Grab a coffee, or something stronger if you prefer. Bristol City Council wants a word with you about your parking, and it has arranged its face into something warm and reasonable before opening its mouth.

The Post That Started It.

Anyway. On 06/08/2026, the council put up a Facebook post so friendly you could have taken it home to meet your mother. However. Don’t let this fool you. You see. It’s Abracadabra time.

From Monday 10/08/2026, parking in the Central Parking Zone gets a “single hourly charging structure.” Easier to understand, it said. Especially for anyone whose stay drifts from daytime into evening.

Isn’t that thoughtful of them.

So. Naturally. The Almighty Gob had a little look behind the smile.

Here is what was hiding there. The council has done this exact trick before. Same figure, different year. Keep reading, and you will find out when.

What Actually Changes.

You see. The old system charged you in ten-minute steps. Fussy, yes. Also, as it turns out, considerably kinder to your wallet.

When. A full hour cost £3.00. Two hours cost £6.00. Nobody was rioting in the streets over ten-pence increments.

Now. From 10/08/2026, that goes, replaced with one flat hourly rate. £4.50 an hour in the one-hour zone. £3.50 an hour in the two- and four-hour zones.

Watch what happens to the two stays most people actually make. See. I told you it’s abracadabra time.

One hour: £3.00 becomes £4.50. Up fifty per cent, in one Monday morning.

Two hours: £6.00 becomes £7.00. Up nearly seventeen per cent.

Call that “simpler” if you like. The Almighty Gob calls it a price rise that has been to charm school.

Of course. Somebody will say a flat rate really is simpler to calculate, and they would be right, for the council’s till. It does nothing whatsoever for the motorist standing at the machine, still working out whether this particular stretch of pavement is one hour, two, or four.

Yet. Dear reader. Here is the other detail the Facebook post glossed over. There is no single “Central Parking Zone” rate.

The 1-, 2- and 4-hour maximum stays are set street by street in the council’s own Traffic Order, so which of those new hourly rates applies to you depends entirely on which side of which road you parked on.

The council’s own advice to drivers is to check the signs or the ticket machine, every single time, because the zone changes street by street. That is not a simplification either. That is the same fiddly patchwork as before, with one flat number bolted onto each patch.

Where the Number Actually Came From.

Now. This did not arrive in August because somebody at the council lay awake worrying about confused motorists. Oh no. It arrived in March 2025, when the transport and connectivity committee voted on a fixed “linear” hourly fee for Bristol’s parking.

Officers had already put the case to committee in these terms — the same hourly rate applying across the day, and on-street parking “simplified” by scrapping the old habit of buying in multiples of 50p.

The vote was five to three.

Sit with that for a second. Five to three is not “everybody agreed this would help residents.”

Five to three is three grown adults in a council chamber saying, out loud, that this was a bad idea, and getting outvoted.

Yes, a vote is a vote, and five beats three. Nobody is disputing that the process was followed. What the process does not do is turn a genuine, recorded disagreement into the “everybody agreed this would help” language of a Facebook post.

It was the very same meeting that pushed evening charges up from a flat £4.50 to £6.80. Officers had originally asked for more — £2.70 an hour, which would have made a four-hour evening stay cost £10.80.

Members talked them down. Credit where it is due. However, that is a negotiation over how hard to squeeze, not a change of heart about squeezing.

The Number Behind the Number.

And here is the bit that never made it anywhere near the Facebook post: this fixed-rate scheme sat inside the council’s own draft 2026/27 financial plans, forecast to raise an extra £500,000 a year.

The budget papers call it income. The public post calls it a courtesy. Only one of those documents was written for people who might actually check. And, it sure ain’t the likes of us folks.

This is not a hidden document, to be fair. It went out for public consultation like every other line in the budget, in front of anyone who cared to read a council spreadsheet. It is the journey from committee paper to red-car-emoji Facebook post, quietly losing the £500,000 and gaining the word “courtesy” along the way, that is the sleight of hand.

So. Half a million pounds. Sitting quietly in a spreadsheet somewhere in City Hall, filed under a heading nobody photographs for social media. You can wonder why till the end of time, and be my guest. However.

Put that number next to the council’s own accounts and the trick becomes clearer, not smaller. Bristol’s General Fund budget for 2026/27 runs to £634 million.

Truth to tell. £500,000 against that is loose change, a rounding error, nothing the council needed to survive the year. However, the council also had to find £40.9 million in savings to balance that same budget, and £500,000 covers a little over one per cent of that specific gap.

This was never about keeping the lights on. It was one line item, chosen deliberately, sized precisely small enough that nobody outside a council spreadsheet would ever notice it, then handed a coat of “simplification” and sent out to do its work quietly.

A Sofa Cushion It Likes.

And here is the detail that should worry you more than the number itself. Here it is: the year promised earlier. The council has done this before, with this exact figure.

Back in 2022, balancing a different budget gap, it scrapped the thirty minutes of free parking drivers used to get in Resident’s Parking Zones. That single change was expected to raise £500,000.

Four years on, two different budgets, two different parking privileges quietly removed, one identical number both times. Déjà vu. Or what? That is not a coincidence. That is a council that has found a sofa cushion it likes going back to.

There is a second bill on this ticket, too, one most people never think to add up alongside the first. Hang on for that.

It is not just parking bays it checks under, either. In the same round of 2026/27 budget proposals, the council put forward increasing Clean Air Zone charges in line with inflation as one of several revenue-generating measures needed to close a wider savings gap.

Nobody votes on inflation, by the way. Nobody gets to say five to three that they think it should stay where it is. It simply rises, a little, every year, on a charge most people have already resigned themselves to paying.

Small fee here, missing discount there, a percentage point nobody notices on a bill nobody argues with. None of it is designed to be seen from the pavement. Add it up from the town hall and it comes to real money, quietly, every single year.

Next. The Bill That Was Already There.

Here it is, as promised. To be fair to the numbers, this next part is not new. A large slice of the Central Parking Zone sits inside Bristol’s Clean Air Zone, where non-compliant vehicles are charged £9 a day just for crossing the boundary, whether they park on-street, in a multi-storey, or not at all.

Funny, that.

That charge was there before 10/08/2026 and it will be there after. Anyone driving a non-compliant car into central Bristol pays it, on-street bay or Cabot Circus car park, no difference.

What has changed is the size of the second bill sitting alongside it. The CAZ charge stays fixed at £9. The on-street parking charge next to it has just gone up by as much as fifty per cent.

Two separate systems, run by two separate parts of the council, and one of them has quietly got more expensive while nobody was asked to vote on the other.

The council did not invent stacked charges this week. It just made its half of the stack heavier.

The Council’s Verdict, In Its Own Handwriting.

Somewhere on a council server the truth about this already exists, just not for you to see. It told itself: a committee split five to three.

Quietly. Of course.

A rejected rate nearly double what landed. A savings target, quietly ticked off, filed under income and never once under resident wellbeing.

None of that made the 06/08/2026 post. What made the post was a line about the transition from daytime to evening, and a little red car emoji, doing the emotional labour the small print could not.

Eight likes. Nine comments. Nobody in the replies mentioned the £500,000. Nobody was supposed to.

Mutton Dressed as Lamb.

And. Nobody in Bristol was up at night struggling with ten-pence increments. That was never the problem the council needed solving. Why, you may ask?

It’s because. The problem the council needed solving was how to raise £500,000 without anyone calling it a price rise, and “simplification” turned out to be the perfect frock for the occasion.

So here is the honest version, free of charge. A revenue-raising measure, passed by the narrowest of margins, dressed up on its way out the door in the language of doing you a favour.

The council did not simplify your parking. It simplified the job of explaining why you are paying more for it.

Fifty per cent is not a rounding error. It is a target.

The Almighty Gob will keep reading the small print, so you do not have to stand in a Pay and Display bay squinting at it in the rain.

Oh. And, A Word Before You Go.

So, to summarise, in case anyone at the Council House is still following along.

This has been called simpler. It is not simpler. It is dearer, and somebody has been paid, one assumes rather well, to find a word for “dearer” that conveniently slips through the conscious. Unnoticed.

Three committee members said no, and were outvoted. Worth remembering, next time somebody tells you the council “decided” something, as though it fell from the sky by consensus.

And underneath all of it sits £500,000, a figure so modest against the council’s own accounts that it barely disturbs the page, and which is precisely why it was chosen. Not for the first time, either. Same sofa, same cushion, same loose change.

None of this required a conspiracy. It required only a spreadsheet, a deadline, and a fondness for the word “simplify” that borders on the pathological.

Finish your coffee. Or the something stronger. Either way, the council will still be along in a moment to arrange its face into something warm and reasonable, about something else entirely.

Meanwhile. Of course.

The car parks remain exactly where they were. Only the bill has moved.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com. Bristol’s most prolific blogger. Apparently. Over 1000 articles, across the interwebby thing, so far. And. Still running like racehorse.

Sources and Citations. So. Go on. Check for yourself. If you must.

• Bristol City Council, Where to park in Bristol — confirms the new single hourly rates from 10 August 2026: bristol.gov.uk/residents/parking/where-to-park-in-bristol

• Bristol City Council, City of Bristol Variation of Charges at Designated (On-Street) Parking Places Notice — the Traffic Regulation Order setting out the old ten-minute sliding-scale charges: bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/8887-no-2-outer-controlled-parking-zone/file

• Bristol City Council, Notice of Intent — Central and Outer Controlled Parking Zones Traffic Orders — confirms the 1-, 2- and 4-hour maximum stays are set street by street: services.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/9676-notice-of-intent-cpz-central-and-outer-june-2025-tro/file

• BristolWorld / Local Democracy Reporting Service, New parking charges for the Downs under money-making Bristol City Council plans (20 October 2025) — source for the March 2025 committee vote, the 5–3 split, the evening-charge increase, and the £500,000 revenue forecast: bristolworld.com

• Bristol247, Charges to change at council-owned car parks — the officers’ committee report quoted on the “linear tariff” proposal and removing the 50p-multiple system: bristol247.com

• BBC News, Bristol City Council to increase parking charges and cut jobs (2022) — source for the 2022 precedent, the axed 30-minute Resident’s Parking Zone grace period, and its £500,000 savings forecast: feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59948740

• BBC News, Council tax and CAZ charges could soon rise — source for the proposed inflation-linked Clean Air Zone increase: feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/articles/c14j05zd2x1o

• Bristol City Council, Bristol’s Clean Air Zone — confirms the £9 daily charge for non-compliant vehicles: bristol.gov.uk/residents/streets-travel/bristols-caz

[The Stepping Up report is only the latest to be marked CONFIDENTIAL — and quietly filed away.]

Well. Here we go again. This one’s about a filing cabinet. So. Nothing new then. In one sense. At least.

Yet. Somewhere in an office at City Hall, a Bristol City Council fraud report sat finished, filed, done, since April 2023. Nobody burned it. Nobody shredded it, or used it for hamster bedding. They simply told anyone who came asking that they were not allowed to see it.

Not for the public. Not, it turns out, for the council’s own audit committee. Bristol City Council spent two years running that trick before the Information Commissioner intervened and asked why everyone was so out of breath.

The report was about Stepping Up, a leadership training company set up by former Labour councillor Asher Craig, funded by the council to the tune of over £700,000.

You already know where this is going. You can feel it, can’t you.

So. Let’s walk through this together, because the walking is where the details live. Right?

The Report Nobody Was Allowed to Read.

So. April 2023: the council’s counter fraud team files its report on Stepping Up, prompted by “reports of irregularities.”

No fraud found. Concerns raised, though — real ones, about how the money and the contracts got handed over.

You know. Like. Who’d have guessed. Possibly.

It seems they were concerns worth writing down. Apparently not worth showing anyone, though.

Then in June 2025: local resident Joseph Lloyd asks for the report under Freedom of Information law. It was refused, as per usual, one might say.

The council says releasing it would “prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs” — five words that mean nothing and are deployed precisely because they mean nothing.

Like. Um, nothing new here. You will now be redirected.

Understandably. Lloyd complains to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The regulator reads the council’s reasoning and calls it what it is: “generic arguments.”

Then. In May this year, the Commissioner orders the report published. And the council doesn’t fight it. Simply publishes. Notice that.

Two years of resistance, and when a regulator actually leans on the door, it swings open without a struggle. That’s not the behaviour of an institution protecting something serious. Correct me, if I’m wrong.

Even the Watchdogs Weren’t Allowed to Watch.

Now, the part that should actually bother you.

This was not a report kept from strangers. It was kept from the council’s own audit committee — the people whose entire job is to check the council isn’t doing anything daft with public money, and doesn’t. Not on this occasion. Anyway.

Liberal Democrat councillor Nicholas Coombes told the committee that officers had said, in effect, you may not see this. Meanwhile, the Information Commissioner was independently concluding the contents were “absolutely fine for the general public.”

So. In theory, at least. One of those two groups was doing its job. It was not the one inside the building. The audit committee exists, in theory, to hold the council to account.

In practice it was being handed the same “computer says no” that greets anyone ringing the council tax line, except with better furniture. Oh, and an orchestral version of ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ playing on a loop.

“Hiding the information doesn’t make the problem go away, it only makes the public more suspicious.” — Cllr Nicholas Coombes

Next. If you can withstand further excitement, and your bladder is in full working order.

Coombes wants chief executive Nick Hibberd in front of the committee to explain the fiasco — a bit like hauling in the new tenant to answer for the last owner’s damp problem. Hibberd wasn’t in post when any of this happened, mind.

Stephen Peacock, who was, has since decamped to the West of England Combined Authority — comfortably out of reach, several pay grades removed from anyone still holding a clipboard and asking questions.

Last seen in these pages reportedly collecting a WECA exit package worth roughly £270,000, according to figures previously reported here, while the authority he departed racked up £918,000 in staff payoffs over three years.

Nice work. If you can get it. One might say.

Have you, like me, noticed this is the great trick of local government accountability. By the time anyone is finally allowed to ask what happened, the person who did it has a new lanyard and a new car park space.

The Numbers Nobody Wanted You Reading.

The bottom line being that strip away the secrecy, and you’re left with the figures the report actually contains. And it’s the figures that are the real embarrassment. Watch.

By April 2023, 116 council staff had gone through Stepping Up. And. Um, stepping out. The back door. One’s left to ponder over.

• Twelve per cent were promoted into leadership.

• Thirteen per cent into non-leadership roles.

• Fifty-three per cent — more than half — show no known progression whatsoever.

• Twenty-three per cent left the council altogether. Same back door.

Read that again. Slowly. Over half, nowhere. Nearly a quarter, gone.

This was a scheme meant, in Craig’s own words, to “respond to the city’s paucity of diverse leadership” — a genuinely decent aim, undermined by outcomes that never came close to justifying the money chasing them.

Wasn’t there another term for this back along. The Job Creation programme?

Anyway. Craig, an unpaid non-executive director, and castaway of the Rees era, says she always “adhered to ethical boundaries and professional standards” and denies any personal benefit. Fine.

The numbers don’t care what was in anyone’s head when the cheques went out — and ethics boundaries are a marvellous thing to have adhered to, in a scheme where more than half the participants ended up exactly where they started.

Do not collect £200. Do not pass go. You know the game. Don’t you?

Incompetence, or Something With Better Manners.

So. Here’s a question worth sitting with rather than rushing past: was this cock-up, or was this cover-up?

The honest answer is that it barely matters which, because the two produce identical outcomes for the person asking a simple question and getting stonewalled. Cui bono — who benefits from two years of delay? Not the public. Not the audit committee. Only the people who would rather not answer awkward questions while a report about their own decisions gathers dust. Funny, that.

There you have it. A small refusal, filed away in 2023, grew into a regulator’s ruling, a public rebuke, and a councillor publicly demanding the chief executive explain himself. Small causes. Large effects.

That is how institutional trust actually erodes — not in one dramatic scandal, but in a thousand quiet decisions to say no by default. Who’d have thought.

“Free, Frank and Candid” — Just Not With You.

Of course. Defending the original refusal, the council told the Information Commissioner its fraud team needs to give “free, frank and candid views,” and that staff would turn “less willing” to help future investigations if their words risked publication.

Awww. Poor loves.

It’s a real principle. Whistleblowers and internal investigators genuinely need room to speak plainly.

However — and here’s where the council’s own defence undoes itself — the regulator actually read the document, and found nothing in it that warranted two years of stonewalling. The principle was sound. The application, in this specific case, was cover.

Shall we do that paragraph again. Only this time with the addition of the X Files theme music providing the backing track? No. Okay then. You clearly understand.

Meanwhile. Labour councillor Rob Logan, chair of the audit committee, welcomed the ICO’s clarity and noted that investigation reports of this kind aren’t normally published. The slow hand clap, I’ll leave to your imagination.

His statement. True enough, as a general rule. Not every internal audit needs a press release.

It’s just that “we don’t normally publish these” is a policy, and “we fought a regulator for two years over one report that turned out to be harmless” is a choice.

If that sounded almost proud — proud of the regulator for cleaning up his own committee’s mess — that’s certainly how it read from here, which is one way to take credit for someone else doing your job. You know. The one you may struggle with yourself.

Exhibit Number Whatever It Is Now.

Now. Regular literary masochists of my writing. I mean Regular readers will recognise the shape of this one.

It has the same bones as Tower House, where the freehold vanished under questions nobody wanted answered.

The same bones as Bottle Yard Studios, where “failure” turned out to be doing a lot of quiet work in a press release.

The same bones as the McColgan KC report into SEND surveillance, which the council also fought to keep contained for as long as it possibly could.

This is not this council’s first rodeo with the Information Commissioner, either. It is simply the latest entry in a Catalogue of Failures that The Almighty Gob keeps growing because nobody at City Hall seems able to break the habit — largely because breaking it would mean admitting there was ever a habit at all.

Surely, I’m not alone in thinking there’s almost a Masonic quality to the secrecy — not the ritual, just the instinct: information kept within the room, passed hand to hand among those already inside it, and treated as something the outside world simply hasn’t earned the right to see.

So. Let’s picture it properly, just for a moment. Shall we?

Somewhere below the committee rooms, a stationery cupboard nobody quite remembers requisitioning.

After hours, when the lights on the main floor go off and the cleaners have gone home, it becomes — briefly, ceremonially — the place where FOI refusals are blessed before they’re sent out.

A junior officer, robed in a hi-vis tabard for want of anything more suitable, intones the sacred phrase: prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. Somewhere, a laminator hums like an organ.

It is, of course, nonsense. Which is rather the point. The real version needs no cupboard and no ceremony — just a culture where withholding is the reflex and disclosure is the exception, dressed up afterwards in language important enough to sound like it means something.

A sign on the door might as well read FOI: Findings Officially Ignored. Somebody laminate that. There’s a laminator going spare, apparently.

Ask the Three Questions.

Was it practical to keep a document sealed once a regulator was already circling? Was it logical to fight a fight the council was always going to lose? And what, precisely, was the likely outcome of two years spent proving a democracy campaigner’s point for him? Do go on.

Dan Ackroyd answered that last one before the committee even finished asking:

“The council treats the public as an enemy because the council has decided to hide information to avoid political embarrassment.”

That’s the whole story in one sentence. It was never really about the fraud team’s candour.

“Transparency” is a word alien to this council — used constantly in committee, applied never in practice. It would seem.

Campaigners at the meeting pointed to a wider pattern at City Hall — statements redacted, comments labelled defamatory, information managed like a liability instead of something the public is owed. Stepping Up is just the case that ran far enough to drag the Commissioner into the room.

You see. Here’s the thing about drawers that supposedly won’t open. They open the moment someone with actual authority tries the handle.

Bristol City Council spent two years insisting this one was jammed shut for everyone’s protection, and it turned out to open just fine for The Almighty Gob, same as anyone else who bothered to ask. It always did.

Council lawyers said councillors could not see it. The Information Commissioner disagreed. No braille version required.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources.

• Watchdog orders release of the Stepping Up audit — council statement and Cllr Coombes quotes

• ICO enforcement notice against Bristol City Council over failures to respond to data requests

• Is Bristol City Council Competent? — the Catalogue of Failures, The Almighty Gob

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com. Bristol’s most prolific blogger. Allegedly.

[Two seasons, one stockroom — and only one side of it keeping a straight face about being ready]

Well. What do you know, dear reader. There are 142 calendar days left until Christmas Day — Friday, 25 December 2026. Can you believe it? No. Didn’t think so. Strip out the Sundays and it’s closer to 121 working and shopping days.

Anyway. The bikinis and shorts are still out. The barbecues are still going. People are out there enjoying a heatwave they’d normally have to get on a plane for, and summer, in Bristol, is still very much happening.

Not all of it stays where it’s put. Somewhere, right now, a disposable barbecue is being left where the last sausage came off it — still hot, on dry grass.

It’s a summer dry enough that South Wales Fire and Rescue have been fighting a wildfire near Blaenavon since 20 July, one large enough to affect air quality thirty kilometres away in Cardiff. You know. As if the air there wasn’t bad enough already. Some might say. Just not me.

Meanwhile, in another country across the border, with a river running in between, fire crews in Dorset and Wiltshire are telling people to go to the pub instead. Brewers elsewhere, one assumes, are not exactly disappointed. However. When nature takes its course.

Near Dunwich, a historic pub had to close entirely while firefighters tackled a blaze on the heath next door. Nobody plans for that part of summer either. It simply happens, quietly, the way these things always simply happen. And no one got to go to the pub instead.

And yet, quietly, in the background of all that festivity, something rather strange is already underway. Somewhere between now and the next fortnight, a lorry will pull into the back of a Bristol supermarket carrying several thousand plastic skulls. Behind the skulls, boxes of fireworks for the fifth of November, because apparently nobody’s allowed a clean run between one bang and the next.

Of course. Nobody will announce any of this. There will be no ceremony. It will simply happen, the way these things always simply happen — the retail equivalent of a light switching on in an empty room, watched by nobody, timed by somebody very far away.

The First Sign Isn’t the Skulls.

You’ll know it’s begun properly not from the skulls, but from something smaller. A bag of roast turkey flavoured crisps, quietly present on a shelf that, as far as anyone else is concerned, is still selling sun cream.

Christmas pudding flavour follows soon after, because someone, somewhere, has decided this is a thing the nation wants twice a year rather than once. (One assumes, mercifully, that no brandy is required, and no ceremonial setting alight — though the packet might reasonably carry a warning to that effect. Perhaps a complimentary burns pack, tucked in alongside, purely as a precaution.)

Nobody will have asked for either flavour. Nobody ever does. They’ll simply be there, weeks ahead of their season, like messengers sent on ahead to confirm the main event is coming. (One does wonder, frankly, why Kellogg’s hasn’t got there first with Christmas Pudding Frosties. Give it time. Somebody in a marketing meeting somewhere is almost certainly pitching it as we speak.)

