Tough Questions from Shepway Youth

Drugs, crime but not rock n roll were discussed at a Question Time event held in the Imperial Hotel on October 16.

Members of Shepway Youth Forum put their questions to a panel including Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Damian Collins, Labour PPC Donald Worsley, District Council Leader Robert Bliss, Leader of Shepway Liberal Democrats Lynne Beaumont and Shepway District Police Commissioner Martin Bradley.

Members of the panel listened to questions covering subjects such as ASBOs, crime, travel issues, drug laws and school pressures for over 2 hours, giving their opinions and offering to help.

Learning that Stagecoach bus service charge full fares to anyone over 14 years of age, Cllr Beaumont promised to help, “I think this is wrong. I will write them a letter and let’s start a campaign,” she said.

Damian Collins supported concessions for students “I think it’s reasonable to have lower fares for under-18s who are in full time education.”

Other areas provoked lengthy debate, with the audience unafraid to challenge their elders and highlighting differences of opinion. The issue of legalising drugs split the panel. Mr. Worsley and Mr. Collins were against changes to the law, reasoning that making soft drugs more available could lead to abuse of harder drugs. Cllr Beaumont disagreed, arguing that “if alcohol was invented today it would be banned.”

The last similar event was held was over three years ago. Hoping in increase youth involvement and interst in politics as part of Local Democracy Week, organiser and Shepway Youth Development officer Tamasin Jarret said “Unfortunately attendance was slightly down on last time but I am happy with the event. The feedback was very positive. The Youth Forum meets fortnightly at the Civic Centre and we aim to hold an AGM in November."

Constitution Changes Branded ‘Nuts’ at Council Meeting

Changes to the Constitution of the Council were branded ‘nuts’ by Liberal Democrat during a full council meeting held on September 30. Proposed changes alter the way citizens can present petitions and affect the process of scrutinising council decisions.

The number of signatures required for a petition to be presented to Council will be increased from 50 to 250. Accusing the Conservatives of making the council more remote from the people, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Lynne Beaumont said “Since the start of this council we have had four petitions. Why make it more difficult? How will small groups of residents voice their concerns?”

The debate descended into angry scenes as Conservative councillors refuted this. Conservative Councillor Malcom Dearden responded that to allow petitions of only 50 signatories would be “counter-productive and counter-democratic.”

Liberal Democrat councillors were reminded that in 2004 a petition of over 20,000 signatures protesting against the closure of public conveniences was collected against a Liberal Democrat administration. Struggling to be heard over the ensuing cheers and jeers in the chamber, Cllr. Beaumont protested that the petition referred to a “different council”.

Changes to the call-in-procedure, which allows certain decisions to be reconsidered, provoked further sharp exchanges. Under the proposed changes to call in decisions at least two points from the following list will have to be fulfilled:

· the decision is claimed to be outside or contrary to the budget and policy framework.
· there was inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision.
· there was inadequate evidence on which to base the decision.
· the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome.
· there is a potential human rights challenge.
· there is insufficient consideration of the advice of the statutory officers.

Liberal Democrat Councillor Matthews expressed disbelief at the change noting the changes appear to mean that a possible human rights challenge is not enough for a decision to be called in. “This is nuts, and places the Council at risk” he said.

The changes to the constitution are part of a wider debate on democracy in the district and provoked strong comments from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in letters to local papers and postings on internet homepages. Conservative councillors repeatedly deny Liberal Democrat allegations that they are attempting to stifle debate and limit the opportunities for scrutiny of decisions and public representations and have accused Conservatives of ‘ripping up the Constitution in an arrogant power grab’. (http://shepwaylibdems.org.uk/news/001543/shepway_conservatives_rip_up_council_constitution_in_arrogant_power_grab.html)

Edit 19 October - Responding to questions from 'From under the stone' for opinions on the changes after the meeting, Cllr Matthews stated that the change to rules on petitions "just pushes the public further away - its as if their views are just not wanted," and that the Council is "arrogant, uncaring, and bluntly, undemocratic."

