Back of the Queue

When it comes to the dishing out of brains, House of Commons speaker Michael Martin was definitely at the back of the queue, if he was in it at all. Despite months of stinging coverage over his own personal abuse of MP’s expenses schemes, the last few weeks have also involved some pretty poor coverage for an elite group of his colleagues (again including Martin) who seem to view homes and their contents like Monopoly pieces.

You would have thought then that Mr Martin would want to avoid any further controversy – oh no, remember where he was in the queue!

Despite an Information Tribunal (the body which deals with Freedom of Information appeals) decision forcing the release of the expense details of 14 prominent and retired MP’s, Martin has seen fit to not only block any Commons debate on the issue, but he also gone to the High Court to have the Tribunals decision over turned.

The words “something to hide” immediately come to mind. If Martin is prepared to go to these lengths, hammering the nails into his own employment coffin as he goes along his merry way, then there must be something in this information worth protecting.

Oh, and by the way, the cost to the tax payer for the court appearance has already passed the £100,000 mark.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/27/houseofcommons

Twelve months to tell the truth!

After nearly a full year of prevarication, denial and cross accusation, South Tyneside’s Head of Corporate Governance, Mr Brian T Scott, has finally admitted that the case of the 18 missing ballot boxes was his fault and his alone. He has even gone as far as to offer a full and extremely humiliating apology. If Mr Scott were a Cabinet member of government, he would have had to resign today – he may even have been sacked. As it stands, he remains in full employment.

Today’s Gazette covers the issue in full, the information etc coming from a Council press release which released today. I have placed the relevant links at the end of this post. It is pointless reproducing the arguments – they are fully outlined in the links. You would be well served to visit my original post 30 January 2008 which exclusively highlighted certain court documents etc.

Nearly 12 months after the event, this issue is still drawing front page attention. The Gazette’s letters page will be forced to cover another double spread. However, we should not allow this to be the end of the affair and should instead look at three main points.

Firstly, Mr Scott should not be allowed to hold the position of Returning Officer for any future elections. His mistakes have cost the Borough dearly in its reputation for fair play, and he has shown that he has exhibited a degree of incompetence which is astounding in legal circles. He may even find himself being referred to the Law Society for gross negligence.

Secondly, had Mr Ahmed Khan not lodged his original petition, the public would never have known that these ballot boxes had gone missing – we may rest assured that the Council would not come clean on the issue of their own accord. The question must then be asked – has this happened before?

Thirdly and finally, the issue centres on why the Council and Mr Scott have gone to these very humiliating lengths to issue the apology. The answer to this question lies not in a sense of public duty, transparency or accountability, but on the fact that 45000 missing ballot box news letters were distributed by the Independent Alliance to individuals and households within the Borough. It was the Alliance’s actions which brought the truth to the voters, not the council.

So much then for open government!

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Election-officer-slams-missing-ballot.3915268.jp

http://www.southtyneside.info/press2/release.aspx?pk=4480

http://thenorthernherald.blogspot.com/2008/01/justice-south-tyneside-council-way.html

Whiteleas Ward

Earlier this morning I posted on the fact that Robin Coombes would not be standing for election in the Whiteleas Ward. He was in fact stepping to one side to allow Terry Haram a clear run at the seat. To gain some background to the affair, I spoke to the South Tyneside Alliance and obtained the following statement:

“Robin has been out of the country for a couple of weeks and when he returned he independently decided to speak to the wards current incumbent, Terry Haram, about the forthcoming election in May 2008. Robin was of the opinion that if “two” independent candidates were on the ballot paper, Labour would take the seat by default and without a mandate. Robin offered to do the honourable thing and stand aside to let Terry have a clear run in the vote. We fully understand and support his decision. As we are not a political party, he will not be replaced by an alternative candidate.

