OK, I know this is going to get a stream of Lib Dems complaining under their 'anonymous' non de plume. But, I would be failing in my duty as a Conservative candidate were I not to report a mass market newspapers view of the Lib Dems.
Click on the title for the editorial or click here for the "snake" article.
Have fun reading!!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
The truth on affordable housing
It is emerging that my fears on affordable housing are being found to be true.
If you recall I was contacted by some nurses who were finding they could not afford the newly built "affordable housing for key workers" because the prices were too high to start with. New flats in Kingston are now apparently costing £230k. Even with 50% shared equity schemes nurses and teachers cannot afford the mortgage of £115k on a salary of £25k. I raised the midwives concerns at a Council meeting and lo and behold two days later the Council officers consult legal Counsel on their position and instruct the developer and Housing Association to stop selling until they could determine what was an 'affordable house'. To make it worse the rumour is that city lawyers are buying the reserved key worker housing because the allocation gets released when no 'real' key workers come forward.
The Council appears on the surface to have made an awful mistake but we shall have to work through what can be done. Were it found that the Council had not determined what was meant by affordable housing then it really does cast into doubt the whole handling of this issue. As I have said elsewhere this Council has really got no policy to encourage keyworker housing. I am not even convinced that Government has yet sorted out what they mean by the definition.
We all need these people to live, work and stay in Kingston. Kingston is an expensive place to live. We know that to live here the cheapest accommodation needs a salary in excess of £55k per annum to gain a mortgage. I will not even start on the issue of the damage of Lib Dem local income tax on any house with a joint income over £35k!!
Busy day today. Long group meeting with some important items. It is starting to be an interesting Autumn. I look forward with hope.
If you recall I was contacted by some nurses who were finding they could not afford the newly built "affordable housing for key workers" because the prices were too high to start with. New flats in Kingston are now apparently costing £230k. Even with 50% shared equity schemes nurses and teachers cannot afford the mortgage of £115k on a salary of £25k. I raised the midwives concerns at a Council meeting and lo and behold two days later the Council officers consult legal Counsel on their position and instruct the developer and Housing Association to stop selling until they could determine what was an 'affordable house'. To make it worse the rumour is that city lawyers are buying the reserved key worker housing because the allocation gets released when no 'real' key workers come forward.
The Council appears on the surface to have made an awful mistake but we shall have to work through what can be done. Were it found that the Council had not determined what was meant by affordable housing then it really does cast into doubt the whole handling of this issue. As I have said elsewhere this Council has really got no policy to encourage keyworker housing. I am not even convinced that Government has yet sorted out what they mean by the definition.
We all need these people to live, work and stay in Kingston. Kingston is an expensive place to live. We know that to live here the cheapest accommodation needs a salary in excess of £55k per annum to gain a mortgage. I will not even start on the issue of the damage of Lib Dem local income tax on any house with a joint income over £35k!!
Busy day today. Long group meeting with some important items. It is starting to be an interesting Autumn. I look forward with hope.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Lib Dem lies on free personal care
Cannot believe they are at it again.
Charles Kennedy has put out another press release saying they will have free personal care when they in power. They will never be in power at Westminster but they are in Kingston.
What do they do here? - introduce 1000% increases in charges and means test. They not only now say one thing on one door step and another on the next door step but they even allow their Leader to make claims they know they have already betrayed.
Charles Kennedy has put out another press release saying they will have free personal care when they in power. They will never be in power at Westminster but they are in Kingston.
What do they do here? - introduce 1000% increases in charges and means test. They not only now say one thing on one door step and another on the next door step but they even allow their Leader to make claims they know they have already betrayed.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Sugar, Spice and the Nanny state
It has been a busy few days what with Association meetings, deliveries and good news at work on future contracts.
However the most startling news has been the growth in people coming back to us from the Lib Dems. The reception on door steps has been good but the returns on surveying against how people pledged at the last election has shown a marked increase in those happy to declare they will vote Conservative.
I am fed up with this nanny state Government. Means tests, form filling, telling us to do this and to do that, the monitoring, the evaluation, the target setting etc etc etc. But now it has reached a point of no return.
Last week the Government told us we were all eating too much salt. This week they are launching a campaign to stop us eating sugar. One almost wonders what the point of being alive is if there are pleasures that we can no longer enjoy.
I do not smoke, and I never have. But there is something idiotic about trying to ban smoking in public places. I have been in the US where smoking is banned in roof top retaurants and where one side of the street is for smokers and the other non smokers. The reality is that this suppression, like that of hunters, should not be what Government is about. But it is the contradictions that are the most striking. Whilst some talk of banning smoking the Government encourages drinking by extending opening hours; is there a difference between smokers lung and drinkers livers? Someone, not sure whom, said that 'all actions have a consequence' and I am afraid that sometimes Government would be wise to heed this advice. For every decision to give up one habit there is always the human desire to start another. Habits are comforting and sometimes people need a comfort zone. So 'leave our sweet teeth alone!'
Still, one thing did make me laugh. The Lib Dem spokesman on health claimed that the Government was ignoring binge drinking that was damaging health and fuelling violence and saying that the Government needs to do something about it. What was the Lib Dem solution? - "Clear labelling with numbers of units should be mandatory." What are they talking about? If they have nothing to say it would be better to say nothing!
