For The Purposes Of Clarification

For The Purposes Of Clarification

In traditional fashion, the Wisbech Standard decided today to take pieces of a conversational thread I was having on the WisbechPeople website this week, stick them together, and turn them into a splash story on their website (and, for all I know, in the paper itself tomorrow.)  I wont get into the surprising turnaround of the Standard using a “story” from the WisbechPeople (though given the recent hot tempers when WisbechPeople did the same thing some might think that odd.)

This happens quite a lot, so I’m getting used to it.  But I do rather wish they would at least make some effort to keep things in context.  It certainly wouldn’t hurt to call up and clarify any uncertain issues with the person they are ‘quoting’, but perhaps that’s beyond the scope of a local paper’s resources?  I suppose I might as well shout at the wind, but at the very least I’d like to make some effort to clarify.

So for a start, let’s talk about the headline itself.  “Fenland councillor says he’ll move or pay privately rather than send son to ‘failing’ state school.”  Well, some of that is true, but I did not use the word “failing” in this sentence.  It has been transposed from a different piece of the conversation altogether which did not refer to Thomas Clarkson Community College at all.  I did indeed say that my current plan was to either move, or try to get my son into the grammar school when he reaches the appropriate age, rather than send him to Thomas Clarkson.  Now, unless I just woke up in Cold War Russia, it is still the choice of my wife and I where we feel our child will be best-educated.  The paper presents this as the statement of a county councillor, but guess what - I’m not a county councillor all day every day. I also live in the area and have a family to care for.  So, whether it upsets some sensibilities or not I will take what I feel is the best decision for my child when the time comes.  If that means working more hours and trying to find the money for private education -  so be it.  If that means selling the home we love and moving to the catchment area of a school with better statistics – so be it.  If that means walking on hot coals while red-horned newspaper editors take pot swipes at me with their mighty swords, or their mightier words – so be it. 

The paper then uses a large chunk of text that I wrote on the WisbechPeople website to pad out its article. There’s nothing wrong with the text – that is what I wrote.  But what is misleading is the way two separate pieces of text are stuck together.  These are two different pieces of a conversation thread.  The first is my statement that I didn’t plan to send my son to Thomas Clarkson.  The second, written on a different day entirely, is some discussion on the state of national education – with no mention of Thomas Clarkson at all.  Now I am prepared to accept that the newspaper may not have noticed this – but they are reporters, right?  Isn’t checking details of a story part of the job?  A very brief look at the comments, which are all date and time stamped, will show anybody that the first comment was written at 11:13 on 31/08/10.  The second longer piece at 12:24 on 01/09/10.  Different days.  This is how web conversations go.  Initially people were talking about the best school in the area and I made the comment that I’d prefer not to send my son to TC.  Then, following an interesting comment from Annie Appleby, I went further in discussing the problems I believe we have in national education.

So, what’s my problem?  Well, first of all, the suggestion that I called Thomas Clarkson “Failing”.  I didn’t.  I don’t think terms like that are helpful when addressing local issues as they are likely to inflame rather than stimulate discussion.  Secondly, the way the piece was laid out to suggest that my later comments were targetted at local schools.  With the exception of a brief note about the Grammar school not being available to people who can’t afford it – they were not.  My decision not to send my son to Thomas Clarkson (if I can possibly avoid it) has been made as a parent, based on observable statistics and reputation - and that is entirely my decision to make.  I have not made, and would not make, make comments like “failing” or ”sink school” about a local school.  That would be rude and inappropriate, not to mention misleading.

Let me tell you all this.  Nothing would make me happier than for Thomas Clarkson to continue its recent improvements and to equal or better the other local schools.  I don’t doubt they are working hard to make this happen.  I don’t doubt that parents and kids in the school are often proud of the work they do.   If there was anything I could do to help them, I would do it without a second’s hesitation.  (In fact, I believe a local free school would help them, but that’s another debate entirely.)  I have nothing but admiration for the valiant new headteacher.  But I suspect there are a great many parents here and elsewhere, like my wife and I,  who currently feel that the choice of schools available to them is not ideal.  Parents who demand more for their kids than is currently available.  Am I alone in this?  I don’t believe I am.  In fact, I challenge anybody to deny that they will do the best for their kids that they can. 

While I somehow doubt that (if the web story makes the printed paper tomorrow) it will include the later third piece of text I wrote regarding this issue, I will relay it here in case anybody needs any further clarification.

I would certainly never criticise any individual school in our area – or in any other area. The schools are stuck with the system that has been set up around them and do the best they can. Nor would I ever blame the pupils – who are equally caught in whatever catchment area they live. It is the system which is failing our kids. A system which sometimes features vested interests, sometimes unions, sometimes tired old dogma that everybody is too frightened to rethink. Any attempt at doing something new or innovative meets massive opposition from often the most unlikely quarters. There is nothing so dangerous in education as “one size fits all.” We wouldn’t tolerate it in any other industry or service, would we? Academies and the new Free Schools go some way towards addressing all this and I support both enthusiastically. But we need to go further still to deliver what our children and families need and deserve. A real, honest chance in life.

For anybody interested in the thread of the conversation as it actually happened, visit WisbechPeople.

Clash Of The Titans

Clash Of The Titans

It seems we are living through our very own Clash Of The Titans as two Fenland media giants rumble and growl and pick up their (metaphorical) weapons in a furious face off.  I doubt, in this instance, there will be any Greek gods, mythical swords or legendary winged horses involved (though we live in hope.)

