I've been handed a 'Focus' leaflet for the Exmouth Town Ward LibDems. While it's been written in their normal combative style they really do appear to be clutching at straws. And of course it does suggest that they are completely ignoring Littleham Ward.
They have pinched the title of the campaigning website Communities Before Developers, although none of the Exmouth LibDems have yet signed CBD's candidates pledge. I am sure they are aware of it as some of their colleagues in other parts have signed.
They promise to be strong against excessive development and over spending by the tories. They claim that they are the only party who can stop the tories taking overall control of EDDC and ETC.
They are even cheeky enough to produce a graph titled '2009 local election results in East Devon' which gives them 33% of the cake.
According to EDDC's website the only 'local' elections in 2009 were the county council elections plus a by election for Sidmouth Town Council. These bear no resemblance to the grossly undemocratic East Devon District Council, which is 71% tory and 17% LibDem. The County Council does have the chance to swing both ways, as Exmouth knows to it's cost.
The last test of voter preferences in East Devon was last year's general election, where the tory won with just under half the votes cast, say 47% of a good 72% turnout. The Tiverton and Honiton seat, which includes part of our district, was also won by the tories with fractionally above 50%.
So at district level it is likely that half of those who vote or are helped with their votes support the tories, but that they will get many more than half of the seats. And while 33% of individuals did support the LibDems last year, many feel betrayed and will never do so again and many more will not get the opportunity because they will not be putting up candidates.
It is disingenuous of the LibDems to claim they can prevent full tory control at EDDC. They will be lucky to retain their current 10 seats. It is most important that there is a strong enough group of Independents and Greens etc. not only to carefully scrutinise the tories, but to ensure the LibDems pull their weight as part of the opposition, something I understand has been rather lacking over the past year.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Tory claims 2, 3, & 4
An extraordinary town meeting this evening to request a referendum on the Strand building issue. I was surprised by the strength of feeling and impressed by collectively how informed people were in diverse ways. The vast majority want no building at all, though it is probable nothing like this level of opposition would have materialised if they hadn't tried to pervert their iconic gesture. Actually it emerged that that the words cafe and shelter had appeared on the plans at the three option stage, they just were't really discussed.
It was made clear that Mark Williamson was the only Exmouth councillor to vote the way his community wished, while the LibDem leader Geoff Chamberlain voted for approval of the planning permission for the currently envisaged project. Clearly not all and not only tories need culling.
We also heard about the attitude of those in power to the presence of concerned residents and business people making their representations at Sidmouth.
Claim 4: We have worked to support the police in their efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour and increase their visible presence in the community.
The police have been amongst the strongest objectors to the Strand plans because they believe the development will lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
It was made clear that Mark Williamson was the only Exmouth councillor to vote the way his community wished, while the LibDem leader Geoff Chamberlain voted for approval of the planning permission for the currently envisaged project. Clearly not all and not only tories need culling.
We also heard about the attitude of those in power to the presence of concerned residents and business people making their representations at Sidmouth.
Claim 4: We have worked to support the police in their efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour and increase their visible presence in the community.
The police have been amongst the strongest objectors to the Strand plans because they believe the development will lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Tory claims 2 & 3
We have worked to have an improved Strand layout in the centre of Exmouth.
We have worked to obtain the views of residents on what things are wanted, what things should stay as they are, and what should be changed.
The Exmouth Journal has recently carried a stream of letters and complaints that demonstrate clearly that the ruling bodies (I believe all three councils are implicated, all of the same colour) do not listen to what the public wants, and that even when they delude themselves that they have run a public consultation they do not wait for a straightforward conclusion.
The Strand development plans were originally well meaning. I can remember the three alternative suggestions and the final suggested paper plan.
I don't remember being told a decision had been taken, and I don't remember hearing that an accurate scale model was available for comments. I assumed that this would be a given for any major public open space work. I was aware that we were waiting for the design for the 'performance stage', and presumed that would be the final piece of planning before we would be able to see and approve what we were going to get.
