The view from the hills
Most Recent Blog Posts
That went well!
The local elections were an unmitigated disaster for the LibDems in Edinburgh, where I live!
I scribed most of my thoughts on a comment on the Better Nation website, so I thought I would lay them out on my own blog.
We all knew this was coming a year ago. Things were always going to get worse for us before they get better and fighting locals as the lead party what with the Trams, some big budget challenges and LibDem group’s ‘talent’ for self promotion was likely to lead to another pasting.
Well, we got that, but it was slightly worse than I expected. I had hoped for 7 and feared for 4 – we got 3!
Interestingly, I don’t think the liberal (small l) vote has disappeared. In large part, it has gone Green and to the National Party of Scotland.
Places like Meadows, Fountainbridge and Stockbridge have always had an inbuilt liberal block. People who are in touch with their inner tank-top and eat vegetables. Since we have blotted our copy book it has helped the Greens get 6 councillors and some big wins.
The Nats are the opposition to Labour – there to give scrutiny and an alternative way to do things. I think Labour need that. As such they carry the responsibility of representing many who are cautious about how a Labour administration will perform.
So in a non tribal sense I don’t despair for our city.
I’ve been a Liberal for a long time and I’ve met in both taxis and in large halls. I had always felt things to be ok because the ‘market’ demand for a centre party was there. A pragmatic party with a perfect mix of individualism and collectivism, strong on the environment and civil liberties and positive about Europe and the need for effective devolution within the UK (Federalism even).
I’m a bit more worried this time – in Scotland at least. I saw the Greens come through in the late 80s but they faded. Today they are much more coherent, rounded and a mature proposition. I think they have potentially more staying power as we look jaded and yesterday’s party.
There has always been a strong place for a non socialist alternative to the Conservative party – that is in a nutshell what the LibDems were in the 20th century. The Nats and the LibDems (Alliance in the 80s) have ebbed and flowed around this one over the last 40 years – over time and over different regions of Scotland. Well currently the Nats have well and truly blocked us out of that one. It doesn’t help that we have blotted our left of centre copy-book with the coalition and everything that that involves during an era of global financial crisis.
The point is there isn’t really an opening there as the Nats are currently much more than just a nationalist party or the party of Independence.
So where does that leave us – in Edinburgh terms.
Well, I think we need to go back to our areas and form Focus action groups and get on with some of the things we do best – community action. We need to stay engaged and involved. I think in Edinburgh a core of activists and members will remain in the parts of the city where we have been strong.
For us in a lot of ways politics was re-booted 12 months ago. So we now put this behind us and move on. This means we can start to hold the big groups on the council to account. Including the Nats and the Greens as they represent the interests of liberal minded voters (amongst others of course).
We can free of being in administration during a difficult period promote our ideas for the city and constructive criticisms of what goes on.
I actually believe the LIbDems have done a lot of good across Edinburgh in recent years. The LibDem councillors increased nursery places and care for older people and started building houses again. They also increased recycling, and importantly sorted out the financial mess the city faced after the previous administration. (Leaving aside the costs associated with the Tram project).
In the manifesto the group put together they developed a lot of detailed and valuable thinking of where the city should go next and what the priorities are.
The point is that stump politicking or internet trolling aside there is some good thinking there to continue to contribute albeit as a depleted group and to continue to think and develop ideas is a key thing we should continue to do proudly.
I don’t know what is to come in the years ahead. The Nats may decline if they loose the referendum in 2014. They may face pressures and fissures between those who see independence as building a new socialist Utopia in Scotland and those who see themselves as an effective disciplined centre left alternative to Labour. Who knows.
The point is we have re-booted the computer and the LibDems should get out there and campaign in this city.
Read all about it - News of the World!
This has been a momentous week, not just for the News of the World, but for print journalism, politics, how we use and access media and, frankly our national life as a whole!
Like some other people have expressed, there is so much I could say about this, maybe in time, but I have some key thoughts.
Matthew Parris wrote an excellent column on the issue in today's Times. His commentary is so often on the money. Today he looks at the issue from a different perspective and touched on one of the things I was thinking.
He pointed out that journalists have been snooping and using illegal or immoral methods to get their stories for decades. Sometimes they are slimeballs in the gutter, sometimes it is to expose light on a dark corner that needs exposed!
