Regrets over how Bristol liveable neighbourhood was rolled out
A city leader has admitted he regrets how the rollout of a suburb's liveable neighbourhood was handled.Bristol City Council leader Tony Dyer said there were "definitely lessons to be learned" about the process, which saw residents in Barton Hill protesting against council contractors as they closed some side-roads to vehicles."Do I personally regret, I think yes I do," he said.Mr Dyer inherited a consultation about the scheme from the previous Labour administration. He suggested that he should have looked more closely at whether "everyone who needed to be involved had been involved".
A six-month trial of the scheme is now under way and involves a variety of measures intended to calm traffic, including bus gates and cycle lanes.The improvements in a liveable neighbourhood, according to the council, aim to make it easier to catch a bus and to walk or cycle, with less through traffic.
Mr Dyer acknowledged the protests had been "uncomfortable" for his party, the Greens, but said: "I don't think that we're ever going to please everybody with everything we do."You never like to be in a situation where you are coming into conflict with people who often have valid concerns, and you want to try to find a way to address those."Liveable neighbourhoods are controversial topic – some people are very much supportive, other people are very much anti."Mr Dyer was speaking to Politics West to mark a year since the Greens started running the council.The party does not have a majority; the Liberal Democrats hold some committee posts.The council leader said the biggest achievement of his first year in office was "delivering a balanced budget", adding that had involved difficult decisions."If you haven't got the money coming in, if you're not getting funded to do the things that we want to do, then regardless of what colour rosette you wear, you are going to have to make tough choices," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves to give prosecutors extra £250m to tackle courts backlog
More prosecutors are to be recruited, as part of a £250 million courts cash injection to be announced by Rachel Reeves. The funding will tackle record legal backlogs which are forcing thousands of victims to wait more than two years for justice. Secured by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, the money is a 10 per cent uplift for the period 2026-29. It will enable the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to recruit and retain hundreds of prosecutors to tackle the backlog of cases, which stood at a record 74,651 at the end of 2024. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is expected to emerge as one of the biggest winners in the spending review on Wednesday. The Chancellor will also confirm an extra £700 million to recruit more probation officers as part of an expansion of community punishments to ease prison overcrowding. Ms Mahmood has further secured a £4.7 billion capital investment to build new prisons to help meet the Government's target of 14,000 extra jail places by 2031. Three sites – HMPs Garth, Grendon and Gartree – have already been commissioned. The funding increase is a recognition of the political damage the Government could suffer if it fails to solve the prison overcrowding crisis and reduce court delays. Last year's early release of thousands of prisoners, including some who were filmed toasting Sir Keir Starmer, has been a major factor in undermining public confidence in Labour, according to opinion polls. A Treasury source said the cash injection would 'speed up justice for victims and witnesses waiting months or years for cases to come to trial, after the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse and courts in crisis'. The source added: 'To battle the backlog, this new funding by 2028/29 will mean the CPS can recruit more Crown Advocates and front-line staff to prosecute cases and better support victims.' The MoJ is soon expected to announce the biggest shake-up in a generation of the court system, with thousands of suspects to be stripped of the right to a jury trial. The plans, to be outlined by Sir Brian Leveson, one of Britain's most senior judges, are expected to limit the number of such cases to help clear the backlog. Proposals being considered include the creation of an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates to hear cases that would previously have gone to a lengthy crown court trial before a jury. It is understood Sir Brian has also been looking at the possibility of increasing magistrates' sentencing powers so that they would be able to rule on cases related to offences that carry prison sentences of up to two years. They can currently only imprison convicted offenders for up to a year. Any removal of jury trials is expected to prompt a fierce backlash from many within the legal profession. However, Ms Mahmood has already warned that without such action the court backlog could increase to an unprecedented 100,000 cases. The courts review, commissioned by Ms Mahmood, follows a sentencing review by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended criminals should be freed as little as a third of the way into their sentences if they behave well and engage with rehabilitation schemes. The proposals, which have been accepted by the MoJ, will also allow killers, rapists and other violent offenders to be freed halfway through their terms rather than two-thirds, if they behave well and engage in training, education and work while behind bars. A Treasury source said: 'The criminal justice system was broken after 14 years of neglect. We need to rebuild not just the system itself, but confidence in it too. You can't make our streets safer if you don't have the resource to put dangerous suspects on trial. 'That's why the Chancellor is going to throw her backing behind battling the backlog in our courts, hiring more prosecutors and giving them the tools to deliver justice for victims as part of our Plan for Change.'