I remember being shocked at the savaging of the trees, and reading that the work had been recommended as essential by experts. Some residents spoke to the contractors, who contradicted this official view. I do not remember any announcement at the time that the work was related to the redevelopment.
That became clear shortly afterwards, when the Strand was turned into a construction site. How convenient it was that the diseased trees fitted the plans so well, and how surprising that the apparently more diseased trees at The Knowle had not been condemned by the same consultant.
By far the biggest surprise came when it was publicised that the use of the building was now to be changed. It is no surprise that there is such anger when the public have been treated with such contempt.
Who took the decision to start the work before the consultation/planning process was complete, and for what reason?
How were the contracts advertised and awarded without a big fanfare to alert the grateful public to the impending works?
Was someone concerned that the proposed changes were likely to prompt unwelcome outbreak of democracy giving a big thumbs down to the whole project?
And of course why were the three councils so desperate to spend this money in the current climate?
Somehow, our ruling party have convinced themselves that these events are an achievement worth advertising in their election literature.
Now, a group of adversely affected traders, having been denied a referendum, are trying to raise funds to bring the issue to judicial review.
I would say enough of our money has been wasted on Sara Randall-Johnson's frivolous legal adventure to preserve their one party state. Save your own money and the public purse.
Use the upcoming local elections as your referendum on this issue. Quiz all the candidates as to their position on what has been done, the way it has been done, and how they would resolve the situation.
Kick out as many as possible of those responsible. Ring fence the money and give the final decision to the people of Exmouth.
We have worked to obtain the views of residents on what things are wanted, what things should stay as they are, and what should be changed.
The Exmouth Journal has recently carried a stream of letters and complaints that demonstrate clearly that the ruling bodies (I believe all three councils are implicated, all of the same colour) do not listen to what the public wants, and that even when they delude themselves that they have run a public consultation they do not wait for a straightforward conclusion.
The Strand development plans were originally well meaning. I can remember the three alternative suggestions and the final suggested paper plan.
I don't remember being told a decision had been taken, and I don't remember hearing that an accurate scale model was available for comments. I assumed that this would be a given for any major public open space work. I was aware that we were waiting for the design for the 'performance stage', and presumed that would be the final piece of planning before we would be able to see and approve what we were going to get.
I remember being shocked at the savaging of the trees, and reading that the work had been recommended as essential by experts. Some residents spoke to the contractors, who contradicted this official view. I do not remember any announcement at the time that the work was related to the redevelopment.
That became clear shortly afterwards, when the Strand was turned into a construction site. How convenient it was that the diseased trees fitted the plans so well, and how surprising that the apparently more diseased trees at The Knowle had not been condemned by the same consultant.
By far the biggest surprise came when it was publicised that the use of the building was now to be changed. It is no surprise that there is such anger when the public have been treated with such contempt.
Who took the decision to start the work before the consultation/planning process was complete, and for what reason?
How were the contracts advertised and awarded without a big fanfare to alert the grateful public to the impending works?
Was someone concerned that the proposed changes were likely to prompt unwelcome outbreak of democracy giving a big thumbs down to the whole project?
And of course why were the three councils so desperate to spend this money in the current climate?
Somehow, our ruling party have convinced themselves that these events are an achievement worth advertising in their election literature.
Now, a group of adversely affected traders, having been denied a referendum, are trying to raise funds to bring the issue to judicial review.
I would say enough of our money has been wasted on Sara Randall-Johnson's frivolous legal adventure to preserve their one party state. Save your own money and the public purse.
Use the upcoming local elections as your referendum on this issue. Quiz all the candidates as to their position on what has been done, the way it has been done, and how they would resolve the situation.
Kick out as many as possible of those responsible. Ring fence the money and give the final decision to the people of Exmouth.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Tory claims 1
The local conservatives have been quick off the mark, their ironically titled leaflet In Touch was through the door before the nominations had even closed.
All decent chaps, work hard in the community etc., etc. The problem is in the dominance their party has in the district which narrows the perspective and obscures priorities.