The Conservatives have not responded to similar questions.

Report A/09/08 – Review of the Constitution.
http://www.shepway.gov.uk/webapp/service/cads/doc/council/Reports/rcoun20090930%20Review%20of%20the%20Constitution.doc?download=download

Heralding a New Bias?

Today (October 1) the Herald carried a Conservative response to Lib Dem Councillor Neil Matthews' incendary letter of two weeks ago which accused the Conservative administration of 'their intention to keep democracy in the dark.' (http://shepwaylibdems.org.uk/articles/000122/shepways_tories__frightened_of_democracy.html). Perhaps the only blight on this barnstorming performance was the ending which appeared more on message for the Conservatives with the clarion call 'It's time for change'. (http://www.conservatives.com/).

The response (http://www.shepwayconservatives.org.uk/index.php?sectionid=3&pagenumber=427) is equally full of vim and vigour and worth a read, with counter examples and a sharp ending. Readers can (and of course should) decide themselves who wins this one.

What really caught this blogger's eye is that in addition to taking a swipe at the Lib Dems, Cllr Tillson also has a pop at the Herald. Next to the horrifically blown up head of Cllr Tillson (don't panic - I am referring to the terrible pixellation of his photo), the title bar and preamble are:


Sportingly the Herald have left off this rather bitter opening shot though the ususal 'anti-conservative bias' is in full force - directly opposite Cllr Tillson's letter is yet another 'Commons Touch' column from our-as-yet-unelected MP, Damian Collins.

Lib Dems Criticise 'Backslapping' Motion

Liberal Democrat comments provoked angry responses at the Council meeting held in the Civic Centre on September 30. A motion put forward by the Conservative group commended the Conservative administration and Shepway Rail for Folkestone group for their parts in securing the new high-speed rail link, congratulated Southeastern Trains for the introduction of this link and called on Rail for Folkestone and the Chief Executive of the Council to impress upon Southeastern the continuing need for services to run from both Folkestone stations.

Lib Dem leader Lynne Beaumont said “These motions are backslapping. We had a stop at Westenhangar which isn’t mentioned now.” Lib Dem Councillor Matthews added “These motions should be for council business, not this.”

The comments provoked outbursts from Conservative councillors. Councillor Monk accused the Liberal Democrats of sour grapes, saying “The Liberal Democrats point the way but don’t do anything.” Councillor Love noted that the motion calls for an ongoing commitment from Rail for Folkestone and that he would support the motion.

The Liberal Democrats attempted to refer the motion to the Community Overview Committee but this was not passed. The Council then voted unanimously to pass the motion.

Damian Collins Loses Column

Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Damian Collins’ run of columns in the local papers came to an end last week as Mr. Howard resumed writing duties.

Generously Mr. Collins has used some of his spare time to…err…write another column for the Herald, this time about the first run of the new high speed train. Readers only have to turn to page 4 to get to the column complete with large picture of Mr. Collins with the train and local dignitaries. In a well written piece (http://www.damiancollins.com/record.jsp?type=news&ID=366 – it was NOT printed in the Kentish Express) Mr. Collins goes through the usual praise of the new service and asserts that “this could be one of the greatest economic benefits we have received since the opening of the Tunnel”, without going into detail what those benefits have been.

In addition to the high-speed service, South Eastern Trains has also agreed to maintain a slower service to Charing Cross (the high speed link goes to St. Pancreas). A large part of the latter development is due to lobbying from district politicians, local interest groups and Rail for Folkestone… but not Damian Collins.

Edit October 2 - credit where credit's due - one of the Rail 4 Folkestone group wrote to the Herald highlighting the role of Michael Howard in lobbying for the High Speed service. Genuinely something Mr. Howard can be proud of as he retires.

A Common Column?