Robin has indicated that he will work with Terry to achieve what is best for the ward, both before and after the election. We understand that Robin will stand for election in two years time. The Alliance therefore fully supports Terry in his desire to be re-elected in May. Our individual members and associates will no doubt offer him any help they can, as we would any other candidates, either Conservative or Liberal Democrat, whose reason for seeking election is to break the Labour Party’s control of the Borough. South Tyneside needs an effective, independent opposition not bound by party issues, and we would encourage those who feel the same to support any individuals who adopt similar approaches”.

Well done Robin, you have taken a dignified stance, and good luck Terry.

Rumour Mill

It has finally been confirmed that Robin Coombes will not be standing in the Whiteleas ward election this year. After discussions with the current incumbent Terry Haram, it was felt that two” independent” candidates in the ward would split the vote and allow Labour to take the seat. Robin has done the honourable thing and stood aside to allow Terry a straight win. However, the two will work closely together after the election on issues that affect the ward, with a view to Robin standing unopposed in two years time.

This pragmatic approach deserves praise – we want an opposition in the Council Chamber, not Labour members voted in by default.

Well done Robin – so much for “independent” standing against “independent”.

I am currently collating significant quotes from the Independent Alliance sources, and will update this post later today.

Consulted my A**e!

It seems that all is not to well at the local Hebburn “Iona Social Club”. Despite being earmarked for a massive regeneration programme which will include err…. a Tesco’s, the lads at the club would rather stay where they are and not see their club knocked down – and why not, this is their watering whole, they own the land they stand on and the members feel it is the heart of their community.

Sadly, the members of the club will have been consulted on the issue before plans were made……accept that they weren’t! Claims today in the Shields Gazette quote club officials as saying the first they new of the demolition plans was when the paper itself highlighted the development. In essence, South Tyneside Council decided on the regeneration plans, which included bulldozing the club, and then decided to consult the club stewards etc. Its like saying to a dead man – sadly you’ve passed, but would you like this life saving drug!

At a recent Regeneration and Resources Scrutiny sub committee meeting on the Foreshore Development Plans (including Gypsies Green) I personally witnessed an exchange which went along these lines:

E. Malcolm (for it is he) – You were consulted prior to the plans to demolish Gypsies Green were you not?
South Shields Harriers Rep - No, we were only contacted when the press released details that the Stadium was to be demolished.

My well toned Sherlock Holmes senses are beginning to spot a Council pattern here – could the strategy be “let’s only consult when the plans are so far down the line that opposition is useless”.

To make matters worse, two of the current Liberal Democrat Hebburn councillors take refreshments at club – I bet their made to feel welcome under the present climate. No wonder rumours still prevail that their going to cross the floor to the Labour side next month.

Put it this way, the only place left for them to drink will be the Fountain Inn!

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Club-members-fight-Tesco-supermarket.3910515.jp

A sterile argument

During the period of the kidnapping of Shannon Matthews there was a definite story which was running under the surface of the main police enquiries to find her, and that was the childs social back ground. Shannon was living with her mother and step father, neither worked. Shannon also had six other brothers and sisters, all off whom had different fathers. Unlike the McCain’s, they weren’t media friendly and they had no PR gurus to fight their case. They were therefore always questioned outside of their council house, looking dishevelled and untidy. One major news paper reported that whilst the child was missing, they actually had the shame to have a Chinese meal delivered.

Many friends of mine held the view that this family should be stripped of any benefits they received, thrown out of their home and all the children taken into care. The word “spayed” was also used by a particular individual.
Nothing surprises me much these days, but I was taken aback by these view points, voiced in some cases by articulate and intelligent people.

This whole issue has been further highlighted by the comments of a Medway Council councillor in Kent. John Ward commented on his own site:

"There is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second child - or third, or whatever - while living off state benefits. It would clearly take a lot of social pressures off all concerned, thus protecting the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to breed for greed, i.e. for more public subsidy."

Clearly, this view point is held by a wider proportion of people than I initially thought. What worries me is that not only does this stance have the stamp of the Nazi regime, but it is an indication that compassion has disappeared from certain elements of society.