He gave several examples. I myself was minded of the Watergate scandal - the ultimate electronic surveillance story. It was exposed by the Washington Post and made the name of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It became a famous book and magnificent film called All the President's Men - watch it if you care about investigative journalism.
In the film Woodstein are played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. If mobiles and phone hacking was around in 1972 do you seriously think Woodstein wouldn't have used it? Of course they would!
However, they had Ben Bradlee as their editor (played by Jason Robards in the film). He keeps them on track, makes sure they have corroborated stories and facts they can use. He ensures they follow some standards - that they produce 'a really good piece of American journalism'.
What I am thinking about the News of the World is not the shock at phone hacking. I think there are several far more disturbing things exposed here.
Firstly, that the police are often paid for information and pass on intimate and sensitive information. Also, their investigation of phone hacking in 2004 was so lame and crap! This is the establishment, one of the pillars of a free society letting us down! I hear the current investigation is much tougher and their are several policemen frankly embarrassed but what has gone before and determined to do it right and to do it well this time!
Secondly, I am disturbed by the picture we are getting of what appears to be nothing less the wanton personal attacks on the lives of some celebrities. When the newspaper decide they are the source of a good story that suits the commercial interest of selling a few papers the celebrities are subjected to a concentrated journalistic attack. They might as well have given them a kicking in the street. The casual emotional violence and serious bullying of an assault which shows no respect for the victim is quite breath-taking.
Bad enough If they have done wrong - lied or cheated or behaved badly. But often they have done no more than have the same complications in life as eveyone else. And if they have behaved badly it doesn't justify the assault on their dignity by the tabloid press.
In the last two days I have seen Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and George Michael lead empassioned arguments against the gutter press attacking them, violating them, obtaing information on them and those close to them illegally and intimidating them. Then, hiding like scoundrels behind the freedom of the press to protect their disgraceful conduct. They exposed that even much of the campaigning the papers sometimes do is to just sell papers!
This is just assault that wrecks lives!
The third thing that disturbs me is how this affair has highlighted intimidation and the irresponsible exercise of power. It is clear that politicians have fallen over themselves to seek approval from the Murdoch empire. Both politicians and other media outlets seemed to have been scared of them. Indeed it seems possible that to attack News International or their papers in some way risked having some aspect of your life uncovered. None of this is illegal, it is about the unhealthy exetcise of power. But at its worse it's little more than a protection racket!
Perhaps a good thing is the way our media is changing. The power of the print media is diminishing in the face of online journalism and the 'free Press' of social media. I'm told the the spreading furore across Mumsnet.com had a lot to do with the scandal becoming a runaway train that couldn't be controlled. A campaign on twitter and Facebook played an important part in making the news as well as keeping us informed.
I remembered how at the last election when the LibDems broke through after the debates the right wing journos started to smear Clegg. It didn't really work in a way that it might once of done. This in no small measure was helped by twitter hashtags like #iagreewithnick and Facebook campaigns. Whatever anyone subsequently thinks of Nick Clegg this is a good thing and we have the power to counter the pompous opinions of patronising old trout like Ann Leslie or Melanie Phillips.
The other good thing is that a sense of balance is being discovered. The palpable sense of indignation at the hacking of Milly Dowler or the phones of dead soldiers or terrorist victims is drawing the line of acceptable behaviour for journalists. The News of the World crossed that line and it has killed them!
I don't suppose we're going to lose dodgy journalists. I suspect it is important we don't. We still need them to uncover things like Watergate. But even if we accept that or want them to chase a little gossip there has to be a line drawn. This affair helps do that.
So the aftermath of this scandal will run and run - and yes a fair amount is now being driven by people who are opposed to Murdoch politically. But an end to this disturbing abuse of power, poor standards by the police and a tempering of the intimidation of people by the media is much needed. I hope we look hard at other papers too and I hear Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail may have some questions to answer.
One thing is clear - if there are dodgy dossiers, corrupt politicians, and bent coppers in the future, we won't be reading about them in the News of the World.
Read all about it - News of the World!
This has been a momentous week, not just for the News of the World, but for print journalism, politics, how we use and access media and, frankly our national life as a whole!
Like some other people have expressed, there is so much I could say about this, maybe in time, but I have some key thoughts.
Matthew Parris wrote an excellent column on the issue in today's Times. His commentary is so often on the money. Today he looks at the issue from a different perspective and touched on one of the things I was thinking.
