HAVE THEY NO SHAME PART 1

Edward (Teddy) Mcnabb is a community campaigner, a former soldier who served in Northern Ireland Teddy now restricts his fighting to the defence of the elderly within his community. So incensed was he when Northampton Borough Council withdrew Resident Wardens from the sheltered housing scheme he lives in that he took the Council on alongside many others who rightly pointed out that the Council was breaching the contract they signed with those elderly residents when they first moved into their homes.

So Teddy got busy, bombarding Councillors and officers alike with emails and questions, trying to get answers for many who were too frightened to raise their head above the parapet. Most of his emails went completely unanswered. In frustration at elected members from all of the three main party's who refused most times to even acknowledge his requests he lost his temper, by email! lots of them.

He knows he went over the top, even though many would understand his reason for doing so and he admits that he used some "inappropriate language" Now I know what you are thinking! But that's just your dark side coming to the fore, you see Teddy's expletives were not post 9pm watershed words, they consisted of him using lesser curses like "scum" and "bitch" both not nice, but when you are in elected office or working for the council you have to have broad shoulders and a thick skin.

Teddy also had other reasons to lose his temper on the keyboard as he had also received proof that the Council had considered and recorded the fact that they considered him to be mentally ill and that they also wrote to his doctor without his knowledge asking him to assess his patient, and in one internal e-mail exchange after Teddy had asked for a secret ballot on a tenants vote one officer wrote to another "He will get much more than a secret ballot "

So if ever there was a time to bring someone to the table and try and to resolve matters and faults on both sides then this was such an occasion. But no, that's just not the style of a Northampton Liberal Democrat Council, instead the yellow bellied bullies decided to hit him hard with a court order and sought an injunction preventing Teddy from contacting any Borough Councillor or officer (apart from the Borough Solicitor) and took such an injunction out in the names of all Cllrs without even having the decency of asking us first if we wished to be part of such an action (so much for local democracy)

see http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2010/05/who-is-bullying-who.html

Two over tender souls, Lib Cllrs Tony Woods and Dennis Merideth even submitted evidence to the court telling the judge how awful life had become because of Teddy's tirade of abuse. In the meantime myself and my fellow independents Cllrs Jean Hawkins and Malcolm Mildren instructed the Council to remove us from their ridiculous injunction and did what any Cllr worth their salt would do, that is talk face to face with Teddy to make sure he was not totally disenfranchised.

Teddy wanted to fight the injunction and attended Court to state his case, but it became clear that the Council would use all their legal muscle to take him on. as Teddy's total annual income is less than £6000 he reluctantly withdrew from the fray.

Not content with their pious victory (it surely would be the equivalent of Chelsea FC celebrating an uncontested victory over Duston Boys Brigade) the council went after Teddy for their costs totalling over £10,000! They told the court this astronomical bill included them costing out a lawyer at over £146 an hour! They used just the one "in house" solicitor

Luckily we managed to point out to the Judge that locum lawyers engaged by the Council were paid only just over £30 an hour and if the solicitor involved worked for the Council on a rate of £146 an hour then they would be earning annually over a quarter of a million pounds at the Council Tax payers expense. In other words the Council were looking to profiteer from the case at the expense of a disabled man on a measly £6000 a year income.

Well then perhaps Teddy was right after all. You see in my view any body public or private, willing to take such austere action and then chase fiscally for their own profit a sum of £10,000 from a disabled ex serviceman whose only crime was to become agitated on behalf of his elderly neighbours who couldn't fight for themselves, then I too would say that they are scum, and if they want to take out an injunction on me for saying so then so be it.

The judge it seems also agreed that they had overstepped the mark, as in court he reduced the Councils costs down from the £10,000 requested to £1,700 and also made it clear to the Council that they may wish to consider waiving costs entirely given Teddy's inability to pay. Only time will tell if they have listened or not?

The council accuse Teddy of being a bully, but just who is bullying who here? As the injunction is now indefinite what rights would Teddy now have to be represented if myself and my two Independent colleagues did not withdraw ourselves from the Councils shameful actions?

My fear now is that in the coming months Teddy and others may have good reason to take up the good fight again on behalf of the vulnerable as the Council and their coalition partners in Westminster looks to restrict services even further in the pursuit of small local government, the big society and tightened fiscal prudence.

In the meantime it seems as if we all will have to be gentle with the poor fragile souls in the Liberal Democrat group on the council, after all how dare the public expect them to be accountable and answer questions put to them as elected members, let alone take responsibility for their actions in cutting services to the most vulnerable in our society!

Just what has become of our local democracy, I ask you?

