similar level to what we have reached today. Estimates of global temperatures at that time place them at +3º C above today’s levels. A reminder that the current levels of CO2 are 415ppm and the rate is rising. Due to thermal inertia even if we stabilised CO2 concentrations immediately, the planet would continue to warm for centuries. At the +3ºC level of temperature increase some very startling factors come into play such as the ‘carbon cycle feedback’. Warmer seas absorb less CO2 leaving more of it to accumulate in the atmosphere; warmer soils begin to emit stored carbon due to increased bacterial activity; the carbon cycle is reversed as vegetation starts releasing CO2 rather than absorbing it; the drying of peat in tropical rainforest areas such as Malaysia and the Amazon and resulting fires leads to extra CO2 entering the atmosphere. The Amazonia area contains half the world’s biodiversity and the Amazon river contains 20% of all the water discharged into the world’s oceans. Some models predict that the Amazon rainforest is doomed unless global warming levels are held at +2º C or below. A +3ºC temperature rise will result in huge changes to the climate across the globe, with some areas being struck by super droughts and huge rivers such as the Indus being affected by the reduction in glacial run-off and snow melt. Climate change will affect crop yields, increasing in some areas, but with an overall reduction leading to food shortages. Population movements are likely to dwarf the current migration levels caused by wars or crop failures. These climate refugees are likely to spill into already densely populated areas and the current political pressures caused by migration will pale into insignificance in comparison. + 4 º Centigrade Warming of +4ºC will have devastating effects across the globe and will put many of the World’s major cities such as Mumbai, New York and London in grave danger unless huge amounts of money are poured into developing new defences. Sea level rise will create refugees escaping from coastal areas. Our destruction of the rainforests will mean Earth’s natural defence mechanisms will have been severely weakened. Global weather is likely to go increasingly haywire with temperature, drought and flooding extremes becoming commonplace. Temperatures in Europe will resemble those currently experienced in the Middle East. Drops in food production along with migration will put pressure on the political system struggling to cope with financial shocks caused by extreme weather events. By this point one of the most dangerous feedback loops comes into play. Around 1,400 billion tons of carbon are estimated to be locked into the arctic permafrost. As this permafrost thaws, vast quantities of carbon and methane (an even more dangerous greenhouse gas) will be released. The rate of release and the effects of this release are not yet fully understood but there will be increased plant growth in these areas that may offset some of the resultant rise in CO2 levels. However, by the time we have reached a 4ºC rise it is likely that the extra release of CO2 into the atmosphere may make a 5ºC rise more likely and this is where we reach the tipping point – and perhaps the most frightening feedback loop of all which is described in the next section. + 5º Centigrade There is much disagreement among scientists about the potential effect of methane hydrates (an ice like combination of methane and water that forms under the intense pressure and cold of the deep sea) on global warming. However, geologists looking back 55 million years to the Paleocene period have found evidence of major deep sea extinction events through sediment analysis from core samples from this era. These samples contained ‘dead zones’ and scientists have also found evidence of huge submarine landslides occurring at this time. Warming of the oceans may cause melting of these hydrates making them unstable and cause thousands of tons of methane to enter the atmosphere. Methane is 23 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of its global warming properties and could add to an unstoppable feedback of runaway global warming. This instability may lead to undersea landslides, which will have disastrous consequences for millions living in coastal areas as we have seen with recent tsunamis. Records indicate that warming in the Paleocene period took place over approximately 10,000 years, giving plants and animals time to adapt to the change. As things stand this level of temperature change may take place in a hundred years, far too rapid for ecosystems to adapt both on land and at sea. This is likely to result in mass extinctions and as the habitable areas of the globe retreat to the poles, large scale developed human society would no longer be sustainable. Conflicts between migrants and those already present in these cooler areas are likely as the economic and social structures break down. + 6º Centigrade A six degree rise in temperatures would increase the severity of all the previously mentioned outcomes and turn the oceans anoxic as they are stripped of oxygen. Failure of the ecosystem to adapt to the temperatures would create food shortages and as society collapses population reduction is almost inevitable. All the previously mentioned tipping points, the collapse of the Amazonian ecosystem and resulting soil carbon release, could add to the thawing of the Siberian permafrost adding more carbon to the atmosphere and adding more warming, which in turn increases the possibility of the release of