My own personal view point is that the system of social payments made to those in need who have support needs root to branch reforming. Money needs to be targeted to those who really need it, and diverted from those who expect it. However, we cannot simply either abandon people or split up their families because we don’t like what they have done or become. The state system created these people, and only by re education can they be removed from the subsistence trap that they find themselves in. If this country can support an influx of nearly ¾ million migrant European workers, then we can retrain and re-educate ¾ million of benefit receivers into worth while employment.

Surely that is a better approach than neutering?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/03/25/ntory125.xml

Strange Bedfellows

Many moons ago there was a pop group called “Mull Historical Society” fronted by lead singer and song writer Colin MacIntyre. The “Mulls” played pretty honest music, but weren’t prepared to ditch their admirable artistic trappings and be sucked into the mainstream music mangle.

Colin has now gone solo.

Many moons ago there was a Labour politician called Tony Benn. Mr Benn, like him or loath him, was a pretty honest guy. He wasn’t prepared to ditch his admirable views and be sucked into the mainstream political mangle.

Tony left the House of Commons and went solo.

The two have now got together and an album of music has emerged. Benn has penned the lyrics to the final track on the album, and it represents the left wing veteran’s first venture into humanist poetry. Sneak previews of tracks from the album reveal some excellent songs.

This is a far cry from Neil Kinnocks ventures into the world of music (Red Wedge, Tracey Ullman) but it shows that pop and politics can still mix it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/house-music-tony-benns-debut-solo-album-800170.html

http://www.colinmacintyre.com/

There’s only one certainty in life and that’s death!

So the old phrase goes, but if you live in Zimbabwe, you might hope that the certainty might just delay itself for a few more years or at least till the economy is under control.

Latest reports show that the cost of a funeral in the country has risen to Z$1 billion (in words to emphasis the amount “1 billion Zimbabwe dollars). The highest denomination note now available is Z$10 million.

This is Robert Mugabes Zimbabwe – with elections looming next week end there has never been a regime so ripe for change. However, there are already reports emerging from the country that corruption will prevent Mugabe from loosing his control, and international observers (the ones who have been allowed into the country) are already preparing to leave.

Whilst we rightly complain about 18 missing ballot boxes, we should always remind ourselves that our system whilst not fool proof, has stood the tests of time.

CCTV To Far

Not a great fan of late, but nobody really deserves this type of treatment.

Something has gone very wrong in society for this to happen.

http://curly15.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/sex-pictures-shock/

NTR

Thanks to Bryan at http://tynedockgreen.blogspot.com/2008/03/50.html for this post, though I don’t think his link took me to where I wanted to be.

I’m not a great fan of anything nuclear, bomb or power.

Thatcher hated CND with a vengeance. CND is still going strong, but Thatcher was err….. kicked out and dumped by her own party!

http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/ntdtrep.html

What a drag!

Radio 5 this morning is leading on the plans to ban the display of cigarettes in shops, pubs, clubs and restaurants. The Daily Telegraph also covers the issue with a pretty good summary of the situation.

Being a non smoker, I take great pleasure in leaving pubs etc, not smelling of someone else’s dreadful habit. I do also despair when I see school children beginning their daily journeys with a couple of Lambert and Butler’s before the school gate beckons.

However, banning cigarette display cabinets etc will not stop young people smoking, and it’s this element of society we need to tackle first. If you can stop young adults from taking up the habit and educate them as to its dangers and social restrictions, then as mature adults the site of a row of Embassy Number 1’s when they buy their local paper is not going to make any difference to the their judgement.

Education and price restrictions are the only things which will deter the potential smokers of the future, not draconian restrictions which only increase the level of state censorship in our daily lives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=VX1NBLAYULZQBQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/03/24/nfags124.xml&site=5&page=0

I vote for none of the above!

