Selling our community down the drain; for 21p a week.

 

News of the £45,000 funding cut to the Mapledown School in Cricklewood is a damning indictment of where the Barnet Conservatives’ priority lies in our community. The erosion of support to the most vulnerable of society is the direct result of the cynical 1% council tax cut stunt and foreshadows the direction in which Barnet will travel if left in charge with the Tories. 

Only the Barnet Liberal Democrats are offering a genuine alternative to this 21p a week Tory and Labour windfall. By freezing council tax instead of cutting by 1%, the Barnet Liberal Democrats will free up £1.4 million that can be used effectively to support the needs of all members of the community. This additional cash will bring back the youth offer, reintroduce funding to our libraries and freeze the charges for Children Centre services. The Liberal Democrats put education at their heart by reducing the costs of educational welfare support in our local schools; a welcome boost to the welfare of our pupils that enhances the hundreds of thousands of pounds of Pupil Premium already delivered to Barnet Schools by Liberal Democrats in Government.

And that is not all. The reintroduction of neighbourhood wardens, community skips, better street lighting, 30 minute free parking at all town centres (not just the four that Labour can afford) and free Christmas weekend parking can all be paid for by freezing the council tax instead of the 1% tax cut gimmick. On May 22^nd residents do have a choice; a choice between the 21 pennies in their pocket or the provision of quality community services that can benefit all in Barnet.

Labour supports the Tories' unprogressive tax cut in Barnet

After the dust settles from last night's council meeting on the Barnet Budget lets have a look at who the 1% tax cut will benefit the most;

Values exclude GLA charges (2013/2014)

Band A - £742.13. Annual savings = £7.42
Band B - £865.82. Annual savings = £8.66
Band C - £989.51. Annual savings = £9.90
Band D - £1113.20. Annual savings = £11.13
Band E - £1360.58. Annual savings = £13.60
Band F - £1607.96. Annual savings = £16.08
Band G - £1855.33. Annual savings = £18.55
Band H - £2226.40. Annual savings = £22.26

So not only is this a pittance savings that will collectively short change Barnet of £1.4 million but it also helps the richest residents the most. A predictable policy from the Conservatives but from Labour?

1 in 4 Barnet flats left without recycling for six months

It is with great relief that standing to attention patiently at the end of my drive this afternoon was a shiny blue recycling bin. The joy this brings to me is embarrassing; this is because for the last six months I have been without a recycling service.

If you live in the area you will recall that the new recycling system was rolled out in October 2013 with the expectation that recycling tonnage will go up. Lets hope this is indeed the case. However as a resident of a purpose-built small block of flats (6-16 residents) I was told that I was not to get the new bins immediately and that the old box system was not to be collected. Not a good start. With the recent removal of the recycling bank at Daws Lane many flat residents in Mill Hill have been left with little option but to make a long trek to a recycling bank (many of which do not have plastic bins) or resort to sending their cardboard, glass and plastic to landfill.

My first thoughts were; how many other residents are in the same position as myself? The results from a FOI request (a very speedy service from Barnet and coincidentally returned on the same day as my wheelie-bin-of-joy) show a worrying absence of a recycling service for other residents in the Borough. Out of the estimated 141,480 residential properties in Barnet 37,500 are part of a block of flats with six or more dwellings. According to the FOI request 28,050 properties in flats have a recycling service; this results in 9,450 properties without recycling. Put it another way, 1 in 4 flats (and about 7% of total properties) have no option but to trash their recyclables.

In 2012/2013 Barnet managed to recycling a whopping 46373.83 tonnes of waste. Assuming an equal spread of across each property, the removal of recycling from 7% of properties for six months amounts to about 1500 tonnes of potential recycling sent elsewhere; an equivalent of 210 routemaster buses in weight.

Of course it is possible that recycling has increased since the introduction of the mixed-recycling system last October. But think of the missed opportunity to recycling more; the missed opportunity for 7% of our council tax paying community being unable to enjoy the benefit of kerb-side recycling.

This missed opportunity follows a growing list of disappointments from the current Conservative-controlled Council. The recent removal of recycling banks from Daws Lane and the revelation that as of 2015 the mixed-recycling scheme will have to be replaced with a separate recycling system to meet EU regulations on glass in recycled paper, are two oversights on our community recycling needs. It is unfortunate that the Tories will put an ideological 1% cut to council tax ahead of the provision of basic waste management systems for Barnet as some of the lost earnings could be used to fund more environmental wardens and a community skip service.

As I fill my recycling bin knowing its appearance is better late than never the question remains why it has taken so long to for these bins to be delivered.

Putin's Southern Gambit


It is of a nerving and perilous time that I start my political blog; on the borders of our continent the old checkered board of Imperial expansionism are being dusted down complete with 19th century pieces.

As I write the Russian military are leaving their bases granted to them by Ukraine to surround, occupy and disarm key strategic points of the Crimean Peninsula. This unilateral decision to interfere in the sovereignty of a foreign state is nothing short of expansionism and opportunism over the political troubles of a once-friendly nation. However Putin is not stupid. Occupying and annexing a foreign territory which contains a significantly sized ethnic group similar to that of Russia might well be popular with the people who live there. Despite contravening all international law Putin knows that the US-allied nations are powerless to stop him; Syria is a case-in-point. After all should we intervene, his idea of EU interventionism on former Soviet soil becomes qualified. However there is a more pertinent, strategic challenge. Crimea has a single, narrow land passage from mainland Ukraine. The shores of the peninsula are easily defended by the Russian Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol. As if a twist in history it is the Russians who are in logistical control of the area, to regain control will require a force capable of penetrating a strong Russian Navy backed up with a superior air power. Ukraine (and the EU) cannot do this alone.

This is not a good situation. If the US and EU give support to Ukraine it will validate a casus belli by Russia against other EU and NATO nations; indeed Latvia has called an emergency meeting of NATO to discuss threats to their border. A global war is the last we want.

So what options are available? Economic and personal sanctions against the Russian elite might not stop Putin's ideological adventure; he is hell bent on shifting the regional power back to Moscow. Ejection from the G8 will certainly isolate the Russian leaders both economically and diplomatically. Go further and threaten ejection from the Security Council is unprecedented. What about a controlled separation of the Ukraine? Let the pro-West regions go their way and the pro-Russian states the other. What is absolutely paramount is that these choices are made by Ukrainians and not aggressive neighbours.

War on the fringe of Europe threatens the peace and stability of our continent with no clear move available. The EU is pinned by illiberal imperialism on one hand and the escalation of violence on the other, but should liberty should be defended at all costs? The question is;  will the EU take Moscow's opening gambit?