Not the Only Ones Ahead of Schedule.

Sainsbury’s, for what it’s worth, isn’t even waiting for the crisps to make the point. Pigs in blankets — usually reserved, quite reasonably, for the one week of the year anyone can stomach them — are already on the shelf. In August. Alongside the sun cream, presumably, for anyone confused enough to want both in the same trolley.

And they’re not the only ones ahead of schedule. Out there right now, entirely unbothered by any of this, are the sensible ones — picking through car boot sales, charity shops and end-of-season clearance rails for Christmas presents nobody else has thought to buy yet.

No panic, no inflated December prices, no scrum. Just people who worked out, quietly, months ago, that planning ahead saves money. It’s not a difficult trick. It’s the same one the supermarkets are running. Bristol City Council appears to be the only party in this entire story yet to learn it.

Two Seasons, One Storeroom.

So. Spare a thought, in all this, for the person stacking the shelves. Out front, it’s still suncream and disposable barbecues. Out back, they’re unpacking tinsel next to a stockroom fan still running flat out from July.

Two seasons, occupying the same twelve feet of storeroom, at the same time. Somebody has to walk between them fifty times a shift without their head falling off.

That’s not seasonal drift. That’s a plan. Somebody, somewhere, has already worked out the exact week your Christmas spending should start feeling inevitable. (One assumes there’s a spreadsheet. There’s always a spreadsheet.)

Here’s a modest proposal, offered entirely in the spirit of efficiency: why not simply merge the three? One combined festival — skulls, bangers and baubles, all going up on the same day, all coming down on the same day, filed under “Autumn/Winter Miscellaneous Observance” and never spoken of individually again.

Think of the branding alone. A single mascot, part skeleton, part reindeer, holding a sparkler. One card covers the lot — trick or treat, bang goes the rocket, and season’s greetings, all at a discount. Trick-or-treaters simply progress straight to carol singing at the same doorstep, no need to change costume, and the crisps — mercifully — only need to pick one flavour.

The Almighty Gob has questions about who else is supposed to be planning ahead of a season — and isn’t.

Same Question, Different Storeroom.

Retailers get this right, apparently. Supermarket chains work out their Halloween-to-Christmas rollout with the precision of a military operation, warehousing stock for months before a single tinsel strand touches a shelf.

While. In contrast. Of course. Bristol City Council’s highways team has its own seasonal stockroom question, and it’s a considerably less decorative one. Is the grit already going in, the way a well-run operation would manage it — some quiet requisition form winging its way, purely for comic purposes, to a salt mine somewhere in Siberia, months ahead of the first frost? Perhaps.

(The odds of it actually coming from Siberia are roughly those of rocking-horse droppings. A quarry in Cheshire is rather more likely. Siberia is simply more fun.)

Or does the salt order only get remembered the first morning someone’s car won’t grip the tarmac on Gloucester Road, and a council officer somewhere mutters the immortal words, “well, we weren’t expecting that“?

What Other Councils Say, and What Bristol Doesn’t.

This is where a bit of comparison shopping helps. Sunderland publishes its winter stock every year — 13,500 tonnes, ready to go. Merton starts filling its stores “as early as summer” and tells residents so, with a number attached: 2,000 tonnes. Sefton names the depot, the tonnage, the fleet.

Bristol’s website tells you there are 750 grit bins, and that major roads get treated first. That’s it. No tonnage. No start date. No figure to hold anyone to.

One council photographs its gritters loading up for the cameras. The other apparently prefers you simply trust the process. With fingers crossed, and um. You know. Hope for the best, while not planning for the worst.

Ask the People Who Actually Waited.

And what happens when the trust runs a little thin? On 30 December 2025, a Bristol resident reported a missing grit bin on FixMyStreet, warning the council that snow was forecast the following week. The council logged it as “under investigation.” Snow. Under investigation. Like falling on Bristol is a crime.

By 7 January, the same resident described the road as “like a sheet of ice.” By 5 February — over five weeks after the original report — the case was closed, with the words: “we don’t think any further action is needed at this time.” Maybe just some ice skates.

A second, separate report on 5 January — an empty grit bin outside 173 Ilchester Crescent, on a road the resident called “very dangerous” in icy weather — was still marked “under investigation” more than a week later. Investigation, it seems, is the council’s longest-running season of all.

Two residents. Two winters’ worth of patience. One conclusion apiece: the process, once again, moved slower than the ice.

And, presumably, a third kind of resident too — the ones who’ve stopped waiting entirely. The same instinct that sends the sensible ones round the car boot sales in August for Christmas presents will, sooner or later, send another swathe of them online.

Ordering their own bags of rock salt for next-day delivery, because relying on the council to sort it in time has stopped being a realistic plan. It’s not resourcefulness born of enthusiasm. It’s resourcefulness born of experience. One may think.

The Question Nobody Can Actually Answer.

Now. Here’s where it gets really interesting. Okay. I’ve oversold it. Just interesting, then. Asking Bristol City Council to confirm its winter grit stock levels ahead of time sounds simple enough — except this is the same council the Information Commissioner’s Office first hit with an enforcement notice back in March 2024, over its “consistently poor” record on Freedom of Information requests.

The council appealed. It lost. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed Bristol’s case on 6 August 2025 — Bristol City Council v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 948 — finding the ICO had exercised its discretion correctly throughout.

A second enforcement notice followed in September 2025, this time over Subject Access Requests, with the ICO stating plainly that the council’s approach “demonstrates a poor organisational attitude towards data rights and compliance with the law.”

Council leader Tony Dyer has since acknowledged there’s “much more work to do.” The backlog has shrunk, from 147 outstanding requests in March 2024 to 77 by September 2025. The proportion answered on time in that same window, however, actually fell — from 75% to 72%. Progress, evidently, is relative. So. Gratifying to know it’s only the frontlog we have to consider now. Whatever that is.

It seems the honest answer to “has the council stocked up in good time?” isn’t yes or no. Nobody outside the building can currently get an answer to that question at all — because the machinery that would answer it doesn’t answer anything, on time, ever.

A council that won’t confirm whether it has ordered salt is, at minimum, consistent.

Put the two timelines side by side and the joke writes itself. A Freedom of Information request is legally owed a response within 20 working days. Bristol’s own figures show it doesn’t reliably manage that.

The missing grit bin on FixMyStreet took over five weeks to close, and closed with nothing actually fixed. At this rate, a resident would have better odds getting their road gritted by filing an FOI request asking someone to come and do it by hand. And, preferably, before next year’s snowfall.

One More Exhibit for the Catalogue.

Regular readers of whatever it is I’m supposed to write will recognise the shape of this by now. It’s the same shape as the Tower House freehold sale. The same shape as the EBLN overspend. The same shape as Bottle Yard Studios.

Different department, different budget line, same underlying habit: decide late, communicate less, and let residents find out the hard way that nobody was minding the calendar. Melting away. You know. Like snow.

The grit isn’t a one-off failure of planning. It’s exhibit twelve in a catalogue that already runs to eleven — not to mention a wider habit the council seems no closer to shaking.

The Excuse, Pre-Loaded.

And if the grit does run short this winter? The explanation writes itself before the first snowflake falls. Global supply chains. The Middle East. Anything, in other words, except the plainer possibility — that nobody ordered enough, early enough, the way supermarkets somehow manage every single year without anyone having to ask.

Britain has form on this. British Rail famously blamed “the wrong type of snow” for grinding trains to a halt back in 1991, and the phrase has followed the country round ever since, mostly because it’s never really stopped being true.

Somewhere between now and February, expect a version of it applied to the roads — not the wrong type of snow this time, perhaps, but certainly the wrong type of excuse, delivered with the same straight face.

Fitting, really, given that this summer already has the wrong type of sun — too hot, too dry, too many wildfires, and apparently nobody’s fault either. Except the Sun’s. So, yes. Let’s all blame the Sun, and wait for Trump to impose severe restrictions on it. You know. The way he does. On most things.

The Paint That Already Couldn’t Cope.

Oh, and before I forget. There’s a second layer to this, and it’s sitting in plain view on Centre Promenade. Well. It was. Until it faded. In September 2025, Bristol City Council unveiled Our Common Ground — a 700 square metre painted mural by Bristol artist Oshii, replacing the old sunken fountains, funded jointly by the council and the Business Improvement District at a cost of £61,000.

It had to be repainted within a month. It has continued deteriorating since. Deputy council leader Heather Mack told Politics West in February 2026 that she was “embarrassed, disappointed and frustrated” that public money had gone into it.

The council’s own explanation is that the artwork uses a “specialist road line marking paint,” intended for the ground but applied to a smoother surface than the tarmac it’s normally used on — with the council saying it’s still investigating why some sections are flaking more than others. Council for: “We got it wrong.” Apparently, Dulux emulsion doesn’t quite work on such an application, and the person who ordered it has since updated their Specsavers appointment.

Anyway. Whatever the cause, the paint has already failed to survive ordinary Bristol conditions — rain, footfall, a change of surface underneath it. It’s not the first thing that patch of ground has had to survive, either. This is the same spot a statue was once dragged across before being tipped into the harbour. The paint, by comparison, has had it easy.

Which raises an obvious question nobody in the council’s public explanation has addressed: what happens to it once the same road salt that’s meant to be protecting drivers on Gloucester Road starts working its way across a promenade already flaking a month after launch?

As you’ll, I’m almost certain, be aware. Rock salt is corrosive. That’s the entire point of it — it breaks down ice by breaking down the surface tension holding it together, and it does the same, more slowly, to whatever it sits on.

Nobody has said publicly whether Centre Promenade gets gritted, or whether Our Common Ground was ever tested against it. Maybe there was no need to. Given it provides a free ice rink. Under certain conditions.

If it does, and it wasn’t, the council may find itself repainting the same mural for a second unrelated reason inside its first twelve months — with the maintenance budget already earmarked at £3,000 to £5,000 a year for five years, and repairs only possible once temperatures climb back above 10°C in spring.

And. By the way. One paint failure the council won’t fully explain is unfortunate. A second one, arriving with the first frost, would start to look like a pattern the council keeps declining to anticipate.

Same Sun, Same Shortfall.

Meanwhile. The bikinis are still out. The barbecues are still going. And somewhere behind all of it, the plastic skulls are already in a lorry, the crisps are already on the shelf, and the grit — if anyone could actually find out — either is or isn’t.

That’s the whole story, really. One organisation knows exactly what it’s doing months in advance. The other won’t tell you, doesn’t tell you, and will blame the weather when it happens anyway.

Which is, in itself, a very British trick. Too hot in summer, too cold in winter, too wet in between, and somehow never quite the right amount of anything at any point in the year.

The weather gets blamed for everything, and yet nobody in this story has actually planned around it — not for the heatwave sparking wildfires in July, not for the ice that shuts a road in January.

The weather isn’t the excuse. It’s the one thing everybody already knew was coming. It’ll simply happen, quietly, the way these things always simply happen — except, this time, everyone watching will have seen it coming for months.

So. Enjoy the sunshine while it lasts. Somebody, somewhere, already has. Allegedly.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources and Citations.

• Yahoo News UK / The Conversation, “Wildfires: why disposable BBQs are being banned from some parks and beaches” — theconversation.com

• Morning Advertiser, “Fire service urges public to ‘go to the pub’ instead of BBQs” — morningadvertiser.co.uk

• Bristol City Council, “Roads and pavements in severe winter weather” — bristol.gov.uk

• FixMyStreet report 8604964, missing grit bin, reported 30 December 2025, closed 5 February 2026 — fixmystreet.bristol.gov.uk

• FixMyStreet report 8627962, empty grit bin outside 173 Ilchester Crescent, reported 5 January 2026 — fixmystreet.bristol.gov.uk

• Sunderland City Council, Winter Service Policy — sunderland.gov.uk

• Merton Council, “Merton ready for the cold snap” — news.merton.gov.uk

• Sefton Council, “Grit ready for winter” — sefton.gov.uk

• Information Commissioner’s Office, enforcement notice to Bristol City Council over Freedom of Information Act compliance, March 2024 — ico.org.uk

• Bristol City Council v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 948 (GRC), First-tier Tribunal decision, 6 August 2025

• Information Commissioner’s Office, enforcement notice to Bristol City Council over Subject Access Requests, September 2025 — ico.org.uk

• BBC, “’Culture of non-transparency’ at city council” — bbc.co.uk

• Bristol City Council, “Centre Promenade works” — bristol.gov.uk

• Bristol247, “Deputy leader ‘embarrassed, disappointed and frustrated’ with state of Centre artwork” — bristol247.com

• BBC, “Faded art makes council deputy feel ‘embarrassed’” (quoting Heather Mack’s remarks to Politics West) — bbc.co.uk

• Sainsbury’s Online Grocery Store, “Sainsbury’s Pigs in Blankets x20 400g,” listed in stock — sainsburys.co.uk, checked 2 August 2026

John Langley is Bristol’s most prolific blogger, writing since 2010.

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

Back in my days living in Torquay, on the English Riviera, I had a little mews cottage down there. Then. One day, I woke with my usual inspiration and made the decision to hang a sign outside that read: “B. Ollox and R. Soles.”

So. When it came round to council tax (as we know it now) for that time, the bill came back addressed the same way — to “B. Ollocks and R. Soles.” Nobody noticed until somebody eventually clocked it as a joke, and then the hassle started — the council’s own error, and one they never bothered to correct. Even after I’d moved on. To my best knowledge, anyway.

You see. Those were also my Monster Raving Loony Party days. When, my answer to the council finding discarded condoms on the beach was to build condominiums. For instance. You know, for when the swathe of summer tourists come. That one went down like a lead balloon too. Needless to say.

It would be true to say I wasn’t appreciated half as much in those days as I’m not now.

Still. Life goes on. Until it doesn’t.

Of course nowadays, we have a sort of more self-entitled warrior version of the Monster Raving Loony Party, called, by me, at least, the Monster Raving Green Party. They seem to like raves, and they are questionably green in the ecological sense, and most definitely green in the political sense of things.

I finally listened to this Polanski guy—David Poulton, the other day. Forty-three years old! You hear him speak and you realise his gonads are still playing hide-and-seek somewhere in his ribcage. Forty-three years on this planet, and his vocal cords are still waiting for puberty to send a formal invitation. Who’d have thought it. Anyway. It’s no great loss keeping him on mute. In fact. It’s more of a benefit. Especially for the hard of hearing, and deaf. One can imagine.

Anyway. It turns out I’m not alone in the observation area, and for different reasons. Dr Shahrar Ali — former deputy leader of the actual Green Party, the one with the rosettes rather than a sign I invented outside a mews cottage — recently stood up and said the quiet part out loud: that his old party has become, in his own words, “a danger to society.” Not to municipal drainage. Not to a beach full of discarded condoms. To society. Full stop. That’s quite the promotion from condominiums.

He didn’t stop there, either. Entryism, he called it — Islamist entryism, no less — riding in on a wave of new members drawn by leader Zack (Poulton) Polanski, debating Zionism at conference like it’s the raffle, and apparently courting specific voter demographics with the same subtlety I once brought to an exterior sign. Which is to say: none whatsoever. Notice that. Sit with it for a second.

Now. The funniest part, and there’s always a funniest part: Ali isn’t some outside crank lobbing grenades over the fence. He was deputy leader, who won a court case against his own party for unlawful discrimination over his gender-critical views, got expelled outright by 2024, and only then decided the place had gone properly doolally. Rather like discovering your own sign says something rude only after the council’s already billed you for it. You may find that thought staying with you longer than you expected.

As I stated earlier on. Life goes on. Until it doesn’t. And apparently, so does the Green Party — just not, according to one of its own former deputies, in quite the direction anybody who doesn’t appreciate a rave signed up for. A joke on a sign, a joke on a ballot paper. Different council, different era, same story, same nobody minding the shop. Some things you hang outside your own front door. Others get hung on you. So it would seem. B.Ollox.

Subscribe now

Written by Bristol’s most prolific blogger.

The Almighty Gob — © 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

[On Robert Bush, and grieving at the wrong location]

Well. As per usual, I have no idea what I’m talking about.

So. Let’s start here, and work backwards.

I have already assured myself it will all come together further along. As I work backwards.

So. The first question I asked myself was, how do I write this backwards.

Now, in fairness, I wasn’t quite prepared for the most logical reply. SIHT.

Still. That’s neurodiversity for you.

Spelt differently, of course, it could have been far worse.

Even though it may have provided a more literal outcome.

Or. Perhaps. HTAED. Don’t ask me. I just write this stuff.

However. What I’d really like to talk about is death.

And for most. I guess the more literal outcome may well be appropriate.

Let’s start there, then. At the end.

With a man who is going to spend the next twenty years finding out what “appropriate” means, in a cell, having decided it for other people first.

Now. Back To Hessle Road.

By now, we’re probably all aware of the cold storage, humming on Hessle Road.

You picture it now, don’t you.

Racks, not shelves — that’s the word the people who found it chose, not me.

Thirty-one bodies where the paperwork said there should have been none.

One of them a stillborn baby, still waiting on a cremation that never came, for very nearly two years.

A trial date was originally set. However, an additional hearing was then scheduled for April 2026, where Bush pleaded guilty to the remaining 31 charges.

A five-day sentencing hearing commenced at Hull Crown Court on Monday, 27/07/2026, and concluded on Friday, 31/07/2026.

Yes. On 31/07/2026. Robert Bush was sentenced to twenty years, for sixty-seven offences at Legacy Independent Funeral Directors in Hull.

Preventing the lawful and decent burial of the dead. In addition to fraud, and theft.

Families handed ashes that belonged to somebody else’s mother. Somebody else’s child.

Over a hundred sets of remains sat uncollected while relatives believed the cremation had already happened. The grave already settled. The grieving, technically, already complete.

You’ll have felt some version of horror reading that. Good. So did I.

However. Horror is where most people’s thinking stops, and I’d rather not stop there.

Let’s go further in. What, precisely, was owed to those bodies. And to whom.

Remember that word — owed. Keep it somewhere close.

We’ll be sending something to a very specific address before this is done.

Now. About The Carcass.

It’s pretty well universally accepted that we’re born. We live. We die.

Or, at least that’s my hope. If not, then someone needs a strong word or two with him. That Darwin fellow.

There’ll be a clairvoyant somewhere nearby who can arrange it. Though. Don’t quote me.

Arguably, we are born to die. No matter whether it’s five minutes, five years, or fifty years after birth.

Some will die through natural causes. Some tragically. However. We all have a timeline.

Strip the sentiment off, and here’s what you actually are. A functional arrangement of enzymes, tissue, fat, bone, blood. Self-repairing, for a while. Then not.

I don’t say that to be cruel. I say it because it’s accurate, and accuracy isn’t something this country tends to extend to its dead. Never mind the living.

The personality — whatever it was that made you recognisably you — never lived in that arrangement.

It operated through it. The way a voice operates through a throat. The throat being never the voice.

Now. Here’s where grief goes wrong, and I don’t say that unkindly either. I just follow the logic.

Notice something. For the entire span of knowing somebody, you only ever reached their personality through their body. The face. The voice. The particular way they crossed a room.

You never had a version of loving them that didn’t route through the physical.

So when the part that animated them is gone and the body’s still there, your grief has nowhere else to send itself. It was never given a second address.

You’re not mistaking the corpse for the person. You’re simply standing at the last known location, because it’s the only one you’ve got.

That’s not foolishness. It’s a hardware limitation.

However. It does explain rather a lot about a funeral industry built almost entirely around maintaining that one address, in ever more expensive fashion, for people who are no longer collecting post.

The corpse is the last known location. Not the person. Just the only address grief’s ever had.

Mind. On The Spirit.

Somebody’s going to raise the spirit at this point. Fair enough.

Across traditions, there’s broad agreement that something leaves. The disagreement’s only ever about the schedule.

Some traditions say a day. Jewish mourning custom holds shiva for seven. Tibetan Buddhist tradition allows forty-nine — the bardo — before whatever it is has properly gone.

Nobody has ever measured any of it happening. One day, forty-nine days, doesn’t matter.

Humanity has only ever agreed a timetable for something nobody’s verified departing at all. Belief’s been standing in for observation for rather a long time.

I’ll take no position on whether a spirit exists. Don’t need to.

The argument only needs one fact, and I’ve already got it: nobody’s clocked the moment of departure, on any of the competing schedules, ever.

No dead person has ever sent a postcard back saying weather’s nice, wish you were here.

Which tells you everything about the schedule, and nothing at all about the destination.

So. Who Actually Benefits.

Back to Hessle Road. Whatever else Bush’s victims lost, it wasn’t the comfort of the deceased — who were, by every account and every tradition going, well past comfort or the absence of it.

What those families lost was their own ceremony. The version of events they’d paid for and been promised, in which something got witnessed, marked, closed.

Which answers the question honestly, if unfashionably. The dead don’t benefit from any of it. They’ve no preferences left to satisfy.

The dead aren’t watching the invoice. They never were.

Whatever a funeral achieves, it achieves for the people left standing at it.

I’ll grant that’s a real function, and worth taking seriously rather than waving off. Grief needs somewhere to go and something to do, and ceremony supplies both.

However. A real function isn’t the same thing as a function that costs what this country currently charges for it.

The Theatre Tax.

According to SunLife’s Cost of Dying Report 2026, the UK’s longest-running study into funeral pricing, a simple attended funeral now averages £3,828 — coffin, hearse, fee, minister.

Add the average send-off, £1,312 for the wake, the flowers, the order sheets, and the true total lands at £5,140.

Now compare that to the floor. Direct cremation, no service, has surged from 3 per cent of funerals in 2019 to 21 per cent by 2025, priced from under £1,500.

A full traditional burial with a new plot, per the National Association of Funeral Directors, now averages £5,033.

Same biological outcome, either way. Same carcass. Look at the gap again.

That gap between the two figures isn’t a disposal cost. It’s the price of the ceremony sitting on top of it — the shrine you’re paying to maintain at the only address grief’s ever had.

The dead aren’t watching the invoice. They never were. It’s the only party in the room who genuinely doesn’t mind what it comes to.

I’m not arguing the ceremony’s worthless. I’m arguing something narrower, and harder to shrug off, here at The Almighty Gob.

The industry’s quietly priced a service for the living as though it were a duty to the dead. And duties to the dead don’t haggle. They just never object to the invoice. Unsurprisingly.

The industry’s quietly priced a service for the living as though it were a duty to the dead.

Now. About What They’d Actually Want.

The standard defence, when any of this gets said aloud, is that a proper send-off is “what they would have wanted.”

Sometimes that’s even true. It’s also, conveniently, never checked against what the person actually wrote down. Not always. Anyway.

That’s not contempt for anyone currently grieving, and I’d ask you not to read what follows as such. Grief’s real. It’s owed respect.

