Sunday, 29 November 2009
Making microgeneration easier
It was pointed out to me last week that VAT is charged on household energy efficiency and production equipment - things like solar panels, heat exchangers and so on. Given that we need to be encouraging people to take this sort of thing up, wouldn't a very easy step be to axe the VAT on them, cutting the cost by 15% instantly? The amount of VAT this generates for the government must be tiny in the big scheme of things, but it could well make the difference for a houseowner between fitting them and not. Stephen Williams, my friendly local Lib Dem MP, has agreed to ask a parliamentary question of the Chancellor to find out whether this could happen and, if not, why not. I will report back in due course...
Friday, 27 November 2009
Out and about on licensing patrol
I spent three hours last night with the Police and Council licensing officer visiting pubs and restaurants in Cotham to check that they were abiding by the conditions of their licences and that they were meeting the various legal requirements. My colleague Councillor Anthony Negus did the same a couple of weeks ago - licensed premises are such an important part of the landscape of Cotham that we wanted to see for ourselves how the system works.
We checked up on, I think, seven places last night. The list is pretty much randomly chosen from the several dozen licensed premises. The places don't know that the patrol is coming and we just came in through the front door, often attracting some strange looks and the occasional comment from the customers. We then checked to see that the staff had the correct documentation, that the CCTV system was working, that there was the correct signage up, that the fire exits were usable, that there was no sign of illegal activity and so on. Obviously, my role in all this was just to observe.
I was really impressed by the professional but non-threatening way in which the checks were undertaken. Some of the staff were clearly somewhat nervous about us turning up, but everything was dealt with with good humour and understanding. Part of my rationale for going along was to see that this part of the Council's responsibilities are being discharged correctly and I am very happy to report that they certainly were last night.
In every one of the seven places that we visited last night we found some breaches of their licence. These were generally very minor things like not having the correct certificates on display or not having up signs asking people to leave quietly, but there were also some more significant things like fire routes being inaccessible, all which will now be rectified. Anthony found some real stinkers when he was out a fortnight ago, but my experience was fortunately less extreme! A couple of establishments in Cotham (I won't name them for obvious reasons) are currently drifting fast towards prosecution, so the Council and Police are quite able and willing to act strongly where necessary.
We checked up on, I think, seven places last night. The list is pretty much randomly chosen from the several dozen licensed premises. The places don't know that the patrol is coming and we just came in through the front door, often attracting some strange looks and the occasional comment from the customers. We then checked to see that the staff had the correct documentation, that the CCTV system was working, that there was the correct signage up, that the fire exits were usable, that there was no sign of illegal activity and so on. Obviously, my role in all this was just to observe.
I was really impressed by the professional but non-threatening way in which the checks were undertaken. Some of the staff were clearly somewhat nervous about us turning up, but everything was dealt with with good humour and understanding. Part of my rationale for going along was to see that this part of the Council's responsibilities are being discharged correctly and I am very happy to report that they certainly were last night.
In every one of the seven places that we visited last night we found some breaches of their licence. These were generally very minor things like not having the correct certificates on display or not having up signs asking people to leave quietly, but there were also some more significant things like fire routes being inaccessible, all which will now be rectified. Anthony found some real stinkers when he was out a fortnight ago, but my experience was fortunately less extreme! A couple of establishments in Cotham (I won't name them for obvious reasons) are currently drifting fast towards prosecution, so the Council and Police are quite able and willing to act strongly where necessary.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Councillors to get say on local licensing
In a minor point from the Queen's Speech, there was some good news. The government is planning to change the law to allow local councillors to take an official view on license applications in their areas for the first time. At the moment, it is only the Police, various other agencies and very local residents who can object to (or support!) an application. This leads to the frankly silly situation where I have to get a local resident to nominate me as their representative if I want to go to a licensing hearing! Let's hope this doesn't get lost in the General Election turmoil.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Heritage vs Sustainability
I have just had a fascinating two-hour chat with one of the residents of my ward about sustainability in historic buildings. He's an architect and lives in a 150 year old Listed Building in Cotham, on which he has recently spent a large amount of money to bring it up to extremely high standards in terms of energy efficiency.
We started off talking about why the Council made it so difficult for him to do what he has done. They had rejected a series of planning applications for the work to his house, saying that it would damage the historic features of the building. Fortunately the planning inspector saw sense and granted him permission on appeal, although he still wasn't able to install the solar panel that he wanted in the way he wanted.