( Tomorrow part 2, a man and his bicycle )


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

IF SOCIETY REMAINS SO ANTI GAY THEN BEING GAY WILL REMAIN SO ANTI-SOCIAL

It would seem that the Conservative Party still hold true to the belief that closets are for far more than just keeping clothes in.

This weeks exposé of William Hague's private life and his alleged affair with PA Christopher Myers has in my view been as distasteful as it was confused.

Rumours as to William's sexuality have circled around in the Westminster village for many many years, I remember only too well the sniggers and whispers in Parliaments corridors that surrounded Hague and Sebestian Coe's Private Judo sessions in Jeffery Archers London flat, I didn't care much for this schoolboy like chit chat then and I feel equally disinterested now in what he gets up to with his personal advisors male or female as long as it doesn't affect the rest of us, but unfortunately in this case it might.

You see for me I have always considered that William might be bi-sexual, but firmly, very firmly, in the closet, I might be right and I might be wrong, but it doesn't affect my opinion of the man in any way, why should it? But the Conservative Party in the main think differently and that's the problem with Tories, even more so for Gay Tory politicians at national and local level; you see they find it even more difficult to talk about their sexuality in public than they do admitting it to their parents. To rub salt into the wounds of the whole gay community they then, when challenged by the press on their private lives go on to make statements which in themselves are so homophobic that they pander to the worst aspects of the gay bashing masses.

William Hague's personal statement this week was both ill advised and distasteful, why on earth he thinks we all need to know about him and Ffions problems with child birth is beyond me? Why he goes out of his way to talk about "improper relationships" and not having had relationships with "any man whatsoever" equally baffles me.

It reminded me of my good friend Stephen Pound MP speaking in the House once on the age of consent bill, he was winding up the Tory (and one Labour) homophobes on the opposite bench wonderfully by playing to their lowest base, one of them questioned his time in the Merchant Navy as if to say all seafarers must be gay. Stephen put on an air of mock outrage and said, "Madam Speaker the honourable member questions my sexuality, I will have him know that I am a rampant heterosexual! rampant! Madam Speaker" all to cheers of Hear Hear from the Tory benches. He then started to outline his sexual conquests before being bought to order by the speaker.  Not much remains in Hansard of this exchange, but those of us present appreciated his skillful exposure of all that is bad about the Conservative Party whenever they get to discussing gay issues. I doubt if they even realised that his whole act was a parody.

But coming back to William, what a fool he has made of himself and what a hole he has dug for himself in the future, because the real story here isn't his sexuality, it's his judgement in hiring an unqualified personal advisor to be paid for by the public purse and then it being revealed that he shared hotel rooms with the same individual. If his denial is so absolute then perhaps he would have been better advised in telling us that as a Yorkshire man that he was simply saving the Government money by sharing bedrooms with his staff to help them reduce the national debt, rather than putting all the details of his poor wife's traumatic miscarriages all over the front pages.

You see William's problem now is that even if he was gay and wanted to come out of the closet and say that he had indeed had a relationship with Christopher Myers then he has just added another lock to the closet door, because to come out now would reveal that he had in fact misappropriated public funds and used his position to employ an unqualified person and pay for hotel rooms on the grounds of their relationship.

So it all comes down to judgement, his in responding in the way he did, and ours as to whether or not we believe his denials, and also whether or not we believe that this whole episode has made him more suitable for high office or less.

What the whole affair isn't and should never had been about is his sexuality, or his private problems within his marriage to Ffion who incidentally is by far the biggest victim of this whole sorry sorry mess.

The national media and the Tory party in the meantime need to both wake up to the fact that being Gay is as natural and wholesome as being married with 2.2 children.

William though should learn to be William, just William and ignore all the tittle tattle and realise that it's his judgement that we all question not his sex life.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

LAST OF THE SUMMER WHINE

So farewell then Cleggy my old friend, you kept a nation entertained with your mad cap misdemeanours and along with your fellow partners in crime you created a coalition of the hopeless and hapless, but all good things must come to pass and the BBC have called time on your period in the spotlight.

Ironic then really that as we come to the end of another summers political break that the BBC should be marking the passing of one Clegg just at the time that the vultures are circling around another. And this particular Clegg's exploits alongside his posh mate Dave are far less funny than those played out on the small screen.

You see local Liberal Democrats have had there own long summers whine. Publicly it's been all chocolates and roses and sycophantic columns written by LD apologists in the Chron, but underneath the surface and in private the battle for Cleggs successor is it seems gathering real pace.

Internal email trees leaked to myself and it seems also to the local press show that all is not well in sandal land as local Councillors and Candidates become worried about their prospects at next years elections and consider standing not in the name of the much maligned national party "Liberal Democrats" but as "Northampton Liberal Democrats" or the "Kingsthorpe Focus Team"

All is not well!