It all began when a new website appeared some months ago – www.WisbechPeople.co.uk   set up by Northcliff Media.  Initially with only a few users the site has been gaining popularity and, crucially, hits with each new week that passes.

In the last week local media kraken John Elworthy noticed what was going on, and his crimson gaze fastened upon the little Perseus site.  He seems to have decided that the website has been “nicking stuff” (his words, not mine) from our local paper, the Wisbech Standard.  And, as you might imagine, John is not a happy bunny.  The titan has risen from the ocean and is glaring menacingly at the tiny upstart.

Writing on Twitter John Elworthy said:-

Someone called Laura Spoudla has apologised on behalf of Northcliffe Media for nicking our stuff for the Wisbech People website.  “It is never anyone’s intention to pass off work or writing as their own, including myself,” she writes after protests by a local journalist.  “Unfortunately not everything has been properly sited, this is all,” says Laura, as if that explains months of disreputable behaviour.  We hope now that anything read in a paper will be properly sited in future, she adds, and so we wait and see. Judgement will be reserved.

Strong words from John, an apparently reasonable reply from Laura Spodula (not Spoudla, John)  But who is right?

As a keen reader of the excellent Wisbech Standard and a regular visitor and user of the WisbechPeople website I have tried to look at it from a neutral perspective.  To be honest, I’m not sure either of them is entirely right.

First, John Elworthy seems to misunderstand the purpose of an internet chat site.  What a chat site does is to take local news and present it in such a way as to encourage discussion about local issues.  This is a quite different job than that performed by a newspaper (although some newspapers try to do this too, with varying degrees of success.)  The Chat Site who, by nature of getting its information from the ‘front line’ local media, is never going to be  a newspaper, or news site.  It can’t, because all it’s stories will be second-hand.  In general these sort of sites make no pretense at writing original material, employing  journalists etc.  This goes on all across the internet and the world and is, in all honesty, as common as muck.  This is New Media doing what New Media does.

However – and this is a big however – it is normal netiquette (internet etiquette) for sites which find information from other sources to quote their references in a proper way.  The ‘norm’ on the internet is to supply a link to the original material (or, in the event such is not available, a link to the originator’s home site) or at the very least to do what is called a ‘hat tip’ – a tacit thanks and acknowledgement to the originator at the bottom of the piece.  WisbechPeople seem to have missed this opportunity, which is a shame because it would probably have avoided much of the Wisbech Standard’s contempt and would have allowed the two different forms of media to compliment one another.  As those Greek’s learnt in the classic story – it’s not a good idea to anger the gods.

In regards to the law, it is an infringement of copyright to print somebody else’s work without their permission.  However, if the information is presented in your own words and not those of the original article then no copyright has been infringed.  I’m unsure whether WisbechPeople’s alleged “months of disreputable behaviour” involves word-for-word copy-and-paste or just a general gathering of information and reposting afresh. If its the former, its wrong, and WisbechPeople should remember their proper links and hat tips in future.  If its the latter, then I can’t really see what the problem is.  Surely the job of a newspaper is to bring us the news and the job of a discussion site is to let us discuss the news?

Meanwhile somebody called senecadiarist is continually posting: “I’ve seen this before” on multiple threads on the WisbechPeople website.  I can’t imagine who this diarist might be, but its hardly the most imaginative form of attack.  Might I suggest a better style of protest would be to post the links to where you’ve ’seen it before’.  This would serve a dual purpose of drawing readers to the original site and politely reminding the offending website to remember its links in future. 

In the end, I think we can all see that its not unreasonable for the Wisbech Standard’s editor to want proper credit given for the original stories.  When somebody comes and grabs something from another location and uses it for their own content then it is surely only good manners to include a link to the original material.  On many occasions the Wisbech Standard has used bits and bobs from this website and i’m sure they’ve always remembered to include a weblink to direct people back here.  I’m certain of it.

Now, where’s my mirror?  Medusa is around here somewhere and petrification will really ruin your day.  If looks could kill, huh? 


“We probably shouldn’t have woken the Kraken…”

Showdown At High Noon

Showdown At High Noon

I’ve just spent a lovely afternoon at the Tydd St. Giles Summer Garden Fete.  The villagers do this every year and raise money for worthy funds – this year was in support of the local church.

Like most fetes, there were many enjoyable little games which cost 50p to take part in and from which you could win fun prizes if you were dextrous/ skilful / lucky (delete as applicable).  I managed to spend about thirty pounds during the worthy business of throwing things through other things, catching things with other things and picking successful tickets/ cards / bottles in amusing games of chance.

The star of the show was supposed to be local newspaper luminary Breakspeare, but he couldn’t make it and sent John Elworthy (editor of the Cambs Times / Wisbech Standard etc.) in his place.  John judged the cake-making competition and the art competition.

Not long after High Noon John found himself standing near me at the “throw some golfballs into a net” competition.  Like wild west gunslingers we approached each other.  Around us, the villagers fell silent as we circled one another – eyes locked with fierce intensity.  John cocked his eyebrow at the net.  “Reckon you kin score more ‘n me?” he drawled lazily, a challenge in his voice.
“Yep,” I said, more confidently than I felt, “Reckon I kin!”  You could have heard a pin drop as I picked up the balls and threw them, one at a time, into the net.  I missed a couple, but the bonus ball came good.  Ninety points. 