Those who take a keen interest in local politics will have noticed that Mr. Howard has not penned a column in the local rags since July 27 and is probably enjoying a well earned break. Or perhaps attending Entrée Gold board meetings in Vancouver. Or maybe visiting Entrée’s site in Mongolia. Or possibly on a cruise courtesy of Saga. Or attending meetings for Helphire (continue yourselves. look at http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/register_of_members__interests.cfm).

Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party, Mr. Damian Collins, has taken up the mantle and given us his thoughts on Dungeness power station, a national day of remembrance and how to save the economy. While it is reasonable to assume that the elected representative should have a regular space to inform constituents of his or her thoughts and actions, the idea of giving the space to a PPC from only one party seems distinctly unfair.

This matter is raising some eyebrows. Neil Matthews, PPC for the Lib Dems, tells me I am not the only person to notice this and that he will approach the papers about a column for himself. PPC for the Labour Party, Mr. Donald Worsley, has not answered my request for his thoughts on this issue.

A column for each candidate seems excessive (last election there were 9 PPCs, including Lord Toby Jug), but surely if the incumbent is away then it seems the column should either be windmilled between those who are vying for the seat or the space given over to local letters?

Although Mr. Collins has had a fair amount of column inches in both papers over recent weeks (more on this soon) letters and stories from almost all parties are carried regularly so there is no case for bias. The possibility of an oversight is more likely than something more cynical. Even if there were allegations of bias, so what? Restrictions on broadcasters do not seem to apply to papers, and the nationals are well known for political leanings.

"In non-broadcast media, political advertising, in both the party political sense and the wider sense, is allowed but the ads must comply with the CAP Code" (in essence no lies, etc) http://www.asa.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2006/Its+political+but+is+it+correct.htm

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Howard returns, or if other PPCs start to contribute.

Update August 27 - the KM now have a Neil Matthews column. Perhaps this will galvanise Donald Worsley into action. The Herald still have only Damian Collins...maybe next week?

No Election Bliss for Conservatives

Conservative Councillor Robert Bliss (for he remains the leader of Shepway District Council) has lost his seat on Kent county council by 11 votes to Lib Dem Tim Prater. The Shepway Conservative website is bemoaning the influence of UKIP for splitting their vote (http://www.shepwayconservatives.org.uk/index.php?sectionid=3&pagenumber=400), and looking at the results on the Kent county council website and attempting to use my rudimentary and very rusty maths they seem to have a point.

While the Lib Dems are pleased with becoming the official opposition, they are a tiny minority in a sea of blue(http://www.kent.gov.uk/Kcc.eGov.Elections.Public.Site/CountyPage.aspx).

Across the county, Labour lost 19 of 21 seats. In Folkestone North the proportion of the conservative vote dropped by over 11% the Lib Dem share also dropped by over 6%. In Folkestone South the Tory share dropped by over 5% while the Lib Dem share also fell by over 3%.

In losing by 11 votes (less than 0.1% of the vote), perhaps Conservative HQ and councillor Bliss might reflect on the standard of their communications (see posts below). In addition to poorly written letters, the Lib Dems have been much more media savvy in comparison. Tim Prater and the Lib Dems have been seen to be more active over local issues such as pot holes, street lighting and the Leas Lift, while the Conservatives seem to do little except get exasperated at queries to their decisions.

The Leas Cliff lift saga has been something of a gift to opposition parties. The water powered lift is leased from the Radnor estate and although it is a loss making exercise, it is seen as something of a symbol and a selling point for the town. The terms of the lease place onerous financial obligations on the council. On March 18 the Conservative-dominated Cabinet of Shepway council voted (with press and public excluded due to sensitive commercial information being discussed) to terminate the lease with immediate effect.