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Smash the gangs': is Labour's migration policy just a slogan?
At 5.30am on Tuesday, six immigration enforcement officers and a BBC TV crew gathered in a deserted B&Q car park near Sheffield's railway station, waiting in the rain for a call from London that would trigger simultaneous arrests of suspected people smugglers in six towns. Forty minutes later, the Home Office staff drove in convoy to a nearby residential block (followed by the BBC and the Guardian), made their way up the stairs carrying a red battering ram, ready to smash the suspect's door down. The equipment wasn't needed, because the man, barefoot in his checked pyjamas, opened the door and let the team inside. He was given a few moments to get dressed, before being taken silently in handcuffs to the van outside, sweat running down his face. Footage of the wider operation was broadcast that night on the BBC and also ITV News at 10, with the security minister, Dan Jarvis, in Cheltenham, wearing a black immigration enforcement stab vest, observing another of the six linked arrests. Keir Starmer posted photographs of the raids on X, tersely announcing: 'When I said we would smash the people smuggling gangs, I meant it.' It was a useful bit of positive messaging, carefully facilitated by the Home Office press office, in a week when ministers have been confronted with uncomfortable evidence that their efforts to prevent the arrival of small boats are flailing just as spectacularly as those of the last government. Last Saturday 1,195 people arrived in the UK on 18 small boats, the highest number of arrivals this year, bringing the provisional total for 2025 to 14,811; 42% higher than the same point last year (10,448) and 95% up from the same point in 2023 (7,610). The defence secretary, John Healey, said Britain had 'lost control of its borders over the last five years'. The Home Office tried to explain the rising numbers by releasing figures showing that the number of 'red days' – when weather conditions are favourable for small boats crossings – peaked in 2024-25. Conservative opposition MPs accused the government of 'blaming the weather'. 'Public opinion won't put up with this,' the Reform UK party leader, Nigel Farage, told GB News, urging the government again to declare a national emergency on illegal immigration. With Reform's popularity ratings surging, the government is under enormous political pressure to show that its much-advertised 'smash the gangs' policy is beginning to work. Last week's raids were flagged as an anti-gangs success, but they turned out to be entirely unconnected to people smuggling in small boats. The six people who were arrested on suspicion of facilitating illegal entry are believed to have helped at least 200 Botswana nationals to travel to the UK by plane on tourist visas, and to have assisted them with false documentation on arrival to claim asylum or to get work in care homes. The criminal and financial investigation unit of the Home Office's immigration enforcement team said this was one of the department's top 10 immigration investigations, ranked by potential financial gain, number of people involved and risk of harm to victims exploited by the gang. Reminding the home secretary that small boat crossings were 'one of the biggest challenges your department faces', the Labour MP Chris Murray asked Yvette Cooper at a home affairs select committee hearing: 'Can you tell us how many gangs you've smashed so far?' The home secretary gave some details about the arrests that morning, prompting Murray to respond with enthusiasm: 'When I asked that question, I did not expect you to say you had smashed a gang today!' In its manifesto, Labour made it clear that the policy of launching a new border security command with hundreds of new specialist investigators using counter-terror powers was designed to 'smash criminal boat gangs'. The arrests may have represented a significant development for Home Office staff trying to crack down on the exploitation of vulnerable people trafficked into the UK and criminalised by being forced to work illegally, but packaging this as a major breakthrough in the smash the gangs drive has prompted some raised eyebrows. One former Home Office official described taking TV cameras to these arrests as a sleight of hand, a PR exercise designed to detract attention from a small boats policy that he said had so far been a 'damp squib'. Peter Walsh, a senior researcher with the migration observatory at Oxford University, said the government should be given some leeway because the border security, asylum and immigration bill, which will bring in the much-trailed counter-terror style powers to help identify and control smuggling gangs, has not yet been passed. 'Overall it's too early to evaluate their 'smash the gangs' policy, because the main legislative developments are in that bill,' he said. 