I stepped aside and John took up his place, an air of easy assurance in his movements.  I was sweating.  Had he done this before?  Was he some sort of ancient fen champion at this game, having spent many a long night in moonlit fields amongst black market ball-throwers taking part in illegal golf ball hurling tournaments?  I don’t know if it was the blistering desert sun, the cry of a crow over the wild fens or just a bad day for the editor, but he scored only thirty points. 

It had seemed a lucky escape and I made my way quickly to the “throw a beanbag into various small holes on a wooden board” competition.  John Elworthy was nowhere to be seen so I paid my 50p and picked up the six beanbags.  Apparently the idea was to have the highest score by the end of the day.  Different holes had different scores you could earn if you managed to negotiate a beanbag through them. I asked the current high score and was told is was ‘52′.  There was really only one way to beat that score.  All six bags would have to go through the difficult “10 point” hole. 

“Okay then,” I said.  “Here we go.”  One by one I hurled the tiny bags and, the luck of the devil riding with me that day, one after another they dropped into the ten point hole.  I scored the maximum possible sixty points and whooped with joy.  (Of course, nobody else was taking any of this as seriously as me, and the Tydd folk politely ignored my enthusiasm – for which I thank them!)  John Elworthy arrived, looking for another showdown.  “What was his score?” He asked menacingly, picking up the beanbags. 
“Sixty,” Said the lady. 
John dropped the bags, huffed quietly, and went to play something else. 

Steve 2 – John Elworthy 0. 

Result!

In all seriousness, what a fantastic local event put on by the people of Tydd St. Giles.  They have every right to be proud of what they achieved today – and it was good of John Elworthy to give up his time to attend.  I had a great time!

Roll Up Roll Up…

Roll Up Roll Up…

Last night the Wisbech Standard / Cambs Times newspaper family organised and executed (not in the “firing line” sense, you’ll be pleased to know) a Hustings event for the three main candidates in the race for the NE Cambs constituency in next week’s general election.

Several roving reporters have offered to write up their impression of the event, some of which I publish here and some of which are forthcoming and I will publish later.

Before we get into the nitty gritty I’d like to express my enthusiasm for the event.  It was expertly organised by the local press and I felt really added something to the local political scene and to the general election campaign. 

I’d also like to say that the quality of the three candidates really was very high.  Readers of this blog will know that NE Cambs is a special place and certainly deserves high quality candidates – but it is good to see that all the main parties realise this.  While I may not agree with the things that Peter Roberts and Lorna Spenceley say, I do recognise that they are genuine, intelligent and serious candidates for whom I have a great deal of respect.

That said – we trounced them!   I was trying to score on four things; local knowledge, policy knowledge, passion and political gravitas.  Local knowledge was to ascertain the depth of their understanding of the local issues.  Policy knowledge was their understanding and ability to convey and argue their party’s specific position on different matters.  Passion was their ability to engage with people, to enthuse people and therefore to argue their case on the national stage.  Political gravitas is a more nebulous quality in which I tried to judge who had the most ‘presence’.  I think this is important because we are picking the person who will represent our views and aspirations alongside MPs from all over the country.  If they are a person to whom people listen and give credence they will be better able to do that. Notice that I did not assign a score to the actual policies.  That is because all of us will already have taken a view, or be in the process of taking a view, over party policy.  The candidates little influence on their party agenda at the moment so it seemed pointless to factor this in.  It is what it is.

Of course, I am biased, though I believe most impartial viewers would have some sympathy with what I’m about to say.  I had Steve Barclay winning three of four categories and a tie on the fourth.  This was how I viewed it (scores are out of ten):-

Local Knowledge
Steve Barclay (Conservative): 9
Peter Roberts (Labour): 7
Lorna Spenceley (Lib Dems): 6

Throughout the debate Steve displayed a depth of local knowledge – on several occasions referring to specific problems in one area or another, quoting meetings with officers of different services or business leaders, and displaying an impressive understanding of quite complex issues involving such matters as antisocial behaviour in the villages, poverty in certain areas, immigration worries, farmer’s relationship with DEFRA and the amalgamation of drainage boards.  The other two candidates did not seem anywhere near as well-prepared, although I acknowledge that some of the issues raised were quite specialised.  Peter Roberts had the edge over Lorna Spenceley for me because when he didn’t know something he didn’t try to “wing it” but just answered honestly: “I don’t know,” which the audience seemed to appreciate.

Policy Knowledge
Steve Barclay (Conservative): 10
Lorna Spenceley (Lib Dems): 9
Peter Roberts (Labour): 8

All three candidates clearly knew their party’s policies very well.  Once again, for me, Steve Barclay had the edge.  It is one thing to quote the policy line-by-line, but another to be able to argue it’s validity and then to bring in other policies in support of it.  Steve’s confident delivery was assured and eloquent, but both the other candidates were very nearly as good.  Lorna Spenceley’s long experience as a councillor stood her in good stead here – the lady clearly is expert at framing an argument and displayed this with aplomb.

