Search Results

Whilst the purpose of the Health & Social Care Committee report (published on 12th October) into the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic was not to apportion blame, the relentless condemnation of the approach taken by the government, whose primary purpose is to protect us paints a grim picture of just how far the UK public was let down by those in charge. The dedication of NHS staff, care workers and volunteers as well as the community spirit shown across the country stands out in stark contrast to continual mis-steps by a rudderless government. The vaccine rollout is rightly seen as a great success, but this is now being drawn like a curtain to attempt to obscure the numerous government failures throughout the pandemic. In any other time there would have been immediate Ministerial resignations following the publication of the report. However, we are being led by a government that exudes exceptionalism and brazenly refuses to be bound by the normal rules of accountability. This approach deepens the mistrust in our political system and further damages our democracy. However, this blog concentrates on the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on people with learning disabilities and particularly the application of ‘Do Not Attempt Pulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNAPR’s) orders on younger people with learning disabilities as well as conditions such as autism and cerebral palsy. Please note that while I campaign for step-free access across the UK rail network, I don’t claim any expertise in the care of disabled and vulnerable people. However, I took a particular interest in this aspect of the report, as it is often disabled people who bear the brunt, and are the first to experience, the impact of policy failures or financial cutbacks by government. The following is a short summary of the issues that people with learning disabilities faced during the pandemic. You can read the full report, which was compiled by a cross-party group of MPs here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7496/documents/78687/default/ Paragraph 22 of the ‘Executive Summary’ in the report states: “Do not attempt CPR” notices were issued inappropriately for some people with learning disabilities, which was completely unacceptable. Plans for future emergencies should recognise that blanket access restrictions to hospital may not be appropriate for patients who rely on an advocate to express their requirements. The report acknowledged that while pre-existing health conditions undoubtedly contributed to the increased mortality risk, they were compounded by inadequate access to the care people with learning disabilities needed at a time of crisis. The report goes on to discuss that this was a result of restrictions on non-covid hospital activity, and, significantly, because of access restrictions which prevented family members and other carers accompanying people with learning disabilities in hospital to perform their expected advocacy role. Paragraph 49 of the ‘Pandemic Preparedness’ section states: Initial guidance to clinicians based on the Clinical Frailty Scale was insufficient and had serious consequences, such as for people with learning disabilities. This refers to the advice issued by the ‘National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on 20th March. The full advice can be found here: https://www.bopa.org.uk/resources/uk-nice-covid-19-rapid-guideline-critical-care-20th-march-2020/ Excerpts below. NICE guidance (Critical Care NG 159) issued on 20th March This indicated that all adults are assessed for frailty, irrespective of age and that (as set out below) a Clinical Frailty Score of 5 or more would lead to a discussion about a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ decision. NICE guidance (Critical Care NG 159) issued on 20th March Although this guidance was updated five days later, stating that the Clinical Frailty Scale should not be used in younger people, people with stable long-term disabilities such as cerebral palsy, learning disabilities or autism, the report was provided with evidence that this continued and that DNAPR orders continued to be issued incorrectly. Paragraph 326 of the ‘At Risk Communities’ section states: The confusion over ‘Do Not Attempt CPR’ (DNACPR) guidance was perhaps the most significant consequence of this. The Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme (LeDeR) review of the deaths of people with learning disabilities from covid-19 found that in several cases ‘learning disabilities’ were given as the rationale for a DNACPR decision.492 This was despite guidance issued by NHS England and NHS Improvement on 3 April 2020 explicitly stating “the terms ‘learning disability’ and ‘Down’s syndrome’ should never be a reason for issuing a DNACPR order”. Further, in paragraph 328: However, a CQC review of the use of DNACPRs throughout the pandemic found that “all voluntary sector and some other stakeholders said they had either actual or anecdotal evidence of concerns about the issuing of inappropriate DNACPR orders”. According to the review, this may have been due to “confusing guidance, pathways and protocols”. The impact of the pandemic was disproportionally severe for individuals with learning disabilities. In November 2020, Public health England concluded that the death rate from Covid-19 among adults with learning disabilities was 3.6 times higher than the rate of the population as a whole. Written evidence provided to the committee painted an even bleaker picture, set out in paragraph 314: The Head of Policy at Mencap, told the Health and Social Care Committee that when adjusted for age the death rate for people with learning disabilities was “over six times” higher than the general population. The NHS Clinical Frailty Scale NICE Critical Care Guidance – update 27th March 2020 The report also included a quote on the broader issue of managing NHS capacity during a health crisis, which could easily be applied to all UK services and supply chains at a time of widespread national shortages. “Should we try to build more resilience into public services rather than running everything to the optimum just-in-time efficiency? I think that is one of the big lessons from the pandemic. We talked a bit about it earlier in respect of extended supply chains versus domestic manufacturing capacity, but that is just one instance of the broader point, which is that resilience requires buffer, and buffer can look wasteful until the moment when it is not.” Moving back to the treatment of people with learning disabilities, more evidence of the lack of consideration of their welfare was highlighted throughout the report: “The loss of normal social support and care during the pandemic was part of a larger sense that people with learning disabilities were being overlooked by the Government.“ “When guidance was provided, it was often later, contributing to the view that people with learning disabilities were not a priority for the Government.” The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group told the committee: “From the outset of the pandemic, disabled people and their families and carers, and the workforce supporting them, have been overlooked in government guidance on infection control, personal protective equipment, and testing and there has been little recognition of the types of services supporting them.” Steve Scown of ‘Dimensions UK’ summarised the approach bluntly in evidence to the committee: “We have to admit the point that people with learning disabilities are not valued as equal members of society[…] There is a fundamental problem about how people with learning disabilities are valued in society.” The evidence is just one aspect of the many failures in the government’s approach to the pandemic. Of course, any government faced with the scale of the challenge Covid-19 presented would have made mis-steps, but this should not excuse the lack of empathy or compassion displayed by this government. The damage has been done and thousands of people have lost their lives due to delays and mistakes. We must of course learn lessons from those mistakes, but above all there must be accountability, sorely lacking to date, for those mistakes. Boris Johnson said on 17th March 2020 “Of course the buck stops with me and I take full responsibility for all the actions this government is taking, all the decisions we are taking….” Sky News 17th March 2020 We will soon see if these were just empty words. #Covid19 #disabilities #Politics #government #inequality #disability