However the most startling news has been the growth in people coming back to us from the Lib Dems. The reception on door steps has been good but the returns on surveying against how people pledged at the last election has shown a marked increase in those happy to declare they will vote Conservative.
I am fed up with this nanny state Government. Means tests, form filling, telling us to do this and to do that, the monitoring, the evaluation, the target setting etc etc etc. But now it has reached a point of no return.
Last week the Government told us we were all eating too much salt. This week they are launching a campaign to stop us eating sugar. One almost wonders what the point of being alive is if there are pleasures that we can no longer enjoy.
I do not smoke, and I never have. But there is something idiotic about trying to ban smoking in public places. I have been in the US where smoking is banned in roof top retaurants and where one side of the street is for smokers and the other non smokers. The reality is that this suppression, like that of hunters, should not be what Government is about. But it is the contradictions that are the most striking. Whilst some talk of banning smoking the Government encourages drinking by extending opening hours; is there a difference between smokers lung and drinkers livers? Someone, not sure whom, said that 'all actions have a consequence' and I am afraid that sometimes Government would be wise to heed this advice. For every decision to give up one habit there is always the human desire to start another. Habits are comforting and sometimes people need a comfort zone. So 'leave our sweet teeth alone!'
Still, one thing did make me laugh. The Lib Dem spokesman on health claimed that the Government was ignoring binge drinking that was damaging health and fuelling violence and saying that the Government needs to do something about it. What was the Lib Dem solution? - "Clear labelling with numbers of units should be mandatory." What are they talking about? If they have nothing to say it would be better to say nothing!
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The Westminster Hunt
Today we had the ban on hunting with hounds forced through the commons. There are two aspects to this issue and I object to both of them.
The first is that a Government with a huge majority are forcing through a ban on an issue for which there is no public interest and all the while the public services are not improving and we are being taxed to the hilt. The Countryside Alliance will argue this is urban MP's forcing through a ban on the country; they may be right. But actually the urban dweller does not care less about the issue. No one I have spoken to in Kingston & Surbiton in the past few months has raised with me their passion to have hunting banned. Instead this is a desperate Blair offering slops to the backbenchers of his party. But it gets worse...Blair then complains that the House of Lords might overturn it and he will have to force it through using the Parliament Act. Well excuse me but who made a complete mess of the House of Lords by half reforming it? If he had done what the Conservatives had argued for, a fully elected Lord's, then their objections would have been legitimatised.
But what of the real issue? I am against a ban on hunting. The simple reality is that destroying the way of life of our countryside when not understanding the delicate balance that exists is ridiculous. I am an urbanite. I visit the countryside but would not have the knowledge to know what is best for it. I am also prepared to accept the advice that a ban on hunting will lead to much more cruel and slower deaths for the foxes through poisoning, gassing, snaring and shooting where death can be slow. Those who believe that the fox will no longer be killed are deluding themselves because they are vermin.
But this subject will divide parties. The two major parties did not have 100% support either way and the smaller parties such as the Lib Dems were split down the middle, although being cynical you needed to look at where their seats were as that may well have determined the way they voted!
The first is that a Government with a huge majority are forcing through a ban on an issue for which there is no public interest and all the while the public services are not improving and we are being taxed to the hilt. The Countryside Alliance will argue this is urban MP's forcing through a ban on the country; they may be right. But actually the urban dweller does not care less about the issue. No one I have spoken to in Kingston & Surbiton in the past few months has raised with me their passion to have hunting banned. Instead this is a desperate Blair offering slops to the backbenchers of his party. But it gets worse...Blair then complains that the House of Lords might overturn it and he will have to force it through using the Parliament Act. Well excuse me but who made a complete mess of the House of Lords by half reforming it? If he had done what the Conservatives had argued for, a fully elected Lord's, then their objections would have been legitimatised.
But what of the real issue? I am against a ban on hunting. The simple reality is that destroying the way of life of our countryside when not understanding the delicate balance that exists is ridiculous. I am an urbanite. I visit the countryside but would not have the knowledge to know what is best for it. I am also prepared to accept the advice that a ban on hunting will lead to much more cruel and slower deaths for the foxes through poisoning, gassing, snaring and shooting where death can be slow. Those who believe that the fox will no longer be killed are deluding themselves because they are vermin.
But this subject will divide parties. The two major parties did not have 100% support either way and the smaller parties such as the Lib Dems were split down the middle, although being cynical you needed to look at where their seats were as that may well have determined the way they voted!
Lib Dem Utopia
The Lib Dems annouced their pre, early, draft manifesto. Being cynical I wonder whether they rushed it out to try and clear up the confusion of some of the more junior MP's declaring they wanted to privatise the health service.
In any case my slamming of their policies would be construed as political so instead I will take you to a national daily newspaper that tells it as it clearly is:
In any case my slamming of their policies would be construed as political so instead I will take you to a national daily newspaper that tells it as it clearly is:
"All that was missing was a promise that under Charles Kennedy's benign rule, chocolate truffles would sprout from every tree, and elves and fairies would bring us our breakfast in bed."
Monday, September 13, 2004
Ticket the elderly
Had a busy day today.
Early morning photocall at the Post Office in Chiltern Drive and then lots of catch up on post during the course of the day. Constant stream of letters from residents with all nature of issues.
