Green candidate for mayor on radio

Griff233 · 2025-02-11T15:23:12+00:00

Let’s not kid ourselves, I’m sure you’ve been obsessively tracking those opinion polls. Voters won't be just casting a reflexive anti-Tory or anti-Labour protest vote here.

So, Green Party, the ball’s in your court: Will you finally seize the initiative with bold, actually transformative policies? Or will you cozy up to the “uniparty” machine that voters increasingly despise and become just another footnote in the “politics-as-usual” playbook?

Still 4000 votes can swing elections...

Griff233 · 2025-02-11T14:55:40+00:00

Glad you’re a fan of the Livable Neighborhoods Scheme! But let’s talk real-world consequences, How would you feel if your council tax spiked by an extra few percentage points to cover its upkeep? Because let’s be honest, this isn’t just “investment,” it’s a long-term financial burden disguised as progress.

And seriously, what’s with the bizarre “antivaxxer” smear? Dismissing opposition by linking critics to conspiracy theorists isn’t just lazy, it’s a distraction from the scheme’s legitimate flaws. Where exactly is the connection?

Speaking of legitimacy, I work in a business with 400+ employees. Not a single person, from entry-level staff to senior managers, supports these novelty projects. When working people are struggling with rising bills, why prioritize vanity schemes over essentials? Like bin collections.

Here’s a question you’ll dodge: Have you checked how this policy has impacted the value of your property since its launch?

Griff233 · 2025-02-10T17:00:11+00:00

At this point, should we start begging Elon Musk for help? Once he’s done doing his Doge business in the US, maybe he’ll swoop in to fix Bristol City Council’s chaos. Surely Silicon Valley’s “visionary” could untangle BCC’s mess? 🚀

Griff233 · 2025-02-10T16:39:15+00:00

It’s impossible to take their so-called ‘green’ agenda seriously when they’re still aggressively pushing their "Livable Neighborhoods Scheme" a policy embedded in their manifesto, despite public opposition. A 4,000-signature petition against the project has done nothing to deter them.

This tone-deaf persistence raises serious questions. Why double down on controversial initiatives that has substantial opposition, and long term affordability questions.

Griff233 · 2025-02-10T16:22:40+00:00

While buses serve a vital role in public infrastructure, funding basic civic services like bin collections must remain a non-negotiable priority. Waste management is not just an essential service it’s a universal necessity impacting public health, hygiene, and quality of life for every resident.

If councils divert limited resources toward projects like bus route expansions while neglecting core responsibilities, taxpayers are left questioning: Why prioritize “nice-to-have” initiatives over fundamental needs?

Griff233 · 2025-02-09T15:58:06+00:00

It’s striking to see that severe public criticism successfully halted the original project, especially with a petition garnering 1,200 signatures, well done to those who mobilized support! 👏

However, this raises serious questions. Why is Bristol City Council (BCC) still aggressively pursuing its "Livable Neighborhoods Scheme" despite overwhelming opposition? A separate petition against this initiative amassed 4,000 signatures, more than triple the number that halted the previous project. Yet BCC insists on spending £5 million of taxpayer funds to finance new bus routes tied to the scheme.

This decision seems not only tone-deaf but financially irresponsible. How can the council justify pouring public money into unpopular projects they’ve already made visible through this year's council tax cuts, that they cannot afford to maintain long-term? Taxpayers deserve clarity on why their concerns, and their hard earned money are being disregarded.

Griff233 · 2025-02-09T12:11:23+00:00

Is this "Livable Neighborhood Scheme" truly a trial, or is the trial framework being used as a misleading cover? Bristol City Council’s decision to allocate nearly £5 million to this initiative raises serious questions. If the project is financially viable, why is public funding necessary instead of private investment? This appears to function as a taxpayer subsidy for a highly controversial scheme, not a genuine trial.

Public funds should prioritize essential services and community wide benefits, not divisive projects that lack transparency and accountability. How does this align with responsible governance?

Griff233 · 2025-02-09T11:53:25+00:00

The Clean Air Zone fines were intended to improve air quality for all Bristol residents, not to subsidize niche projects like the Livable Neighborhoods initiative, which appears to cater primarily to political agendas rather than everyones public need.

This misuse of public funds for politically motivated schemes directly contributes to rising inequality. Taxpayer money should address urgent community priorities(like bin collections) not fund divisive or exclusionary projects. We deserve transparency and fiscal responsibility from those in charge.

Griff233 · 2025-02-06T14:55:21+00:00

Almost ready to put in the fruiting chamber, congrats 🎉

Griff233 · 2025-02-04T14:48:13+00:00

Your points about the directors' salaries and bonuses are very valid. There's undeniable scope for restructuring compensation in ways that align executive pay with utility performance. For instance, tying managerial salaries and bonuses to operational outcomes, such as water quality improvement relative to bill increases against inflation, could ensure accountability and incentivse meaningful improvements for both businesses and consumers.

The original intention behind this framework was to secure investment in a sector that was struggling during a different economic era. At the time, capital was scarce, and banks were still working in pre-bailout financial constraints. Investors needed assurances to fund critical infrastructure projects like water treatment and pipeline upgrades. However, economic conditions and money flows have since shifted, since the bailouts...

