THE SPEECH ED SHOULD HAVE GIVE TO THE TUC

When a Labour Leader in opposition is booed at a TUC rally (Saturday 20th Oct 2012) for addressing an anti cuts audience with a weak and limp "we will cut less, and we will cut slower" message then you know that the body politic, that is now Labour PLC has completely lost it's way.

You also know that the divide between the people and the party has been widened and deepened, and far more disturbing you start to realise that our democracy has been weakened to the point that those who are governed feel that not only those who are governing them but also those who seek to replace them are both not listening.

You then realise that the British public are starting to wake up to the sobering fact that no one in the mainstream of our political system is offering them an alternative, not just to the cuts, but to how Britain is to be governed and to who will come forward with the courage to take on the vested interests of the entrenched establishment and speak up for the people.

So I thought I would write my own speech for Ed, the one he should have given to the TUC, it is formed around new and old ideas, each formed around the discussions taking place in and around the country mostly outside of Labour Party meetings and including a public meeting held recently in Northampton at the inaugural Ron Todd Lecture,  which I had the privilege to chair.

It was not totally a Labour free zone,  Jon Cruddas MP who stood as a candidate for the Labour Party deputy leadership joined me at the top table, and as the author of the party's policy review, I hope that he picked up one or two ideas. His local Labour Party members didn't get the opportunity to guide him however as only one of them turned up to listen! I guess the rest were probably banned from attending the meeting on the grounds that they may sit next to someone radical!

But for what it is worth these are the sort of things we were discussing and this is what I think Ed should have said to those at Saturdays TUC rally, albeit very truncated;

"Colleagues, Brothers and Sister's

I bring fraternal greetings to all gathered from the Parliamentary Labour Party and the wider workers movement at large.

I join you in expressing a collective opinion as one voice to the current Coalition Government in the strongest and clearest terms that they have cut and slashed our public services far too deeply, far too quickly and in doing so have bought Local Government and Britain to its knees, they have deflated the UK economy, increased public borrowing and put Britain's economic recovery in deep perilous jeopardy.

I say to those listening at home in the country that the Tory Party in government have cynically  used the current economic crisis as an excuse and as a smokescreen to achieve it's long term political ambitions of destroying the Welfare State and shrinking Local Government and the state to the point that the rich can continue to get richer at the direct expense of those who have least and those whose need is most.

I say to the Prime Minister, that he has personally presided over the most blatant and cruel attack on the weakest in our society and in doing so divided Britain for the first time in 40 years on class lines rich against poor, haves against have nots, North against South, and I say to his mini me, deputy Nick Clegg that no prize, not even that of deputy Prime Minister is worth the price paid by him and his party for their collusion and complicity in this brutal assault on the poor in our country.

I today call on them both in the name of common decency to leave office, to put an end to this corrosive coalition government, and to put to the country the choice as to how they want Britain governed in the future and how they want their taxes spent and their money used.

And I announce from this platform that after a vote of the PLP and NEC executive endorsed by a majority of CLP chairs across the country that the first thing a Labour government will do back in office is to table a government emergency bill to immediately scrap the Trident nuclear weapon programme releasing over time over £100 bn back into the UK economy to assist in our economic recovery and in the delivery of our vital services.

For Britain to spend such vast sums on a nuclear weapon system eight times as destructive as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 shows a lack of sanity, and a lack of common sense in a post cold war era.

Such a weapon would be illegal to use and no country on earth, not even the nation responsible for its launch could be able to escape the total devastation that would follow the use of such a destructive device and such a wicked strike.

I therefore also pledge here today that the the scrapping of Tridents replacement at an unnecessary cost of a further £25bn in 2028 is now official Labour Party Policy. I pledge that the 7000 jobs lost by scrapping trident will be replaced with 52,000 new jobs within the construction industry using the annual £4bn set aside for Trident capital spending to build new homes for Britain's young.

I say to this audience that if we are really all in this together then why does the British government stand by and watch blue chip companies like Starbucks, and Ebay, and Amazon and Boots and Barclay's Bank and Vodaphone and KPMG make billions of pounds of profit off of the backs of British workers and from the pockets of British earners without paying their fair share of British taxes?.

So let me be clear, a Labour government will also legislate as a priority to ensure profits earned in Britain are taxed in Britain. If they want our trade, then the tax man gets paid!

I also announce here today an immediate investigation into the introduction by a Labour Government of a new Land Tax to further help fund the Britain's economic revival. Only 5% of Britain's 60 million acres are used up by our population for domestic dwellings, 90% of our population crammed into just 3 million acres of land, another 5% of our land is used by British businesses, and 20%, is unusable for either purpose, as rivers or mountains. Leaving a massive 70% of our land which has then been left in the ownership of just 0.28% of our population.

So why is then the home-owners and business owners are paying £33bn and £20bn respectively in Land tax each year to the exchequer whilst the 0.28% who occupy the majority of our land are paying nothing and receiving an annual rebate of £3.5-5bn a year for simply not working the land they own, or in agricultural policy paybacks! This aid for aristocrats must stop, and Britain's richest landowners should PAY land tax, not be the recipients of government hand outs!

You poor take courage, you rich take care, this earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share!

I offer you this vision, these policies to the British public as a fairer way of reducing Britain's deficit, as a more equitable way of ensuring that wealth in our country is equitably distributed, and a sure way to ensure that tax revenue is put to the use of the many not the few.

NO MORE CUTS - NO MORE WASTE ON USELESS WEAPON SYSTEMS - NO MORE TAX EVASION FOR MULTI NATIONAL COMPANIES and NO MORE TAX REBATES FOR THE RICHEST IN OUR SOCIETY.