The looming climate disaster is the most pressing issue of our times. The failure to meet the challenge will lead to a domino effect. Numerous other issues, such as climate induced migration, water scarcity, food shortages, ocean acidity, threats to biodiversity and both financial and political shocks will threaten the fabric of societies across the globe. I cover the impact of different levels of global warming and the steps needed to prevent it in a previous blog ‘What lies ahead and how we can stop it? It is obvious we cannot adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach. Wind turbines in Bedfordshire. Domestic renewable energy production can be one element in a matrix of renewable energy production methods across the UK An increase in household renewable energy production is just one of the many carbon emission reduction projects that will be needed to meet the UK’s 2050 zero carbon emission target. This blog discusses how to incentivise an increase in production by lowering VAT rates on domestic energy saving and renewable energy products. In September 1997, a reduced rate of 5% VAT was introduced for household fuel and power, the standard rate at that time being 17.5%. This reduced rate of 5% was extended to a number of other items over the following years, such as car seats and sanitary products from 2001. The list of energy saving materials included solar panels (from 2000), roof and wall insulation, air and ground source heat pumps (from 2004/5). It is worth noting that the reduced VAT rate did not apply to battery storage, unless installed at the same time as solar panels. In June 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that the UK government, through their application of the reduced 5% rate of VAT, had infringed EU rules . Following this judgment overt he next four years there was significant discussion in Parliament about what to do, including a view that, as the UK was to shortly leave the EU, why not ‘kick the can’ down the road a little longer until a time that EU rules no longer apply. This is covered in greater detail by a House of Commons Library VAT on solar panels briefing document. Following prolonged debate, in April 2019 the government introduced legislation to amend the scope of the 5% VAT rate to be compliant with EU VAT law. This legislation reduced the availability of the reduced rate to those in residential accommodation aged 60+, housing associations, or those receiving certain benefits. It also maintained the reduced rate where “the cost of materials does not exceed 60% of the cost of installation.” For clarity ‘cost of installation’ is the total cost of the materials and the labour combined. Qualifying benefits to obtain the reduced rate of VAT on energy saving materials This legislation took effect from 1st October 2019. The government argued that this change would impact a very small number of installations. However, it was pointed out that the 60% threshold for materials means that in parts of the UK where labour costs are lower, this 60% threshold is more likely to be breached. Where this threshold is exceeded, only the labour cost element will qualify for the reduced 5% rate, the VAT on the cost of the supply of the solar panels being applied at the standard rate of 20%. In practice any medium or high end installation is very likely to breach the 60% threshold, and in the case of battery storage installed at the same time as solar panels, the cost of the materials will exceed 60% of the cost of labour in virtually every case. The application of the standard 20% rate of VAT on solar panel materials in the majority installations and on the application of 20% VAT on battery storage in virtually every installation disincentives domestic renewable energy production. This has been acknowledged by the government when they were discussing extensions to the reduced rate here. Using my solar panel installation as an example (a 5kW system) installed without battery storage: Cost of Goods (ex VAT) £5638.10 Cost of Labour/Services (ex VAT) £2,800 Total Cost (ex VAT) £8,438.10 The cost of the goods was therefore 67% of the total cost and would have been charged at the 20% rate, had it been installed after 1st October 2019, incurring an extra £845 in costs to the customer. A significant disincentive to installing renewable energy. Using my battery storage installation as an example (Tesla Powerwall) installed at a later date than the solar panels, which do not benefit from any reduced VAT rate when installed separately (and would be virtually certain to breach the 60% material threshold if installed at the same time as solar panels): Cost of Goods (ex VAT) £5,800 Cost of Labour/Services (ex VAT) £1,200 Total VAT charged £1,400 If VAT was charged at 5% there would be a saving of £1,500 to the customer. The EU is no longer bound by EU law and as as Jesse Norman said in June 2019 when he was a Treasury Minister “It will be perfectly possible and not difficult for a future government to reverse the change by statutory instrument, in the usual way, after we leave the EU”. I believe we should take all possible steps to domestic renewable energy generation, as one aspect of a raft of measures, to reduce our carbon emissions. This should be incentivised by reducing or preferably abolishing VAT on both the supply and installation of domestic renewable energy products. This should also include smart battery storage, which can act as ‘mini power stations’, storing renewable electricity and exporting it to the grid during peak demand. Both these elements can form an important part of the energy hierarchy, which promotes reduced demand through building design, energy efficiency and domestic renewable energy. As the Tory government axed the ‘Zero Carbon Homes’ plan in 2016 and have recently abandoned the ‘Green Homes Grant’ earlier this year, we have no time to lose. This week I met with my local MP Richard Fuller and put the above case to him. I understand that this will be put in the form of two written questions to the relevant minister. I will be watching closely for a response. Putting the case for slashing VAT rates on domestic renewable energy to Richard Fuller MP Julian Vaughan 9th October 2021 Follow me on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/jpvaughan66 or Twitter at: https://twitter.com/juliman66 or Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/jvaughan_photos/ #UKpolitics #zerocarbonhomes #greennewdeal #solarpanels #energyprices #netzerocarbon #energybills

The Bedfordshire Rail Access Network (BRAN) campaign group formed in 2017. Its aim is to improve accessibility across the Bedfordshire rail network, as well as ensuring that disabled people are involved at every stage of the improvement process. BRAN worked with other stakeholders to ensure a successful campaign for step-free access at Biggleswade station, due for completion in Autumn 2022. BRAN have now begun liaising with Govia Thameslink Railway, Luton Council and Sarah Owen MP to press for step-free access at Leagrave station. Below is BRAN’s response to an article quoting Richard Fuller, the MP for NE Bedfordshire, who queried the need for the post of ‘Head of Inclusion’ recently advertised by East West Rail. “We are disappointed to see Richard Fuller MP (North East Beds,) share on facebook an article where he is quoted, criticising the role of Head of Inclusion at East West Rail, including complaining about the job’s advertised salary. Here is the full quote from Mr Fuller in the article. ““Oh, good grief,” said Mr Fuller. “Inclusion is important when determining major infrastructure schemes, which is why I have been taking East West Rail to task for omissions and errors in their consultations. “They shouldn’t need to hire someone, and at such a large salary, to ‘keep them on track’ with involving all interested parties. It should be inherent in how the CEO and senior executives approach their roles,” he said. We agree with Mr Fuller that inclusion is indeed important, especially in major infrastructure schemes, and we are glad he is raising issues related to inclusion with the company. If he truly is a supporter of accessibility and inclusion, it is perplexing then, that he has singled out this particular role for criticism, when its sole focus is accessibility and inclusivity for all passengers? 40 per cent of the UK rail network is not accessible The need to prioritise accessibility and inclusion within rail projects is an essential one because our current rail infrastructure is still not accessible for so many disabled people. In 2018 Leonard Cheshire published research that showed that 40 per cent of the rail network is not accessible to disabled people. Fuller’s own government recognise the need for improved accessibility on the rail network; announcing a series of initiatives earlier this year to help boost accessibility and inclusion. As this article shows the initiatives were welcomed by government, the rail industry and disabled passengers alike. Only a quarter of all UK train stations have disability access to all platforms Mr Fuller expresses a belief that accessibility and inclusion should be “inherent in how the CEO and senior executives approach their roles” again this is something that we agree with. Accessibility is such an important issue everyone working on the project needs to make it a priority. It is disingenuous however, when Mr Fuller suggests that this ‘mainstreaming’ approach is enough and there is no need for a dedicated inclusion role. Maybe if our current rail network was accessible and inclusive for all this would be a valid argument, but when the government’s own Disability Unit, admit in a blog from July 2021 that only a quarter of train stations have disability access to all platforms, it seems mainstreaming isn’t going to work. The expertise, knowledge, skills and experience needed to lead on access and inclusion for a major rail infrastructure project like this are highly specialised, which is why the salary has to be a competitive one. Candidates who match the criteria will be hard to come by and highly sought after.” Fiona Carey, Natalie Doig, Julian Vaughan of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network. 3rd October 2021 Follow us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/BedfordshireRailAccessNetwork And on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BedsRailAccess #stepfreeaccess #accessibility #Bedfordshire #publictransport #railways #Transport