methane hydrates resulting in even more global warming. The rate of increase in CO2 levels caused by human activity has never before happened on Earth. We are in grave danger of knocking over the first in a long row of dominoes, with no possibility of recovery. How have we ended up on the brink of disaster? This is difficult to set out briefly in a blog which aims just to give a flavour of the issue, but the answers can be summarised as follows: Human nature reacts poorly to risks that don’t seem to pose an immediate threat, such as a war or a natural disaster. The globalisation of the economy and the resulting mass exports of produce across vast distances has fed the fossil fuel and CO2 emission boom. Deregulation of the corporate sector and deregulated capitalism. The ‘free market’ is incompatible with climate change mitigation. The current economic model demands expansion and increased consumption and the steps we must take are in direct conflict with the ‘grow or die’ ethos. The influence that the most polluting companies, both financial and political have over governments across the globe. The steps required to halt the slide to disaster are not exactly vote winners as they are either seen as restrictive on personal freedom or a barrier to the pursuit of profit. Therefore any political organisation that recognises the scale of the issue must temper their policies in this area to enable them to get elected to at least pursue some of the policies required – unfortunately all the evidence points to the reality that the time for a little tinkering around the edges has passed. Emerging economies whose CO2 output is increasing are reluctant to stifle their growth to cut emissions when established economies had no such disadvantage during their development. How do we fix it? By promoting localism over globalism. In simple terms this means buying local rather than from across the globe and a return to the consumption of seasonal produce. One of the anomalies of the United Nations CO2 accounting system is that countries are only responsible for the pollution created within their own borders – and not the CO2 created by the manufacture and transportation of goods shipped for consumption in that country. Localism will also require a step change in how we structure the world economy and trade policy which in many cases prohibits favouring domestic over foreign production. By placing restrictions on air travel. Another of the anomalies of the accounting of CO2 emissions by each country as part of the climate change agreements is that only domestic air travel is recorded. International air travel emissions have no ‘home’ and therefore, although they are recorded, are not included in any emission targets. In the UK both the Green and Labour political parties are looking at a ‘frequent flyer’ tax where one trip per year will be a ‘freebie’ in terms of tax rates, but additional travel will be severely taxed. The ‘free market’ is unable to deal with the issue, therefore the dominance of corporations must be reduced and governments take the lead in a holistic approach to tackling climate change. The current ideology of ‘small state’ government will need to end. The era of disposable products must end and goods made, not only to be more energy efficient but also made to last. By eliminating the reliance on the car, including electric cars, as a primary means of travel (with the phasing out of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030) by providing cheap public transit for all and safe alternatives for cycling and walking. Replace into law the ‘zero carbon’ homes policy abandoned by the Conservative government in 2016. Tree planting needs to increase substantially to act as a ‘carbon sink’ for CO2 emissions. Currently the UK target for tree planting (20,000 hectares per year) is being missed by a wide margin every year. By promoting research and development of Carbon Capture & Storage as it is currently absent in the UK and is a necessity to meet ‘net zero emissions’ targets by 2050. By providing incentives for domestic green energy production such as solar power. These not only reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, but can also change cultural attitudes to power consumption as people are likely to become engaged in energy use when they are producing it on their own rooftops. All new buildings should have solar panels installed on available roofing and be retrofitted where possible. By adoption of ‘the polluter pays’ principle on the oil and gas companies which have for many years been the most profitable in the global economy. This could be in the form of a ‘carbon tax’ along with higher royalty rates on fossil fuel extraction. Renewable energy production co-operatives run by the communities that use them. This would encourage ‘buy in’ from local communities who directly benefit from them by selling their clean energy back to the grid. At this point I hold my hand up and admit I have been anti-onshore wind generation in the past, but localised benefits from local infrastructure would provide popular incentives to alter attitudes. By an end to ‘fracking’ as a means of extracting natural gas, which has been found to produce methane emissions which are 30% higher than those linked to natural gas. Further, methane is 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. We must stop extracting fossil fuels and end the significant subsidies to those who extract those fossil fuels. Can we avoid disaster? The list above presents many challenges, at an