None of this is aimed at the person standing at a graveside working out how to get through the day.

What’s fair game is the invoice arriving within days of a death, dressed up as tradition, when more often than not it’s simply the going rate.

I’ve written mine down. It’s in my Amazon published book.

It makes no difference whatsoever what happens to my body once I’m no longer using it. Bin liners, kerbside collection, petrol and a match — take your pick.

I’ll feel none of it. And I’ll most certainly not be getting up afterwards to lodge a complaint, on account of being dead. Which remains a fairly terminal condition. You know. D-e-a-d.

However. On the flip side, and there’s always a flip side. Robert Bush is going to prison for twenty years for treating the dead with contempt while charging the living for reverence.

It’s just that my position’s rather simpler, and, it turns out, rather cheaper. The dead aren’t watching the invoice. They never were. Only the living were.

Which is precisely who it was always going to be sent to.

So there’s your address, then — the one I asked you to hold onto, back near the start. Not a grave. Not an urn.

The kitchen table where the invoice actually gets opened. That’s where it was always owed.

And that’s the piece, worked all the way backwards, exactly as I told you it would be. Start at the end, land back at the beginning. HTAED and SIHT, the right way round after all.

Turns out backwards was the only honest way to write this one. Because nobody ever asks the corpse what it thought of the flowers.

Nobody ever will.

Sources and citations

1. Crown Prosecution Service, “Former Hull funeral director jailed for preventing lawful burials, fraud, and theft” (31/07/2026)

2. SunLife, “Funeral landscape changing as costs continue to rise”, Cost of Dying Report 2026

3. National Association of Funeral Directors, “How Much Does a Funeral Cost in the UK”

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

[Bristol Climate & Nature Partnership — the group behind the friction-and-behaviour document referenced in "Right. Here's The End Goal."]

Well. It looks like devolution from Westminster is still on the table, folks — and it’s worth being precise about what that actually means, because two different pots keep getting talked about as if they’re one.

For starters. There’s a £17 billion Investment Prospectus: a pitch to private investors and developers, not public money at all.

And there’s the real prize — an Established Strategic Authority bid, with North Somerset joining the combined authority to help clear the bar. Only once that status is granted does an actual devolved settlement arrive from Westminster.

West Yorkshire, which already holds it, got just under £2 billion across four years. West of England doesn’t have a number yet, because it doesn’t have the status yet. Truth be told, it hasn’t got much of anything yet. Never mind status.

Now. Before anyone gets excited about what either pot could build, it’s worth asking what Bristol City Council already does with the money it has, because the pattern’s been hiding in plain sight for years, and it was never really about what it looked like it was about. Not the headline sums. The small, repeating decisions that keep turning up across completely unrelated council budgets: paint, and the things that get moved without warning. You know. Like they do.

Anyway. Somewhere in this piece is a figure the Leader tried to pin down two years ago and couldn’t. Somewhere else is a four-letter method, sitting in a drawer, that explains why none of this ever needed a conspiracy to happen. Both surface eventually. Neither is where you’d expect. Like a post-it note reminder. That someone forgot after an office party.

Cycle lanes. Roads. Fountains. Bus stops. Somewhere in City Hall there’s a colour chart getting more attention than a spreadsheet, and The Almighty Gob wanted to know how such a conversation might actually go — and what it could be building toward underneath.

I Can Just Imagine The Colour Chart. Can you?

Two swatches sit on the desk under a strip light that hums slightly louder than either man is prepared to mention. Each swatch has a name printed underneath it in a serif font usually reserved for candles: “Assertive Vermilion” and “Quiet Confidence Red.” The Leader hasn’t picked either one up.

LEADER: Tell me again why I’m choosing between “Assertive” and “Quiet Confidence.”

DIRECTOR: High-friction red, Leader. The naming’s the contractor’s, not the council’s. Either one does the job. The job being visibility, not self-esteem. There’s a trial — up to a quarter of a million pounds, funded from Clean Air Zone income — to repaint the cycle lanes drivers and pedestrians keep failing to notice.

LEADER: The lanes that already exist. That we already paid to build.

DIRECTOR: Correct. The infrastructure was sound. The colour simply wasn’t loud enough to be believed.

LEADER: So the fix for infrastructure nobody can see is more paint, paid for out of the pot we raised by charging people for driving through the city.

DIRECTOR: One way of putting it, Leader. The tidier phrase in the report is “repurposing of income toward active travel outcomes.” Same quarter of a million, better vowels.

LEADER: That zone’s still running a surplus, isn’t it. The one that’s meant to be about the air.

DIRECTOR: A multi-million-pound one, confirmed in the House of Lords. Nobody’s disputed the figure.

LEADER: Isn’t it meant to be about the air, though. Not the money?

DIRECTOR: On paper, Leader. Only the air doesn’t know where the boundary is. It never has. It doesn’t slow down at the sign, check its watch, and decide to turn back. You can draw a line on a map and charge a driver for crossing it, but the particulate matter on one side of that line saunters across the other without ever once being asked for ID.

LEADER: So the whole premise is fictional.

DIRECTOR: The zone was never really about the physics, Leader. The physics were always going to do what physics does regardless of the charge. The zone was about the revenue the charge would raise, and revenue behaves exactly where you draw the line, even when the air won’t.

LEADER: So we’ve built a boundary the pollution ignores and a surplus the paint depends on.

DIRECTOR: That’s a fair summary of the balance sheet, yes.

LEADER: I laid bricks for eleven years. Nobody ever asked me to repaint a wall because the first coat wasn’t emotionally convincing.

The Director doesn’t answer that one. He lets it sit in the room rather than talk over it, and for a moment the hum of the strip light is the only thing still working in the building.

Council Tax Payer Feedback.

LEADER: If we’re spending public money on a colour, the public should have a say in the colour.

DIRECTOR: In theory, yes. We could run a survey. Ask residents which parts of the network they’d prioritise, what shade reads clearest to them, whether red’s even the right call for every road.

LEADER: Would we use it?

DIRECTOR: That depends what you mean by “use,” Leader.

LEADER: I mean would the answer change anything, or would it sit in an appendix while the decision that was already made gets made anyway.

DIRECTOR: There is a precedent. The disability consultation on the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood was represented one way in public — a scheme with its own budget answers worth a separate read. It read rather differently once people went back to the source data.

LEADER: Different how.

DIRECTOR: The survey happened. What it was said to show and what it actually showed were two separate documents. It passed through a handful of hands before anyone outside this building saw a summary of it, and nobody outside those hands voted on how it would be described.

LEADER: So a paint colour consultation would run the same course. We’d ask the question, publish the invitation, and the answer would arrive too late to be anything but decoration on a decision already signed off.

DIRECTOR: The tick box gets ticked, Leader. Nobody’s ever specified that it has to change anything on the other side of it. The results get collated, bound, and filed in a cabinet roughly three feet from the desk where the decision was already signed off — close enough to point to, far enough that nobody has to open the drawer.

LEADER: Then don’t call it a consultation. Call it what it is — a colour chart with a comments section nobody reads.

Then There’s The Mural.

The Director opens a second folder without being asked. He’s had it ready.

DIRECTOR: There’s a second exhibit, if you want the pattern rather than the incident.

LEADER: Go on.

DIRECTOR: The Centre fountains. Sixty-one thousand pounds, artwork over the old broken fountains, paid for jointly with the Business Improvement District. It was titled “Our Common Ground.”

LEADER: Was.

DIRECTOR: It started peeling within two months of completion. The ground stopped being common to anyone roughly around the time the leaves would have started falling — if it had been a tree instead of a road.

LEADER: So we paid twice for the same square of tarmac. Once to break it, once to make it look less broken, and the second attempt didn’t survive a season.

DIRECTOR: The paint was the wrong type for the surface. That’s been established.

LEADER: And who signed off on it?

DIRECTOR: That has not been established, and I’d gently suggest that’s not an accident. The old fountains, for what it’s worth, needed less maintenance broken than the artwork needs now that it’s finished.

LEADER: And nobody’s asked, because by the time the answer matters, there’s a new colour chart on somebody’s desk and a different budget line paying for it.

DIRECTOR: That’s rather the mechanism, Leader. Each failure gets filed as its own decision, with its own paperwork and its own person to blame if anyone ever looks. Nobody decided. Nobody had to. Nobody’s job is to add them up. So nobody does — somebody else already has.

Oh. And The Rainbow Crossing.

LEADER: There’s a third one, isn’t there. I raised it myself, a couple of years back, and never could pin the figure down at the time.

DIRECTOR: Wine Street, at the junction with Union Street. A single puffin crossing painted in rainbow colours. It came out under a Freedom of Information request — £7,161.24, the works carried out in 2021.

LEADER: For one crossing.

DIRECTOR: For one crossing. Call it the most expensive four square metres of tarmac in the West Country, pound for pound. Nobody’s produced a figure that beats it since.

LEADER: And it lasted?

DIRECTOR: It was vandalised within the year and had to be repainted in 2022. The council didn’t pay for that second coat — the contractor absorbed it. But the road went through the same cycle regardless. Paint down, paint damaged, paint redone.

LEADER: Same contractor both times?

DIRECTOR: ETM did the first job. Colas did the second. Nobody’s ever placed the two invoices side by side and asked whether the firm doing the repair has any interest in the original job lasting.

LEADER: Nobody’s ever raised the other question either, have they. Whether a rainbow’s the safest thing to put on a crossing in the first place.

DIRECTOR: RNIB has, nationally — took it straight to the Mayor of London. Their case is that plain black and white gives the contrast a partially sighted person actually needs to find the crossing at all, and a rainbow doesn’t. There’s a British Standard behind that, not just an opinion. Whether that argument was ever put to this particular crossing, on this particular street, I can’t tell you. Nobody’s published that they were asked.

LEADER: So it’s not even a new pattern. It’s the same one, three years early, and nobody joined it up to the fountains or the cycle lanes until now.

DIRECTOR: Nobody was asked to, Leader. Each colour gets its own file, its own budget code, its own press line. Three departments, one instinct, and not one of them required to read the other’s paperwork.

The Director closes the folder. Somewhere down the corridor a photocopier finishes a job nobody’s come to collect.

On Yer Bike. Or, Scooter.

LEADER: There’s one more, and it isn’t paint. It’s the scooters.

DIRECTOR: The hire scheme. E-scooters and e-bikes, run under contract — Voi, then Tier, then Dott after the merger. The trial’s been extended out to 2028.

LEADER: The council wants everyone doing their own Tebbit. Get on your bike, find the work, find the gym, find the pub. Very active travel. Very healthy city.

DIRECTOR: One in fifteen residents across the region use one monthly, by UWE’s own evaluation. The appetite’s real, whatever else is wrong with the delivery of it.

LEADER: And the rest of it?

DIRECTOR: The operator axed long-term rentals with less than a day’s notice. It changed the pricing after promising nobody would be worse off. A councillor told WECA’s own scrutiny committee the previous firm was better.

LEADER: So they lost the contract.

DIRECTOR: The contract nearly wasn’t renewed. It was renewed anyway.

LEADER: None of which is what I asked about. I asked about the ones left lying across a pavement. Three grown adults riding one scooter built for one — like a bobsleigh team that lost two-thirds of its own crew — going the wrong way down a one-way street. Because nobody’s checking who’s riding, or where it lands when they’ve finished with it.

DIRECTOR: One clause missing from a contract does that, Leader. No requirement to inspect where a vehicle’s left, only that it’s eventually collected. Everything downstream of that omission becomes unpredictable by design — three to a scooter here, the wrong way down a one-way street there. Nobody decided. Nobody had to.

LEADER: A gap nobody wrote down, causing damage nobody can point to a decision for.

DIRECTOR: The council’s own answer to that was to move parking off the pavement and onto marked bays in the road. Which addresses where a scooter should end up. It doesn’t address who put it somewhere else, and it never asked why the enforcement was missing before the scheme launched rather than after residents complained.

LEADER: So it’s the same shape as the paint. Approve the thing that looks like progress, don’t build the mechanism that makes it work, wait for the complaint, then fix the smallest piece of it in public.

DIRECTOR: Tebbit told people to get on their bike, Leader. He never had to account for where they left it.

Now. About The Buses.

The Director doesn’t reach for a folder this time. He knows this one by heart.

LEADER: There’s a sixth one, and it’s nothing to do with colour. It’s the stops.

DIRECTOR: City centre bus routes. Twenty-five services rerouted from the end of August. Stops on Union Street, the Horsefair, Penn Street, and one on Broad Weir close outright. New stops open on Fairfax Street, Broad Weir, Lower Castle Street, and Bond Street. Five familiar corners lose their stop, four unfamiliar ones get one instead.

LEADER: And in June, if I remember rightly, the lot of them shut in one afternoon regardless.

DIRECTOR: Yes. A service disruption closed The Centre, the Horsefair, Broad Weir, Wine Street, Bristol Bridge and Victoria Street simultaneously, diverting everyone to Clifton Triangle. That was an incident, not a plan. The August changes are the plan, and we’re improving on it all the time — new maps, new signage, a newsletter residents can subscribe to for the privilege of being told where the bus stop’s moved to this time.

LEADER: And the ones who can’t just look it up. The pensioner who’s used the same stop for twenty years. Somebody less steady on their feet, finding out the hard way that it’s a hundred yards further than it used to be.

DIRECTOR: There’s a track record worth being honest about, Leader. The disability consultation on the East Bristol scheme was represented rather more favourably in public than the source data supported, and Blue Badge exemptions there were refused more often than granted. If the pattern holds, the people least able to absorb an extra hundred yards are exactly the ones who’ll be given it — not because anyone decided it should be them. Simply because nobody in the room has ever had to use the stop themselves.

Neither man says anything for a moment. Down in the street, a woman holds one of the council’s own leaflets up against a lamppost that no longer matches it.

LEADER: Getting people out of their cars was the goal, wasn’t it.

DIRECTOR: Officially, yes. Nobody ever specified it had to come with them being able to find the bus. And, the E-scooter scheme does be doing its job rather well.

Mind. On The Plus Side.

DIRECTOR: If it’s any comfort, Leader, the numbers are moving exactly where you’d predict. Every closed stop, every rerouted service, every scooter left blocking a doorway in Broadmead is a small push toward the M5.

LEADER: Toward Cribbs.

DIRECTOR: Toward Cribbs. Seven thousand free bays, no zone charge, no committee arguing over a colour chart before a shopper can find a space. It’s been the quiet success story running underneath everything else in this room. For which, South Gloucestershire Council must take both the credit, and the initiative.

LEADER: Quiet how?

DIRECTOR: Nobody set out to build the case for leaving the city centre, Leader. It’s simply what happens when every visible decision in the middle of town makes visiting it very slightly harder, and the alternative eight miles up the motorway stays exactly as easy as it’s always been.

LEADER: Congratulations, then. To whoever isn’t taking credit for it.

DIRECTOR: There’s a footnote worth keeping honest. One venue at Cribbs has started charging for parking this year — the ice rink, forty-five minutes free, up to five pounds after that. A private landlord’s decision, not the council’s, not the mall’s. The seven thousand bays around it are still free.

LEADER: So even the retreat’s started charging admission, on one corner of it.

DIRECTOR: Which rather proves the point, Leader. Free doesn’t stay free anywhere for very long, once enough people start relying on it being the only place that still is.

LEADER: What else is there to do, then? To help more of them along.

DIRECTOR: Nothing, Leader. That’s rather the joke of it. We don’t have to do anything else. We just keep doing what we’re already doing.

Right. Here’s The End Goal.

The Director doesn’t open a folder for this one. He’s been carrying it without needing to check it.

LEADER: Say it plainly, then. What’s actually being built toward, underneath the maps and the signage and the survey nobody reads.

DIRECTOR: The paperwork’s public, Leader. It’s called Bristol on the Move. It says outright the changes are preparation for thousands of new homes, shops and leisure space, coming to the area in the years ahead.

LEADER: Meaning what, for the stops.

DIRECTOR: Union Street, the Horsefair, Penn Street — they didn’t close because the buses stopped running past them. They closed because the streets they sit on are the ones due to change shape.

LEADER: So you empty a place out first, and call the emptying “improvement” — whether or not anyone ever meant it that way — and by the time anyone’s counted the footfall that’s been lost, there’s nothing left worth defending when the bulldozers turn up.

DIRECTOR: I can tell you what the paperwork says, Leader. I can’t tell you what’s in anyone’s head, and neither can you. What I can say is this: the pattern doesn’t need a motive to produce the outcome. Empty a place quietly enough, for long enough, and the case for defending it evaporates on its own — whether or not that was ever the plan. And there’s a document that shows the quiet part is a method available to anyone, motive or none.

LEADER: What document.

DIRECTOR: The one from the opening of this conversation, Leader, if we’re honest about where it’s been sitting the whole time. Produced by the local Climate and Nature Partnership, aimed at employers, about shifting behaviour without ever asking outright.

LEADER: How does it work.

DIRECTOR: Four levers, arranged as a four-letter acronym — easy, attractive, social, timely. One of them is simply friction. Remove it where you want a behaviour, add it where you don’t. People arrive at the choice you wanted without ever being told to make it.

LEADER: Give me an example.

DIRECTOR: Fewer car parking spaces, more bike parking spaces. That’s the worked example, in print, handed round at workshops.

LEADER: Friction. Like a bus stop moved a hundred yards.

DIRECTOR: Precisely like that.

LEADER: So it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a technique.

DIRECTOR: Which makes it worse, if anything, Leader. Nobody needs to conspire when the method’s already published as best practice. City Hall didn’t write it. It only had to be in the room when somebody else did.

Down the corridor a photocopier finishes a job nobody’s come to collect, for the second time this piece, and neither man remarks on it.

So. Add Up The Council’s Bill.

The Leader stands and walks to the window. Watch, and you’ll see it too — below, on the road outside, someone is stepping around a scooter left flat across the pavement without breaking stride, the way you step around something that’s stopped being news.

LEADER: Add them up for me. Roads. Cycle lanes. A puffin crossing. A mural that lasted eight weeks. A scooter scheme nobody’s enforcing. Bus stops that move if you look away too long. What does the city actually look like if I step back from all six?

DIRECTOR: It looks like a Jackson Pollock painted by six different committees who never once compared notes. Red lanes nobody asked for in a survey nobody read. A rainbow crossing repainted after vandals got to it. A mural that outlasted a carton of milk and not by much. A scooter fleet strewn across the pavement like dominoes somebody knocked over and never stood back up. A bus stop that isn’t where the map says it is. Every layer is a visible decision, made in public, signed off in daylight. None of them are a maintenance plan.

LEADER: And whatever lands, when it lands — the EMSA settlement, or whatever the investment prospectus actually converts into. Are we back here in two years with a different swatch and the same argument?

DIRECTOR: Only if nobody in this room decides that a road is infrastructure first and a colour choice second. Nothing currently stops that order from reversing again.

LEADER: Is it malice, then? Somebody choosing this, deliberately, six times over.

DIRECTOR: Nobody decided. Nobody had to. Malice would at least imply a decision, Leader. What’s on the record looks more like nobody deciding anything at all — and it hasn’t been one penny cheaper for the absence of a villain.

Malice would at least imply a decision.

The Outcome.

Is it practical to keep spending surplus income on repainting decisions that were sound the first time? No.

Is it logical to expect devolved funding to behave differently from Clean Air Zone income, Business Improvement District money, or the £7,161.24 that went on a single puffin crossing in 2021? No.

And the likely outcome needs no further explanation. Paint down, paint damaged, paint redone — it’s on the tarmac outside the Centre right now, peeling, three years after Wine Street proved the same cycle. It’s on the pavement outside your front door too, wherever the last scooter got left.

Look at the crossing that needed doing twice. Look at the fountain that didn’t outlast a carton of milk. Look at the road nobody could see until it turned red, and the swatch it was chosen from, printed underneath in a font meant for candles. Look at the bus stop that isn’t where the map says it is. None of it was hidden. All of it was there to be added up, by anyone willing to sit still long enough to do the sum.

Whatever money actually lands — an investment pipeline still converting into anything real, or a devolved settlement that doesn’t exist yet — doesn’t need a mandate for infrastructure. It needs someone in the room willing to ask why the last coat of paint didn’t hold, before anyone reaches for the next one.

Don’t hold your breath. Just remember this article.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

Sources and citations.

1. West of England Combined Authority — £17 billion Investment Prospectus

2. West of England Combined Authority — Established Strategic Authority (EMSA) consultation

3. West of England Combined Authority — North Somerset joining the combined authority

4. Bristol City Council — proposal to trial a red surface on key Bristol cycleways

5. Hansard via TheyWorkForYou — House of Lords debate confirming the Bristol Clean Air Zone surplus, 9 June 2026

6. The Almighty Gob — Bristol City Council’s Two Planning Failures

7. The Almighty Gob — Bristol City Council EBLN Budget Overspend

8. Bristol City Council — Centre Promenade works

9. The Almighty Gob — Is Bristol City Council Competent?

10. WhatDoTheyKnow — FOI response, cost of rainbow zebra crossings

11. RNIB — Confusing colourful crossings are not safe, RNIB tells Mayor of London

12. West of England Combined Authority — public e-scooters trial

13. UWE Bristol — one in 15 West of England residents use public e-scooters every month

14. BBC News — city renews e-scooter contract despite criticism

15. West of England Combined Authority — major changes to Bristol city centre bus routes

16. First Bus — major incident, Bristol city centre, all services

17. The Mall at Cribbs Causeway — directions and parking

18. Yahoo News (BBC syndication) — parking charges could ‘price families out of skating’

19. Bristol on the Move — major changes to Bristol city centre bus routes

20. Bristol Climate & Nature Partnership — Engaging Employees in Climate and Nature Action

Well. Bristol City Council is about to adopt the Bristol Local Plan 2022-2040 version this Autumn, days before opening consultation on Bristol Local Plan 2045, the plan meant to replace it. At the same time, the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood scheme, running as a “trial” since 2023, has exactly one item on the council’s 2026 agenda: whether to make it permanent. Two decisions, one filing cabinet, and a Director of Strategic Planning who never once needs to raise his voice. Apparently.

The two committees that actually govern these decisions are real: the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee, chaired by Councillor Tony Dyer, Leader of the Council, oversees the Local Plan; the Transport and Connectivity Policy Committee, chaired by Councillor Ed Plowden, oversees schemes like the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood. What follows the Committee Chair and Director below is a dramatisation — nobody in it is either of them. Although.

You see. Somewhere in a filing cabinet at City Hall there’s a document that’s taken eight years to write, and the people who just finished marking it have already told the council to sit the exam again. Not next year. Not “when funding allows.” Now. While the ink’s still wet on the first mark sheet. Even if it’s eight years old now.