That's my vision for a fairer Britain. that's our answer to those who say there is no alternative. let us offer to the people of Britain a real choice, let us show them how Britain can be fairer and more just, let us work for the future of our young people rather than against their interests.

At present we are not all in this together, but together we can build an alternative way forward"

For those interested in Jason Cowleys excellent piece in Septembers New Statesman, you can find it here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/aid-aristocrats For those wanting the facts without the narrative I copy them below:

WIFE'S LOVER? I THOUGHT HE WAS A BURGLAR

Political interference in the judiciary is never welcome, and whilst the House of Commons must always be the "maker" of laws it must always fall to the Courts to determine the innocence or guilt of those in breach of the law.

That is what makes Tory Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's announcement today on the rights of homeowners to defend their own property with aggressive force so unpallatable.

In a pretty transparent attempt to cheer up the right wing of their party and in an orchestrated move to draw attention away from their own failings on the economy and on transport and on health, the right wing of the Government coalition are once again throwing raw steak at the rabid dogs within their fold.

And of course it will all end in tears, political legislation is always poor legislation, rushed through without proper scrutiny it is meant to grab the headlines rather than improve the law. At least the last time a Tory Government tried this on with their 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act only family pets lost their lives, but this time the fatalities will all be human and not all of them Burglars.

To re cap on the existing law, we all have the right to use "reasonable" force to protect our property from intruders, and "reasonable force" is of course  determined in a court of law by a judge and jury. So well does the existing law work that between 1990 and 2005 there were just 11 prosecutions for people tackling intruders in any premises, including only seven involving homes, seven cases in 25 years is hardly a national crisis
 
So in England and Wales, as stated above anyone can already use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are also already protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.

But under the new Tory Plans the wording will be changed to protect the home owner further from prosecution, in all circumstances unless the violence used against the intruder is deemed to have been "Grossly Disproportionate" it will mean that someone who is confronted by a burglar and has reason to fear for their safety, or the safety of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances but in the cold light of day seems disproportionate, they will not be guilty of an offence.

So how is that phrase "Grossly Disproportionate" to be determined? Well on Radio 4 this morning when asked this exact question Chris Grayling gave an example that say for instance you had beaten the intruder until they were unconscious, then it would be grossly disproportionate to then stab him to death!The Prime Minister when asked the same question by Sky News, tripped out the identical answer.

Now don't get me wrong, we all have the right to protect our own property but the government's intervention to re word and alter an already established and understood legal threshhold has just got a whole lot murkier and a hell of lot more dangerous.

Critics have already labelled the move as a licence to kill and criminal analysts have expressed concern that in response to the move Burglars are now far more likely to arm themselves when "on the Job" as a means of protecting themselves from over zealous attacks fro vigilantes. Other critics have also pointed out that not every intruder in your house is necessarily a Burglar, a whole range of public officials already have a right to enter your property including of course the police themselves.

Senior lawyers have also warned that the proposals are simply a political gimmick which risks confusing the law for all the wrong reasons.

Michael Turner QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said:

“There’s no concept in British law of allowing someone to use disproportionate force for good reasons. There is absolutely no need to change the law on self-defence as it stands. “This is about making a political headline. It would be an unnecessary piece of legislation which has real potential to be dangerous.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, accused Mr Grayling of showing both ignorance and disrespect for the law. She said: “Terrified householders defending themselves are already protected, so this irresponsible announcement can only be designed to make people afraid or actually encourage vigilante execution.”

But it is the potential for criminal intent that concerns me most about how this new law is to be interpreted. Imagine for instance discovering your loved one was having an affair, now under a Tory Government it would be favourable not to catch them in bed, in flagrante (on the job) instead you can just wait until your partners bit of fluff is in the Kitchen, then come in the back door and bludgeon him/her to your hearts content (to his end if you wish as long as you don't stab him afterwards) break a window from the outsdie to stage a break in and then just inform the Police that "Sorry Guv, I honestly thought he was a burglar"

Likewise the new law could lead to a whole new series of "Home Delivery" attacks and killings, just arrange for the person involved to be at your house, again stage a break i, beat them to a pulp and say once again, "Sorry Guv, I just came home and he was in the house"

The Tories at Conference this week have avoided thus far in using the word "Growth" but let us be clear, with crazy mad cap schemes like this we will undoubtedly see lots of growth. a growth in vigilantism, a growth in weapons being used in burglaries, a growth in the number of defence pleas against attacks at home cases, and of course an inevitable growth in the numbers injured and killed on both sides, home owners and burglars.

Lets just hope it doesn't lead to a growth in votes for a discredited party of the backs of a Daily Mail reading non thinking public. And what will happen next year, heaven forbid if this government are still in power and they need to knee jerk even further to the right? Well how about a bit of Israeli law? legislation there allows home owners to shoot at will at anyone who they reasonably believed to have any criminal intent!

I know I shouldn't put ideas into the heads of the politically insane, but a desperate government can be grossly disproportionate in it's actions

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE

Andrew Mitchell's "Pleb" recent outburst at Police Officers outside Downing Street has been "very damaging" to the Tory Party. So says Defence secretary Philip Hammond today in a further attempt to "draw a line" under the whole affair.

But it wasn't just Mitchell's  "F*cking Pleb" outburst which caused the damage, it was the fact that he lied and lied again over what was actually said and to what extent leading to the point where police officers had to to publish their own witness statements in a national newspaper.

His absence from the Tory Party conference in Birmingham (where his constituency is)  this week on the grounds that being there would be a distraction, is an admission if ever needed that his current position is untenable and his authority as the Government Chief Whip shot to pieces.