individual, political and corporate level. If we can’t take the simple steps of providing tax breaks for solar panel installation (the UK government are about to increase VAT on PV installations from 5% to 20%) and have recently cut grants for the purchase of electric vehicles from £4,500 to £3,500, then what chance have we got with the ‘big ticket’ items of net zero carbon emissions in the energy and transport sectors. While the UK government should be commended for setting an ambitious net zero carbon target, they mean nothing unless backed up by positive actions to achieve it. As Lord Deben, the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change stated in the Foreword of his July 2019 report to Parliament “The need for action has rarely been clearer… now do it.” After mulling over all the evidence gathered while researching for this blog it is very easy to reach the conclusion that we are beyond hope and there isn’t the political will to make the necessary changes. Further, on an individual level it can seem that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are inconsequential in the great scheme of things and we are doomed. However, it is individual changes repeated across society and the political pressure applied by individuals teaming up to fight for change that will go a long way to achieving success or condemning us to failure and a terrifying future. The colossal scale of the challenge does not absolve us from personal responsibility. We may not succeed, but surely we must try. Sea Level Rises Data https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels Data https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2 Sources and further reading I have drawn heavily on the detail contained in the following books: Naomi Klein ‘This Changes Everything’ and ‘Six Degrees’ by Mark Lynas. I recommend that you read both these books in full. Not used for this blog, but interesting reads on this subject are: ‘The Water Will Come’ by Jeff Goodell and ‘How Bad Are Bananas’ by Mike Berners-Lee which gives estimates on the carbon footprint of just about everything! The website for the UK based Committee on Climate Change is a very useful source of information: https://www.theccc.org.uk/ Carbon Brief is another UK based website providing extensive information on the latest in the science and policy decisions concerning climate change: https://www.carbonbrief.org/  #tippingpoints #ClimateEmergency #CO2emissions #sealevelrises #climate

Below is a letter to Alistair Burt, my local Conservative MP, regarding the changes to Pension Credit entitlement for mixed age couples – those couples with one person of state pension age and the other is below. These changes coming into force on 15th May 2019 will potentially have a seriously adverse impact on the financial position of mixed age couples. This government has pursued these changes in spite of warnings from UK charities who advocate for elderly people. Age UK have written a factsheet on this issue which you can read by clicking on the link below: Click to access age_uk_-briefing_on_benefit_changes_for_mixed_age_couples_february2019.pdf “I am writing to you to raise my concerns about the change to Pension Credit entitlement which will result in a serious reduction to the income of mixed age couples. On 14th January 2019 the Department for Work and Pensions announced changes to benefits for mixed age couples – mixed aged couples being defined as one person in the partnership being of state pension age and one below. This change originated from the Welfare Reform Act which was passed in 2012. • The current Pension Credit entitlement for couples is in the form of a top-up up to the value of £248.80 per week, £1078.13 per month. • The current Universal Credit entitlement for couples is £498.89 per month. Currently mixed age couples can receive the Pension Credit when the older of the couple reaches Pension Age. However, the changes will mean that both members of a mixed aged couple will have to reach state pension age before they can claim Pension Credit. While this entitlement will continue for mixed age couples currently in receipt of Pension Credit, from 15th May 2019 any new mixed aged claimants will not be able to claim Pension Credit and will only be entitled to claim Universal Credit, which as you can see above is around £500 less per month per couple. Further, the ongoing entitlement to Pension Credit for those mixed aged couples who are already on the benefit prior to and on the transition date of 15th May 2019 ends if there is any break in claiming. This will mean that, when re-applying for benefits, they will be moved on to the far lower rate provided by Universal Credit, set out above, until the younger person in the couple reaches state pension age. This reduction could result in a reduction of income of up to £7,000 per year for a mixed age couple. As the average age difference between couples has been estimated at 2.6 years this could result in an average loss of benefit of around £19,000 before the younger member of the couple reaches the state pension age. In couples with a larger age difference this loss may obviously be far larger. Further, the loss of Pension Credit has a knock on effect regarding the receipt of other benefits such as Warm Home Discount, Cold Weather Payment and Council Tax support. Where Pension Credit is lost due to the introduction of the changes, the older partner will also lose the exemption from the spare room subsidy, commonly referred to as the ‘bedroom tax’. These changes