The candidates are not always greener on the other side!

As the general election approaches some of us turn to candidates that support our green values.  For some of us issues like recycling, air quality and incineration are key issues in our local communities and that could be considered a major issue for the city of Derby where recycling has collapsed, air quality is now being focused on by DEFRA and a new waste incineration plant is due to open soon, all of which is currently overseen locally by a Labour council.
 

The fight to improve recycling, air quality and the fight against a recycling guzzling incineration plant would you would expect be championed by the Green Party.

But this is where things become a bit strange because in the Derby North electoral district the Green Party have stood aside and have encouraged their supporters to vote for ex MP Chris Williamson
 the Labour Party candidate.

 

Marten Kats the Chairman of the Derbyshire Green Party was quoted on May 13th in the Derby Evening Telegraph as saying

 "the Tories and UKIP represent a regressive alliance. Its clear for this country to move forward a more equitable and sustainable future voters in Derby North should stand behind Chris Williamson a principled and strong local candidate with deep roots in the community"

 

When challenged on this Marten Kats stated on Twitter
 

"we base ourselves on national issues, this is no endorsement of Lab on a local level. Also, we can't possibly stand everywhere."
 

But what about the candidate the Greens are supporting by not putting forward a candidate and by their encouragement of their supporters to vote for Chris Williamson?
 

Chris Williamson models himself as a supporter of wildlife and in the past has campaigned against issues such as fox hunting but at the same time he has also been a supporter of the controversial Resource Recovery Solutions waste incineration plant being built in Sinfin, Derby - found in the neighbouring Derby South constituency.
A green oasis in the heart of a residential and industrial area of the city of Derby the Sinfin Tannery site was home to a broad range of wildlife which had naturalised on an ex brownfield site. To make the site even more special the site was home to the only known population of common lizards in the city. In a few short weeks the wildlife oasis shown below was history.

 

In mid August 2014 Chris Williamson seemed over the moon when the Green Investment Bank granted the project funding. He took to Twitter to make clear his pleasure !

 

Chris Williamson ‏@ChriswMP Aug 21

Delighted Green Investment Bank's confirmed it'll finance Derby's waste treatment facility that'll reduce landfill & cut 50k tonnes of CO2

To read more about the sites destruction from back in November 2014 check out my blog post
http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-tannery-site-gutted-for-development.html

As for the site - the wildlife haven has gone for good as construction reaches completion as can be seen from this picture taken in April 2017

So we have in Derby North a Labour candidate who has supported the destruction of a green oasis in the city of Derby which will burn large volumes of potentially recyclable materials for over two decades and which will strangle recycling in the city while driving down air quality.
This is then waved through by the Green Party in Derbyshire because somehow national issues are more important but this is the GREEN PARTY! the very party those concerned about environmental issues would lend their support to in an election and yet in Derbyshire they are encouraging their supporters in Derby North to vote for someone who supported the destruction of a green open space so that an inefficient waste incineration plant could be constructed.

But then it becomes even more confusing with the added twist that the Green Party have put forward a candidate - Ian Sleeman in Derby South - where the controversial waste incineration plant that Chris Williamson supports is being constructed.
In a report in the Derby Telegraph on Wed May 17th Mr Sleeman is quoted as saying
"I would fight to reduce the harm caused by the Sinfin incinerator"

Hold on a minute Marten Kats the Chairman of the Derbyshire Green Party is saying this is about national issues - but isn't resource management, air quality and wildlife a set of national issues?
 In an attempt to side step the issue of lending support to a Labour candidate with questionable green credentials Mr Kats plays the national issues card but isn't it all rather odd for one of his own candidates to use a local green issue in his campaign when Mr Kats is trying to deflect criticism of his parties support for a Labour Party candidate that is at odds with the stance of his Derby South Green candidate?

Politics like grass isn't always greener on the other side!


©SIMON BACON 2017
 

 

 

 

 

 

The £50 million claim of the council leader pre election !