Bristol’s schools would know all about exam papers, and might like to share a hint. Or two, on the process.

You’d think that was a typo. It isn’t.

In a room, somewhere in City Hall, a half-built Lego set sits on the corner of the desk, where a Thomas the Tank Engine set used to sit, back when the former elected mayor occupied this office and dreamed of building Bristol an underground railway. The Chair laid bricks for eleven years before he laid down the trowel for a council allowance. He still notices when something’s built wrong. Though that’s somewhat questionable, given his track record so far.

Anyway. Imagine the conversation goes like this.

CHAIR: Remind me. We’re adopting the Local Plan in Autumn. Eight years of work. Fourteen years of vision for the city. That’s rather a triumph, isn’t it?

DIRECTOR: A considerable achievement, yes. Submitted to the Secretary of State in April 2024. Examined by three independent inspectors through 2025. Final advice received 21 November. Main Modifications consulted on this spring. Adoption pencilled for Autumn 2026.

CHAIR: In English?

DIRECTOR: We finish the old plan this Autumn. Eight years, done.

CHAIR: Splendid. And once it’s adopted, that’s Bristol’s housing sorted until 2040.

DIRECTOR: Not exactly, no.

CHAIR: Not exactly?

DIRECTOR: The inspectors have asked us to begin an immediate review. Housing numbers don’t quite meet the target under the latest revision of the National Planning Policy Framework.

CHAIR: So the plan is wrong.

DIRECTOR: The plan is sound, Chair. Soundness and sufficiency are different tests entirely.

CHAIR: I spent eleven years laying bricks before I sat in this chair. I know what a house looks like finished, or at least I did, back in the day. I’d like to know what one looks like on paper that isn’t.

He doesn’t smile.

CHAIR: Talk me through the difference, then.

DIRECTOR: Sound means it can lawfully be adopted. Sufficient means it does what it’s meant to do. The plan we’re adopting in Autumn is sound. It is, regrettably, not sufficient.

CHAIR: So we’re adopting a document that doesn’t do its job.

DIRECTOR: We’re adopting a document that does its job to the standard required at the time it was examined. The standard has since moved. This is not a failure of the plan. It is a triumph of the plan’s timing.

CHAIR: I don’t follow.

DIRECTOR: It isn’t meant to follow, Chair. That’s what a transitional arrangement does.

The Director reaches for a second folder on the desk, thicker than the first, and doesn’t open the one he was already holding.

CHAIR: Before you go further — the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood. Road filters, bus gates, all of it. Still called a trial, isn’t it?

DIRECTOR: It is, Chair. Running since 2023.

CHAIR: And the 2026 agenda has exactly one item against it. A decision on whether to make it permanent.

DIRECTOR: That’s correct.

CHAIR: That’s not a trial. That’s a verdict with a three-year delay on the paperwork.

DIRECTOR: I wouldn’t characterise it that way, Chair.

He doesn’t smile.

CHAIR: How much of this is green policy?

DIRECTOR: Oh, trust me. It’s very green indeed. In fact, I’d say it epitomises the term green. In every respect.

CHAIR: Let’s talk about the Blue Badge applications. I’m told 114 people applied for an exemption and 90 were approved.

DIRECTOR: That’s the figure, yes.

CHAIR: So 24 disabled residents were refused an exemption from a scheme built around restricting their movement.

DIRECTOR: Most of those refusals were administrative. Incomplete forms, missing documentation, that sort of thing.

CHAIR: Were they told how to fix that and reapply?

DIRECTOR: [pause] That information isn’t something I have to hand, Chair.

CHAIR: So a rejection is a rejection either way. You’ve just found a version of the word “no” that doesn’t sound like the council’s fault.

DIRECTOR: I’d say that’s an uncharitable reading.

CHAIR: I’d say it’s an accurate one.

Twenty-four people asked for a badge and got a form letter instead.

CHAIR: The Equality Impact Assessment. Appendix 4. It reads as though a formal disability group was consulted at proposal stage.

DIRECTOR: There was engagement with residents in the area, yes.

CHAIR: Was that engagement with Bristol East Disabled Society? An established, named organisation?

DIRECTOR: Not specifically, no. It was more of an informal walk around the area with local residents.

CHAIR: So the document gives the impression of formal consultation with disabled people, and what actually happened was an informal stroll with whoever was passing.

DIRECTOR: The wording could perhaps have been clearer.

CHAIR: The council has a legal duty under the 2010 Equality Act to engage properly with people affected by decisions like this one. Doesn’t it?

DIRECTOR: It does, Chair.

CHAIR: Did a walk around the block discharge that duty?

DIRECTOR: [long pause] That would be a matter for legal interpretation.

Nobody in that room is lying. Nobody in that room is telling the whole truth either. Those are different failures, and this one belongs to the second kind.

CHAIR: Emergency vehicles. The Bristol Post and the BBC both reported that over a six-month period, more than half of fire crews responding to incidents inside the scheme area experienced delays getting through.

DIRECTOR: The council’s position is that average delays have been minimal, with only a small number of more significant incidents.

CHAIR: One of those incidents was a resident who waited 45 minutes for an ambulance and lost three litres of blood before being taken straight to surgery.

DIRECTOR: That case has been noted.

CHAIR: Noted where?

DIRECTOR: In the appropriate records, Chair.

CHAIR: That’s not a statistic. That’s a person who nearly died on a residential street while the traffic filters did exactly what they were designed to do.

DIRECTOR: The scheme’s aims and its outcomes are being kept under continual review.

CHAIR: How many more near-misses count as “a very few” before the council reviews anything?

DIRECTOR: [says nothing]

CHAIR: I asked you a question.

DIRECTOR: I heard it, Chair. I don’t have a number for you.

Three litres of blood isn’t a data point.

The Director sets the second folder aside. The first one, the thinner one, is still sitting exactly where he left it.

CHAIR: Right. Where were we. The 2045 plan.

DIRECTOR: Notice of commencement given 30 June. New regulations, in force since March, give us a 30-month statutory window from start to adoption. Scoping consultation opens 7 September, running three weeks. Adoption expected late Spring 2029. Fingers crossed.

CHAIR: So five weeks after we adopt the old plan, we open consultation on the plan to replace it.

DIRECTOR: Correct.

CHAIR: Won’t people find that odd?

DIRECTOR: Only if they read both documents in the same sitting, Chair. Most won’t.

He isn’t guessing.

CHAIR: This scoping consultation. Residents get a proper say, do they?

DIRECTOR: They’re invited to comment on the content of the plan and how they’d like to be engaged with throughout plan-making.

CHAIR: How they’d like to be engaged with. Not what they’d like the plan to contain.

DIRECTOR: Both, technically.

CHAIR: And the last consultation? Eight years of it? How much of that moved the plan?

DIRECTOR: [long pause] There were 1,634 representations, Chair. From 436 respondents. Each one was logged, considered, and responded to in full.

CHAIR: That wasn’t my question.

DIRECTOR: I’m aware, Chair.

CHAIR: Right. So — hang on. We’re adopting a plan that’s already been told it’s not good enough. We’re starting the replacement before we’ve finished celebrating the first one. And the consultation for the replacement asks people how they’d like to be asked, rather than what they actually think.

DIRECTOR: That is, in essence, the position.

CHAIR: I haven’t grasped any of it. I’ve just repeated it back to you and it still doesn’t make sense.

DIRECTOR: It doesn’t make sense to me either, Chair. I’ve simply stopped expecting it to.

CHAIR: Whose fault is this, then? Ours?

DIRECTOR: Nobody’s, in the strict sense. The housing target changed after our plan had already gone into examination. Transitional rules meant we were tested against the old framework regardless. Then the new plan-making system arrived, thirty-month clock attached, precisely in time to catch the shortfall.

CHAIR: So Whitehall moved the goalposts and handed us a stopwatch.

DIRECTOR: That is an accurate summary.

CHAIR: And we just adopt the old plan anyway. Knowing it’s short.

DIRECTOR: We adopt it because not adopting it would leave Bristol with no plan at all, which is a considerably worse position to defend at appeal. Adopting an insufficient plan is, in planning terms, infinitely preferable to adopting no plan whatsoever.

CHAIR: That’s not reassuring.

DIRECTOR: It isn’t meant to be reassuring, Chair. It’s meant to be defensible.

Nobody in that room is lying.

Here’s the bit nobody at City Hall will say out loud, so somebody has to: a plan can be perfectly legal and still be rubbish. Bristol’s about to prove it twice, back to back, on a schedule nobody voted for.

So. In Summary.

Well. There you have it. Two folders, one Director, one afternoon. In the first, a fourteen-year Local Plan, adopted this Autumn, already conceded by its own examining inspectors as short of the housing number the government now requires — replaced by a second plan on a fixed 30-month countdown, opening for public comment five weeks after the first is signed off. In the second, a “trial” running since 2023 with its outcome effectively pre-written: one 2026 agenda item, deciding whether to keep it, not whether it worked.

Twenty-four Blue Badge applicants refused, on paperwork grounds the council hasn’t shown it helped anyone fix. A consultation document that implied a disability organisation was formally engaged when it wasn’t, sitting against a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 that an informal walkabout doesn’t discharge. More than half of fire crews responding to emergencies inside the scheme area delayed over six months, and a resident who bled for 45 minutes waiting for an ambulance while the filters did their job perfectly.

Nobody at City Hall built the Local Plan trap. Whitehall moved the target after the examination had already run, and the new system arrived just in time to catch the fallout. The East Bristol scheme is a different animal entirely — that one was built, funded, and kept running by choices made much closer to home, on people who said from the start they didn’t want it.

A resident in BS5 put the second one in six words that need no improving: they did not ask for this. Making it permanent on the back of a consultation that dodged the people most affected by it isn’t progress. It’s a decision dressed up as a trial, waiting three years for the paperwork to catch up with the outcome everyone already knew.

Two documents, two decisions, one Director who never once raised his voice. That’s the part worth remembering. Nothing in either conversation required anyone to shout. The Chair spent eleven years building houses that’ve presumably stood up straighter than attempting to run a council, and spent an afternoon listening to two ways the council builds ones that don’t. Familiar territory then. One assumes.

Don’t hold your breath. Do remember the process.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources.

• Bristol Local Plan 2022-2040 review page — Bristol City Council

• Bristol Local Plan 2045 — Bristol City Council

• East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood project page — Bristol City Council

• Policy Committees — Bristol City Council

• The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/186 — legislation.gov.uk

• Equality Act 2010 — legislation.gov.uk

• Bristol Local Plan 2022-2040 Regulation 19 representations report — Bristol City Council (1,634 representations from 436 respondents)

• Blue Badge exemption figures, fire crew and ambulance delay accounts, and the Equality Impact Assessment claim regarding the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood are drawn from a Bristol resident’s own published account, not independently verified against council records, the Bristol Post, the BBC, or Bristol East Disabled Society directly

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com. All rights reserved. Some lefts too.

[Bristol Clean Air Zone road sign reading Charges Apply, Pay Online, with a red bus blurred in the background on a city centre street]

It was 09:08 on a Tuesday morning, and Bristol Post wanted me to know my city is dying by numbers. “Bristol is most polluted area in the South West,” the headline says, dressed with a photograph of a bus and a Bristol Clean Air Zone sign, as though the two things obviously belong together.

I instinctively knew something was wrong before I could say what. You’ve felt that too, haven’t you — the itch that arrives half a second ahead of the argument.

Well. Twenty-one micrograms of fine particulate matter. Thirty-four micrograms of nitrogen dioxide. The numbers so precise they sound like they were measured specifically for you, specifically here, specifically today.

They weren’t.

It must have been a slow news day in Bristol. That, or somebody decided the “Environment” piece could do with a fright before lunch.

Most people won’t read past that headline. They’ll see “Bristol is most polluted area in the South West,” feel the jolt, and repeat it as fact.

Some will do more than repeat it. A wrong number like this becomes ammunition — for anyone already looking for a reason to demand a bigger Clean Air Zone, or attack the one that exists, or prove the council is failing, or prove it’s covering something up. Nobody checks the source first. They reach for whatever backs up the argument they already wanted to have.

That’s the actual damage here — not a wrong figure sitting quietly in an “Environment” piece, but a wrong figure fuelling a fight that was never based on anything to begin with, dressed up by whoever needs it as evidence they never once verified.

By the way. A wrong number doesn’t stay wrong quietly. It goes to work.

This piece is for the people who won’t take my word for it either.

Same Numbers, Different City.

The same figures — 21 micrograms, 34 micrograms — belong to an area of Camden, London. Not Bristol. Camden.

Follow the trail and they turn up a third time too, propping up a Dumfries story in The Herald about a town centre four hundred miles away. Dumfries gets its own, different, local number — Camden’s 21 and 34 sit underneath it as borrowed national colour, doing exactly the same job it did in Bristol’s headline.

The sentences match too — identical wording on what PM2.5 does to lungs, identical wording on what NO2 does to airways, run under Bristol’s name as if somebody in Bristol had gone out and found it.

Nobody had.

You might wonder whether that’s coincidence — one city’s reading turning up twice more, down to the decimal. It isn’t. One figure, three towns, and only one of them is the town it was actually measured in.

Camden Was Never a Fair Comparison Anyway.

Set the recycled numbers aside for a moment. Even if Camden’s reading had been Bristol’s own, the comparison underneath the headline still wouldn’t hold up.

The Camden neighbourhood in question — Holborn, St Giles, Covent Garden — sits dead in the middle of the largest, densest, most continuously built-up city in Britain. No countryside starts a mile up the road. No motorway feeds it in from open fields. It’s wall-to-wall city in every direction for as far as London goes, which is a very long way.

To be clear. There is no version of Bristol that looks like that.

Bristol isn’t that. Bristol is a proper standalone city, with South Gloucestershire and North Somerset countryside on most of its edges, connected to everywhere else by the M4, M5 and M32 rather than sitting inside one unbroken conurbation.

You don’t need to understand a single microgram to see the problem. A patch of central London and a mid-sized city with fields on its boundary are not the same shape of place, and ranking them on one national scale as though they are is one more way this “story” flattens something that was never flat to begin with.

None of this makes Camden’s own reading any less real, or any less serious for the people breathing it. It just means Camden was never a fair stand-in for somewhere it isn’t.

Camden’s own employers clearly think the problem is real too — businesses across the borough have pledged to tackle air pollution there directly. That’s what a real local pollution problem gets: local people responding to it. Bristol got a recycled headline instead.

Scale doesn’t fare any better. Dumfries has a population of roughly 33,700. Bristol has very nearly half a million. One borrowed figure, sitting under headlines fifteen times apart in size, as if a market town and a city are the same kind of place too.

Bristol Had Its Own Data All Along.

Bristol Post’s own piece names Upper Montpelier as one of the country’s other pollution hotspots — a real Bristol neighbourhood, not a borrowed national figure.

Bristol City Council monitors nitrogen dioxide right there, at Montpelier High School. The 2024 reading: 36.6 micrograms. Close to Camden’s borrowed 34 — closer than the PM2.5 comparison ever got.

One roadside tube outside a school isn’t measured the same way as a modelled neighbourhood average, and this piece won’t pretend otherwise. It’s still Bristol’s own number, from Bristol’s own equipment, sitting closer to Camden’s than the story ever bothered to check.

That’s worth saying plainly, because the point here isn’t that the real number would have been boring. It’s that a genuine, sourced, Bristol-specific reading was sitting inside the same council document Bristol Post never opened, and Camden’s got used instead.

Nobody had to invent a scarier number. Bristol already had one. Nobody looked.

The Byline That Travels.

Annie Gouk’s name turns up across the Reach network on this exact species of piece — a national dataset, dropped into a template, localised only by which town gets plugged into the headline.

None of this is a complaint about one journalist. It’s what the production line looks like when a national data desk services dozens of local outlets on the same day, and nobody downstream has the time, or the brief, to check whether the number under the local headline was actually measured locally.

Recycling a national dataset isn’t the offence here — every regional title does that, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Presenting one city’s number as though it belongs to another, with nothing to tell the reader otherwise, is.

This isn’t a Bristol Post reporter driving out to a monitoring station. It’s a wire story wearing a local coat, and the coat doesn’t fit.

There’s a word for this. Churnalism — press release copy laundered as journalism, with a Bristol dateline stitched on top.

What “Geographic Data Service” Actually Measures.

The dataset itself — Defra’s modelled background pollution, gridded at 1km resolution, smoothed into a three-year rolling average — measures something real. It doesn’t measure what the headline implies.

Grid squares don’t know your postcode.

“Background” is the word doing the quiet work here. This is ambient air across a grid square, not a roadside reading tied to any camera, any charge zone, any enforcement boundary. Air moves. It has never once respected a council boundary, and no dataset built to model it pretends otherwise — the pretending happens one step downstream, in the headline.

The Council’s Own Numbers Say Otherwise.

Here is the part that doesn’t need my opinion attached to it.

Bristol City Council’s own 2025 Annual Status Report — the document the council itself submits to central government — puts Bristol’s actual measured PM2.5 at 7.1 micrograms at the urban background site, 8.4 at the roadside site nearest a school.

Not twenty-one. Seven, and eight.

Both figures sit above the WHO‘s actual air quality guideline of 5 micrograms — worth saying plainly, since this isn’t a piece arguing Bristol’s air is clean. It’s a piece arguing Bristol’s air isn’t Camden’s. And while we’re checking primary sources: Bristol Post’s own piece tells readers WHO recommends no more than 15 micrograms of NO2. WHO’s real figure, set in 2021, is 10. They got their own yardstick wrong before they got Bristol wrong.

Anyone tempted to borrow these numbers to argue Bristol’s air is basically fine, or that the Clean Air Zone should be scrapped, is doing exactly what Bristol Post did — taking a figure out of its proper context and marching it wherever suits the argument. This piece isn’t ammunition for that fight either.

The same report shows nitrogen dioxide falling by 13.2% in the Clean Air Zone’s first year, then slowing to 4.7% the year after — with forty-three of the city’s monitoring sites moving in the wrong direction. (Forty-three, by the report’s own executive summary. Its body text two pages later says forty-four. A rounding gap in the council’s document, not ours.)

The council puts some of that slowdown down to weather and to roadworks disrupting traffic near two of the worst-affected sites, and fair enough — that caveat belongs here too. It doesn’t touch the headline figure. Seven and eight stay seven and eight, whatever the weather did.

And on the council’s own public figures, pollution outside the Clean Air Zone charges boundary has fallen almost as much as pollution inside it — 17% against 20%.

You’ve noticed the shape of that, haven’t you. A boundary that charges you money is not the same thing as a boundary the air agrees to observe.

Two different monitoring systems, run by two different bodies, measuring pollution two different ways. Nobody’s claiming those methods are interchangeable — they’re not. What matters is that every one of them, independently, lands nowhere near 21.

Where The Monitors Aren’t.

Bristol has two PM2.5 monitors in the entire city. Two.

One sits at St Pauls, and the council’s own report is explicit about what that site is: an “urban background” location, deliberately away from busy roads, chosen to represent general pollution levels over central Bristol rather than the worst of it. The other sits at Parson Street School — roadside, but not the roadside.

Colston Avenue recorded 48.7 micrograms of NO2 in 2024, the highest reading anywhere in the city. Rupert Street recorded 45.4. Neither has ever had a PM2.5 monitor.

None of this is an accusation of deliberate placement. A limited monitoring budget has to land somewhere, and it’s easier to believe this is where it happened to land than a conspiracy to hide bad news. What it does mean is this: nobody has ever measured the fine particulate reading at Bristol’s own worst-known pollution hotspots. The real worst-case figure for this city isn’t unknown by accident. It’s unknown because no monitor was ever put where the worst air already is.

The Verdict.

None of this required a source close to the council, a whistleblower, or a single phone call. It required opening the same document Bristol Post could have opened, reading the number on the page, and comparing it to the number in the headline.

That’s the whole difference between a newsroom and a copy-and-paste job dressed up as one.

Here’s the part that should sting the piece itself, not just its readers. “Bristol is most polluted area in the South West” collapses an entire city into a single number — the same move that put Camden’s reading under Bristol’s name in the first place. Applied honestly, that headline never described Bristol. At most, it described Upper Montpelier. One postcode standing in for a city ten times its size is the same trick borrowed from London, just turned on itself.

The Almighty Gob doesn’t run on outrage. It runs on the gap between what a headline claims and what the primary source actually says — and on a slow Tuesday in an “Environment” piece, that gap was wide enough to drive a diesel bus through.

09:08 in the morning, and something was wrong before I could say what. Now you know what it was. Camden’s air, borrowed for a Bristol headline, and nobody at Bristol Post checked the label before they hung it in the window.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources & Citations.

Primary evidence

• Bristol Post — “Bristol is most polluted area in the South West”

• AOL — “Most polluted neighbourhoods in UK revealed” (Camden figures)

• The Herald — “Dumfries town centre air pollution levels exceed WHO safe limit”

• The Standard — “Leading Camden employers in pledge to tackle air pollution in the borough”

• Bristol City Council — 2025 Air Quality Annual Status Report

• Bristol City Council — Air Quality (public page, CAZ inside/outside figures)

• Friends of the Earth — “Which neighbourhoods have worst air pollution” (Geographic Data Service methodology)

• UK Government (MHCLG/ONS) — Dumfries local data profile

• Bristol City Council — Population of Bristol

Entity references

• Bristol — Wikidata

• London Borough of Camden — Wikidata

• World Health Organization — Wikidata

• Reach plc — Wikidata

• Nitrogen dioxide — Wikidata

• Particulate matter — Wikidata

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

[£15M grabs headlines. 5,671 violence and sexual offences don't even make the subtitle. Money talks]

Here's something interesting I found on Chris McEvoy's site, Bristol Uncovered — and it's not the story you'd expect to lead into this one. And. Fairplay to Chris, for doing the hard graft here. So I don't have to.

Fifteen million pounds. That’s what fraud cost individuals across Avon and Somerset between January and June 2026, and it’s the number every headline reached for.

Nobody reached for the other number. Mind. You know. The vastly more important one to 5,671 people, anyway.

You see. In May alone, 5,671 violence and sexual offences were reported to Avon and Somerset Police. Real people. Real harm. Not one line of coverage, not one subtitle, not one moment of the spotlight fraud commanded without asking.

The Almighty Gob went looking for why one number gets a headline and the other gets buried on page fourteen of a spreadsheet nobody opens. The answer isn’t complicated. It’s just uncomfortable.

The Six Months That Added Up To £15 Million.

January opened the year with £2.4 million lost to fraud. February eased off slightly to £1.5 million. Then March delivered £3.3 million, April dipped to £1.3 million, May spiked to £3.6 million, and June closed the half-year at £2.8 million.