Meetings in the afternoon and then a meeting of one of the Conservative Group think tanks at the Council. This was followed with a ward meeting in Old Malden looking at action days and events over the next few weeks. Great enthusiasm for really getting things moving, inspired by good results at the June elections.
In an earlier blog I talked about traffic wardens being too rigid in the issuance of tickets and that some flexibility needed to be built into the system. Lo and behold I find that the Evening Standard have run a story that says a Kingston traffic warden was sacked because he refused to give a ticket to an elderly couple who he allowed to park on a double yellow line whilst the disabled husband got out of the car! If this is true it is absolute nonsense and the Council should be questioning whether it should be connected with such a lack of compassion.
Early morning photocall at the Post Office in Chiltern Drive and then lots of catch up on post during the course of the day. Constant stream of letters from residents with all nature of issues.
Meetings in the afternoon and then a meeting of one of the Conservative Group think tanks at the Council. This was followed with a ward meeting in Old Malden looking at action days and events over the next few weeks. Great enthusiasm for really getting things moving, inspired by good results at the June elections.
In an earlier blog I talked about traffic wardens being too rigid in the issuance of tickets and that some flexibility needed to be built into the system. Lo and behold I find that the Evening Standard have run a story that says a Kingston traffic warden was sacked because he refused to give a ticket to an elderly couple who he allowed to park on a double yellow line whilst the disabled husband got out of the car! If this is true it is absolute nonsense and the Council should be questioning whether it should be connected with such a lack of compassion.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Post Offices
Busy few days. Saturday had an Association lunch (60 people) and today had a family lunch with my parents-in-law. I also sing in the choir of Kingston Parish Church and this was our first Sunday back after the Summer hols.
The bad news is the proposed closure of three post offices in Kingston & Surbiton; one in Old Malden and two in Berrylands (Chiltern Drive and Berrylands Road). The really crazy closures are those of Old Malden and Berrylands Road, which both serve the elderly communities around them.
We will of course fight this closure as it is clearly mad. Given these campaigns are sometimes(though rarely) won it does make me think though that maybe the solution should be to make other provision, maybe from the Council, as a service to their residents. Stamps can now be purchased anywhere but what of the community feeling for the elderly pensioner who does not want their pension paid into a bank account?
One would hope that this type of campaign could be cross party, as no one agrees with the closure, but I suppose that will not happen. Interestingly the Lib Dems policy on the Post Office is to privatise it; something neither the Thatcher or Major Governments attempted. Trouble with the Lib Dem policy is that the reason they are closing thse Post Offices is they are losing money. Do the Lib Dems believe that privatising them will make them less likely to close non profitable Post Offices?
I believe that we need to find a new way of providing community services that are truly local and local authorities need to be given the power to innovate and attempt a birth of a new type of lcoal delivery of services.
The bad news is the proposed closure of three post offices in Kingston & Surbiton; one in Old Malden and two in Berrylands (Chiltern Drive and Berrylands Road). The really crazy closures are those of Old Malden and Berrylands Road, which both serve the elderly communities around them.
We will of course fight this closure as it is clearly mad. Given these campaigns are sometimes(though rarely) won it does make me think though that maybe the solution should be to make other provision, maybe from the Council, as a service to their residents. Stamps can now be purchased anywhere but what of the community feeling for the elderly pensioner who does not want their pension paid into a bank account?
One would hope that this type of campaign could be cross party, as no one agrees with the closure, but I suppose that will not happen. Interestingly the Lib Dems policy on the Post Office is to privatise it; something neither the Thatcher or Major Governments attempted. Trouble with the Lib Dem policy is that the reason they are closing thse Post Offices is they are losing money. Do the Lib Dems believe that privatising them will make them less likely to close non profitable Post Offices?
I believe that we need to find a new way of providing community services that are truly local and local authorities need to be given the power to innovate and attempt a birth of a new type of lcoal delivery of services.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Housing and crack dens
I heard today that a Kingston crack den that had been closed for three months under new legislation has reopened because the Council did not evict the tenants. I hope to God this is not true because the Police have invested a good deal of time telling residents around the den that the occupants would not be returning. Given the council Leaders stance on this it appears that he will have a good deal to answer for should this prove to be true.
Investigations continue and I will let you know what happens.
Investigations continue and I will let you know what happens.
Eastminsters
You really could not make this up Blair soap opera stuff up! Clearly the very thought of Gordon Brown taken over made Blair break into a sweat and hardened his determination until someone other than Brown could be lined up to take over.
It's funny but my childhood recollections of when Margaret Thatcher reshuffled were that she really went for large scale changes. Again, it may be rose tinted spectacles but I am sure we never had only one Chancellor and two Foreign Secretaries in Thatcher's first two terms. But there we go, suppose it is the price of making deals in restaurants! (Of course having checked my facts I note thee Conservative Chancellors were in post for approx four years, with the exception of Nigel Lawson who was longer. As for Foreign Secretaries there were 6, including the short time John Major had the job)
Long day at work today. Had three meetings to attend; Conservative association, Citizen's Advice Bureau and Surbiton Neighbourhood meeting. The Neighbourhood meeting went on interminably. There must be something that can be done to speed these things up. If the length of meeting was commensurate with the amount of power we have then that would be fine but our power is pretty limited.
