MAYOR: DEPRIVED? (OF ANY SENSE)

MAYOR- DEPRIVED? (OF ANY SENSE)On the same day it emerged that Mayor Hubris was spending up to £150m (and counting …) of OUR MONEY  on a series of pet commercial development projects around Temple Meads, he published a CRAZED ARTICLE on posh people’s website, the Huffington Post, explaining how he was tackling inequality in Bristol.

“We are targeting investment in the most highly deprived areas,” blustered the old fool. Although capital investment by the council in deprived areas such as Avonmouth, Hartcliffe and Southmead is NON EXISTENT. While basic public services run by the council in these areas such as youth, housing and libraries have been consistently CUT by Mayor Deluded.

Even a proposed HARTCLIFFE RECYCLING CENTRE, a useful public service and a source of employment in a deprived area, has been on the backburner because George alleges he can’t find the £3m necessary to open it. So is a polluted old diesel yard next to Temple Meads Station – the subject of about £130m of council investment so far for an arena – one of these “most HIGHLY DEPRIVED AREAS” then?

Other “MOST HIGHLY DEPRIVED AREAS” – all conveniently situated around Temple Meads and worthy of the mayor’s energies and lots of our cash – include the City Point office building directly opposite the station purchased with £9m of our money; derelict land at Temple Meads owned by Skanska and subject to a SECRET financing deal with the mayor and the George Hotel site at Temple Gate, which Mayor Moneybags wants to purchase for an UNDISCLOSED FEE amounting to millions in public money.

Or how about an uncosted eight-storey car park on the Bath Road being built entirely for the benefit of the “most highly deprived” ARENA OPERATORS? Or the former Post Office site at Temple Meads, which George is fattening up for sale in the hope it will pay for some of his over budget arena?

Try to find similar financial commitments in any of Bristol’s REALLY deprived areas and there’s none. Quite the reverse. Deprived areas are subsidising commercial property developments at Temple Meads on an epic scale.

Instead, as George explains in the Huffington Post, he’s tackling any genuine inequality and deprivation with a bunch of CHEAP, INADEQUATE AND LAUGHABLE policies. Any old policy pursued by George over the last three years has been hastily assembled into a list by a council PR and then abstractly rebranded as an anti-poverty measure.

“From 20mph, to RPZ, to metrobus, to engagement hubs, to 10,000 new primary school places, to children planting 30,000 trees, to a rainbow cabinet – all these are integral evidence-based policies that help secure a foundation to position Bristol to sustainability and fiercely tackle inequality,” waffles Mayor Gonad.

Really? Reducing traffic speed tackles poverty and inequality? Likewise, surely even the most DEMENTED of hippies is unlikely to claim children planting trees is a realistic solution to poverty and deprivation?

We could just conclude, at this point, that our mayor is a crackpot in need of a long lie down but anyone who thinks providing deprived areas with a few road signs and a tree planting project for kids counts as serious investment while simultaneously funnelling HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to corporate property interests is clearly mendacious.

Vote him out in May.

5 thoughts on “MAYOR: DEPRIVED? (OF ANY SENSE)

  1. June Hoy

    Yes vote for Marvin Rees who has proper policies for the people of Bristol and he will work with others and be transparent

    Reply
  2. The Bristol Blogger

    Since the Labour Party voted on Tuesday to increase the wages of bosses at the city council on £90k plus salaries by up to 20%, I find that hard to believe.

    Labour’s chair of the HR committee, Mike Wollacott, also said that these wage rises shouldn’t be politicised! Because, presumably, they think there’s nothing political about raising the salaries of people among the top 1% of earners in the city while giving nothing to ordinary workers?

    Reply
  3. Oli Wheeler

    The council wage increases also included giving lots of council workers the living wage. The deal wasn’t perfect and but Labour, on balance, chose to vote in favour.

    Marvin is the only realistic alternative to the current mayor.

    Reply
    1. The Bristol Blogger

      The Living Wage and 20% pay rises for bosses are totally unrelated. It’s perfectly possible to introduce a Living Wage without bumping bosses wages up. The Living Wage has simply been used by management as cover to get their own huge salary increase.

      The real issue with the introduction of the LW isn’t at the top anyway. The issue is differentials lower down the scale. With three pay grades effectively scrapped due to the LW, people on grades just above need wage increases of £4 – £6k to restore those differentials. Oddly, management didn’t mention that when compiling their self-serving pay report. Wonder why?

      It should also be noted the claim by councillors that there’s now 1:10 ration between lowest paid and highest paid at the council is nonsense. The lowest paid is £15,900, the highest paid is (at least) £192k – possibly £204k. That’s a ration of between 1:12 and 1:13. Why are Labour councillors unable to do these simple sums?

      This pay deal agreed by councillors (and promoted by Labour councillors) is a farce that shows Labour’s mayoral campaign that’s based around resolving inequality is electoral strategy to win votes not a a policy they intend to pursue in office where they do the exact opposite and increasing wage inequality.

      Reply
  4. Rob Wilkinson

    Yep well done Labour for supporting fat cat council bosses whilst low paid workers suffer.

    Here’s a link to Aneurin Bevan’s page on Wikipedia to remind you of what you should be doing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

    He’s spinning so fast in his grave he is probably generating his own gravity.

    Labour the party of fat cats.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.