Add it up and you land almost exactly on the headline figure: £15 million, verified losses, six months, one police force area.

Now. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that every one of those pounds belongs to a person who trusted a call, a text, a login page, or a stranger who seemed to know things a stranger shouldn’t know. That trust is worth documenting. It deserves the graph, the coverage, the outrage.

However, it is not the only trust that got broken in Avon and Somerset this year.

The Number That Didn’t Make The Cut.

Not by far. Because, in May 2026, Avon and Somerset Police logged 15,929 crimes. Violence and sexual offences accounted for 5,671 of them — more than a third of everything reported that month, and by a wide margin the single largest category on the list. Like, who knew? Very few, it seems.

Because. In order of appearance. Anti-social behaviour followed at 2,738. Shoplifting at 1,720. Criminal damage and arson at 1,176. Public order offences at 1,160. Burglary, vehicle crime, robbery, weapons possession, theft from the person — each one present, each one counted, each one smaller than the number that opened the list.

Fraud, by contrast, generated just 595 reports to the local force that same month.

Now. Read those two figures again. This time, side by side and the story writes itself the wrong way round. Fraud looks like the minor entry. Violence and sexual offences look like the footnote. Don’t they. Or, is it just me?

Why The Smaller Number Gets The Bigger Headline.

Okay. So. Here’s where it pays to stop and look properly: rather than assume malice, look at what’s actually happening in how each number gets made. You won’t want to miss this. I assure you.

Fraud isn't reported to local police the way everything else on that table is. It goes centrally, to Action Fraud, the national reporting body — which means a force-level breakdown like the one above only ever captures a fragment of the true picture for that area. The national Crime Survey for England and Wales, which asks people directly whether they've been victimised rather than relying on what gets logged locally, consistently finds fraud is the most prevalent crime against individuals in England and Wales. That's not a contradiction of the table. It's a different measuring stick entirely.

However, that explains the mismatch. It doesn’t explain the headline.

The headline exists because fraud comes with a price tag attached, and violence and sexual offences don’t. A pound figure is countable, shareable, outrageable in six seconds flat. Five thousand six hundred and seventy-one people who survived a violent or sexual offence do not come with a number that fits neatly into a bar chart.

Money is legible. Harm, it turns out, has to fight for a headline the same way its victims had to fight for anything else.

The Rise Of The Scam Nobody Sees Coming.

Now. Bear in mind. None of this is static, either.

The fraud driving that £15 million isn't the crude stuff. It's authorised push payment fraud, where the victim is talked into sending their own money.

Increasingly, it’s dressed up as pig butchering: a fake relationship, built patiently over weeks, ending in a crypto platform that was never real. Nothing so wholesome as a Gloucestershire Old Spot in this version — the fattening happens to your bank balance, not a pig destined for a decent Sunday roast, or a breakfast bacon sarnie slathered in ketchup, or whatever sauce takes your fancy.

(And no, this has nothing to do with the actual pig abattoir causing a stink over in Westerleigh — that's a different story, and a different smell, entirely. Credit where it's due: that one belongs to Bristol Live.)

Now. Back to the real pig butchering, then. Law enforcement has started calling it romance baiting instead, which is a more honest name for what it actually is. Deepfake audio and AI-generated video are now doing the persuading in some cases — the con doesn't even need a convincing liar behind it any more, just convincing software.

That’s worth its own headline. It just shouldn’t be the only one.

What Counting Properly Would Actually Look Like.

You see. Nobody is asking anyone to care less about fraud. Fifteen million pounds is a genuine story, and Avon and Somerset residents have every reason to want it told properly. No argument there.

What’s being asked is smaller than that, and harder to argue with: count what’s actually the biggest number in the room, and say so.

It’s the 5,671 violence and sexual offences in a single month that deserve a headline of their own. Instead. They got a line item under a chart about money.

Because money talks. Everything else, apparently, has to wait its turn.

The Almighty Gob is an independent Bristol accountability publication. Sources: Avon and Somerset Police recorded crime data, May 2026; verified fraud loss figures, January–June 2026; Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics. Westerleigh abattoir reporting: Chris McEvoy, Bristol Uncovered.

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com

Sources & Citations.

• Chris McEvoy, “Individuals lose £15 Million to Fraud in Avon & Somerset so far in 2026”, Bristol Uncovered, 26 July 2026

• Avon and Somerset Police, recorded crime data, May 2026

• National Crime Agency — Fraud and Economic Crime

• Report Fraud (formerly Action Fraud), UK national fraud reporting centre

• Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics

• Westerleigh abattoir reporting: Bristol Live

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

[The Green Party leader takes his own advice, joining the boogie rather than confronting it.]

So we’ve had the heat wave here in Bristol. Now we’ve had the cool spell.

Next up? Another heat wave, obviously. And then the floods — same as always, same climate crisis playing out on the same six-month loop. Because, you know. Everything’s a crisis nowadays. Isn’t it? And you watch, the ark-building kits on Amazon will sell out again. They always do. Though. Don’t quote me. This is The Almighty Gob, and this is where we do the maths nobody else in Bristol bothers with. Don’t we?

The Forecast, Such As It Is.

However, here’s the silver lining, and stay with me on this one: boating holidays are about to have a moment. Forget Andy Burnham’s two-quid bus fare — people will be paddling into Taunton on the Somerset Levels instead, once flood defence has quietly given up and gone home.

There’ll be no shortage of boats, mind. Because, well, we’ve got plenty landing illegally on the Kent and Sussex coasts already, haven’t we? Just repurpose those.

The Vintage, Years Away.

Meanwhile — and I want you to sit with this one — wine connoisseurs in a few years will be swirling a Bordeaux round the palate, saying “ooh, this one’s fruity, but there’s definitely notes of forest fire, with a finish of climate change.”

And the estate agents? Already ahead of you. “Taunton — waterside living,” the listing’ll say. They’ll just quietly drop the word “unintentionally.” As one does, you know, to understate.

Enter the Rave.

Now, notice what’s happening as all this unfolds — Taunton, genuinely underwater, the Somerset Levels doing what the Somerset Levels do. What do you reckon everyone else is doing about it? Go on, guess.

Dancing. That’s it. That’s the plan.

Spare a thought for Green Space, then — the Green Party’s fundraising and events arm — because they’ve found a way to solve the climate crisis that doesn’t involve sandbags, years ahead of schedule, no less. Mind you, everything’s a crisis these days, isn’t it. Depends which one’s got the best DJ.

They’ve been out proving that Bristol politics doesn’t have to be “dry, dusty and dull.” How did they go about proving it? A day party in St Jude’s. Drum and bass, communal art, and a chap called Niall who went to university here once and has decided ever since that Bristol “epitomises” whatever it is he’s selling this week.

No one ever really knows what they’re selling, though. Never has. So. That’ll be another Niall in the coffin of Green politics, then.

What’s actually being epitomised, do you think? Sit with that for a second. I’d offer it’s the gap between a £37,000 door-take and the billions actual flood defence will cost to stop the West Country turning into Venice with worse bus routes. Somewhere in a future Taunton, there’s a woman up to her knees in her own kitchen who’ll be thrilled to hear it.

The Boogie, Deconstructed.

The line-up, by the way, promises “softer, more groovy things” alongside talks from environmental activists — which is a gentle way of saying tomorrow’s flood defence is being crowdfunded via jungle set today. Nothing says systemic change quite like a communal art table and a decent bassline, does it?

And Zack Polanski — Green Party leader, admired, apparently, for confronting hard truths — turns up at an event whose strapline is “they’ve got the billionaires, we’ve got the boogie.” Say that one out loud. Go on.

Notice how little weight it actually carries — the rhetorical force of a wet paper straw, which, given the forecast, feels about right. Somebody workshopped that line. Somebody got paid — possibly in exposure — to workshop that line.

They reckon all this builds “a community of love and joy” that turns, eventually, into “healthier politics” for Bristol and beyond.

It won’t. It never does.

What it turns into, if we’re honest with the evidence, is a mailing list, a hangover, and a press release. The Somerset Levels will settle for a working pump, mind you, but you use the community you can afford — and right now the going rate is a day ticket and a decent DJ.

Still — and I’ll give the Green Party this, credit where it’s due — they’ve correctly identified that the wealthy have bought the political system outright. Full marks for diagnosis.

And their response? Not confrontation. A bar tab, well in advance of the flood. Genuinely, it might be the most honest thing said in British politics all year: we know exactly what’s wrong, and we’ve already decided to dance instead.

The Bog Roll of Honour.

And if the House of Commons can have a bar — why not a rave too, eh? I reckon the Green Party’s version will be the House of Commotions. Make sure you italicise the “motions” — that’s the strapline of Bog, the promoters best known for livestreaming DJ sets from a bathroom, which does at least explain why they were the right men for the job here.

Streamers replaced by bog rolls flying through the air. Please, not the recycled ones. Nobody knows where those have been.

Maybe we should just paper over that one — as they do so often, for those who follow politics.

There’s a merch line in this somewhere, surely. Limited-edition wellies. A “Ministry of Finance” (Ministry of Sound being so retro now) branded life jacket, for when the pound actually does go under. Public water, present or future? Call Bog — he knows all about that stuff by name alone, and apparently he knows how to mix things too. Dress code: hazmat suits.

Green Space has had its critics, mind — people who reckon all this is a bit too frivolous for serious politics. Sour grapes, I’d say. Though given what’s happening to the actual grapes this week, it’s maybe not the complaint I’d lead with if I were them.

Still — at least the raves remain full-bodied.

Doing the Actual Maths.

Do the maths, though. Go on, humour me. £37,000 raised across London and Leeds combined. The Green Party’s entire first-quarter fundraising this year: £250,000. Reform’s, same quarter: £9 million. Funny, that — you’d think with that kind of war chest, Reform’s lot could stretch to a rave of their own. Rave to the grave, and all that. Though perhaps not, given the average age in this hypothetical room.

At the St Jude’s rate — and this is very much back-of-a-beer-mat(hs), not theirs — that’s roughly 243 raves needed to match Reform in a single quarter, which, funnily enough, is about how many boats it’ll take to get Taunton to the shops once the Somerset Levels are properly underwater. Some crises really can be solved with better logistics.

At the St Jude’s rate, though — and this is very much back-of-a-beer-mat(hs), not theirs — that’s roughly 243 raves needed to match Reform in a single quarter, which, funnily enough, is about how many boats it’ll take to get Taunton to the shops once the Somerset Levels are properly underwater. Some crises really can be solved with better logistics.

So when the ark kits finally sell out, when every boat off Kent and Sussex has been requisitioned, and the wine’s got its notes of forest fire and finish of climate change — the Green Party will still be dancing. That was always the plan, remember. And credit to them: at least they’re honest about it.

Subscribe now

Sources: Ursula Billington, ‘There is a community of love and joy building in politics’, Bristol24/7, 22 July 2026 — the fundraising figures, Green Space and Green Party quotes, and event details referenced throughout are drawn from this original reporting. Wildfire and Bordeaux smoke-taint reporting: The Drinks Business, 27 July 2026.

Image: Green Space day party, Sawmills, St Jude’s — Bristol24/7, photo credit Christopher Werrett / Colm McCarthy.

© 2026 John Langley aka www.thealmightygob.com. All rights (some lefts) reserved/deserved. Whatever. You know what I mean. Dont ya.

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

[Four Bristol City Council failures. One pattern. Blimey. What's next?]

Okay, here we go again. Same sh*t, different day. Give or take.

A Bristol driver’s been slapped with £1,242 in fines — for a car the council’s OWN checker said was exempt. You couldn’t write it. Bristol City Council could, apparently. Eighteen times over, if all the threatened fines land.

Picture it.

He bought the car. Taxed it. Insured it. Did everything right — more diligence than most councils manage in a financial quarter, and considerably more paperwork than they manage in a decade. Though. Don’t quote me.

Then. Did all the right things. Such as, checked it against the government’s Clean Air Zone checker. So far, so good. Right?

£0.00. All clear. Nothing to worry about. GOV.UK, in writing, said so.

You’d think that was the end of it.

It wasn’t. Bristol City Council heard “nothing to worry about” and took it as a personal challenge.

Then the fines started landing.

One so far. Seventeen more queued up like a firing squad taking turns. £69 a pop.

The driver told a Bristol watchdog group:

“If I wasn’t so OCD and record everything I would be financially destroyed by BCC.”

Sit with that a second. That’s not moaning. That’s a man thanking his own filing cabinet for saving his life, because the council certainly wasn’t going to.

Have you noticed how a “surplus” always sounds like good housekeeping — right up until you find out whose pocket it came from?

Well. As it happens. Bristol’s Clean Air Zone has already been caught in the House of Lords sitting on a MASSIVE surplus. Amounting to millions a year.

Now. You don’t build that by accident. Do you? No. You have to work at it, quietly, one £69 letter at a time, like a burglar who’s learned to use the front door and charge admission on the way out. Ker-ching. Ker-ching.

However, it doesn’t stop at the CAZ.

Bristol City Council just admitted spending £198,000 fixing a TYPO on council tax bills. £198,000. To fix a typo. A mistake a half blind proofreader could have caught in five minutes, on minimum wage, before lunch.

239,143 letters sent. All because nobody checked a swapped percentage before it went to print. One pair of eyes. That’s all it needed. Bristol City Council apparently doesn’t employ eyes. Ears questionable, and IQ? No further comment available at this time.

Same story. Different desk. Same absence of anyone doing the one job — checking — that the entire building is theoretically there for. As I said. “theoretically.”

Can you believe it? There’s more.

Even the council’s own website admits your online account can HIDE a missed payment. Not loses it. Hides it. There’s a difference, and Bristol City Council found it without hiring a private investigator.

Anyway. Miss one, log in the next day — it shows the next bill as due. Not the one you missed. That one just sits there. Quietly. Waiting. Like a bailiff with excellent patience and a filing system nobody else can see.

So. Are you with me in thinking, a council that doesn’t bother to check a bill before it prints it clearly doesn’t bother to check your account either? Seems like it to me. There again. What do I know. I only read the evidence. Bristol City Council apparently doesn’t.

Oh yes, and before I forget. Like, who would? Then there’s Andora Webster. You remember Andora. Don’t you?

No. Me neither. Anyway. Andora is the Cliftonwood resident, who received £465 in parking fines. Over one mistyped digit on her permit. One digit. Not a forged document. Not a dodged fee. A typo, again, because apparently this council only owns the one trick. This council isn’t just careless. It’s Typo Central. A great and more apt name than City Hall. Don’t you think?

As it happens - note, as in more than one occasion, in general - when it comes to council cock ups, the council only cancelled the fines as a “gesture of goodwill.” Not because they had to. Note that. They didn’t have to. Generosity, apparently, is what Bristol City Council calls admitting they were wrong. Minus the delivery of flowers, and a box of liquorice allsorts thrown in for good measure. Mind.

So. There we have it. Four different departments. Same council. Same sorry old story. Every time.

Apparently. Nobody checks anything — until a resident, a councillor, or a screenshot forces them to. At this point “we’re launching an investigation” should just be pre-printed on the letterhead.

You know what that is. The monkeys are still in the laboratory at City Hall. The experiments continue. Monkey see, monkey do. Except the monkeys, to be fair to the monkeys, occasionally get it right by accident. Bristol City Council gets it wrong on purpose, four departments running.

And here’s the bit underneath all four of them.

Air doesn’t read boundary signs. It never did. Physics doesn’t care what the council believes. It just moves — over the hill, down the valley, past the signs, not a backward glance. A Clean Air Zone drawn on a map was never going to control something that doesn’t recognise the map exists.

The Almighty Gob says: scrap the CAZ, fix the accounts, and stop hiding behind “the computer said so.”

It’s a cash cow con. Plain and simple. The cow just doesn’t know it’s being milked yet, because the milking machine sent it a letter saying it was exempt.

You wanted bureaucratic idiocy. There it is. Filed, fined, and £1,242 heavier — with a free typo and a hidden bill thrown in, no extra charge. Well. There’s always a charge. That’s rather the point.

Go on. Spit those feathers.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources: GOV.UK vehicle checker · Bristol City Council · BBC News — Council tax typo cost authority £200,000 · ITV News West Country · House of Lords debate, 9 June 2026 · BBC News (Bea Swallow) — “Typo error on parking permit triggers ‘unfair’ fines,” reproduced via AOL · The Almighty Gob — “Bristol City Council’s ‘Independent’ SDG Review” · testimony shared anonymously, identity withheld

[Eight monkeys, one chamber, no committee that ever asked if it was worth it]

There’s an old routine by an American comedian called Bob Newhart — “An Infinite Number of Monkeys,” from 1960. Never heard of it myself until I went digging. A lab director, dead straight-faced, taking updates on an experiment to get monkeys typing out Shakespeare by pure chance. I’m borrowing the shape of that, not the script. Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of keyboards, and set them one task: write Bristol City Council’s SDG plan.

Not eventually stumble into something brilliant. Write this plan — the Voluntary Local Review of the council’s own progress, complete, correct, on schedule, stamped independent. That’s the job I’ve set them.

Here’s the bit people get wrong about the premise, though. Given true randomness and true infinity, one of those monkeys genuinely will produce something no one could tell from genius. Not “might.” Will. Somewhere in that room, a monkey who’s never read a book in its life taps out King Lear. Every word right. Every comma right. It never knows what it’s done. It just carries on to the next key.

The Line Manager Moment.

Picture the line manager doing his rounds. He gets to keyboard fifteen. Goes quiet. Careful, like he doesn’t want to jinx it: “I think we’ve actually got something here.” Reads it back — and it falls apart into noise. Not gibberish exactly. Worse than that. A sound with no home in any language, sitting right where the most famous six words in English are meant to end.

He doesn’t laugh. Doesn’t groan. Just writes it down and moves on to keyboard sixteen. In that room, nonsense and genius get filed exactly the same way — logged, timestamped, never looked at twice.

Now picture that same room actually doing the job I’ve set it. Except this time, nobody’s waiting on chance. The review’s already been written, by the people running the programme, using design work donated by a firm with its own stake in how it turns out. Stamped independent before a single monkey’s touched a key.

Keyboard One: The Post Nobody Funded A Vote For.

Bristol wins European Green Capital back in 2015. The network that chased that title doesn’t pack up and go home — it turns into the Bristol SDG Alliance, pushing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals into the town hall.

A university researcher gets installed inside City Hall, a day a week. This is where The Lost Pause should’ve happened — the moment somebody stops and asks whether it’s worth it. Nobody asked. By March 2018, at the mayor’s own request, one day’s become five. No committee ever tests it.

And the names keep repeating. Ian Townsend, CEO of Bristol Green Capital Partnership, helps secure the university funding that creates the researcher post in the first place. That researcher, Allan Macleod, ends up co-authoring the Review itself — and later the academic paper admitting there’s little evidence any of it worked. The mayor who asked for the researcher full-time is the same mayor who later flies to New York to present the result. Different hats. Same handful of heads. (Marvin Rees left the role when it was scrapped in May 2024 — he’s Baron Rees of Easton now, sitting in the Lords.)

The scheme funding all this — the University of Bristol’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account — runs projects from a few hundred quid up to tens of thousands. Not a fortune, as council money goes. But it’s public research money, paying for a full-time post inside City Hall, at a time the council’s own central government grant had been cut by over 78% in the decade before.

Keyboard Fifteen: Stamped Before It’s Read.

July 2019. The UK’s first Voluntary Local Review of Bristol’s own progress lands — seventy pages of it, framed as independent, written by the people running the programme.

Now, universities marking their own homework like this isn’t rare — it’s standard practice across UK local government, and honestly, the funding model’s built for exactly that. So what’s missing isn’t the arrangement. It’s Friction — the resistance a genuinely separate check would’ve put up. There wasn’t any to push against. The problem was never that this happened. It’s that “independent” was the word they picked to describe it anyway.

Keyboard Sixteen: The Same Trick, A Different Department.

Turns out the SDG room isn’t the only one marking its own homework. In July 2024, Ed Plowden stepped down as Programme Director of Sustrans’ Paths for Everyone scheme and walked straight into the chair of Bristol City Council’s Transport and Connectivity Committee — the seat deciding which cycling and liveable neighbourhood schemes get funded.

The keyboard didn’t even change rooms. Just changed which drawer it kept the word independent in. Let’s be fair about what this is and isn’t: nothing here says Plowden broke a rule or hid the move — it’s sitting right there in his own official biography. What it shows you is how thin the wall really is between “independent oversight” and “the same small circle marking its own work,” even when every step’s done in plain sight.

Keyboard Eight Hundred: What The Room Actually Produced.

The people running the SDG programme went looking, in their own words, for one real example of cities actually learning from each other. They never found one: “there is (as yet) little concrete evidence that this is happening.”

Here’s what the room did produce, though: Marvin Rees flew to New York in July 2019 to present the review at the UN High-Level Political Forum in person. Seventy pages, handed over on another continent, about a subject three-quarters of the city it’s describing has never once been asked about.

Nobody had to profit corruptly for this to be worth asking who profited at all. The mayor picked up a seat at the UN and a growing presence in international mayoral circles. The researcher picked up a funded post and two published papers. A Bristol councillor picked up a new title under the old Cabinet system: SDG Ambassador. Meanwhile, a little over a third of the continent whose Goals these actually were had ever heard of them.

Keyboard Infinity: The Room Nobody Was Ever Sent To Check.

As of 2016, 36% of Europeans had heard of the Sustainable Development Goals — a third, at best, in the very years this programme was being built. Bristol’s own researchers admit their support base skewed toward a wealthy, globally-minded slice of a city where sixteen per cent of neighbourhoods rank among the most deprived in England.

None of it broke a rule. And that’s the bit that should stop you mid-sentence: nobody had to cheat, because nobody with the power to ask “is this actually worth it?” was ever required to ask it.

Here’s the number worth sitting with, though. That review runs to seventy pages — an estimated twenty-five thousand words, going on page density rather than any publisher’s count. Shakespeare’s 37 plays average around twenty-two thousand six hundred words each. So even as an estimate, this one document’s sitting close to the length of an entire Shakespeare play.

Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of keyboards, and they’d need to hammer out an entire tragedy, word for word, purely by accident, just to match what Bristol produced on purpose. The monkeys have the excuse of being monkeys.

This room doesn’t.

Ps. Even the monkeys would have got a building’s name right eventually. That building being Barton House. That’s how low the bar is that Bristol City Council didn’t clear. One three-letter miss cost residents sixteen months, and very nearly their homes. More on that shortly.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

John Langley is an independent Bristol blogger and former independent mayoral candidate (2016, 2021). He holds no party allegiance and no press accreditation, and has no financial or political interest in anything written above.

End Sources & Citations.

1. Bob Newhart, “An Infinite Number of Monkeys,” The Button-Down Mind Strikes Back (1960) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Button-Down_Mind_Strikes_Back!

