Conservatives and Tesco

Just so it doesn't seem I'm picking on the Labour party I was handed the Conservative newsletter for Mitton, big whoop as it seems they've finally discovered that new housing estate next to Leapgate.

An A3 sheet folded in half to produce four A4 pages the front page has a picture of Cllr. John Holden measuring a pothole despite the fact the Worcestershire Reporting page advises you not to, next to it is a big headline "War on Potholes" yeah let's go shoot and bomb them, oh wait that might not work.

The story itself is confusing

At the Stourport Town council Cllr John Holden says, "We need your meeting in February the Town Mayor, help to report all the potholes in Cllr Mike Slater and Cllr John Holden

I didn't even know that the two Councillors suffered from potholes, at this point you realise that there's two columns here; it's not a big gap. The main point is that the two councillors raised concerns about the roads in Stouport and that the County has invested an extra £15m in the County's roads. Well I don't know how much has already been invested and I note that it's the County's roads and not the District's roads; it would be tempting to suggest that the lion's share remains in Worcester, but that would be beneath me.

We do get a tear-off Freepost reply slip on the back for reporting potholes, as Jim said "We'd need to send them pages instead"

Inside on page 2 we get a bit about Tesco and the results of their survey - 47% say yes, 53% say no. Sorry my mistake I'll quote it exactly

YES - 21 (47%) NO - 24 (53%)

45 people of a population of over 19,000… I'm not going to even bother working that out. What is interesting are the reasons from respondents posted under the results.

In the Yes column we get the correctly pointed out fact that it's an upgrade rather then an additional supermarket, but then it all goes a bit strange with the assertions that the traffic would be no different to when it was the Bond Worth and that it'll cut congestion in Tan Lane and Lombard Street. Well Bond Worth wasn't retail and the majority of traffic in Lombard Street is heading for the Co-op, so that's a miss and a partial.

Then we get that this will encourage competition, that Stourport is filled with Charity shops (to the detriment of traders) and that any retailer who's "good at their trade would have nothing to fear". So we get competition well no, any who can't compete will stop trading leaving an empty shop ready to be filled by another Charity shop after all who's going to go head-to-head against Tesco? If they're restricted to food we might get some other types of stores opening, but that's hardly acting as competition to Tesco is it?

In the No column we get a mix "Bridge First, Tesco second" which suggests if Tesco opted to build a second bridge we'd welcome them in. Another points out all the Tesco outlets we already have in the wider area, which doesn't answer the point that we want shoppers to stay here. Then we have the sensible point that the current Tesco location is more suitable for the elderly and less able; but only for those without transport and who cares about them? Someone asks why Tesco can't extend into the Tan Lane School, which is something I've already asked and had answered - we need more housing. Oh and finally the roads won't cope, which we all know. The article ends by informing us there's a Tesco Planning Committee meeting tomorrow at 6pm at the High School, which is funny as they're holding a Development Control Committee Meeting there at exactly the same time.

Onto Raven Street, which I hadn't realised was part of Mitton and still not sure; you'd think they'd be something somewhere that showed Ward boundaries. Anyway we've got four streetlights now instead of one, it is/was a dark, dank route.

Third page is a Go Conservatives advert I won't repeat it.

The final page has the tear-off slip and another two-column that looks like one-column story with Cllr. John Holden "out and about" in the Stagborough and Lower Lickhill areas of Mitton" residents of which were happy to see them as apparently they only ever see the Conservatives about, ironic when you consider it's appears quite the reverse on the other side.