He pointed out that journalists have been snooping and using illegal or immoral methods to get their stories for decades. Sometimes they are slimeballs in the gutter, sometimes it is to expose light on a dark corner that needs exposed!
He gave several examples. I myself was minded of the Watergate scandal - the ultimate electronic surveillance story. It was exposed by the Washington Post and made the name of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It became a famous book and magnificent film called All the President's Men - watch it if you care about investigative journalism.
In the film Woodstein are played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. If mobiles and phone hacking was around in 1972 do you seriously think Woodstein wouldn't have used it? Of course they would!
However, they had Ben Bradlee as their editor (played by Jason Robards in the film). He keeps them on track, makes sure they have corroborated stories and facts they can use. He ensures they follow some standards - that they produce 'a really good piece of American journalism'.
What I am thinking about the News of the World is not the shock at phone hacking. I think there are several far more disturbing things exposed here.
Firstly, that the police are often paid for information and pass on intimate and sensitive information. Also, their investigation of phone hacking in 2004 was so lame and crap! This is the establishment, one of the pillars of a free society letting us down! I hear the current investigation is much tougher and their are several policemen frankly embarrassed but what has gone before and determined to do it right and to do it well this time!
Secondly, I am disturbed by the picture we are getting of what appears to be nothing less the wanton personal attacks on the lives of some celebrities. When the newspaper decide they are the source of a good story that suits the commercial interest of selling a few papers the celebrities are subjected to a concentrated journalistic attack. They might as well have given them a kicking in the street. The casual emotional violence and serious bullying of an assault which shows no respect for the victim is quite breath-taking.
Bad enough If they have done wrong - lied or cheated or behaved badly. But often they have done no more than have the same complications in life as eveyone else. And if they have behaved badly it doesn't justify the assault on their dignity by the tabloid press.
In the last two days I have seen Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and George Michael lead empassioned arguments against the gutter press attacking them, violating them, obtaing information on them and those close to them illegally and intimidating them. Then, hiding like scoundrels behind the freedom of the press to protect their disgraceful conduct. They exposed that even much of the campaigning the papers sometimes do is to just sell papers!
This is just assault that wrecks lives!
The third thing that disturbs me is how this affair has highlighted intimidation and the irresponsible exercise of power. It is clear that politicians have fallen over themselves to seek approval from the Murdoch empire. Both politicians and other media outlets seemed to have been scared of them. Indeed it seems possible that to attack News International or their papers in some way risked having some aspect of your life uncovered. None of this is illegal, it is about the unhealthy exetcise of power. But at its worse it's little more than a protection racket!
Perhaps a good thing is the way our media is changing. The power of the print media is diminishing in the face of online journalism and the 'free Press' of social media. I'm told the the spreading furore across Mumsnet.com had a lot to do with the scandal becoming a runaway train that couldn't be controlled. A campaign on twitter and Facebook played an important part in making the news as well as keeping us informed.
I remembered how at the last election when the LibDems broke through after the debates the right wing journos started to smear Clegg. It didn't really work in a way that it might once of done. This in no small measure was helped by twitter hashtags like #iagreewithnick and Facebook campaigns. Whatever anyone subsequently thinks of Nick Clegg this is a good thing and we have the power to counter the pompous opinions of patronising old trout like Ann Leslie or Melanie Phillips.
The other good thing is that a sense of balance is being discovered. The palpable sense of indignation at the hacking of Milly Dowler or the phones of dead soldiers or terrorist victims is drawing the line of acceptable behaviour for journalists. The News of the World crossed that line and it has killed them!
I don't suppose we're going to lose dodgy journalists. I suspect it is important we don't. We still need them to uncover things like Watergate. But even if we accept that or want them to chase a little gossip there has to be a line drawn. This affair helps do that.
So the aftermath of this scandal will run and run - and yes a fair amount is now being driven by people who are opposed to Murdoch politically. But an end to this disturbing abuse of power, poor standards by the police and a tempering of the intimidation of people by the media is much needed. I hope we look hard at other papers too and I hear Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail may have some questions to answer.
One thing is clear - if there are dodgy dossiers, corrupt politicians, and bent coppers in the future, we won't be reading about them in the News of the World.
Edinburgh Trams - finish what you started!
We are told that the Edinburgh trams will reduce congestion, we are told they will reduce pollution, we are told they will enhance the image of a city that competes globally in the same league as the likes of Barcelona, Munich and Prague.