will have a significant effect on mixed age couples and has been criticised by a number of UK charities, including Age UK who described the change as illogical. Older people will be penalised for having a younger partner. Age UK also said, “the changes could affect the health and wellbeing of some older people, will increase pensioner poverty, force people to use their retirement savings to support a younger partner and put pressure on family relationships”. Concerns about this change were raised during the passage of the legislation through the House of Commons and the House of Lords and amendments were proposed, but not accepted by your government. There was particular concern raised about circumstances where the younger partner was not able to work. Below is an excerpt from the ‘Universal Credit Final Impact Assessment’ from 2012: 36. When looking at the pattern of changes, couples with children see the biggest increase in cash terms, gaining an average of around £14 per month (around 0.4 per cent of net income for families of this type). Lone parents see a smaller cash increase. Couples without children, in the long-term, see a small notional reduction in their entitlement both in cash and percentage terms. Both members in such households would generally be expected to actively seek work. Some of the larger notional losses for couples without children are in cases where one member is of working age and one is currently eligible for Pension Credit. Under the reform they will be eligible for Universal Credit as opposed to Pension Credit in order to ensure that the partner of working age remains focused on a return to work. Transitional protection will ensure that there will be no cash losses for any households that are actively moved to Universal Credit from legacy benefits or tax credits, where their circumstances remain the same… The highlighted section indicates that the government were fully aware that there would be a reduction in benefit for mixed age couples, so this is not an oversight. This change will affect a significant number of people, estimates of those currently on pension credit but not at state pension age vary between 57,000 and 93,200 depending on your source. While not all of these people will be affected by the changes it is clear that the change will have an adverse effect on many people, including mixed age couples here in North East Bedfordshire. This policy unnecessarily penalises people on the basis of having a younger partner. I believe the change is ill-thought out and should be reconsidered. As you will know Universal Credit is for working age people not for those at pension age, but this change will result in pensioners in a mixed age couple coming under the Universal Credit system. Further, the change assumes that the younger of the couple will be able to find the work to boost the couple’s income, which will often not be the case for a number of reasons. I am also concerned about the lack of any transitional protections for those moved off Pension Credit. Do you agree with these changes to Pension Credit entitlement? I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.” Sources https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-benefits-for-mixed-age-couples https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-adjudication-circulars-2019/a32018-mixed-age-couples-changes-to-entitlement-conditions-from-15-may-2019 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/37/pdfs/uksi_20190037_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/37/pdfs/uksi_20190037_en.pdf

While we undergo ‘Brexit paralysis’ – a barely functioning government; business planning at a standstill; and political discussion stuck on ‘leave or remain’– we still suffer fundamental problems which have nothing to do with Brexit. Problems which will not be fixed by any Brexit outcome – hard, soft or otherwise. We will still have: an education service with unaccountable, profit-seeking academies; emergency services cut to the bone with increased response times and a demoralised workforce; unacceptable cuts to legal aid resulting in justice becoming inaccessible to those most in need; train services with rising ticket prices matched by falling reliability; loss of rural bus services increasing the risk of loneliness; an NHS in crisis with excessive waiting times and missed treatment targets; developers building the wrong type of housing, built purely for profit, over the needs of the community where they build; sub-standard rented accommodation with unscrupulous landlords; vindictive sanctions for those on benefits and demeaning re-assessments of those with long-term conditions; zero hours contracts while bosses pocket millions; the ‘working poor’ and those on Universal Credit forced to use food banks to feed their families; and further strain on essential local services from government cuts to council funding. Although, tragically, Brexit has created a wave of xenophobia and some shocking treatment of people perceived as immigrants – many of them vital to our public services – I believe the vast majority of us, both leavers and remainers, have a sense of fair play. There is an alternative. A fairer, more equal society, where people are put before profit and the most vulnerable are treated fairly. I am sure there will many people who, while they may have never voted Labour before, can see the damage caused by this Government. With local elections in May and the possibility of a General Election at any time, you now have the chance to vote for change.