2. Bristol and the SDGs: A Voluntary Local Review of Progress (2019), Sean Fox & Allan Macleod, University of Bristol Cabot Institute — https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/bristol-and-the-sdgs-a-voluntary-local-review-of-progress-2019

3. The Bristol Method+: Driving the SDGs Agenda at City Level (2018), Bristol Green Capital Partnership — https://bristolgreencapital.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Bristol-Method_Driving-the-SDGs-agenda-at-city-level-in-Bristol_17-Jul-2018.pdf

4. “Sustrans’ Plowden Returns to Bristol City Council,” TransportXtra — https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/evolution/news/76229/sustran-s-plowden-returns-to-bristol-city-council

5. Cllr Ed Plowden, official biography, Bristol One City — https://www.bristolonecity.com/cllr-ed-plowden/

6. Fox & Macleod (2021), cited in Ambio (Springer, 2022) — https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-01714-2

7. “Bristol: First UK City VLR,” SDSN TReNDS — https://www.sdsntrends.org/blog/2019/7/17/bristol-first-uk-city-vlr

8. Eurobarometer survey data on SDG awareness, via Capacity4Dev — https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/discussions/eurobarometer-four-decades-and-rising_en

9. “Word Count of Shakespeare’s Plays,” Statista — https://www.statista.com/statistics/1061108/word-count-shakespeare-plays

Right. Pour yourself something, because you already sense there’s more to this than the speech. You’ve noticed that too, haven’t you — the bit where everyone’s cheering and something in you isn’t quite joining in? Andy Burnham is Prime Minister now, the country’s seventh in a decade, and everyone’s watching the podium this week — the warm voice, the “hope in every heart,” the bloke-next-door delivery that makes Keir Starmer look like he was assembled in a lab.

The actual power in Downing Street just went somewhere else, and you’re about to be one of the few who noticed. The Almighty Gob is watching the door behind the stage, and there’s a name on that door worth remembering before this piece is done: Shabana Mahmood. Hold that thought — you’ll need it later. Here’s the bit that never makes the highlights reel: the Prime Minister doesn’t run the country. The cabinet does. Burnham gives the speeches. Other people write the cheques, hold the line at the Home Office, and decide whether Britain gets pulled deeper into someone else’s war by Thursday. That’s not cynicism. That’s just how the building works. There’s nothing new in this.

Yet. Somewhere in Whitehall right now, a phone is ringing in an office nobody’s photographed yet. A civil servant is holding a folder with a name in it the country hasn’t heard. No cameras. No balloons. Just a corridor, a closed door, and a decision quietly becoming permanent while everyone outside is still applauding. That’s where this actually happens. Not on the stage. In the rooms nobody films.

One name, signed off in a room like that, and three years of British economic policy tips one way instead of the other. No vote decides that folder. None ever has. The people who actually run departments outlive whichever face is currently on the podium, and they were here long before Burnham arrived and they’ll be here after he’s gone — that’s not a conspiracy, it’s just what a permanent civil service is for.

So while the country’s busy falling in love with a nice bloke from Wigan — and you can enjoy that too, nobody’s stopping you — let’s talk about who’s minding him. Start where the money starts.

The Treasury: Where the Nice Bloke Meets Reality.

Remember that name from the top. Shabana Mahmood, tipped for Chancellor of the Exchequer. Tipped, not confirmed — worth saying plainly, because that’s exactly the sort of gap someone will try to hide an objection in. Doesn’t matter. The names can still shift by the hour and the pattern behind them won’t, because it’s not really about which individual gets which office. It’s about what kind of appointment Burnham’s team is choosing to leak first, and why.

Read that possible appointment for what it is: a written apology to the markets before Burnham’s said a word himself. It says don’t worry, we’re not doing the Truss thing. Which is a strange thing for a governing party to have to keep saying out loud, when you stop and think about it. Starmer already compared Burnham’s own economic instincts to Liz Truss’s forty-nine-day fireball of a premiership. That’s the shadow this pick is designed to bury.

However — and this is the bit the cheerleaders skip — burying a shadow doesn’t fill a hole. You felt that, didn’t you, the moment the sentence turned? Burnham inherits a British economy on the ropes and a Labour Party that already ripped Starmer’s arm off over benefit cuts. Mahmood doesn’t get to pick fiscal discipline and party unity. She gets to pick which one dies first. Someone always does.

Money’s only half the job, though. The rest of the world doesn’t wait for Budgets. And before anyone says he hasn’t even had a day in the job yet, so this is unfair — fair enough, hold him to nothing he’s done as Prime Minister. This isn’t about that. It’s about the choices he’s making before he’s done anything at all, which tell you more about a man than the choices he’s forced into later.

Foreign Secretary: A Man Who’s Never Done This, Handing It to Someone Who Has.

Burnham has no real foreign policy record. None. He’s walking into two live wars — Ukraine, the Middle East — with a CV built entirely out of buses and devolution deals. Ed Miliband, tipped for the job, has at least sat at that table before.

Call that smart delegation if you like. Call it what it might also be: a Prime Minister who already knows he doesn’t trust himself alone in the room on this one, and has quietly built himself a minder. Bit uncomfortable, that, isn’t it — reading it plainly instead of the way it was briefed to you? Here’s the plain version anyway: you don’t hire a babysitter for a job you’re confident doing yourself. Nobody does. Closer to home, there’s a gap he didn’t even try to cover.

Home Office: The Word He Wouldn’t Say.

Sit with this one before you move on. His big acceptance speech — his one shot at setting the terms of his own premiership — and immigration didn’t get a single mention. Not one. Didn’t clock that at the time, did you? That’s rather the point. The exact issue currently handing Nigel Farage‘s Reform UK the seats Burnham’s entire “King of the North” biography is supposed to protect, and he skipped it like it wasn’t there.

Fair’s fair, though — Reform doesn’t win this fight on strength, it wins it by default. Farage has never had to run a department, balance a budget, or explain a policy failure to a select committee. Shouting from the opposition benches is the easiest job in politics. Ask who gains from Burnham’s silence, and the answer isn’t Burnham — but it isn’t a fully tested Farage either, just an untested one who’s better at sounding like he has the answer.

Which is exactly where the Home Office pick gets interesting. Yvette Cooper, tipped to take the brief back. Familiar face, familiar playbook. Maybe that’s steadying hands on the wheel. Maybe it’s the same failed answer wearing a different lanyard. Here’s what it isn’t: new. The voters get to choose which one it is, not Downing Street. And if you want to know how this plays out, don’t look at what he’s promising now — look at what he’s already done once before.

The Pattern Nobody in the Cheering Crowd Wants to Mention.

Manchester left a paper trail, and it isn’t flattering. A pledge to end homelessness by 2020 — quietly dropped. A clean air zone — abandoned the second it got difficult. A congestion charge pilot — collapsed, and not cheaply. Sound familiar, any of that? It should.

None of that needs a villain. It’s worth being fair about that much — most of Westminster’s failures aren’t cover-ups, they’re just people promising more than the system was ever built to deliver, then quietly hoping the promise gets forgotten faster than the failure does. That’s not a defence. It’s just the more accurate diagnosis, and the more accurate diagnosis is usually the less comfortable one.

Somebody will say the funding wasn’t there, Whitehall starved him of the money to do it properly, and that’s even true, some of the time. It still doesn’t explain the pledges. No one made him promise to end homelessness by a fixed date. He chose the promise. The shortfall came later. That order matters.

Not a liar. Something more ordinary, and more dangerous in a Prime Minister than in a mayor: announce the big thing, deliver the manageable thing, and hope the gap doesn’t get counted. You already know someone who does this. You’ve just never had a word for it before now.

That gap got counted in Manchester. It’ll get counted a lot harder in Downing Street, where the number attached to a U-turn has an extra three zeros on it.

And yes, before that gets thrown back — the buses got fixed, the region did better than the national average on growth, the devolution deal eventually landed. All true. None of it cancels the pattern above, it just proves he can build the institutions that make the promises when he’s given long enough to do it properly.

Downing Street doesn’t hand out that kind of runway. And that’s exactly where the Mahmood appointment stops looking like a footnote.

What the Cabinet’s Really For — and Why That Name Still Matters.

So — Mahmood. Notice that you remembered the name without checking back. You did, didn’t you? That’s not an accident, that’s the piece doing its job. She isn’t just a Chancellor pick, she’s the tell. A criminal barrister and former Justice Secretary sent to run the Treasury isn’t a vote of confidence in her economics background — there isn’t one. It’s a vote of confidence in her discipline.

Burnham isn’t hiring an economist. He’s hiring someone who won’t blink when the party wants to spend and the markets say no. Which, in fairness, is more self-awareness than most governments manage on day one. And that’s the whole cabinet in miniature, really. Strip the warmth away — the “for us,” the pub charm, the King of the North routine — and what’s left is a government built, piece by piece, to cover one man’s specific, documented weak spots. Fiscal nerve he hasn’t shown. Foreign policy instincts he’s never had to form. An immigration answer he wouldn’t even attempt on the biggest stage of his career so far.

Is it practical? Only if the people around him are willing to say no to him. Is it logical? Obviously — you patch your gaps, that’s not politics, that’s just sense. What’s the likely outcome? A government that lives or dies not on whether the man at the top is likeable, but on whether the people underneath him have got the spine to tell him things he doesn’t want to hear. None of that’s a prediction, mind. It’s just what’s already on the record, laid out in order. What you do with it is yours. Call it opinion if that’s easier. Every fact in it still checks out regardless of what you call it.

Burnham hasn’t had many people say no to him lately. That’s the story worth watching from here. Not the speech. Not the “hope in every heart.” The room behind the podium, where the people he picked precisely because they’re not him now get to decide how much of him actually survives contact with the job. You weren’t expecting the cabinet to be the story when you started reading this, were you?

Everyone else is watching the stage. You’re not everyone else — not any more. The Almighty Gob is still watching the door.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources and Citations.

1. NPR — Burnham becomes Prime Minister: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/19/g-s1-134001/andy-burnham-new-british-prime-minister

2. ITV News — cabinet appointments reporting (Mahmood, Miliband, Cooper): https://www.itv.com/news/2026-07-19/who-will-get-the-big-jobs-in-burnhams-cabinet

3. BBC — Starmer’s Truss comparison: https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/articles/cly0n24k04ro

4. ABC News — Burnham’s lack of foreign policy record: https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/challenges-andy-burnham-face-uk-prime-minister-134887196

5. Al Jazeera — immigration omitted from acceptance speech: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/7/19/andy-burnhams-in-tray-the-challenges-facing-the-new-uk-pm

6. CNN — homelessness pledge unfulfilled: https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/20/uk/andy-burnham-profile-makerfield-intl

7. Headlines Orbit — clean air zone and congestion charge failures: https://www.headlinesorbit.com/politics/andy-burnhams-manchester-record-faces-scrutiny-ahead-of-makerfield-byelection

8. BBC — Bee Network and Greater Manchester growth record: https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68724818

9. The Conversation — devolution deal timeline: https://theconversation.com/andy-burnham-promised-to-change-greater-manchester-almost-ten-years-on-how-did-he-do-286893

Sit down a minute. I want to tell you about a centipede.

It found its way into my second floor flat last week. No lift. No obvious entrance. Just persistence, and either very good eyesight or none at all. I’ve decided it has cataracts. I shall be seeking an optical vet first thing Monday morning, to have a proper look at the creature, because something that blind shouldn’t be able to find anything, let alone my flat.

Keep that thought. We’ll come back to it. You’ll want to.

Because right now, in the middle of Bristol, something a lot bigger than a centipede is going up as Bristol’s biggest erection. And trust me. Given my former life, I know a thing, or two about this

The Tower.

So. Picture it. Twenty-eight storeys of student flats, another eighteen of “co-living” for young professionals, rising out of the old Premier Inn site at St James Barton roundabout like something that was always going to happen, whether Bristol wanted it or not. St James House, they’ve called it. Bristol’s tallest building, when it’s done.

Here’s who’s paying for it.

It’s Cain International — a real estate firm with roughly seventeen billion dollars under management — working alongside Menora Mivtachim, one of Israel’s largest insurance and pension groups.

Here’s the part that isn’t in the brochure. Menora Mivtachim holds a substantial stake in a construction firm involved in settlement infrastructure in the West Bank, and in one of Israel’s largest private security and surveillance companies.

Cain’s founder and CEO, Jonathan Goldstein, spent years as chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, where he helped run the campaign accusing Jeremy Corbyn of failing to tackle antisemitism — and said, in 2021, that if Corbyn had become prime minister and they hadn’t done it, “we’d never have forgiven ourselves.” Writing after the 7 October attacks, he called for Israel to be given “unstinting and total support” for whatever it chose to do next — whatever, in his own words, Israel determined “in its absolute discretion” to be an appropriate response.

Of course. I’m guessing you already know what it chose to do next. I don’t need to spell that part out for you. You’ve seen the same footage everyone else has. Whether “unstinting and total support,” offered in advance and without conditions, was support for that specifically, or simply support for whatever came — I’ll leave you to decide. He wrote it down. Make of that what you will.

Goldstein also bankrolled David Lammy’s mayoral campaign, and sits close enough to Keir Starmer to host him at Chelsea. He learned the trade under property magnate Gerald Ronson — a man so tight with Benjamin Netanyahu that a teenage Jared Kushner once gave up his own bedroom so the rising Likud politician would have somewhere to sleep.

Follow that thread far enough and you end up at the Abraham Accords, Saudi sovereign wealth, Mubadala Capital, and a private equity firm Kushner built for himself once his father-in-law left office — funded to the tune of $2 billion by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. It's all connected. It was always going to be

So here we are. Bristol is about to get its skyline defined by a man who thanked Israel for its “absolute discretion.” You may want to sit with that, for a few moments.

Six Hours On Cycle Storage.

Now — and I want you to picture this properly, because it’s almost funny if you let it be — imagine the room. Bristol’s planning committee, gathered to decide the fate of St James House. Storey heights. Daylight assessments. Cycle parking ratios. Six hours, easily, on whether there’s enough room for the bins.

Not one minute on where the money came from.

I think you may be about to get angry at the committee. Don’t. Not yet. Because here’s the quiet, uncomfortable truth sitting underneath the whole proceeding: the rules never let them ask, no matter how badly any one of them might have wanted to.

You see. Our quaint English planning law runs on something called a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Refuse a scheme that complies with the Local Plan, and the developer simply wins on appeal, and the council loses months and public money proving what everyone already knew. One Bristol councillor put it about as plainly as it can be put: a planning committee’s job is not to approve or reject a scheme based on political feeling. Only on whether it follows the rules. Who’s funding it isn’t a question the room is allowed to ask. Not a loophole. Not an oversight. It’s simply not on the form.

Now. The original permission went through in March 2024 — before the Greens took the council in May that year, so that decision was never theirs to answer for. Therefore, the clearance the tower picked up more recently has nothing to do with Bristol City Council at all; that’s a national safety regulator, nodding through fire strategy for anything over eighteen storeys, from an office nowhere near Bristol.

So the committee did exactly the job it was built to do. Every hour of it. And the job, by design, has no room in it for the one question you and I would both actually want answered.

It's worth knowing the approval didn't go unchallenged, either. Bristol Civic Society's own lawyers wrote to the council arguing the decision was legally unsound — critical information had been missed, they said, and councillors were badly advised. Bristol Civic Society also say Historic England objected, warning of "very strong concerns" for nearby heritage assets and recommending the tower lose roughly eight storeys. The council issued the permission anyway, on 14 May 2024. The Society's own counsel believed a judicial review would likely succeed and the permission would likely be quashed at trial. They decided against it — not because they were wrong, but because they couldn't afford to be right.

For what it's worth, someone did ask. Middle East Eye sent Cain and Menora Mivtachim a list of detailed questions about all of this. Neither company responded.

Closer To Home Than You’d Like.

Before you point a finger entirely at Cain International and Menora Mivtachim, let me show you something closer to home. Much closer.

The pension fund that pays out for Bristol City Council’s own workers — a hundred and thirty-five thousand of them — voted in December, eight votes to two, to stay invested in the aerospace and defence sector. Among the holdings: names you’ll recognise, arming Israel among others.

A Green councillor sat on that committee. She didn’t fight the result — decided, she said, by a member survey that came back nearly split down the middle: 47 per cent for staying invested, 42 per cent for divesting, the rest unsure. A margin of five points settled it. She called accepting that outcome “heartbreaking.” She accepted it anyway — fiduciary duty, the exact same phrase that keeps a planning committee’s mouth shut about who’s bankrolling a tower.

So it isn’t only that the council won’t interrogate Cain’s money at St James House. When the identical question turns up at the council’s own front door — whose pension, whose weapons, whose war — the answer doesn’t change. The law says stay invested. So it stays invested. Whether a five-point survey margin ought to settle a question like that is not, I think, for me to say.

Same rules, same silence, wherever you look.

Shooting the Messenger.

There will be protests. There already have been. Barclays on Broadmead has had its windows put through more than once, red paint over the doors, because somebody decided a high street bank was close enough to the war to stand in for it.

I understand the impulse. Truly, I do. But think it through with me for a second — because it’s the wrong building, every time.

Barclays doesn’t manufacture a thing. It trades shares, provides services to defence firms who supply NATO and its allies. Follow that logic to its actual end and Barclays is no more or less complicit than the council’s own pension fund, or the building society that financed the flat you could be sitting in right now, reading this.

Right. So. Here’s the sentence I want you to keep. Money doesn’t come with a receipt. The ten-pound note folded in your wallet has no memory of where it’s been. Nobody standing at the bar of their local, handing that same tenner over for drinks, stops to wonder whether it was, only days before, changed hands for something altogether darker — a deal gone wrong, a batch cut with whatever was cheapest and closest to hand, someone’s last transaction before an ambulance was called, or wasn’t called in time. That note doesn’t carry the memory. It just keeps moving, indifferent, exactly like every other note in every other pocket.

It moved through a thousand hands before yours and it’ll move through a thousand more after you let it go, and not one of those exchanges left a mark anybody could trace. Your mortgage swims in that same current. So does your pension. So does the pint you didn’t think twice about.

And here’s the part that ought to sting a little more, if you’ve ever stood outside Barclays with a placard yourself. That placard cost something. The card, the paint, the marker pen, the tape holding it all together — bought from a shop, paid for with money that came from somewhere too, and nobody checked its papers either. Nobody stood in the craft aisle wondering whose pocket that fiver had sat in the week before, or what it had paid for on the way there. The protest and the thing it’s protesting are funded, in the end, by exactly the same untraceable current. Neither of you thought to ask. Why would you. Nobody does.

Smash the window if it makes the evening feel like it meant something. It won’t move a single pound out of a single arms company. It was never the branch on Broadmead. It was always the plumbing.

I want to see it. Truly.

I want to see five thousand anti-Israel protesters march on the roundabout, throw thick hemp ropes around the concrete base of St James House, and try to drag all twenty-eight storeys of it down the road and into the harbourside. I want to watch the splash.

It would be magnificent theatre. It would feel like a reckoning.

And then Monday morning would arrive, the dust would settle over the water, and the electronic ledger would simply show an insurance payout to a holding company registered in, well, maybe Delaware. The money would move on before the concrete even hit the riverbed.

The People Actually Up There.

Now picture the roundabout itself, on the day the protest finally arrives — banners, chanting, the lot.

Sixty feet above all of it, somebody is laying bricks. They didn’t choose Cain International. They didn’t choose Menora Mivtachim. They chose a job, because the job pays a mortgage, or a rent, or a pair of school shoes for a kid who’s grown out of last year’s.

That’s the part the placards never quite reach. The man on the scaffold is further from this money than the money is from itself. He’s not the enemy. He’s barely in the room. He’s only trying to get through Friday with something left for Monday.

Shout at the crane if it helps. The crane won’t hear you, and neither will the account it’s plugged into. You’ll go home feeling like you did something. You didn’t. You’re there to tick the self-satisfaction box of moral superiority over something you can do nothing about.

Or Burn It Instead.

There’s always the other option, of course. Skip the placards, skip the paint. Just burn the money.

It's been done — or something close enough to it. On the 23rd of August, 1994, two men from a band called the KLF took what they said was a million pounds in cash to an abandoned boathouse on the Isle of Jura and set fire to it. A journalist watched. A camera rolled. Their bank later confirmed the withdrawal had happened.

Even so — and I like this part, because nothing about this story is quite settled — a later documentary noticed the same bank statement showed £1.3 million landing back in their account a few days after the fire. More than they’d burned. Some unburned notes reportedly washed up on the beach. The two men have spent thirty years declining to explain any of it, on purpose. Whether every note in that boathouse actually turned to ash, whether the fire was the story or the cover for one, is genuinely still an open question, and probably always will be.

Real or partly theatre, the lesson survives either way. Burning a million quid doesn’t touch anyone’s balance sheet. It doesn’t dent a shareholding. It doesn’t so much as flicker on a single radar. All it does is remove money from circulation, or convincingly pretend to — a gesture with absolutely nothing standing behind it to hit.

What Actually Happens.

Now — and I want you to be honest with yourself here, because I already know the answer and so do you — what’s actually going to happen?

Three questions, and they’re not complicated. Is it practical for students to boycott the tower? No. Is it logical to expect them to, given the housing shortage they’re standing in? No. So what’s the likely outcome? Nothing. The building fills regardless.

Students aren't going to boycott St James House. Not enough of them to matter. A room is a room when you're desperate enough for one, and Bristol has one of the tightest student-to-bed ratios of any UK city — 3.5 full-time students for every purpose-built bed, third worst in the country behind only Glasgow and London. When the supply's that tight, being fussy stops being a principle and starts being a luxury nobody in the queue can afford.

It isn’t apathy. Most people spent their ethics budget on rent months ago, and there’s none left over for a housing decision. Nobody gets to feel superior about a choice they were never rich enough to make.

The Same Money, Every Hour.

Think about the last time you tapped your card in a supermarket queue. Did it once cross your mind where that money had already been — whose hands it passed through, whose war it might have quietly paid for on the way?

Of course it didn’t. It’s the same when the building society takes its direct debit. The same when housing benefit lands. Same money, same loop, moving twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, never stopping long enough for anyone to check its papers.

And here’s the fact underneath all of it. The news changes. Ukraine, Putin, China, Gaza, the IDF — the headlines rotate, the outrage rotates with them, and every single time, we go back to spending exactly the same money in exactly the same way the following morning. Nobody cancels their pension over a news cycle. Nobody switches banks because of what led the ten o’clock bulletin. The money doesn’t pause for any of it. It never has, and there’s no reason to think it ever will.