This prompted a hastily organised protest (with, of course, the Lib Dems http://shepwaylibdems.org.uk/news/001485/this_is_shepway_report_folkestone_leas_lift_protest_draws_crowds.html). Petitions on the Lib Dem website followed, as did letters to the local rags chimed with vocal locals. The decision was ‘called in’ – sent back to the cabinet by the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee - who on April 15 decided to keep the lift running, but the damage had been done. It may be best to close the lift, but the way the conservatives on the council went about it gifted the Lib Dems photo calls, petitions and an opportunity for populist politics.

At the time of writing a final decision has not yet been reached on the future of the lift. I am not suggesting that the Conservatives are wrong or right on the lift issue – without transparency how will we know? I am suggesting that with some foresight, some empathy with local issues and an understanding that they need to connect with local voters 12 more people may have voted and councillor Bliss would still have his seat on Kent county council.

Conservatives Kick Off Council and European Election Drive

As the next set of elections get closer (County and European), the political parties in the district are becoming much more visible. Activists and candidates are handing out various pamphlets and newsletters in the town and by the stations, the distinctive luminous-orange diamond-shaped placards of the Lib Dems are appearing in gardens and windows, Labour's almost non-existent presence seems limited to angry letters in the Herald and KE. The Conservatives have sent out letters (see right) which include a registrations form for postal voting. These forms should be returned to Conservative HQ, where the Conservatives will check the forms and submit them on your behalf.

Whilst the Conservative letter has irked the Lib Dems, with Lynne Beamont declaring it legal but not morally right, it may just be sour grapes that they missed a trick. Although it seems to be sailing close to the wind I can't come up with a watertight argument why they shouldn't do this. A non-too-in-depth search on the rules of what is permissible hasn't come up with anything either. The Conservatives aren't voting for you - they're merely registering you.

My problem with the letter (aside from the awful style and shabby presentation - where was the proof reading!?! What aboutfewer than than 4 colours for text?!? How about not trying to get every possible permutation of font / size / italics / bold text into one letter!?!) is that national politics are shamelessly exploited for local gain.

Whilst Gordon Brown is trapped in a very slow drawn-out and public car crash (although his own individual problems are perhaps lessened by the maelstrom that is engulfing Westminster as a whole) the many facets of which I do not need to detail here, surely candidates for Shepway and Kent elections should focus on local issues? Councillor Robert Bliss, Shepway District Council Leader and Kent County Councillor for Folkestone West waits till the sixth paragraph before mentioning the benefits he has brought to west Folkestone. The offer to help people with local matters amazingly gets in at P.P.S. level (after the option to help Cllr Bliss's campaign with your time and /or money). This is after an exhortation to

'send a very powerful message to Gordon Brown and Labour' (colours as original)

followed by some comments reminding us of the Lib Dems problems when in power, and a reminder that a General Election could be called with only 17 days' notice.

Precisely what influence County Councillors have on national governance (and therefore what voting Conservative at local level will acheive) is not stated, nor for that matter is Kent County Council's negligence/carelessness (http://kentonline.co.uk/kol08/article/default.asp?article_id=61229 ) in chucking money into Iceland's banks after other councils had already seen the writing on the wall. Shepway's position as the 388th most improved council over the last year out of ...err... 388, under the leadership of ...err... Robert Bliss is also unmentioned. The assertion in the letter (above) that Kent County Council is the best in the country is not referenced, and interestingly not mentioned on the Kent County Council website.

So what's the point of this blog? I suppose it's a post born out of exasperation. With trust between the electorate as a whole and elected representatives of all parties as low as I can remember, can't those politicians that can make local-level differences at concentrate on how to improve people's lives rather than flinging national-level shit at each other? Why isn't there a grass-roots rebirth of the elected representing those who elected them rather than concentrating on the filth and power play at the top? Where is the re-generation from below?

Why are national level politics infecting local level politics? Perhaps because the idea of party politics and the partisanship that comes with this has permeated power structures to the detriment of managing, governing and representing the electorate. And why am I apathetically sitting here, writing this rather than changing it myself? Perhaps because the strength of the idea of party politics and the partisanship that comes with this leads me to feel that I cannot change anything.