Theresa May recently announced the end of austerity, however in spite of the give-aways there is little cheer in the Chancellor’s budget for many across North East Bedfordshire. The raising of the income tax thresholds will mean that those on the highest incomes in the county will gain far more than low and middle income earners, who have suffered the most in the years of the government’s austerity policies. While the improvements to Universal Credit are welcomed, the ongoing working age benefits freeze and welfare cuts yet to come in the coming years will result in more pain for lower and middle income families. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated, the income tax cuts, which will cost the government £2.7 billion, will not reduce poverty at all. A far more progressive policy, and estimated to cost the same as the tax cut give-away, would be to raise the Universal Credit Work Allowance by a further £1,500. This would enable thousands of adults and children to escape poverty. There was little good news in the budget for most self-employed people as the proposed abolition of the Class 2 National Insurance Contributions has been cancelled and the Universal Credit Minimum Income Floor will create further difficulties during leaner months. Firefighters and the Police continue to feel the effects of Conservative austerity. Response times to fires in Bedfordshire have risen by 60 seconds since 2012 while the number of firefighters has fallen by 63 in the same time. Bedfordshire police are currently 300 officers short of establishment. There was no good news for either in the budget and morale is at rock bottom in our underfunded and overstretched emergency services so vital to our safety and security. It’s time to protect the protectors. While a substantial amount of money has been allocated to spending on the UK’s road network there was very little in the budget to encourage a change to environmentally friendlier modes of travel such as walking and cycling. Bedfordshire is poorly served by a fragmented cycle network which won’t be improved by this budget, which failed to mention climate change at all. Bus services continue to be cut across Bedfordshire with council subsidies for public transport slashed. Reductions in government funding has resulted in Central Bedfordshire Council planning cuts of £45 million to their budget over the next four years, this will inevitably have a detrimental effect on council services. The £400 million one off bonus to the Education budget to “go and buy a few little extras” is an insult to parents, teachers and children who have suffered as a result of budget cuts and pay freezes. The Digital Tax sounds good until you realise it won’t happen until April 2020 as does the Plastic Packaging tax until looking into the details it becomes apparent that it won’t apply until April 2022. The budget also failed the WASPI (Women Against State Pension Age Inequality) women born in the 1950’s who have been denied pension justice. The increase in the National Living Wage rates are welcome, however it remains that there are significantly different rates of pay for young people between 18 and 25 and the budget has done nothing to address this. Young people in Bedfordshire doing exactly the same work as older people should get the same rate of pay. We wouldn’t accept different rates of pay based on gender or race, why on earth should we accept it based on age. The Chancellor had an opportunity to address the ‘burning injustices’ brought about by eight years of austerity. Instead, rather than reducing inequality, he has decided to cut taxes that benefit the richest far more than the ‘just about managing’ that Theresa May promised to prioritise over the privileged few. North East Bedfordshire deserves far better. Further reading https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-documents https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/could-government-have-done-more-enable-people-escape-poverty https://www.health.org.uk/news/response-autumn-budget-2018

Since the ‘Access for All’ funding scheme was first introduced by the previous Labour government in 2006, the progress of step-free access improvements on the UK railways has made somewhat stuttering progress. The ‘Equality 2025’ target was quietly dropped and replaced by the goal of achieving equal access for disabled people across the transport system by 2030, which at the current rate of progress appears highly unlikely. Indeed the ‘Inclusive Transport Strategy’ which contains the 2030 goal already has a get out clause. It states in its Executive Summary: “By 2030, we envisage equal access for disabled people using the transport system, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier” (my emphasis). This is not equal access. While the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 will result in all train carriages being fully accessible by 1st January 2020, it’s ironic, or a disgrace depending on your viewpoint, that