Monday, 28 March 2011

Incinerator heats up the election in Burmantofts & Richmond Hill

In the latest missive from the Lib Dems they pose the very reasonable question “Why have Labour delayed the decision on the incinerator until after the May election” we too, of course, are very interested in the answer to this question and have asked the Labour Party for an answer.

They further state that Labour has committed £1M to the project, though they do not state where they came by this figure, if this is accurate we too would like know why they have done this. We know that the Lib Dem/Cons spent approximately £1M (FOI request) up to May 2010 on preparing for an incinerator so why the need to spend another £1M?

This project has now become a major issue in the upcoming local elections and it seems that neither of the parties most likely to be vying for the seat in our area have been particularly transparent about their position on this matter so we have just two simple questions which need to be put to anyone standing in the May elections, they are simple, straightforward and require only a one word answer:
  1. Is your party in favour of the building of a Municipal Incinerator at either Cross Green or Knostrop?

  2. If elected will you personally campaign against an incinerator regardless of your party’s position on this matter?

The answers do not require any candidate to speculate on their opponent’s possible position or point out what they believe that was in the past, all they need to do is to state clearly and unequivocally what their own position is and that of their party is on this matter now.

We strongly believe that this issue is too important to be lost in the hurly burly of the local elections. This is a matter of great urgency and importance to the NO2Incinerator campaign, the residents of East Leeds and the people of Leeds generally. It will radically affect the future of every resident of the city for the next 25 years at least. This project will have environmental, regeneration, health and financial impacts across this area in particular and the city as a whole. It will affect how we are able to deal with a fluid and rapidly changing waste stream situation in the future because, if approved, this PFI project will have to be paid for regardless of whether it is used to capacity or not used at all and that must skew the debate away from the REDUCE, RE-USE and RECYCLE agenda.

We think it is excellent that this matter is being given a much higher profile and being more openly discussed across our Ward and the city as a whole, however at the moment this is a discussion which is generating considerably more heat than light and as electors we need and deserve clarity and complete honesty from those who do now, or would like in the future, to represent us. Tell us unambiguously where you stand on this very important matter - surely it is the least we can expect of those who claim to speak on our behalf?


  1. I know where i stand - NO PFI, NO BURNING OF MUNICPAL WASTE. QED

    As for politicians they only think of themselves. What's Ralph Pryke going to do after May 2011. Go around Richmond Hill saying "I'm the only liberal councillor in the village!" If his tantrums get any worse somebody is going to have to spank him (but he might enjoy that too much).

  2. I wonder if the delay in announcing the next step in the incinerator saga has anything to do with the Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign? This group has been very active in trying to stop Veolia being awarded the contract because of their poor (to say the least) human rights record and we were told at the last RHF meeting that the council was taking legal advice - anything that delays this project has to be good news.

    By the way have the Lib Dems nailed their colours to the mast on this project yet, are they for or against the incinerator at Cross Green/Knostrop?

  3. Fib Dems defo against it at cross green, therefore their default setting has to be Knostrop. They are not anti incineration just anti losing votes as all hell will break loose if its at Cross Green. We are just anti incineration (which if you are within 100ft of a crazed liberal these days appears to be a hanging offence. If they get rid of Nick Clegg and things may improve ( a teeny bit)

  4. I think this is an excellent point: let's get everybody commit to what they will personnally do.

    For us in the NO2incinerator campaign, it is not enough to say that we do not want one in Cross Green ( although we DO NOT WANT ONE IN CROSS GREEN), but that we don't want an incinerator in Leeds and we do not want it to be funded through PFI.

    We believe that the rush to incineration is a close minded and unsustainable solution that will prove costly both to the environment and the public purse.

    We want our elected representatives to answer clear questions and ultimately, if needed, to stand not for their parties but for the communities they represent.

  5. Do our councillors know about this? Are they going to answer? Did you invite them to comment?

  6. Yes ALL the councillors know about this, NO2Incinerator emailed every member of the council and asked them for their position on this matter. All the replies we received we published in full. We have also emailed the Labour Party to ask for their take on this leaflet and will publish their reply when it arrives.

    What we need to avoid though is allowing our local politicians to side line this issue by using the history of this project as a tool to beat each other up over in the upcoming election instead of addressing the really vital question which is "is a PFI funded Municipal Incinerator the best way to deal with our waste stream going forward?" We feel that the clear answer to that is NO!

    The party political in-fighting is merely a tiresome distraction we, the electorate, could well do without.

  7. Our elected members need to remember who voted for them, Ralph is unbelievably arrogant and rude, Ron somewhere in the mid 70's and heavens knows what the new one will be like. Hollingsworth never speaks at meetings so god knows what is going on between his ears and we know vitually nothing about the labour bloke so voting for him is a risk in its self.