You see Nick Cleggs problem, just like his name sakes Norman in the sit com is that all of his old friends have now deserted him, and the watching public in response has now lost interest and decided that things aren't as good as they used to be, the show has lost it's shine and the popularity figures have plummeted.

But should we really be surprised? after all we all knew that the Liberal Democrats had been sold a pup by their New found Tory chums in Westminster. The price of all their heartache in being blamed for hitting the poorest hardest and an unnecessary attack on public spending was supposed to have been a cast iron guarantee on electoral reform but instead the Party has been left with faulty goods and a bill which may not even reach the ballot box and even if it does, the chances of a positive outcome for Britain's third party are looking pretty slim.

I remember when I was in Westminster that the whips worried long and hard through those summer weeks when we as MP's were in our constituencies taking soundings from the party faithful, and they knew that on our return we would be more rebellious than ever.

But this time I think the rebellion will be played out at a local, not a national level, as the harsh reality of those Local Government cuts come home to roost in the nests of local Lib Dem and Tory Councils. no longer can they blame the government for under funding local councils, no longer can they suggest that if they were in charge things would be different, instead every cut has a yellow and blue tag tied to it, and the brave amongst their membership won't stand for it.

In Northampton however, I don't see any of the local Lib Dem Council at the minute having the courage of their own convictions, it is far too close to the next election for them to change course, so they will have to put on a brave face and go to their execution with their heads held high in shame as the poorest and the most vulnerable amongst Northampton's public pay for the folly of Hapless Clegg and his foolish mates in the Westminster Village.

Expect at County Level for more Care Homes and Day Centres to shut, at Borough Level expect the elderly in Sheltered Housing to have their services cut even further!, in fact expect all service levels to drop even further as whole sections of the Council are contracted out to the cheapest deliverers, more intent on making a fast buck than delivering any type of acceptable service. Expect Leisure Centres to be hived off into Trusts, and through all of this privatisation and the hiving off of all our services expect the Liberal Democrats to suddenly find an appetite for small local government and the Big Society.

It is all smoke and mirrors though of course, and no matter how hard they polish those mirrors Liberal Democrats will still be left standing in front of them seeing a service cutting Tory stare back at them in their own reflection.

No amount of harping on about the national deficit will help them either, that cat is well and truly out of the bag, and before long it will be clear that the actions of the coalition since coming to power have damaged not improved the economic outlook for the country.

So whatever happened to the Liberal love affair with Keynes? Since when did any Local Liberal Democrat Council sign up for "small" Local Government?

It seems as if The Last of the Summer Wine left our screens because people no longer thought it was funny! Well their won't be much laughter around in our County and Town Halls this Autumn either as the harsh reality of just what the Liberal Democrats have allowed David Cameron to do in their name comes home to bite them hard.

I just hope that some of them (even one) have got the balls to stand up and stay true to their political principles, after all it may be the last chance they get to redeem themselves before the public have their say!

BETTER TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH CLOSED AND LET PEOPLE THINK YOU A FOOL, THAN OPENING IT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT

The art of "Putting your foot in it" is it seems a great and noble British tradition. It combines timing, skill, dexterity and, in some cases, the ability to withstand a certain amount of media abuse. For centuries men have been practising and perfecting the ability to endure embarrassment of themselves and also others with split second timing, precision and accuracy.

And now as a nation we have our very own George W Bush in the form of wet behind the ears Prime Minister David Cameron. This gaffe a minute premier shows all the signs of being a diplomatic nightmare for the collective British interest over the next few years.

But am I alone in wondering why have the press not said more about it? And would they have been so forgiving if an outgoing Gordon Brown had made such stupid remarks during his last days in Number 10?

Perhaps comparing him to George W is a bit rich though? After all GWB was just plain stupid, whilst DC has had all the advantage of an Eton/Oxford education, which makes his gaffes even the more startling.

For instance consider Gaffe No. 1. in Washington in July, when he referred to Britain having been America's "junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis." This was not just an insult to all those who served and fought and lived through World War Two, is was also cringinglly and historically incorrect? How can someone from Eton totally forget about Pearl Harbour not happening until December 1941? And where were our American cousins when we needed them at Dunkirk? and yet the media hardly mentioned his error. How on earth Cameron achieved a grade A when he took his History A-level at Eton in 1984 is any ones guess

Then a few days later in Ankara we found the Conservative Party's answer to Jeremy Clarkson sharing his views on the Gaza Strip when he referred to it as a "Prison Camp" Now I actually agree with him on this one, it is the inaction of so many before him and now of him and his government who still continue to allow Israel to openly flout International law that has created such a situation But did he not think of the potential harm he might do as Prime Minister by expressing such a comment so openly without any thought as to the consequences?Now he will have to appease the Zionists to readdress the balance!

