The Last Post

Although I have no intention of ceasing blogging (unless any future employment precludes it), this particular blog will need to close for the simple reason that its address (URL) includes "medwaycouncillor" which is no longer correct.

Therefore I shall post no more here (apart from in response to comments on old posts) but instead am starting afresh on a new 'blog HERE. I shall leave this 'blog in a "closed" state so that anyone finding it can link through to the new place.

Meanwhile, I have had over 20 comments arrive in response to my previous article, so I shall try to deal with them briefly here, in the hope of making the situation clearer.

First, I couldn't stay on as an Independent (which I had considered) as the unelected quango called the Standards Board would (based on a recent similar case) disqualify my from being a Councillor, full stop. Note that this overrides the electorate's wishes...

Next, I wonder which Labour councillor was on? A few of them are as described in the comments, as it happens! Most of them are fairly unsavoury, one way or another, when you get to know them. No wonder their numbers shrink at every election here...

I shall not be spending time with any grandchildren. I'm not even a parent (so no hand-outs for me!)

Um, I have all the "logs" of Medway Council meetings since they first went on-line from October 2001, but they don't make very interesting bedtime reading :-)

I might head Down Under, though I doubt they'd have me at my age. I'd also have to get a passport - - something I haven't had since 1982...

I'm not giving up my Qercus column, and indeed have today spoken to the Editor about this. We're now trying to come up with a new name for the column, and I shall have to think of either a new slant, or perhaps a reminiscence of what I had done in the past but hadn't included in the column. I'll think of something! There are still two or three of my articles "in stock" at Qercus HQ, so there's some time for this.


Overall, I wish to thank all who have supported me -- although, as I think it now better know, my intent was to stimulate debate on finding a better way than the extreme one I found on the 'Net last September and copied to my draft. As I wrote in another recent article here (though on a different subject) I prefer "carrots" to "sticks", and brainstorming the nation should enable a better solution to what is clearly a very widespread issue to be found -- before dithering Gordon leaves it too late (as usual) and then panics and introduces draconian legislation. With the economic crunch coming, he will fairly soon find himself backed into a corner, and that will be dangerous for all of us. Let's find him something he can use instead.

Although the circumstances that meant I posted the incomplete article (it was then really just quotes and one link) have resulted in my effectively unavoidable resignation, the debate I wanted to start is now being held far more widely around the country that I could ever have envisaged. It has been a price worth paying!

Apart from the comments here, I have received dozens of emails, phone calls, and letters during the past couple of days or so, nearly all supporting both me and the necessity of having this debate. It has been a good exercise, in spite of everything.

Finally, I do hope that those who have come here for the first time for just this one item will at least glance through some of my other posts, as they might also be of interest.

UPDATE: I notice the latest commenter (yet another 'anonymous', unfortunately) seems to have missed what I was trying to achieve; but I blame the media coverage rather than the commenter.

Incidentally, I found a photographer had been waiting for me to emerge in order to take "grab shots" (as they are known) before I could stop him. I think he was a bit non-plussed when I offered to pose for him, as I thought it might make for a better-quality shot. I wonder what his Picture Editor will decide to put in tomorrow's Daily Mirror (to whose reporter I was even more kind, yesterday!)

Weight off my Mind

I have today, after a lot of thought, resigned from the council.

I wasn't going to do so originally, but in today's Soviet-style Britain, with all the pressures coming down upon us from on high and with yet more to come (as I recently reported HERE), all the indicators are that recent events have, funnily enough, afforded me an opportunity to 'get out from under' before even more bureaucracy hits local Councillors.

Just think of it: no more Government-imposed 'Performance Indicators' (a mere 168 of 'em!), no more having to explain why we can't do something because tens of millions of pounds has been deducted from our funding every year, no more Codes of Conduct and all of that, and no more briefings on this week's new legislation. Bliss!

Anyway, this means that this 'blog (which was initially just an experiment anyway) will probably close very soon.

As for me: I look forward to the next adventure in my life, wherever that should turn out to be -- just as I did when I moved here eleven years ago, not knowing what lay ahead of me then.

Carrot and Stick

Which is better, the carrot or the stick?

Actually, both have their uses, but in human society it is generally found that in most cases offering an incentive (the carrot) works better and is kinder.

That's the Conservative way, by and large, as is of course very well known. There will always be exceptions, such as how to deal with crime that has already happened, but most desirable behaviour for living within a society will be far better being encouraged rather than enforced. This is only because of the needs of others in one's society: a hermit living alone in the middle of nowhere need not be so concerned about all this...

The so-called Nanny State that we have in Britain today tends to try to do it the other way around, with endless rules, laws and regulations in a perpetual stream of legislation pouring out of Whitehall. We saw this during the Blair years, and there is no sign of any slow-down under Gordon Brown's premiership. Indeed, the large number of 'policy reviews' that the present Prime Minister has initiated in his few months in office will inevitably lead to a torrent of new legislation.

