Recent additions to the Swindon Local Studies Collection’s online archive of photographs have included several from a century ago of the point where the Wilts & Berks Canal crossed Kingshill Road. komadori has been out to photograph the same views today.
(2010 images are © komadori and part of a collection of almost 200 Swindon photographic comparisons with images from the online archive of the Swindon Local Studies Collection.)
Looking east…
and west…
and north…
and finally south-west.
In August last year, I suggested an alternative to building a new university in Swindon.
What I could see happening, and would favour, is one of the colleges in Swindon expanding the undergraduate courses which it offers until, after many years, it is in a position to claim university status and offer its own degrees rather than those of other universities. I think that would also have the benefit of producing something more vocational appropriate for the sort of town Swindon is… focused on the town’s industrial base, rather than a more traditional, academic university that we might end up with as a branch of some other town’s university. That model is the one by which most current universities were created (from college, to university college or polytechnic, then to independent university), but is one that takes many decades.
Mr Buckland said he was ‘taken with’ the suggestion. Mr Tomlinson seemed supportive too. Now that the money has vanished for the University of the West England’s Swindon plans — if it was ever really there — it seems that Swindon Borough Council might be coming round to my and others’ way of thinking, albeit reluctantly. Whilst Mr Young still expresses aspirations for a new university, that he is prepared to explore more homegrown alternatives is a welcome departure from the legacy-project fixation of the current council administration.
On the same day that the University of the West of England announced it had ditched plans to build a university in Swindon, thereby knocking yet another hole in the masterplan for Swindon town centre regeneration, the council’s fantasist leader Mr Bluh was busy burying his head in the sand.
2010 will see us kicking off out of the recession because of the resilience we have here in Swindon.
The only resilience I see is in Mr Bluh’s habit of throwing our money at vanity projects.
[I]n 2009 we had one of the best years in getting the name of the Swindon known better around the country — getting rid of the speed cameras, the Radio One weekend; the wi-fi launch which attracted interest from around the world and, of course, our twinning with Disneyworld.
Let’s not forget that the council has admitted that the claimed £2M benefits from almost £½M splurged on the Radio 1 Big Weekend are partly speculation rather than fact. Let’s not forget that the almost £½M spent on wifi is on companies with minimal track record and whose project is already behind schedule. Let’s also not forget that Mr Bluh and Swindon Borough Council had no part in the Disney twinning — the once source of sustained good publicity.
So why — apart from naïvety and arrogance — is Mr Bluh so optimistic? Apparently because he’s throwing yet another £1M of our money at a replacement for the New Swindon Company. As was announced back in January, the old company and parts of the council are to be replaced by a new company, now to be named Forward Swindon*.
If Forward Swindon is to bring about the long promised regeneration, it’ll need to be considerably more successful than its predecessor — and significantly more careful with our money than its council masters. With little money available in current economic conditions, small steps rather than grand plans would be in order. Swindon needs a town centre that serves the needs of its population, rather than one that serves the ego of legacy-seeking political masters.
* Just a holding site for the moment, but registered in the name of the New Swindon Company’s Ms Ashdown.
On Monday night, for the first time, I went to observe a meeting of Swindon Borough Council. This was the budget setting full council meeting. Even allowing for the poor reputation of politicians, one might expect that for an important issue like this the debate would be serious and behaviour respectable. Instead, there was a display of infantile posturing and bad temper.
The meeting started with a minute’s silence to mark the death of Ms Fowles, chief executive of the local NHS who died of cancer at the weekend. In tribute, Mr Bluh suggested that councillors should try and have a reasoned debate. It was advice that few — including Mr Bluh and his own cabinet — chose to follow.
During the first item on the agenda — confirmation of the minutes of the last meeting — Mr Perkins delivered the first of many ranting political lectures. Indeed, one of the three consistent features of the evening — the others being the number 21 bus and Mr Bluh’s now infamous smug arrogance — was Mr Perkins’ aggressive contempt for all those he disagreed with.
