Shilrley Anne Sommerville, rather than calling for a public enquiry or demanding Audit Scotland get involved to make it even harder for TIE to focus on delivering the project - maybe you could just call up your SNP colleague, Deputy Provost Cardownie - and find out what's going on? Despite playing the daft laddie, he's supposed to have some responsiblity in this.

In fact, rather than trying to undermine TIE at every turn - maybe the SNP could try supporting them against the the private firms who seem dead set to milk the public purse for every penny.

The SNP keep trying to look both ways on the tram project. When are they going to realise that the more the SNP try to distance themselves from the shit - the worse the shit storm gets? They've got a responsibility to deliver, whether they like it or not - for Edinburgh, and indeed the whole of Scotland.

If the project comes in over-budget and Edinburgh is left to carry the can, SNP intransigence at Holyrood will look vindictive - especially as they pursue the worst kind of pork barrell politics, spending millions on pet road building projects, like the Aberdeen bypass.

If the project never makes it to Leith, but get to Haymarket in budget - SNP intransigence will look stupid - as they'll have scunnered the whole city, just to prove a point.

Come to think of it, Alex Salmond, in the right clothes, could look like a right wee Fat Controller. Shame, he can't keep his "runnaway trams" from shooting their mouths off.

As I write this, all over Leith rubbish is pouring out of the bins. There's places all over the city that have not had their bins emptied for at least three weeks. The Edinburgh LibDem environment leader, Cllr Aldridge is trying to blame this on the weather:

“Unfortunately there have been delays affecting some refuse collection routes due to the current cold snap, with some particularly icy roads becoming inaccessible to collection vehicles."

It's clear however that the bad weather isn't the whole story. For a start, it's obvious that the private sector companies that empty the recycling bins can get in to empty those - as every one I've seen has somehow managed to cope with the influx of christmas packaging. Could it be then that the cleansing and refuse staff ongoing 'Work to Rule" is having an impact?

So, bit of a crisis in the city. Councillors getting hundreds of complaints. City looks a real mess. The only thing that's stopping it from smelling like the midden are the weeks of sub zero temperatures. You need a bit more from your staff to tackle the backlog. But morale isn't exactly good. Earlier in the year they didn't take the prospect of a cut in their wages well, so you tried to get them back on side by threatening to outsource their jobs to the private sector. Surprisingly, this move didn't persuade them to end the work to rule, and so what do you next? Astoundingly, if you're Cllr Wheeler, you threaten to sack them all. Now of all times. The council needs all hands on deck to clear snow, ice and a back log of rubbish - in the coldest winter for decades. And this is the best tactical gambit he's got?

However, the executive seem proud of their ideological hatred of the public and voluntary sector, and today we see they've also a disdain for their moaning constituents. Today SNP councillor Work took a leaf out of the John Swinney school of diplomacy by suggesting to snow bound city residents that this is no time for laziness, and that everyone "stop expecting other people to do the work" – unless they are "90 years old".

In fact, it is the councils responsibility to clear at least the main pavements, as opposition leader Cllr Burns points out. This isn't happening, and even main streets like Leith Walk have been worse than ice-rinks for weeks - at least an ice rink is flat. It's interesting to read, in the Daily Telegraph of all places a bit of a comparison between cities:

"The capital’s pavements appeared to have escaped any clearance action from city employees. Yet photographs appeared in several newspapers, including this one, of Glasgow’s pavements being gritted by council workers. How can one city manage, when the other clearly cannot?"

If it's about cash, then surely this is a massive own goal. The bill that the council is running up paying for private sector contractors to fill in some of the service gaps that the Work to Rule / cold snap is leaving behind is rumoured to be in the millions. How long will this process run on for? Long enough to make a serious dent in any of the alledged savings that will be realised by closing 4 city primary schools? It's looking that way. 

After totally mismanaging the school closure process, being forced to back track on the frankly immoral proposals to cut the costs of care services by 20% by putting them out to tender, it seems the Libdem/SNP administration are intent on totally screwing up another key council service by pushing for more privatisation.