For many people, the walk to the polling station is a forlorn and pointless ritual, with no prospect of your vote making a shred of difference to the result. General Elections are decided by a sprinkling of marginal seats across the UK. In the 2019 General Election, a landslide victory for the Conservative Party, only 81 of the 650 constituencies changed hands. Around 180 seats have not changed hands since the Second World War. With an 80-seat majority on just 43.6% of the vote, the current Conservative government are acting as an elective dictatorship and you could make a case that Marcus Rashford has more sway over government policy than any of the opposition parties. In terms of fairness, the current ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) voting system fails miserably. In 2019 the Conservatives won 56% of seats with just 43% of the vote and although many will have despised the ‘dog-whistle’ politics of UKIP their 3,881,099 votes received in the 2015 General Election (12.6% of the total vote) merited more than the one seat they achieved. FPTP system breeds apathy, with both political activism and money being concentrated in marginal seats. Come General Election time, large swathes of the UK are ignored as political resources are concentrated in the small number of constituencies that do change hands. Consequently, the votes in these areas have a far greater value than those across the rest of the country. Further, as elections are swung by a few marginal seats this increases the risk of dark money being poured into these seats alongside targetted online advertising, which bypasses accountable and transparent modes of campaigning. FPTP also results in a high proportion of voters lacking the representation that the strength of their vote deserves. In 2017 the East of England region, Labour obtained a 32.7% vote share, but this only resulted in 7 Labour MPs being elected out of a total of 58 MPs in the region, a 12% share. Information from the Commons Library analysis of the 2017 General Election The FPTP system also skews local elections, with Labour in 2019 achieving a 20.8% vote share across Central Bedfordshire, but resulting in just one Labour Councillor out of a total of 52. This imbalance means that many voters are left without a voice and become disengaged from the political process and cynical about what politicians can achieve. Politics becomes something that happens to them, rather than something that they are involved in. Imagine striding down the street knowing that your vote will count just as much as everyone else’s across the country. From a Labour perspective, this would reinvigorate CLPs, which in areas lacking in any Labour representation can be little more than well-meaning talking shops. MPs used to a cushy little number in a safe seat would need to be far more accountable to their electorate, and political activity from all parties would increase. Of course, a fairer voting system introduced through a form of Proportional Representation (PR) would not be a magic fix to the significant problems and challenges faced by the UK. The imbalance of power is deeply seated and vigorously defended by the state. PR must just be the start of radical changes to how the UK is governed and which seeks to correct those imbalances of power, and how that power is held to account. Time is running short. We currently have a Conservative government, perhaps the most authoritarian that the UK has ever seen, determined to strip away the checks and balances of our democracy and concentrate power in the hands of the executive. Recently put in place as the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab’s disdain for the Human Rights Act is well known. Further, while the government seems clueless about how to deal with the many challenges it currently faces, it presses ahead with plans to reduce the opportunity for the government to be held to account by judicial review and seeks to disenfranchise millions of voters (not theirs of course) through the introduction of Voter ID. Above all, I believe a major barrier to electoral reform is a reluctance to change the current culture of tribalism that exists within politics, to a more consensus based approach. Further, when power has been so hard to achieve for both the Labour Party (and unions who have had their powers relentlessly chipped away by successive Tory governments) there is perhaps an understandable reluctance to seem to give it away. However, the huge challenges we face such as the looming climate disaster demand consensual, long-term actions which won’t be impacted by the ‘stop start’ of FPTP politics. A word of warning. If we cannot find common ground within our own Party, then it will be difficult to find it with others. Tribalism, whatever shade of red you are, will damage us and it will damage the country. Factionalism is a luxury we cannot afford and compromise shouldn’t be seen as a weakness. In order to achieve power, we may just have to give a little of it away. So how do we get the message across? Well, dry discussions about all the different types of proportional voting systems are unlikely to win anyone over. However, frame it in terms of basic fairness and how everyone’s vote will count and the argument is more likely to cut through. Recently politics has become polarised by politicians who have played on people’s fears and baser instincts, so consensus may seem like a distant prospect. However, the pandemic has shown us that the is a great deal of empathy and compassion across our communities. The need for change is pressing as we have nearly reached a point where corruption and incompetence, along with a lack of accountability from those in power is being met with a resigned shrug of the shoulders and a view that all politicians are the same. When apathy wins the Tories win, we must strive to restore people’s faith in politics. A fairer voting system is just the start. We need to reform the House of Lords and replace it with a directly elected chamber representing the whole of the UK. We need to decentralise power from Westminster and place it in our local town halls. We need a justice system which can be accessed equally by all, not just a privileged few. We need a written constitution that sets out the rights of the people and the boundaries of executive power. Above all, I believe Labour need to be bold. If they are, there is a real chance that working with others, equality, empathy, compassion and fairness which are the basics of Labour values, will prevail. Attending the ‘Politics for the Many’ fringe, pictured with co-ordinator Nancy Platts – you can read the booklet we are holding ‘The New Foundations – A Future Built on Democracy’ here. Julian Vaughan 1st October 2021 I’m in a union, how can I find out more about the campaign for PR? You can join the ‘Politics for the Many’ mailing list here. I want to submit a motion to my union branch to adopt PR. You can take a look at a template motion here You can find out more about different voting systems at the Electoral Reform Society website here. Many thanks to the House of Commons Library, which provides clear and detailed information on a huge variety of subjects. You can read their analysis of the 2019 General Election results here. #UKpolitics #PR #fairness #democracy #Politics #equality