Next up were questions from the public. In response to one question Mr Young admitted that the £2M benefits to the local economy claimed for the Radio 1 Big Weekend were ‘partly speculative’. In response to another question, Mr Bluh claimed that ‘due process was followed’ when investing almost £½M in Digital City (UK) Ltd. He also said
As far as I am aware there is no Audit Commission investigation.
Awareness may not be one of Mr Bluh’s strong points.
Next were general questions from the councillors, during which Mr Wright got very hot and bothered over the matter of naming streets and announced he was referring the matter to the borough solicitor. The names of streets seemed to worry Mr Wright more than how the council spends our money.
After ¾ hour it was on to the main item for the evening: the council budget. According to Mr Edwards his budget was ‘brilliant’. Naturally, Mr Montaut disagreed and proposed an amended budget, for the same cost but different services. Much knockabout political squabbling then followed, with Mr Perkins and Ms Foley in rather a lot of words accusing the opposition of being stupid and Mr Bluh taking the ‘nice try but should have done better; much better’ approach, and the red nest trying to make up for lack of numbers by shouting all their speeches.
Most bizarre moments of the evening for me were Mr Bawden making a speech opposing a budget needing a higher council tax, even though that wasn’t what the opposition had proposed, and Mr Ali delivering a political speech that made almost no mention of budget plans but wouldn’t have been out of place in a general election hustings for his candidature in Devizes.
However, perhaps the most telling point was when Mr Wright observed that an essential element of civic pride is ensuring that basic things, like keeping the streets clean, are done and done well. To this Mr Bluh responded
The Tabernacle stones and canal are about the bigger picture and Swindon moving forward.
For Mr Bluh running a council during a financial crisis is clearly more about vain legacy projects than serving the basic needs of Swindon.
In a tempestuous full meeting of Swindon Borough Council — a meeting still in progress — it was revealed by Mr Small and then confirmed by Mr Bawden that Mr Bawden is seeing a solicitor tomorrow in respect of what he regards as inappropriate behaviour towards him by one of his fellow Conservative councillors. Clearly, the blue nest on Swindon Borough Council is not a happy one.
Is there an election coming? I ask because Mr Bluh — even though he comments similarly himself — is behaving as though there isn’t. Mr Montaut and Mr Wills have both expressed concern over the amount of money being spent by Swindon Borough Council on Westminster lobbyists: £129,400 over 18 months.
In a time of economic hardship, where council employees are experiencing real-terms pay cuts and day centres for the elderly are being shut down, Swindon can ill afford to pay for luxuries like a lobbying contract in London, when there are perfectly acceptable, cheaper alternatives to getting central Government funding – like using Swindon’s two MPs.
Now, leaving aside the distinct failure of said two MPs to do anything of use for Swindon in Westminster — Ms Snelgrove isn’t known as the government’s representative in South Swindon for nothing — and that it may well turn out to be money well spent, the council’s finances are in a dire state and every penny spent should be thoroughly justified.
Alas, it seems that Mr Bluh doesn’t believe in justifying how he spends our money.
This attack is the last gasp from two failed Members of Parliament who have not delivered for local people. Their comments are designed purely for the forthcoming election and have nothing to do with the future of the borough.
I’m sure Messrs Montaut and Wills made their comments with the elections in mind. That doesn’t mean they’re not legitimate concerns. And more importantly, concerns that the electorate of Swindon might wish to have answered.
With the council short of money, yet having spent almost £½M on the Radio 1 Big Weekend and almost another £½M on wifi, Mr Bluh needs to try far harder and actually justify the money his council administration takes from us, rather than just responding with arrogance and contempt.
If he doesn’t, the electorate may decide that Mr Bluh too will have nothing to do with the future of the borough.
Mr Hunt — talking about the wireless internet service being built by his company with a loan of almost £½M from the people of Swindon via Swindon Borough Council — says he’s
very very disappointing that it’s been politicised.
I too am disappointed. The attempt by Mr Wills to compare concerns over the wifi deal with the traditional and long-running political squabble about how much of our money Swindon receives from central government is blatant politicisation.