And while we’re on the subject — somewhere tonight, at a stadium in New Jersey, two international sides are walking out for the World Cup final, in front of a global audience in the hundreds of millions. Adidas. Aramco — Saudi state oil, in case anyone’s forgotten. Coca-Cola. Bank of America. The winning nation walks away with fifty million dollars, out of a prize pot worth well over half a billion.

Nobody watching tonight is thinking about where Aramco’s money comes from, or where else it’s gone. They’re thinking about whether their country wins. Nobody’s boycotting the final over its sponsors — the idea would strike most people as faintly deranged. Or perhaps we’ve simply agreed, without ever discussing it, which billion-pound sponsors get a pass and which ones don’t. I’ll leave that one for you to decide. You might have your own view.

We already know money doesn’t come clean. We’ve simply decided, without ever once voting on it, which parts of that fact we’re allowed to be furious about, and which parts we’re expected to enjoy on a Sunday evening, curtains drawn, volume up.

Money Talks.

I still haven’t found that centipede an optical vet. I’m not sure, if I’m honest with you, that one exists — not for insects, and not for the rest of us either.

Because that’s the whole diagnosis, when you strip everything else away. Money talks. It always has. It always will. And how loudly you get to speak is measured out in exact proportion to how much of it you happen to be sitting on.

Jonathan Goldstein gets a phone call with a sitting prime minister. Gerald Ronson gets a teenager's bedroom given up for him, and thirty years later, a seat at the table with presidents. Menora Mivtachim gets to steer two million people's retirement savings into military infrastructure in the Negev desert without asking a single one of those two million what they think about it.

The people at the bottom of the pile get none of it. Not the bricklayer on the scaffold. Not the student who took the only room going. Not the protester outside Barclays, however loud, however right.

Volume was never the currency being traded here. It never was, and pretending otherwise is how you keep good people marching in circles instead of asking better questions. A mortgage payment doesn’t buy a meeting with Netanyahu. The tenner in your pocket has exactly as much say in where it goes next as you do — none at all.

It was never a fair fight. It was never built to be one.

The centipede, at least, has an excuse for not seeing clearly. The Almighty Gob doesn’t — and neither, if we’re being honest with each other, do most of the rest of us.

We can just see a little further down the pile than most people bother looking. Whether that changes anything is a different question entirely, and one I’m not sure either of us wants answered tonight.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Sources.

• Middle East Eye, How Bristol’s tallest tower will be tied to Israel’s atrocities — https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/how-bristols-tallest-tower-will-be-tied-israels-atrocities

• Joe Banks, original reporting on St James House financing — https://joe-banks.com/2025/03/08/how-bristols-tallest-building-will-be-linked-to-israels-atrocities/

• Olympian Homes, St James House project pages — https://olympianhomes.com/building/st-james-square

• Cain International, St James House — https://www.cainint.com/media-centre/cain-partners-with-olympian-homes-to-expand-pbsa-platform-with-st-james-house-redevelopment-in-bristol/

• Green Street News, Gateway 2 clearance — https://greenstreetnews.com/article/200m-bristol-living-project-clears-gateway-2/

• Bristol247, on planning committee politicisation — https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/farcical-scenes-during-planning-meetings-put-bristol-economic-future-risk/

• UK Government, National Planning Policy Framework — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

• The Bristol Cable, How local pension funds invest millions in defence — https://thebristolcable.org/2026/05/how-local-pension-funds-invest-millions-in-defence/

• BBC News, Barclays Bristol vandalism reporting — https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/articles/c1dmev1vn53o

• LBC, Barclays branches vandalised — https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/barclays-branches-vandalised-palestine-protesters-israel-5HjcmPm_2/

• Wikipedia, K Foundation Burn a Million Quid — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid

• IMDb, Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid — https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114897/

• KLF Online, burning account and Omnibus documentary detail — http://klf.de/home/burning-a-million-quid/

• Wikipedia, 2026 FIFA World Cup final — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_final

• Doc’s Sports, 2026 FIFA World Cup financial statistics — https://www.docsports.com/2026/fifa-world-cup-financial-statistics.html

• SportsPro, FIFA 2026 sponsorship revenue — https://www.sportspro.com/news/sponsorship-marketing/fifa-2026-world-cup-sponsors-revenue-march-2026/

• Malay Mail, 2026 World Cup prize money — https://malaymail.com/news/sports/2025/12/18/winners-of-2026-world-cup-to-pocket-rm200m-in-record-payday/202362

[One shade of grey is about to get a lot darker]

There’s a particular kind of quiet that settles over a public body’s accounts department in June. Not the quiet of nothing happening. The quiet of something being filed, correctly, on time, in a format designed so nobody outside the building reads past page one.

Seventy Redcliff Street doesn’t announce itself. Four floors of refurbished office space on an unremarkable Redcliffe corner, the kind of building you’d walk past without a second glance — which, for an organisation currently under central government scrutiny, might be rather the point. Notice how ordinary it looks. That’s not an accident either. Inside, somewhere past the narrative section, past the wildlife index, past the tree-planting totals and the awards from the Citti Awards ceremony, there’s a page that doesn’t photograph well at all. Note 11, Officers’ Remuneration.

Nobody reads Note 11 for pleasure. That’s rather the point of putting it there. You wouldn’t blame anyone for skipping it — I nearly did myself.

The Almighty Gob has been through it anyway. So has Bristol Live’s Adam Postans, who broke the numbers this week. Neither of us found anything that improves on a second read. So far. At least.

Sit down a minute. Let me show you what’s actually on it.

The Numbers, Stated Plainly.

Over the past three financial years, WECA has paid out £918,000 in staff exit packages. £219,000 in 2023/24. £457,000 in 2024/25. £242,000 in 2025/26.

That last figure includes a single £152,000 golden handshake and a £45,000 compulsory redundancy, plus two further “Other” category departures worth £45,000 between them. Filed under a heading polite enough to survive an audit.

To be fair to the ledger: that £45,000 compulsory redundancy was the law’s decision, not WECA’s, and no amount of column-inch outrage changes that. The other £197,000 of it wasn’t required by anything except somebody’s signature.

Meanwhile, the number of WECA staff earning £50,000 or more very nearly doubled in a single year — from 64 to 113. Those on £85,000 to £89,999 went from zero to seven. One employee now sits comfortably in the £165,000 to £169,999 band.

WECA would likely call this market alignment — pay catching up with sector norms, the same defence Bristol City Council used for its own social care roles. Fair enough, if it happened gradually. Nearly doubling in a single year, inside an organisation already under formal government sanction for its handling of pay and people, isn’t gradual. It’s a sprint, timed rather suspiciously well.

None of these numbers are typos. I checked. Twice. Some patterns look like accidents right up until you see the third year in a row.

Bristol city councillor and sitting member of WECA’s own Audit Committee, Jonathan Hucker — a qualified accountant, which matters, because it means he isn’t guessing — called the total a shocking and disgusting waste of taxpayers’ money. He worked out that £918,000 equates to the annual income tax paid by over 200 average earners.

He’s not wrong about the maths. He undersells the pattern.

The Man Signing Off On All Of It.

Chief executive Stephen Peacock took home £235,454 in salary this year, plus £34,593 in employer pension contributions — a package worth roughly £270,000. He’s been in post since June 2024, having arrived from the top job at Bristol City Council.

His entire Bristol career, from Executive Director to Chief Executive, sat under Marvin Rees’s mayoralty, through the whole rise and slow collapse of Rees’s underground mass transit dream — a mayor’s flagship policy rather than an officer’s. The exits and overspends there were, by pleasant coincidence, also somebody else’s department.

He is, by any reasonable reading of an organisation chart, the person ultimately accountable for the pay structure beneath him and the exit packages flowing out of it. That’s not an accusation. That’s the job description.

WECA’s response to Bristol Live’s questions, relayed through a spokesperson, was that the authority would not comment on HR matters.

Four words doing a great deal of work. Notice what they don’t say: not that the figures are wrong, not that there’s context missing, not that anyone’s looking into it. Just a door, closing, softly, from the inside. You and I both know what silence like that usually means.

That’s one option. Here’s another: WECA could comment on HR matters, and chooses not to. There’s a difference, and the difference is the whole story.

To be fair, there’s a legitimate version of that line. Public bodies are rightly barred from discussing an individual’s personnel file in public — that’s employment law, not evasion. But nobody asked WECA to name names or read out a disciplinary record. The £918,000, the golden handshake, the pay bands — all of it is already sitting in a document WECA itself published. Declining to discuss published, aggregate figures that are already public isn’t privacy. It’s just declining.

Best Value, Worst Practice.

None of this happens in a vacuum, however much the accounts would like you to think so.

WECA has already failed the trust test once. Government auditors found a poor state of relationships between the then-mayor and the three constituent councils, and flagged inconsistent governance around a senior severance payment. Whitehall responded in March 2024 with a formal Best Value Notice — a mechanism reserved for authorities judged to be failing their basic statutory duties.

This wasn’t vague institutional malaise. Grant Thornton’s own report tied a £219,000 severance payoff to WECA’s former chief executive directly to what it called “sub-optimal interaction” between officers and the mayor. A staff survey the year before had already flagged the need to “protect officers from the mayor.” Senior employees who quit gave the same reason on their way out: the quality of interaction with the mayor’s office.

However well WECA has since learned to write about itself, that’s not a personality clash. That’s a named, reported cause, with a price tag attached, sitting in someone else’s audit report rather than its own.

The notice was lifted a year later, in March 2025, Whitehall satisfied enough to let it lapse rather than escalate it. But receiving one in the first place carries its own sentence: devolution rules now keep WECA waiting until at least November 2026 before it can reach Established Strategic Authority status. The scar outlasts the notice.

The Draft Statement of Accounts admits as much, in language careful enough to have been drafted by committee, for a committee, about a committee. Governance arrangements are “no longer in the same position as the previous year.”

Meanwhile, in the same document, on a different page, staff costs keep climbing. Exit payments keep climbing. Six-figure salary bands keep filling up. Two stories, told simultaneously, by the same set of accounts, and only one of them was written to be read.

Two Documents, One Admission.

Here’s the part that should worry you more than the £918,000 does on its own.

Bristol City Council’s own Productivity Plan, published in July 2024, admits to “significant turnover and increased vacancy rates” in social care and occupational health roles. No number attached. No figure to hold anyone to. Just the phrase, sitting quietly in a workforce section, doing exactly enough to satisfy the requirement to mention it and no more.

That same Productivity Plan, a few pages on, names WECA directly — noting the Authority was “currently subject to a Best Value Notice,” and committing to help WECA “address the issues raised.” One council document, two organisations, one shared condition. Written down, by them, about each other.

What’s missing from both admissions is the same thing: a figure. Bristol won’t quantify its own turnover. WECA, a year later, hands you one anyway — £918,000 of it, itemised, dated, impossible to wave away as “significant” and move on. Sometimes the silence tells you more than the sentence around it.

Notice how neither document uses the word “pattern.” That’s rather the job title of this publication.

A Small Word About Small Causes.

Here’s the thing about institutional decline: it rarely arrives as one scandal. It arrives as forty small, defensible decisions, each one signed off in a room where everybody present had a perfectly reasonable reason for saying yes.

One exit here. A restructure there. A salary review that quietly reclassifies half the building. None of it looks like anything, filed on its own, on its own page, in its own financial year.

Add three years together, though, and the small stuff stops looking small.

Where £918,000 Actually Goes.

This isn’t an abstract sum sitting in a spreadsheet cell. It’s the same order of money The Almighty Gob has previously tracked through Bristol City Council’s own accounts — the sort of figure that, spent differently, reopens a youth centre, funds SEND caseworkers, or closes a gap Labour councillors have already costed at under half a percent of a council’s annual underspend.

WECA sits above Bristol City Council in the devolution chain, drawing in an ever-larger share of regional funding and an ever-larger staff bill to match. It wants Established Strategic Authority status. It wants the Integrated Settlement. It wants North Somerset folded into its remit, and more decisions taken further still from the people paying for them.

Ask who actually benefits from that expansion, and the honest answer is rarely you, checking your own council tax bill.

To give WECA its due: the same accounts point to real things residents can touch — cheaper multi-operator bus fares, a Child Poverty Action Plan, funding towards reopening the Portishead line. None of that is invented, and none of it is dismissed here. But delivering good programmes and running an accountable organisation are two separate tests, and passing one has never been proof of passing the other. A £918,000 accountability gap doesn’t shrink because the bus fares went down.

An organisation still under a Best Value Notice, still shedding staff at cost, still growing its own six-figure salary bands, is not the shape of body that should be trusted with more power before it has demonstrated it can handle the power it already has.

What Accountability Isn’t.

“We would not comment on HR matters” is not transparency. It’s the institutional equivalent of a shrug, delivered from behind a £270,000 salary and a very good pension.

Is that malice? Almost certainly not. Nobody at 70 Redcliff Street wakes up planning to squander taxpayers’ money on golden handshakes. It’s simpler than that, and somehow worse: a system where nobody is quite responsible enough, for quite long enough, for anyone to be properly accountable when it goes wrong.

That’s not a conspiracy. It’s just how organisations behave when nobody’s watching closely enough, often enough, for long enough to matter.

We’re watching now.

An Alternative Worth Naming.

Here’s the uncomfortable question underneath all of it: nobody outside 70 Redcliff Street chose Stephen Peacock. A panel did. The same kind of panel that, a year later, signed off on the pay bands and severance terms this piece has already catalogued.

Regular readers will recognise where this is going. The Almighty Gob has already made this case once, for Bristol City Council: council tax payers formally recognised as stakeholders, senior officer appointments decided the way a credit union or the John Lewis Partnership decides its leadership. Candidates state their case, in public, to the people funding them. Stakeholders choose.

That piece already named WECA directly, proposing a WECA CIC layered beneath its elected mayor rather than replacing her — the same stakeholder scrutiny sitting underneath Helen Godwin’s office, so a single mayoral veto isn’t the only check left on an organisation central government has already flagged as failing. This isn’t a new idea arriving here. It’s the same argument, and WECA’s own accounts have just handed it a second exhibit.

Here’s what’s changed since that piece went up: WECA already has half of the model running. Godwin was directly elected by the people of three council areas. What’s missing is the layer beneath her — the Chief Executive, the Executive Directors, the people actually spending the money and signing the severance cheques — appointed behind a door, accountable to nobody who pays for them.

However, the honest caveat still applies at this scale, and applies harder: WECA’s stakeholder pool is over a million people, not one city, and its statutory officer roles carry the same legal qualification requirements Adult Social Care directors do at Bristol City Council. A pitch-and-vote process risks charisma beating competence exactly where competence is what you’d actually need.

Under current law, no full combined authority converts into a Community Interest Company either — the statute doesn’t provide the route. This remains a reform blueprint, not a courtroom prediction.

Notice this much anyway: the model WECA currently runs on has just cost taxpayers £918,000 in three years, and the people who spent it were never asked to earn the job from the people footing the bill. Whatever replaces it can hardly do worse.

The Bottom Line.

The building will stay quiet, and ordinary, exactly the way it’s designed to. The accounts will get filed on time, in the right format, past page one, where almost nobody reads them. And the money will keep moving out the door, one handshake at a time, while you — the person actually footing the bill — get told, politely, that it’s none of your business.

It is entirely your business. It’s your money. And unlike WECA, The Almighty Gob has no HR department to hide behind.

© 2026 John Langley / The Almighty Gob. All rights reserved. Some lefts too, possibly.

Subscribe now

Share

Sources.

• Adam Postans, “WECA ‘squandered’ £1m on staff exit payoffs in last three years,” Bristol Live, 16 July 2026. bristolpost.co.uk

• West of England Combined Authority, Draft Statement of Accounts 2025/26, published June 2026 — see Note 11, Officers’ Remuneration, and the Annual Governance Statement. westofengland-ca.gov.uk

• Bristol City Council, Productivity Plan, July 2024. bristol.gov.uk

• Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, “West of England Combined Authority: Best Value Notice,” March 2024. gov.uk

• “WECA taken out of special measures,” Keynsham Voice, 31 March 2025. keynshamvoice.co.uk

• “Weca mayor fuming at Integrated Settlement delay,” Local Government Chronicle, 30 September 2025. lgcplus.com

• Report on Grant Thornton’s findings regarding former WECA chief executive Dr Patricia Greer’s severance and mayoral conduct allegations, syndicated via Yahoo News from The Telegraph. yahoo.com

• “Bristol City Council chief exec jumps ship to WECA,” Bristol247. bristol247.com

• Report on the state of Bristol’s underground mass transit scheme, BBC News. bbc.co.uk

• John Langley, “Stitched Up in Barton Hill,” The Almighty Gob. thealmightygob.com

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

[The council accepted every finding. It just hasn't acted on any of them.]

Well folks. The independent review into the Barton House evacuation is public now. You know, like it’s been evacuated. Bristol City Council says it accepts every finding in it. So. The review into Bristol’s oldest tower block, evacuated from Barton Hill in the middle of the night in November 2023, confirms what residents have said for three years: the decision was right, and the council around it wasn’t ready. That review sits on Friday’s agenda for the Homes and Housing Delivery Policy Committee stamped with one instruction: for noting only. On the plus side, though, at least the Holiday Inn was something of a temporary upgrade. I suppose.

Not for deciding. Not for acting on. For noting.

Noting items are ordinary committee business, most of them genuinely harmless. What makes this one different isn’t the label — it’s what’s missing underneath it: no delivery plan, no named owner, no one outside the building checking any of it.

And underneath every single item in this pack sits the same pattern: the council marks its own homework, and the council passes itself. Just like it appears to do in other matters. FOI requests springs to mind, as another instance — and so does the Housing Ombudsman’s finding of severe maladministration this March, after the council ended a vulnerable resident’s tenancy, changed his locks, and disposed of his belongings without ever confirming he wanted to leave.

“This could have been avoided.”

Anyway. Here we go again. You know. Like the proverbial mulberry bush. It’s Friday. Ten O’Clock at City Hall. The webcast will start exactly on time, the way these things always do — calm, procedural, and just quiet enough that you stop noticing what isn’t being said.

Barton House: Who’d Have Thought It. And The Review That Wouldn’t Look Where It Was Sent.

Altair’s review - which could easily be mistaken for the Trustpilot of Airline travel, evaluated the Barton House evacuation debacle, and carefully gave its verdict on the one decision that mattered. Evacuating that night was right, done within the rules, life-safety put first. Nobody disputes that.

However, like most things involving the council nowadays, everything around that decision is a mess. A 2022 structural report warning the block couldn’t survive a gas explosion sat inside one division for a year — marked, you’d assume, non-urgent, since officers doubted it, partly because it named the wrong council. And just to double-check that, because safety is paramount around here, nobody ran a risk assessment on it. Not one.

Notice the shape of that: a warning was written. A warning was filed. A warning was left. Nobody escalated it, because nobody had to — there was no rule that said they must.

“This contributed to the scale of disruption and harm experienced by residents.”

Here’s what should bother you more than any of that. Altair’s own terms of reference sent it to examine elected members and “the level of debate and challenge.” It went nowhere near either. Ten recommendations, and every one is aimed at officers. The politicians who were meant to be under the microscope walked straight out of frame.

Ask yourself why a review commissioned to examine political challenge produced no finding on political challenge. Hold that question while you read the rest of this pack, because it doesn’t get answered anywhere in it. I guess, sometimes, there are no words adequate enough to express incompetence. Even I struggle.

The information stayed exactly where the people who already held it decided it should stay. That’s not a conspiracy. It’s what happens in any hierarchy left to run itself, regardless of who’s sitting in which office at the time.

Nearly three years on, there’s still no plan for the building’s future. One recommendation is in progress. The other nine haven’t started. And the council will report on its own progress, to itself, with no independent check anywhere in sight.

Accepting a finding costs nothing. Acting on it needs an owner, a deadline, and someone outside the building checking the box actually got ticked. This pack has the sentence. It doesn’t have the other two.

That’s not oversight. That’s the definition of marking your own homework.

Bristol City Council’s Gas Safety Numbers That Only Surfaced By Chance.

Three items later, you watch the exact failure pattern Altair just described, playing out live, in the same pack.

Gas servicing went manual last October after an IT failure. Around 420 services went missing. Nobody flagged the gap — it surfaced only when the overdue count spiked and reporting picked it up months after the fact.

Nobody flagged it. Nobody escalated it. Nobody was watching, because the job of watching had quietly gone missing along with the gap itself.

Plenty of gas gets produced in this chamber every Friday — hours of it, none of it flammable, none of it needing an engineer. The gas running through 26,827 council homes, the kind that actually does, apparently doesn’t rate the same attention.

If only the councillors and officers could be serviced as regularly as Barton House’s gas checks — the entire public of Bristol would remain safe from incompetence.

That’s the joke. It’s also exactly what’s happening. This is Friction: the drag built into every point where a warning has to travel from an officer’s desk to a committee table. Barton House was Friction at building-safety scale. This is the same Friction, running quietly through a boiler rota.

There are 4,449 overdue emergency repairs in this pack. Fire risk assessments across 208 high-risk buildings are reported at 77.4% one month and 87.02% the next, and the council’s own commentary admits the underlying reporting is inaccurate because of the backlog it’s meant to be measuring.

That's not new, either. A botched transition between two housing IT systems has already left the council with a repairs backlog it admits "cannot be trusted" — a figure that more than doubled from around 8,000 to almost 20,000 in the months after the system went live, with 699 of those overdue more than a year. Councillors approved an extra £1.3 million to help fix it. Labour's Rob Logan called the data "rubbish." The committee's own chair, Barry Parsons, called it "an area of significant concern.”

An audit of the gas processes finishes this month (an audit into gas safety, in a housing department, timed so nobody has to look at it until autumn). It won’t reach committee until September. The papers describing the failure arrive two months before the papers explaining it.

Nobody planned that gap. Nobody needed to. The system produces it by itself, every time, without anyone lifting a finger.

Notice what’s actually being conceded here: an IT failure isn’t suspicious on its own — systems break everywhere, all the time. What makes this one different is what happened after. Nobody was watching until the numbers forced someone to look.

Is it practical to fix a boiler rota with an audit that lands after the season it’s meant to matter for? Is it logical to let the same office own both the failure and the review of it? On the numbers already in this pack, the likely outcome is next winter producing this exact paragraph again, with different figures.

One IT changeover and one manual workaround were all it took. Nobody could have sized the outcome from the size of that input — that’s what happens when a system loses its own feedback loop, and it’s the same shape of failure The Almighty Gob has documented before in Bristol City Council’s housing service.

The Decent Homes Standard: A Council That Won’t Tell You How Many Homes Are Fit To Live In.

The Decent Homes Standard is the legal floor: warm, safe, in reasonable repair, free of serious hazards. Last year the council reported 7.73% of its homes failed it. It now reports 17.95% — nearly 4,800 homes.

