There is huge local anger about the decision to spend vast  sums on disrupting the California crossroads  junction which works fine.

Residents should not take it out on the workers undertaking the contract. They should continue with strong legal  protests against the Council. We told them well in advance not to mess with this junction. We told them not to waste an astonishing £5.5 million of taxpayers money. The  current MP for this part of the Borough disagrees with this scheme.

People are incensed by the Council’s costly anti driver agenda. People need to use vehicles to get to work, to take children to school, to do the weekly shop and to get to sport and leisure activities. It is heartless  of the Council to block roads, put in endless temporary traffic lights, and create more dangerous spaces where there once were clear roads and pavements. This long building project will do plenty of damage to local businesses who will lose customers over it.

Why does the Council hate us so much? Why do they delight in making busy lives more difficult?

Labour’s decision to abandon most of its planned £28 bn a year extra investment programme for net zero has served to highlight the costs of the policy. It should also lead Labour to ask how they could both afford and achieve their wish to accelerate the UK’s progress to net zero compared to very exacting existing government targets. Under Mr Sunak the government has been relaxing some of the requirements, recognising that for the policy to work it has to be undertaken at a pace that people will accept. Much of the investment needs to be made by individuals and by private companies, so it needs to be realistic. The faster the government wants to go the more subsidy and direct public spending it will need to bring it about.

Labour say they are still wedded to the idea of zero carbon electricity generation by 2030. How can this be?  That would require the closure and write off of all our gas power stations and the remaining coal ones. If Drax is staying it would require a carbon capture and storage scheme to be up and running at great cost for that facility. It would require a massive expansion of the grid to handle more interruptible power and the planned expansion of electric heating and vehicles. It would need a major further investment in wind and solar power. It would require big battery installations to store power, and probably some new pump storage schemes as well. No-one seriously  believes this can be done by 2030. Nor could be it be done for part of a planned  £28bn a year let alone without £28 bn a year.

Two of the big areas where net zero requires different conduct by individuals are  transport and heating. Labour’s faster progress would mean ripping out far more gas boilers far sooner, which most people show no wish to do. It would require a fast replacement of diesel and petrol vehicles with electric. It would require an end to many holidays abroad or a rapid roll out of synthetic fuels for all aeroplanes. It is time interviewers on main media asked these crucial questions of those who advocate faster moves to net zero. It is simply wrong to be told wind energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy when the figures do not take into account the costs of back up power today from fossil fuel. Nor do they take into account the full costs of extra grid, the costs of battery and pump storage , the costs of smart meters and the costs of rolling out charger points and extra cable capacity into homes for a more comprehensive renewables system.

The South East Councils asked the public which cuts scenarios they were most concerned about. The public did  not express as much concern as the Councils probably hoped in a   number of areas.  On climate change 61% of Councillors wanted increased public transport but only 32% of the public did. Only 17% of the public wanted more EV charging points which are  now making their costly appearance more often.  46% of Councillors wanted more financial assistance for insulating homes but only 32% of the public. Only 14% said they plan to buy or drive an electric vehicle.

In area after area Councillors wanted a higher spending more interventionist model of local government whereas more of the public did not. The survey was a typical one with so many Labour and Lib Dem Councillors on the organisation. It was skewed to wanting more and bigger local government and more spending. There were no reported options to spend less, reduce the number of things Councils do,  to reduce executive and admin staffing levels, and to cut down the number of bogus consultations where Councils then ignore the findings if they do not like them. There was  no option to stop the aggressive spending on removing lanes, reducing flows at junctions, narrowing roads and making it very difficult to drive  to work or school.

The survey did capture people’s frustrations that local government makes important decisions about their lives but the people do not feel part of the process or empowered to stop bad decisions being made. Lib Dem Wokingham is an example of a Council which ignores public opinion after spending a lot on consultant designed schemes and on consultations. It specialises in spending  money on trying to get more people to abandon their cars as it follows its anti motorist agenda.

Please find below the Dear Colleague that I have received from the Government concerning the Pharmacy First Programme.

facts4eu.org/news/2024_feb_budget_ideas. publishes my budget article with their comments.