Passion
Steve Barclay (Conservative): 8
Peter Roberts (Labour): 8
Lorna Spenceley (Lib Dems): 6

I had Steve Barclay and Peter Roberts neck and neck here.  Both of them convey a depth of feeling which carries the audience along when they speak.  They both give the strong impression of being committed, earnest (though Peter Roberts, as I’ve said before, is the most earnest man on the face of the Earth) and genuine.  They seem to really care about what they say.  I must stress that these are only impressions.  I rank Lorna Spenceley lower simply because in this instance her previous political activities work against her.  She is every inch the council leader - reminding me very much of some of the Liberal Democrat councillors I know at county.  I’m not saying this is a bad thing - but when she speaks she lacks flair and dynamism.  She is somebody that has spent years in a council chamber and that’s what she sounds like.  I know this impression of Lorna is wrong, because I’ve met her and she clearly cares every bit as much as the other two.  She just needs to work on getting that into her public persona.

Political Gravitas
Steve Barclay (Conservative): 10
Lorna Spenceley (Lib Dems): 9
Peter Roberts (Labour): 7

If you didn’t know what any of this was about and arrived halfway through – looking at the stage who would you think was most likely to be our next MP?  If you didn’t know who was who, or which party they belonged to, or anything at all?  In my opinion Steve Barclay looked, sounded and acted like somebody who could be a member of parliament.  It’s not that the Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates looked bad at all.  And it’s not that all candidates must look a certain way, or follow a pattern.  This isn’t about whether the candidate was male or female, black or white, tall or short.  It’s about something invisible.  A confidence, an experience and a way about them that says: “I am a representative of the people.  I am somebody that you should listen to.”    Now I am certain that opposition supporters will never openly admit this – but I am equally certain that anybody looking at that stage, grudgingly or not, would admit Steve Barclay carried the most political gravitas of the three.

In Conclusion:
I am biased.  You know it, I know it.  I do not deny it.  But I have nevertheless tried to look at this fairly.  While it may seem I am “spinning” the above report, I don’t believe this is so.  I hope that on May 7th we have Steve Barclay as our MP.  Of course I do – I am a Conservative and I am terrified of the consequences of the other parties getting their hands on a ‘lever of power’.  But I should also add that – if I briefly put party policy aside and just look at the individuals – I would be quite proud to have any one of those three as my MP.  There are places where the people have a choice between a series of dreadful candidates.  Where people are being asked to choose again from a crowd of house-flippers, or expense-claimers.  Or where they’ve had substandard candidates foisted upon them via one type of shortlist or another.  Here in NE Cambs we have an honest and dedicated MP retiring and three really decent candidates vying to take his place.  Whatever your politics, we should applaud that.

And to the organisers:-
Well done Cambs Times for an excellent event.  You have excelled yourselves.

From left: Steve Barclay, Lorna Spenceley, Peter Roberts.

MC in ‘da house! 
John Elworthy, Editor (Cambs Times)

Report on the Hustings from Brenda Barber (Conservative):

This was my first time at a live political debate and I did not really know what to expect but I have to say that the evening was quite exciting and very entertaining!

John Elworthy who hosted the debate was clearly in his element and seems to have missed his vocation as a game show host with his quick quips and funny asides.  He did a good job on the whole.

The three candidates seemed quite at ease which was a change from the tv show debates and all of them made the occasional good point but the clear winner of the evening has to be Steve Barclay who was far and away the most knowledgeable about the area and the policies of his party.

I felt the Lib Dem candidate was fuzzy and unclear a lot of the time and when she admitted that she didn’t drive and would possibly have to take the bus or train to her surgeries or to visit people I had to laugh!  This, she reasoned, put her in tune with the electorate who also had to travel by public transport!!  But would she ever get around to seeing them?

The enthusiasm and dedication of the young man who was standing for labour would make any mother’s heart lurch but he simply had not thought out some of his views – he intends to have surgeries in all his towns and villages every week as well as being in parliament every week and personally answering all mail, email and telephone calls – will he EVER see his family?

As I know that Steve Barclay has been to many, if not all, of the villages which make up the constituency he had the knowledge to answer all the local issues well.  He also could actually answer all the questions, unlike another candidate who had to admit that he did not have an answer when questioned about a particular issue.  It was a shame here that John Elworthy would not allow Steve to answer that particular question although he was the only one who knew what the questioner was talking about.

Overall the packed hall kept their good humour and so did the candidates.  The evening was informative and, yes, fun but probably could have gone on longer.  I will go again.

Report on the Hustings from Chris Howes (Liberal Democrat):

Last night I attended the North East Cambs hustings. Steve has invited me to blog my impressions. As he sat right in the middle of the front row, and I was at the back, it might be interesting to see how our perspectives of the evening differ.

About 200 people pitched up for this much heralded event. It appeared that almost every Conservative District councillor was there, except for Martin Curtis who could be reasonably be expected to be away fighting Nottingham North where he is standing. Interesting thought about Martin – he can’t win in Nottm unless a huge Labour majority hemorrhages away to the Liberal Democrats. Might Martin actually be hoping for a good Lib Dem vote – that’d go against the grain.

Just as the M.C. was calling the meeting to order, a women (in good shoes) slipped into the room, and there being no available seats, perched on the same table as me. Our recently ex-M.P. Malcolm Moss, and his recently ex-agent Debbie, watched the women sit next to me, and a look of absolute horror spread over their respective faces!  Malcolm unceremoniously pitched his neighbour off their chair and Debbie bustled this women away to sit protectively between her and Malcolm. In all their panic, I was left with the lady’s handbag.

Once the meeting got under way, I soon observed that the majority of those present were either members or known helpers of political parties (or their spouses). There was a majority Conservative group that cheered most everything Stephen Barclay had to say, and a smaller labour group, vociferous in their support for Peter Roberts. If there were any genuinely undecided voters there, they couldn’t have numbered more than a dozen.