And of course more recently we have him upsetting our Pakistani Allies by suggesting that they "Look both Ways" when dealing with terrorism and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Camerons comments linked Pakistan wrongly with the export of terror and drove a massive wedge between the two countries. Now of course it was true that a few years ago there was proof of senior Pakistani intelligence officers being involved with Taliban warlords, but to make such a comment in the current context as if nothing had changed and to do so in India! for heavens sake?

What DC seems to be guilty of is wanting too much to suck up to his hosts when abroad, wherever he may be, So in Washington he praises there non existent contribution to the war in 1940 whilst demoting Britain to also rans, without a thought as to the damage he would do back at home.

And then in Turkey. so desperate was he to sound pro Muslim to his hosts and new friends that he suddenly decides to tell the truth about Gaza which many of us having been trying to get across for years!

And again in India, he knew very well that the home Indian audience would dance with glee at his anti Pakistani ramblings, but that does not warrant his action! His rentaquote attitude to overseas hospitality is not only embarrassing, it's also downright dangerous.

Only after this latest blunder have the Press shown any real interest, and then not to any real degree. Meanwhile the Tory party tell us that he is just speaking his mind? Well I am sorry but when you are abroad as Prime Minister representing the whole Country then some account has to be given over to diplomacy.

Meanwhile the other half of Westminster's answer to Jedward, Nick Clegg has also been getting in on the act by declaring recently that redundancy could give men a welcome opportunity to “reinvent” themselves as stay-at-home dads. This of course followed hot on the heels of his gaffe at the dispatch box when he declared the war on Iraq illegal.

Now once again I agree with him, but for a statement like that to be said at the dispatch box by a deputy PM plays straight into the hands of the International Courts. He might of inadvertently done those of us who opposed the war a favour, but don't try and tell me he meant to do it!

These two men are supposed to be running the country! Instead there constant blunders are now turning us into the pariah of the world. For all my disquiet as to the actions of previous post holders can anyone really have imagined Tony Blair, or even Gordon Brown making such huge mistakes?

John Dingle once said of another young Tory Prime Minister "I'm very close to suggesting that Mr. Pitt has now served as long as he can usefully do so. He seems to take his foot out of his mouth only for purposes of changing feet."

If only John Dingle could of seen these two in action!

STOP PRESS 5th August 2010: And now according to DC speaking In Turkey

"Iran has got a nuclear weapon"

Allah deliver us

DON'T GO CHASING WATERFALLS

Regular readers will remember my concern over the safety of the newly installed Water Fountain on the Market Square. Where I questioned why our council had spent so much money installing a water fountain which had proven to be unsafe by another council who installed the exact same system from the exact same company? http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.com/2010/05/aint-no-fountain-high-enough.html

Some may also recall that when I raised this in full Council that Cllr Richard Church got most upset and accused me of scaremongering (always a good defence when you are afraid the truth might come out) I also asked him to send me copies of the risk assessments carried out on the fountains operation.

He duly did so on the 2nd of July, The problem was the risk assessments he sent me were only carried out after I had asked for them and didn't deal with any of the concern I had raised with regards to possible ingestion of Cryptosporidium Parvum parasites.

Ever since I have had to ask ever more detailed questions in order to uncover the truth as to whether or not this fountain is safe for children to play in. So here is the truth uncovered so far:

Cryptosporidium Parvum spores are less than 1 micron in size.

The Market Square fountain can only filter down to 2-3 microns

Cryptosporidium Parvum spores are to be found where water has come into contact with animal faecal matter.

The Market Square Fountain is open to pigeon fouling, dog fouling and any organisms transported on the shoes of those walking through the area

Cryptosporidium Parvum spores where present are easily ingested through the air in mist or through the mouth from contaminated water and attack those with low immune defence such as children and those with HIV

The jets in the Market Square Fountain are at just the right height to be ingested by small children playing in the fountain

The council it seems has put its faith in what are called the PTWAG guidelines which stands for the Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group. But again the problem is this isn't a swimming pool! It's not a closed environment The PTWAG guidelines also state that to be clear of Cryptosporidium Parvum a swimming pool would need to be emptied and refilled 6 times after any faecal matter entered the water. And that is with giant filters and open pump rooms. Dog and pigeons also rarely swim in Swimming Pools and people rarely swim in their shoes!

