And in the Blue Corner...

The question of sleazy behaviour by MPs, including Ministers, has been big in the news in recent months, mainly on the Labour benches. Now, with the Derek Conway revelations, we have something in the same broad category on the opposition side of Parliament.

There are also rumblings about possible LibDem dodgy behaviour in Scotland, but that is yet to come fully enough into the public domain to be able to be included as yet (unless I've missed something). Therefore, for today, I am going to stick to the cases that are sufficiently known about to draw a few (hopefully useful) inferences.

Now, predictably enough, numerous supporters of one or other of the two main political parties so far involved have taken their pops at the other party when one of these matters has come to public light. Some of us have been more restrained. There have also been a lot of Labour "trolls" trying to divert attention from their own Party's woes by flinging mud in other directions -- generally unsuccessfully, I have noticed...

Another tack has been for each side to claim that the other's misdeeds are more serious than those on their own side. This needs looking at logically, so that perhaps a more rational and reasoned view can be taken of what is either known or alleged to have occurred, what might arise (or be revealed) in future, and what if anything can and/or should be changed in "the system" (a broad term there) to improve the standards of political life in this country.

I have produced a kind of Truth Table below, in which I seek to cut out the claims and counter-claims such as those I have read around the blogosphere and elsewhere, and simply log the base facts, their nature and implications, and possible consequences of each. I am sure it is not perfect, but I haven't seen anything like it anywhere else, so I feel it is worth the attempt. I am not counting the London Mayor situation here, though I am taking cognisance of the cash-for-honours issue as it is still current.

See what you think of this:

Subject // Party -->	Labour Alexander, Hain, Harman	Conservative Conway
Public Money Involved	-	Yes
Affects Governance	Yes	-
Widespread / Institutionalised	Yes	-
Front Organisation(s) / Laundering	Yes	-
Party Leader Failed to Take Decisive Action	Yes	-

I make that four-to-one; but it shows that neither party can be allowed to get off the hook lightly. What action(s) need to be taken for the future I cannot say with any certainty, except that State funding of political parties definitely is not the way to go. Yet more rules and regulations are unlikely to produce any genuine benefits either: it has been clear that the rules already in place are being ignored by some, so what's the point of merely creating more? That would be nothing more than cosmetic.

Chapter Two

As I wrote HERE was due to happen, the question of the future of Strood's secondary schools came before a special meeting of the relevant Scrutiny Committee earlier this evening (checks clock: actually yesterday, now!) and we spent a good three hours looking at this question.

It was generally a very good meeting, with some really good input from the Head Teachers and Chairmen of Governors (rather unfortunately referred to as "chairs"!) of the two schools directly involved, plus a student from each.

Disappointingly, there was no-one present from the Hundred of Hoo School, who could have explained the two counter-proposals involving that school that had also been put forward, though neither of those turned out to be viable, as it turned out.

Interestingly, the Temple School representatives want an Academy (and had been working towards this for some five years, which I hadn't realised) whereas Chapter does not -- or, at least, not straight away. They propose a staged approach over several years, gradually merging the two schools ready to become an academy at that later date, which is a scheme they had thought out carefully.

I mentioned several things at the meeting:

• How my own Secondary School had been through something far worse, back in 1966
• My appreciation of, and general liking for, the SOCK proposal (that's "Support Our Chapter Kids")
• It would be best if we could pursue a course along the SOCK lines, if Ministers would allow this
• My oft-stated sadness at being dictated to by outsiders, as apparently has been done in this case
  

Throughout all this, I kept it as non-party political as I could (and I think I succeeded) whereas the Labour spokesman on the committee tried to turn the whole issue into a party political debate, and not exactly with any degree of subtlety (he really isn't very good, to put it frankly). He wasn't even able to recall what he had said previously during the evening, and was completely wrong-footed by the committee's vice-chairman who quoted his earlier statements back at him. It was a picture watching said Labour person scurrying through his written notes (script?) almost in a panic...

In the end, it was clear that the academy route was the only option that had been left open to us, so that is what we had to recommend to Medway Council's Cabinet -- but it was not the option I for one wanted to take! As so often happens in modern-day Britain, those at the centre dictate to everyone else -- largely because they hold the purse-strings and can lay down any conditions and restrictions they choose.

This is something I would scrap if I could. I don't believe in outsiders telling all and sundry what to do and how to do it, as you might have gathered by now. It is my single biggest gripe by far in political life, and I don't think any national political party has what I would consider a satisfactory policy on this question. Even so, it does seem that the Conservatives are well in front on this, and are the only party likely to be in a position to do anything about it in the reasonably near future.