I would assume the leaflet was not written by someone who lives in or at least understands Exmouth. In particular it makes half a dozen claims in areas that don't exactly stand out as achievements.
We have worked to retain the key elements of the Rolle College site for business start - ups, education and community use.
I had never dreamt that Rolle College would be an election issue.
Our community has been badly let down by the machinations of politicians of different colours. The worst was the Blair government who dictated the change of ownership to the University of Plymouth free of charge but then insisted the University were legally obliged to cash it in for maximum value rather than reach any solution that restored the campus' value to the community. That is, they took something which belonged to us, insisted it was given to this proven asset stripping institution, and then they stood in the way of a morally balancing restitution of our property back to us. It might be said that our MP and other local worthies fought less tigerishly than they might have done in resisting this misappropriation of our assets.
However, once all this was accepted as a fait accompli, the previous LibDem administration on the County Council set aside a sum of money from the sale of Exeter Airport to purchase part of the College main site so that at least a small part of that which was originally given to our community for the purpose of education would be fulfilling that purpose.
One of the first acts of the incoming Tory administration following the County Council elections in 2009 was to take away this money. County leader John Hart was sufficiently bare faced about this to blame the LibDems for 'not ring-fencing' the money. These mustelid convolutions were echoed by East Devon's tory leader Sara Randall-Johnson.
I understand a number of people are working hard to make the best of a bad job with the option that is left. Surely though the Big Society fig leaf will always be dependent on the good will of the developers who now own the site. This is a company with long standing Conservative links who will no doubt enjoy the benefit of extra leverage over their use of the rest of the site.
I am sure all involved with the bid have the best of intentions, and may well include the local candidates.
However to claim any credit from this on behalf of the party which finally took away any chance of permanent ownership of even a part of the site leaves a bad taste. It is akin to Mrs Thatcher claiming credit for raising children's consumption of water after taking away their free school milk.
All decent chaps, work hard in the community etc., etc. The problem is in the dominance their party has in the district which narrows the perspective and obscures priorities.
I would assume the leaflet was not written by someone who lives in or at least understands Exmouth. In particular it makes half a dozen claims in areas that don't exactly stand out as achievements.
We have worked to retain the key elements of the Rolle College site for business start - ups, education and community use.
I had never dreamt that Rolle College would be an election issue.
Our community has been badly let down by the machinations of politicians of different colours. The worst was the Blair government who dictated the change of ownership to the University of Plymouth free of charge but then insisted the University were legally obliged to cash it in for maximum value rather than reach any solution that restored the campus' value to the community. That is, they took something which belonged to us, insisted it was given to this proven asset stripping institution, and then they stood in the way of a morally balancing restitution of our property back to us. It might be said that our MP and other local worthies fought less tigerishly than they might have done in resisting this misappropriation of our assets.
However, once all this was accepted as a fait accompli, the previous LibDem administration on the County Council set aside a sum of money from the sale of Exeter Airport to purchase part of the College main site so that at least a small part of that which was originally given to our community for the purpose of education would be fulfilling that purpose.
One of the first acts of the incoming Tory administration following the County Council elections in 2009 was to take away this money. County leader John Hart was sufficiently bare faced about this to blame the LibDems for 'not ring-fencing' the money. These mustelid convolutions were echoed by East Devon's tory leader Sara Randall-Johnson.
I understand a number of people are working hard to make the best of a bad job with the option that is left. Surely though the Big Society fig leaf will always be dependent on the good will of the developers who now own the site. This is a company with long standing Conservative links who will no doubt enjoy the benefit of extra leverage over their use of the rest of the site.
I am sure all involved with the bid have the best of intentions, and may well include the local candidates.
However to claim any credit from this on behalf of the party which finally took away any chance of permanent ownership of even a part of the site leaves a bad taste. It is akin to Mrs Thatcher claiming credit for raising children's consumption of water after taking away their free school milk.
The Invisible Men (and women)
The list of candidates has been published. I'm disappointed to see no Greens in the Littleham ward, though I knew this would be the case.