One of the main barriers to encourage people out of their cars, and on to more climate friendly modes of transport such as cycling, is a perception that roads are too dangerous to travel on. Langford has two railway stations just a few miles away at Biggleswade and Arlesey, but there are no dedicated and suitable cycle routes to either. To encourage a shift to cycling for both commuter and leisure travel I believe we need dedicate cycle routes, completely separated from road traffic. Below is an email sent yesterday to Central Bedfordshire Council which suggests potential routes between Langford and Biggleswade and Langford and Henlow/Arlesey. This would also help patch up a significant gap in the National Cycle Network that currently exists between Arlesey and Sandy. I’m pleased to see that cycling provision is a priority in the Langford Neighbourhood Plan which residents of Langford will soon get an opportunity to vote on. Of course more needs to be done, both in terms of cycle security and improved public transport in the area and I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers. I would welcome your comments on the suggested routes below and any ideas that you have to improve our fragmented transport network in the area. My email address is at the bottom of this post. “You will be aware that a primary reason for people not cycling is the perceived lack of safety, due to there being no separation between cars and cyclists on our main roads. As a fairly competent and experienced rider on most roads in our area I find the Langford to Biggleswade road is not a pleasant experience, with narrow lanes and poor sightlines. The main road route between Langford and Henlow/Arlesey Station is also narrow and I’m aware that this puts off many parents from letting their children cycle to and from school along this road. Langford to Biggleswade Station Route Looking at the S106 funding that will be due from the development South of Cambridge Road I can see that there will be £40,000 due for improvements between the development and Arlesey and Biggleswade stations and a further £80,000 due towards a scheme to provide pedestrian and cycle access over the East Coast Mainline Railway (ECML). It is not exactly clear from reading the ‘Rights of Way’ report description and looking at the indicative map, whether the extension to the bridleway to connect BW8 to BW4 would run over a separate bridge over the ECML next to the current bridge, or would be routed over the hump back bridge, with the installation of traffic lights either side of the bridge, mentioned in the Highway Officer’s report and a reduction of the road over the bridge to a single lane. I suspect a separate additional span would be costly, although I’m not sure of the practicality of fitting everything over the hump back bridge. The hump back bridge looking West towards Langford However, whichever way it is done, it would lead to separated cycle and vehicular traffic which is beneficial, and more importantly it would take away any potential issues with crossing the ECML railway and the dangers associated with that. While this connectivity is to be welcomed, it would only link the development to BW8 which as you are probably aware doesn’t actually go anyway, heading in an Easterly direction towards the water tower, before turning South back towards the Edworth Road. Bridleway 9 looking North towards Biggleswade However, there is the potential for this extension to link up to BW9 if a route is extended up the East side of the ECML. While BW9, which heads North towards Biggleswade is not fit for most cycling (other than a dirt bike) and a small section of BW40 which it turns into is of a similar poor standard, improvements to this section would mean it would connect up with the recently improved main section of BW40 and would result in a dedicated fit for purpose cycle route, separated from any road traffic all the way between Langford and Biggleswade station, with an additional feeder route in from East Road. I have attached the Rights of Way Officer plan (below) and a further map which shows the potential connection (orange dots) to BW9 near East Road. Some of this route is already hard surfaced. CBC Rights of Way Officer Plan – brown line shows proposed bridleway extension Potential link between BW4, BW8 and BW9 shown by orange dots Langford to Henlow/Arlesey Station Route This could be improved by upgrading FP12 (map below) which leads off the ‘concrete road’ leading South from the proposed development. As you will be aware BW25 suffers from drainage issues in the Winter and this would need to be rectified to make it fit for purpose for a cycle route. The road section which crosses over the River Ivel is in very poor condition and this would require attention. FP7 which runs past Henlow Grange and the Western edge of the Henlow Bridge Lakes park would also need upgrading. With these improvements again there would be a dedicated cycle route between Langford and Arlesey station, completely separate from road traffic. Potential cycle route between Langford and Arlesey station I’m sure there would be some challenges along the way, some conversations with landowners required, and there will be some issues that I’m not aware of. However, given the importance of encouraging a shift away from the car and towards cycles or e-cycles, I am sure these are not insurmountable if the genuine desire to fix them is there. Happy to hear your views on the above, as well as any details you can share on any draft proposals or alternatives that have been suggested.” Julian Vaughan via email 1st September 2021 email: bedsptransportwatch@gmail.com Further reading: Public rights of way across Central Bedfordshire (including online map) Sustrans National Cycle Network #Bedfordshire #cycling #Langford #Transport

There are some significant changes to bus services serving Biggleswade and the surrounding villages from the 31st August. These will impact current users, as well as those who would use public transport, but are currently prevented from doing so by the significant cuts to services across the region over the last decade. Although bus travel suffers from a poor image compared to rail travel, the number of bus journeys per year, 4 billion in 2019, vastly exceeds the number of journeys by rail,1.74 billion, in the same year. It is also a vital form of transport for lower income groups and older people who don’t have access to a car. Frequent bus services, which go where people need to go, are crucial for people in rural areas to access work, help reduce loneliness in cut-off rural areas and will enable a shift away from the car, essential to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce the worst impacts of climate change. I’m pleased to say there are some welcome improvements to a number of services, although it seems that some villages will miss out and actually face later first buses and earlier last buses. Looking through bus timetables can be laborious, so I have just highlighted the main changes below. All errors are mine and come with the usual disclaimers! For those who want to take a more in-depth look at the timetables I provide links at the bottom of this post. Do get in touch if you have any suggestions for route or service improvements. First Services Potton The first service, a new 72 route, from Potton to Sandy starting 31st August will be at 06.06 (this is currently at 07.25) The first service, again the 72, from Potton to Biggleswade, will be the 07.12 (this is currently 08.26) Gamlingay The 1st service from Gamlingay to Sandy will now be at 08.52, a much later start than the current 07.33 The 1st service from Gamlingay to Biggleswade will be earlier, 07.44 rather than the current 08.18 and this will benefit Dunton with an earlier first service of 08.12, compared to the current 08.44. Blunham The first bus through Blunham will be 10.36, which is later than the current 10.12 service. Biggleswade Town Service 85/85a The 85 and 85a routes will have a similar level of service although the last 85a has been cut, and this is in additional to significant cuts to this service that have taken place in the last couple of years. This service used to have a start time of 06.00 in the morning and would run beyond 20.00. Last Services Sandy to Potton The last service from Sandy to Potton will now be at 20.46 on the new 72 route, which is a great improvement on the previous 17.47. The last service from Sandy to Gamlingay will remain at 17.47 from the train station. Biggleswade to Potton The last service from Biggleswade to Potton will now be at 18.20, which is an improvement on the current 17.32. Biggleswade to Gamlingay The time of the last service remains unchanged at 17.32 departure from Biggleswade. Another benefit of the upcoming timetable changes is that there will be a direct service from Potton to Bedford via the new 72 route mentioned above. Overall, with some disappointing exceptions there is a significant improvement to services. However, looking at timetables from just two years ago, even with the upcoming changes some villages in our area will still have a poorer service. In 2019 the first bus from Potton to Sandy left at 05.40, the first bus from Gamlingay to Sandy left at 06.13 and Blunham village had a 08.12 service. However, to encourage a modal shift away from the car, bus services will need to be affordable, reliable and frequent. We certainly aren’t there yet! Is the bus an option for you? If you never travel by bus would you consider using it one day a week? What needs to change to get people out of their cars? Do get in touch at: bedsptransportwatch@gmail.com Links to new Timetables and more info New 72/73 service Bedford/Sandy/Potton/Biggleswade from 31st August: https://tiscon-maps-stagecoachbus.s3.amazonaws.com/Timetables/East/BEDFORD/BE%20-%20ROUTE%2072%2B73%20-%20AUG%2021.pdf New 188/190 timetable from 31st August Biggleswade/Dunton/Potton/Gamlingay/Sandy: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/72634/centrebus_services_188_and_190 New Biggleswade ‘town service’ 85/85a from 16th August: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/72705/centrebus_services_85_and_85a ‘Bus Back Better’ the government’s national bus strategy: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/980227/DfT-Bus-Back-Better-national-bus-strategy-for-England.pdf Department for Transport Annual Bus Statistics published October 2020: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/929992/annual-bus-statistics-year-ending-march-2020.pdf Julian Vaughan 21st August 2021 Twitter: @juliman66 #Bedfordshire #buses #publictransport #Transport