So we have now got to the point where the council accept that cryptosporidium parvum.spores are less than one micron, that the filtration system in the fountain is nowhere near good enough to remove those spores. That faecal matter is present in the immediate environment. That the operation of the fountain produces jets and water spray at exactly the right height for children playing in the fountain to ingest. And that no risk assessment was carried out by the Council before I raised the question in the Council Chamber and well after the works were completed. Nor it seems has the Council bothered to contact the other authority (Clacton) which had installed a similar fountain from the same company to ask why they have acted to remove the risk, and it seems that no proper regime has yet been agreed by the Council for regular testing for cryptosporidium parvum from the fountains water

But as Richard Church says, I am just scaremongering!!!

I will let you, as always, judge for yourself

"FALSE FACE MUST HIDE WHAT THE FALSE HEART DOTH KNOW"

I am sure Shakespeare's mind was not on the actions of Northampton Borough Council when he penned the above, but Stratford upon Avon is not too far away so who knows?

But Billy Waggledaggers poetic muse sums up perfectly the insipid, secretive and undemocratic manner in which the current Liberal Democrat Administration on the Borough Council are conducting their affairs, or more is the point how they are allowing Council officers to conduct them on their behalf.

Last week the council decided to give its portfolio holder and officers delegated powers to sell Cliftonville House when staff move out later this year. Now I am not allowed to tell you what they are getting for it (even though it is your money) but let us say it is probably the highest capital receipt the Council has ever received (even after the Legal and General deal which we also can't talk about!) So you would expect with so much involved that the Council and it councillors would have looked long and hard at the deal?

No such luck. The council has spoken of moving out of Cliftonville House before, but the matter of selling the site only went on the council forward plan at the start of July.

One of the recommendations that they passed read as follows:

That Cabinet supports the disposal of the Council’s freehold interest in the property (shown edged red upon the attached plan at Appendix 1) known as Cliftonville House and Brer Court, Bedford Road Northampton to St Andrew’s Property Management Limited (subject to final agreed survey)

The cabinet were also told that the Secretary of State needn't be involved and that the land need not be sold on the open market because the price agreed with St Andrews Property Management was above the market rate.

This was all explained in a very complicated valuation report which did the equivalent of comparing eggs with bicycles also contained in appendix one of the report.

Still with me? good,

So they took the decision based on an attached plan and on the content of the valuation report in appendix one right?

Wrong!

There was no attached plan, and there was no appendix one, and not one of the cabinet felt it necessary to say so during the meeting, they just blindly agreed to say they had done something which they couldn't have possibly done due to the papers not being there.

Now believe it or not I don't mind them selling Cliftonville House, and I think all the staff moving into the town centre will have a positive effect on local trade. Also the move will save the Council money. But all that is different from ensuring that we take the right decisions in public, with all the papers in front of us and also so the public who own the property can be assured that everything is above board.

But the problems didn't finish there, the Cabinet also agreed on the night to spend £2m of the income from the sale on IT on the back of a hastily produced report saying that it was a priority for the council to do so as part of the move!

Again, I was outraged, This council has many capital priorities! we have homes which are not fit to live in, we have listed buildings such as Delapre Abbey and the Archway Cottages in states of disrepair, we have pavements which need repairing, we have bins which need replacing, we have Leisure Centres in need of painting, so where was the scrutiny as to what the priority should be for spending a large part of the windfall?

As a consequence of all of the above, myself and Cllr Joy Capstick (Labour) decide to call the decision in to ensure that the issues where addressed pproperly, Cabinet might not give a hoot and be willing to nod matters through without having the details before them but the rest of the council should not follow this poor example.

Our call in read as follows:

The call in authors ask the scrutiny management committee to note that all matters relating to the  sale of the freehold of the Cliftonville land, and proposed capital expenditure from any capital receipts from such a sale were not placed on the forward plan until July and not listed as separate items. We ask the SMC to further note that Papers for the Cabinet Meeting on 14 July were not available until the very last minute and that background papers were not even available at the Cabinet meeting. It was also clear that the Cabinet did not have all the relevant papers and appendixes to hand when making the decision.

Therefore the Call in authors call in the decision of Cabinet from it's meeting of the 14th July 2010 on the agended item on the grounds that:

There was no pre scrutiny of the proposed sale of the said property

There was no pre scrutiny on the use of capital funds derived from the sale

Additionally, the report of the decision states:

"Cabinet supported the disposal of the Council's freehold interest in the property (shown edged red upon the attached plan at Appendix 1) known as Cliftonville House and Brer Court Bedford Road Northampton to St Andrews Property Management Limited (subject to final agreed survey)"

As there was no such plan attached to the papers, nor available for members to peruse we feel that this decision is unsafe.