So has last nights hustings helped me decide how to vote?  Not really, an individuals ability to argue is not necessary the best measure of how well they’ll serve their constituents. If it was the Palace of Westminster would be full of lawyers.

Stephen’s a decent enough bloke, I’m sure he’ll make an O.K. MP. Mind you Peter’s heart’s in the right place, he wouldn’t be too bad either. Lorna would obviously be best, but how much does any of it really count ?

During most of the Conservative years (1979 – 1997) Cambridgeshire County Council was held by Labour. But in 1997 as the Government changed to Labour, our County Council went the opposite way and turned blue. And year after year Cambridgeshire gets amongst  the lowest allowances in the Country. Perhaps what we most need is an M.P. that’s a member of the governing party, not the opposition.

Towards the end of the meeting there was some discussion of our Troops fighting overseas. Reference was made to the terms under which we went to war, and a comparison made between the Iraq war and the Falklands. At which point a women shouted out “at least we” (the Conservatives) “won that one” (the Falklands). Around me people were quite shocked at this inappropriate remark which appeared to try to make party political capital from the sacrifices of our brave Forces.

If there genuinely was an undecided or ‘floating’ voter there, it had to be Cllr Simon King, so dramatically rejected again by his party, he had taken refuge with the hardline labour contingent at the back of the audience. Could this be an indication of the arrival of a new political landscape in Fenland ?

I’ve already mentioned how the Tories all cheered Stephen, and Labour applauded their man. Even when Stephen made a point that I thought would be universally popular (that all locums should be able to speak English), the labour supporters remained grimly quiet. So did anyone achieve cross party, spontaneous applause ? Well yes, Lorna did. Not every time she spoke, but on several occasions. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Lorna won the debate !

And the lady rescued from sitting next to me, but whose handbag I still had ? She looked anxiously towards her bag several times during the meeting, and at the end I was able to return it to her. I think she was Stephen Barclay’s young lady.

Report On The Hustings From Samantha Hoy (Conservative):

Being a bit of a political animal I last night attended the Hustings at the Neal Wade in March, being a Conservative the main purpose of this was to support Steve Barclay so before anyone starts – of course I am going to be biased and I am making no secret of this!!

Political colours were clearly on show with the Conservatives lining the front two rows and back with a  few Labour supporters in between, the Lib Dems (despite having the infamous scooter parked outside) seemed sparsely spattered in the crowd, although seeming to have a new ally in the form of Reg Kemp

From the start I felt that observing what was happening before the speaking funniest.  Steve Tierney rushed to help move the tables, another great example of how a Conservative will offer to help others.  I then found it funny to see Lorna Spenceley peering over at Steve Barclay’s notes – getting tips perhaps?

We kicked off with a question regarding pensions and free bus passes and I noted that Steve Barclay was the only person to answer this question without looking at his notes, he spoke clearly and came across very well.  As for Peter Roberts I was not impressed when he said that Labour would continue to do what they had been doing for pensioners – so robbing from the pension pot then?

A question was asked as to whether or not any of the contenders were a practising Christian, perhaps this is a vote winner but none of the contenders were.  This was turning out to be a fairly bland evening until……. Pam Potts got up to speak and was refered to as ‘the housewife from Coates’ which got lots of laughter from all parties. (Pam in chairman of the local Conservative Association.)  She asked a question relating to drainage and neither the Liberal or Labour candidate could answer this, they focused on farming which wasn’t what the question was about and when Steve Barclay asked to make an additional point on this matter and was refused John Elworthy was met with a chorus of boos.

Then my turn came and I asked if the candidates would have any problems in getting around our rural constituency and what they could do for rural transport.  All candidates seemed to murmur the right things about more bus routes etc but what I found to be most interesting is that Lorna Spencley does not drive.  I think that in a rural area this is going to be very problematic, although I’m sure Chris Howes could drive her around on his scooter.

Then the heat began to rise even more when Steve Barclay told us he hadn’t been involved in “paid” Politics before and that too many candidates have been involved in Politics too long, adding that Lorna Spencley was still a Councillor in Harlow and Peter Roberts was funded by Unite.  Roberts coolly responded by explaining that he was only a member of Unite and not funded by them which cleared that up until he was forced to admit he had worked for the Labour party – and since the Labour party is part-funded by unite…?   Then it was Spencley’s turn – she got irate and felt she had been ‘slurred’.  But how was she slurred?  Steve Barclay had said she is still a councillor.  And she IS still a councillor.  How is a fact a “slur?”

Everything then cooled down and we had questions regarding single parent families and wind farms and I feel that no one particularly shone on these issues as it was basic party-line speak, but cleared up the issue none the less. Then onto a toughie with a question on Third World funding and whether or not they would want to increase or decrease funding.  Everyone waited with baited breath, surely no one could say they would want to decrease spending, although it would help go towards our deficit I imagine hoards of angry voters screaming ‘will somebody please think of the starving children’.  None of the candidates expressed any radical opinion on this, however.