This is representative of a wider problem, with a growing tension between heritage and sustainability. (I think I may have blogged on this before, but I can't be bothered to go back and check through.) Anyway, heritage legislation and especially English Heritage are a real blockage to people making sensible alterations to their homes to make them fit for the future. We need people to have living homes that recognise the source and effects of climate change and which enable them to adapt to the inevitable increases in energy prices that we will all see in the coming decade.
On the basis of the meeting, I am going to commission a review of how the Council implements guidelines relating to historic buildings and conservation areas (like Cotham) to make sure that we are taking a common sense and scientifically valid approach. I am very confident that we can achieve things in Bristol that make progress on this agenda and shift the balance more towards sustainability, although the bigger problem is at the national level.
I am also going to look in more detail at what we can do to persuade people in older and more valuable homes to invest in energy efficiency measures. At the moment, the high upfront costs and the red tape are deterring people - on the latter point, I know of several people now who have left gone ahead and done things without permission because the process was becoming so torturous. There must be things that the Council can do to reduce the cost element too - I know that other places offer loans, for example, and I have asked officers to look into how best to make this work here.
As always, ideas, suggestions and examples very welcome!
We started off talking about why the Council made it so difficult for him to do what he has done. They had rejected a series of planning applications for the work to his house, saying that it would damage the historic features of the building. Fortunately the planning inspector saw sense and granted him permission on appeal, although he still wasn't able to install the solar panel that he wanted in the way he wanted.
This is representative of a wider problem, with a growing tension between heritage and sustainability. (I think I may have blogged on this before, but I can't be bothered to go back and check through.) Anyway, heritage legislation and especially English Heritage are a real blockage to people making sensible alterations to their homes to make them fit for the future. We need people to have living homes that recognise the source and effects of climate change and which enable them to adapt to the inevitable increases in energy prices that we will all see in the coming decade.
On the basis of the meeting, I am going to commission a review of how the Council implements guidelines relating to historic buildings and conservation areas (like Cotham) to make sure that we are taking a common sense and scientifically valid approach. I am very confident that we can achieve things in Bristol that make progress on this agenda and shift the balance more towards sustainability, although the bigger problem is at the national level.
I am also going to look in more detail at what we can do to persuade people in older and more valuable homes to invest in energy efficiency measures. At the moment, the high upfront costs and the red tape are deterring people - on the latter point, I know of several people now who have left gone ahead and done things without permission because the process was becoming so torturous. There must be things that the Council can do to reduce the cost element too - I know that other places offer loans, for example, and I have asked officers to look into how best to make this work here.
As always, ideas, suggestions and examples very welcome!
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Fares reduced on 8 and 9 service
I've just received an e-mail this morning from First Bus saying that they have temporarily cut fares on the 8 and 9 bus routes that serve the Cotham area. I don't know the detail, so I've just copy-and-pasted the message in below:
"I am writing to let you know about a very positive development we have introduced on Services 8 and 9 in Bristol from today (Monday 16 November).
We are reducing all our adult return fares on these services in a promotion that will continue until 27 March 2010. This means that customers will be able to travel from as little as 75p per journey when they buy a return ticket. There will also be no difference between peak and off peak prices. Child fares and singles will not be changing.
I hope you will welcome this promotion, which is a real investment on our part into making buses an attractive travel option. These fare reductions are aimed at stimulating trade as the difficult economic circumstances continue. We will of course be monitoring our customer numbers closely, and let you know how successful this proves to be.
This promotion marks the introduction of 12 brand new buses on services 8 and 9 representing an investment of £120,000 for each bus. The current buses will be moved onto Services 24 and 25 shortly making these easy access low floor routes, which in turn will make travelling easier for people with wheelchairs and pushchairs."
This sounds like good news, but don't shoot the messenger if it isn't as good as it sounds!
"I am writing to let you know about a very positive development we have introduced on Services 8 and 9 in Bristol from today (Monday 16 November).
We are reducing all our adult return fares on these services in a promotion that will continue until 27 March 2010. This means that customers will be able to travel from as little as 75p per journey when they buy a return ticket. There will also be no difference between peak and off peak prices. Child fares and singles will not be changing.