I shall be watching them as well, though, as I expect them to agree that absolutely every local decision is to be made locally, with no pre-conditions and no external impositions whatsoever, under ANY circumstances. Oh, and all tax money to come to local communities, who will themselves decide just how much should go to a "federal" (nationwide) outfit, and to do what jobs -- and those only!

If we had that now, I believe we could solve the Strood schools issue more-or-less overnight. I'd create an Academy at Temple School now, and gradually bring the Chapter folk into this over the years that SOCK propose, building the new facility at Temple in the meantime (that last part of which is what is now being considered anyway). That would satisfy both schools' wishes, which no other approach could as they are (to a great extent) mutually exclusive.

See what true local democracy could achieve, given the chance?

Not Rocket Science!

For those in the Labour party who do not understand their own legislation on how to handle donations, such as (for example) W. Alexander, P. Hain, H. Harman, A. Johnson, the following simple guide ought to be of benefit...

Peter out...

So Peter Hain MP is now out of the Cabinet (breaking news just an hour or so ago, as I write this).

It was, as other commentators have stated, inevitable that he would resign if and when the case was referred to the police, as has today been done by the Electoral Commission.

This is a Good Thing, because there were so many question marks hanging over Hain and his Labour Party's deputy leadership campaign that it left all of us in public service potentially tainted. It was necessary for this whole business to be thoroughly and independently investigated, and the findings made public. The possibility of "slush funds" and "money laundering" could not be left hanging in mid-air. This has to be dealt with, in the public interest, and that is the bottom line.

I look forward to finding out what really was done, and by whom; but more than that I hope that real lessons are learned. The danger is, as always, that it will also compel those in political life who genuinely are "dodgy" to search for new ways to circumvent laws, rules and regulations. If, as looks very possible, the so-called Progressive Policy Forum does turn out to be nothing more than a front for campaign funding under apparently false pretences, then obviously this particular avenue would be closed off in future.

I suspect, though, that there will always be those people with the kind of mind-set that will enable them to devise alternative dodges, so it is an ongoing battle of wits between such people and those with a strong sense of decency and honour. Thus, the outcome of this particular investigation might well be to win a battle in the overall process, but the end of the war is still a long way off.

As this issue will become sub-judice once the police investigation commences, any comments need to be quick if they are going to be able to be published!

Off Yer Trolley

There are an awful lot of lazy and couldn't-care-less people around. Some of them are perfectly happy to take a store's shopping trolley off the premises (which they should not do: it is effectively a kind of theft) and dump it at a place of their convenience (which they definitely should not do).

This happens around my home area quite a lot, as we have the Horsted Retail Park nearby, with stores such as Currys, Homebase, PC World and Toys'R'Us. We also have an Asda store a short distance up the road from there.

For almost all the time I have lived here (i.e. starting long before I was elected to Medway Council) I have operated what I like to call John's Trolley Rescue Service as a public service. If I find a dumped trolley (typically on the pavement or the fields adjacent to this estate) I take it back. If I can't go to its store of origin straight away I park it outside my house (in a location that is near-enough invisible from the road and footpath) until I can do so.

The latter approach applies mainly to Asda trollies: it is a bit of a difficult trek with these things, as they tend to want to go into the main road(!) I therefore wait until I am going up there shopping; though if that is going to be more than a few days I'll generally ring them up and ask them to collect their property from my house. I worked there some years ago, so know the way they work, and they are happy to do this. They are also aware that I operate this retrieval service.

Later today, I am heading up that way with two such trollies that I collected within a couple of days of each other, both toward the end of last week. That's around a thousand Pounds-worth of their property I am returning to them.

I suppose it's just as well it isn't Strood, where trollies are frequently dumped in the river, at what has become known as "Shopping Trolley Graveyard". My excellent colleague in Strood North ward, Councillor Jane Etheridge, has been dealing with that particular situation in recent years (since being elected to represent that ward) and has been amazed at just how many were fished out of the water.

Although, when I worked at Asda, rounding-up the trollies from around the car park was one of my favourite jobs (and I was very good at it) there really is no excuse for making off with someone else's property and then just leaving it lying around. One of the two I rescued last week didn't even have its brake on, and was left right next to the "inner" Shirley Avenue roundabout. A gust of wind could have blown it into the road, just as a vehicle was approaching, and caused an accident or at least some damage.

Perhaps, just like the smaller trolleys at Asda (for example), these too need to have a deposit paid on them before they can be taken from their place of storage. That would encourage users to take them back, so they can retrieve their money. I might suggest this to the store managers...

Planning Visits

Now there's an ambiguous title!

I am in fact referring to visits to sites of planning applications, of which I have been to two today.

The first was a formal Members' Site Visit by the planning committee, which is known as the Development Control Committee. This had been requested by its members when the application went before that committee, and was very useful in showing what was planned at one residence and how it would affect the amenities (as they are called) of the neighbours. Ten of the sixteen committee members turned up -- which is a good turnout -- plus myself as the ward member, as I am not on the committee myself (though I frequently get called on to substitute for an absent member).