It's funny but my childhood recollections of when Margaret Thatcher reshuffled were that she really went for large scale changes. Again, it may be rose tinted spectacles but I am sure we never had only one Chancellor and two Foreign Secretaries in Thatcher's first two terms. But there we go, suppose it is the price of making deals in restaurants! (Of course having checked my facts I note thee Conservative Chancellors were in post for approx four years, with the exception of Nigel Lawson who was longer. As for Foreign Secretaries there were 6, including the short time John Major had the job)
Long day at work today. Had three meetings to attend; Conservative association, Citizen's Advice Bureau and Surbiton Neighbourhood meeting. The Neighbourhood meeting went on interminably. There must be something that can be done to speed these things up. If the length of meeting was commensurate with the amount of power we have then that would be fine but our power is pretty limited.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
The minister for families and parking in Kingston
Having lost one member of your cabinet because they want to "spend more time with their family" is it not odd that you bring back another who only a short while ago resigned to "spend more time with his family". The people of this country are not stupid. What they see is a divided and confused Government more concerned with their own internal rows than running the country.
Tonight we had a council meeting debating car parking in Kington. The Lib Dems would have us agree to their being no new parking spaces in Kingston despite them signing up with a developer who wants to add 20% extra shops in Kingston. Madness, do we really want to kill retail in Kingston? The most complaints I get from Kingston residents is that shopping in Kingston is a nightmare because you cannot park. Facts and figures are one thing but a reputation is another!!
Good day but far too late to bed because catching up with correspondance.
Tonight we had a council meeting debating car parking in Kington. The Lib Dems would have us agree to their being no new parking spaces in Kingston despite them signing up with a developer who wants to add 20% extra shops in Kingston. Madness, do we really want to kill retail in Kingston? The most complaints I get from Kingston residents is that shopping in Kingston is a nightmare because you cannot park. Facts and figures are one thing but a reputation is another!!
Good day but far too late to bed because catching up with correspondance.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Pensions Crisis or Taxation Grabbing?
I am fairly young - just - on the cusp - as it were!!
I put away money in a pension every month like a large number of people do. But the political agenda that appears to be emerging at the moment is around the punishment of those who took the sensible approach of saving all their lives.
Pensions have been hit massively by the changes Gordon Brown brought in; raiding pension funds by £5bn. As if to make matters worse they also then means test so that those who have saved and paid taxes in their working lives get hit again in their retirement lives. Is there anything more demeaning to a proud elderly person than having their affairs raked over through means testing?
Then look at what the Lib Dems did last week. Not only charge higher amounts to those with savings but also means test to check what they claim they have as income.
But what is at the root of all these claims is taxation. The simple fact is that Gordon Brown would not have needed to raid pensions if he had been honest on taxation and told us that all his extra spending would need taxation through income tax. So he charges pensioners for his spending.
The Lib Dems in Kingston would not need to create a new tax through charging if they were not spending on other things such as their local comic - Livin' Kingston. All the while the Lib Dems go on about a Local Income Tax. But a discusson on local income tax would not have begun if taxes were lower and Council tax had not been fraudulently abused by this Government. By arguing Local Income Tax you hide the penalising level of taxation we are having to pay generally. But then the Lib Dems are a party of high taxation and high spending, as we have seen in Kingston.
Do not get me wrong, I believe there is a strong argument for the ability to pay to be taken into account in Council Tax, but a Local Income Tax is not the answer. I have given my position on this before which you can follow through this link. I also gather that the Lib Dems want to give pensioners over 75 an extra £25 a week. This is not properly costed, rushed out a soon as they heard the Secretary of State for Pensions was resigning and amounts to an electoral bribe that they know they will never have to deliver. Most of all it does not end the pain of means testing for all pensioners.
Whatever else the link between inflation and pensions needs to be re established and a long hard look needs to be made at what encouragement can be given to help people save. I know there has been some discussion about schemes where the Government puts in a pound for every pound you put in. Maybe that is the way forward, but whatever scheme it is what we all want is certainty in retirement. As yet I am not sure we have that; young or old.
I put away money in a pension every month like a large number of people do. But the political agenda that appears to be emerging at the moment is around the punishment of those who took the sensible approach of saving all their lives.
Pensions have been hit massively by the changes Gordon Brown brought in; raiding pension funds by £5bn. As if to make matters worse they also then means test so that those who have saved and paid taxes in their working lives get hit again in their retirement lives. Is there anything more demeaning to a proud elderly person than having their affairs raked over through means testing?
Then look at what the Lib Dems did last week. Not only charge higher amounts to those with savings but also means test to check what they claim they have as income.
But what is at the root of all these claims is taxation. The simple fact is that Gordon Brown would not have needed to raid pensions if he had been honest on taxation and told us that all his extra spending would need taxation through income tax. So he charges pensioners for his spending.
The Lib Dems in Kingston would not need to create a new tax through charging if they were not spending on other things such as their local comic - Livin' Kingston. All the while the Lib Dems go on about a Local Income Tax. But a discusson on local income tax would not have begun if taxes were lower and Council tax had not been fraudulently abused by this Government. By arguing Local Income Tax you hide the penalising level of taxation we are having to pay generally. But then the Lib Dems are a party of high taxation and high spending, as we have seen in Kingston.