Another toughie was then posed – “Will your party leave the pound and join the Euro – this is a yes no question”.  Roberts answered a resounding No and was met by cheers from all colours. Barclay of course answered the same and was met by more cheers.  Then it was Spenceley’s turn and she answered ‘well its not really a yes or no answer we would have to hold a referendum.” Since the question was about the party’s long-term aspiration rather than the method, this was a bit of a squirm.  You can’t blame her.  The Liberal Democrats are well-known to favour the Euro.  Local people DO NOT want to join the Euro, anyone can see that by knocking on doors and hearing how anti-EU people are.  Of course Mr. Tierney knew this would be a difficult question for them and in that respect it was a bit of a set up, but one in any case that needed to be answered.  Not enough has been made of this in the national press as I speak to many people who are thinking perhaps vote Lib Dem as a protest but when the party’s position on the pound and on Europe in general is made clear they run a mile!

We then had a question on Policing and when Peter Roberts said there were more police on the streets he was met by laughter, however on the way home I saw three police cars which made me feel a little silly for mocking him.  He wasn’t getting a very good time from the audience which was made worse when asked if Brown’s Government was worse than Callaghan’s.  Roberts felt that it wasn’t as we are in a Global Recession and that we are now leaving it - I will leave you to pass your own judgements as to whether or not you think this accurate.  Lorna then said the first thing I agreed with her about all night, in that she felt that in ‘97 there was a feeling of hope and that this had been squandered.  Steve Barclay came in explaining the record level of debt, the mass unemployment and the awful treatment of our armed forces – one heckler shouted “isn’t that the same as the Falklands?” to which another heckler responded: “at least we won that one!!!”  Cue some laughter.

I felt last night other than the statements regarding the Euro there were no ‘hot potatoes’ so to speak and it was all fairly mild.  I believe that Steve Barclay was very much the clear winner of the whole evening, every answer he gave was clear and concise and he had a real presence about him which I feel gave him the edge over the other candidates.  As for the Liberal Democrats I was surprised at the lack of support they had, I thought that after the by-election they would come in cocksure and loudly confident.  No sign of that.  Is their brief popularity fading already?

But what I find most amusing is that when I looked at what I had written come the end of the debate I felt that I could have a five page rant about Peter Roberts and the inadequacies of Labour – but afterwards he was in the pub and we got speaking and he is a genuinely nice guy.  Sadly, I struggle to be quite so harsh to someone who seems so nice.  I was talking to one of his colleagues, a well-spoken Cambridge student who was telling me how he was from a working class background and had help from a Labour Government to overcome hardship.  I just found it ironic that someone who has both parents working in public sector jobs, probably bringing home a very healthy income  feel they need help from the Government and more importantly feel themselves to be working class – come to Wisbech and tell a minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week and struggles to pay their bills that you are working class and see what response you get!  It amazes me how middle-class priveliged people try to pass themselves off as disadvantaged.~

Report on the Hustings from James Green (First Time Voter)

Labour man Peter Roberts took a while to settle in I felt, rambling through a couple of questions early on. Whilst in a couple of answers, like committing to hosting 5 surgeries a week and giving £11,000 of his wages back, it seemed like he was point scoring against the other candidates and almost trying to make them look like baddies. Furthermore he showed a lack of knowledge on some local issues, but I felt showed good knowledge on a national level and tackled a tough crowd well, showing passion for his party and his politics.

Lorna Spenceley seemed to know her policies well and made some good points. However, she went off of the subject on more than one occasion, giving some flowery waffled answers which consequently, coupled with her lack of dynamism, lost my attention numerous times.

Steve Barclay displayed on a range of questions that, unlike his opponents, he has covered a lot of ground on his election campaign as he confidently spoke on a range of local issues in detail. When answering questions he showed a stage presence which commanded you to listen, a quality you want in the MP standing on your behalf in the Commons. It was clear he knows his policies extensively; in short he looked, sounded and acted the part.

As a first time voter, attending my first hustings I was impressed with the whole evening. It was a good experience and one I will look to attend in the future. The one complaint I would have is that, I felt the format could be rethought as at times when numerous questions were being asked to the candidates, certain questions were neglected and rhythm was lost.

Overall I think Steve Barclay came out clearly on top as the best of the three candidates.

Roving Reporters

Roving Reporters

I am pleased to announce that this website has recruited four ‘roving reporters’ and a photographer to act as its eyes and ears at the big hustings event tonight in March.  What the newspaper calls “All The Main Candidates” for the NE Cambs Seat will be appearing in a head-to-head Q&A / Debate.

We’ll have comments, opinion, discussion and debate concerning the Wisbech Standard / Cambs Times organised hustings here long before anything hits the dead tree press.  Yes, it’ll be coloured with some bias (this being a Conservative-flavoured blog and all) but some might suggest you’ll get an element of bias in anything you read.  Here at Getting The Message Out, I’m quite brazen and open about it.  Plus – it’s usually countered effectively by the reader’s comments.

For the full and comprehensive rundown, analysis and coverage of tonight’s hustings – rush back to Getting The Message Out tomorrow. 

Remember – Local media is more than just the press.

Give Me A Break

Give Me A Break

Wisbech Standard up to its shenanigans again this week, I see.  Fen Diary says:

FASCINATING letter this week from a correspondent who notes that on the eve of the county council elections last year, we published a letter criticising Mark Archer for his ‘trumped up charges’ against Geoff Harper.

“This letter appeared to be from someone not politically active, a Samantha Hoy,” says my correspondent.

“Since then Sam’s ‘come out’, been co-opted onto Wisbech Town Council, and is a Conservative candidate for the Wisbech county council seat.

Oh yes.  Fascinating.  I am so fascinated I can barely contain myself.