Certainly Edinburgh is becoming more congested. According to international figures it is one of the most congested cities in Europe now. Edinburgh has an outstanding bus service but it is at maximum capacity. With congestion comes pollution. At its worst some of the pollution levels can match those of Beijing in some of the city canyons created by tenements.
The trams will alleviate these problems.
But this tram project has been beset with problems. It was due to complete this year but is now projected to complete in 2015. It was due to cost £545m, now cost estimates are for £770m and that is running one line to the city centre from the airport - no line to the modern Royal Infirmary and teaching hospital and no line to the fashionable Leith waterfront (home to Britannia, some Michelin Star restaurants and a gaggle of civil servants).
So the project is truncated, over budget and behind time!
With a smaller scale project I am hearing some of the original assumptions and benefits being challenged.
As I said, the whole thing was meant to cover a considerably larger area. Originally the trams went hand in hand with a congestion charging scheme to reduce traffic. And, originally the trams went alongside an ambitious housing and re-development plan for Leith (the port area) and along the waterfront. Two of the tram lines are not going ahead, the congestion charging got voted out in a local referendum and the recession put paid to the Leith redevelopment - for now.
But new figures have been given and apparently the reduced trams project still brings about appreciable advantages in congestion and pollution reduction.
Maybe some of these figures should be questioned - will this just benefit tourists - is everyone being entirely truthful or realistic with their projected numbers? Time will tell.
I also believe it is just a start. Once the core infrastructure is up and running it is much easier and cheaper to extend it. I think in time the trams will go to Leith and maybe even the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the edge of the city.
Congestion is not going away. Modern transport modes will not stand still. This is a project for the future and one we will build on.
Even if the numbers don't stack up well at this stage, as opponents of the scheme argue, I think they will over time. But I am prepared to change my mind on this if it can be outlined that none of the revised numbers stack up at all.
I'm also told that, paradoxically the traffic re-routing necessitated by trams will create pollution black spots in some new places. However, I think the net affect will be an overall reduction in pollution for the city.
There have been a few other examples of big engineering projects which should help us put this project in some sort of perspective. The Dublin tram project was hated during the building disruption and ended up costing three times the original estimates. It is now a big success and being extended!! The Manchester trams are being extended too.
Wembley Stadium was beset with delays and increasing costs and also in Edinburgh, the Scottish Parliament building cost 10 times the original proposal and is now an iconic building.
The Edinburgh trams project is actually a relative minor offender in terms of rising costs. True the project is over budget by around £200m, with just a third of the work completed. But most of the hard bits have been done: new bridges, the tram depot, the groundwork - moving gas, water and electricity pipes along the route much of which involved renewing pipework that would have needed renewal anyway.
So, what has gone wrong and who is to blame?
Despite putting the costs over run in perspective there is no doubt that this is much worse given we have a recession at this time. I also think after the parliament building debacle there was a determination to put a stop to major engineering contracts being so open ended in terms of costs.
This project has had a massive time over-run and at times in terms of project management has seemed something of a shambles.
Huge disruption has been caused on Princes Street and down Leith Walk meaning traders have suffered. Those living close to the route are driven to despair. Particular vitriol seems to come from the good citizens of around Leith Walk as it has been dug up, is still dug up and the tram will never go there. 'Which genius thought that one up?' they cry!
Well it probably will someday - just not yet!
This project has a messy structure and governance. There is the Council, a firm called TIE (Transport Initiatives Edinburgh) to project manage the construction and the main contractors - Bilfinger Berger.
Hit by delays and overspend there has been a series of disputes. Work stopped and external mediators had to come in to solve a series of contract disputes between the city and the contractors.
Political pass the parcel
The politics of all this has become quite grisly. It resembles a game of pass the parcel in reverse as the parties try not to be associated with a once glorious project as we near election time.
I actually think this is a complicated saga and to pin the blame on one party is ridiculously simplistic and probably wholly inaccurate.
Make no mistake, this is a long standing project with original all party support in Edinburgh.
The LibDems and SNP can be criticised because they form the current administration and most of the problems have come to a head while they have been in office. In particular they signed a contract in 2008 with the contractor which did not prove water tight on the costs. But they were told that 95% of the costs were fixed.
I for one would like to know if the council lawyers and council officials and TIE people should have done better with the contract that was put in place in 2008.