Do not get me wrong, I believe there is a strong argument for the ability to pay to be taken into account in Council Tax, but a Local Income Tax is not the answer. I have given my position on this before which you can follow through this link. I also gather that the Lib Dems want to give pensioners over 75 an extra £25 a week. This is not properly costed, rushed out a soon as they heard the Secretary of State for Pensions was resigning and amounts to an electoral bribe that they know they will never have to deliver. Most of all it does not end the pain of means testing for all pensioners.
Whatever else the link between inflation and pensions needs to be re established and a long hard look needs to be made at what encouragement can be given to help people save. I know there has been some discussion about schemes where the Government puts in a pound for every pound you put in. Maybe that is the way forward, but whatever scheme it is what we all want is certainty in retirement. As yet I am not sure we have that; young or old.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Back to work
I am back!
Great weeks break with some good weather. Children had a great time before they return to school tomorrow.
Also have had an eventful and action packed weekend. In amongst some delivering also visited a Chariot festival in Chessington - brightly coloured festival organised by the youth of a new Hindu temple in Hook.
On Sunday afternoon I acted as the civic representative at the induction of a new priest at St. John's Church in Grove ward. Good size congregation and Bishops there to welcome a new priest and family into Grove. The church in Grove really is at the heart of its community.
Saturday evening was at a supper party held by one of our Councillors on Kingston Council. They have served some 21 years as a councillor in Kingston. Being a councillor is reqarding but hard work and it is remarkable that someone should give this much of their lives to serve the community in which they live.
I noticed that another Government Minister has resigned to spend more time with his family.
I am not going to make the obvious point about him going before being pushed. However the more serious aspect is why it is that he needs to spend more time with his family - like a procession of Ministers going back 15 years have seemed to want to do. Are we suggesting that politics is for single people only? If we are then I fear for this country because we do need a mixture of people in Government who understand the pressures and demands of modern life and have bought up families and used schools, or had elderly or ill relatives who have needed hospital care. Only with those experiences can Government policy respond to the real needs of real people - and not career politicians who have only ever 'done' politics and only ever had responsibility for themselves.
Great weeks break with some good weather. Children had a great time before they return to school tomorrow.
Also have had an eventful and action packed weekend. In amongst some delivering also visited a Chariot festival in Chessington - brightly coloured festival organised by the youth of a new Hindu temple in Hook.
On Sunday afternoon I acted as the civic representative at the induction of a new priest at St. John's Church in Grove ward. Good size congregation and Bishops there to welcome a new priest and family into Grove. The church in Grove really is at the heart of its community.
Saturday evening was at a supper party held by one of our Councillors on Kingston Council. They have served some 21 years as a councillor in Kingston. Being a councillor is reqarding but hard work and it is remarkable that someone should give this much of their lives to serve the community in which they live.
I noticed that another Government Minister has resigned to spend more time with his family.
I am not going to make the obvious point about him going before being pushed. However the more serious aspect is why it is that he needs to spend more time with his family - like a procession of Ministers going back 15 years have seemed to want to do. Are we suggesting that politics is for single people only? If we are then I fear for this country because we do need a mixture of people in Government who understand the pressures and demands of modern life and have bought up families and used schools, or had elderly or ill relatives who have needed hospital care. Only with those experiences can Government policy respond to the real needs of real people - and not career politicians who have only ever 'done' politics and only ever had responsibility for themselves.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Long day and sign off for a break
I'm signing off for a few days. Taking a holiday till next weekend with the family so 'maybe' no blogs but keep the comments coming and I will catch up on my return. See how the internet access goes. Sure lots will happen next week so some good blogs to come.
Long day with a long delivery this morning that seemed to go on for ages.
Great evening with some stunning Olympic results.
Long day with a long delivery this morning that seemed to go on for ages.
Great evening with some stunning Olympic results.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Crime and Punishment (Except if your a Lib Dem!)
My son came to work with me today. He is 5 and we do this a couple of days a year. Changes the office actually although he insists on a long lunch!!
We have had quite a lot from the Conservatives on local crime in the last few days.
We firstly had Theresa May announcing the launch of the Conservative Urban Alliance. Now that we are by far the largest, and growing, leaders of local government we are well placed to really tackle the issues of graffiti, vandalism and crime. I was staggered to read that fly tipping has rocketed by 43% in the past two years. They also have good examples of Conservative Councils restoring respect on the streets and launching new initiatives such as Westminster's Civic Renewal Scheme.
We also had Tim Yeo arguing for our policies to crack down on the yob and drink culture and illustrating how crime has boomed under Labour. Just look at the crazy increases in crime we have seen on the railways - 14% increase in violent crime and a 12% increase in sexual assaults
From the Lib Dems we have had another announcement of them going soft on crime.
Apparently the BBC is reporting the Lib Dems are considering a new policy to decriminalise crime for those under 14. They also want offenders to 'pay back' by doing work chosen by local people, face to face meetings between offenders and victims and reparation orders for adults. Of course, as the BBC points out, the children who killed Jamie Bulger were 10! They would not have gone to court. According to the Lib Dems Social Services should have dealt with them. I leave it to readers to decide whether Social Service are the right people to look after murderers, even at 10? But what happened to giving them a fair trial to demonstrate they actually did it because if this is 'decriminalisation' then trials are out!!