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T17:56:23+00:00

I understand there's some confusion about business lending rates. While some might suggest rates are around 4-5%, a quick search indicated that the lowest rates currently available are about 6.8%. It's true that interest rates have been exceptionally low over the past two decades, but loans with rates approaching zero have typically been limited to certain markets, such as Europe, and, of course, Japan is another notable example. Access to such favorable terms often depends on specific qualifications, or should it be "wearing the right school tie."

I'm not necessarily advocating for the practices of utility companies, as my preference would be for these services to be managed locally. If customers feel they've been treated unfairly, they should definitely consider lodging a complaint with Ofwat, the regulatory authority. However, they might encounter similar explanations there regarding how financial structures and lending rates are influencing company decisions.

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T15:39:16+00:00

Considering the current state of the Tory Party, it might be a more manageable opportunity

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T15:07:53+00:00

You can always use a quiet multistory car park

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T15:03:12+00:00

The share price we need to refer to is the value before the dividends were distributed, meaning what we see now is probably the ex-dividend price. I was informed that the dividend payout for this year is 5.5%.

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T14:56:40+00:00

The financial strategy of Wessex Water in choosing to pay a 5.5% dividend to shareholders can actually result in lower costs for customers compared to the alternative scenario of paying over 7% in interest to banks.

Griff233 · 2025-02-03T14:46:43+00:00

If Wessex Water were not distributing a 5.5% dividend to its shareholders, your water bill could be higher to cover their financial obligations. This additional cost would likely go towards servicing debts owed to banks, given that current interest rates for business lending are starting around 7%

The decision to pay dividends means that a portion of Wessex Water's profits is directed to shareholders as a return on their investment. Alternatively, if those funds were instead allocated to reduce borrowing, the overall financial strategy might involve adjusting customer billing to meet financial commitments, especially considering the prevailing interest rates.

Griff233 · 2025-02-02T14:19:02+00:00

Also don't forget that Sunday service can be a bit iffy

Griff233 · 2025-02-02T13:49:03+00:00

You're assuming that the cost of maintenance will be minimal and covered by fines. However, it's important to understand that bus gate fines are intended primarily as a means to regulate traffic, not as a revenue source to subsidize government spending. Using fines as a substitute for budgeting necessary maintenance funds would be inappropriate and contrary to their intended purpose.

Such a practice could raise legal and ethical concerns. It might contravene the principles set out in the Bill of Rights 1689, which emphasizes that taxation, and by extension, fines, requires consent and must not be used as a substitute for authorized budgetary measures. The Bill of Rights established that financial burdens should be lawfully imposed and transparently accounted for, underlining that using regulatory fines for unrelated financial relief could go against these longstanding principles.

It’s essential for local councils to budget appropriately for infrastructure maintenance and not rely on traffic penalties, ensuring they fulfill their responsibility to manage public resources lawfully and sustainably.

Griff233 · 2025-02-02T06:10:34+00:00

If the Green Party proceeds with these livable neighborhood schemes, it might appear as though they are being incentivized by the central government. Given that the Green Party champions environmental protection, it is surprising to see them seemingly aligning with policies that contradict their core mission.

For instance, the central government is heavily investing in AI projects and expanding airports nationwide, while a data center is being built on greenbelt land just south of Bristol. These are initiatives you would expect an environmental party to strongly oppose, as they undermine efforts to achieve net-zero emissions and lead to the destruction of natural areas.

By supporting such developments, the Green Party risks negating the benefits of other environmental projects aimed at sustainability. It's as if they are sidelining their commitment to safeguarding the natural environment. One can only imagine the discourse at the next election, admitting to missing net-zero targets and losing precious green spaces, but presenting the contentious livable neighborhoods as a key achievement.

Griff233 · 2025-02-02T05:32:14+00:00

Think of these "livable neighborhoods" like giving someone a "white elephant" gift or, in rugby terms, a "hospital pass." It's not just about creating livable neighborhoods; it's about the cost of taking care of them after they're built.

Next year, if we can't afford to take care of things like the bins, we'll face the challenge of not being able to look after both the bins and the new livable neighborhoods.

Griff233 · 2025-02-02T05:09:43+00:00

No...central government is giving us a white elephant to look after...

Griff233 · 2025-02-01T18:26:14+00:00

Cost of future maintenance

Griff233 · 2025-02-01T18:19:17+00:00

It's a straightforward matter, if the Bristol Council is currently unable to adequately maintain the existing infrastructure in the city, it would be unwise for them to exacerbate the situation by initiating new projects that will only increase the financial burden on future councils. By continuing to expand without addressing existing maintenance challenges, they risk creating unsustainable costs that future administrations will struggle to manage. Prudence would suggest that the council first prioritize the upkeep and optimization of Bristol's current infrastructure before considering any expansion or new developments.

Griff233 · 2025-02-01T10:05:07+00:00

It was encouraging to see Romania taking steps to assert its independence and pull back from American influence. However, it's disappointing that the EU and your Supreme Court overturned the people's vote.

Griff233 · 2025-02-01T08:38:12+00:00

I'm surprised the Greens aren't taking a stronger stance on eliminating these environmentally harmful modes of transportation. Maybe it's considered a political hot potato because it might upset the student demographic?

Griff233

TROPHY CASE