I love the way they suggest Sam has “come out” as if she’s revealed some sexual secret that might surprise her family.  Never mind that when Sam wrote that letter she was founder and chairman of the Fens Conservative Future branch, had been mentioned in this blog by name several times, was listed on the FensCF website as its founder and had sent news and announcements to the local press on several occasions.  But no – apparently she was a shadow.  A stealth operative in enemy territory, hiding under the clever disguise of her own name.

With all due respect to the Wisbech Standard – I don’t believe that when Sam Hoy wrote her letter last year she ever said she was “politically neutral.”  If they took that view then that’s their own business – though given the comment made I’d have to assume anybody who thought that was a “politically neutral” comment would have to be a few eggs short of a dozen.  How common is it for politically-neutral people to write letters defending local politicians?  Not very, I suggest.

It’s pretty rare for letter-writers in local publications to add “supporter of XXX party” after their letter.  It’s usually clear from the content of the letter who they support.  There is certainly no obligation to do so and most people do not. 

So what, exactly, is the point the Fen Diarist is trying to make here?  That supporters of every other party can write anything they like, week after week, but that supporters of the Conservatives must clearly identify themselves in case they be mistaken for a passer-by?  Perhaps a burning brand should be administered to the forehead?  Or a sigil emblazoned in glowing embers across the faces of those who dare to – shock, horror – support the Conservative party.

Sam Hoy was not a councillor last year.  She was an activist and member of the public.  Most activists write political letters to newspapers.  Most political letters (if not ALL political letters) are written by activists.  It’s not rocket science.  The editor of the Cambs Times has been bemoaning the lack of political letters during the election campaign.  I respectfully put it to Mr. Elworthy that printing this sort of half-baked innuendo is probably why.

As for the newspapers mysterious “contributor” who came up with this most wondrous, well-researched and deeply clever “factoid” – no name given at all.  Surprise, surprise.  I wonder who it could be?  I suppose they are politically-neutral too, are they? 

A Shilling On The Side (Updated)

A Shilling On The Side

John Elworthy, the editor of the Cambs Times/Wisbech Standard, has been in furious Twitter overdrive this week.  Having enjoyed a huge influx of visitors to his paper’s website and (presumably) Twitter feed as events at Fenland District Council unfolded, he’s been the “Man In The Know” for anybody outside the  Conservative Group involved.

In the aftermath of the District Council losing its leader and deputy leader, Mr. Elworthy has begun speculating on who might take over as leader in 2010.  He’s even suggested his view of the odds for each candidate, which I humbly convey here for your perusal:-

Alan Melton 7-4
Pam Potts 9-4
Kit Owen 20-1
Simon King 11-2
Ken Mayor – no odds specified
Jonathan Farmer 18-1

Whether you think the editor’s take on this is accurate I leave you to decide for yourselves.  Clearly our erstwhile local editor favours Alan Melton, Pam Potts or Simon King as likely future leaders!  Nothing wrong with that, any one of them would do a fine job.  I suspect there may be another couple of names to add to the hat before the final decision is named.  John even suggested Coral might take actual bets.  That would be fun.  I’d probably have a flutter.

Meanwhile, I’ve been accused either directly or indirectly of “sitting on the fence” and of “blogging about something I have no knowledge of”  after my conciliatory post about the situation the other day.  John Elworthy even appeared, djinn-like in a puff of brimstone,  on the ConHome website to have a dig!   I’m not biting in this instance.  I make no apologies for trying to take a balanced view and keeping my opinion to myself.
  
But i’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (I’m sure) - John Elworthy has missed his vocation.  He should have been a spy!  He can literally turn up anywhere on the web, emerging from the shadows like a phantom and then vanishing just as quickly.  He just needs a wide-brimmed hat and a long coat and he’d be a pulp-era super-sleuth.  Spooky?  You betcha.

**Updated:  Well, the Cambs Times was obviously unhappy that I wouldn’t commit here, so they used a comment from a public website, which (I suppose) will teach me to post anonymously in the future.  John Elworthy is a bad, bad man and Santa will know he has been naughty and will, consequently, reduce his gift quota appropriately, I am sure.  No socks and shaving kits for you this year, John.  Now – is there a bunker nearby that I can hide in until the New Year?
  

John Elworthy

John Elworthy’s alter ego as web-sleuth?

An Accident Waiting To Happen?

An Accident Waiting To Happen?
 
Our intrepid Wisbech Standard reporters have come up with a  real doozy (colloquialism) this week.  This is about the big debate over the future of Wisbech’s taxi rank.  No, wait, please don’t yawn and switch off … to the town this is an important issue, to the taxi users and drivers this matters and there are some interesting points emerging which would benefit from discussion.
 
I’ve stayed well clear of this argument until now because it’s something of a local minefield, but I’ve decided to break my silence simply because the whole debate seems to have gone somewhat awry. 
   
Before I start, since when does the chairman of a committee go to the press and complain about the decisions taken by that committee?  If I was on a committee and that was done to me I’d take a very dim view of it indeed.  I’m sure the councillor in question was very frustrated that the outcome wasn’t what he’d hoped for (its a feeling I share on many occasions in committees and meetings) but it’s a tricky thing this democracy.  You can’t command it into position and instruct how the chips will fall.  The only thing that taking the debate to the press will achieve is division.  If you are a chairman and have a problem with your committee – you tell them!  You discuss the issue with your colleagues directly, or at a group meeting.  While I understand the councillor’s pique, I think engaging in this way was a mistake.  Which is odd because the councillor in question usually exhibits excellent judgement.  I think we have to put it down to a spur-of-the-minute decision in anger.  I’ve been there, it’s easy to do!
   
