It’s time once again to update the local community committee’s priorities for next year and we want to hear what you think. Last year our priorities ranged from Improving health and reducing crime all the way through to initiatives for investing in young people,  encouraging learning and creating prosperity.

You can email me your thoughts at steve@stevemiddleton.info, use the contact me page here or simply leave your comments below. Your comments can be anonymous if you wish, but I’ll make sure all suggestions are heard by the committee.

Back in late 2007 an idea was muted by council officers that Salford needed a shiny new “gateway” into the city that looked appealing, instead of the drab entrance to Salford that the M602 roundabout offered. With the news that MediaCity:UK was to happen, a £3m funding application was submitted to the North West Development Agency and the idea was born.

The programme was split into two phases, the first involving updates to lighting, subways, plaques and pedestrian crossings at the M602 and Broadway roundabouts, which many considered necessary due to the complete lack of maintenance by the council.

The second phase involved the relocation of the Quays Cargo Cranes from their current location at the head of Ontario Basin to the M602 Roundabout. Many Salfordians have often complained about the way the cranes have been allowed to rust and rot and a lot of people wanted to see them saved and restored. However, phase two came at the astronomical cost of £750,000. Personally, I was quite vocal about the plans, and many shared my view that £3m spent on prettying up a roundabout, carrying out repairs that should have been done anyway and moving 2 huge lumps of metal up Trafford Road did not present value for money. That money could have been better spent saving Hope Hospital’s Maternity Unit, our NHS drop-in centres, building schools big enough for the number of children or repairing our dilapidated roads and council-owned buildings.

Yesterday I learned that funding for phase 2 has been withdrawn. The official word is that phase 2 has not been “scrapped”, but essentially (other than what work has already started) the rest of the plans are very unlikely to go ahead.

Why blog about this? Well a small, almost insignificant part of phase 2 was the construction of three “super crossings”, aka wide pedestrian crossings at key locations on Trafford Road and Broadway, which would make it a bit safer for pupils to cross these busy roads when the new Oasis Academy at Media City opens. With phase 2 being in doubt (read cancelled), the super crossings are unlikely to go ahead without the funds being found elsewhere.

One proposal put forward has been for the Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee to exhaust it’s entire budget for the year to pay for these 2 super crossings. It’s worth noting that when the plans were submitted  by Oasis Academy for planning permission, they did so on the basis that these extra crossings would be in place by the time the new school opened. Their plans included the bare minimum needed (in terms of pupil travel plans) to allow for planning to be passed.

So, what’s the cost of these super crossings going to be to the community?

The answer is circa £160,000-£170,000 – and the reason I am blogging about this is to ask what you, the Langworthy community, think about this. I’d love to hear your thoughts, either by leaving a comment below or emailing me at steve@stevemiddleton.info

There will be further discussion on this at the next community committee meeting on January 11^th (6.45pm). I urge as many Langworthy residents and groups as possible to attend to ensure you get your voice heard. If you cannot make it, I will do my best to get as many responses heard by the committee as possible.

At the Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee on 2^nd November Neighbourhood Manager Ross Spanner confirmed that funding is in place and secured for new fencing that will close off Chimney Pot Park from dusk until dawn. Regular readers of my blog will remember that this has been a contentious issue, with residents divided over whether to close off the park or provide better lighting, which would have made it safer to keep it open.

A consultation event was carried out by Seedley and Langworthy Trust (SALT) and after a worrying delay of a couple of months, ratified by the community committee. The majority of people who responded to the consultation decided in favour of closing off the park and erecting fencing to keep it secure. It was felt this would remove trouble makers involved in drugs & other crimes from the park and help protect Chimney Pot Park streets below from the constant problem of stones thrown at cars/windows from the elevated position of the park.

There is no definite date when the fencing will be installed, but Ross assured us it would not be too long.

Every single member of Ed Miliband’s new shadow cabinet served in Gordon Brown’s government.

Of the 19 members of the new shadow cabinet, 11 served as cabinet ministers under Brown, while the other eight held ministerial posts.

Every member of the new shadow cabinet voted for ID cards. Of the 14 who were MPs at the time, 12 voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Miliband himself was a key adviser to Brown in the Treasury, including chairing his Council of Economic Advisers, responsible for long-term economic planning. He was then parachuted into a safe seat and fast-tracked into the cabinet before writing Brown’s election manifesto.

Miliband claimed his election heralded a new generation in Labour politics, but his shadow cabinet is made of the same New Labour politicians that spent recklessly and left the economy in tatters, stole our freedoms, left our political system in disgrace and failed to close the huge gap between the richest and the poorest.