Meanwhile Tory  Party chairman and previous Housing Minister Grant Shapps will also be causing a distraction this week after it was revealed that he used a "Nom De Plume" Mr Michael Green to help sell a get rich quick scheme for a company he ran and then passed onto his wife. A probe into Mr Shapps is now focusing on his claims to be a self-help guru called Michael Green on a website called howtocorp.com. Mr Shapps continued to use the name Michael Green for his business interests throughout the 2005 election campaign and his early years as an opposition MP. ‘Mr Green’ charged clients £183 an hour for advice on how to make money from the web as well as offering tips on how to beat the recession blues, including splashing out on a jet-ski or learning to play the guitar.

A complaint to the ASA alleges that the website misled the public by presenting Michael Green as a genuine businessman with a personal fortune of £17 million, who would share the secrets of his success for a fee.

So what it is with politicians and their "pen'chance" for what Churchill described as 
"terminological inexactitudes" which most of us refer to as "Porkie Pies" and how do our local Cllrs compare with their national counterparts in comparison?

Well in my promised second expos'e of the quality of current Cllrs at NBC I ask you to consider the following tale of business dealings and then decide if this is the calibre of representative we really need at the Guildhall.

A few years ago a businessman based both in Northampton and also the North took a court action out against a large Northern Council supposedly for non payment of asylum seeker rents on properties he managed.

The claim for a large sum of public money was disputed by the Council, not surprisingly at the time as the Council doubted whether or not whether some of the properties had indeed been used for this purpose and also whether or not the asylum seekers said to have stayed there actually existed in the first place.

As part of the hearing a company in Northampton was made aware of their involvement in the action and also informed that their company name had been used as part of the claim and some of their properties involved in the invoices which had been submitted in their name and on their headed note paper. This was news to them, most notably because they had no business or properties in the North.

So they attended the court, to give evidence that they had no involvement whatsoever in the action and didn't now how their name had been used in such a way, and were very surprised to see a well known Northampton businessman in court putting forward the case, at this point the businessmen apparently got quite upset, and asked for an adjournment, immediately afterwards he and his lawyers immediately withdrew the action against the Council and dropped the case.

The businessman then concentrated on bringing an action on the Northampton Company to try to prove that he was as he had expressed to the court a partner of the said Northampton firm and had been working with them all along on the letting of properties in the North.

This case was heard by Leicester Crown Court. The Northampton company had to spend a considerable amount of money proving that papers submitted to the court by the businessman were in fact forgeries, they were in many cases false documents constructed from their headed notepaper a copy of which the businessman was in possession of. The judge during the hearing become increasingly frustrated at the inability of the businessman to offer any concrete evidence of the partnership other than continuous here-say and photocopied documents. A handwriting analyst had also submitted condemning evidence to the court informing them that in their view the signatures on the documents submitted by the businessman had been forged. 

In a last minute attempt to quash the overwhelming evidence against him and change the direction of the case the businessman finally came up with an original document to back up a photocopied already submitted. This he presented to the court. Comically, but with serious consequence the dates on the original submitted and the photocopy produced from it were then seen to not be a match.

The court understandably found in favour of the Northampton Company and the Judge it is said expressed a that view a fraud had been committed and suggested that the Police investigate the matter.

No police investigation took place as the businessman immediately afterwards had incredibly appealed against the courts findings prolonging the case, with little hope of success The appeal was as expected subsequently dismissed. 

In addition to his dealings in court and despite being a businessman of supposedly considerable income and wealth an application for Housing Benefit was also submitted to Northampton Borough Council during this period. But having been elected to the Council the Housing Benefit Application at the businessman's family home seems to have been "withdrawn" or "not processed"

Does the above sound like a fit and proper person to hold office as an elected Labour councillor?

I have not named the individual and as always offer to them the opportunity to contact me to correct anything above that they feel is not accurate, but my concern here and also above at what is happening at national level in the Tory Party is that I believe we should expect a higher level of integrity and business practise from those who then go on to stand for election? 

And shouldn't those elected to office also consider what effect their past dodgy business practises (when revealed) will have on the overall standing of politicians and other party colleagues that may be affected by the "all tarred with the same brush" mentality.

We deserve far better from our national and local politicians, and it was George Orwell who told us that "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" So long live the revolution


 

COUNCIL COMES SECOND IN ONE HORSE RACE

Eminating from the party political school of what was probably the worst of New Labours spinning years, you would expect me to be suspiciously cynical of too many "Good News" Council stories appearing in the local press, and so when the Chronicle Echo headlined on its website earlier this week not once, but twice with

"NORTHAMPTON NAMED WINNER OF EAST MIDLAND IN BLOOM AWARDS" and "JUDGES PRAISE FOR OUR BLOOMING TOWN" and  Herald and Post joined in the praise with "TOWN IS BLOOMING MARVELLOUS" I was suspicious.

Northampton in Bloom St James

And so it was, in what I am told is typical Tony Clarke fashion, that I adopted the mantra that a cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin. You see for some time now  I have questioned just exactly what Britain in Bloom was really all about and wondering who it was who was judging who? Was it simply a vanity prize? or a true reflection of effort and input to celebrate all things floral in the world of Local Government.

My findings are not meant to embarrass anyone, nor to belittle the efforts of so many wonderful volunteers like George Howard of the Castle Environment Group, in fact Georges role becomes particularly important to the story.

But as far as the Council are concerned the real headlines are far from rosy and are very different from those above and could be chosen from the following options:

 "COUNCIL COMES SECOND IN ONE HORSE RACE"

or how about "NO CUT BACKS ON FLOWERS AS OFFICERS PARTY ON"

or  "EVERYONE'S A WINNER IN AWARDS FOR ALL FIASCO"

Any of the above will suffice, you see dig down under the rose beds, shine some sun light upon the shadier corners of the Local Government garden, and weed out the manure from the bullsh*t and you will find the whole horticultural beauty pageant is really nothing more than organic table dressing.