The SNP point out, rightly, that they were the only ones against the project. However, they are part of the current ruling group and they signed off the contracts in 2008 and since then have made the project impossible from within making them more responsible for difficulties than the LibDems, reckons the Green Party's James Mackenzie who does media for their MSPs.
The SNP in Edinburgh are interesting, they do spend a lot of time trying to look both ways and pass the buck on this issue even though they have voted for it.
They did oppose it originally. They seemed to do this for political advantage in 2007 rather than as a profound policy position. At Holyrood they opposed it but that was because they saw spending on roads as more important and didn't want big capital projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow, they wanted it spent up north where their support came from at that time.
I'm not sure what the SNP in Edinburgh thought before 2007 as they were barely a factor in those days. I don't remember them taking a strong line against the original Tram ideas..
Labour have been particularly political in a pathetic and disingenuous way. They say there was no trouble before 2007 and the problems all come from the 2008 contract with the developer. Apart from the fact that this is over simplistic to the point of inaccuracy I have one problem with this. The problems with the project management stem from the governance arrangements and the responsibility for the Edinburgh trams governance arrangements lies entirely with Labour! Though I think that too is over simplistic as there was all party support but I do think the project management problems are at the root of the problems - the 2008 contract is symptomatic of that.
I don't want to get bogged down in this but each political party shares in the responsibility for the shambolic management, and there are questions to ask of TIE, lawyers and council officials.
So back to where I started from.
Its a bit of a mess. We can't be sure of all the new figures and assessments and the politicians are trying to pass the buck in a pathetic manner. But my instinct is they are better finishing what they started; and like Dublin, Nottingham, Manchester, Seville and countless other European cities, I hope we will be glad we did this one day and will want to extend the Edinburgh tram project..
Read all about it - News of the World!
This has been a momentous week, not just for the News of the World, but for print journalism, politics, how we use and access media and, frankly our national life as a whole!
Like some other people have expressed, there is so much I could say about this, maybe in time, but I have some key thoughts.
Matthew Parris wrote an excellent column on the issue in today's Times. His commentary is so often on the money. Today he looks at the issue from a different perspective and touched on one of the things I was thinking.
He pointed out that journalists have been snooping and using illegal or immoral methods to get their stories for decades. Sometimes they are slimeballs in the gutter, sometimes it is to expose light on a dark corner that needs exposed!
He gave several examples. I myself was minded of the Watergate scandal - the ultimate electronic surveillance story. It was exposed by the Washington Post and made the name of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It became a famous book and magnificent film called All the President's Men - watch it if you care about investigative journalism.
In the film Woodstein are played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. If mobiles and phone hacking was around in 1972 do you seriously think Woodstein wouldn't have used it? Of course they would!
However, they had Ben Bradlee as their editor (played by Jason Robards in the film). He keeps them on track, makes sure they have corroborated stories and facts they can use. He ensures they follow some standards - that they produce 'a really good piece of American journalism'.
What I am thinking about the News of the World is not the shock at phone hacking. I think there are several far more disturbing things exposed here.
Firstly, that the police are often paid for information and pass on intimate and sensitive information. Also, their investigation of phone hacking in 2004 was so lame and crap! This is the establishment, one of the pillars of a free society letting us down! I hear the current investigation is much tougher and their are several policemen frankly embarrassed but what has gone before and determined to do it right and to do it well this time!
Secondly, I am disturbed by the picture we are getting of what appears to be nothing less the wanton personal attacks on the lives of some celebrities. When the newspaper decide they are the source of a good story that suits the commercial interest of selling a few papers the celebrities are subjected to a concentrated journalistic attack. They might as well have given them a kicking in the street. The casual emotional violence and serious bullying of an assault which shows no respect for the victim is quite breath-taking.
Bad enough If they have done wrong - lied or cheated or behaved badly. But often they have done no more than have the same complications in life as eveyone else. And if they have behaved badly it doesn't justify the assault on their dignity by the tabloid press.
In the last two days I have seen Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and George Michael lead empassioned arguments against the gutter press attacking them, violating them, obtaing information on them and those close to them illegally and intimidating them. Then, hiding like scoundrels behind the freedom of the press to protect their disgraceful conduct. They exposed that even much of the campaigning the papers sometimes do is to just sell papers!
This is just assault that wrecks lives!