The Daily Telegraph has analysed the background of all the new Shadow Cabinet members and has found that they are overwhelmingly white, privileged and heterosexual. Social diversity was delivered a blow with Diane Abbott, Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant not getting a place.

The full list of the new Shadow Cabinet can be found here.

What do North West Labour and Conservative controlled councils have in common? They think it’s OK to charge their constituents to shop locally.

Salford Council has charged for it’s car parks for a good few years now. So even if you just want to pop to Salford Shopping City for a few minutes, perhaps to post a letter, it’ll cost you a couple of quid.

My Bury Lib Dem colleague Vic D’Albert has blogged today that the Conservative-controlled Bury Council are now introducing car parking charges at the Prestwich Town Centre Fairfax Road car park. I know this car park well, as I lived in Prestwich for a number of years – and I used to regularly shop at the Longfield Centre, since even then I believed it was better to shop locally.

What a pity Bury Tories are as short-sighted as Salford’s Labour. As Vic points out, the policy is being brought in for purely financial reasons. The car park charging proposal was introduced into the Council budget by the Conservative group earlier this year to balance the budget.

Have they not thought about the impact this will have on the struggling small businesses in the Longfield Suite? I assume they gave the Longfield the same consideration that Salford Labour gave Salford Shopping City when they increased parking charges there.

Listen up Conservatives and Labourites across the North West. It should be free to shop local.

On May 5th 2011, there will be a referendum on whether to adopt the Alternative Vote. The First Past The Post system hands power to the lucky few who live in marginal constituencies and sucks it away from the vast majority of us who do not. So over the next eight months the Liberal Democrats will be fighting hard, with others, for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.

I’ve pledged to vote YES to fairer votes on May 5th 2011.

We’ve seen the results of the current voting system from the War in Iraq to the MPs’ expenses scandals. The problem is that too many MPs do not answer to the voters because they are in a ‘safe seat’. Other MPs can get elected even though more than two thirds of people vote against them. Many votes are ‘wasted’.

It’s time to change this in Britain.

On May 5th 2011 millions of people across Britain will vote on how we elect our MPs. But it is about more than just changing the way we vote, it’s about giving power back to the voters and getting MPs and a Government that works for you. Already people are lining up to stop this change, to keep the current, broken system.

We cannot let them win. Join our campaign!

Register here to become part of the Liberal Democrats’ Fairer Votes Campaign and we’ll stay in touch as the campaign develops to let you know how to get involved and help shape a fairer future.

While I’m generally supportive of the coalition government’s attempts to fix the problems that 13yrs of Labour mismanagement have left us, let me make it clear – I am a Liberal Democrat. There are many Conservative activists, councillors and MPs I can converse with (even if I don’t necessarily agree with their politics), Nadine Dorries is certainly not one of them!

Nadine Dorries has been in the news again this week. On Friday Lucy Glennon wrote in The Guardian that the Tory Bedfordshire MP had blogged about one of her disabled constituents’ frequent tweeting. Dorries assumed that someone who could tweet so much was obviously not disabled enough to be claiming benefits and suggested the person in question should get a job, or she would “inform the authorities”.

While that was a terrible generalisation from Dorries (and without foundation I might add), perhaps her far worse accusation that the constituent continued to “…work for the Labour party and write porn at the same time as claiming your disability benefit”  I would think be worthy of complaint and, if it was me, would certainly see libel proceedings begin forthwith.

So then why did Tory Nadine Dorries pick on this unsuspecting constituent? Was this a personal vendetta or a response to an attack from the disabled constituent? It would appear not. It seems apparant that Nadine Dorries has a hatred for disabled people (certainly a misunderstanding of the limitations some disabled people have), but far more concerning is the fact that Dorries thinks disabled people can’t have a social life or political views. Dorries belives that the disabled can’t partake in any physical activities at all (otherwise she believes they aren’t truly disabled). How short sighted for anyone in Britain today, never mind an MP.

So, why is Nadine Dorries so belligerant?

One only has to look at her Wikipedia entry for answers. She has made it her business to “attack” people, either for no good reason or perhaps because it’ll look good as a “campaign” on her next constituency communication.

Dorries served as a member of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. During her time on this committee, she only attended 2% of sessions. Refusing to sit on the committee due to the manner in which the committee was chaired claiming that the Chairman, Lib Dem Phil Wiullis was acting as a puppet for another Lib Dem committee member, Dr Evan Harris. The committee then reformed as the Science and Technology Select Committee, she did not attend a single session in protest.

