Interesting article well done. Would have been good to get a perspective from sone of the independents standing about how they would make the borough better. Am assuming that they didn’t want to be interviewed- is that correct?
Thanks Paul - yes I agree, it would have been great to get the Indy perspective here about why they think they've been successful and their priorities for Oldham. Some politely declined, others didn't get back to me, but in fairness, Brian Hobin did reply over the weekend saying yes but by that point the piece was already written. We'll come back to this topic around the local elections (May 4th) and have a few more interviewees then hopefully. Glad you liked the piece.
As a previously consistent Labour voter I have very little sympathy for Oldham Labour. They've brought this on themselves. There have clearly been serious CSE failings in Oldham. According to former GMP detective Maggie Oliver, Oldham Council tried to prevent a CSE victim from testifying to the CSE assurance review by telling them she was "suicidal" and that they should NOT try contacting her:
That is completely outrageous and undermines the credibility of the review if the council and the police were controlling access to the victims. Victims of CSE in Oldham should have the opportunity to testify to an independent inquiry, and only then will they begin to receive the justice they deserve.
As for the Green Belt, Labour has no interest in protecting it, they just tell voters whatever they think will get them elected. I have been representing Save Royton's Greenbelt at the public examination these last few months and have found the council and Oldham Labour to be completely disingenous in its commitment to protecting the Green Belt. If Oldham Labour are seriously interested in the Green Belt then perhaps they could answer the following questions:
1) Why have they insisted on allocating all 17 years of housing land for the plan upfront when national policy only requires them to allocate the first 10 years of land upfront?
2) Why have they refused to include a windfall allowance despite the fact there is clear evidence that windfall land regularly comes forward and national policy recommends that they include one?
3) Why has Oldham Council introduced a "presumption against demolition" in the case of 42 of its 64 unlisted mills, which could deliver as many as 6,000 homes, in order to "protect the landscape"?
4) Why is Oldham Council persisting in building in the Green Belt now the Government has dropped mandatory housing targets, when they claimed that the mandatory target was the only reason why they were doing so, and the 2021 census indicates that the housing target is twice as high as it needs to be?
Oldham has had good and bad Labour councils during my lifetime, but the current one is the absolute pits. It is stale and broken and is no longer in touch with reality. The best thing that could happen in the May elections is that they lose their majority. A party that only holds 35 of the 60 seats shouldn't control 100% of the mandate. If the council falls into "no overall control" then all the disparate parties will have to find a way to work together, and hopefully work in the interests of ALL the residents of Oldham. As the absolute minimum I would like to see the victims of CSE finally get an opportunity to be heard, and put a stop to the completely unnecessary destruction of our green space.
I wish Oldham Labour the best for the future, but not for the elections. Denying a voice to CSE victims, destroying green space, trying to get residents fired because they have the temerity to challenge the council, this is not a Labour party most people would recognise but it's what we have here in Oldham. It's difficult to envisage a future for Oldham where Labour is not part of the answer, but it needs to rebuild and get back to core principles.
Interesting article well done. Would have been good to get a perspective from sone of the independents standing about how they would make the borough better. Am assuming that they didn’t want to be interviewed- is that correct?
Thanks Paul - yes I agree, it would have been great to get the Indy perspective here about why they think they've been successful and their priorities for Oldham. Some politely declined, others didn't get back to me, but in fairness, Brian Hobin did reply over the weekend saying yes but by that point the piece was already written. We'll come back to this topic around the local elections (May 4th) and have a few more interviewees then hopefully. Glad you liked the piece.
As a previously consistent Labour voter I have very little sympathy for Oldham Labour. They've brought this on themselves. There have clearly been serious CSE failings in Oldham. According to former GMP detective Maggie Oliver, Oldham Council tried to prevent a CSE victim from testifying to the CSE assurance review by telling them she was "suicidal" and that they should NOT try contacting her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75oISSBGIK8
That is completely outrageous and undermines the credibility of the review if the council and the police were controlling access to the victims. Victims of CSE in Oldham should have the opportunity to testify to an independent inquiry, and only then will they begin to receive the justice they deserve.
As for the Green Belt, Labour has no interest in protecting it, they just tell voters whatever they think will get them elected. I have been representing Save Royton's Greenbelt at the public examination these last few months and have found the council and Oldham Labour to be completely disingenous in its commitment to protecting the Green Belt. If Oldham Labour are seriously interested in the Green Belt then perhaps they could answer the following questions:
1) Why have they insisted on allocating all 17 years of housing land for the plan upfront when national policy only requires them to allocate the first 10 years of land upfront?
2) Why have they refused to include a windfall allowance despite the fact there is clear evidence that windfall land regularly comes forward and national policy recommends that they include one?
3) Why has Oldham Council introduced a "presumption against demolition" in the case of 42 of its 64 unlisted mills, which could deliver as many as 6,000 homes, in order to "protect the landscape"?
4) Why is Oldham Council persisting in building in the Green Belt now the Government has dropped mandatory housing targets, when they claimed that the mandatory target was the only reason why they were doing so, and the 2021 census indicates that the housing target is twice as high as it needs to be?
Oldham has had good and bad Labour councils during my lifetime, but the current one is the absolute pits. It is stale and broken and is no longer in touch with reality. The best thing that could happen in the May elections is that they lose their majority. A party that only holds 35 of the 60 seats shouldn't control 100% of the mandate. If the council falls into "no overall control" then all the disparate parties will have to find a way to work together, and hopefully work in the interests of ALL the residents of Oldham. As the absolute minimum I would like to see the victims of CSE finally get an opportunity to be heard, and put a stop to the completely unnecessary destruction of our green space.
I wish Oldham Labour the best for the future, but not for the elections. Denying a voice to CSE victims, destroying green space, trying to get residents fired because they have the temerity to challenge the council, this is not a Labour party most people would recognise but it's what we have here in Oldham. It's difficult to envisage a future for Oldham where Labour is not part of the answer, but it needs to rebuild and get back to core principles.