The third thing that disturbs me is how this affair has highlighted intimidation and the irresponsible exercise of power. It is clear that politicians have fallen over themselves to seek approval from the Murdoch empire. Both politicians and other media outlets seemed to have been scared of them. Indeed it seems possible that to attack News International or their papers in some way risked having some aspect of your life uncovered. None of this is illegal, it is about the unhealthy exetcise of power. But at its worse it's little more than a protection racket!
Perhaps a good thing is the way our media is changing. The power of the print media is diminishing in the face of online journalism and the 'free Press' of social media. I'm told the the spreading furore across Mumsnet.com had a lot to do with the scandal becoming a runaway train that couldn't be controlled. A campaign on twitter and Facebook played an important part in making the news as well as keeping us informed.
I remembered how at the last election when the LibDems broke through after the debates the right wing journos started to smear Clegg. It didn't really work in a way that it might once of done. This in no small measure was helped by twitter hashtags like #iagreewithnick and Facebook campaigns. Whatever anyone subsequently thinks of Nick Clegg this is a good thing and we have the power to counter the pompous opinions of patronising old trout like Ann Leslie or Melanie Phillips.
The other good thing is that a sense of balance is being discovered. The palpable sense of indignation at the hacking of Milly Dowler or the phones of dead soldiers or terrorist victims is drawing the line of acceptable behaviour for journalists. The News of the World crossed that line and it has killed them!
I don't suppose we're going to lose dodgy journalists. I suspect it is important we don't. We still need them to uncover things like Watergate. But even if we accept that or want them to chase a little gossip there has to be a line drawn. This affair helps do that.
So the aftermath of this scandal will run and run - and yes a fair amount is now being driven by people who are opposed to Murdoch politically. But an end to this disturbing abuse of power, poor standards by the police and a tempering of the intimidation of people by the media is much needed. I hope we look hard at other papers too and I hear Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail may have some questions to answer.
One thing is clear - if there are dodgy dossiers, corrupt politicians, and bent coppers in the future, we won't be reading about them in the News of the World.
Pensions Killed Detroit! How can we stop it happening here?
KLM introduce green aviation fuel for their flights
Edinburgh Trams - finish what you started!
We are told that the Edinburgh trams will reduce congestion, we are told they will reduce pollution, we are told they will enhance the image of a city that competes globally in the same league as the likes of Barcelona, Munich and Prague.
Certainly Edinburgh is becoming more congested. According to international figures it is one of the most congested cities in Europe now. Edinburgh has an outstanding bus service but it is at maximum capacity. With congestion comes pollution. At its worst some of the pollution levels can match those of Beijing in some of the city canyons created by tenements.
The trams will alleviate these problems.
But this tram project has been beset with problems. It was due to complete this year but is now projected to complete in 2015. It was due to cost £545m, now cost estimates are for £770m and that is running one line to the city centre from the airport - no line to the modern Royal Infirmary and teaching hospital and no line to the fashionable Leith waterfront (home to Britannia, some Michelin Star restaurants and a gaggle of civil servants).
So the project is truncated, over budget and behind time!
With a smaller scale project I am hearing some of the original assumptions and benefits being challenged.
As I said, the whole thing was meant to cover a considerably larger area. Originally the trams went hand in hand with a congestion charging scheme to reduce traffic. And, originally the trams went alongside an ambitious housing and re-development plan for Leith (the port area) and along the waterfront. Two of the tram lines are not going ahead, the congestion charging got voted out in a local referendum and the recession put paid to the Leith redevelopment - for now.
But new figures have been given and apparently the reduced trams project still brings about appreciable advantages in congestion and pollution reduction.
Maybe some of these figures should be questioned - will this just benefit tourists - is everyone being entirely truthful or realistic with their projected numbers? Time will tell.
I also believe it is just a start. Once the core infrastructure is up and running it is much easier and cheaper to extend it. I think in time the trams will go to Leith and maybe even the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the edge of the city.
Congestion is not going away. Modern transport modes will not stand still. This is a project for the future and one we will build on.
Even if the numbers don't stack up well at this stage, as opponents of the scheme argue, I think they will over time. But I am prepared to change my mind on this if it can be outlined that none of the revised numbers stack up at all.
I'm also told that, paradoxically the traffic re-routing necessitated by trams will create pollution black spots in some new places. However, I think the net affect will be an overall reduction in pollution for the city.
There have been a few other examples of big engineering projects which should help us put this project in some sort of perspective. The Dublin tram project was hated during the building disruption and ended up costing three times the original estimates. It is now a big success and being extended!! The Manchester trams are being extended too.
