Martin Tod

We’re all stunned by the great results of the elections last Thursday:

• More votes and more seats in the Winchester District and the new Winchester constituency than the Tories
• Highest Lib Dem share of the vote in Winchester district or county elections since 1998 
• Swing from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats for the second year running

We knew that our campaign for a greener, fairer and safer Winchester was getting a strong response - and that people were reacting well to the strong record of our candidates - but getting the highest vote for 10 years was more than we expected!

The picture in the new Winchester Constituency was even better: 49% of the vote, vs only 43% for the Conservatives, and 12 out of 17 seats.  Unfortunately we missed winning Hiltingbury West by only 20 votes or it would have been 13 out of 17 seats.

Even if you include the latest results from the wards which weren’t up this year (which are all Conservative), we still beat the Tories by 48% to 44%.

Overall, a very encouraging night.  And a big thank you owed to all the people who worked so incredibly hard and, most of all, to all the people who voted for us on Thursday.

Post-note: I’ve just checked the County Results.  Our results outperformed those as well - so I’ve updated the post accordingly.

Back in March 2006, Winchester City Council, then led by the Lib Dems, put forward a carbon management programme which committed the City Council to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2012.

It had clear targets.

It had a clear baseline measurement to compare against.

And it laid out a draft implementation plan to kick off the process of delivering those targets.

The Conservatives took over control of the council a few weeks later.. and since then - silence.

Their recently published strategy paper - Live for the Future: Tackling Climate Change - and the accompanying action plan - make no reference to these previously agreed targets - nor do they set any targets to replace them. Indeed, one of its most disappointing features is that the strategy paper sets almost no targets for anything.

So, while it’s good that the Council is thinking about CO₂ levels for the District as a whole, it’s not enough. They need to start by putting their own house in order.

Rather than scrapping, sidelining or ignoring their CO₂ target, the Council should be strengthening it.

Lib Dem-led Eastleigh Borough Council is aiming for Carbon Neutrality: I’d love to see Winchester City Council do the same.

Back in February, Keith House set the ambitious goal of making Lib Dem-led Eastleigh Borough Council a zero carbon council by 2012. This builds on Eastleigh’s climate change action plan launched in 2005.

Given the recent coverage of Winchester’s environmental footprint, you’d hope that our City Council would be thinking in similarly ambitious terms.

Last Wednesday, the Conservatives in Winchester agreed their plans for Winchester City Council (’Live for the Future: Tackling Climate Change‘).

And their target for CO₂ reductions by Winchester City Council?

They haven’t set one. There is no target for CO₂ reductions by Winchester City Council in the climate change strategy they agreed last Wednesday!

The document is an embarrassment.

It sets one overall target - to reduce CO₂ emissions for the overall district by 30% by 2012 (even though much of what needs to be done to achieve this is outside their control and this target is barely more than the Government required minimum).

There are some specific targets on housing - although these are mostly inherited from the Lib Dem administration or mandated by government.

And then… nothing.

The officers have come up with a long list of useful ideas, but there is a complete absence of any serious overall framework and of any political commitment or leadership.

Almost all the feedback they have received has been fobbed off with waffle.

Overall, there is:

• No target for any City Council activities.
• No target for Renewable Energy.
• No target for Transport.
• No target for Adaptation Planning.
• No target for community involvement.

The one encouraging decision from the Council was to provide some grant funding to Winchester Action on Climate Change. I’ve been involved with WinACC since the initial meeting back in July and working as part of the Communications team to get the WinACC website ready for launch. (One of my contributions was the abbreviation ‘WinACC’, after it turned out that the WACC web addresses were taken by the World Association for Christian Communication and the Wichita Chamber of Commerce). It’s good to see all the work by WinACC volunteers (from all parties and none), especially the Convenor Robert Hutchison, recognised with some funding.

But, funding WinACC is not a substitute for serious leadership on climate change from the city council. And sadly, that is now proven to be seriously lacking.

After a day canvassing in St Paul’s, off to the Guildhall for the Winchester Town Forum (which, somewhat confusingly, covers the city wards of the Winchester City Council district). The big issue of the day proves to be the funding arrangements for the new all-weather sports facilities being developed by the University and the City Council in partnership.

The plan for the new sports facilities was originally put in place when we ran the council. The Conservatives have taken it over, but have introduced some rather strange funding arrangements. Despite recognising that it is going to be a district facility, they’ve decided the city should pick up the tab for all of the district’s contribution to the project, even though this means setting up an unusual pseudo-loan arrangement and emptying the city’s Open Space Fund sports budget for the foreseeable future to ‘pay it back’. At the same time, the rural budget, which could help cover the cost, remains untouched.

Our councillors, and thus the majority of the ‘town’ forum, backed the sports facility plans but voted against the unusual and unnecessary funding arrangement - however, the Conservative cabinet (which only has members from outside the city) have promised to overrule them, presumably to make sure that the rural areas they represent can still pay nothing.

No real surprise there then. Despite everything we may hear about how the Conservatives are changing, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence for it on the ground in Winchester.

After three back-to-back meetings in Westminster, down to Winchester to a full meeting of the city council.

It was particularly interesting to see the Tories tieing themselves in knots about establishment of 20 mph traffic zones. While most of those that spoke appeared to be in favour of these (although some , while sounding positive, appeared to want to push them into bureaucratic long grass), it turned out that the biggest obstacle to their introduction was…. the Conservative administration of Hampshire County Council. The introduction of Homezones and 20 mph speed limits in residential areas turn out to be yet another area where the Conservatives running the county council are not listening to local people - not even their own local people!

I’ve been a big fan of Home Zones since I saw them in action when living in Germany in the 1990s. One of the country’s first home zones, the Five Roads Home Zone, was just outside the constituency I fought in 2001. They’re safer for children, better for the environment and rebalance the roads more in favour of pedestrians and cyclists. While obviously they shouldn’t be introduced without the support of local people, where there is that support, I’d like to see them introduced as widely and quickly as possible.

The other item of interest was the appointment of Cllr. Wood to take over the planning portfolio on the cabinet following the high profile resignation of Cllr. Lipscomb.

What was striking here was the desire of those present (both Conservative and Liberal Democrat) to be able to ask a series of questions of Cllr. Wood about his background and experience, but the inability of the standing orders to allow them to do so.

It struck me that this might be a suitable opportunity for US-style public confirmation hearings - perhaps organised via the scrutiny committee?

I would like see a greater role for confirmation hearings in both local and national government. It’s a greater need in national government where the link between quangos and the public often appears weaker than the link between quangos and their associated minister. My view of quangos for some time is that they should either be abolished, or elected, or the people on them confirmed in public hearings. The current situation where they are appointed by ministers with relatively little scrutiny is not adequate for a modern democratic society.