Somewhere in a filing system, 26,827 addresses sit waiting on a number that keeps changing shape. Nobody’s in a hurry to settle it. The homes stay exactly as decent, or not, as they always were — only the label keeps moving underneath them.

The stock didn’t rot that fast. The council had been counting annual boiler servicing towards whether a home passed, which it shouldn’t have been doing, and has now stopped.

Better measurement is a good thing, and nobody’s arguing otherwise. But better measurement was supposed to produce an answer, not a bigger question — and after all this counting, the council still doesn’t know which of its own homes are safe tonight.

One report says the figure has “risen” and rates it Worse. An appendix to the same report says the identical figure has “decreased.” A third item tells committee the number has “improved again risen,” the unresolved edit left sitting in the middle of the sentence — and it went to committee exactly like that.

Ask yourself which of those is mathematical carelessness, and which is spin dressed up as an editing slip. The document won’t tell you. It just leaves both possibilities sitting there, side by side, for you to weigh.

One sentence matters more than any percentage on the page: work is still underway “to validate these figures so that the Council has a clear basis on which to plan its capital works investment.” Translation — it doesn’t have one. Not for 26,827 homes.

A council that doesn’t know how many of its own homes are unsafe isn’t confused. It’s unaccountable, and it’s found a percentage that hides the difference.

Is a validation exercise that outlives the figure it’s meant to fix practical? Is a trend marked Worse on one page and “decreased” on the next logical? Going by everything else in this pack, the likely outcome is a number that stays unvalidated until nobody’s asking any more.

Renters’ Rights Act Penalties: The One Decision On The Table.

Item 11 is the only actual decision this committee faces: a new civil penalty policy for rogue landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, covering roughly 55,000 homes and 120,000 people.

The report justifies “key decision” status partly on “expected significant increased income.” No income figure appears anywhere in the document. The financial analysis appendix is marked NO (which is, credit where it’s due, at least consistent — nothing else in this section has an answer either).

Cui bono, then, from a policy shaped like this? The consultation had 159 responses — 30% landlords, 21% renters — and the paid social media adverts were targeted at people whose Facebook interests or job title read “Landlord.” Every change made after that consultation lowered the penalties: the starting fine cut by a quarter, the uplift for offences against vulnerable tenants halved.

That’s correlation, not proof landlords wrote the policy themselves — nobody’s claiming they did. What it shows is a process that wasn’t neutral, feeding an outcome that lines up with the one group best placed to find it.

None of that makes consulting landlords wrong — they’re the ones being regulated, and their voice belongs in it. What doesn’t belong in it is a taxpayer-funded ad campaign built to find more of them than anyone else.

Approved as drafted, this policy might not return to an elected member’s desk until 2031. Landlords wrote half of this policy just by turning up. Nobody else in the room got that deal.

Is a policy practical when the only financial detail attached to it is an income figure nobody’s seen? Is a five-year review clause logical when a missed date just lets the policy carry on unreviewed? The likely outcome, on the drafting alone, is a policy landlords helped soften staying exactly as soft as landlords left it.

Temporary Accommodation: Homes Counted Twice, And A Cap Nobody Can Check.

Small numbers, moved quietly, cascade. The council claims 687 homes delivered this year, the best figure in two decades — except 94 of its own 124 “starts on site” were purchases of existing houses off the private market.

Those same purchased houses reappear a few items later as temporary accommodation supply. Buy a house once, and it’s counted twice: once as a new affordable home, once as TA stock, the same bricks doing double duty in two different tables.

None of that makes buying existing homes the wrong call — it can be the fastest way to house someone. What it isn’t, is a new home added to the city, and counting it as one twice is how a modest year becomes “the best in two decades.”

This committee set a cap in December 2024 — 180 council properties a year, for two years, into temporary accommodation. The report now says 247 have gone in since January 2025, with no year-by-year breakdown. There’s no way, from what’s published, to check whether the first year of that cap was actually kept.

Count a house twice and it looks like two houses on a spreadsheet. It’s still one house. There are still two families on the list.

Is counting one purchase as two outcomes practical, or just convenient? Is a cap with no yearly breakdown logical, when the entire point of a cap is that someone can check it’s being kept? The likely outcome, on this evidence, is a cap nobody outside the building can ever actually prove was held.

What Still Needs Answering.

Not “noted.” Answered, with a date and a name on it.

Will the council publish a dated delivery plan, with named owners, for all ten Barton House recommendations — and bring in someone other than itself to check the progress?

Why did a review ordered to assess political debate and challenge produce nothing on political debate and challenge, and will that half of the commission now get done?

What is the mechanism, starting today rather than after some future transformation programme, by which a missed batch of 420 gas services reaches an Executive Director within days rather than months?

What income does the council actually expect from the landlord penalty policy, and how does a committee take a key decision built on a figure it’s never been shown?

How many of the 247 temporary accommodation allocations landed in each year of the cap, and how many ordinary lettings did the waiting list lose to pay for it?

The question deadline for this meeting was 5pm, Monday 13 July. The homework’s already marked. What’s left to see is whether anyone in that chamber on Friday checks the answer.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

Stitched Up In Barton Hill — The Interview

Friday, 5.30pm: The Almighty Gob hits the airwaves on Tony Gosling’s show. Someone at City Hall won’t enjoy this one.

Article: https://shorturl.at/H1lvn
Listen: https://politicsthisweek.gn.apc.org/

#Bristol #EBLN #BartonHill

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

There’s a planter on a road in Barton Hill. It’s been there two years. It isn’t going anywhere. Nobody in that street chose it, exactly.

It just arrived, the way weather arrives. And now it’s staying, the way weather doesn’t ask permission either.

Thursday night, nine people in a committee room made that official. Behind them sat hundreds of statements from residents — heartfelt, furious, and in the end, decorative.

Here’s the thing nobody said out loud: the decision was made long before the vote. The vote was just the bit where everyone got to pretend they’d been listened to.

That’s not cynicism. That’s the shape of the thing.

The East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood was funded and built £1.65m over budget before residents ever got a binding vote on whether it should continue. The 5-4 result at the Transport & Connectivity Policy Committee wasn’t democracy weighing the evidence.

It was democracy being wheeled out, after the fact, to sign the guestbook on its way past a decision the spending had already made. Councils call this “consultation.” Everyone else calls it a receipt.

However — and here’s where it stops being one bad Thursday and starts being something worse — this isn’t a story about a planter. It’s a story about a council that was never built to answer to the people paying for it.

And a structure that isn’t built to answer to you doesn’t need to lie to you. It just needs to outlast your attention span.

The shareholder test: what Bristol City Council actually owes you.

Try this. If Bristol City Council were a company and you were a shareholder, what would you actually be owed? A vote on the board. Audited accounts. A binding say over who runs the thing with your money.

Real oversight — not a suggestion box, not a “have your say” form that closes the moment the decision’s already banked.

Council tax payers get none of it. Council tax funds just under half of Bristol’s £634m General Fund — and you hold none of a shareholder’s rights over a penny of it. Not the EBLN business case. Not the overspend. Not the officers whose spending had, in effect, decided the outcome months before the room that supposedly decided it.

You’re not a shareholder. You’re not even a customer. A customer can leave.

Compare that to Finland — a country that taxes people harder than almost anywhere on earth and tops the World Happiness Report for the ninth year running while doing it. The lesson isn’t that tax makes people happy. It’s that trust comes first, and tax tolerance follows it, never the other way round.

Bristol hasn’t earned a fraction of that. Thursday just spent two years and £1.65m proving it again — slowly, in public, with minutes taken.

WECA: the same failure, one desk further away.

Widen the lens. It gets worse. The West of England Combined Authority — the body that actually decides whether EBLN gets built, since Mayor Helen Godwin holds the funding veto — was issued a formal best-value notice in 2024, after auditors found troubling relationships among WECA’s leadership and hundreds of thousands overspent on salaries in a single year.

Ministers lifted the notice in March 2025 after judging the improvements sufficient. But the fallout hasn’t cleared — WECA remains locked out of the highest tier of devolved power until at least November 2026.

So ask who actually benefits from that arrangement staying in place. Not the residents of Barton Hill, waiting on a mayoral sign-off. Not the officers whose overspend now sits inside an organisation still working through its own sanction. The people who benefit are the ones furthest from the consequences — the layers of the structure itself, each one able to point to the layer above or below when a resident asks who’s actually accountable.

The EBLN decision doesn’t belong to Bristol any more. It belongs to a mayor whose own organisation is under sanction for the identical failure Bristol’s committee just demonstrated in miniature. Handing more power to a body that’s already failed the trust test doesn’t close the accountability gap — it just gives the gap a bigger office.

It’s not an isolated habit, either. The same week, Strategy and Resources votes on a Temple Island deal where a 40-year rental guarantee to the developer gets set by an officer, not a committee vote. Money moving before scrutiny, again.

Bristol CIC: the fix that fits the evidence.

This isn’t new. It’s an extension of something I first put forward standing as an independent candidate for Bristol mayor back in 2016: that the people funding this city’s decisions should have a formal, binding say in who makes them, not a ballot every four years and a leaflet in between.

Nearly a decade on, Thursday night is the argument, fully assembled, delivered by the council that most needed to disprove it.

Here’s the proposal. Bristol City Council becomes Bristol CIC in constitution, if not in strict legal form: council tax payers formally recognised as stakeholders, senior officer appointments decided the way a credit union or the John Lewis Partnership decides its leadership.

Candidates state their case, in public, to the people funding them. Stakeholders choose. Technical, statutory roles keep their professional qualifications as a non-negotiable floor, so competence is never traded for popularity.

That single change would have changed what Thursday actually was. If the officers whose spending shaped the outcome — and the data going into that room — answered to residents instead of to an internal panel marking its own homework, the “consultation” couldn’t look like it was decided in substance months before it was decided in name.

WECA needs the identical treatment, layered beneath its elected mayor rather than replacing her: a WECA CIC, with the same stakeholder scrutiny sitting underneath Godwin’s office, so a single mayoral veto isn’t the only check left on an organisation central government has already flagged as failing.

The honest caveat.

None of this is a live legislative pathway, and pretending otherwise would make it easier to dismiss. Under current law, no full local authority converts into a Community Interest Company — the statute doesn’t provide the route.

Whatever legal challenge campaigners eventually mount over EBLN’s equalities impact will be fought on its own grounds. This is a reform blueprint, not a courtroom prediction.

Andy Burnham, devolution, and Bristol’s warning shot.

Here’s the part that should keep you up at night. Andy Burnham is now on course to become the next Prime Minister — backed by over 80% of Labour MPs as of this week, with confirmation expected within days. Moving power out of Westminster into regional and local bodies has been the defining project of his career.

When that happens, Thursday wasn’t a one-off. It was a preview screening.

Because here’s what nobody wants to say in the same sentence as “devolution”: if this is what Bristol does with the power it already has — an overspend banked before the vote, a decision that looked all but made months before the room that was meant to make it, a mayor’s veto standing in for the residents who pay for all of it — then giving that structure more power doesn’t decentralise anything.

It hands an organisation that’s already failed the trust test a bigger blast radius, at the exact moment devolution is supposed to bring decisions closer to people, not further away.

That’s not an argument against devolution. The principle behind it isn’t wrong. But devolving power into a structure that hasn’t earned it first isn’t decentralisation — it’s moving the same unaccountable machine one desk closer to your street and calling the move progress because the postcode changed.

Bristol CIC, and WECA CIC beneath it, aren’t obstacles to that agenda. They’re the only thing standing between it and Thursday night, on a national scale, forever.

Practical, logical, likely.

Run it through the only three questions that have ever mattered.

Is it practical? As a blueprint, yes — as tomorrow’s statute book, not yet, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

Is it logical? Undeniably: you don’t get to call people stakeholders while structurally locking them out of every decision that spends their money before they’re consulted.

What’s the likely outcome if nothing changes? More Thursdays. Years-long trials, overspends that arrive before the vote does, consultations built to be survived, not listened to.

The bottom line.

This was never Green versus Labour, Leave versus Remain, driver versus cyclist. Strip that away and one question remains: do the people paying for Bristol’s decisions get anything close to a say in making them?

Right now, they don’t. Barton Hill just spent two years and £1.65m proving it in exhaustive, minuted, publicly funded slow motion.

Earn the trust first. Then come and talk to us about more tax, more power, more devolved money flowing down to people who’ve already shown you exactly what they do with the power they’ve got.

Not before.

That planter in Barton Hill isn’t going anywhere. The only question left is whether you are — still standing on the wrong side of the shareholder register, or finally asking why you were never handed a share in the first place.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

John Langley is the founder of The Almighty Gob, an independent Bristol-based accountability and satire publication, and a former independent Bristol mayoral candidate (2016, 2021). Published across X/Twitter, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Threads, Muckrack and Substack at thealmightygob.com.

Wikidata: John Langley (Q139934957) · The Almighty Gob Bristol (Q139935107)

COPYRIGHT NOTICE © 2026 John Langley / The Almighty Gob. All rights reserved. Some lefts too. I believe ( don’t quote me though).

Wikidata: John Langley (Q139934957) · The Almighty Gob Bristol (Q139935107)

[Illustrative graphic accompanying 'Bristol Clean Air Zone: £3.9 Million Postage Bill Exposes the Static-Air Fallacy Behind CAZ Fines,' www.thealmightygob.com — the boundary shown is conceptual, not a reproduction of exact CAZ mapping]

The council’s own figures show the CAZ needs rising fines just to cover its own postage bill. Or, maybe it’s just the other way around, and somehow, the likes of me and you are missing whatever pointless point the council’s trying to bamboozle us with now.

You see. Bristol City Council is now asking councillors to approve a 12-month extension to its print and mail contract with Xerox. Copy that?

Anyway, The reason: it failed to budget nearly £4 million in postage costs for Clean Air Zone penalty notices. All because, UK legislation requires those letters to go first class, via Royal Mail, as first reported by Bristol Live.

The council’s own committee report, covering the period to March 2028, confirms Clean Air Zone print and mail spend will total an estimated £3.9 million. That sits inside a wider budget forecast to reach £14.1 million by March 2027, £17.8 million by March 2028.

Now. Simple minded me has been tracking Bristol’s Clean Air Zone since 2022 using a physics-based framework: air is not static, and a boundary drawn on a council map cannot contain a pollutant that disperses with wind, weather and displaced traffic. Because. Well. Physics don’t tend to lie as much as humans.

And Now, The Big Reveal. £3.9 Million to Post the Proof It Isn’t Working.

Bristol City Council needs another twelve months and nearly £4 million in postage to keep telling drivers the air has behaved as instructed. It hasn’t, and somewhere it never was going to. In other words. Another fundamental fact of physics that seems to escape the council.

You can shout, yell, use semaphore, performance dance at it, if you wish, and guess what? Air doesn’t take instruction. It has no interest in a charging boundary, no sense of which street sits inside the zone and which sits fifty yards outside it, doesn’t pause at the sign the way the driver does. It moves with the weather, over the hill and down the valley, landing wherever the prevailing wind and the shape of the city happen to put it — not always where the monitoring equipment is pointed, not always where anyone is looking at all. I mean, who knew, outside of us plebs who pay council tax, that this is no great secret?

However. That’s the physics the Clean Air Zone was built on top of. Or rather, built without reference to. This week’s finance paper is the accounting proof of what happens when a policy spends four years not noticing. Like one or two others I’ve referenced this week. For anyone who cares to check.

So We Have It. The Xerox Contract Nobody Costed Properly.

Bristol’s print and mail contract with Xerox runs out next March. Nobody costed the Clean Air Zone into it. If only Xerox could copy-paste some competence into the rest of the council while they’re at it. Now. This would be a contract worth paying for.

And. So it goes. The council wants an extra year — to March 2028 — while it retenders. The current arrangement, in its own words, is “not deemed to be fit for purpose anymore.” Pretty much summing up the council. In that sort of, it takes one to know one, type scenario.

CAZ penalty notices have to go first class, by law. The volume nobody budgeted for is expected to cost £3.9 million to post by the time the extension ends.

Total print and mail spend is forecast to hit £14.1 million by March 2027. £17.8 million the year after.

Royal Mail costs are up 137 per cent since 2020 — a rise the council’s report treats as unforeseen. It wasn’t. And. I would have thought. For this amount of money, a more competitive price could have been negotiated. Still. What do I know.

This year’s price rise was Royal Mail’s sixth in three years. First-class stamps alone have more than doubled since 2020, and every increase was announced in advance.

A five-year contract signed anywhere near that period didn’t fail to predict a shock. It failed to read a trend renewing itself in public roughly once a year, in the same trade press the council’s own procurement team is presumably paid to read. A further £339,000 went on more printers just to keep pace. Someone, somewhere, signed off on that as a solution.

Okay. Where the Money Actually Goes. Now the tea lady has been made redundant, and the council no longer has to pay her wage bill. Still. Humour Aside.

None of this touches the general fund, officers stress. The CAZ pays for its own postage from the charge and the fines it collects. Sounds like fiscal discipline. Follow where the money actually moves, and it looks like something else wearing fiscal discipline’s coat.

Xerox holds a contract now worth extending specifically because CAZ volume grew beyond what was priced in. Royal Mail collects first-class postage on every one of those letters, at prices it has raised six times in three years. The council gets to describe an unbudgeted £3.9 million as cost-neutral, because the fine-payers cover it.

Everyone in that chain benefits from the letters continuing. Nobody in it benefits from the zone actually working — and nobody in the report seems to have noticed that those are two different outcomes.

Somewhere in Bristol this week, an envelope is already on its way. First class, as the law demands, moving through a system built to be unhurried about it. It will land on a doormat in a hallway the resident hasn’t tidied yet, at some point between the school run and whatever comes after. Inside it: a fine, a deadline, and the quiet suggestion that the recipient has failed at something everyone else has apparently managed.

That’s the split the scheme runs on. Compliant on one side of the letter, caught-out on the other, and a comment thread underneath the local paper already forming an orderly queue to say which side the recipient belongs on. Nobody has to design that feeling in. It arrives free, every time a fine does — and the council’s finance report doesn’t have a line item for it, because it doesn’t need one. It comes at no extra cost.

You See. Self-Funding Is Not the Same as Something Working.

A scheme whose enforcement costs rise every year isn’t paying its own way. It’s surviving on a growing supply of the very non-compliance it exists to end.

A print-and-mail contract is, stripped of the finance-report language, the physical distance between a driver’s decision and its consequence — the gap an envelope has to cross before the action and the penalty ever actually meet. Everything spent since 2022 has widened that gap, not closed it: more printers, more volume, more stamps, a bigger and slower machine standing between non-compliance and the moment it’s finally felt.

A scheme actually working would need less of that apparatus every year, not more. Instead spend keeps rising — £14.1 million becoming £17.8 million becoming, evidently, still not enough to run the current contract without an emergency extension.

The council’s own spokesperson says letter volume is “decreasing over time as compliance increases.” That claim sits in the very same report used to justify twelve more months of a contract, because the current one fails to handle the load. Both sentences were presumably typed by the same person. They don’t sit together, and nobody at the strategy and resources committee is likely to be the one who says so out loud.

That’s not evidence of a conspiracy. Nobody needs to be lying for this to happen. A system built to fund itself from fines will, left to its own devices, keep finding reasons to need more of them. The dysfunction is structural, not deliberate — which makes it a great deal harder to fix, and considerably easier for everyone involved to shrug at.

And this is where it stops being just Bristol’s word against itself. In a House of Lords debate on 9 June 2026, a government minister confirmed that Bristol’s CAZ surplus has been running to several millions of pounds a year — cited by the Department for Transport itself, in Parliament, as the reason a national fee increase on CAZ transactions wouldn’t need to be passed on to drivers. This isn’t a scheme scraping by. It’s a scheme sitting on a multi-million-pound annual surplus that somehow still failed to notice a £3.9 million hole in its own postage budget.

Right Then. Where the Physics Comes Back In.

The static-air problem explains the mismatch better than anything in the finance paper does. A charging zone assumes pollution is a contained, local event that a boundary can hold back. It isn’t.

Bristol sits in a bowl, with the Avon Valley funnelling south-westerlies straight through it. Block a route and the traffic doesn’t dissolve — it finds the next road over. Traffic doesn’t do inner peace. It does the next street along.

Displace the driver and the emissions relocate too, sometimes to a street the zone doesn’t charge and the monitors don’t cover.

If the pollution problem was only ever redrawn around, not contained, the population of non-compliant vehicles doesn’t obediently shrink on schedule. It keeps generating volume.

Volume generates fines. Fines generate letters. Letters, by law, go first class — and first class, since 2020, costs 137 per cent more than it used to. Funny, that.

That’s the entire arithmetic of this week’s story. None of it required a fresh assumption about human behaviour — just the same one the council has made since the zone opened: that a line on a map is where the problem stops. The policy was built as if air reads road signs.

So. A single wrong assumption in the original business case, left unexamined for four years, is now a recurring seven-figure line in the print and mail budget. Four years is a long time to not notice you’ve built a five-year contract on a guess. Small input, disproportionate outcome — and it was never going to correct itself without someone asking why.

So. To My Usual Three Questions.

Is it practical? A councillor is being asked to approve a stopgap extension to cover a cost that wasn’t costed, for a scheme whose own figures show rising spend and claimed falling need in the same paragraph.

Is it logical? Only if a shrinking compliance problem can somehow require a growing enforcement budget. The report doesn’t reconcile that. It states both and moves on.

What’s the likely outcome? The extension passes, because the alternative is admitting the original contract, like the original business case, didn’t survive contact with how people and air actually move. The retender happens by 2028, “digital communications” gets pitched as the fix — as if the air was ever going to open an email either — and the zone keeps funding itself off the very non-compliance it was built to eliminate.

The air, for its part, has not read the report. It never does. It’s already over the hill by the time the letter is even printed, past the boundary signs, past the cameras, indifferent to the £3.9 million being spent to prove, in writing, first class, that it stayed exactly where it was told.

It didn’t. It was never going to. And no. We weren’t the ones missing the point. Whether anyone signing off on the extension has actually clocked that is another matter. Either way, they’re hoping the postage arrives before us plebs who pay council tax start asking. First class, mind. Wouldn’t want to short-change us on the way to being short-changed.

Subscribe now

Share

Share The Almighty Gob. The Satirical Social Philosopher.

Leave a comment

© 2026 John Langley / The Almighty Gob. All rights reserved. Some lefts too. Apparently. Like, um, who knew?

John Langley founded The Almighty Gob, a Bristol-based publication — independent mayoral candidate in 2016 and 2021, and one of Bristol's most forensic observers of institutional power. Writing since 2010, well over 1,000 pieces across seven platforms and right here, on Substack at thealmightygob.com — no party allegiance, no press accreditation, no interest in acquiring either.