The call in authors also believe that under the new arrangements for scrutiny, a material decision such as this should have also have been scrutinised by the Audit committee.

Call in authors Cllr Tony Clarke Independent, Cllr Joy Capstick Labour.

David Kennedy the Chief Executive then wrote to us both declaring our call in invalid, first without explanation and then later on the grounds that our reasons for call in were all  "Procedural Matters"

Lack of pre scrutiny is always a difficult reason to sell for the purposes of call in as it is not an absolute requisite for a decision, but given that the item was not put on the forward plan until July 1st and also that the issues had not been brought to the attention of the Council before we felt both pre scrutiny calls were valid. But even without these to say that taking a decision without the relevant papers in front of you and then agreeing to say you had seen them is simply procedural is bizarre. As a consequence I have now challenged the decision.

A call in may have resolved the above matters and said to officers that they need to respect Cllrs a little bit more rather simply asking for delegated power to take the decision without giving all the facts to elected members.

The denial of the call in though in my view brings the whole council into disrepute, its says to the general public that we don't care if the decisions we take are taken without proper information being present and we don't care if other Cllrs want to question that. It says we will do as we please, and to hell with the rights of elected members. And it sends a clear message out to the public that says, don't bother voting because we will take no notice of your elected representatives as we the unelected officer class know better and we will do as we please.

I blame the current Liberal Democrat administration for lots of things, I am by my position on Council a member of the opposition, I am also a malcontent and I have total distaste for the whole way Local Government is run these days. But for all the crazy ideas and plans that the Lib Dems have inflicted on us since coming to power in 2007 none are as bad as their blind and meek acceptance of the above state of affairs.

Having championed the rights of those Councillors not in the executive for so many decades before coming to power they have in just 3 years become part of the problem not part of the solution as to how we bring more democratic accountability into our Town Halls.

They are yellow bellied, subservient, forelock tugging lackeys doing the bidding of their unelected masters, and I will not rest until they have found out locally like they are doing nationally that in politics to say one thing and do another is not the natural state of things and that principles unlike administrations are for life not just for convenience.

ELECTION PLEDGES IT SEEMS HAVE A BEST BEFORE DATE

The Liberal Democrats both locally and nationally before the last election warned us of the proposed Tory VAT Tax bombshell. Nick Clegg during the Leaders debates clearly declared on the 8th of April 2010 that:

"We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises...Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT"

Local Lib Dem's including parliamentary candidates Cllr Andrew Simpson, Cllr Paul Varnsverry, Cllr Scott Collins and Cllr Portio Wilson all campaigned throughout the election against the rise and accused the Tories of introducing a regressive tax which would hit the poorest the hardest.

So you would have thought it would have been easy for the same Local Lib Dem's at the town hall to back a Labour Group motion tabled at last nights Council meeting which read as follows:

“This Council expresses its concern at the increase in VAT announced in the budget on June 22^nd 2010, which will have a disproportionate impact on the poorest families in Northampton.

The Council recognises the Government’s need to bring down the borrowing deficit and the need to make decisions over tax and spending. The Council notes however that this should be done in as fair a manner as possible, should not have a disproportionate impact on the poor and should not risk economic recovery.

The Council further notes the report produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies which says that the increase in VAT will impact those on low incomes the hardest and this includes pensioners living on savings.

This Council instructs the Leader of the Borough Council to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to reconsider the VAT increase to 20%.”

But no they voted en-block against it !!

"The economy is in a worse state than we thought" they cried"

Not true as a) All the opposition parties are shown the red book way before the election and b) The deficit was expected on polling day to be £178bn but bettered to be only around £155bn post election a £23bn boost for the coalition government before a single cut has been made!!

"Its needed to balance the books" they bleated

Not true as the Institute of Financial Studies director Robert Chote pointed out to Mr Clegg when he told him that "the Coalition would not have had to raise VAT if Mr Osborne had not also cut other taxes, such as those on the profits of corporations".

"It won't be all that bad as inflation will fall" they squirmed


Not true as Sally Copley, head of policy at Save the Children UK recently outlined when she informed Parliament that "A 20% VAT rate means the poorest parents will see their VAT bill rise to at least £1,600 a year — affecting already overstretched budgets — and driving some into the arms of loan sharks," Copley said. "We mustn't forget that 3.9 million children are still living in poverty in this country — and that's just not good enough. The very poorest didn't create the financial crisis — so the most vulnerable in society should not be asked to pay the price for clearing it up."

I therefore last night pleaded with them to vote with their consciences and to stay true to their individual principles. I asked them to think about how shallow they will look if having campaigned against the rise in VAT before the election that they now are seen to be backing it.