Northampton in Bloom Thorplands

Britain in Bloom dishes out thousands of awards each year across the regions in fact even within the East Midlands Region alone they extend themselves to presenting around 150 awards a year, and this is not hard for them to do as:

A) Every paid entrant is guaranteed an award and

B) So innovative are they with the categories that you can have a whole one all for yourself if you wish!

There is Small Village, Village and Large Village, Small Town, Town and Large Town, Small City, City and Large City, Coastal Resort (watch out for global warming) Urban Community, the "It's your Neighbourhood" category, and the "Most Improved Entrant" award heads up a further 10 such "discretionary" awards to be shared out amongst all entrants. Northampton this year for some reason was placed in the "City" category (cities with populations of between 100,000 and 200,00) Northampton's population is of course 210,000 which would have pitted us against much stiffer competition from Derby, Leicester, Nottingham etc.

Last year we were up against, and came second to the giants of Loughborough who it seemed competed elsewhere this year leaving us in 2012 as the lone entrant in the City category and thus bringing  us a Silver (Gilt) Medal.

Silver! you ask. why not Gold after all we were the only runner! Well it seems that BIB in a kindly  attempt to make sure everyone's a winner only really judges you against a scoreboard ranging from 0 (for doing absolutely nothing at all) up to 200

These 200 points are then spread across three areas A, Horticultural achievement B Horticultural Practice and C Green Spaces And this is where it gets complicated 0-99 points gets you a Certificate of Achievement Award, 100-119 points a Bronze Medal, 120 - 169 points a Silver or Silver Gilt medal and 170- 200 points the Big bold Gold.

Back then to George down at Spring Boroughs, it seems that any Community involvement scores highly on the score board meaning that NBC's scores for the last two years have been favourably weighted due to the sterling efforts of George and others like him. Georges work this year even earned him a special "Judges Award" for his efforts.

Northampton in Bloom Ethel Street

So I conclude that a probable third placed Bronze Medal for NBC is then turned into a second place Silver Medal by the efforts of community groups and volunteers, which then as the only entrant in the category enables Northampton Borough Council to become  the"Category Winners" and go forward to the National award ceremony to receive even further plaudits.

EVERYONE'S IS INDEED A WINNER, they all cry, but none more it seems than those sent to represent the Council at the Annual awards. Obviously Britain in Bloom are very aware of the tight fiscal and economic climate that all Councils are now operating within and choose the venues of their award ceremonies very carefully indeed.

Last year they all gathered at the 5 star St Andrews Hotel overlooking the Old Course at the Royal and Ancient club and this year they are all off to Guernsey!

What a wonderful story, and so close to the florally scented press releases shooting forth from the budding press officers at the Guildhall.

 Bouquet's all round

JUSTICE FOR THE 96 (EVENTUALLY)

What sort of democratic society do we live in where it takes 23 years for the bereaved families of 96 innocent men, women and children to have to fight for the truth that their loved ones died unnecessarily, and that those responsible for upholding the law, lied and broke the law to cover up their own crimes?

164 police statements altered, evidence that the police purposely tried to denigrate the names of the victims and to push the blame away from themselves, a society exposed whereby judges and courts can approve inquests which falsely stated that lives could not have been saved, where those able to save life were prevented from doing so? where evidence showing that people were still living, still breathing was altered to suit the need for authority to bend the truth, where governments are able to say we are sorry but insist that they knew nothing at the time?

What would it have taken for the Prime Minister of the day to insist on seeing all the records from the Police? on asking to see the written AND typed statements from Police Officers?

Do they really think we will believe that they knew nothing and could do nothing to find out the truth from a chief constable who couldn't even secure the crime scene to protect the evidence?

Bereaved parent Trevor Hicks said if he could be granted one wish before he died it would be to find out what was really said between Margaret Thatcher and police chiefs when she visited the Leppings Lane terrace the day after the disaster. 

Because someone in high places had already told him that Thatcher had decided it was imperative that the police were exonerated. That the consequences for a force she treated almost as her private army, would be immense if (as Lord Justice Taylor’s report later demanded) they took the rap for 96 deaths in their care. 

And so the cover-up began with her press adviser Bernard Ingham briefing the media that the disaster had been caused by a “tanked-up mob”. 

Three days later the Thatcher-supporting Sun’s infamous front-page about fans urinating on the dead and stealing from their pockets appeared after collusion between the Police Federation and a Tory MP. The story went round the world that drunken fans killed their own. And the truth was buried. 

Until now that is........................

An apology is always welcome but it doesn't change the need for the old inquests to be quashed and new inquests demanded and for those responsible to now be arrested and charged for their crimes and for the government of the day to also be questioned further as to who actually knew what when, and as a result helped out with the cover up.

Justice for the 96 came a large step closer today, but it will only be fully achieved when all those responsible for these appalling crimes are bought to justice themselves including those in the Police force and those in the press and government who conspired with them to cover the whole affair up.

My heartfelt thoughts go to the families of the bereaved today, when the truth came out I shed a tear, but all the tears shed today will be bitter without any action being taken to correct the 23 years of collusion by those who were charged with protecting us and telling us the truth and who should now be charged for their criminal acts and negligence.

JUSTICE FOR THE 96

TAKING THE ELECTORATE FOR GRANT - AID

So, no news, emails or interventions from within the Local Labour Party about cleaning up their own act or accepting that they still have work to do to become the sort of party you would like to join on a local basis. Of the three "issues" I raised in an earlier post I have laid one of them to one side on the request of an individual involved as they themselves attempt to seek their own justice, so more of that perhaps at a later date, so instead lets us start with the tale below, which I shall entitle:

TAKING THE ELECTORATE FOR GRANT AID

'The events below and in other posts are as told to me by people (plural) concerned about the issues outlined therein and the lack of any disciplinary action seemingly taken either within the Borough Council Labour Group or at any higher level. It is for others to judge the culpability of those involved and the probability of success of any disciplinary action and also for the Labour Party to act should it wish to do so .If any person involved identifies themselves and wishes me to consider altering or removing any provable errors in the post then I will be happy to do so if they contact me.