Questions were asked and answered, points were made, suggestions offered, and overall everyone was very well behaved, which isn't always so at these events! In my ward this is not generally an issue; and indeed the most senior Planning Officer has previously commended our residents here for being so thoughtful, professional and well-behaved -- and that's not something that he does very often!

Today's event was indeed just a fact-finding visit, and a decision will be taken on this application at the next formal committee meeting, which as I write will be this coming Wednesday.

The second visit was to a group of residents who wanted to show us what the consequences of another planning application would be on their properties, in advance of the application going to committee for the first time, again this Wednesday evening. On this occasion, all three of us Ward Councillors were there, and it was again a very worthwhile and informative event, in both directions.

In between these two meetings, I was rung by one of my colleagues on the committee to say he would be unable to attend, as something had come up, so could I substitute? I agreed, but this left a small problem: if I am on the committee on this occasion, I shall need to declare an interest. As I didn't express any opinion on the application (apart from acknowledging an obvious error in the report going to committee), I believe I shall be able to make it a so-called "personal" interest rather than "prejudicial". This would mean that I shall still be able to speak and vote on the application. I shall check with the Legal Officer before the meeting starts...

Separately, one or other of my two ward colleagues -- both of whom will be attending this meeting as ward members -- will speak to this application in that capacity.

Overall, as Arkwright (Ronnie Barker)was apt to say at the end of some episodes of "Open All Hours": it's been an interesting kind of day...


UPDATE: Both planning applications were approved by the Development Control Committee, which I have to be frank and admit didn't entirely surprise me. The changes in planning legislation, and in particular the extra impositions for south-east England (especially in terms of "pack 'em in" densities) have made it very difficult to refuse most applications these days. We do still refuse some, and our decisions are largely upheld if they go to appeal (which is conducted from Bristol), but by no means always. Although this has been disappointing, and we did work really hard to defend neighbours' amenities in both cases, there is nothing more that can be done. Only the applicant is able to appeal against a planning decision, as the law stands, so that's it on these two.

Well, That Was Fun!

Got back a little while ago from two meetings of the full Medway Council. Yes, that's correct: two meetings!

First was a special meeting to decide whether to grant Honorary Freedom of the Borough of Medway to the Corps of Royal Engineers. That went very well, and was I believe agreed unanimously. I shall check when the record of the meeting is published.

This was followed by the customary "ordinary" Council meeting, with its usual mix of decision-making, petitions presented, questions asked and answered, and the inevitable political knockabout.

The interesting thing is that, although the Opposition Groups still have a lot of vitriol and a huge amount of negativity, in reality they have very little real material and have to contrive what they present in such a way as to apparently support their claims.

Unfortunately for them, our side is very well informed and have our facts at the ready -- especially me, as I have a wealth of information on my portable computer, so can summon just about anything I might need at a moment's notice. I have on several occasions dealt with unanticipated subject matter that opposition members have sneaked into the debate by some subterfuge. Being able to quote from official documents that are in the public domain (so anyone could easily check the veracity of what I state in the Council Chamber) is one of my favourite techniques. I always mention my source, also that it is public information, and indeed did so this very evening.

This particular occurrence concerned the severe (and deliberate) underfunding of our council, especially in the context of how much is going towards propping up wasteful Labour councils -- and Livingstone's increasing billions of overspend on the Olympics (another billion revealed just this week) for another example of a Labour-run Authority's drain on public funds. I was able to quote some genuine (and very interesting!) statistics and facts, such as: how many Directors does a council like ours need for its corporate services functions? We've never had more than one, yet a Labour council that isn't a million miles away and is quite similar in population and duties to ours has three, each costing around £150,000.

It is no wonder that with a fiddled system like the one in this country, there isn't enough money to go round, and the two "fiddle factors" were mentioned this evening.

The Labour group's latest wheeze to explain the huge discrepancy between us and a typical Labour-run council is that "there is no deprivation in Medway", and funding is being targeted towards deprived areas in the country. Their Deputy Leader even quoted from council publications to attempt to "prove" that there is no deprivation in Medway.

I was the first member of Medway Council to point out that there are no fewer than 29 deprived neighbourhoods in Medway, and this arrived at using the Government's own criteria in their Multiple Index of Deprivation. One of my colleagues reminded the meeting of this fact tonight.

Most significantly of all, the majority of these neighbourhoods are in wards with Labour councillors! Chatham Central, Luton and Wayfield, Twydall, and even Rochester East, all have such areas. I wonder how their residents will take the news that the reason they aren't getting the funding for their communities' needs is because their own councillors are making no effort on their behalf, claiming that "there is no deprivation in Medway".