When accused by the Daily Telegraph in 2009 that she claimed £24,222 Additional Costs Allowance (for ‘secondary’ housing costs), Dorries counter-attacked on her blog, alleging lack of good faith on the part of the paper. On 22 May she went on BBC Radio 4 to draw parallels between the McCarthy ‘Witch-Hunts’ and the press’ revelation of MP’s expenses. She claimed everyone was fearing a ‘suicide’, and colleagues were constantly checking up on each other. Later in the day her blog was taken down. It transpired that Withers, lawyers acting for the Barclay Brothers, the owners of the Daily Telegraph, had required the removal of the blog, on threat of libel action against the service provider.

From her ridiculous campaign against a “proposal to ban the wearing of high heels in the office” through to her less than parliamentary behaviour towards the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow, who she plotted to have removed from the speaker’s chair accusing him of opportunism and disloyalty. After Bercow’s wife, Sally, was approved as a Labour parliamentary candidate and gave an interview about her personal life, Dorries argued that the Bercows were damaging the historic respect the office of Speaker had. In January 2010, she refused to honour the tradition of MPs of standing still and allowing the Speaker to pass them in the corridors of Parliament in protest to Bercow’s decision not to wear the Speaker’s traditional uniform.

Perhaps all this explains why Nadine Dorries was defeated so easily by Hazel Grove Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunnel in the 2001 general election by a superb 8,435 majority.

Northerners are glad that Nadine Dorries moved away from our area, but it’s very sad that she was parachuted into a safe seat in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005. She should move out of politics altogether after this latest fiasco, as she has proven just how out of touch with the 21st century she really is.

Today, Ed Miliband tried to rewrite history by putting distance between himself and New Labour and presenting himself as part of a new generation of Labour politicians.

The truth is Ed Miliband spent the last 13 years at the heart of the New Labour project. He was an adviser in Gordon Brown’s Treasury from 1997 and went on to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, responsible for long-term economic planning, in 2004.

He was then parachuted into a safe seat and quickly appointed as a minister in Brown’s cabinet before writing his 2010 election manifesto. He was an integral part of the Labour Government that left the economy in tatters, faced allegations of complicity in torture, stole our freedoms, left our political system in disgrace and failed to close the huge gap between the richest and the poorest.

In the Treasury he was reckless with our money. When he was in charge of environment policy he was timid and weak.

Ed Miliband’s voting record shows that he was fully signed up to New Labour’s assault on civil liberties and voted against an investigation into the Iraq war. He was also weak on tackling climate change and bringing greater transparency to Parliament.

Voted for:

* Control orders
* Identity Cards
* Reducing parliamentary scrutiny (eg. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act)
* All the Terrorism Bill’s clauses including 42 and 90 day detention
* Trident replacement

Voted against:

* Introducing Parliamentary approval to be required for deployment of the Armed Forces
* An investigation into the Iraq war

Patchy record on:

Climate Change – He introduced legislation which included a pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (Miliband’s 60% target was only increased after pressure by the Liberal Democrats) but:

* Voted against a 2007 Liberal Democrat motion calling on the Government to do significantly more on climate change
* Was absent in 2008 on a vote to allow consumers to be paid renewable energy feed-in tariffs
* Was absent in 2008 on a Planning Bill amendment to consider climate change in applications
* Voted against a clause in the Climate Change Bill allowing the Secretary of State to set a maximum level of carbon emissions for energy plants in 2008
* Voted against the 2009 Lib Dem 10:10 motion calling on the House to reduce energy usage by 10% during 2010

Transparency of Parliament:

* Voted for MPs’ expenses and financial interests to be made public in 2009 but was absent on all other Freedom of Information amendments relating to making Parliament more transparent (most notably the 2008 vote on the report from the Members Estimate Committee which recommended external audits of the Additional Costs Allowance).

Today, Labour’s new leader promised a ‘New Generation” of Labour and claimed the party would be different, but with Ed Miliband at the helm, surely all he can deliver is more of the same.

Myview is Labour will spend decades in the wilderness and Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.

I was honoured to be invited to talk this morning on Gaydio, Manchester’s first radio station for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Gaydio became the UK’s first full time LGBT FM radio service in June of this year.

It was a delight to talk about my involvement over the past few years in the Liberal Democrats and I was joined by the Secretary of DELGA Hollie Matthies who talked with passion and authority about a policy being put forward on Tuesday at the Lib Dem Conference in Liverpool entitled ‘Marriage without Borders’.