This whole thing is absurd and I know will anger many who believe that in fact what child criminals need is not being soft and cuddly but to understand the severity of their crimes. Where is the evidence that being soft on criminals has ever stopped re-offending because not imprisoning burglars is also a Lib Dem policy?
But the really odd thing is this issue of age. On the one hand we have the Lib Dems saying they do not want to criminalise those under 14 and yet they are also desperately keen for those of 16 to watch and participate in pornography - another awful Lib Dem policy.
I wonder if there is any connection between equalising these ages to conform with Europe as this was another issue the Lib Dem have been on about during the last week saying "we cannot influence EU law from the sidelines". If equalising laws mean the UK accepting you cannot be a criminal till your 14 (who ever you burgle or murder) then there are many who will say UKIP has a point! No wonder the Lib Dems do not talk too much to the public about their policy on Europe.
We have had quite a lot from the Conservatives on local crime in the last few days.
We firstly had Theresa May announcing the launch of the Conservative Urban Alliance. Now that we are by far the largest, and growing, leaders of local government we are well placed to really tackle the issues of graffiti, vandalism and crime. I was staggered to read that fly tipping has rocketed by 43% in the past two years. They also have good examples of Conservative Councils restoring respect on the streets and launching new initiatives such as Westminster's Civic Renewal Scheme.
We also had Tim Yeo arguing for our policies to crack down on the yob and drink culture and illustrating how crime has boomed under Labour. Just look at the crazy increases in crime we have seen on the railways - 14% increase in violent crime and a 12% increase in sexual assaults
From the Lib Dems we have had another announcement of them going soft on crime.
Apparently the BBC is reporting the Lib Dems are considering a new policy to decriminalise crime for those under 14. They also want offenders to 'pay back' by doing work chosen by local people, face to face meetings between offenders and victims and reparation orders for adults. Of course, as the BBC points out, the children who killed Jamie Bulger were 10! They would not have gone to court. According to the Lib Dems Social Services should have dealt with them. I leave it to readers to decide whether Social Service are the right people to look after murderers, even at 10? But what happened to giving them a fair trial to demonstrate they actually did it because if this is 'decriminalisation' then trials are out!!
This whole thing is absurd and I know will anger many who believe that in fact what child criminals need is not being soft and cuddly but to understand the severity of their crimes. Where is the evidence that being soft on criminals has ever stopped re-offending because not imprisoning burglars is also a Lib Dem policy?
But the really odd thing is this issue of age. On the one hand we have the Lib Dems saying they do not want to criminalise those under 14 and yet they are also desperately keen for those of 16 to watch and participate in pornography - another awful Lib Dem policy.
I wonder if there is any connection between equalising these ages to conform with Europe as this was another issue the Lib Dem have been on about during the last week saying "we cannot influence EU law from the sidelines". If equalising laws mean the UK accepting you cannot be a criminal till your 14 (who ever you burgle or murder) then there are many who will say UKIP has a point! No wonder the Lib Dems do not talk too much to the public about their policy on Europe.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
School Playing Fields
You really get fed up with this Government. Year on year the same policy is being announced again and again as if it was new. They hope that the public will forget they announced it the first time.
The latest is the apparent ending of the sale of school playing fields. Now I expect a ton of mail saying the Conservatives started this policy - we did and it was wrong. It ws particularly wrong in London. It was not just wrong because it deprived children of access to sport but it also deprived communities of the opportunity to use the facilities that during the 70's and 80's were closed to those who lived near them.
As I said what really stinks about this Government is the fact that the minute Michael Howard criticises the ridiculous political correctness of not having competitive schools sports, Blair and Charles Clarke unveil (read 'rehash') a policy they were supposed to already have!
The 2001 Labour manifesto said:
A cynic could ask why if they had introduced a ban on the enforced sale of playing fields (prior to 2001) that the sales of fields have continued. See this Guardian report (Aug 2004)which says:
The association claims that since 1998, more than 200 field sales have gone ahead, with only six rejected through the vetting procedure.
This same report also quotes the Education secretary as saying he will offer the:
"toughest-ever protection for school playing fields".
I am no avid sports fanatic. I cycle quite a bit but that is really because it is often easier to get around Kingston by bike than run the gauntlet of traffic humps and menacing wardens. In fact at school I frankly disliked sport. I was never really into rugby and cross country running used to go down the dreaded "pig farm alley". Never did know why it was called that as there were no pigs! However, this nation is becoming less healthy, as are many developed nations across the world. To halt that we do need to provide the opportunity to access as many forms of sport and healthy sport advice. Now maybe that is not through having school sports fields but through sports facilities being built on school sports fields. But if that is the strategy then the Government should be honest and not pretend that merely offering bullet proof guarantees about the sanctity of school sports fields will really improve the health of the school population.
In any case, the only kids at my school who enjoyed going out on a school sports field in the freezing cold of winter were in my view slightly mad!! They were good friends but I still doubted their sanity!
The latest is the apparent ending of the sale of school playing fields. Now I expect a ton of mail saying the Conservatives started this policy - we did and it was wrong. It ws particularly wrong in London. It was not just wrong because it deprived children of access to sport but it also deprived communities of the opportunity to use the facilities that during the 70's and 80's were closed to those who lived near them.