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot! It is little wonder that the Labour presence on Medway Council has been dwindling over the past ten years...

A New Chapter?

There has been an issue with a couple of Strood's secondary schools for a while now. The question of what to do about (a) falling rolls and (b) the problems that Temple Boys' School had for a time is a tricky one.

The falling rolls business has been around for a few years now, owing to reduced birth rates that have impacted primary schools in recent years. This is now (unsurprisingly) shifting to secondary schools, as the reduced number of primary-age children come of age to progress to secondary level.

Okay, all of this is fairly obvious, when one knows a bit of the background. The problem is: what to do in the most acute situations such as in Strood, where one previously-failing secondary school (Temple) needs action to keep it viable.

Nearby is Chapter School, the female half of the Strood secondary-level equation. That school has a really good (and well-earned) reputation. Interestingly, both these schools have rather poor school buildings, and both could do with some new build. Unfortunately, the Government programme of "building schools for the future" has passed Medway by completely.

It is said that Medway will be included in this programme in or around the year 2016; but anyone who has been watching such initiatives in recent years will be well aware that they are always dropped after a few years -- once there are no more headlines in the offing. Therefore it is wise to assume that this will in reality never happen.

Meanwhile, where does this leave Strood's secondary schools? Well, frankly, it leaves them nowhere.

The small intake each year at Temple School makes it unviable in future, and it is an obligation on the Local Education Authority (LEA, which is Medway Council) to resolve the present situation. Under the prevailing circumstances, this seems to be possible only by merging with Chapter School. Interestingly, the principle of this is generally accepted, though not at a rush.

The problem here is that the LEA is required by Government diktat to deal with this matter pronto, and will not be allowed to phase a gradual change over a number of years, which would be our preference, and the preferred way according to (in particular) Chapter School's pupils, parents and staff. It's the way I'd personally prefer to go, remembering how my school was suddenly transformed into a Comprehensive School back in 1966, with the scrapping of its sixth form.

Reading the (socialist) writing on the wall, I gave up school, after a year of studying for A-levels, and went off to work instead. Again, that was a Labour Government diktat that dragged my (top of the area) secondary school down to the lowest (as it had been amalgamated with the worst in the area). No longer did we have precision metalwork as a craft: it became bricklaying (I kid you not -- I was there!)

This is why I have great sympathy with the SOCKS campaign that Chapter School has initiated, and am saddened that matters have been geared toward turning both schools into a merged so-called "Academy". Personally, I'd be prepared to forego the investment in new buildings if that would solve the problems and get the outside dictators off the schools' back. It has been made very clear to us that it would not. It isn't an option.

Now, to be fair, the Academies that are now being set up are a lot better than the first wave, and I have to admit are actually rather good! The shame about it all is that it is the only way to secure the necessary investment (and a direct conversation with the relevant Government Minister has confirmed this) especially for the new buildings that will be required to avoid the Government intervening directly and taking control of at least Temple (and eventually possibly both schools) away from local people.

Yes, it's a form of blackmail, and yes, it is not ideal; but if we retain control here, we can make it work well. However one feels about the Academy option, as things stand today it is the least bad option by far -- but that shouldn't be the case! Let this be a lesson in whether to allow outsiders of any kind to dictate to us, because that is the one and only really fundamental question.

Remember: I was here myself, some forty years ago. If you want to look it up, it was the amalgamation of my school (Canterbury Road) and Garth School, both in Morden, Surrey, in 1966. I therefore know what it's like, and will always work towards the best possible way forward, in spite of the pressures and threats aimed at us here on the Council whose intent is to undermine rather than to enhance.

In the words of Mr Bester in the Babylon 5 third-series episode Ship of Tears: "I won't have it!"

This You've Just Got to See!

So this is Riverdance, Simian-style!



(Spotted on Iain Dale's Diary)

And some animal capers:

1. Cat Capers
   
2. Going Home on Friday -- Going to Work on Monday
   
3. Skateboarding Dog
   

Reality Bites

I have just seen an article in one of the local newspapers showing the highly unsavoury Councillor Teresa Murray with her customary (and obviously) fake smile -- always enough to put one off one's supper...

The article was presumably intended to promote her electoral chances as Labour's parliamentary candidate for the Rochester and Strood seat -- as the Medway constituency will become known with effect from the next General Election -- after having been selected recently from an all-women short-list of candidates. I suppose this is a kind of self-publicising "start as you mean to go on" approach...

Her selection is of course a hardly-unexpected outcome, as a result of this female-only shortlist (as per Labour Party diktat -- they're good at that sort of thing). Not much competition, then, especially as the other two local elected candidates are both male, and the rest are unknowns. Realistically, who else stood a chance under those largely artificial conditions?