DELGA are the Lib Dem LGBT body and they have been at the forefront of LGBT equality for decades and have the best record in Parliament of any political party on LGBT equality issues. Prior to the last three general elections DELGA issued seperate LGBT manifestos and on each occasion these were all accepted into the full party’s election manifestos.

As such, DELGA are encouraged to put forward motions at our party conferences, and new St. Austell & Newquay MP Steve Gilbert will be introducing the Marriage without Borders motion, which argues that no matter what gender or sexuality someone is, marriage and civil partnerships should be available to all.

This motion comes during the week that I am celebrating the 10th anniversary of my marriage to the gorgeous and intelligent Kat Middleton, so it seems so wrong and unfair that while I can enjoy the benefits of marriage, other couples cannot simply because they identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transexual/transgender.

Equally, there are many mixed gender couples who do not wish to marry in a church, but would like the commitment of a civil partnership – the fact they cannot enter into civil partnerships is also wrong. Fortunately, as Liberal Democrats, fairness is at the heart of everything we do and I am 100% convinced DELGA’s motion will be approved and we can put this to government.

It’s worth pointing out that the motion is called Marriage without Borders because those who get married (no matter what their beliefs, gender or sexual orientation) should have their marriage recognised throughout the world. It’s a sad fact that many countries do not recognise UK civil partnerships and this can affect the right to work in, live in or even visit foreign countries.

The hour seemed to wizz by, but I am grateful to Gaydio and the host of the morning show, Andrew Edwards, for allowing me the opportunity to respond to the TUC’s disappointing comments about government cuts that may target LBGT groups. I’m unsure why the TUC seems to think the coalition might target LBGT groups, as I am convinced this is simply not the case. Savings need to be made across the whole of government spending and until the details of the comprehensive spending review are revealed, we do not know what they will be. Scaremongering and idle speculation is unhelpful, but then I expect nothing less from an organisation aligned with Labour, the party that left the coalition with a huge mess to clear up.

Whilst browsing through recent planning applications/decisions today (sad, I know), I was disappointed to come across an application from Lark Hill Primary School on Liverpool street. The headmaster of Lark Hill (Liam Fry) proposes to build a new extension to the school (presumably to cope with the extra pupils the school is due to receive thanks to the incompetence of Salford’s Labour Council and their barmy decision to build a replacement school too small for the 2010/11 intake).

Why am I disappointed? Well, one word: Consultation.

Lark Hill have failed to consult it’s neighbours on this building plan which directly affects hundreds of Langworthy/Pendleton/Clarendon residents.

I’m sure the local community would have had very little problem with the proposal to expand Lark Hill Primary School, but common courtesy would be to behave a tad better and talk about the plans with your neighbours.

For those interested, the plans can be viewed here (but the application has been permitted, so no further comment can be made).

Shame on you Mr Fry, be a bit more neighbourly in future.

Yesterday afternoon I attended The Salford Garden Party at the Civic Centre in Swinton. This annual event is designed to promote, amongst other things, the services Salford City Council has to offer it’s residents. As someone interested in local politics, the highlight of the Garden Party is “The Big Ask”, where ordinary people like you and me have the opportunity to question our city’s councillors and leaders on, well, pretty much anything we like.

Last year I attended and queried Councillor Merry on my pet hate of potholes, but my intention was simply to listen this year – since I’m hoping in the not too distant future, I’ll be the one answering the questions.

While this year’s questions covered a wide range of topics, all night I’ve been struggling with Derek Antrobus’ answer to one posed regarding the council’s decision to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on the Christmas Ice Rink. When asked, Councillor Antrobus defended the near-£200,000 spend on a month’s worth of subsidised ice-skating by stating it provided youngsters something to do and was a healthy activity.

Yet the Council had the opportunity to continue to fund free swimming beyond 29^th August for under-17s at an annual cost to the city of almost £200,000 (Since free swimming was introduced in Salford there were over 150,000 visits to pools by young people. The government grant for free swimming for 2009/10 was £196,287 – source Salford Star). In fact, the free swimming government grant ended on 31^st July and Salford Council decided to fund it for a further month (until the end of the summer holidays), so they clearly understood the long term value of free swimming for young people.

So, Councillor Antrobus, your argument for supporting the Ice Rink for a few weeks of “exercise and something to do” doesn’t quite stack up when the same money could have been spent providing free swimming for an entire year for those same youngsters. Perhaps the flashy ice rink with it’s stays-on-all-day-and-all-night lighting ticks more marketing check-boxes than free swimming for non-voters?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Salford Advertiser’s “readers’ viewpoint” page in reponse to Blackley & Broughton MP Graham Stringer’s column. It was printed in this week’s edition (albeit edited down to the required 300 words), but unfortunately the Editor has decided not to attribute the letter to me, even though I provided my name, address and permission to print both.