I hope you will welcome this promotion, which is a real investment on our part into making buses an attractive travel option. These fare reductions are aimed at stimulating trade as the difficult economic circumstances continue. We will of course be monitoring our customer numbers closely, and let you know how successful this proves to be.
This promotion marks the introduction of 12 brand new buses on services 8 and 9 representing an investment of £120,000 for each bus. The current buses will be moved onto Services 24 and 25 shortly making these easy access low floor routes, which in turn will make travelling easier for people with wheelchairs and pushchairs."
This sounds like good news, but don't shoot the messenger if it isn't as good as it sounds!
Friday, 13 November 2009
Tory councils shoot Integrated Transport Authority
Tory councillors from South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and BANES yesterday effectively ended any immediate prospect of Bristol and the surrounding area getting an Integrated Transport Authority in the near future.
Integrated Transport Authorities (formerly Passenger Transport Executives) are democratic structures that sit above individual councils to focus regional efforts to improve transport provision. The government gives them extra powers and funding to improve the infrastructure, open new services and generally co-ordinate things in ways that single councils acting alone cannot do, especially given the arbitrary political boundaries. They have been instrumental in improving public transport in places like South Yorkshire and Tyneside.
Progressing an Integrated Transport Authority for the wider Bristol area was one of the key recommendations of the Sustainable Travel Select Committee that I chaired last year and it also had cross-party support within in Bristol through a motion to Full Council. It is also one of the primary aims of the Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance pressure group - I supported their manifesto when I was elected in 2007.
Yesterday, a proposal (from Bristol Lib Dem Jon Rogers) to investigate an Integrated Transport Authority was defeated 3-1 by the Tory transport leads on the three surrounding councils. Very disappointing news and a symbol that they just want business-as-usual and not some new thinking about transport - remember, it was only an investigation that they vetoed. (For the sake of completeness and honesty, I should mention that my Lib Dem colleagues in South Gloucestershire are also opposed, though I remain baffled as to why.) It looks like the elections in 2011 will be the first opportunity to potentially move this forwards - Bristol needs at least one local 'friend' to be able to set up an Integrated Transport Authority.
This isn't a fatal blow to Bristol's aspirations for a better transport system, but it is certainly a setback. Councils working together are far more powerful, especially when we know that many of the city's transport problems span the city boundary. An Integrated Transport Authority would have given us collectively far more control over the bus services in and around the city, as well as a greater role in suburban rail. It was the Tories who privatised both these industries with disastrous consequences, leaving councils very little power to work in the best interests of residents, commuters and local businesses.
Integrated Transport Authorities (formerly Passenger Transport Executives) are democratic structures that sit above individual councils to focus regional efforts to improve transport provision. The government gives them extra powers and funding to improve the infrastructure, open new services and generally co-ordinate things in ways that single councils acting alone cannot do, especially given the arbitrary political boundaries. They have been instrumental in improving public transport in places like South Yorkshire and Tyneside.
Progressing an Integrated Transport Authority for the wider Bristol area was one of the key recommendations of the Sustainable Travel Select Committee that I chaired last year and it also had cross-party support within in Bristol through a motion to Full Council. It is also one of the primary aims of the Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance pressure group - I supported their manifesto when I was elected in 2007.
Yesterday, a proposal (from Bristol Lib Dem Jon Rogers) to investigate an Integrated Transport Authority was defeated 3-1 by the Tory transport leads on the three surrounding councils. Very disappointing news and a symbol that they just want business-as-usual and not some new thinking about transport - remember, it was only an investigation that they vetoed. (For the sake of completeness and honesty, I should mention that my Lib Dem colleagues in South Gloucestershire are also opposed, though I remain baffled as to why.) It looks like the elections in 2011 will be the first opportunity to potentially move this forwards - Bristol needs at least one local 'friend' to be able to set up an Integrated Transport Authority.
This isn't a fatal blow to Bristol's aspirations for a better transport system, but it is certainly a setback. Councils working together are far more powerful, especially when we know that many of the city's transport problems span the city boundary. An Integrated Transport Authority would have given us collectively far more control over the bus services in and around the city, as well as a greater role in suburban rail. It was the Tories who privatised both these industries with disastrous consequences, leaving councils very little power to work in the best interests of residents, commuters and local businesses.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Tories call for traveller site chaos
I missed a fun bit from my Full Council synopsis! Tory Avonmouth councillor Siobhan Kennedy-Hall used the debate on the Core Strategy (see previous posting) to air her 'interesting' views on the Council's provision of transit sites for gypsies and travellers.