As usual with such articles, I flicked through it without particular interest, but was amused by Mrs Murray's contention that "Rochester and Strood is very much a Labour area."

This really is priceless!

Reality check: 18 of the 22 council seats that fall within this constituency are held by Conservatives. Two of the four Labour-held seats are on very small majorities: a mere 16 votes in Strood North, and 52 votes in River ward -- both of which will almost certainly be overturned next time, turning those wards completely blue, and leaving Labour in just one ward, if that.

The trend during recent years has been away from Labour and toward the Conservatives, especially in Strood, as successive local election results have clearly shown. Medway people are generally trading-up! Labour is the only party in permanent decline in Medway, as the above graph shows. This gives the proportion of seats held by each party at every election for Medway Unitary Authority, rather than the number of seats, so as not to be skewed by the reduction of overall number of seats from 80 to 55 a few years ago. Click on the graph for a larger version.

Note that the only reaon for the "plateau" in Labour's line in the graph between 2000 and 2003 is that it was the Labour Group's proposals for new boundaries that were accepted for the urban (i.e. most of) seats/wards in the Boundary Review, and -- surprise, surprise -- they had geared the new boundaries to favour themselves; hence some strange "niches and notches" in the new ward outlines.

Oh, and of course the Labour membership on Medway Council went down from 17 to 16 in between the 2003 and 2007 elections, when Cllr Rehman Chishti came over to the Conservatives. Looking at the trends, I'd say there's every chance that the LibDems will overtake Labour at Medway's next local elections, pushing Labour into third place and taking from them the mantle of main opposition group.

At parliamentary level, the same broad trend is well established in this part of the country. Indeed, the real reason that Bob Marshall-Andrews is not contesting the seat himself this time is because he knows he hasn't a chance of holding it. He even (erroneously) conceded defeat at the 2005 General Election, though a recount afforded him a very small win.

The future was (and still is) obvious to anyone with a working brain: Rochester and Strood (and neighbouring Gillingham and Rainham, which also nearly changed hands in 2005!) will almost certainly become represented by a Conservative MP after the next General Election -- whenever "Bottler" Brown has the guts to call that election.

Thus the sheer hubris of Mrs Murray (a characteristic that seems to be endemic within the Labour Party as a whole, as recent events have demonstrated so very well) is really no more than light entertainment for those of us with any kind of idea about what is going on and why.

Very few people want a Labour MP anywhere around the Medway area. There will always be those with a personal vested interest, especially (often misguided) Trade Union members, and some others with a chip-on-shoulder attitude, plus a few other categories -- but they are diminishing in numbers year by year, fading away into the previous millennium's historic perspective and nothing more.

The world -- and Medway -- will move on, and Labour will be left ever further behind at both local and (increasingly) national level. It's all "out there" for anyone with eyes to see, and the Teresa Murrays of this world will simply fade into history and obscurity, and rightly so.

Pain for Hain-the-Vain

Continuing with Monday's theme, as there is now so much in the news about this whole business, I feel it is worth taking stock of the Parliamentary Labour Party funding situation. I have been watching developments, reading the newspaper articles and 'blog posts and comments for a while now, and especially the Peter Hain MP saga.

The Hain situation has been aired thoroughly on various 'blogs in recent days and weeks, and has been very revealing, once one sifted through what was written to find the wheat (quite a lot, actually) and the chaff (not too much of that, fortunately).

On the other side, the statement he put out yesterday, though plausible, looks at least partly phony in the light of revelations about how the whole matter would have been handled within his campaign. He personally has overall responsibility, and should have been aware of all that was going on regarding funding. It was his duty, and an obvious one at that.

A second question is that recent matter of donations coming in via a third party -- the so-called Progressive Policy Forum. I have today read a comment indicating that at least one donor to that Forum was not aware that the money was going to Hain's campaign fund.

Another issue on this is the sheer amounts involved. Hain's deputy leadership campaign appears to have cost far more than that of any of his rivals. Why? Was it really all spent on the campaign (especially as the current revelations concern bills paid after the deputy leadership contest ended)? A few commentators have speculated that some (most?) might have gone to Hain personally, in subsidy of an apparently lavish lifestyle. On the other hand, at least one person (who claims to know something about this from the inside) claims that Hain was passionate about becoming Deputy Leader.

Hopefully the investigation now under way will bring some hard facts into the public domain, as no amount of speculation can substitute for the truth. I just hope it does all come out, and nothing significant is held back.

Personally, I do not yet know whether he should resign, though he almost certainly ought to lose his front-bench Ministerial position. Unlike Blunkett, this needs to be permanent -- he must never become even a Junior Minister again in the future. He is currently in charge of a Department that handles billions of pounds of public money -- as do most Ministerial positions, one way or another -- and the public clearly can have no confidence in someone with this kind of "baggage" which will stay with him for life.