All though to no avail, as en masse the Lib Dem with heads held low succumbed to the whip and the yellow sheep were safely shepherded in to back their Tory colleagues in voting the motion down

But one comment from Cllr John Yates summed up the whole sorry affair for me and reminded me why I struggle to trust any of the parties these days. His response to the debate speaks not only for itself but sums up the state we are now in. He said

"I don't see what all the fuss is about, all the political parties promise to do one thing before the election and then afterwards they have to think again and then change their minds and have to do something else, it's natural"

Indeed John indeed.

THERE MAY/WILL BE TROUBLE AHEAD

George Osbourne's recent bizarre behaviour in calling for reports on the full impact on public services of  a 40% cut in expenditure is worrying indeed.

Not just because of the obvious impact on public sector jobs and the services axed but also because it suggests a government which is determined to out slash the mad Thatch herself when it comes to getting tough with public spending.

How do you even begin to imagine cuts of such a magnitude? Knowing how public expenditure has already been reigned in over the last couple of years it is utter madness to suggest that such high scale change is possible without a huge impact on the economy and on the public good. We are talking about whole scale services being abolished not just a snip here and there. Prepare for whole sale closures of residential care homes, cuts to social care delivered at home and higher charges introduced, black sack collections fortnightly not weekly, Third Sector funding halved if not scrapped, dirtier streets, roads not repaired, Libraries closed, Museums closed Arts projects? forget it! Police numbers slashed, Hospital waiting lists back to where they were 10 years ago. Rail fares up as subsidies are slashed. Anybody who forgot or never knew what it was like to live under a Tory Government won't have long to wait to find out the harsh truth.

Today on Radio 4 it was further announced that Capital budgets as well as Revenue budgets are also to be slashed with public sector new build projects reducing from £49bn down to £21bn A £28bn pound cut to projects already identified as necessary! So what impact will that have on the services and also on a construction industry still reeling from the collapse of the Housing Market? What will it do to NBC's plans for Housing PFI and ensuring a decent Home standard for its tenants?

And equally what impact will have on overall unemployment levels? Public sector jobs it is estimated will fall by 600,000 and any further impact on the private sector order book will add greatly to that number.

Now, and only now the markets are starting to get twitchy, what if he goes too far? what if we have a double dip recession? what if what if the speculators will cry before ensuring exactly the same fall in the stock market that they are warning us all about. The irony of course is that Public Borrowing requirement was £8bn below that which was expected by the Tories when they made their plans for an initial £6bn squeeze on the public purse, meaning that they could have got their saving + £2bn without a single cut instead of carrying on regardless meaning a movement now of £14bn and still the Chancellor wants more!

Well I do see trouble ahead, real trouble, industrial action, rising welfare bills and quite possibly civil unrest, much as it pains me to say it I can't see the British Public just standing by this time and taking it on the chin. And the protests will be mainstream, not just limited to politically motivated farmers, fox hunters  and lorry drivers who have surprisingly gone very quiet recently as petrol prices have rocketed under a Conservative/Lib Dem government!

So where do we all stand when the time comes to stand up and be counted? This must be the most difficult of questions for Lib Dem MP's,  Cllrs and ordinary party members who are attached completely to the actions of the coalition government as it's their party and their leader who are wielding the axe!

Having listened to Tory and Liberal Democrat Cllrs over the last few years complaining that a Labour Government has sold Northamptonshire and Northampton short at budget I look forward to their commentary this time. What exactly will there mantra/excuse be?

No one will buy the lame excuse of national necessity or paying for Labours spending in the past, according to most Lib Dem's the Labour Government wasn't spending enough it seemed! and Lib Dem candidates up and down the country stood on tickets of no rises in VAT and the need to be cautious with any public spending reductions which threaten the economic recovery. What shallow cruel words they now seem, what hypocrisy! And was the price of a vote on the Alternative Vote next May really a price worth paying? Not to the Lib Dem's I have spoken to who think the vote is far too early and the desired outcome far too hard to difficult to achieve at a time when the country will have different voting patterns dependent on local elections.

So we will have a few very interesting weeks and months ahead of ourselves as Lib Dem MP's Cllrs and individual members have to make the toughest of tough choices and decide if they will stay true to their principles and leave the party or continue to sell their souls and reputations to the devil in the guise of further right wing attacks on the public realm the scale of which even Thatcher herself never dared to attempt.

I hope I am wrong on one point though above, no one wants civil unrest, it is always nasty and the public will always suffer as a long term result, but at the minute I can't see an alternative outcome? Not when we have the nasty party back in government this time all wrapped up in the yellow hue of Liberal expedience.