As the media gives extensive coverage to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report containing its stark warnings of what lies ahead, it’s difficult not to despair at the scale of the challenge we face. As a child at the end of the Cold War, I’d occasionally have vivid dreams about nuclear armageddon. Now, in the 21st Century my fears have been replaced by my children’s anxiety about the looming climate disaster, and although it sounds like a cliché, it is for all our children that we must act. Of course, the impact that an individual change of behaviour will have on climate change is minuscule, and this can encourage a ‘what is the point?’ attitude, as whatever we do on a daily basis will be dwarfed by the hourly output from a recently commissioned coal power station in somewhere like China or another road built in the UK as part of this government’s £27 billion road programme. It is clear that while personal lifestyle changes are essential, and inevitable, the heavy lifting will need to come from governments around the world and perhaps more importantly, the corporations that have contributed to so much of the damage while reaping the benefits from the global economy. Corporate lobbying has spread so effectively through governments across the globe, resulting in the interests of mass global polluters being prioritised over the needs of communities across the world. Further, as the success of a country is primarily viewed on the increase in value of its Gross Domestic Product, any attempt to reduce consumption will be seen as a failure, with consequences for those in power. This has meant politicians are not being honest about the scale of the change that is needed. This inevitably leads to a timid approach, which tinkers around the edges of the biggest issue humankind has ever faced. Neoliberalism has become so entrenched and the values of personal freedom over community so prevalent across our media that any attempt at a controlled state-led approach is slapped down as ‘woke’ Marxism. The perceived unpopularity and cost of the steps needed to meet carbon reductions mean that these steps become delayed, watered down and a difficult policy decision to be kicked down the road for the sake of corporate and electoral support. It seems both our economic and political systems are not set up to manage the crisis. Much is made of the benefits of the global economy, but the impact of it means it is clearly incompatible with the fight to contain global warming to a level that won’t result in the widespread collapse of society. We need a new scale for what ‘good’ is. Unfortunately, an untethered capitalist system which relies on consumerism and whose primary concern is profit above all else, is not fit for the challenges that we face over the next 100 years and beyond. I don’t have the answer to this, but the need for a new approach is pressing. We are not looking at something that may happen, climate change is happening right now, and at an alarming pace exceeding most climate model forecasts. So can individuals make a difference? Absolutely! Much like one vote cast on its own won’t change the political landscape, but millions cast together do, individuals working together can exert the pressure required to make government and corporations act. The necessary steps to deal with the climate emergency are often framed as a burden, but in many ways they are an opportunity to increase our quality of life. Further, while there are those who say the cost of action is too high, delays now will only lead to higher costs further down the line. Above all, the financial burden must be shared in an equitable way and it is essential that governments apply taxation and the costs of the improvements fairly. Starting off with ‘the polluter pays’ principle, to ensuring that individuals and areas that can less bear the financial burden are supported. One example of this would be a ‘frequent flyer’ levy which would discourage excessive air travel, while not placing excessive burdens on the occasional traveller. The New Economics Foundation suggests a zero levy for one flight within a year with an increasing levy for subsequent flights. This will allow one holiday abroad without undue financial burden, but discourage multiple trips from an elite minority of frequent flyers who cause most of the environmental damage. Unfortunately, the current UK government believes that we can carry on with business as usual and technology, including ‘jet zero’, will catch up to save the day, as they spend billions on roads and hope that sustainable fuel will remove aviation emissions. We can’t wait for unproven technology to come online at some point in the future, we have to act now promoting public transport with bold policies to encourage the shift away from the car. Free public transport would be a bold and progressive step to encourage a shift away from the car, although evidence from where this has been trialled suggests that this will need to be linked to disincentives for car use. What we must avoid is a system of taxation where private transport only becomes affordable to the most well off and no viable alternative is provided for everyone else. The current pandemic is likely to change the way we work forever, although if many of us are to work from home, at least in a blended form, then we should invest in a range of local community hubs otherwise we risk a ticking time-bomb of mental health issues as we retreat into a virtual world of online meeting platforms with greatly reduced face to face contact. Communities also need to be involved in the transition to a greener way of living, both to encourage take up of steps required to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and also to play an active part in how their local areas will adapt to and benefit from a change to a less carbon intensive future. This community involvement is covered in depth in the ‘Institute for Public Policy Research’ document which you can read here. Excerpt from https://www.ippr.org/fairness-and-opportunity/ A just transition to a green economy will present significant challenges as carbon intensive industries are replaced by greener alternatives. However, as the chart above shows there is a potential for many thousands of new jobs as part of a green new deal. The pandemic has shown that we can adapt at short notice to new ways of living, but it has also shown how poorly managed change and ineffective communication can quickly result in a loss of faith in the institutions that govern our lives. Are we up to the challenge? At this moment in time, the answer would have to be no. Current pledges from governments around the world are nowhere near ambitious enough to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions required and corporations continue to greenwash their credentials. While it may suit both governments and corporations for the public to be so overwhelmed by the scale of the climate disaster that awaits us that lethargy born out of a sense of hopelessness prevails, the public also has the collective power to force change. In sombre moments I can’t help thinking that perhaps the world would just be better off without us, but in more optimistic moments I do believe that we can pull together and make the necessary transition to avoid the worst of the dire projections for the coming centuries. We will face many challenges, not least from powerful interests that would prefer we only make cosmetic changes at a slower pace. I believe a major factor in the necessary steps not being taken to date has been that global warming seemed remote and something that impacts ‘other’ people. What we have seen over the last few months from the heatwave across Canada, to extreme flooding in Germany, to record temperatures in Siberia and in Italy is the effects of climate change occurring in developed countries. What seemed remote, has now become very real. We live in a beautiful world. We may not succeed in the huge challenge that is upon us, but surely we must try. Julian Vaughan 12th August 2021 Further reading 10 ways to reduce your carbon footprint: https://www.soilassociation.org/take-action/protect-the-environment/cut-your-carbon-footprint/ 9 things you can do about climate change: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/stories/climate-action/ Aviation to consume half of UK’s 1.5C carbon budget by 2050: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-aviation-to-consume-half-uk-1point5c-carbon-budget-2050 What lies ahead – and how we can stop it http://julianvaughan.blog/2019/07/13/fixing-the-climate-emergency-the-end-of-the-global-economy/ Climate Action Tracker: https://climateactiontracker.org/ New Economics Foundation: A frequent flyer levy: https://neweconomics.org/2021/07/a-frequent-flyer-levy United Nations – climate action reports: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports Green New Deal – green jobs for all report: https://www.greennewdealuk.org/updates/green-jobs-for-all-report/ UK Department for Transport – decarbonising transport: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009448/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain.pdf CO2 levels historical and future projections: https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections #climatechange #ClimateEmergency #CO2emissions #netzero