I ask just one simple question, why is it that some party members seem to be excluded and expelled for what are very minor misdemeanour's and after long winded investigations and disciplinary hearings whilst others seem to be blessed with no action being taken for what would be in most people opinion much more serious offences?"

Funding and grants for local charities and organisations are becoming harder and harder to source as Local Authorities and national funders both clamp down on funding streams and replace long term community financing with short term political handouts often disguised as "Empowerment Funds" or "Community Chests"

Imagine then the delight of a chair of a local organisation when they received an e-mail from a local Labour Borough Cllr informing them that their organisation had had an application approved by the Borough Council for the sum £15,000 for funding to provide training and community events withiin their area, all they now had to do to receive the money was to sign on the dotted line.

Well initial delight turned very quickly into troubled uneasiness when the chair of the organisation realised that they had never actually submitted an application to the Council in the first place and didn't need the training or events proposed! What's more it seemed that these same "Training and Community" events were to be provided by a company run by? You guessed it the same Labour Cllr who had submitted the application and informed them of the windfall themselves!

Being 100% above board and not interested in anything remotely dodgy the Chair immediately called a meeting of the organisations executive committee and laid out to them all what had happened, the committee were outraged, how had someone been allowed to make an application for funding out on their behalf, and in their name without their knowledge or authority? How had this Labour Cllr decided what their organisation needed when applying for monies? And how was it that the Labour Cllr responsible for submitting the application to the same Council they served on would also be benefiting from the payment of the grant by providing services through their own company?

The last straw for the committee was that the chair of their organisation was also a Labour Cllr on the same Authority and they wanted no blame or stain being placed on his reputation by the independent actions of another Cllr without his knowledge. The executive therefore asked that the police and the council be informed of their concerns, and as a matter of courtesy the Labour Group were also informed. The police having I am told spoken to the local authority decided on this occasion to take no further action, they were willing to accept that as a new Cllr the individual involved was probably not as aware of the rules and laws surrounding grant funding as they should have been, and as a consequence they would be given the benefit of doubt in the belief that they were attempting to serve the community irrespective of any potential private gain.

The issue caused some understandable friction between the two Cllrs concerned and should have led to the Cllr responsible for self submitting the grant on behalf of an other organisation without their consent or even knowledge being dealt with internally by the party and told to be much more careful in future.

And yet less than two months later this same Labour Cllr submitted another grant application on behalf of another charity group for a daytime event in their ward, this time the organisation were aware of the application being made and of the Cllrs role in assisting them with it. The problem this time though is that the application was submitted to a local funder with little to no real information purporting to the organisation (details of officers, membership, accounts, costings of the event etc) and was submitted under an address which belonged to a completely different organisation (a local church) who had no idea that their address was being used to support the funding bid! The Cllr then attracted further funding for the event from their fellow Borough and County Cllrs through their empowerment funds (supposedly with the same poor level of detail).

And then what happened? Well AN event took place, but not the one mentioned in the funding requests, it was at least on the same day, but took place in the evening rather than the applied for "Daytime" family based activities mentioned in the application and instead of providing support for the local resident community the event was a UK wide "Nation Day" event which has been a part of the calender for many years where members of a local ethnic community invite their friends and family from across the Country to come together to party late into the night, a great and colourful event it always is, I know because I have attended on more than one occasion over the years, and have thoroughly enjoyed it but it has never needed funding before as the Community members themselves bring their own food and provide their own entertainment. So just what was promised regarding the funding that was given and what exactly was it spent on?

A third application from the same Cllr to a funding body on behalf of another third party came to my attention this week which it seems also (unsurprisingly) has not met the criteria level for providing the relevant information regarding either the organisation or the costing and provision of the services requested to be provided through the funding, surprise surprise.

Over the years Labour Councils and groups across the UK have been embarrassed more than once over funding bids which were not all they were made out to be, individual Cllrs have found themselves in very hot water after being found to personally benefit from grants they themselves had a hand in acquiring.

So I wonder what our local Labour Group has to say about the above?

SOME SELDOM SEE AN OPPORTUNITY UNTIL IT HAS CEASED TO BE

If visits to this site and comments therein are anything to go by, then my last post seems to have awakened and stirred some interest in the internal disciplinary procedures of the Borough Council Labour Group. As well as the published comments I have also had a fair few people (including on the group!) who have approached me and said "it's about time something was said and something was done". I have also had opposition members crowing, but that was before I reminded them that I know just as much about thier misgivings and skeletons. The Labour Party in my opinion can only benefit in the long term from being open and upfront in dealing with its issues and inaction is its only real enemy. I have also been double checking with the people involved if they are happy with the posts I have prepared ready to publish, and so the order of publication will tie in with approval given, as I have indicated these are not my opinions, they are not really my issues, they all belong to people within the Labour Party who have been affected by the actions of others and then see no action being taken and ending up feeling as if the party is more concerned with protecting itself and covering up it ills to protect its own image rather than dealing properly with complaints from its own members.

And so to be fair to all  I have posted these two short paragraphs as an update for you ( the blogs readers) and also as a last chance for exec on the Borough Labour Group to work for the good of the party rather than against it. The group exec know my email address tony.clarke@email.com and can contact me very easily, and if they contact me to inform me that any of the issues I have raised in my last post are now subject to proper investigation by the group, or want to sit down with me to discuss the matters further then I will postpone publication to allow an investigation to proceed. Either option is fine by me, I am not against anyone, I am for justice being done and trust being re-established. Without that, the only option left is for people is to feel that have got some closure from at least their problems being publicly acknowledged. Over to you.................