Here is the complete unexpurgated response to Graham Stringer’s column on the Alternative Vote:

I was astonished to read Graham Stringer’s column in last week’s Advertiser (Thursday 29^th July) where he announced he would be voting against the introduction of the Alternative Vote (AV) in next year’s referendum.

In this year’s general election, Mr Stringer’s party campaigned on a manifesto pledge to introduce AV immediately and then later to hold a referendum on Proportional Representation. Clearly, this promise was an act of political opportunism, designed to facilitate a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung Parliament. No wonder Mr Stringer’s party are so bitter about the outcome.

Labour was the only party to make such a pledge yet, as a party, they are now vehemently against the policy. Then again, the Labour Party has never been particularly fastidious about observing manifesto pledges. One example was its promise at the 2005 general election to hold a national referendum on the new EU constitution, only to abandon the idea once safely re-elected. That act of calculated cynicism is about to be replicated, once again on a major constitutional issue.

Mr Stringer and his party accuse the coalition of ‘gerrymandering’, a word which in the past has been used to describe how the voting system has been used to exclude Catholics in Northern Ireland, or black and poor people in the United States, from exercising their rights. The accusation is one of the most serious any party can make as it is tantamount to an accusation of electoral corruption.

AV is not wrong or illegal nor is it less proportionate than our current first past the post system. Indeed AV is used all over the world in such countries as Australia, Ireland, Scotland and even some American Mayoral elections use the AV system. Nor is it wrong to adjust constituency boundaries which, at present, only benefit Labour (possibly to the tune of an extra 5-7% of votes). The truth of the matter is that Labour is keen to protect an electoral system that favours large parties and disenfranchises voters, they are also keen to protect the current constitutional boundaries that favour Labour.

In trying to explain his position Mr Stringer has taken Winston Churchill’s comments about democracy and misused them, I believe because he did not understand what Churchill was saying: progress is good and if you don’t change or develop then you’ll never have a better system of democracy. Churchill did not say that what comes later is worse; he said that whatever comes after is an improvement.

Finally, in his column, Mr Stringer drew attention to some 3.5 million potential voters that are unregistered in this country and stated that some of those people are unlikely to vote Conservative, implying some sort of conspiracy. Two things occurred to me when I read this most ridiculous comment: firstly, unless Mr Stringer has developed telepathic powers, he has no idea how those 3.5 million people would be likely to vote; secondly, if those 3.5 million people are so unlikely to vote Conservative why, after thirteen years of government, didn’t Mr Stringer’s party do more to ensure that they were registered to vote? Furthermore, none of the proposed changes will prevent these 3.5 million people from registering to vote in the future, making Mr Stringer’s comments all the more ridiculous.

But why would I expect a fair debate and accurate information from someone who denies the existence of dyslexia, a condition which is very real to the 6m dyslexia sufferers in the UK today? That Mr Stringer denies the existence of dyslexia, which affects 10% of his constituents, is not that surprising when you consider he denies that AV and PR are fairer voting systems that would ensure more electors’ votes count in an election.

I have written to my own MP, Hazel Blears, asking her to support AV in next year’s referendum and urge Mr Stringer to stop thinking about himself and vote with his conscience, for the benefit of those he claims to represent.

It seems that buildings are falling down all over Salford. If the council aren’t tearing them down in the name of “regeneration” then council-owned buildings are falling down, due to poor maintenance (or lack thereof). Case in point, a row of shops on Liverpool Street in Langworthy (adjacent to Seedley Primary School).

The shops have been vacant for many years and the council has been unable to let them, latterly because they have been uninhabitable. The picture above (taken courtesy of Google Streetview) is by my reckoning at least a couple of years old, and you can see how bad things were then.

So it should not have come as a total surprise yesterday morning when I arrived home from my night shift at 7am to see a pile of bricks strewn across the pavement and road. I was far too tired after a 10hr shift which started at 9.30pm the previous day to stop and take a picture, but as soon as I arrived home I made sure there was a message waiting for Lib Dem Langworthy Councillor Lynn Drake.

Thanks to Lynn’s efforts, by 9am the council had inspected and now it looks like some of the block is to be demolished.

This pathetic way than Salford Council have of handling their extensive property portfolio so annoys me. They seem to have no understanding that these building are assets, not problems to be ignored (and then finally destroyed when their failure to maintain them results in a collapse).