The Ministerial Code, which has been in place since the Second World War, but only became public in 1992, sets out the rules and principles which outline the standards of conduct for government Ministers. It used to be the case that even a suggestion of impropriety would lead to a resignation, but under Johnson’s premiership, a politician regarded as having a particularly strained relationship with the truth, there have been a number of high profile cases where ministers have resolutely stayed in post. As a disciplinary policy it is very weak and carries no legal standing, with the Prime Minister the ultimate arbiter of what does, or doesn’t happen after any investigation. The Code discusses some fine principles of the behaviour expected; ‘the very highest standards of propriety’ which ‘must be honoured at all times.’ Only once does it specifically mention an expectation to resign, when it discusses a Minister knowingly misleading Parliament. The code contains a section on bullying, under which the Home Secretary Priti Patel was investigated in 2020. You can read the findings of that investigation here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/937010/Findings_of_the_Independent_Adviser.pdf However, while the code states that bullying will not be tolerated, it seems it will be allowed in a Johnson led administration as, while Patel was found to have broken the code by bullying officials, she was not asked to resign. Soon after this the independent adviser who carried out the investigation resigned in protest at the decision to take no action. The story on this, and Patel’s non apology here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076 The Ministerial Code contains a lot of fluff about the need to hold the highest standards, and that the ‘Nolan Principles’, described below as the ‘precious principles of public life’ must be upheld by Ministers at all times. However, there is very little about actual accountability if these standards are not met and the Prime Minister is both judge and jury in the process. While I can understand a Prime Minister wanting some wriggle room in decision making, there must be greater independence and power given to those who carry out the investigation. So as it stands at the moment, no-one genuinely seems to says sorry and no-one resigns. Why does this matter? The lack of accountability is very damaging to our democracy as it further erodes trust in our politicians and political process and a view that “they’re all the same” disengages people from politics. Further, this sets a bad example to all levels of government and this lack of accountability risks seeping from 10 Downing Street to all levels of national and local politics. In addition to this, the latest terms of reference for Lord Geidt, the newly appointed Adviser on Ministerial Interests, indicate that his advice to the Prime Minister may remain unpublished, which would add lack of transparency to the current lack of accountability in the current government. The Nolan Principles, set out by Lord Nolan in 1995 On its own the lack of adherence to the Nolan Principles may seem inconsequential and may not to use the current buzz-phrase ‘cut through’ to the general public. However, taken as part of a package of steps taken by this government to dismantle our democracy; the attacks on judicial review, Voter ID and threats to repeal the Human Rights Act covered in a previous blog, it is further threat to the checks and balances of power in our political system. Indeed, it is the low key nature of disregard for the Code that is particularly concerning as the incremental changes slip under the radar of public opinion. If we truly don’t care what our politicians get up to then we are on a very slippery slope indeed. Those who stand for public office shouldn’t be required to be saints, but a basic level of ethical behaviour is necessary and as set out in previous versions of the Code by Tony Blair and David Cameron, politicians must “serve in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust” and “remember that we are not masters but servants”. The Tories are trashing our reputation around the world, while at the same time further eroding trust in politics. We can and must do better than this. Julian Vaughan 1st June 2021 #UKpolitics #nolanprinciples #democracy #integrity #publicoffice

The impact of the looming climate disaster will potentially dwarf that of the current pandemic unless urgent steps are taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. While we may point the finger at countries like China and the USA, it doesn’t absolve the UK from taking actions within its control. The current growth in air travel is not sustainable if we are to meet the stringent targets needed to cap temperature rises to a level where the damage to our ecosystems, and the knock on impact to the global population will be manageable. Time is running out and in the current absence of viable technology we need to cut air travel and promote alternatives. The pandemic has shown us that in many cases business meetings can be conducted remotely and we should urgently consider a ‘frequent flyer’ tax, both for business travel, and for personal travel in excess of one return trip per year. However, we should also look at providing information about the impacts of different modes of travel so that people can make an informed choice based on carbon emissions per trip, rather than time saved, although I would argue that by the time you factor in check-in time etc. the time savings are fairly negligible anyway. We will all be familiar with traffic light labelling for food, and with that in mind I put wrote the motion below, asking that a similar approach is adopted by the transport industry to encourage a move away from domestic air travel. I am delighted that this was recently adopted by the ASLEF union at their Annual Assembly of Delegates (AAD) and many thanks to the delegates that supported it. Now a train drivers union promoting rail travel might not be a huge surprise, but there is no doubt that the railways have a significant part to play in the UK’s route to net zero. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that we can succeed without significant changes to the way we go about our lives, but the consequences of not acting are dire. The full text of the motion below: “This 2020 AAD notes that we must take urgent action to deal with the looming climate emergency. Further, a fundamental change to how we travel must take place meet net zero carbon emission targets. Air travel is a significant contributor to our transport CO2 emissions and further to these high-altitude emissions created by air travel have a far greater effect than those at ground level, lasting longer and having a greater warming effect. A typical domestic flight will emit 133g per passenger per km travelled compared to 41g per passenger per km for rail travel. Using a typical domestic journey between London and Edinburgh as an example the different modes of travel produces the following level of emissions per person*: Plane 144kg Train 29kg An international flight between London to Madrid produces three times the amount of CO2 per passenger than the equivalent journey by rail and this doesn’t include the additional effects of high-level emissions. The food industry has a traffic light labelling system indicating nutritional content, particularly in relation to items such as fat and salt content. This system is used to indicate in percentage terms the relative nutritional content of the food in relation to recommended daily intake. This AAD believes that a similar system should be used to indicate the different CO2 emissions per person in relation to different transport modes on all domestic journeys between UK cities and where there are alternatives, short haul flights to Europe. This will enable the public to make transport choices based upon the sustainability of the mode of travel. This will encourage a behavioural change away from high CO2 emissions modes such as air travel and encourage greater use of more sustainable modes such as railways. We instruct the EC to lobby the ASLEF parliamentary group to promote the creation of a traffic light system for UK domestic travel as set out above.” Link to the London to Edinburgh journey emissions here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51007504 You can find out more about emissions from the airline industry here: Aviation to consume half of UK’s 1.5C carbon budget by 2050 (carbonbrief.org) And here: International Aviation | Climate Action Tracker And what may happen if we don’t meet the challenge in one of my earlier blogs here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2019/07/13/fixing-the-climate-emergency-the-end-of-the-global-economy/ Julian Vaughan 26th May 2021 Julian Vaughan (@juliman66) / Twitter Julian Vaughan | Facebook #ClimateEmergency #CO2 #domesticairtravel #carbondioxideemissions #CO2emissions #UKrail #ParisClimateTreaty