WAITING FOR A PARTY WITH A MORAL COMPASS AND A BACKBONE

Regular readers of this blog, and those I socialise with would acknowledge I hope, that I am very "up front" with my views and opinions and rarely if ever do I feel the need to hold back on the truth or water down my true feelings.  And those who have been here on this blog from the start will also know that I have had in recent years an ongoing love hate relationship with the Labour Party. To catch up on how it all began just click here

http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/why.html

The Labour Party is of course a number of different entities these days National, Regional and Local and it wouldn't surprise many that individual members at National and Local level who we're my friends pre expulsion remain my friends to this day. I intend this week to go down to Parliament to meet up with old acquaintances,  Others however within the party treat me post 2007 with a mixture of either unnecessary fear and/or unexplainable indifference. I have become the family member who left home under a cloud and who nobody now is allowed to mention! I sometimes wonder, can I really after all be that bad a person? I am not "anti" Labour in any way, I actually believe that Andy Sawford will be a very good MP for Corby and I wish him well in his election campaign, if his values are anything like his fathers then Corby and the Labour Party have everything to gain. Equally Sally Keebles reselection as Candidate for Northampton North leaves me cold and asking "Will they never learn?"

Anyhow despite the views of others and much I am sure to the annoyance of some local members I have now decided to come clean on the recent events and attempts to woo me back to into the fold and to rejoin the party I left 5 years ago, and I will also try to explain to you all how difficult a decision it has been to make, being asked to put all the past to one side in exchange for a "lets move on" reconciliation.

Being expelled from the Labour Party in 2007 hurt me very deeply, I had given over twenty years to the movement and I represented them at all levels all the way up to Westminster, so to be treated in such a crass and unfair fashion by the very people you considered to be on your side, and seeing people you considered to be friends reluctant to stand by you in case they themselves were targeted left some very deep and open wounds. Of course the expulsions didn't just end with yours truly, they extended beyond any sensible trawl for supposed trouble makers and led to many good innocent people being wrongly judged and punished. Indeed whenever asked about rejoining I have always made it clear that if I ever said yes then those expelled would walk back in together rather than special favours been offered to individuals.

For the record my expulsion was automatic, having stood as an Independent candidate in the Borough Council elections in 2007, but that decision was only taken after the party had lied, cheated, abused it's own rules and accused good people of wrongful intent. And it is also worth remembering that when the Labour Party instructed me not to submit my nomination papers as a Labour candidate on the nomination day for the Borough Council elections, that I was a fully endorsed candidate, one of three fully endorsed candidates for two seats in Castle Ward for that election!

On three occasions now since 2007 I have been asked to rejoin the party in 2009, 2010 and most recently in December 2011. On each occasion I have listened to the reasoned arguments and tried to apply logic to any given answer.  I still remain after all the same political animal I have always been, independently minded but always of the left, and always mindful of the advantages and disadvantages of collective action, combined strength and cooperative engagement.

But now I still find myself in a period of indifference towards not just a party but towards a whole political system I find myself unable to make a final decision which I am comfortable with owning, so I am doing what I always do, taking council, asking for views, trying to explain my dilemma and then using the exercise to help form a decision.

But to offer advice, you the readers of this blog will need to know exactly what has been occurring, and also to understand my thinking, to understand what I feel is still wrong within the party and also share my discomfort that it's issues are still left undealt with,  after all it is easy to make a flash judgement which could then have a heavy cost for many people if not thought through fully, why bother rejoining if I find myself expelled again with weeks by saying something others think is best left unsaid?

The case made for my rejoining is made mostly but not exclusively in Castle Ward by normal electors and party members alike who tell me that they want me to continue as their Cllr,  they care not if I am Independent or Labour, both suit them, they say that with the vote being split between Labour and Independent that they risk losing my input unnecessarily. They believe that at a time of real need in the area that we need strong representatives who will bury past differences to collectively fight against continued cut backs and attacks on the vulnerable, their case is a compelling one.

In the opposite corner are those from a much wider base than just Castle Ward who have completely lost all faith with the political system and judge all party's to be as one, and as bad as each other, they wish me to contine to carry a torch for Independence and in doing so help lead the way to a different political future altogether. Again all well considered and intelligent expressions, after all membership of political parties and trust in the same is now at an all time low

The third factor, if I am allowed' is a personal one, do I really want back in? And at what cost to my reputation? If I went back in to fight the battle from the inside how long would I last? And what would I do about all of those open faultlines laying within, I couldn't bite my tongue and to be a member of an orginasition in which you knew wrongdoing was present but didn't act, that would be totally immoral. So what are the facts and how do we separate the individual from the plural? How do we encourage those inside to help with any subsequent cleansing and just what is my best individual course of action? 

After all doing absolutely nothing and sitting back and taking a rest from the whole cabana is an equally if not far more attractive alternative option.

So in this and a couple of other posts I will outline all the facts, warts and all as usual, and let you have your say, I will tell you things you never knew, draw venom from those who would prefer everything kept swept under an ever growing hump under the red carpet, and then I will make a decision.

So to start, and to set tongues wagging, I should reveal that the latest invitation to rejoin the party came as recently as December 2011 came via the County Council Labour Group who amazingly offered me instant party membership (meaning a guaranteed lifting of my then still in place expulsion) if I would consider being the Party's candidate for the forthcoming Police Commissionaire elections. A high prize indeed, but not necessarily an attractive one, and I also couldn't help draw a comparison with my reasons for expulsion (The Party fixing candidate selections in their favour) and my invite back (The Party fixing a candidate selection in my favour!) Will they never learn? Of course they are not alone, all three party's play the same game, open selection where it suits them, or a fixed coronation of the favoured son/daughter when it is more useful to their cause.