Do the council not realise that as well as the financial cost of ignoring building maintenance there is the personal cost to residents? Neighbours of mine could have been injured or possibly killed if the building had collapsed if someone was walking by at that moment. I would not even like to speculate on how many rats are probably inside the end building, which as I mentioned, is next door to Seedley Primary School.

I hope that the council will move quickly to solve this problem – both the short term and long term needs of the site. Let’s remember, if this building had been in private hands, surely Salford Council themselves would have begun legal action to force the owner to make the building safe and secure.

While I note Salford’s Labour council is supporting the evil empire that is Tesco on their application to build a new store on Fitzwarren Street in Pendleton, they seem to have completely forgotten about the little shops.

Or maybe they just don’t care for the small businessman?

It’s been a bad week for Children in Salford. At the start of the week, St. James RC Primary School in Pendleton was the subject of an arson attack, which saw the roof severely damaged – but thanks to the quick response and bravery of local firefighters, the damage was contained and valuable equipment and school work was saved.

On Thursday, the Salford Advertiser & Manchester Evening News broke the story that I had feared could happen again. Earlier in May of this year, OfSted inspected Salford’s Childrens Services and it seems the report is going to, once again, rate the service as inadequate.

This is the second time Salford’s Childrens Services has been rated inadquate by OfSted, both times under the stewardship of Langworthy Councillor John Warmisham. After the last inadequate rating, the council gave undertakings to the government it would improve the service (and briefly it did). Now, if the MEN article is correct, the council’s efforts have failed and our looked-after children are once again at risk.

I call on our new coalition government to take decisive action and step in to take control of Salford’s Childrens Services and rescue things before another, inevitable, death occurs. I do not want another Demi-Leigh Mahon case hitting the Advertiser’s front page – but it’s obvious to me that Salford Council cannot be trusted to take care of our children at the moment. The department needs radical overhaul – I do not know what that means in terms of staffing, Jill Baker (former strategic director of Childrens Services) was sacked, Chief Executive Barbara Spicer took over temporarily and then handed the reigns over to Jill Baker’s former deputy, Nick Page.

Further, if the Salford Labour cabinet will not take former Lead Member for Childrens Services John Warmisham to task,then I would hope that local Conservatives and Salford Liberal Democrats can come together to push for a full investigation into what has gone wrong.

As I look across my road to the newly-built Willow Tree Primary school due to open in September, I worry what will happen to those children that didn’t make it into the new school (because it is too small to occupy all the pupils who currently learn at the four schools it replaces). I worry about how our looked-after children are cared for in Salford Council’s childrens homes.

And I fear for Adult Social Care, John Warmisham’s new post in the cabinet. After the disasters he has left behind him at Childrens Services and Housing before that, things do not bode well for Salford’s older people.

At around 1.30am last night/this morning, I was awoken from a sound sleep by an almighty crash from outside. It’s the kind of sound you know is so, so, wrong. On examining the scene it became clear that a Toyota had hit the metal barrier opposite my house, chopped a concrete post in half, lost it’s bumper, rode up the barrier and then buried itself into my neighbours Clio – writing both cars off.

How the car hasn’t flipped onto it’s roof or smashed into my own car, I will never know. How the occupants survived the incident, only they know that.

For far too long we’ve had to put up with heavy traffic on Seedley Park Road, if it’s not the heavy goods vehicles delivering materials to the new Willow Tree Primary School currently undergoing construction a few yards from my house, it’s speeding ‘boy racers’ who see my street as a race track and speed bumps as nothing more than a challenge.

The junction outside my house is a nightmare. Clearly, the design looked great on a piece of paper, but in the real world – it just does not work. Anything larger than a family saloon car must drive onto the wrong side of the road to turn right, lest they hit the illuminated barrier in the middle of the road. Most of the HGVs that turn from Glendinning Street onto Seedley Park Road, block the road trying to make it around the tight corner (whilst performing the manouvre on the wrong side of the road).

Everyone survived last night’s accident, but how long before a speeding car or HGV kills a child on Seedley Park Road? I worry it could happen.

That’s why over the next few days you will see me at your door, calling on my neighbours to sign a petition which I intend to present at the next council meeting. I am asking for a weight restriction to be put in place on Seedley Park Road and Lower Seedley Road and I’ll be looking for highways to try and help prevent incidents such as the one last night from costing lives.