If he is charged and successfully prosecuted, then he should resign as an MP, again permanently. It is the only way to restore any kind of faith in politicians, which is always at its lowest when it appears that they can get away with what would result in punishment for anyone else, under similar circumstances.

I also believe that the Wendy Alexander and Harriet Harman cases should not have been dropped so easily, as this is the exact impression that those give: they have got away with it, especially Ms Alexander. With the publishing of the thank-you letter to the Jersey donor at his overseas address, this looked like a clear-cut breach and should have been dealt with accordingly.

Overall, I don't want to demolish the Labour Party; but they do need to behave properly and get rid of anyone found to be abusing the system (and it was their own laws and rules that these individuals have been breaching) in an effort to clean-up British politics. Our National Government needs to lead this quest and set an example to others. The way things have gone so far, the exact opposite has happened.

Gordon Brown has to deal with this decisively and more-or-less mercilessly if he is to retain any personal credibility. If he doesn't, I imagine the knock-on effect will be a further reduction in Labour's vote in this coming Spring's local elections, followed by (I'd expect) a move to oust him as Party Leader/Prime Minister. It's his future at stake too!

Labour Going Broke?

There's an interesting article HERE about the Labour Party's financial difficulties. Fresh from the dubious MPs' and other funding matters that were in the news last month (though all seems to have gone very quiet on that) this close tie-up with the Trade Unions is apparently already well in progress.

I wouldn't want the Labour Party to be bankrupted and dissolved, even though it is their own fault, but this new move -- though perhaps predictable -- is not the answer to their woes. They are simply going to have to cut their spending drastically until they are back on an even keel.

It looks very dangerous to me, as the indication is that the Unions would in effect be dictating the policies by which this country is run. Initially I am sure it would be limited to labour relations laws and similar, but once they have the taste of power I believe they will go much further than the article suggests.

Not only the academy schools issue the article's author mentions, but just about anything else could be required by the Unions in order to maintain their funding stream. This could be anything from new and unprecedented Union concessions and exemptions from various laws, to re-nationalising the railways.

No-one elected Union bosses to run our national Government! Now it looks as though they are about to become dictators to and of Britain. Is it too late to stop this, and is there any legal process that can do so? I do wonder, but am not aware of anything that can be done, especially when it has all been handled so secretively.

Fortunately we are now -- almost at the eleventh hour -- being made aware of what has been going on for some months. I'd strongly recommend we all keep a close eye out for further revelations, and in the meantime try to think of anything we can do about this whole issue -- permanently!

Yank My Chain

If you do that, when it comes to American (or American-origin) computer systems, be prepared for a rant from me!

It is amazing that, no matter how often I tell people that I work almost exclusively with British-designed computer systems, they still come to me when they (inevitably) have problems with their American -- generally Microsoft-based -- computers.

Now, as it happens, I do have a fair knowledge of some of those systems, but it is incomplete and, quite frankly, I believe that you reap what you sow when getting one of those. No wonder there are so many people making a killing out of supporting "ignorant" users of them!

If you end up buying an American-origin system, whether Microsoft, Apple or Unix/Linux based (in order of increasing quality!), generally with an Intel processor (or equivalent from e.g. AMD) at its heart, then be prepared to need frequent assistance from highly-paid "experts". It goes with the territory. As far as I am concerned, it's all "Yank Junk" (a term I am never afraid to apply, even in company) and -- especially the first of those -- has been responsible for killing-off virtually all innovation in the computer market: there is simply no point in making the effort to create something to compete with an American giant, as it will go nowhere and probably bankrupt the innovator(s).

It's effectively a stagnant market -- lots of sales, but all of essentially the same relatively few products.


Here at Chateau John, I have several computers, all but one running the British RISC OS system. Since being elected to Medway Council, I have had to get a Microsoft-based machine as well, to handle those few file types whose structure is so proprietary that I cannot access them any other way (no genuine open standards when it comes to, say, PowerPoint files!) -- but otherwise I keep to my British computers, on which all my important work is done. This includes everything from email and website maintenance to creating our (very high quality!) ward newsletters and all written correspondence.

My system keeps a record of all 'phone calls, in and out (not the content itself, just when and from/to whom!) and all faxes are sent and stored in electronic form: I have never had a paper-based fax. It was our market that created the first electronic fax for home and business users, known as FaxPack; the world-famous Sibelius was created here on our system (Most famous for playing to Princess Diana) -- and indeed, the RiscPC running it became popularly known as the "Sibelius computer"!