    What we need is a female councillor - never mind the party they are in.

  8. All we need is a LOCAL councillor, irrespective of sex or political sympathies..

    Someone who actually lives in Richmond Hill!!

  9. Amen to the comment above. When last I looked there was not a single councillor of any party who listed a LS9 post code on their contact information!

  10. I really think there is no need to post comments that relate to the sexuality of our councillors on here. It is unpleasant and rude and should be removed.

  11. I am not sure I understand the comment on the sexuality of the councillors, do you object to the views of one poster thinks a female councillor would be better than a male?

    Surely they are entitled to their opinion on that subject and I don't see how that is rude.

  12. I think the issue is gender rather than sexuality.

    Lets just have a new councillor who has had their gender reassigned. As long as they are opposed to incineration of course.

  13. Can people bother to read something before they object?

    I posted the comment about political opinions or sex.Since when sex is to be confused with sexuality?

    Maybe your readers should look into themselves first before accusing others for being rude.

    I would never comment on someone's sexuality. It is completely irrelevant. In fact I was trying to make the point that it is their opinions and not their sex ( gender) that is important.

  14. Goodness me I am rather lost for words. The top post, which I will not repeat, makes a none too subtle reference to Little Britain and one of our councillors. And then talks about enjoying spanking

    Please do not play the innocent; I will go further than rude. This is homophobic, nasty and possibly illegal.

    If one of our councillors were black would it be tolerated if the colour of their skin was made an issue?

    I can't believe that having this been politely pointed out the admin of the site then brushes it off.

    I do not object to the comments about the gender of the councillors even if I don't agree with them. I really don't care whether man or woman so long as they do a good job.

  15. I am sorry that I did not understand which precise post caused you offence, you did not state that specifically and since I have never seen Little Britain I did not then, and still don't, know what it is that you find objectionable about the comments in the first post.

    I also do not understand how you arrived at the conclusion that this post was "homophobic, nasty and possibly illegal" either because, whilst it might be considered by some a rather unfunny aside, bad jokes are not as far as I know illegal.

    I am concerned that you feel I brushed off your complaint but since I did not understand which item you were referring and not having seen the programme you refer to in your later post I assumed you were annoyed about the comment about a female councillor being more effective than a male, which some might consider sexist.

    Since the first poster, like yourself chooses to remain annonymous I have no context in which to set either of your comments however your comments have been noted and published and are now open to response should anyone care to do so.

  16. Gosh how exciting, a homophobic,sexist, probably illegal little blog from a small group in Richmond Hill. That refers to spanking councillors and Little Britain, must be a local politician writing that. Hello whoever you are!

    But NO NO NO to incineration of municipal waste. NO NO NO to electing anybody who may choose to support it be they red, yellow, green or blue in their politics.

    And get a grip a folks if you choose to be anonymous you can write what you like and accuse who you will. Infact the racier and accusitioral this blog gets the more people will read it and maybe just maybe change their mind abou tincineration just like Richard Brett did.

  17. This very obviously manufactured indignation is designed to take the discussion away from the real point which is the proposed building of a PFI funded incinerator in this area.

    Let us not be distracted by this tactic stay on point people

  18. I objected to the nasty tone to this thread and I can say I am not a local politician or connected to any political party of any colour.

    There is no manufacture in my upset, I think this is horrible.

    I'll try one more tact; I actually agree with your aims and you should be trying to build a common consensus. If I do not like the tone of some of these posts and the admin of the site refuses to remove them and plays dumb will you build that consensus?

    Look, I'm not stupid I know many people in LS9 couldn't give a monkeys about the language you use. But then there will be people like me and actual gay people who may object. Can you see where this is going? Make a big tent and get everyone in it.

  19. I agree that the only way forward for our campaign is to build a consensus.

    I am not playing dumb as you put it I may well live in East End Park but that does not mean that I watch trashy television programmes so I missed the supposed allusion to Little Britain, if it indeed existed.

    I strongly object to the smearing of 'many' in our community based on their post code, it is precisely because of blinkered and negative assumptions like these that we who live in East End Park/Cross Green struggle to be heard.

    The aim of our group is to oppose the building of one or possibly two incinerators in Leeds since we feel that this is an outdated and inflexible technology which will not solve our problems in the future, we further object to the proposal to pay for the municipal incinerator using PFI as this has proved a costly and unsatisfactory arrangement for many projects across the country.

    We also object to the unspoken assumption by some people that if we have to have an incinerator then it should be here in our ward because "those people are too stupid to either notice or care".

    Though I personally object to your comments on many of the people who live in LS9 and indeed find them gratuitously offensive they have been published since they do not contravene the rules of the board just as the post you object to did not in my opinion contravene them - the price of free speech is that sometimes we are offended.