'But it would be difficult to describe whatever has been done operationally so far to disrupt smuggling networks as a success, because the numbers [of small boats] have gone up.' Starmer's catchy 'smash the gangs' slogan risks becoming almost as much of a millstone as his predecessor Rishi Sunak's commitment to 'stop the boats'. Sunak's pledge was described as impossible to achieve the moment he announced it, but he continued to put out videos repeating his promise, and gave immigration control speeches standing behind a lectern with a 'stop the boats' logo. Labour may eventually be able to show some progress on dismantling organised people smuggling operations by citing rising arrest figures. The Home Office press office said that, from July to November 2024, its immigration enforcement teams have convicted 53 people smugglers, including 23 individuals for piloting small boats, leading to more than 52 years in sentences. But Walsh questioned whether these arrests would have a discernible impact on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats. 'It doesn't require substantial investment in training and skills to have a functional smuggler on the ground, getting boats into the water in Calais, getting people into boats. But it takes a lot of resources to investigate them and bring them to justice. One of the major challenges is that lower-level smugglers can quickly be replaced,' Walsh said, pointing, as a comparison, to the speed with which gangs dealing drugs hire new recruits to replace those arrested. 'Smuggling networks are adaptable. They're increasingly well financed and decentralised. Senior figures operate in countries like Afghanistan, where we have minimal or no law enforcement cooperation.' Campaigners for an overhaul of the asylum system have been dismayed by Labour's resolutely tough rhetoric on those crossing the Channel illegally, which often fails to acknowledge that many arrivals are coming from war-torn nations such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Eritrea. This week, a research paper published by Border Criminologies and the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford found that hundreds of those imprisoned for arriving in the UK on small boats since 2022 were refugees and victims of trafficking and torture, in breach of international law. It said at least 17 children had been arrested and charged with 'facilitation', for having their hand on the tiller of a dinghy. Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the government should 'dial down the rhetoric', and adopt a quieter multi-pronged approach, cooperating more deeply with France and other European countries, undermining the business model of the gangs by creating safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum in the UK. 'The more you make announcements on a week-by-week basis, the more you give the impression to the public that you're going to fix the problem very quickly, so you end up falling into the trap of damaging trust because you're overpromising and underdelivering,' he said. It is a message that Starmer's comms team has yet to learn. In a second tweet on the subject of smashing the gangs in the space of 24 hours this week, the prime minister announced: 'My government is ramping up our efforts to smash the gangs at their source.' Attached was a video montage of boats, barbed wire, police vans and men being arrested, overlaid with the words (in emphatic capitals) 'OUR PLAN IS WORKING'.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Britain has escalated the global nuclear arms race – and is bringing us closer to armageddon
Plans by Keir Starmer's government to modernise and potentially expand Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal, unveiled in the 2025 strategic defence review (SDR), seriously undermine international non-proliferation efforts. They will fuel a global nuclear arms race led by the US, China and Russia. And they increase the chances that lower-yield, so-called tactical nukes will be deployed and detonated in conflict zones. This dangerous path leads in one direction only: towards the normalisation of nuclear warfare. These unconscionable proposals are a far cry from the days when Robin Cook, Labour's foreign secretary from 1997 to 2001, championed unilateral nuclear disarmament and helped scrap the UK's airdropped gravity bombs. They are a continuation of a redundant, inhuman, immoral, potentially international law-breaking deterrence policy that cash-strapped Britain can ill afford, will struggle to implement at cost and on time, and which perpetuates illusions about its global power status. Starmer's justification for spending an additional £15bn on nuclear warheads for four as yet un-built Dreadnought-class submarines, whose price tag is £41bn and rising, is that the world – and the threat – has changed. But in terms of nuclear arms, it really hasn't. Even as cold war tensions receded, the eight other known nuclear-weapons states – the US, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – clung on to their arsenals. Some expanded them. Today, as the global security environment deteriorates again, governments that ignored an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament 'in good faith' under article six of the 1970 non-proliferation treaty (NPT) are finding new reasons to keep on doing so. Britain must not compound its decades-long failure to honour the spirit of the treaty. The SDR's assertion that 'continued UK leadership within the NPT is imperative' seems disingenuous, given government intentions. The SDR concedes the NPT, up for review next year, is close to failing. 