As I said what really stinks about this Government is the fact that the minute Michael Howard criticises the ridiculous political correctness of not having competitive schools sports, Blair and Charles Clarke unveil (read 'rehash') a policy they were supposed to already have!
The 2001 Labour manifesto said:
We pledge a sports entitlement for all children, giving them access to at least two hours a week of sport in or after school. Thanks to our ban on the enforced sale of playing fields and a commitment of nearly £1 billion to new sports facilities and 1,000 school sports co-ordinators, all children will be offered coaching and competitive games. This is a pdf so only go if you really want to
A cynic could ask why if they had introduced a ban on the enforced sale of playing fields (prior to 2001) that the sales of fields have continued. See this Guardian report (Aug 2004)which says:
The association claims that since 1998, more than 200 field sales have gone ahead, with only six rejected through the vetting procedure.
This same report also quotes the Education secretary as saying he will offer the:
"toughest-ever protection for school playing fields".
I am no avid sports fanatic. I cycle quite a bit but that is really because it is often easier to get around Kingston by bike than run the gauntlet of traffic humps and menacing wardens. In fact at school I frankly disliked sport. I was never really into rugby and cross country running used to go down the dreaded "pig farm alley". Never did know why it was called that as there were no pigs! However, this nation is becoming less healthy, as are many developed nations across the world. To halt that we do need to provide the opportunity to access as many forms of sport and healthy sport advice. Now maybe that is not through having school sports fields but through sports facilities being built on school sports fields. But if that is the strategy then the Government should be honest and not pretend that merely offering bullet proof guarantees about the sanctity of school sports fields will really improve the health of the school population.
In any case, the only kids at my school who enjoyed going out on a school sports field in the freezing cold of winter were in my view slightly mad!! They were good friends but I still doubted their sanity!
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Charging for Personal Care
A few weeks ago I ran a blog item on the Lib Dem Council charging for personal care. I have a bit of an update on the hypocrisy that exists within the LibDems on this matter.
The proposal they are making is that those who currently receive personal care for very small charges would in future be means tested and a range of charges applied; up to 50% of disposable income. It is a monstrous suggestion. Made even more monstrous by the fact that the Lib Dems nationally are going round telling people they will not charge for personal care.
Charles Kennedy in a speech on public services on June 29th 2004 said:
"Yet when it comes to care of the elderly, Labour too support a right to charge. For the frail elderly in need of basic care: feeding, dressing, washing - for them dignity comes at a price. Dignity in old age should not be determined by the size of your bank balance. That is why Liberal Democrats would scrap the charges for personal care, wherever it is provided."
A Lib Dem MP, Sandra Gidley, and spokesman for Older people said:
"Britain's elderly should receive free personal care, unrestricted by discriminatory criteria."
Even the local MP, Ed Davey, said in January 2003:
"Personal care should be free on the basis of a person's need not the size of their bank balance. We are not talking about luxuries here: we are simply saying that for people who need this help, with feeding, dressing, washing and intimate care, it should be free at the point of delivery."
This is all great but why then is the Leader of the Lib Dems and the MP for Kingston & Surbiton allowing the Leader of Kingston Council to introduce this shameful policy of charging for personal care and letting him insult the elderly of Kingston who did the right thing and saved for their retirement:
"This isn't going to drive elderly people into poverty. You are not talking about the little old lady living in a rundown house. We are talking about people who are comfortably off and will still be comfortably off." Leader of Lib Dem Kingston Council in Surrey Comet
We will be doing all we can to get them to reverse this hypocrisy.
The proposal they are making is that those who currently receive personal care for very small charges would in future be means tested and a range of charges applied; up to 50% of disposable income. It is a monstrous suggestion. Made even more monstrous by the fact that the Lib Dems nationally are going round telling people they will not charge for personal care.
Charles Kennedy in a speech on public services on June 29th 2004 said:
"Yet when it comes to care of the elderly, Labour too support a right to charge. For the frail elderly in need of basic care: feeding, dressing, washing - for them dignity comes at a price. Dignity in old age should not be determined by the size of your bank balance. That is why Liberal Democrats would scrap the charges for personal care, wherever it is provided."
A Lib Dem MP, Sandra Gidley, and spokesman for Older people said:
"Britain's elderly should receive free personal care, unrestricted by discriminatory criteria."
Even the local MP, Ed Davey, said in January 2003:
"Personal care should be free on the basis of a person's need not the size of their bank balance. We are not talking about luxuries here: we are simply saying that for people who need this help, with feeding, dressing, washing and intimate care, it should be free at the point of delivery."
This is all great but why then is the Leader of the Lib Dems and the MP for Kingston & Surbiton allowing the Leader of Kingston Council to introduce this shameful policy of charging for personal care and letting him insult the elderly of Kingston who did the right thing and saved for their retirement:
"This isn't going to drive elderly people into poverty. You are not talking about the little old lady living in a rundown house. We are talking about people who are comfortably off and will still be comfortably off." Leader of Lib Dem Kingston Council in Surrey Comet
We will be doing all we can to get them to reverse this hypocrisy.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Pensioners in distress after failure of pension payments
This is really depressing. There seems to be hardly a person in the land, who is not in the Labour Government, who really wants to scrap pension books if pensioners want to retain them.