Last night I attended our first Ordsall & Langworthy Community Committee meeting since the election. From a representative point of view, nothing has changed. All 6 Ordsall & Langworthy councillors remain the same (since neither of the 2 up for re-election lost their seats) and our first point of business was to elect our community committee chairman, who also retained his position. Congratulations to Roy Marsh, he guides us through the busy agenda with a good degree of skill.

It has always slightly annoyed me that as a mere resident, representing no one group, while my voice can be heard along with all of the others in the room when it comes to discussing topics on the agenda – I do not have a vote when it comes to making community committee decisions. The rule is: you must be a ‘member’ of the committee to vote. Membership is open to elected members (I tried so hard!) and representatives of residents associations and other partner groups.

Therefore I was extremely upset and annoyed when the next agenda item for consideration by the community committee was the ‘approval of a decision to lock Chimney Pot Park from dawn until dusk’. After a lengthy, but thorough consultation which involved the entire ward (and beyond), the overwhelming result of the public consultation was to close off Chimney Pot Park at night. Without going into the problems that troublemakers have caused by congregating in the park at night – the residents of CPP have, quite frankly, had enough of the anti-social behaviour brought about by a minority of idiots in the park after dark.

Residents want the park closed at night. Personally, I voted for the alternative option (which was to light the park instead), but I respect democracy. I respect the 68% of people who out-voted me. Why then, would the community committee want to ignore the 68%? Simply, they did not like the idea of locking a park at night.

With no thought to the people enduring a living hell, who have to live through the constant onslaught of stone and bricks thrown against their windows & cars from the elevated position of the park, the ‘voting members’ of the community committee decided to ignore a full and proper consultation – intending to overrule local residents wishes.

At this point I made an impassioned plea to the voting members to re-consider and think about the problems of the area and more importantly what the residents of CPP wanted. I’m afraid all I think I have achieved is to hold off the decision for a couple of months – since after some heated debate with a voting member from the Pendleton/Broadwalk area, it was decided to defer the decision until the next community committee meeting in July (where Neighbourhood Manager Ross Spanner will present a full report on the consultation, including actual numbers of people who responded).

It is my profound wish that Chimney Pot Park has re-established it’s residents association by the time of the next community committee meeting, since if they have, they would be entitled to vote on this very important matter.

I cannot fathom why we should (and do) allow people from outside the area make decisions in our area. The only two ward councillors who attended the meeting both live outside Langworthy, yet they were granted full voting rights. Members of residents associations from Pendleton and Islington Estate were also allowed to vote, yet I, someone who lives close by the park, was not. Nor was their anybody present from Chimney Pot Park itself to either speak or vote.

Voting members of the community committee should remember why they are there – to help make the area better for local people. They have a unique privilege in voting, and therefore a unique responsibility to think beyond what they want themselves and represent the unheard population who need their wishes and requirements met.

As I’m sure most readers of my blog are aware by now, I did not win in Langworthy, while I am obviously disappointed not to win, I offer my congratulations to John Warmisham. While I am sure John is pleased with his victory, I have every intention of continuing to fight for Langworthy and I’m very happy with my 1,211 votes (which was more than Lynn Drake polled in 2008 when she won here).

Further, I hope John joins me in thanking the electorate for a record turnout in Langworthy – I’d like to think that both the intensive Labour and Lib Dem campaigning in our ward over the last few months contributed to the fact that more local electors engaged in the process. I found it incredibly frustrating last year (when I stood in Irwell Riverside) that only 17% bothered to vote. Look at it this year, 43.5%. That’s great news for the city, I really hope we can maintain (and maybe improve on) these turnout figures.

Elsewhere across Salford, it was a disappointing night for the Liberal Democrats. We lost 2 seats (Mary Ferrer in Claremont and John Deas in Weaste & Seedley). Both were shocks for us, but it upsets me to think that the city has lost 2 really good councillors. Our two main targets of Swinton South and Langworthy saw us come close, but there are no prizes for second place!

If there is one saving grace for us, it is that our own data shows that, broadly, the local election results mirrored the general election results – which simply means electors voted in both elections wearing their “general election hats”. I firmly believe that in next year’s local elections, the trend will reverse somewhat and we’ll see voters thinking nothing but locally.

The Salford Liberal Democrats are here to stay. We’re a committed and great bunch of people who genuinely care about our city. We will be back.

Every weekend for the last few months the team has been meeting up at 10am and 2pm on both Saturday and Sunday as our campaign to get Norman Owen elected moved into top gear. There has also been the small matter of the council seats we are defending, plus several targets we are confident of stealing from under Labour’s noses.

