Two news items came up yesterday around the same time, both about Bristol City Council that didn't put them in a favourable light. The first is about further movement on the idea of congestion charging in Bristol city centre, and the second is about the council apparently toying with the idea of not giving money to charities that are critical of them. Now I was not a fan of the Lib Dem council that was in place up until the last election, it was far too soft on corporations that effectively held monopolies in the area and seemed to be doing far too little. By contrast this new council headed up by Labour talks a lot but seemingly only to hide the fact they are being so god damn authoritarian on issues.

Firstly, on the congestion charge issue. The idea is that drivers would be charged £4 for access to the city centre, and also other ideas to include aims to alleviate congestion in north Bristol.

A spokesman for the National Alliance Against Tolls, said:
"The authorities know that if the voters were given a choice on this matter there would be no new charges.
"It seems that either this money is to be wasted or the authorities are considering imposing charges despite the overwhelming opposition to them."

This spokesperson is quite right, the opposition against congestion charging is huge, and no amount of claims that this would only happen "from 2013" and "when public transport had improved" will ease the public's mind on this at this time. The council has been chronically weak in dealing with the issue of operators charging an arm and a leg for public transport in this city and fail to do more than an annual push to highlight congestion charging each year. They have an inconsistent policy on cycling where spending money on the appropriate safety measures is not invested, and in one case of Bower Ashton where art students for UWE study there has been arguments and fights for years about the simple task of getting a pedestrian crossing installed on a particularly dangerous bend that students need to cross to get on-to the extortionate public transport system. Why? All because of money.

If the council couldn't be trusted, either as Lib Dem's or as Labour, to put investment into the safety of those willing to use the public transport system, and failed to create the right atmosphere for appropriate charges, then how does it expect anyone to jump to agree to congestion charging which should only, if ever, be the last resort in congestion busting schemes. They haven't exhausted their OTHER options yet, but they jump to the one that will make them some dosh.

And this is also all aside from the fact the overpriced public transport system almost cannot serve everyone, and one particular group I see losing out big time here are student nurses and doctors that may live inside the area's BCC is talking about, having to commute to towns outside of Bristol to learn their industry, and paying for the privilege of doing so. Unlike London where perhaps people living in the city centre do so because of the closeness to their job, residents in central Bristol could be there because of their placement by the universities or lack of other accomodation despite not working anywhere near where they live.

Next then we have what could easily be deemed a scandal, the idea that the council would limit it's investment in charities if those charities were critical of them.

Under a section headlined Communication Standards/ Commissioning Relationship, a council document - available on its website - states: "Does the organisation/ service never reply to communications, goes straight to the media with criticisms of Bristol City Council, actively works against us etc."

Essentially, and I agree with them, some people are saying this is a gagging clause if you want to get your hands on any of the money going around. While trying to deny this a spokesperson also said...

When an organisation enters into a contractual arrangement with another it is perfectly common practice to expect that organisation's employees to abide by certain protocol. One of these would be an expectation that, in the event of a problem arising the group commissioned to provide a service would first work with its funder to resolve it.

So despite claiming it's not a gagging clause, the organisations will have to go through the city council first to resolve their issues...so what? So that the council can claim they put a reasonable solution on the table and then when bad mouthed in the press can have justification for removing funding? In an ideal world people would always complain to those that are causing the problem, but maybe BCC should first look at why organisations feel the need to speak out publicly against them in the first place?

All in all this is a worrying trend for the council which has never exactly been operating in the needs and services of the public's best interest. To try and push forward with initiatives that have little public support and to marginalise organisations that rely on their money with some kind of Stalinist ruling is not acceptable behaviour, and anyone from Bristol reading this I would urge to write to your councillor if you feel particularly annoyed about either of these issues.