Today’s Guardian headlines with an interesting article on what it claims are government plans to radically change the traditional “first past the post” voting system. The plans, backed in principle by Gordon Brown, would involve a second transferable vote, polling stations open on weekends and even the possibility of making voting compulsory. The ideas are based on the desire to restore trust in our political structures and encourage higher voter turn out

Being very much a traditionalist, I like the current system. It produces clear winners (in the main) and every body knows who they are voting for. However, I do except that it is outdated and needs amendment. Whilst opening polling stations for two days is a valid change, the idea of compulsory voting has no place in a democratic society. The desire to vote or not as the case may be, is intrinsic to the principles of moral and political free will: the action of not actually voting is often a decision based on the lack of support for either the party’s involved in the election or the system under which they operate. It was compulsory to vote in Communist Russia – do we really want to replicate those totalitarian principals?

If politicians really want to restore public trust and encourage public turn out, perhaps they should look at themselves first. Expenses claims, payments to family members, poor attendance in the Commons, an unelected second chamber based on privilege – reform is needed firstly from within, then you can look at the voting laws.

Mind you, compulsory “attendance” laws would be a major step forward for MP’s and Councillors, but where would that leave certain local representatives?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/24/localgovernment.voterapathy/print

School Report Cards

Once again the mists of time have rolled over South Tyneside Council Chambers, with our elected (and unelected) representatives packing their satchels up and heading of home to prepare for the elections. Who knows, some may never return again and their desks will be used be new faces after May. As committee meetings grind to a halt, it also that time of year to see who went to school and who played hooky – yes, its school report card time!

Over the next week or so I shall be looking at the register for councillors, relating them to their attendance rates at both full and sub committee levels.

Who will be head prefect, and who will be expelled? Put it this way, read the two posts below and see where the bookies money is going!

An Appeal from The Panel - Have You Seen This Man?

Once again I have been forced to put pen to paper and comment on the goings on surrounding that intrepid explorer, Councillor David Potts (Cleadon and East Boldon Ward, incorporating Edinburgh for good measure).

Oh no you cry, here we go again. Perhaps, but this time it’s a case of “here we don’t go again”. Here’s a little scenario which was put to me a couple of days ago. Please read on – this one is a classic.

There exists in the South Tyneside Council sub committee structure a body called the “Appeals Panel”. Heres how the Councils web site describes its remit:

“This Panel deals mainly with appeals by individuals against housing allocation decisions and employee related appeals but it is also used to hear appeals in relation to certain other Council services. The Panel is actually a pool of Councillors from whom 3 are selected each time, to hear specific appeals, as they arise. As the appeals are always of a confidential nature they are always held in private. You will not therefore find any papers for these appeals sessions stored in this system.”

No this sounds pretty important to me, especially say if as a couple you’ve been on a housing list for a long time and feel aggrieved that you may have been missed out unfairly. The fact that the hearings are conducted in private is also an indication of the serious nature of some of these meetings.

As the preamble states, 3 councillors are chosen from a pool of 12, thereby ensuring continuing impartiality. One member from the three Chairs the Appeals Panel for that particular gathering. All three members must be present for the meeting to go ahead. So far so good. Looking at the Council’s web site, I can find no record of the Panel not being able to meet as a result of its appointed members not turning up.

That is of course until 14th March 2008. Enter one (or not as the case may be) Councillor David Potts.

At the last Appeals Panel, three Councillors’ were appointed to attend the next gathering. One of these was Mr Potts, and he was also given the additional honour of acting as Chair. Times, venues etc, were all given to the three councillors so no body was in any doubt of what was required of them. Everybody gathered on the appointed day, everybody except would you believe it, Councillor Potts. Not only was the Chair missing (in) action, but without his presence, the meeting was not a quorum and could not go ahead.

A series of frantic phone calls took place. Councillor Potts was finally located at about 10.30 a.m (the meeting began at 10.00 a.m.) Guess what, he was on a train coming back from Edinburgh. No problem, perhaps his train was just running late. Yes problem, the train was running to timetable. OK then, perhaps he would just be a little late then. Not OK, he had no intention of going to the meeting and err…..that was it. His failure to appear no doubt had nothing to do with the Conservative Spring forum being held at The Sage Gateshead, sadly at the same time as the Appeals Committee.. As we all know the Sage is very near to Newcastle Central Train Station, were trains from Edinburgh also regularly stop.