on that date thousands of platforms across the UK will remain no-go areas for disabled people. Flitwick Station in Bedfordshire While the £300m allocated to the ‘Access for All’ funding for Control Period Six (CP6 2019-2024) initially seems generous, £50m of this is actually deferred funding removed from the previous Control Period Five (CP5 2014-2019) following the Hendy Review of 2016. This review has delayed step-free improvements at stations such as Luton, Palmers Green and Peckham Rye among many others. Currently approximately only a quarter of the UK’s railway stations are step-free and the prospect of disabled people being able to ‘turn up and go’ remains a distant one. This, along with the current Government’s treatment of disabled people, described by a United Nations Committee in 2017 as a ‘human catastrophe’ has effectively resulted in a hostile environment for some of the most vulnerable people in society. However, the lack of step-free access affects not only disabled people, but also those with impaired mobility such as the elderly and also those with young children. The effect of this can be twofold. Either people travel by less environmentally friendly means such as by car, or they don’t travel at all. This can lead to isolation, loneliness, potential mental health issues and a reduction in quality of life. As the 2016 United Nations Committee report stated, the current government has “failed to recognise living independently and being included in the community as a human right”. Equal access must be seen as a right not a favour and therefore should be at the core of transport policy, not an add-on. Restricted access to transport hinders work opportunities as well as the ability of disabled people to take a full part in society. I joined the Labour party, and campaign for equal access for disabled people, because I believe we should always strive for a fairer more equal society and that we should judge our progress on how the most disadvantaged in our society are treated. It’s clear that this government is woefully failing in its duty of care, I know we can do so much better. As Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated “….it is society which disables people, and it is our job to remove those barriers”. What could any proposals look like? There are currently around 160 stations in the UK that have more than 500,000 passengers a year, but are without any step free access. Further, of the approximately 900 stations that have 500,000 passengers or more, many of these, while having step-free access to each platform, will not have cross-platform step free access, which presents considerable obstacles to disabled people, removing their ability to travel independently. Based just on the sheer number of passengers, these stations should be an immediate priority. Following on from this the second batch of step-free improvements could take place at stations with passenger numbers in excess of 250,000 a year, followed by a set timetable for further improvements at the remaining stations. Using passenger numbers as the benchmark would be transparent and give clarity to the programme of improvements. Steps at Biggleswade Station in Bedfordshire Of course there will be concerns about how much all these improvements will cost, how they will be funded and no doubt the ‘magic money tree’ will get mentioned. However, the Department for Transport’s own analysis has shown that for every £1 spent on access improvements there is a £2.90 return to the economy. So not only is it the right thing to do in terms of removing barriers to disabled people, as well as the wider benefits to society, it also makes economic sense to do so. Labour should also give consideration to the use of Section 106 funding (money obtained from developers) in areas served by a station with no step-free access. Of course the railways are just one mode of transport and should not be seen in isolation. The majority of passenger journeys are by bus (59% in 2016 compared to 21% by National Rail) and improvements must also be made in providing a fully integrated transport system, which makes the transition between transport modes seamless – and above all step-free. Finally, we must ensure that disabled people are included at every stage of the improvements and not consulted after the conclusion of any planning as a tick box exercise. As disability campaigners state: “design with us, not for us”. Labour must be bolder on equal access, set out an ambitious plan of step-free access improvements, placing it at the core of its transport policy as part of our rebuilding of Britain, for the many not just the few. Sources and further reading: The Inclusive Transport Strategy – published July 2018: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728547/inclusive-transport-strategy.pdf House of Commons Briefing Paper – Access to transport for disabled people – published April 2016: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00601/SN00601.pdf House of Commons Briefing Paper – The UN enquiry into the Rights of Persons with disabilities in the UK – published March 2017: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7367/CBP-7367.pdf #disabilities #equalaccess #Transport