Needless to say the invite was not accepted and I was pleased to note that an open selection did indeed thereafter take place and a candidate was chosen fairly. The other irony being that if I had said yes I would have had to then withdraw Simon Weston style due to a conviction during my misspent youth, I can stand for Parliament, become an MP, and of course serve as a Police Officer for 4 and a half years in the Special Constabulary, but the crazy rules on this election bar all but those who are squeaky squeaky clean. 

But even after this prize had been offered and rejected the opportunity to rejoin the party still remained, and it was a tempting one in part because the County Council Labour Group are a thoroughly decent group of people, they are as a party group well organised, and well disciplined, they campaign effectively and more than hold their own in full Council meetings, they seem to work hard both collectively and in their respective divisions, they are also as individuals very nice people. No my problem doesn't lie with the County Labour group. it lies elsewhere, not too far away in fact just a few yards over the road at the Town Hall.

You see I have always been a "Borough" man, when elected to the County in 2009 BBC Northampton asked me what my hopes were for the 4 year term ahead and I replied "I hope the County Council gets abolished" I still feel the same way, our two tier system of local government in Northampton serves none of us well, apart from of course the Tories, who will if they get their way turn into a three tier system propped up by Parish Councils across the town providing services only to those who can afford them. To me a Unitary Northampton Council has always been the end game and any future Unitary Council will need strong local representatives to lead it, and that is where I see the labour Party failing at present.

In fact is is not just failing, it is irrelevant, and it is in my opinion corrupt, all the fault lines are there for all to see and all of the complaints and attempts to challenge any wrongdoing have been ignored, and for me or for that matter anyone else to wanting to join or rejoin the Labour Party in Northampton we would need to be assured that these underlying faults are being addressed before we put our names on any membership list.
Some good new Councillors were elected to the group in 2011 (others not so good) but the old guard are still holding sway and I am sure I am the last person in the world who they would want to walk back in. Sometimes you have to shake the tree if you are to allow new fruit to bud, sometimes you have to clear out the old in order to make room for the new. And sometimes you need to do nothing more than be prepared to tell the truth in order to start the cleansing.

And so in my next three posts, I will tell you of three separate incidents.  I will fairly explore the internal allegations made regarding three of Northampton Borough Labour Cllrs, one who we are told lied to a court and also committed what the judge concluded to be a forgery, one who allegedly feels that the cost of political support equates to sexual favours in return, and a third who we are understand thinks that it is perfectly reasonable to use their Council position to bolster their own private income. I will be fair to all of them and stay firmly within the law,  I will stick to facts and not rely on simply here say, I will not judge them, others in some cases already have done, but I will only reveal what has already been revealed both to me and to the party's whips and then leave others to question why in some cases no action has been taken, and in others why the victims rather than the perpetrators feel that they have been punished rather than the alleged wrongdoers,  I will also, for now refrain from naming any of them.

It was Groucho Marx who most famously said "I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member" For me it is more of question of not wanting to be member of any party who preaches equality fairness and justice whilst presiding over an internal executive system which denies all three to its own members who have made complaints. And of course let no one think that the Labour Party are alone in Northamptonshire in buying ever more wardrobes to host an ever growing clutter of skeletons!

As always your comments will be very much welcomed.

THE FIRE THAT ENLIGHTENS IS THE SAME FIRE THAT CONSUMES

Some even stranger than normal news coming out from Westbridge depot involving Enterprises hapless management of the Refuse Collection contract for Northampton Borough Council. We already know that the company are failing to deliver on the contract and that the Council are to impose £250,000 penalties against the agreement but now it seems they are having to deal with something altogether hotter and more inflammable as it is discovered that they have a curious and dangerous outbreak of Refuse Vehicle based Spontaneous Combustion!

That's right, their dustbin lorries are going up in smoke! I am told by a reliable source that no less than 7 NEW vehicles have gone up in flames since the contract began in 2011. And so concerned are the private contractors insurance company and also the workers Trade Union (GMB) that they are now seriously concerned as to the safety of continued use of these vehicles for both their operatives and the general public.

So why is this happening? and why does it seem to be restricted to only the new vehicles that the Borough Council lent Enterprise the money for to purchase in the first place? You will remember from an earlier post that operatives were already complaining that these new vehicles which only load from one side were useless in Northampton's terraced streets as some roads have to be driven down twice or operatives have further to carry the waste, but that it seems is just a minor design fault when compared to the whole damn lorry bursting into flames!

Any light that readers can throw onto this strange waste truck flame based phenomenon would be very very welcome. Perhaps there is a strange inner force at work? A Trekkie friend tells me that the original Starship Enterprise was fueled without any need for flames so we can properly rule out Klingon interference.

Meanwhile Enterprise's continued staff reduction programme continues ever apace as more and more senior managers are shown the door. I now understand that 8 operations managers have been relieved of their duties, many for simply pointing out that Enterprise were going about the contract in totally the wrong way. No doubt the removal of so many staff who had run the contract perfectly well in house for NBC for many many years will make it even more difficult for the Council should they take the inevitable decision to take the contract back in house

Part of the missing expertise it seems may also be having a massive detrimental  effect on the amount of income the contractor is achieving from recyclables. It would seem that written into the contract is a clause whereby both Enterprise and NBC/DDC   will suffer heavily financially to the combined possible tune of millions of pounds if they cannot get from the market the right price for  their recycled goods, and the market price is dropping alarmingly on a daily basis. Of course Enterprise have taken their own unique steps to alleviate this problem themselves by scaling down on staff and use of the recycling depot at Westbridge.