Wembley Stadium was beset with delays and increasing costs and also in Edinburgh, the Scottish Parliament building cost 10 times the original proposal and is now an iconic building.
The Edinburgh trams project is actually a relative minor offender in terms of rising costs. True the project is over budget by around £200m, with just a third of the work completed. But most of the hard bits have been done: new bridges, the tram depot, the groundwork - moving gas, water and electricity pipes along the route much of which involved renewing pipework that would have needed renewal anyway.
So, what has gone wrong and who is to blame?
Despite putting the costs over run in perspective there is no doubt that this is much worse given we have a recession at this time. I also think after the parliament building debacle there was a determination to put a stop to major engineering contracts being so open ended in terms of costs.
This project has had a massive time over-run and at times in terms of project management has seemed something of a shambles.
Huge disruption has been caused on Princes Street and down Leith Walk meaning traders have suffered. Those living close to the route are driven to despair. Particular vitriol seems to come from the good citizens of around Leith Walk as it has been dug up, is still dug up and the tram will never go there. 'Which genius thought that one up?' they cry!
Well it probably will someday - just not yet!
This project has a messy structure and governance. There is the Council, a firm called TIE (Transport Initiatives Edinburgh) to project manage the construction and the main contractors - Bilfinger Berger.
Hit by delays and overspend there has been a series of disputes. Work stopped and external mediators had to come in to solve a series of contract disputes between the city and the contractors.
Political pass the parcel
The politics of all this has become quite grisly. It resembles a game of pass the parcel in reverse as the parties try not to be associated with a once glorious project as we near election time.
I actually think this is a complicated saga and to pin the blame on one party is ridiculously simplistic and probably wholly inaccurate.
Make no mistake, this is a long standing project with original all party support in Edinburgh.
The LibDems and SNP can be criticised because they form the current administration and most of the problems have come to a head while they have been in office. In particular they signed a contract in 2008 with the contractor which did not prove water tight on the costs. But they were told that 95% of the costs were fixed.
I for one would like to know if the council lawyers and council officials and TIE people should have done better with the contract that was put in place in 2008.
The SNP point out, rightly, that they were the only ones against the project. However, they are part of the current ruling group and they signed off the contracts in 2008 and since then have made the project impossible from within making them more responsible for difficulties than the LibDems, reckons the Green Party's James Mackenzie who does media for their MSPs.
The SNP in Edinburgh are interesting, they do spend a lot of time trying to look both ways and pass the buck on this issue even though they have voted for it.
They did oppose it originally. They seemed to do this for political advantage in 2007 rather than as a profound policy position. At Holyrood they opposed it but that was because they saw spending on roads as more important and didn't want big capital projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow, they wanted it spent up north where their support came from at that time.
I'm not sure what the SNP in Edinburgh thought before 2007 as they were barely a factor in those days. I don't remember them taking a strong line against the original Tram ideas..
Labour have been particularly political in a pathetic and disingenuous way. They say there was no trouble before 2007 and the problems all come from the 2008 contract with the developer. Apart from the fact that this is over simplistic to the point of inaccuracy I have one problem with this. The problems with the project management stem from the governance arrangements and the responsibility for the Edinburgh trams governance arrangements lies entirely with Labour! Though I think that too is over simplistic as there was all party support but I do think the project management problems are at the root of the problems - the 2008 contract is symptomatic of that.
I don't want to get bogged down in this but each political party shares in the responsibility for the shambolic management, and there are questions to ask of TIE, lawyers and council officials.
So back to where I started from.
Its a bit of a mess. We can't be sure of all the new figures and assessments and the politicians are trying to pass the buck in a pathetic manner. But my instinct is they are better finishing what they started; and like Dublin, Nottingham, Manchester, Seville and countless other European cities, I hope we will be glad we did this one day and will want to extend the Edinburgh tram project..
Read all about it - News of the World!
This has been a momentous week, not just for the News of the World, but for print journalism, politics, how we use and access media and, frankly our national life as a whole!
Like some other people have expressed, there is so much I could say about this, maybe in time, but I have some key thoughts.
Matthew Parris wrote an excellent column on the issue in today's Times. His commentary is so often on the money. Today he looks at the issue from a different perspective and touched on one of the things I was thinking.