I am proud to have written the motion on a fairer voting system that was recently adopted by ASLEF at their Annual Assembly of Delegates. However, in a democratic union like ASLEF, success is only achieved with the support of branch delegates from across the railway network. I am particularly grateful to my colleague who put the motion to the floor and spoke so well on the importance of Proportional Representation, enabling the motion to get over the line. ASLEF now joins the growing number of unions who have put their support behind PR. I believe it is time for a fairer voting system which will result in the whole of the UK having an equal say on who governs, rather than a few thousand people in swing seats. The current adversarial system of politics doesn’t work well for the UK. We need to end the tribalism and let go of the culture of the ‘winner takes all’ approach. Good politics needs a fairer voting system that doesn’t leave large numbers of people feeling that they don’t have a voice. Further, a fairer voting system as a flagship policy of Labour’s next manifesto will put clear water between us and a Tory government who are rapidly dismantling the checks and balances of our democracy. Proportional Representation won’t fix all the issues in our society, but it’s a good start! The full text of the motion below: “This AAD notes that the ‘First Past the Post’ system means that for many people in parliamentary constituencies across the UK the act of voting is just a ritual, with little prospect of unseating the incumbent MP. This results in just a handful of ‘swing seats’ deciding the outcome of a General Election. In the 2015 General Election only 12% of seats changed hands. In 2017, despite voters switching allegiance in numbers greater than in any General Election since 1931, only 11% of seats changed hands. The ‘winner takes all’ scenario created by the ‘First Past the Post’ system risks governments taking office with large majorities, while voted into power by a minority of the electorate, as is the case with the current government. Governments elected in this way are in essence ‘elective dictatorships’ with few checks and balances to their power. Many votes are essentially wasted, either by being surplus to requirements in safe Labour seats, or pointless in a safe Tory seat. This leads to apathy and effectively disenfranchises millions of voters across the UK. This AAD believes that it is time for a fairer voting system where every vote counts. This AAD adopts a position of support for electoral reform in the form of proportional representation and instructs the EC to lobby the ASLEF parliamentary group to press for proportional representation to be included as a flagship policy in the next Labour manifesto.” Many thanks to ASLEF ‘Waterloo Nine Elms’ branch for an amendment to the original motion (an addition to the last paragraph) which improved it significantly! Amendment in full, which was carried by the AAD: Amendment A Waterloo Nine Elms (222) Delete “we instruct” and replace with “This AAD adopts a position of support for electoral reform in the form of proportional representation and instructs.” You can find out more about the benefits of PR and the different systems below: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/ https://www.labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk/ https://politicsforthemany.co.uk/ Julian Vaughan 26th May 2021 Julian Vaughan (@juliman66) / Twitter Julian Vaughan | Facebook #UKpolitics #PR #proportionalrepresentation #fairervotingsystem #democracy #Politics #government #firstpastthepost #unions

Yesterday the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network team met with Network Rail, GTR, Richard Fuller MP, CBC and Town Councillors to discuss the latest progress re the Biggleswade Transport Hub. Today we carried out a site visit at the station with the the Officers from Central Bedfordshire Council. Although we have formally objected to the current design, we fully support the principle of an integrated and accessible transport hub, with seamless connections between different transport modes, to enable everyone to be able to travel independently and to reduce our reliance on the car. The current plans of the transport hub The Good News The lifts are still on course to be operational at the train station by September 2022. This step-free access will comprise of a ramp leading towards 16 person capacity lifts to both the Northbound and Southbound platforms. We started our campaign on this in 2017 and look forward to its completion. We will continue to meet with Network Rail and others every three months until the lifts are fully operational. A new secure storage area for cycles is in the planning stage and will be located to the left of the station building as you look at it from Station Road. This area will be fenced off and the intention is for it to be accessible via an App. No timescales on this facility as yet. In the meantime additional cycle parking provision is being installed over the next few days, again just to the left of the Amazon pick up point. A new additional station building will be built on the site of the current cycle storage area, which will contain an accessible toilet as well as a ‘changing places’ facility. This is likely to be accessed by a ‘Radar’ key so can only be used by people with disabilities, unless staff are available. At the moment, although the building will be able to accommodate a ‘changing places’ facility, there is not the funding for it at this time. The current timescale for the accessible toilet being ready is between September 2021 and Spring 2022 – this has slipped a little, although Govia Thameslink Railway stressed that they are hoping it will be September. We had previously raised concerns about the lack of adequate shelter at the bus stations, with the original plans only having a solitary shelter. We are pleased to say that, after speaking to both the design team and the case officer, there has been some movement on this and there are likely to be additional shelters on the Eastern edge of the bus station. The not so good news There was considerable discussion about the lack of a toilet available for use by all passengers, both bus and rail. I said I was very disappointed that we are spending a considerable sum of money on the whole project and yet we are quibbling about a single additional toilet facility, which would make such a difference both to the passengers and bus drivers who will use the hub. We will press firmly for money to be made available for this facility. We also expressed disappointment, shared by the Town Council representatives, that there were no plans to staff the interchange. This would greatly improve the experience of passengers, as well as allay any security concerns. We asked that both the bus and rail companies look into this. It is vital that the transport hub is as welcoming and user-friendly as possible, both to assist passengers who may need any help and encourage a shift away from the car, vital to playing our part in combatting climate change. It was striking that the concept of a staffed transport hub seemed somewhat alien to some of those attending the meeting, and it is clear we will need to apply further pressure in this area. The issue of the lack of space for the bus element of the interchange was raised again, as it severely limits the scope of what can be included. I have some sympathy with the Central Bedfordshire Council planners, as they have been hemmed in by the Network Rail land which lies to the East of the bus interchange site, an area Network Rail seem very unwilling to give up even a narrow strip. I understand this area is used by Network Rail during engineering works to store materials and equipment, but I don’t believe that giving up a two metre strip of this land will hinder this facility. I’ve yet to receive an answer why this piece of land is being defended so strongly, but we will persist in asking the question, although with time running