It was therefore extremely pleasing this morning to see I had been beaten to the office by half the Salford Lib Dem team who were all raring to go – what was even more gratifying was the 4 new volunteers that came down to help the Langworthy and Ordsall campaigns. With only 5 days to go, I’d like to note the invaluable help of our 4 new helpers: Jane, Anthony, Andrew and Michael.

The extra help added the already dedicated team meant we were able to hit two entire wards today, with plenty already planned for tomorrow.

So, if anyone else can spare an hour of your time over the bank holiday weekend, please feel free to drop by the office at 10am and 2pm on both Sunday and Bank Holiday Monday, where you’ll find a dedicated team stuffing their bags with leaflets for delivery all across Salford.

I look forward to seeing you there!

Through my work with Unsworth Junior Football Club, I have received the following letter from Barnsley Football Club who are holding trials for all age groups (U7s thru to U15s) at the end of May. The trials are being held in Stockport and you MUST register in advance.

I have forwarded details of Barnsley Football Clubs Advanced Development
Centres, for whom we will be hosting trials over the coming weeks. The
information is provided below and there is also an attachment on which you
will have a players details form for players to fill out and bring along
with them to the trials. We are contacting all local football clubs, schools
and leagues to provide the information for the trials. We would ask that
this is passed to players whom you feel are at the standard required for the
development centre, or to players who would like to attend the trials. There
are no limitations on the amount of players from each club or school
provide, so if you would like to attend as a group, as the trials are open
to everyone you are more than welcome to do that.

One of the most important factors to note for players who are successful at
the trials is that, any player who is selected WILL NOT HAVE THEIR CLUB
COMMITMENTS AFFECTED IN ANY WAY. This means that players are able to play
for their local club as well as attend the development centre. The trials
are for players from under 7′s up to under 15′s, 2009/2010 season.

We do require all players to register for the trials so we know exactly how
many players to expect. You can do this by calling the number on the forms
or by emailing us at admin@elitedc.org . As a representative for a club or
school you can nominate a number of players together rather than all calling
or emailing individually.

Download the form here

Good luck !

Updates to my blog have been a bit thin on the ground lately, but the campaigning has not stopped! In between bunches of 11 hour shifts at work (including a night shift that screwed my body clock up for days after), leafletting/canvassing and attending the various hustings/debates with General Election candidates there has been little time for blogging.

Last night I set the Sky+ to record the Leader’s Debates and headed off to Irlam to lend my support to Richard Gadsden, the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Worsley & Eccles South. Since most of our efforts are going into the Salford & Eccles campaign, where Norman Owen is likely to oust Hazel Blears – Richard hasn’t had the benefit of much support from the local party. In fact, Richard was leafletting in Swinton South yesterday morning! Therefore, I felt it only right that a couple of Lib Dem members stopped by to say hello and listen to the debate.

It was good to chat with Jackie Anderson and Pamela Welsh prior to the debate – both are to be applauded for their respective organisation and participation in the Irlam & Cadishead Question Time (which Jackie admits was inspired by the recent Seedley & Langworthy Question Time debates in Langworthy).

The subjects were varied and wide-ranging, from the obvious local environment issues, war in Iraq/Afghanistan, interational aid and even a question about “the 3 pillars of sustainability” (to which I admit, I had no idea what they were until I Googled them).

Richard showed he had a sound knowledge of Lib Dem policy and was able to articulate that into well spoken answers that I’m sure the audience could relate to, although I was dissapointed that Tory candidate Iain Lindley and Sale-based Worsley MP Barbara Keeley argued about leaflet lies and I still don’t know which of them is telling the truth about SureStart centres!

In any event, it was a good night for democracy and it was therefore fitting that Kat and I returned home to watch the Sky News Leaders Debate, which we had earlier set to record. One thing struck me as we watched, how similar the pre-prepared answers were of Iain Lindley and David Cameron. I was hoping that, like Richard Gadsden and Nick Clegg, politicians vying to be our future leaders would understand their party policies and articulate them in language that the audience could understand. But no, David Cameron and Iain Lindley had learned their manifestos parrot-fashion and felt it acceptable to reel it off, page by page.

Of course, at least Lindley, Gadsden and Keeley knew what their manifestos contained, unlike the UKIP candidate who, at times, seemed to desperately search his notes for answers (they weren’t there). The English Democrat representative was not much better – they were easily the poorest on the panel and well out of their depth.

Once again, a big thank you to Jackie Anderson for organising the Irlam & Cadishead Question Time and Salford Advertiser reporter Pamela Welsh for chairing the hustings. Next time Pamela, be more assertive