It took time to get going, but the pent-up anger and frustration with politics generally exploded into life in the latter part of the debate at a hustings that took a number of people co-ordinated by Cambridge Friends of the Earth a huge amount of effort and action to put on.
You can find out about the candidates standing in Cambridge from Democracy Club here. If you live in Cambridge Constituency you can email your questions to the candidates – even if you are not eligible to vote. (Eg because of your age, or national status).
Don’t know who your candidates are? See https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/ and type in your postcode. Again same applies – you can question the candidates irrespective of whether you are eligible to vote or not.
A spicy ending? You might not have thought that from the opening speeches below (which I stayed up to midnight to process!)
Above – Opening Speeches from the candidates contesting Cambridge. More videos will follow in the playlist here
(And for those of you who can help support my community filming and local historical research, please feel free to drop a few pennies into the town owl’s bowl!)
Cambridge Independent columnist Phil Rodgers live-tweeted the event – you can see his account here.
Anti-sewage work development protesters intervene
This has been a longstanding campaign against the proposed moving of the Cambridge sewage works by Milton to a new site north of Fen Ditton. You can see some of their campaign videos and music productions here.
The debate around the growth of Cambridge was what sparked off their intervention – and the panel noted that the issues that they raised were ones that were so complex and huge that a single election hustings would never do the issue justice.
Above – Save Honey Hill campaigners
The challenge of recently-selected candidates being asked to comment on large, long term and very controversial planning developments
Chances are there will be similar examples from across the political parties with recently-selected candidates finding themselves unknowingly criticising their own party colleagues over decisions and actions that pre-dated their selection. The Save Honey Hill case is one example.
In the grand scheme of things, Shane Manning for the Conservatives stood his ground well given the hostility from the audience towards his party in government – even a number of his political adversaries in the audience thought so. But… he’ll have to account for some huge differences of opinion between what he’s said vs what’s in his party’s manifesto.
Mr Manning publicly agreed with the Save Honey Hill campaigners – as Phil Rodgers noted here. This was after Cllr Cheney Payne for the Liberal Democrats came under pressure from the Save Honey Hill activists about the principles of growing Cambridge as proposed in the emerging local plan. The problem for Mr Manning is that his party’s manifesto was published earlier in the day. And that clearly cements the Conservative’s policy for The Case for Cambridge – which I described as a utopian fantasy.
“Unlocking new urban regeneration schemes, by creating locally-led urban development corporations in partnership with the private sector and institutional investors. We will support the delivery of new quarters in Leeds, Liverpool and York alongside working with local leaders and the community to seize the opportunity of our ambitious Cambridge 2050 plan.”
Conservative Party General Election Manifesto 2024, p52/54
The moving of the Anglian Water Sewage Works is being facilitated by a significant grant from Central Government – picked up by the Honey Hill campaigners.
“With the support of Cambridge City Council, Anglian Water applied to the Housing Infrastructure Fund and was awarded £227 million of taxpayers’ money, thereby funding a private company’s brand new plant without it having to go to its shareholders for a penny.”
The bid however, was led by the Combined Authority – then under Conservative control with the former Mayor James Palmer at the helm.
“Board members have today voted unanimously to back a Combined Authority bid to Government for millions pounds of funding to deliver thousands of homes and new jobs in Cambridgeshire.”
CPCA Press Release 27 Sept 2017
Furthermore, it was the Conservative Party that was in government that made the funding available, and Conservative ministers that endorsed the scheme, the criteria and the final allocations of funding.
The challenge for Mr Manning is to account for the decisions taken by his predecessors locally, several of whom later lost their seats in local elections in South Cambridgeshire District Council (2018 and 2022) for Cambridgeshire County Council (2021), and the Mayoralty of the Combined Authority (also 2021).
“Is the principle of the growth of Cambridge up for debate?”
This for me was the fault line – and one that needs a proper ‘public exposition’ over a series of events rather than a one-off debate. Not least because after a while I could sense the frustration in parts of the audience that simply wanted to let off steam about what has been happening (and how) to our city. Because as we know, too many decisions about our city’s future seem to be being made behind closed doors or in inaccessible forums and meetings. Furthermore, Whitehall is being excessively secretive and deliberately disruptive when it comes to getting information made public – as I am finding out with what I believe to be deliberate foot-dragging by the Levelling Up department with this Freedom of Information Request.
Basically I want to know what meetings ministers and officials have had with the former Health Secretary and MP for South Cambridgeshire Andrew Lansley – who has formed a grouping for wealthy property interests (you can see their membership here).
“The Forum brings together those with development and landowning interest in the Cambridge region, in order to provide a clear, consistent and well-informed voice, providing leadership and advice on issues relating to the delivery of growth and development potential in the Cambridge region.”
Above – the CDF as described by themselves.
I believe there is a huge public interest in publishing and publicising what the CDF and its members are lobbying for because they stand to make significant financial gains from any growth and development in/around Cambridge. Therefore the public and through them their MPs and councillors should be able to challenge ministers and the commercial interests whose proposals will have a direct impact on where we live.
Above – civil servants in my former department disagreed, so I’ve asked for an internal review based on what I believe is an incorrect use of the Section 35 Exemption. I used to be a Freedom of Information Officer in the civil service many moons ago.
“What might events discussing the future of Cambridge be like?”
I suggested to several people earlier the Imagine 2027 series at Anglia Ruskin University which had a huge range of speakers from across the party political matrix and beyond in 2017/18. (I filmed most of the talks). I put it to the Chair of the Hustings Prof Mia Gray that this is something the University of Cambridge could co-organise – perhaps via the new Urban Room for Cambridge, and with Anglia Ruskin University amongst other organisations with the very clear understanding that both the principle of a fast growing Cambridge and also how the serious negative externalities of such growth are up for discussion. As recognised in the recent event of 04 June 2024 hosted by the University of Cambridge. Because at that event it was clear that there is a critical mass of academics and researchers who are not happy with what the University of Cambridge is facilitating/enabling, nor are they content with the means and methods of how it and its member colleges are doing so.
The conversations and exchanges today may have been the start of a short general election campaign, but they are a continuation of the almost century-long debate about the growth of Cambridge.
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on Twitter
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge. (Chronic illness means I am on Universal Credit)
Below – one option to improve governance and accountability is to move to a unitary structure of local government. The Cambs Unitaries Campaign was formed to secure such better local government arrangements. See https://www.cambsunitaries.org.uk/our-objective/
The Cambridge Town Owl 