Earlier this week I was at a briefing session that tried to explain upcoming changes in how local government works, as far as local Councillors will be affected, when it comes into effect next year. Even before that, though, a further White paper on the same subject is already being prepared, and is expected to be published later this year. It just never stops...

Far, far better would be just to set a very basic and simple framework and let us get on with it, as only those on the spot can know how best to deal with their local situation and needs. This top-down one size fits all approach of heavyweight ruling from on high is not a good way to go.

I do hope that after the next General Election (which is looking increasingly likely to result in a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons) the incoming Government will produce a much leaner and less prescriptive framework for local government in their first review of the subject (whenever that might be) and then just leave us alone to get on with our jobs.

That would be the carrot of incentive, rather than the stick of regulation, and is almost certain to work much, much better!

Sheer Brilliance!

This week's Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) session was interesting (as they often are, though not always) and included some brilliant stuff by David Cameron, starting at eight minutes 35 seconds in. It's a classic!

Watch it all (or just part[s], by dragging the bar) HERE.

Holding to Account

At least once a year, usually around this time, every one of the Portfolio Holders in Medway Council's Cabinet comes before the Scrutiny Committee that scrutinises their portfolio. This is to give an account of what they have achieved during the past year and to answer questions from members of the committee. In a couple of cases, the one portfolio spreads across two committees so they are called to both.

One such is the Leader of the Council, Rodney Chambers (pictured here) whose portfolio covers both Regeneration and Democracy & Governance. Last night was his appointment with the Regeneration and Development Scrutiny Committee, and I was there as a substitute for an absent colleague.

It is no doubt tempting to ask a pre-arranged "friendly" question -- as Labour MPs so often (and rather obviously!) do at Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament. I don't believe in that, though, and prepare my own questions which are often quite challenging. The clue to this is how quickly and glibly the Portfolio Holder answers, especially at the start of his/her reply. When I ask a question, there is usually a lot of obvious thinking going on to formulate the answer. This happened last night, as usual...

As always at such events, I tried to think of something appropriate to ask, on this occasion bearing in mind that I was not a regular member of the committee. Thus I was able to answer a general question that could shed some light on why so much is happening now and did not do so before we took over running the council. I am sure that many people now living or working in Medway who were not here while places like Chatham began a long period of decline would find that interesting.

Indeed, I reasoned, as a relative newcomer here myself, it must seem strange that so much is going on at once, with disruption to places such as the aforementioned Chatham, whereas if this had been done earlier -- when traffic was not so heavy -- there would have been less pain. I commented that I was aware that all the preliminary work toward much of this (including Chatham and Rochester Riverside) was done by the early 'nineties -- and that would not have been conducted (at Council Tax-payers' expense) if there were no realistic prospect of taking those projects forward. This point was important as, with the change of political make-up of the former Rochester-upon-Medway City Council in 1991, these projects suddenly stalled.

I think the Leader was being rather generous in his reply, in that he did not blame the Labour administration of the period from 1991 to 2000 for sitting on all this while Chatham in particular fell into ever greater decay. He suggested that a city-sized council couldn't have afforded to invest in the necessary land assembly. I pointed out that the predecessor council had some £210 million is reserves in 1991 (most of which had gone by 2000, by the way!) but as Cllr Chambers came from the Gillingham half of the constituent parts of what became Medway Unitary Authority he couldn't verify this.

A second aspect to my question concerned the rate of progress we were making relative to other parts of the Thames Gateway region. Although all parts of the Gateway had already had substantial sums of capital investment funding made available to them, at around the same time as us, only we had made any real progress until very recently. Indeed, the Leader quoted the case of Thurrock in Essex who were setting up an Urban Development Corporation (UDC) to deal with their regeneration; but they had taken a year just to decide where the UDC would be housed. Similar tales apparently abound throughout the Gateway.

The Leader explained that the key difference is that we are leading, driving, and delivering our regeneration ourselves -- that's the Medway Renaissance Partnership, with us as the Administration of Medway Council being the lead partner. What has now become known as the "Medway Model" has been recognised elsewhere; and the Leader was able to tell the meeting that other councils were thinking of adopting it themselves. Indeed, Southend Council were due to visit us shortly for this very purpose.

Meanwhile, the Government Minister had recently visited and HERE is a short video made during that visit.

All fascinating stuff -- both the question and the response -- and I think it was well worth bringing this to public awareness right now. There was a press reporter in attendance throughout the meeting, but this part might not be considered worthy of reporting, so I have put it here for the benefit of anyone who might be interested.

As one would expect, the questions from the regular members of the committee were more to do with specific issues and details, and were also interesting in their own way, though most of it has already been aired in recent months so need not be reported here. It will probably appear in this Friday's local newspaper anyway...