ITS A VISION THING - SO WHERE IS THE VISION?

I recently attended a planning event for Cllrs on the Borough Council to discuss the "THE CITY MEADOWS WORKSHOP" which asked members their views on the future of the river valley through Midsummer and Cow Meadows within the town centre.

The workshop itself had already taken place in October where council officers and outside consultants had already been busy engaging with each other and drawing up plans which they could put to the council. But now the Lib Dem administration felt it needed sharing with us less important back bench councillors

It all had an air of familiarity about it! I remembered back to 1998 in the pre millennium days when we drew up similar plans for a Millennium Mile on the same site. Mark Fisher the then Arts Minister joined myself as the town's MP and Will Alsop and Roger Zagolavich and Marie Dickie as Chair of the project to look at what was possible. Will (an internationally renown architect) had a vision for a series of buildings which bridged over the river on stilts which would could  house amongst other things a National Shoe Museum and restaurants and art galleries. Despite our best intentions It was in the end all fornothing, the opposition at the time (Tory/Lib Dem) threw cold water over our plans saying they were not realistic, too grand, the buildings too wacky!

Will's design for the National Shoe Museum went on to become Peckham Library (left) and won a European prize for architecture in the bargain, and the planners having dismissed our radical ambitions went back to sleep and congratulated themselves and the Lib Dem opposition on having scuppered our vision.

So now the roles were reversed! Now the Lib Dem's wanted our views on their plans, but what would they entail? more lights and fountains? a shining monument to a new coalition government? The only way of me finding out was by attending, so I did.

I was thoroughly underwhelmed! What plans did they have to use the space for future city dwellers to enjoy the riverside in a vibrant go ahead town?

Well dog walking was suggested, or a fitness trail! maybe a motorhome park! Other suggestions from the officer group workshop and the assembled councilors included bird hides and dipping platforms!

Now I have nothing against any of the above activities, and I am sure people derive hours of pleasure from them, but this was "City Meadows" This was our chance to put Northampton on the map and having shot down Will Alsop in 1999 surely the Liberals could have spent the Councils cash more carefully rather than engaging consultants and using officer time to come up with a plan to turn Northampton Town Centre riverside into a Pocket Park!

This is a key gateway to the town the consultant kept reminding us before waxing on lyrically on about integrated street furniture the location of hubs and a possible equestrian centre!

Just where is the real vision I asked? What is it about our council that cannot see what is happening elsewhere all around them ? I pleaded with them for once to have some balls, and to think the unthinkable and to use the space and opportunity to think and do something big to locate something of iconic size and value at little cost to the Council.

"Why don't we go out to the market I suggested, tell them we have free open land available in a town centre environment for  a national project looking to be innovative and exciting. And then use such a facility/building to act as a catalyst to bring more  people down to the riverside where we can then provide even additional facilities for them.

I reminded them of (hush hush) Milton Keynes and the Snow Dome and the MK Bowl and asked why we couldn't compete and for once do something that is a little bit more adventurous than rambling.

Open mouths, silence and then a spark of energy from the back benches of the administration and some opposition Councillors, "yes why not" they all joined in. The moment was almost revolutionary the worm may just have turned?

So help me keep it that way, help me maintain the enthusiasm of others and tell me what should we chase as our dream for the meadow? The peoples plan! free from consultants invoices!

The largest in town outdoor music venue in the UK outside Hyde Park? An Iconic tall building to celebrate Northampton's rebirth? an ecosphere? an HQ for a national sport? and do you agree that we should chase ideas from the market/rest of the UK? spend our money on offering the site rather than on consultants and bridleways

I would welcome your views.

OVERPAID - OVERATED - OVERTHERE NO MORE

Not much to add to the wall to wall post defeat evaluation of England's exit from the World Cup apart from statements of the blindingly obvious:

1: How come the highly paid superstars of Italy, France and of course now England are on the plane home and yet the part time and hardly paid youngsters of Slovakia, Japan, Chile, Paraguay and Ghana march on?

Answer:  Hunger and the pride in wearing their national shirt are more important than wage and personal status.

2: Is it time for goal line technology?

Answer:  No, no law should be introduced to the game that cannot be implemented at all levels of the game from World cup down to park pitch. Players make mistakes (Like green's fumble) and they often cost games. Referees and linesmen ( I refuse to call them assistant referees) make mistakes and equally we should all learn to live with them.

3: Why were we so poor?

Answer: We weren't, we were mediocre, lethargic, didn't play as a unit and Germany wanted the game far more than we did and they outrun us and outplayed us.

That's that really