From just the above it would seem that the impending fact finding visit to Westbridge and the Town Hall of Cllr Bassam Mahfouz from Ealing Council who want to prevent similar problems arising in their contract with Enterprise in West London may be quite an eyeopener for him!

SHORT SHORTS

Thought I would just catch up on a few stories for purpose of updating Joe Public on all matters local national and international.

EALING COMEDY

Regular readers will be aware of the ongoing teething problems with Northampton Borough Councils's (and DDC's) 14 year contract with Enterprise Services to provide Refuse Collection, Grass Cutting and Street Sweeping Services across Northampton and Daventry. Well the so called "teething problems" are still causing much pain to all concerned and are quickly turning into a a very nasty and prolonged toothache.

With Enterprise now it is suggested losing somewhere between £40,000 and £60,000 a week on the contract they have cut back even further on their workforce numbers, leading to more collections being missed, more grass left uncut and even less streets swept. The problems which we were told initially by the administration at NBC were little more than hiccups have now led to the Council having to look at fining the contractor £250,000 in penalties for not delivering on the service contract.

My contacts at Westbridge tell me it can only get worse in the coming months but meanwhile Northampton's woes with Enterprise as a contractor have now reached the ears of other elected members on Tory controlled Ealing Council  in West London, who are very keen not to fall into the same trap as the Borough having just engaged Enterprise, 4 months ago on a similar 15 year contract!   Enterprise took over the service from previous contractor May Gurney on April 1 2012, after it was awarded the £300 million 15-year collection contract in July 2011


Under the deal Enterprise was meant to operate a kerbside sort system for the collection of dry recyclables and food waste but following familiar  ‘teething problems’ it had to move to a commingled system to work through the backlog of missed collections. All sounding very familiar?

It now seems that after 4 months of missed collections and what letsrecycle.com called a "Fiasco in Ealing" Cllr Bassam Mahfouz, portfolio holder for transport and environment is under pressure from the opposition to resign his post over the services failures. But in an attempt to keep the attack dogs at bay Cllr Mahfouz has come up with a cunning plan, he is sending a crack squad down to see us all here in Northampton as he explains " “What we don’t want is to be a year down the line and then fining them. We are getting the guys to go down to those councils to learn what they did right and wrong.”

I could save Cllr Mahfouz and Ealing Council some money on funding the journey as its very clear what they did wrong, they signed a contract full of holes, put up as a lost leader, at a price no one could ever deliver the service for, they (as in all three political parties) then ignored the two independent members on the Council who warned them that this was bound to happen and banked the savings regardless of the consequences.

What a farce indeed,

ALL SIT DOWN FOR TEAM GB

As the row continues unabashed as to those unused seats at most events for this years London Olympics I was reminded of a conversation some weeks ago on Radio Four when the station was previewing our Gold Medal chances ahead of the Games, and what it all boiled down to was that "Sitting" was what we British do best, not just in watching the varied sporting extravaganzas, but also it seems in competing.

And so it is after an edgy start to the games and a continued wait for team GB's first gold that we must now look to those sat on their back sides to deliver the goods for Blighty. So bring on the brave rowers and the canoeists from Britain's finest public schools. All hail the horsey equestrian set with their jolly jodhpurs and jaunty japes. Cry out loud for the British Cyclists and their two wheeled velodrome heroics.

Britains Gold medal chances it seems rest solely on Britains backsides, on Boats, Bikes and Horses. So how about letting us working class folk also get in on the act? After all it is our games. I suggest the London Olympic Committee therefore immediately introduce more sitting down sports for us to compete in in this years games, we will soon rise up the medal table then.

How about Downhill Soapbox racing? I loved that as a kid, and who's for a go at a Spacehopper marathon! how delightful it would be to see all those large orange or even flag printed spherical objects bouncing up and down along the Mall in unison.

Perhaps even our Lib Dem friends could get involved with qualifiers for Olympic style Fence sitting?

SYRIA LEFT TO SUFFER AS THE WORLD LOOKS THE OTHER WAY

This blog has a very good history of predicting events local, national and even international, but for once I was hoping that I had judged it all wrong when I said that an all out civil war in Syria was probably inevitable http://tonyclarkeindependent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-syrias-tears-are-wasted-on-west.html but as predicted HM Government it seems values the lives of Syrian Civilians far less than they did Libyan Civilians, there have been no cries this time for military intervention, no NATO proposed safe corridor, no NO FLY ZONE.

So what has Libya got that Syria hasn't ? Sympathy? Willpower? Oil? I explained the best I could in my last blog that the rebel army (or armies) in Syria are a diverse, complicated and split force who will probably not be able to wrestle power from the regime no matter how much they believe in their cause, and as a result the blood letting will continue unchecked. Meanwhile William Hague pops up on our screens every few days to tell us how awful it all is and how wicked Bashir Hassad is whilst saying nothing about who may replace him in any successful uprising, and also doing nothing to protect the civilian's caught up in this horrific bloody struggle for Syria's future.

The country's uprising has been played out constantly on the internet website YouTube, but while the brutal images of death remain the same, images of the armed opposition groups as also predicted are ever changing. Some groups now openly say they are affiliated with al-Qaeda, fly its flags, and say they now have training camps inside the country. Phil Rees, filmmaker and author of 'Dining with Terrorists', told Al Jazeera that for Al Qaeda, Syria is "an attractive place to come now." Who is Al Qaeda? Someone coming from Libya who helped overthrow [Muammar] Gaddafi? During Libya, they were considered to be freedom fighters and the British government supported them. Now they travel to Syria where they feel a jihad going on,"

I am sure that if the charge against the British Government of double standards being applied to different countries and different peoples has not already been made clear, then their current silence and inaction on Syria can only make it ever more translucent.