In recent months in incineration circles the media story around the controversial Kings Lynn incinerator has been something of a main event ! Finally when push came to shove in that case the local council pulled out of the incinerator project with talk of a cost to the council of £30 million or so - the government are currently refusing to help out that local council.
Such a situation raises some serious questions in relation to how a council finds itself in a position where it can be trapped into a waste contract or plant procurement. When this happens it stops councils from being able to manage waste in the most sustainable way because they are locked into projects which last decades, cost millions and manage waste via inefficient forms of incineration.
Here in Derby UK we find that the suggested costs to leave a waste contract which we have between the city and county with Shanks Waste via Resource Recovery Solutions is claimed to be even higher ! In a recent media story the then leader of Derby City Council - Councillor Paul Bayliss made a claim that it would cost at least £50 million to tear up the waste contract. This was in response to members of TUSK who were standing for election in Derby.
The claims can be seen here in the Derby Telegraph article Derby Telegraph story referring to the waste project
Such claims by the then leader of Derby City Council could not go unchallenged because these were serious claims being made by the head of the city. Were these claims true ? was the leader using such scaremongering to impact on the local election result in the Sinfin and Osmaston ward - where the controversial incinerator is proposed ?
An email was sent to Councillor Bayliss on 15th May 2014

" Dear Councillor Bayliss,

In recent days you have made statements about costs of £50 million that the council face if they pulled out of the waste contract. Could you please provide the evidence to back up your claims. We ask as we consider it is important that as a council you are open and clear on this situation so that members of the public can fully understand your claims. If you are going to make a statement referring to for example the contract then please provide a copy for clarity.

I copy this to the Derby Telegraph who ran the story in relation to TUSK.

 Kind regards

Simon Bacon
Chairman
S.S.A.I.N"

It was a long wait for a reply and I had to poke Councillor Bayliss to get a response on 31st May
Mr Bayliss wasn't keen to confirm what evidence he had to back up his claims and tried to divert such questions to the new leader of the council.

" Hi
I received the e mail but I was busy with election business.
I stand my statement to cut & run from the contract & the Inter authority agreement would cost £50 million at least.
Please refer all your questions on this matter to the new Leader elect in the future.

Regards
Sent from Cllr Paul Bayliss, Alvaston ward"

 

I went back to Mr Bayliss after his reply

 

" Thanks for your reply,

I granted you time to reply noting it was election time.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim - making such claims pre election could be seen as an attempt to impact on an election result - for this reason it is reasonable in my view to ask you for proof.

You made the claim - now back it up or we can only conclude you have no evidence which raises the question of if you made false statements while leader of Derby City Council.

 

Simon Bacon

Chairman

S.S.A.I.N"

 

Mr Bayliss responded again

 

"Simon

We are never going to resolve this one so I think it’s best if we agree to differ.

Regards

 

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

Mr Bayliss was being evasive - but then he is a politician ! I went back to him yet again !

"

That's OK Cllr Bayliss - we will go with - ex leader of Derby City Council refuses to prove his claims that to leave the controversial waste disposal contract would cost £50 million raising the question was such a claim put forward to influence voting in the Sinfin and Osmaston ward of Derby in the recent election.

Thanks

Simon Bacon"

 

Ever evasive Cllr Bayliss responded further

 

" Simon

This is a democracy, you don’t seem to like it when I disagree with you. The vote impact next time will be the same as it was a couple of weeks ago in my view.

So I wish you well.

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

It was important to highlight to Mr Bayliss that it wasn't acceptable to make claims without backing them up

 

" Cllr Bayliss,

What I dont like is a leader (now ex) making statements in the media that they then will not provide evidence to back up.

Regards

Simon Bacon"

 

Mr Bayliss responded with what is a pretty common brush off when a councillor doesn't want to talk about a situation

 

"Hello

Simon

As I have said you and I are just going to have to differ on this.

Thanks

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

I returned to Councillor Bayliss with the following

 

" Thanks Cllr Bayliss,

Its not about differing on something - its about being asked for proof of your claims and you not providing them - which raises the issue of were your claims factually correct when printed in the media.

Regards

Simon Bacon"

 

That was the last response from Councillor Paul Bayliss as I write this blog post. He has made strong claims in stories in the media about a waste project and potential costs but has consistently side stepped the core questions put to him - to prove his claims ! Did he make his claims to impact on the local election? do his claims stack up? has he proven his claims to the media before they were published?

Waste is a dirty business !

 

©SIMON BACON 2016