Below is my open letter sent to Alistair Burt, MP for NE Bedfordshire, sent on 29th May concerning the chaos on the railways affecting many thousands of commuters in Bedfordshire. As I post this on 31st May, 11 days after the start of the botched timetable, Chris Horton finally breaks cover stating the introduction would always be challenging….. Dear Alistair I know you are aware of the chaos following the introduction of the new GTR timetable on 20th May. The disruption is continuing, last night there was a gap in the service between 20.49 and 01.36 for trains serving Arlesey, Biggleswade and Sandy and there have been further cancellations this morning. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this debacle is that the principal causes (in short – the lack of trained drivers and availability of rolling stock) were widely known in the industry prior to the introduction of the timetable. GTR must of course also have known this, so either ran the risk fully aware of the outcome, or were pressurised into doing so. Either option raises serious questions which must be answered as soon as possible. I understand there were also issues surrounding the late delivery of the new timetable and delays to the opening of new train crew depots. I do note your request for a select committee to be convened to look into the issue, but wherever the blame lies there must be a full independent enquiry into causes of the botched introduction, which you will recall only a few days ago was being hailed as the dawn of a new age of rail travel. Any enquiry should include representation from passengers, including disabled passengers, as well as the rail unions who represent the staff who have been in the front line of this fiasco. Whatever the reasons the implementation of the timetable has caused huge inconvenience to many thousands of your constituents. It has also led to the front line staff, who I’m sure you will agree are entirely blameless in this, bearing the brunt of the understandable anger of commuters. I was on the ‘passenger revolt’ train at Hitchin last week that was featured in the media where the driver’s cab was surrounded. The fact that GTR have put their staff in the firing line, in the full knowledge of what was to happen, displays a total lack of any duty of care to their staff. Unfortunately GTR seem very reluctant to publicly acknowledge their responsibility in this issue. One aspect of this is that they continue to announce the reason for cancellations as “due to a lack of drivers”. This is not the case as the reality is that it is due to the inability of GTR to train their drivers in time for the new timetable. A more accurate announcement would be to state “…this train is cancelled due to the inability of GTR to organise route learning for our drivers….” The way GTR are framing their announcements suggests the blame is that of the driver not the organisation and increases the likelihood of verbal or physical abuse of drivers and platform staff. I would be grateful if you could stress this point when speaking to GTR. Finally, recent revelations concerning the approach of GTR to disabled passengers, indicate a wholly unsatisfactory attitude to disabled passengers, where the avoidance of delays seems to take priority over the needs of disabled people. The Association of British Commuters, who you can follow at @ABCommuters has a great deal of information on this issue. There have also been reports of ‘booked assistance’ not turning up at stations during the disruption. As you know we are working together on this issue in relation to access improvements at Biggleswade station, but I have to say that communications with GTR since our meeting on the 4th May have not filled us with any confidence. GTR and other UK rail companies need to work ‘with’ disabled people not ‘for’ them. A genuine step change in attitude is needed and I believe the lead must come from government, not the Train Operating Companies. Kind regards Julian

I was interested to read Alistair Burt’s comments in the Biggleswade Comet (5th October) about his desire to improve accessibility at Biggleswade train station. Mr Burt mentions that his government operates an Access for All fund to enable equal access for passengers. What he neglected to mention was that his government has consistently cut funding to the scheme and many schemes across the country have been delayed until the next Control Period which starts in 2019. Looking through Hansard I can find no record of Mr Burt having raised this issue in the House of Commons. I would have hoped that a local MP and former Minister for the Disabled would have put the case for equal access at one of the busiest rail stations in his constituency. Figures from the Office of Road and