For years, Swindon borough councillors have misled residents about government funding but there is growing evidence that this forms part of a pattern…. I believe there is evidence of systemic secrecy in Swindon Borough Council about money and this represents a failure of governance. I call now on Swindon Borough Council to reveal the truth about Oakhurst School and the wi-fi scheme and do the survey on bus travel residents want.
The links between that little lot are tenuous to say the least.
However, if Mr Hunt is so concerned about politicisation, then why did he choose to be pictured at the launch of the wifi service in Highworth, alongside an all-blue line-up of Mr Bluh and parliamentary shadow cabinet member Ms Spelman? If Mr Hunt doesn’t like politicisation, he shouldn’t make such a habit of appearing with politicians.
For myself and seemingly for others, this is not a party political matter: it’s about whether due process was followed when spending local taxpayers’ money. The pursuit of the truth behind how and when the decision to spend almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money on this particular company would be just as determined, regardless of the party of the politicians involved.
Mr Singh seems to be collecting enforcement notices rather more readily than he’s planning permission for work on the GWR Mechanics Institute building. Following an urgent works notice issued in January — requiring basic maintenance to be done on the building to make it watertight — Mr Singh is now the lucky winner of an enforcement order from the Health and Safety Executive, stopping that work because of unsafe practices. If he can’t even manage basic repairs safely, how does he expect anyone to believe he’s capable of fulfilling the grander plans he has for the building?
It’s difficult to understand why Mr Singh continues to cling on to ownership of the building. From a business perspective — even in the unlikely event that he did submit an acceptable planning application — from his actions so far it doesn’t look as though he’s got the wherewithal to make a profit from redevelopment of the Mechanics. The sooner ownership passes to someone more commercially capable the better.
It’s rare that I find myself in agreement, — even just partial agreement — with my local red nest councillors. But with the first election leaflet of the year to drop through my letterbox, they seem to have picked a topic which I suspect many in Central ward will see more than just a hint of truth amongst the political exaggeration.
First, they comment on residents’ parking permits. This is almost unadulterated political spin.
Residents parking is their second biggest revenue stream after Council tax. Every time they put up parking charges at car parks in town, drivers try to avoid the increased costs by parking in Central’s residential areas.
They’ve obviously forgotten that in the run-up to Christmas, charges for parking in town centre car parks were dropped.
If you think we are being unfair then question why the Tories closed the Northern Park and Ride, adding an estimated 250 week day cars looking for parking spaces in Central.
Perhaps because the economic disaster that the Labour government has presided over has reduced the number working in Central Swindon by far more than that.
The Tory Council have forgotten that this scheme is for you and your parking needs and not as their income generator.
Agreed, but the price of residents’ parking permits has nothing to do with visitor car parking charges.
So far, so much traditional party political drivel. But then they come to a topic where the current blue nest leadership are contentedly kicking own goals as fast as they can.
This Tory administration is more obsessed with itself and creating a legacy, than representing the people of the Borough… this Administration has an attitude of “it’s my way, or no way”…. They were planning to cut £50,000 from the Dial-a-Ride service at the same time they have shown misjudgment (sic) with priorities by the way they have gone about loaning £450,000 of Tax payers money to the Wi-Fi venture.
It seems the only legacy the local blue nest leadership have created is a massive stockpile of ammunition for their political opponents… and a bill for something many in Swindon will neither want nor need.
I don’t wish to appear churlish about Swindon Borough Council achieving a low council tax increase for the coming year but… if they can achieve an increase of just 1.8% following a year when the council’s other revenues (such as planning application fees) have collapsed, just why haven’t they achieved it before? Or perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask why they haven’t felt it appropriate to achieve such a small increase before. In principle, it should have been possible for them to achieve this level of increase in previous years putting far less strain on service provision, as the council’s finances were in a better state.
To go for broke — possibly literally — this year looks like little more than reckless pre general election posturing rather than carefully thought out financial planning.