One can only come to the conclusion that this council is on some sort of suicide mission. Sadly, they seem intent on taking as many of the city residents, and previously functional council services, down with them as they can.

And by the way. Before you think I'm old school new Labour who thinks everything should be in the public sector forever amen - I'm not. I personally believe that if the council is serious about saving cash they should try radically outsourcing services to local community trusts and specialist non-profit organisations. But that's a subject for a whole other post.

Google watch out!

And this seems to have some interesting unintended consequences. For example, in a bid to ban happy hours, then drinks must be sold at the same price for at least 72 hours. So, pubs are moving to 'drink of the week' offers instead - meaning, er, potentially more cheap booze, as "loss leaders" are still legal.

Some pub managers are getting more creative in a bid to legally run shorter promotions. They offer an 'own brand' drink that happens to be very cheap and only available in very small quantities. So, it might just happen to go 'out of stock' in an hour after it goes on sale. What you want more? Well Oops. Better wait until we get more stock availability, which might be, er next week, at the same time. This tactic is apparently sailing pretty close to the wind, from a legal point of view, but it just goes to show how creative people will nearly always find a loophole in the law. 

What seems more likely is that most bars will simply provide discount food offers instead of booze. In fact the licensing guys were encouraging this. So, soon we might well find ourselves in a position where we're encouraged to drink 5 "full price" bottles of wine when we go out - so that we can get a meal free. Shurely shome mishtake?

Now I've learnt about about the consequences of enforcing a 'no discount offers' policy on booze it would seem that this at least is going to backfire spectacularly. Now, I've no doubt that we need to do something to discourage folk from socially irresponsible drinking. And it would seem some aspects of the bill are a bit better. I like the idea of a 'social responsibility charge' - or lets just call it an extra local tax - to ensure that drinkers pay more of the social costs of their social activities. I hope it will be applied as a percentage cost across all drinks.

And as for minimum pricing, well I don't think it's going to do what the SNP say it will do. Putting the legal arguments about whether it's even possible to implement a minimum pricing policy to one side, it strikes me there's an incredible amount of snobbery implicit in the minimum pricing policy. If you're a rich alcoholic, it would seem that the SNP, by fixating on a minimum price, are extremely comfortable with you getting filthy drunk all the time - even if you do end up using the NHS to pump some fine Scots Whiskey out of your stomach.

Conversely, the 'reclaiming the streets' rhetoric the SNP use to justify minimum pricing seems overblown. If it's true that this policy won't do much to change the price of ned drinks like Buckfast, or Alcopops, well, what's the point? True, I can see minimum pricing affecting hardened, poor, old-school alcoholics who do go for drinking the cheapest thing they can get hold of. However, these folk are not the trouble makers pictured in the 'Scotlands got problems' health promo adverts. Young professional women? Underage drinkers? Students? The kind of people who go to a 'style bar' in the city centre and blow £100 on a night out a couple of times a month, get into a fight, and wind up puking all over Accident and Emergency? They won't be much affected by the minimum pricing policies because they already pay more for their booze when they go out. 

Soon, it seems all those people will be incentivised by bars to go out earlier, on an empty stomach, so that they got time to drink their way to a free dinner before 8pm on a Friday. Looks like we will need a minimum price on burgers and chips too. 

Doh!

After Copenhagen, the entire global population will be: 

1. Sterilised at birth, apart from the chosen few, whose parents have already proven that they can live within a strict Carbon budget. 

2. Governed by an all powerful United Nations that will abolish all the old nation states (nae luck SNP). Delegates will be elected by proportional representation. However, the only people eligible to vote will be the 'Fertile few'. 

3. Forced to wear uncomfy hair shirts and live in caves, or mud huts, where there's a shortage of caves.

4. Probably have their jobs cancelled. All 'dirty BC' (Before Copenhagen) industries will be abolished. People will be forced to take up 'Green' jobs, such as tending the local collectives herd of ruminants and sorting out their dung so that it can be burnt to heat the caves mentioned above. Those that don't comply will be sterilised, and denied a regional travel permit (did we mention you'd need one of those to leave your local collective farm?).