The famous games Elite and Zarch (renamed for other computer systems) originated here, as did smooth unjagged-edge text (licensed by the British to Microsoft, though they never really understood it so rather botched their implementation!) and the iconbar (or TaskBar as some now call it) way back in 1988. There is even a long-running website in our market that is called the IconBar, and rightly so. We invented this, no-one else!

We also had pop-up (at the mouse pointer position) "walking menus" -- despised by the computer press when introduced here, but when put into Windows 95 suddenly became a Good Thing, despite the fact that theirs were fixed in place, often obscuring the work one was editing. Naturally, our menus could always be dragged anywhere one wanted...

Yes, the technical press seemed very keen to promote the vastly inferior (as it was) American Way over and above our own products, and that was part of the reason the competition to the Yank Junk was effectively killed off. Extremely aggressive marketing by the megabucks corporations, despite widespread criticism and various (successful, though limited in punitive effect) lawsuits against them on anti-competitiveness grounds, forced out a lot of very good and innovative ideas -- and that's where we have ended up today. The situation should be so much better, with Transputers, different Operating Systems in abundance (though adhering fully to "open standards") and a generally much healthier marketplace open to new and competitive ideas and products.

Despite all the pressures to do so, I have not changed over myself and never will. I have to edit this 'blog on the Microsoft machine (for technical reasons not of my making it isn't really feasible on my "proper" computers, at least not easily) but my long-standing Councillor and Personal websites and produced entirely on my British computers. Okay, those are now rather old-fashioned, and I have the tools to do so much more with them if I wished to do so; but they work and I am content to leave them as they are. They have certainly earned a lot of respect and interest over these past six years and more...

Therefore, Dear Reader, if you have a problem with a computer, and think I am just a cheap/free way of fixing it (as some have freely admitted when approaching me), I have to disappoint you. If it isn't a RISC OS system, I really do not want to know. It was your choice in the first place, and it is now your problem. Too many times I have tried to advise, and been told effectively that I am wrong, yet I know what I am talking about.

The sheer lack of understanding of basics is what causes the vast majority of problems and issues, added to the strange way some things are done on these "foreign" systems (most un-intuitive, I often find!) and sheer laziness, when it so much easier to call on "an expert" to talk them through something they should already be fully capable of doing for themselves. We do not seem to suffer much if any of these kinds of issues in our market, interestingly, as discussions with other users (including a few we have here in Medway, which is encouraging!) repeatedly demonstrate to me.

Instead of Intel-chipped computers running (typically) Microsoft systems, those who can and do think for themselves opt for something completely different. Perhaps this isn't altogether surprising: after all, Intel isn't even half of Intelligence...


[Note: all proprietary trademarked names mentioned in this post are hereby acknowledged.]

A Funny Thing Happened...

...at our Scrutiny meeting. I have only now recovered sufficiently from the surprise to write about it!

The opposition Labour and LibDem members were uncharacteristically well-behaved. Indeed, they suddenly seemed to have become our Best Buddies for the evening. One cannot help wondering what they were really after! Admittedly, there were no journalists or members of the public present, and that always affects how at least some opposition members behave.

Whatever it was on this occasion, we had a successful meeting, and had come up with a plan to deal better with the ever-tightening situation that squeezes our budget scrutiny timetable more every year, owing to later and later announcements of our final financial settlement. I am very pleased with that initiative, which the committee's chairman proposed, and which the opposition spokesmen accepted and pledged to co-operate with us to achieve.

I managed to ask the Portfolio Holder for Finance (which includes a number of other subjects as well) two of my three questions, but supposedly "brief" questions from some of the opposition were typically anything but (one claimed to be "very brief" took three-and-a-half minutes to ask!) so we ran out of time for me to ask my third. Both those that I did manage to ask were concerned with aspects of our forthcoming budget-setting: one on the "floor damping" I have mentioned here before, and what if any legal challenge to it might be possible; and the other about the budget scrutiny process itself.

Good questions, with answers too lengthy to more than briefly summarise here, as: (a) we are very unlikely to be able to successfully challenge the floor damping fiddle; and (b) some ideas came out that should help next year's budget scrutiny (it is too late to implement them this year) and this came from all sides, which was very helpful. I am so pleased to have been the catalyst for this, having devised a finely-crafted and comprehensive question (though it still took me less than half a minute to ask it, note!) and elicited an even better result than I had dared hope for.

Overall, it was a surprisingly positive and useful meeting, and for me embodied the best of what Scrutiny can be when handled well. We are getting much better at this business, and that can only be good for everyone involved or affected by what we do at Scrutiny. Everybody wins!

Do We Still Need A Parliament?

That's a good question!

Now that much of what little power remained to the British Parliament has effectively been handed over to Brussels, and with Scoitland and Wales making many decisions independently of Westminster (and with their own funds to implement such decisions), what purpose does the London-based Parliament now serve? It would appear to be very little, but at just as great expense to the taxpayer and ever more intrusive dictator-style politicking in order to justify its continuing existence.

