The Salford Labour website has confirmed that Cllr Tony Harold has been deselected by comrades in his Ordsall ward and will instead go up against Liberal Democrat Councillor Janice Heywood in Weaste & Seedley.
The Labour webmaster (Cllr John Mullen) is too lazy to do his own coding and has instead done a copy-and-paste job using the profile of Cllr Harold on the Council website, changing the ward from “Ordsall” to “Weaste & Seedley”.
Unfortunately, he’s kept all of the other details. I’m sure that the good people of Weaste & Seedley will be delighted to learn that their Labour candidate holds his advice bureaux in a completely different part of the City!
I must say that my initial reaction to the appointment of Sir Richard Leese to the board of the Salford Urban Regeneration Company is one of scepticism and concern.
Of course the City Councils of Manchester and Salford should work together on issues of common interest. However, that is very different from asking the leader of Manchester City Council to wear two hats and sit on the Salford URC.
Most developers looking to invest in city centre Salford will have the same options in central Manchester. Sir Richard has a clear conflict of interest. Is he really going to put the interests of Salford first?
Let me give you a hypothetical example. The Co-operative Group have already signalled their intention to quit their current Northern Quarter site. Where would Sir Richard stand if the Co-op found that the most efficient site was to build a new HQ at, say, Greengate? These conflicts will arise all the time.
Of course, Sir Richard Leese and the Manchester City Council leadership do not have a track record of good behaviour when it comes to Manchester/Salford relations. Remember the dog-in-the-manger attitude to the BBC decision? Sir Richard and his colleagues acted as if they’d rather the BBC stayed in London than came to Salford – and we are now trusting him with a seat on the Urban Regeneration Company?
There was a “consultation” meeting earlier this evening at Buile Hill about the future of primary to secondary school transfer. I would have posted it on this website to let local residents know, but despite being both a Councillor and a Primary School Governor no-one thought to let me know about it. I found out late this afternoon after a parent rang a Council colleague to ask about it. Typical of the Council’s lax attitude to consultation – if I didn’t know how many other interested parties were ignored?
You can find out more about this particular consultation by visiting the Council website here. Essentially, at the moment each Primary School in Salford is “associated” with a nearby secondary school. The Council’s preferred proposal is to abolish the associations. As I see it, this is a real problem for parents and children in Salford for two reasons:
- Firstly, it removes the continuity that most Salford children currently have in their education. Most secondary schools work very closely with their associated primary schools and this co-operation would be weakened or lost completely if associated status was abolished. Also many parents would have no indication as to which secondary school their primary-age child would be attending.
- Secondly, the geographical location of Salford’s secondary schools means that parents in some parts of the City will end up with no choice whatsoever for their children. Children in areas like Boothstown, Pendlebury and Broughton Park will be particularly badly affected. Salford already has a very high proportion of children educated in the independent sector or in other authorities and this change will only drive more parents to send their children out of the borough for their education.
Local parents can have their say on these proposals by using the comment form on the Council website or by writing to Admission Arrangements Consultation, Lesley Taylor, Admissions & Exclusions, Minerva House, Pendlebury Road, Swinton, M27 4EQ.
I would urge local residents to ignore the Council’s recommendation, which takes power and choice away from parents, and instead recommend option one.
I’ve spent much of the weekend with Beechams All-In-One for company so apologies for the lack of updates!
Just a quick reminder for local residents that the local Community Committee is being held tomorrow at Little Hulton SureStart Centre on Longshaw Drive, starting at 6pm. Hope to see you there!
Local residents may have seen today’s Manchester Evening News story about the proposed merger of Salford College, Pendleton College and Eccles College. I’m very interested to hear the views of residents and students about this proposal – please post comments to this thread or e-mail me on councillor.lindley@salford.gov.uk.
Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese – readers on this side of the Irwell might remember his dog-in-the-manger rubbishing of the BBC move to Salford Quays – has launched an astonishing attack on Peel Holdings for criticising Labour’s congestion charge.
The astonishing thing is not that he has criticised Peel’s views, but questioned whether they should be entering into the public debate in the first place:
Sir Richard Leese has accused Peel Holdings of `supporting overt political activity, although not declaring so publicly’ over their opposition to the scheme.
This is utter humbug. Peel are entitled to make representations and public pronouncements just the same as any other company or individual. Kellogg’s did so today, and I assume they will be next in front of Sir Richard’s firing squad.
It seems that Sir Richard is only concerned about companies supporting “overt political activity” when they disagree with him. I didn’t see him ranting and raving in the Manchester Evening News when the CEO of Ask Developments waded into the debate - but then Ken Knott was agreeing with him.
Ask are also of course a major donor to the Manchester Labour Party – and if that isn’t “overt political activity”, I don’t know what is!
Ordsall Labour Councillor Tony Harold has been caught parking in a disabled bay at last week’s Council meeting. Cllr Harold quite rightly faces a £60 fine, and I’m disappointed that he has “expressed regret” rather than offering an apology. I don’t think “there were no parking spaces to be had anywhere” is any excuse either – the parking spaces are clearly marked and in any case, Cllr Harold lives both within walking distance of the Civic Centre and on a direct bus route. As usual it is do as I say, not as I do from our Labour Councillors!
I doubt that he will receive any sympathy from his Labour colleagues either. He is due for re-election in May, and his comrades in Ordsall have shown their strong support for his work by deselecting him in favour of local Labour activist Ray Mashiter. Regular readers will remember Mr Mashiter as the “local resident” making a complete fool of himself outside Salford Lads’ Club when David Cameron came to visit.
The next meeting of the Walkden and Little Hulton Community Committee is next Monday, 28th January 2008. The meeting venue rotates between the three wards in Walkden and Little Hulton, so this meeting will be held at the Little Hulton SureStart Centre on Longshaw Drive. The fun and games start at 6pm and all local residents are welcome to attend - hope to see you there!
I don’t tend to write much about Conservative Future on this blog, but I know that a few CF members read this blog on occasion, so I thought I’d make a quick plug for the semi-scientific polling that Mike Rouse is attempting for the forthcoming CF elections. It’s an interesting idea and I am intrigued as to how accurate his polling panel will turn out to be!
Click here if you are a CF member and would like to participate in Mike’s polling panel.
Other than social events I’ve been out of the CF loop for a while, so I don’t intend to announce my public support for any candidate – which may have helped or hindered them in any case – but I look forward to listening to the policies of all candidates in due course!
Another Excellent Report For Hope Hospital
Back in October, I noted that Salford Royal (Hope) Hospital had received a superb report, being rated as “excellent” for both quality of services and use of resources. I pointed out at the time that the decision to close the much-needed maternity and neo-natal unit at Hope looked ridiculous in light of the report – in addition to the already strong arguments for continuing maternity services here in Salford.
Today’s report on maternity care by the Healthcare Commission makes the folly of closing Hope’s maternity unit even more stark. Half of all maternity units across the country have been branded “fair” or “weak” by the Commission, including those at Bolton and Manchester to which the Labour Government will expect expectant mothers to travel in the future.
Hope, meanwhile, has been lauded as one of the top ten performing trusts in the country, and yet the reward for Salford Royal is to be shut down by Labour. Bonkers.