4. Subordinate to Polar Bears, Hedgehogs, Whales and any other species of animal that has been shown to have had a rough deal as a consequence of humanities actions. A massive truth and reconcilliation programme will be set-up, with the head of the UN world government making formal apologies to representatives of each species. 

In addition:

1. The entire population of Indonesia and North America will be swapped around, as an experiment in PC (Post Copenhagen) social justice. 

Don't believe me? Click here.

This time he's pretending to be able show us how the tram project will destroy Lothian Buses.

The main plank in his argument seems to be that the rising costs of the tram project, combined with the economic downturn will see the City of Edinburgh Council saddled with lots of debt. To pay it, they'll need to sell Lothian Buses.

That is indeed one possible scenario, if the Scottish Government doesn't change it's tune and start investing in public transport. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If the SNP will choose to prioritise transport investment in shaving seconds from car journeys between SNP target seats, or building immensely expensive congestion generating bridges, then, even if you believe Calum with his conjecture based assessment of Lothian Buses business, it will be the fault of the SNP if the City of Edinburgh council have to sell Lothian Buses. No-one elses.

The SNP controlled Scottish Government should cover any funding gap that results from tram project overruns - just as they do for road building projects, like the M74 extension.

Please, Calum, change the record. No-ones going to vote for you if you carry on with this 'voice of doom' chat.

Sometimes you can't help but conclude that there's an SNP government department somewhere, dedicated to monitoring the dumbest policies in England, and working out how to launch a slightly crapper, less ambitious, more spun version of the same nonsense.

In England, they had grand plans for 20 Eco-towns, that would revolutionise the way people lived by 2020, or something. Most of those plans bit the dust. In Scotland, well we've got Polnoon.

It would seem that the developers, in return for £10K from the Scottish Government, have hired a slightly better architect than the first one they had, and come up with a plan to build a suburban housing estate that isn't based around cul-de-sacs. Yes folks, they've rediscovered footpaths. And unlike many modern suburban developments it will also have a play park too.

It's apparently, "designed as the conservation area of tomorrow." A formulation of words that hurts my brain. But it must be good. After all John Swinney, the man awarded politician of the year 2009, saw fit to heap a fountain of verbiage all over it. Check this out:

"The Polnoon project demonstrates what can be achieved in a residential development where the focus is on designing quality streets, public spaces and housing. The project collaboration has applied Scottish Government planning advice and Mactaggart & Mickel's award winning track record for good design to ensure an excellent sustainable design which enhances the environment for residents.

"New developments of this kind have an important role to play in helping to position Scotland's economy for recovery while certain a greener and healthier environment and I hope that this project in East Renfrewshire will set a new standard for residential development across Scotland." [Yes, I know that last sentence makes no sense gramatically, but that's what it says on the Scottish Government website.]

Its a revolution. They actually applied Scottish Government planning advice for once. It's not just an over-hyped housing scheme, it's an over-hyped housing scheme that makes manifest an over-hyped economic policy. China must be worried.

The most clever part of all as far as I can see, is that they've made it look just like every other identikit, non-eco, housing development built in the central belt over the last couple of decades. That way they're guaranteed to sell 'em at a tidy profit. What a good use of £10,000 worth of public money.

Sadly it isn't.

It must be a little embarrasing for the SNP in Holyrood to discover that the three local authorities most affected by the project, two of which include SNP members in the executive, are working out how to lodge formal legal complaints about the proposals for the new bridge. And why? Because they know the new bridge will generate vast quantities of traffic, because the new bridge is simply a road - with no investment proposed in public transport. The Scotsman reports:

Councillor Gordon Mackenzie, Edinburgh City Council's transport leader, said: "While I welcome the publication of the bill, we need a firm commitment from the Scottish Government that a focused public transport strategy will be developed.

"Spending over £2bn to have the same traffic queues, or worse, is not a sensible position."

When will the LibDems, Tories, and Labour join the Greens in opposing this farce of a project?