My somewhat radical approach has been for some months (and I have posted about this in other on-line discussion media) to look critically at this whole subject, with a view to seriously considering scrapping the parliamentary system if it can no longer justify its existence.

Under my way of doing this, all taxes would (as they should!) come to local communities directly, and those communities would effectively sub-contract some kind of national organisation to deal with the relatively few matters that truly belong there. Some subjects do belong there, but not many -- and certainly only a fraction of the issues that are currently handled via remote dictatorship in Whitehall, or beyond, for that matter.

This would also remove the possibility of fiddling of local government finance that has generated the budgetary difficulties within the best-run councils such as Medway, just because we have been an embarrassment to the Labour Government, putting their own councils to shame. There are other reasons too, but they are all purely party political, and nothing to do with right and wrong, as is easy to see from official sources of information, many of which I have on file here, so I've already seen this for myself.

It would also make all elected representatives taking decisions on what happens in this country truly representative of the community or communities that would be affected by those decisions. Again, no dictatorship by "outsiders"! Obviously, to make this work fully would need withdrawal from the new European Superstate -- but that is a separate issue, and I did start this post on the premise that the so-called Reform Treaty will in fact come into effect here in Britain, as seems likely...

An English Assembly or mini-Parliament, as some people are already suggesting, could be created to deal with national (and international) matters, and this would not only re-balance the currently skew between England and the other three parts of the United Kingdom, it would eliminate the issue of (for example) Scottish MPs being able to vote on purely English matters. That's just one possibility.

Obviously this idea of mine isn't necessarily the best possible solution, and I am sure that many would throw up their hands in sheer horror at the thought of getting rid of the "mother of Parliaments". Even so, it is this kind of thinking that could well help to restore the trust in politics that is so sadly lacking in this country at present (and has for many years) and bring decision-making at all levels much closer to the people who will be affected, via their elected representatives who will also be affected and whose doors can easily be knocked on by discontented residents living nearby.

Local politicians are also far more dependent upon even relatively small groups of voters -- typically only a couple of thousand electors will turn out to vote usually two or three in (or out!) at a time in a ward: tens of thousands vote for a solitary MP -- and they do need to be satisfied that their views, needs and aspirations are genuinely being taken into account when decisions are made.

As recent years' experiences have shown here in Medway, local MPs care little or nothing for local people's wishes, and are generally far more interested in promotion within their party in government. They can get away with the broadness of their constituencies and the consequent lack of genuine local accountability. They don't even get called to account, unlike (say) a council Portfolio Holder -- as we had before us at Scrutiny just yesterday evening, for example.

That would all change if and when the anachronisms that are MPs are scrapped, along with their loose and woolly behavioural regime, to be supplanted by the much more tightly regulated local Councillors for all matters that impact communities rather than the entire nation. We'd have no more threats of an international airport on the Hoo Peninsula, our schools could have major investment (currently specifically denied to Medway), and we would decide our housing numbers and densities, to suit local needs and capacity rather than some externally imposed requirements. It is the only possible way that we can take back control of our localities, and thus by extension much of our country.

Now that's what I'd call representative democracy in action!

Budget Scrutiny

Yes, it's our Directorate's turn to have its part of next (financial) year's budget proposals come before Scrutiny, later today.

This is always something of a non-event, as the sheer size of the budget shortfall (because of central Government's gerrymandering of local authority funding every year) means that it is never possible for our Cabinet to put even a nearly finished budget proposal out to the Scrutiny Committees -- it is always a "work in progress".

This would not be the case if we had a proper settlement and by this stage were effectively finished, short of a few fine-tuning tweaks and last-minute updates, which would be minor. That would be my preferred scenario, as I believe that Scrutiny has a part to play in budgetary development -- but only when it is allowed to do so.

With settlement announcements coming later every year (although at least they have tended to be near what was predicted in advance by the council's senior finance officers) and the latest unfunded wheezes yet to be properly costed, such a desirable and helpful situation never occurs, and is becoming less likely with every passing year.

This is a real shame: I for one want to make Scrutiny worthwhile (and I have a considerable track record in this quest -- far more than any Opposition Member, for a start!) and this is one area where this system could be made to be of genuine benefit.

Not that I am a fan of the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny system that was inflicted upon us -- I still believe that it is fatally flawed in concept and in application -- but I do remember my obligations to the people "out there", far more to any ideology or even political party, so I'll fight hard to make it work regardless, perhaps simply in spite of those who forced it upon us.

So, this coming evening I shall do my best, with inadequate material, and we shall also have the Finance Portfolio Holder there to grill on this and other aspects of his portfolio. I shall be bringing this and other matters to be answered.