The meeting therefore had no Chair and not enough Councillor’s present to deal with the appeals that were on the agenda, including members of the public who have given up their time to present themselves to the Panel. Not to be deterred and in the interests of accountability and fair play, council officials contacted the next representative on the list, in this case Councillor Ken Hickman. With a deep sense of civic duty, he agreed to turn up. The meeting was able to go ahead, and the appeals were dealt with.

Firstly, well done Councillor Ken Hickman, at least you had the decency to acknowledge your duties as a public representative.

However, what of Councillor Potts?

Let us remind our selves of a recent sermon by said councillor which appeared in the Shields Gazette. Attacking the fact that government minister for the North East, Nick Brown, had allegedly snubbed South Tyneside, the article posed the question “where exactly is he?” A hand full of lines later Pott’s offers his own views on the situation;

Coun David Potts, leader of the Conservatives in the borough, said: "We haven't seen hide nor hair of him in South Tyneside."How dare our local Labour MPs pretend that they care for the people of South Tyneside when their own 'Minister for the North East' can't even be bothered to turn up?

Oh dear, what an own goal.

Cant be bothered to turn up, pretend that they care for the people of South Tyneside, kettle calling pot black - how dare indeed, especially when the first quote could actually apply to the Councillor himself.

So there you have it. It is now official - the trivial concerns of the public are of no concern to Councillor David Potts. His craving for self publicity matters more to him that the discharge of his public duties and representational obligations. What matters even less are the tribulations of the people of this Borough, many of whom are referred to the Appeals Panel because they have a valid grievance against the Council, particularly when it comes to housing matters – what can be more important to people than the roof (or lack of it) over their heads. There is also the problem of the concerns of his own Ward members – who is looking after there welfare when Pott’s is north of the border? Who indeed!

Councillor Potts has a particular penchant for first class rail travel; I sincerely hope that the Council is not reimbursing any of costs re his jaunts to Scotland. That would be very wrong, and I suspect it would also contravene every rule regarding councillor’s allowances. However, as somebody once said to me, Mr Pott’s relationship to the Labour hierarchy in the Borough is to close to be of a formal nature. Whether it’s close enough to see a repeat of the infamous “Cambridge” claims will all be revealed at the end of the month when Councillor expenses claims and allowances are available for public scrutiny. That’s when the diaries come out, meetings are cross referenced and journeys north are plotted on the map.

In the mean time, Councillor Pott’s continues to lead the polls when it comes to having one of the worst attendance rates for council committee meetings.

God help the people of Cleadon and East Boldon if he is re elected in May, but worse still, what will the good people of Edinburgh think of him when this type of behaviour is highlighted by Alistair Darling et al at the next general election?

http://www.myvenues.co.uk/news/Destinations%20UK/NewcastleGateshead-lands-Conservative-Spring-forum-in-2008/552/

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Minister39s-snub-for-South-Tyneside.3868312.jp

One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest

Perhaps people might like to avail themselves of this post which appeared some time ago on the Corner Shop web site http://curly15.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/tory-urges-support-for-environmental-bill/. Like a cuckoo Councillor Potts sometimes drops an egg into the site in an effort to gain a little bit of self publicity.

What a grandiose motion, full of potential and heart felt calls for cross party support – very House of Commons material. In his preamble Potts talks of taking “responsibilities seriously” and complains about “frivolous motions” being put to full council.

In the post said proprietor of the site asks a couple of questions of the cuckoo, but misses out on the essential one – “since I have given you such coverage, will you actually turn up and propose the motion and therefore not make me look like a berk for giving you the publicity”. If Mr Rigg had posed such a query, he would have received a resounding err….no, because that’s what happened. Once again Councillor David Potts didn’t bother to turn up at the meeting, not even to propose and support his own motion.

Taking responsibilities seriously, frivolous motions, party of opposition – Mr Potts must wear steel capped boots because the amount of times he has shot him self in the proverbial foot with his hypocritical mutterings leaves me surprised he can even walk!

Who knows, perhaps that’s the reason he never attends meetings, he’s to busy filling his boots somewhere else!