Her view, in a nutshell and wrapped up in some right-wing and not-very-progressive rhetoric, is that the Council should not spend taxpayers' money providing a transit site which just gets trashed by the ungrateful users. Leaving aside the fact that this was, I believe, the first time the Tories had mentioned this during the three year process of developing the Core Strategy, when there is a cross-party panel (which I chair) to discuss issues of contension, this was a singularly stupid and/or ill-informed line of argument.
Aside from the moral position, the Council has a duty to provide transit sites. If it fails to make adequate provision, there are no legal powers to remove travellers from other land, leading to very expensive legal action and costing the taxpayer a small king's ransom. I think the current legal framework was actually brought in by the last Conservative government, but I might be wrong. In any case, it would be truly bizarre for Bristol not to make provision, in common with other local authorities, and it would lead to absolute chaos. Yes, there is a cost, but it is dwarfed by the risky alternative. Labour's John Bees did an excellent job of slapping Siobhan Kennedy-Hall down, reinforced by Lib Dem Jon Rogers.
What I wasn't clear about was whether this was an official Bristol Tory position. Leader Richard Eddy and a couple of others were busy nodding along, while the eminently sensible Barbara Lewis had a look of quiet despair on her face. Either way, it's pretty clear that the Nasty Party is live and kicking in Bristol.
On a similar track, at the last Full Council meeting, Frome Vale Tory councillor James Stevenson heckled and shook his head throughout a speech supporting Alphonse Daudet Touna's application to remain in the UK. For those that don't know, Alphonse is a musician who does a lot of work for Bristol schools and is regarded as a real community asset - he's recently been given permission to stay after a lengthy appeal process, which is great news for the cultural life of the city!
Her view, in a nutshell and wrapped up in some right-wing and not-very-progressive rhetoric, is that the Council should not spend taxpayers' money providing a transit site which just gets trashed by the ungrateful users. Leaving aside the fact that this was, I believe, the first time the Tories had mentioned this during the three year process of developing the Core Strategy, when there is a cross-party panel (which I chair) to discuss issues of contension, this was a singularly stupid and/or ill-informed line of argument.
Aside from the moral position, the Council has a duty to provide transit sites. If it fails to make adequate provision, there are no legal powers to remove travellers from other land, leading to very expensive legal action and costing the taxpayer a small king's ransom. I think the current legal framework was actually brought in by the last Conservative government, but I might be wrong. In any case, it would be truly bizarre for Bristol not to make provision, in common with other local authorities, and it would lead to absolute chaos. Yes, there is a cost, but it is dwarfed by the risky alternative. Labour's John Bees did an excellent job of slapping Siobhan Kennedy-Hall down, reinforced by Lib Dem Jon Rogers.
What I wasn't clear about was whether this was an official Bristol Tory position. Leader Richard Eddy and a couple of others were busy nodding along, while the eminently sensible Barbara Lewis had a look of quiet despair on her face. Either way, it's pretty clear that the Nasty Party is live and kicking in Bristol.
On a similar track, at the last Full Council meeting, Frome Vale Tory councillor James Stevenson heckled and shook his head throughout a speech supporting Alphonse Daudet Touna's application to remain in the UK. For those that don't know, Alphonse is a musician who does a lot of work for Bristol schools and is regarded as a real community asset - he's recently been given permission to stay after a lengthy appeal process, which is great news for the cultural life of the city!
Council gets serious, then silly and then serious again
Yesterday's Full Council meeting weighed in at a mighty five and a half hours. I guess that some people might be under the misapprehension that we councillors crave and enjoy this, but I can assure you that I always emerge with a tender headache and a sense of time that could have been better spent. That's not to say that these meeting are not important (see below), but you can't help feeling that there would be another way to conduct the business. Answers on a postcard, please...
The highlights from my perspective from last night's meeting were :
The highlights from my perspective from last night's meeting were :
- The approval of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy. Big mouthful, but the potted highlights are (a) no scheduled loss of Green Belt for at least 10 years - Labour had earmarked around 100 acres to go, (b) Merton Rule Mark 2 approved to compel energy efficient new buildings and onsite renewable energy production, (c) protection of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path as part of the city's 'green infrastructure', (d) new rules to improve the amount and distribution of affordable housing, focusing on more affluent areas, and (e) new definition of 'community facilities' to include things like post offices and pubs, making it harder for them to be converted into other things.