I accept that it may well be an outdated way of paying benefits to people but if pensioners are happier collecting money from the post office and controlling their 'cash' expenditure rather than having to control a bank acccount then what is the problem? The two main parties go on a lot about 'choice' so why does the Government not give pensioners the 'choice' on whether they have a pension book or not.
Now we hear that the computer, that doubtless cost us billions and was delivered late, locked up and refused to pay pensioners any money. Quite rightly the Conservatives are asking questions and I hope we get some answers fast!
I accept that it may well be an outdated way of paying benefits to people but if pensioners are happier collecting money from the post office and controlling their 'cash' expenditure rather than having to control a bank acccount then what is the problem? The two main parties go on a lot about 'choice' so why does the Government not give pensioners the 'choice' on whether they have a pension book or not.
Now we hear that the computer, that doubtless cost us billions and was delivered late, locked up and refused to pay pensioners any money. Quite rightly the Conservatives are asking questions and I hope we get some answers fast!
Monday, August 23, 2004
The Compensation Culture?
Had a great weekend. Saturday spent delivering and a very good function in Berrylands with party members. All tremendously buoyed up and enthusiastic following the good results in Kingston from June. Sunday spent catching up on the small jobs around the house that do not get done during the rest of the year due to time commitments of Council.
Escaping from the fantasy politics of Saturday, Monday was about the compensation culture. David Davies followed up his speech of last week with some flesh to the policy.
It is notable and interesting that the former Master of the Rolls had recently commented that the compensation culture was a growing and dangerous path.
Like many things I can only relate personal experience. Five years ago I was involved in an accident at the lights at Tolworth roundabout. The lights changed green and the car in front moved forwards and then stalled. At 2 or 3 mph I went into the rear of the car scratching the bumper. Within weeks the insurance company was faced with a claim for a ‘written off’ car and driver whiplash injuries. Because of the way insurance companies work they settled for about £8k rather than fight an expensive case. Fighting it would be expensive in costs if not in the final outcome. Frankly that is an abuse and a shining example of the compensation culture.
Escaping from the fantasy politics of Saturday, Monday was about the compensation culture. David Davies followed up his speech of last week with some flesh to the policy.
It is notable and interesting that the former Master of the Rolls had recently commented that the compensation culture was a growing and dangerous path.
Like many things I can only relate personal experience. Five years ago I was involved in an accident at the lights at Tolworth roundabout. The lights changed green and the car in front moved forwards and then stalled. At 2 or 3 mph I went into the rear of the car scratching the bumper. Within weeks the insurance company was faced with a claim for a ‘written off’ car and driver whiplash injuries. Because of the way insurance companies work they settled for about £8k rather than fight an expensive case. Fighting it would be expensive in costs if not in the final outcome. Frankly that is an abuse and a shining example of the compensation culture.
However I think David is talking of wider issues to do with the review of the Human Rights Act. I believe it good practice to review all legislation some time after implementation to ensure that it does what it set out to do. All I have heard today is a procession of highly paid barristers, who undertake this work, saying how this is not acceptable. Still, I suppose we all get defensive when a proposal threatens our livelihood, no matter how good it is for the people we serve.
There are obviously genuine cases where compensation is due and it is the job of all of us to find a way where the rights of the genuine claimant can be preserved whilst curtailing the rights of those who abuse the system. Seems a pretty good mantra for a number of areas of life and politics.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Laugh a Minute Labour
I though I had to bring you this wonderful piece of news. The Labour party are getting so desperate they clearly intend to go into the next election saying "a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Conservatives". Clearly sending Mandelson to Brussels was a big mistake if this is the best strategy they can come up without him!
This is taken from the Daily Telegraph. I have felt moved to add my own editorial comment.
This is taken from the Daily Telegraph. I have felt moved to add my own editorial comment.
Warning over Tory-Lib Dems alliance
The Labour candidate in the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election has accused the Liberal Democrats of forming an alliance with the Conservatives.
In an email to party members Iain Wright said Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy would serve in a Government under Michael Howard. (Not that he will get the chance - ed)He also accused the Liberal Democrats of moving closer to the Tories by following a right wing policy agenda. (Excuse me but since when has 'tax and spend' been right wing? - Ed) The email, which was released officially by the Labour Party, said the "real choice" in the forthcoming by-election was between the Labour Government and a Conservative administration.
Mr Wright, who is a Hartlepool councillor, wrote: "It is pretty clear that the Lib Dems and the Tories are moving together - Charles Kennedy's hostility to the Labour Party is so great it is easy to imagine him serving in government under Michael Howard. (Just one problem, amongst many, is that Charlie wants us to be a federal Europe - Ed)
"That is why the choice in Hartlepool remains between Labour and the Tories - in what ever guise they appear." (Now he is talking sense - Ed)The married father-of-three added: "Here in Hartlepool the Lib Dems are desperately trying to pick up the Tories' votes. Their leading figures are proposing ever more right wing policies - including the destruction of the NHS and its replacement by a social insurance system." (Yes, but that is today's policy. In Brent East they changed their Council Tax policy as soon as they won - Ed)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)