I am astonished to see that there are no LibDems either, in the district council election, in this ward. Last time around this was a hotly contested ward, with a strong showing from three LibDems and by far the highest voter turnout of any of the Exmouth wards.
On paper this is quite a diverse ward and certainly should not be a foregone conclusion for the tories. I do feel the LibDems are letting their supporters down. They have built their party's growth over the last 30 years or so on a network of committed local representatives, people like Trevor Cope, now an Independent. They have been particularly important in providing an opposition in areas like the West Country, where they have long been the second party.
After they got into bed with the tories nationally, they lost a lot of these long term committed people who objected to the terms of the coalition agreement and to the constraints that this placed on the conduct of opposition. The local party has been very quiet since, unless you count the name calling when Trevor and Paull Robathon handed in their cards.
If they are failing to provide adequate opposition both in the council chamber and on the ballot then they are letting down all the people who have supported them with their time and their votes for all these years.
East Devon does not function as a representative democratic institution even when the LibDems are performing as an opposition should. One party having over 70% of the seats does not lead to good, effectively scrutinised decision making. When the next largest group of 17% are sitting uncomfortably on their hands we have a level of dominance that would make Messrs Gadaffi, Mugabe or Putin happy.
I am astonished to see that there are no LibDems either, in the district council election, in this ward. Last time around this was a hotly contested ward, with a strong showing from three LibDems and by far the highest voter turnout of any of the Exmouth wards.
On paper this is quite a diverse ward and certainly should not be a foregone conclusion for the tories. I do feel the LibDems are letting their supporters down. They have built their party's growth over the last 30 years or so on a network of committed local representatives, people like Trevor Cope, now an Independent. They have been particularly important in providing an opposition in areas like the West Country, where they have long been the second party.
After they got into bed with the tories nationally, they lost a lot of these long term committed people who objected to the terms of the coalition agreement and to the constraints that this placed on the conduct of opposition. The local party has been very quiet since, unless you count the name calling when Trevor and Paull Robathon handed in their cards.
If they are failing to provide adequate opposition both in the council chamber and on the ballot then they are letting down all the people who have supported them with their time and their votes for all these years.
East Devon does not function as a representative democratic institution even when the LibDems are performing as an opposition should. One party having over 70% of the seats does not lead to good, effectively scrutinised decision making. When the next largest group of 17% are sitting uncomfortably on their hands we have a level of dominance that would make Messrs Gadaffi, Mugabe or Putin happy.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Nominations in.
Over to Sidmouth to hand in the forms. Chatted with a candidate for Axminster Parish Council and with the vice chairman of the district Conservative Party. I think the latter had overheard some of my previous conversation, as he was telling me how diverse his group is and he doesn't think Independents will do well this time. I would beg to differ.
The current make up of the authority is Conservative 42, LibDem 10 and Independent 7. Total 59. This is massively disproportionate compared to voter percentages.
There is always a strong perception in Exmouth that we are treated as the poor relations of the district. The largest town which often seems to have the smallest voice.
Currently there is also a perception that the LibDems, traditionally the mainstream alternative in these parts, are hamstrung by their national party's parliamentary coalition with the Tories and unable or unwilling to provide effective opposition or scrutiny. If there is ever a time for the voters to seek a more interesting mix in the council chamber, it must be now.
I am realistic about my chances but that doesn't mean I discount them. If I didn't think I had something to offer I wouldn't be standing.
The current make up of the authority is Conservative 42, LibDem 10 and Independent 7. Total 59. This is massively disproportionate compared to voter percentages.
There is always a strong perception in Exmouth that we are treated as the poor relations of the district. The largest town which often seems to have the smallest voice.
Currently there is also a perception that the LibDems, traditionally the mainstream alternative in these parts, are hamstrung by their national party's parliamentary coalition with the Tories and unable or unwilling to provide effective opposition or scrutiny. If there is ever a time for the voters to seek a more interesting mix in the council chamber, it must be now.
I am realistic about my chances but that doesn't mean I discount them. If I didn't think I had something to offer I wouldn't be standing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)