- The approval to move forwards with the Gloucester Road Cumulative Impact Area. This mirrors what already happens on Whiteladies Road and is a piece of policy that limits the number of new licensed premises (esp. alcohol and take away food) that can be in a specific area. The proposed new one will include Gloucester Road from roughly The Arches to Ashley Down Road (with some extra bits), part of which is in Cotham Ward. The Whiteladies Road CIA works very well to limit nuisance to residents, although there are problems with it which I am trying to address at the moment, largely due to the rather rubbish piece of national legislation (Licensing Act 2003) that created the concept.
- A brief silly interlude about voting systems, with Labour and the Tories trying to switch from the current system to having 'all-up' elections every four years. I don't have a strong personal view on this, but there is certainly no compelling evidence that any frequency is better than the other. The fundamental problem is with not having proportional representation - there is no point in tinkering when the whole foundation is deeply flawed. Anyway, the bit I enjoyed was when Tory Peter Abraham pointed out that Labour buried a previous opportunity to switch systems when they were in power and so only now want to change the system after they lost! Bizarrely, I also noted that the Green Party councillor voted against our amendment calling for proportional representation.
- Cross-party backing for my motion on Get Serious on CO2. This commits the Council to working towards a 40% reduction in carbon emissions for Bristol as a whole by 2020 and it is part of a wider campaign by Friends of the Earth. Despite Labour trying to renege on a deal to allow time for this to be discussed, it was passed through without opposition. We were also treated to a rather surreal exposition of how Labour are leading the way globally on climate change, despite carbon emissions rising in the 12 years that they've been in power.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Drugs policy crisis rumbles on
Three more independent advisers have quit following governmental interference in the running of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the sacking of its chair, Professor David Nutt. This is now a total of five that have gone, basically because Alan Johnson as Home Secretary couldn't stomach scientists disagreeing with his predetermined and evidence-blind policy on drugs. I wonder if a more plyable set of experts will step up to the plate or whether we'll see a U-turn?
P.S. It's well worth checking out Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog (and now book) on the issue of how the media and politicians misuse science around drugs policy. I'm just finishing the book at the moment and it's a very witty expose of exactly how poorly served we are by newspapers and television on science issues.
P.S. It's well worth checking out Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog (and now book) on the issue of how the media and politicians misuse science around drugs policy. I'm just finishing the book at the moment and it's a very witty expose of exactly how poorly served we are by newspapers and television on science issues.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Bigging up Bristol in Brussels
I've just finished a hectic round of meetings last night and this morning with European Commission officials in Brussels. I was passing through on my way to the Netherlands and I so it seemed like a good opportunity to stop off and talk about some of the ideas that we are playing with in Bristol at the moment around energy, peak oil, waste disposal and climate change.
Specifically, I was able to discuss funding opportunities around combined heat and power, district heating systems, climate adaptation, energy security and a possible hydrogen economy. The last topic is one that I have become very interested and involved in the last few months and I was lobbying the person who controls a £1bn EU fund for hydrogen-based research and development projects about whether they would allow applications for bids around water-based public transport. Encouragingly, the signs are good. I am a member of the BETS Hydrogen Strategy Board and I am looking forward to being able to report back on the opportunities.
It was great to be able to go into these meetings and be proud of Bristol's record. Our Green Capital status makes us a player on the European stage, even though there is much more to do. In a European context, the UK lags some way behind and there are hundreds of great ideas out there that we could and should be building on (i.e. stealing).
I'm off to Amsterdam on Sunday, including a trip to see their new hydrogen-powered ferry (plus some sightseeing), but in Dordrecht for the next few days at the European Quiz Championships.
Specifically, I was able to discuss funding opportunities around combined heat and power, district heating systems, climate adaptation, energy security and a possible hydrogen economy. The last topic is one that I have become very interested and involved in the last few months and I was lobbying the person who controls a £1bn EU fund for hydrogen-based research and development projects about whether they would allow applications for bids around water-based public transport. Encouragingly, the signs are good. I am a member of the BETS Hydrogen Strategy Board and I am looking forward to being able to report back on the opportunities.