He pointed out that journalists have been snooping and using illegal or immoral methods to get their stories for decades. Sometimes they are slimeballs in the gutter, sometimes it is to expose light on a dark corner that needs exposed!
He gave several examples. I myself was minded of the Watergate scandal - the ultimate electronic surveillance story. It was exposed by the Washington Post and made the name of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It became a famous book and magnificent film called All the President's Men - watch it if you care about investigative journalism.
In the film Woodstein are played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. If mobiles and phone hacking was around in 1972 do you seriously think Woodstein wouldn't have used it? Of course they would!
However, they had Ben Bradlee as their editor (played by Jason Robards in the film). He keeps them on track, makes sure they have corroborated stories and facts they can use. He ensures they follow some standards - that they produce 'a really good piece of American journalism'.
What I am thinking about the News of the World is not the shock at phone hacking. I think there are several far more disturbing things exposed here.
Firstly, that the police are often paid for information and pass on intimate and sensitive information. Also, their investigation of phone hacking in 2004 was so lame and crap! This is the establishment, one of the pillars of a free society letting us down! I hear the current investigation is much tougher and their are several policemen frankly embarrassed but what has gone before and determined to do it right and to do it well this time!
Secondly, I am disturbed by the picture we are getting of what appears to be nothing less the wanton personal attacks on the lives of some celebrities. When the newspaper decide they are the source of a good story that suits the commercial interest of selling a few papers the celebrities are subjected to a concentrated journalistic attack. They might as well have given them a kicking in the street. The casual emotional violence and serious bullying of an assault which shows no respect for the victim is quite breath-taking.
Bad enough If they have done wrong - lied or cheated or behaved badly. But often they have done no more than have the same complications in life as eveyone else. And if they have behaved badly it doesn't justify the assault on their dignity by the tabloid press.
In the last two days I have seen Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and George Michael lead empassioned arguments against the gutter press attacking them, violating them, obtaing information on them and those close to them illegally and intimidating them. Then, hiding like scoundrels behind the freedom of the press to protect their disgraceful conduct. They exposed that even much of the campaigning the papers sometimes do is to just sell papers!
This is just assault that wrecks lives!
The third thing that disturbs me is how this affair has highlighted intimidation and the irresponsible exercise of power. It is clear that politicians have fallen over themselves to seek approval from the Murdoch empire. Both politicians and other media outlets seemed to have been scared of them. Indeed it seems possible that to attack News International or their papers in some way risked having some aspect of your life uncovered. None of this is illegal, it is about the unhealthy exetcise of power. But at its worse it's little more than a protection racket!
Perhaps a good thing is the way our media is changing. The power of the print media is diminishing in the face of online journalism and the 'free Press' of social media. I'm told the the spreading furore across Mumsnet.com had a lot to do with the scandal becoming a runaway train that couldn't be controlled. A campaign on twitter and Facebook played an important part in making the news as well as keeping us informed.
I remembered how at the last election when the LibDems broke through after the debates the right wing journos started to smear Clegg. It didn't really work in a way that it might once of done. This in no small measure was helped by twitter hashtags like #iagreewithnick and Facebook campaigns. Whatever anyone subsequently thinks of Nick Clegg this is a good thing and we have the power to counter the pompous opinions of patronising old trout like Ann Leslie or Melanie Phillips.
The other good thing is that a sense of balance is being discovered. The palpable sense of indignation at the hacking of Milly Dowler or the phones of dead soldiers or terrorist victims is drawing the line of acceptable behaviour for journalists. The News of the World crossed that line and it has killed them!
I don't suppose we're going to lose dodgy journalists. I suspect it is important we don't. We still need them to uncover things like Watergate. But even if we accept that or want them to chase a little gossip there has to be a line drawn. This affair helps do that.
So the aftermath of this scandal will run and run - and yes a fair amount is now being driven by people who are opposed to Murdoch politically. But an end to this disturbing abuse of power, poor standards by the police and a tempering of the intimidation of people by the media is much needed. I hope we look hard at other papers too and I hear Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail may have some questions to answer.
One thing is clear - if there are dodgy dossiers, corrupt politicians, and bent coppers in the future, we won't be reading about them in the News of the World.
Caledonian Challenge
Along with my team, a lot of money was also raised for charity. The event supports the Scottish Community Foundation which supports a range of charities and causes throughout Scotland including support for old people, children and Eco projects.
I doubt I could ever do such a thing again but it was a remarkable experience - way beyond just the physical feat!