'Historical structures for maintaining strategic stability and reducing nuclear risks have not kept pace with the evolving security picture,' it says. 'With New Start [the 2010 US-Russia strategic arms reduction treaty] set to expire in February 2026, the future of strategic arms control – at least in the medium term – does not look promising.' This is a Trident missile-sized understatement. Nuclear proliferation is once again a huge problem. The US will spend an estimated $2tn over 30 years on weapons development. Donald Trump said in February he wants to 'denuclearise'. Guess what! He's doing the opposite. The White House is seeking to raise the National Nuclear Security Administration's annual weapons budget by 29%, to $25bn, while slashing funding for the arts, sciences and foreign aid. That's on top of several multibillion-dollar Pentagon weapons programmes. China's nuclear strike force has more than doubled in size since 2020, with some pointed at Taiwan. Russia's expanding capabilities include a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, recently fired into Ukraine. And Trump's Golden Dome plan upends prior undertakings on anti-missile defence. By joining the proliferators, hypocritical Britain sends a cynical signal to Iran, Saudi Arabia and others whose supposed nuclear ambitions it opposes. One future scenario is especially chilling: the possible reintroduction by Britain of air-launched nuclear weapons for the first time since Cook scrapped them. This could involve buying US F-35A fighters and arming them with US-designed B61-12 bombs. These bombs have variable yields and could be used tactically, against a battlefield target, a command HQ or a city. They could be launched remotely, using unmanned drones. They bring the prospect of nuclear warfare measurably closer. Starmer is leaning heavily on the review's claim that Russian 'nuclear coercion' is the biggest menace facing the UK. Even if true, no amount of nuclear missiles and bombs may suffice if political will is lacking to directly confront Vladimir Putin by, for example, deploying Nato conventional forces to defend Ukraine and responding forcefully to hybrid attacks on Britain. Like the former US president Joe Biden, Starmer gives too much credence to Moscow's crude threats. Putin knows that if he presses the nuclear button, it will explode in his face. He's many things – but not suicidal. This is the conundrum at the heart of nuclear deterrence theory. Nuking a nuclear-armed adversary guarantees self-destruction (which is why India and Pakistan jibbed at all-out war last month). And hurling nuclear threats at states and foes that lack nuclear weapons is ineffective. As Ukraine shows, they grow more defiant. As a weapon, nuclear blackmail is overrated. Fear of British nukes did not deter Argentina's 1982 Falklands invasion. Nukes did not stop al-Qaida in 2001 or Hamas in 2023. So why have nukes at all? Retaining nuclear weapons at current or increased levels does not make Britain safer. Their use would be immoral, irrational and catastrophic. They are grossly expensive, consuming resources that the UK, facing painful Treasury cuts again this week, could more sensibly use to build hospitals and schools and properly equip its armed forces. It's uncertain how independent of the US the British deterrent really is in practice. Does Starmer or Trump have the final word on use? Official secrecy prevents adequate democratic scrutiny. And the idea that nuclear warfare, once the taboo is broken, might somehow be contained or limited is a fast-track ticket to oblivion. Gradual disarmament, not rearmament, is the only way to escape this nightmare. The SDR urges a government PR campaign to convince the British people of the 'necessity' of a nuclear arsenal. No thanks. As Russia again raises nuclear war fears, what's needed is public education about the dangers of weapons proliferation. People worry about everything from an existential global climate emergency to the cost of living. But what we're discussing here is the universal cost of dying. Nuclear warfare is the most immediate threat to life on earth. Worry about that first. It's a shortcut to apocalypse – now. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