It was great to be able to go into these meetings and be proud of Bristol's record. Our Green Capital status makes us a player on the European stage, even though there is much more to do. In a European context, the UK lags some way behind and there are hundreds of great ideas out there that we could and should be building on (i.e. stealing).
I'm off to Amsterdam on Sunday, including a trip to see their new hydrogen-powered ferry (plus some sightseeing), but in Dordrecht for the next few days at the European Quiz Championships.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Stadium and sustainability
I have just submitted my public statement for tomorrow's Development Control Committee (aka planning committee) about the proposed new Bristol City stadium at Ashton Vale.
I have focused entirely on the sustainability aspects of the application, which are really quite poor. I know that other people will be commenting on the higher profile aspects like transport and the use of Green Belt, so I wanted to focus my limited time on an area which would otherwise probably get little attention in the media hubbub.
In essence, the proposed stadium has very little in the way of sustainability features. It does have rainwater capture, which is good, but no commitment to a building standard (e.g. BREEAM), no onsite renewable energy and no specific energy efficiency features that I can see. This would clearly be a blow for our efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the city - a larger stadium, with more extra features, plus the redevelopment of the older site, will inevitably mean more carbon emissions.
From an interesting alternative angle, the FA (Football Association, for those not in the know) is making sustainability a key component of England's bid for the World Cup, along with diversity. As a result they have high expectations of what the host cities and their stadiums will be able to offer. Ironically then, the building of an unsustainable stadium could undermine the city's aspirations to host the World Cup, which as a football fan, I support.
The members of the planning committee will come up with their own decisions about the merits of the stadium application, but I hope that my statement will bring sustainability into their minds. It's the sort of thing that can be dealt with by imposing planning conditions, even if they are minded to accept the application.
I have focused entirely on the sustainability aspects of the application, which are really quite poor. I know that other people will be commenting on the higher profile aspects like transport and the use of Green Belt, so I wanted to focus my limited time on an area which would otherwise probably get little attention in the media hubbub.
In essence, the proposed stadium has very little in the way of sustainability features. It does have rainwater capture, which is good, but no commitment to a building standard (e.g. BREEAM), no onsite renewable energy and no specific energy efficiency features that I can see. This would clearly be a blow for our efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the city - a larger stadium, with more extra features, plus the redevelopment of the older site, will inevitably mean more carbon emissions.
From an interesting alternative angle, the FA (Football Association, for those not in the know) is making sustainability a key component of England's bid for the World Cup, along with diversity. As a result they have high expectations of what the host cities and their stadiums will be able to offer. Ironically then, the building of an unsustainable stadium could undermine the city's aspirations to host the World Cup, which as a football fan, I support.
The members of the planning committee will come up with their own decisions about the merits of the stadium application, but I hope that my statement will bring sustainability into their minds. It's the sort of thing that can be dealt with by imposing planning conditions, even if they are minded to accept the application.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Worry when scientists' heads start rolling
The controversy continues to build about Alan Johnson's disastrous handling of his scientific advisers on drugs. As predicted, other government advisers are now jumping ship after he sacked Professor David Nutt for talking good scientific sense on drugs. The latest appears to be that the whole of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs are threatening to stand down.To my mind, there is a failure of political process when a dogmatic position flies in the face of established evidence. Labour's approach to drug policy now appears to more like religion than science - let's decide a priori what the truth is and then try to find miracles to 'prove' it.
I was getting hopeful that this Labour government was starting to take a more grown up and informed approach to drugs, but it seems like the knee has well and truly jerked back. Maybe it's because there is a General Election in the air. It's also quite a constrast with the treatment of scientists who get the 'right' answer, like on gung-ho nuclear power.
Alarm bells always start to ring when a government starts ignoring its scientific advisers - and it isn't just Labour who are guilty. Perhaps most famously, Tory minister John Gummer (shown here apparently enjoying a nice burger with his young daughter) was busy promoting British beef as safe in 1990, even when government scientists had proved a link to BSE (aka Mad Cow Disease). People died then (and still are) and people will continue to die if the government doesn't get its drug policy sorted out.
I used to have a lot of political respect for Alan Johnson, but it's pretty much all gone after this fiasco of his own making and subsequent handling of it in the press.
UPDATE : now the government's Chief Scientific Adviser has come out to support Prof Nutt's view. Thank goodness for people of scientific integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)