Rail show that in 2015/6 Biggleswade station had 992,000 passengers, a figure which is likely to have increased with the recent developments in the town. This ranks Biggleswade 568th out of the 2,553 rail stations in the UK and yet we still have no prospect of step-free access at the station. Further, a study into the stations already provided with step-free access by the drastically reduced Access for All scheme indicates that many stations with far fewer passenger numbers than Biggleswade have benefited from the scheme. For example, Henley-in-Arden station with only 132,000 passengers in the same period has had two lifts installed and Wendover station with 507,000 passengers a new footbridge and two lifts installed. Is anyone fighting for Biggleswade in the corridors of power? Actions speak louder than words. This government, of which our MP is a prominent member, and Central Bedfordshire Council has had seven years to sort this issue out. This government is failing disabled people, a view backed up by the United Nations as well as Disability Campaign groups UK wide who have argued in vain against the Tory cuts. Moving on to financial matters the Department of Transport’s figures show that for each £1 spent on improvements £2.90 is returned in economic benefits. Lifts at Biggleswade will not only provide step-free access for disabled people, but also for elderly people and parents with prams who I regularly see struggling up the stairs at the station. I make no apology for wanting a fairer, more equal society where the needs of the most disadvantaged are looked after as well as those of the most privileged. Having met Mr Burt on several occasions during the general election campaign I know him to be a decent and compassionate man, yet he consistently fails to stand up to his own government when his constituents need him to. Obviously a change is needed in North East Bedfordshire if we are to see step-free access for the rail users of Biggleswade. http://www.thecomet.net/news/mp-seeks-funding-for-upgrades-at-biggleswade-s-overstretched-station-1-5223315

After Trump’s election I hoped, without any real conviction I must admit, that perhaps all the lies, posturing, distasteful stances on any number of topics, the ‘America First’ speeches etc. were all just bluster, and once in office he would settle down and would be the figurehead for your usual Republican administration, albeit a particularly right wing one. Well as any reasonable person can now see my hope was misplaced and my lack of conviction was well founded. Trump’s vanity, infantile behaviour, ignorance, lack of any people management skills, lack of humility, lack of gravitas, and above all lack of any clear direction – or indeed any plan at all, makes him unsuitable to hold office. Even when I have disagreed with the politics of a President or a Prime Minister I’ve always believed that their policies were driven by a conviction (however misguided in some cases) that they were serving the people. Trump’s prime motive is to serve himself. While his views on ‘The Wall’ can be seen as just plain stupidity, Trump’s views on climate change – support for the fossil fuel industry and refusal to sign the Paris climate change treaty – have global, long term and irreversible consequences. This on its own could be seen to demonstrate his unsuitability for office, but with Trump this is just scratching the surface. America has a recent history of racial division. ‘Jim Crow’ laws originating from the 19th Century enforcing segregation on trains and buses remained in place after the second World War, highlighted in 1955 by Rosa Parks in the Montgomery bus boycott. Barriers to African Americans voting existed until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Trump’s qualified and belated condemnation of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville shows his true colours as a bigot. The display of these values by the President will undoubtedly embolden white supremacists and risks the re-opening of the racial divisions which in reality have bubbled below the surface rather than be entirely eliminated. With condemnation now from both Democratic and Republican sides it remains to be seen whether he has overstepped the mark and sowed the seeds of his removal from office. While from the UK we look through our fingers in despair at the disaster zone that is Trump’s presidency, politicians in the US need to take a long hard look at why so many Americans lost belief in conventional politicians. When a narcissist billionaire is seen as a ‘man of the people’ things have gone very wrong indeed. It’s a sobering thought that we may have soon have to engage in trade deals with Trump, and what may be left of his administration, in light of our impending exit from the EU. While it appears that we are a powerless bystander to the circus of Trump’s presidency one step the government can, and in my view should take, is to send a clear message and withdraw the state visit invitation.