out it may be too late to improve the interchange in the short term. Site Visit today Our team spent an hour at the transport hub site today discussing a number of issues with Central Bedfordshire Council officials – the Case Officer for the planning application, as well as a Highways Officer. Firstly, we raised the significant problems that are caused by ‘informal crossings’ (of which there are three in the current plans) particularly for people who are visually impaired. Our team has considerable knowledge and experience of campaigning on this issue. We set out how their ‘lived experience’ of the drawbacks to this style of crossing which purely uses coloured material to denote the crossing, and has no legal standing in terms of road traffic being required to stop at it. We asked that there is a rethink to the type of crossings used as well as their location – particularly the crossing which is located at the end of Palace St which could be obstructed by vehicles turning right into Saffron Way. We asked whether there has been an ‘Equality Impact Assessment’ for the scheme, which is a legal requirement. There was no evidence that one has been completed to date. We also asked if the bus companies who will use the interchange had been consulted and whether bus users had been asked their views on the scheme. Again it was not clear if this had taken place as we do not have any evidence to suggest it had. There was a discussion about the accessibility of the island platform within the bus interchange for wheelchair users and visually impaired people as space was very limited. Again, we stressed the importance of making the bus interchange a welcoming place, which is perceived to be safe to use. If people don’t feel safe, or they know if it is raining they will get soaking wet, people will either stick with their cars, or not use the station at all. Next Steps I spoke to Richard Fuller MP this morning about the hub and also bumped into the Mayor of Biggleswade. just prior to our site visit. I will continue to liaise with them both to press for improvements to the current scheme, as they are also very keen to get the best scheme for Biggleswade. We will also be keeping in touch with Central Bedfordshire Council regarding potential amendments to the current plans. We will have the opportunity to speak at the planning meeting (three minutes total!) although we want the remaining issues sorted by then, as when it gets to planning meeting stage everything is pretty much done and dusted. If you are a current bus user, or would be a potential user of the bus interchange, we would welcome your views. Do get in touch with us at bedsrailaccessnetwork@gmail.com You can take a look at the current plans in full here: Central Bedfordshire Council Planning Pages Further updates to come as we get them. Julian Vaughan Chair, Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 11th May 2021 #stepfreeaccess #integratedtransport #biggleswade #buses #publictransport

In spite of some very good mayoral results and some welcome Labour gains dotted around in Southern England in places such as Kent, Worthing and Chipping Norton, overall it was a grim picture for Labour in last week’s elections. Further, by the time the good news of mayoral results had come through the headlines had already been written, and the stupendously bad timing of the alleged sacking of Angela Rayner meant that these barely registered across the media. I voted for Keir Starmer, one of the considerable number of Corbyn/Starmer switchers, and in spite of what I say below, I still believe he has the potential to revive Labour’s fortunes, although the odds on this actually happening are lengthening dramatically. At some point in the future there will be a bitter realisation among the new Tory voters that they have been sold a pup. There will be a great deal of anger, and at this point Labour must make sure they are not just a credible alternative, but an inspirational one. However, they won’t do this by heading further to the centre ground and just offering ‘Tory-lite’ with all the nasty bits chopped off. There will need to be an ocean of clear water between the Tories and Labour, otherwise we’ll either get tarred with the same brush and won’t be able to offer a radical enough alternative to persuade the voters to return, otherwise the political vacuum will be filled by other parties. It seems at the moment that Labour don’t realise the scale of the challenge they are facing and the fundamental changes that have taken place within the Tory Party. Sensible heads such as my previous adversary Alistair Burt have all but disappeared as they dismantle the very foundations of our democracy and continue to trash our global reputation. You can read a previous blog on how the Tories are applying a scorched earth approach to the checks and balances of our democracy here and it’s alarming that they are looking to revert back to ‘First Past the Post’ for mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections. We seem to be fighting the battles of the last war, and it now appears with the generals of a past age. This is a battle and we will only win it with a bold approach, otherwise we will be brushed aside as an irrelevance. I fully understood the approach early on in the pandemic that the unprecedented national emergency required a united front. However, the numerous unforced errors deserved a far tougher approach and the gloves only seem to come off when Tory sleaze became an issue and this was overshadowed by the inevitable ‘vaccine bounce’. Labour went into the local elections without any policies other than a vague call to ‘vote Labour to save the NHS’. The NHS is rightly revered in the UK, but we don’t spend all our time in hospitals. Labour have failed to provide a vision about how their policies will improve our day to day lives. Lobbing in the NHS as a safe card to play was both lazy and irrelevant. Instead we were left with fluffy lines such as the following… “The best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in”…”A powerful Labour voice standing up for your communities”…” forge a new contract with the British people”…”standing up for working people and our communities”…”A relentless focus on jobs”. All very worthy statements, and I’m aware that it’s tricky to avoid tag lines in politics, but these were not backed up with a shred of policy detail about how these were going to be achieved, and why they were needed. When we were specifically asked about supporting NHS staff we wouldn’t commit to anything above a 2% pay rise – hardly the stuff of dreams that will result in hordes of voters marching down to the polling stations impatient to put their cross next to a Labour candidate. We need to set out what our policies are, why they are needed, and how they will improve our day to day lives. They need to be communicated with simple and crystal clear messaging. Above all we need to be authentic, rather than chasing votes and telling people want we think they want to hear. Let’s ditch the focus groups and embed ourselves in the communities with Labour run community hubs. Labour should promote the benefits of community, and apply these same values of tolerance and respect within the Labour Party. The endless tit for tat within the Party must come to an end and there must be compromise on both sides. A broad coalition will be needed to have any chance of ousting a Conservative government at the next election. A tough ask with unity, an impossible one without it. Internal squabbling is a luxury we certainly can’t afford. "Post-2008, the Tory Party has been the first to reorganise itself and capitalise on the changes to demographics and the voting system that we have and they are smashing us" Labour MP Clive Lewis says his party needs to "be authentic"#BBCElections https://t.co/Is1iTZE7R3 pic.twitter.com/pQwZjAIMVh — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 8, 2021 Norwich South MP Clive Lewis nails the importance of being authentic in politics The current policy vacuum is particularly concerning the left of the Party, who look at the 10 pledges made by Starmer, and in the absence of any clear direction suspect a U-turn on the policy commitments contained within them. This needs to be sorted by the Autumn at the latest. Corbyn should have the Whip restored, the ongoing suspension just looks vindictive and antagonises a membership who have been loyal foot soldiers for the essential ground campaigns. Labour’s heartlands do not exist anymore and we must adapt our policies to a world of work that has transformed from the days of heavy industry. The pandemic has shown us the importance of social contact and we should create a coherent set of policies that support the institutions that bind communities, from pubs, to sports facilities, to youth clubs. We must take on the looming climate disaster with policies that de-carbonise the UK while at the same time promoting the benefits of a more sustainable way of life. Above all we must be bold! #community #democracy #labour #labourparty