Crushing the bureaucrats? - by Richard... Saturday, April 03, 2010

Crushing the bureaucrats? - by Richard... Saturday, April 03, 2010

In one of his more fatuous statements in today's article, the Boy King tells us:

The state is your servant, never your master. It should defend people from every threat – but it should not use that as a premise to infringe unnecessarily on the freedom of the individual. As far as humanly possible, it should crush bureaucracy and hand power to the people.

The fatuity is such that it prompted me to add a comment on the newspaper site, observing that bureaucracies, as such, were neither good nor evil. In fact, they are the lubricant of modern societies, without which they would not function.

Far from seeking to "crush" bureaucracy, therefore, I observed that the Boy should be seeking "a small, efficient and effective bureaucracy which delivers value for money."

As to infringing on the freedom of the individual, one man's freedom can be another man's restraint, so the issue is not quite as simple as The Boy would have it. The "freedom" to play very loud music in your home is to consign your neighbours to misery, in which context the role of the state is to act as arbiter and enforcer.

Similarly, to open a take-away restaurant might impinge mightily on the neighbourhood, to which effect the state, via local government planners, most certainly acts as the arbiter, giving or refusing permission depending on the circumstances.

No one would argue that this is not a valid role for a "bureaucracy". All we would ask is that the planning department did its job efficiently and effectively, at minimum cost.

And it was precisely that issue which had me last Tuesday in Bradford Town Hall addressing the Area Planning Committee (South), to oppose an application to turn a shop on the corner of the top of our road into a take-away. It had already been rejected twice, and turned down on appeal, but here it was again, and here we were again, the whole of the local community objecting to it.

It is a facet of planning law that, having had an application turned down, there is nothing to stop you modifying your plan and re-submitting it, and that is exactly what the local "entrepreneur" had done, whittling away the substantive issues until there were no grounds for rejection.

But there was remaining one such issue – road safety. A take-way would inevitably increase the amount of parking outside the premises, blocking the sight line for car exiting our street, making joining the main road extremely hazardous (pictured).

What, is ostensibly a minor local matter, however, turns out to have quite general application, striking at the very heart of the fatuity uttered by The Boy.

He would want the state "to defend people from every threat" (every threat?) but here we were, the whole community, wanting the state to do precisely that – defend us from an extremely hazardous situation, the scene of at least three accidents, occasioned in part by what was already an illegal action, parking "opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction."

And from herein onwards, we descend into the surreal. When the application was last refused and considered on appeal, the government inspector reviewed the road safety issue and concluded that, because the local authority had not placed any parking restrictions on the corner, then it cannot have had any material concerns about the safety issue.

That, in itself is remarkable – that a state official should, effectively, condone illegal parking, simply on the grounds that the local authority had not taken additionalmeasures to ensure compliance with the law. But it gets worse.

The appeal was dismissed on other grounds, so the inspector's ruling did not need to be challenged – not that we could have anyway. But they became material on the new application. With the original grounds for refusal (late opening hours) removed, that left only the traffic issue. And, because the inspector had ruled that there were no significant safety issues – citing the local authority lack of action – the officers decided to recommend approving the application.

Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the highways officer was asked whether there were any road safety issues. When he said "yes", agreeing with us about the hazards, he was asked why the application had been recommended for approval. The answer: because the inspector had ruled that there were no significant safety issues.

Thus, we had a closed loop. Although the local authority had concerns, the inspector had ruled, effectively, that they did not. And because of that ruling, the local authority officers, despite still having concerns, decided they did not wish to contest the application.

This, then left the elected councillors to make the decision. But they were informed by their officers that, if they rejected the application on road safety grounds, and there was another appeal – which was upheld – the local authority would have to pay compensation to the applicant. Thus, to avoid the risk of having to pay our a large sum of money, rather than revisit the safety issue and accept the arguments against the flawed original ruling , the elected members decided to grant the application.

Needless to say, the problem would not arise if the road traffic law was enforced, but with the local constabulary obsessed with revenue generating speed enforcement, such issues are never addressed. But, while there is a general lack of enforcement in this area, one notes a considerable enthusiasm for enforcement when it comes to ensuring that Council Taxes are paid.

Such then is the reality, in a very small way on a very small issue, of the way the local bureaucracy works. It is very distant from The Boy's image, but one that has left about forty people extremely dissatisfied and, doubtless, unimpressed with the Boy's vapours.

But the bottom line is that we were failed mot by the officials but by the elected councillors, who lacked the intelligence and guts to support the local residents against the officers - instructing the officers to review their own stance. It is they, the councillors, who we would happily "crush" and may yet do so, figuratively at least, at the next election. The chairman of the committee was a Tory, and the help we received was from two Labour councillors.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Personality politics - by Richard...

Here we go again, the Boy King bleating away in The Daily Telegraph:

The past four years have felt like the longest job interview in the world. If I am asking to lead their country, then people have a right to know more about me. It would be naive not to accept this in an age of YouTube and Twitter. Some voters might not like this approach, but the personal is political. The experiences that shaped me have influenced my life, my ideas and my ideals.

Nah ... the personal is not the political. Political means policies, policies means choice and choice means decisions. An electoral system requires that we, the voters, make choices, not on personalities but on policies. But, in a strictly policy-lite article, all we get is the usual fluff ...

But quite apart from the values my family taught me, it was their love that left the greatest impression on me. Nothing beats the strength of a family, willing you on when things are going right, picking up the pieces when things go wrong. And again last year, when Sam and I lost our precious son, their support helped carry us through the darkest days.

Oh, pl-eeeeze. This is beyond embarrassing. It is sick. And this is a man who wants to be prime minister? He expects us to vote for him?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

"Passionate" about climate change? - by Richard...

Ed Miliband says: "It's vital at this election that the voice of young people is heard. I hope they will reject a Conservative party that has nothing to offer them and support Labour's future fair for all young people. They are passionate about issues including climate change, safer streets and Britain's future as a hi-tech economy. Labour will continue to listen to young people and deliver real support to help them get on in life."

Let's see now – Ed Miliband is secretary of state for which department? And he thinks "young people" (bit patronising that - he's not that long out of nappies – physically at least) are "passionate" about issues including climate change. Well, that much he has in common withGeoffrey Lean, which says something about them both ... not sure what, but it says something.

By the way, who or what is a Gene Hunt? Nothing to do with the search for intelligence in the Conservative Party, I assume.

COMMENT THREAD