“But hold on!” I hear you say.  “Aren’t you doing the same thing by publishing this in your blog?”  Well, not really.  I’m not on the committee in question, in fact I’m not employed by Fenland District Council at all.  I’m a county councillor and so my only direct relationship with the district councillors is as part of the NE Cambs Conservative Group (a group to whom I am proud to belong!)  As such I feel I can speak with an external perspective.  Plus, I’m not angry.  Just interested.
   
I have to say that on the issue of the taxi rank I don’t really have a firm opinion (since its not my decision, this doesn’t really matter).  It’s strange to say: “Let us hope nothing happens in the next two months involving a fatality or serious injury involving buses or taxis” as was quoted in the paper this week.  It’s a valueless comment because we all hope that of every location, every day.   Is there a road somewhere in Fenland where we’d quite like to see a fatality involving buses or taxis?  Of course there isn’t.  The fact is, there apparently hasn’t been a fatal accident of this type involving a taxi before in this location.  So why the sudden fear for people’s safety now?  Why indeed?
  
I’m sorry to sound like a worn-out old record (for the kids: a record is a vinyl disk that used to be used to store music on, in the old days… )  but is this the good old European Union at work again?  A birdy tells me that EU Regulations now say that buses must be able to turn around in a bus station without reversing in order to protect the public.  Now whether you think that’s a good principle or not, the fact is that surely we can decide the safety protocols in our bus stations ourselves?  Not anymore.  Get used to this sort of thing, we’ll be seeing a whole lot of it in future.  The taxi rank is the target today.  What about tomorrow?
  
In the end, the council do own the land.  If they want to move the taxis a few hundred feet up the road then that’s really their decision.  The taxi drivers do themselves no favours by failing to listen to advice they are given by local councillors who are friendly to their cause, but their opinion should certainly carry weight.  It is really, really unhelpful to say about committee members: “I wonder where their loyalties lie, with the taxi drivers or the general public?” (as was also quoted in the paper this week).  Shouldn’t councillor’s loyalties lie with both?  Keeping business prosperous in town, keeping the public safe, these are not mutually-exclusive goals.  It also presumes that the opinion of every member of the public is the same as that of the person making the statement, which I doubt.

That said, it does sound a lot safer to separate the taxis and the buses.  While the accident record there is very good, I’ve harped on before about pro-active safety rather than letting spilt blood be the dictator of where changes are made.  So in that respect, you’ve got to applaud there being a debate about this.  Nor do I necessarily agree that a move to the new location (a bare stone’s throw, if The Case public house is selected) would necessarily be ‘a disaster’ for the taxi drivers.  There are taxi ranks next to busy pubs all over the country and the world doesn’t end.  In fact, such a convenient pick-up point might be effective in countering drunk-driving.
  
So what this boils down to is a tricky issue.  I’m actually rather pleased to hear that the committee decided to postpone a decision until they’ve had their site visit and considered all the views.  I think it speaks well of the District Council and of the committee members.  When people’s livelihoods may be at stake, and people’s safety may be on the line, the best decision is the right decision.  If that takes a little more time, so be it. 

Ps.  If only all taxi cabs looked like this!

Tentacles Everywhere

Tentacles Everywhere

I had to admire Fen Diary on the Wisbech Standard’s website tonight.  A brief entry to the local diarist’s column talks about a well-known Wisbech commentator Mike Stallard.

Mike is a (very good) artist and something of a local activist often writing letters to the local press.  He’s an interesting and controversial character who i’ve encountered on political blogs and news discussion forums on odd occasions, far and wide.

Mike, who is not exactly known as a Tory, has said he may vote Conservative if the party pledges to solve the various issues he thinks are important.  He apparently made this proclamation on a ‘Tory Website’ (the Fen Diary didn’t say which one.)

But what really tickled me was that somehow our local press column found an obscure comment made my an occasional local personality and put the name and the text together.  It really is quite a feat.

Now I’m wondering just how far and wide do the Standard’s tentacles reach?  Do they employ a legion of tireless researchers, chained to their desks, googling the names of anybody who has ever appeared or been mentioned in the paper?  Or does our Fen Diarist work alone, but have no need of sleep at all?  With halloween so close I’m wondering if I should put garlic under my windows and take to wearing a crucifix.

Hard Work Pays Off & I Hate To Say I Told You So But…

Hard Work Pays Off

As regular readers will know I seldom comment on ongoing cases I am dealing with in my division.  This is for several reasons; confidentiality for the local people I am representing, to make sure I don’t prejudice ongoing matters and in order that – when a good result happens – I can make an excited announcement.
  
As you might have guessed from that preamble I have an excited announcement to make.
  
For most of the year, since before I was an elected county councillor, I have been working to get something done about the A1101 Gypsy Lane Blackspot.  I’ve blogged about it several times and it has been my most central and intensive focus. 
   
It’s a truly horrible bit of road.  Generally considered to be the worst blackspot in the county it claims lives and breaks hearts at regular intervals.  The county council have tried (bless ‘em) in the past, to improve matters by resurfacing the road, by painting a thick red line (that doesn’t appear to mean anything) along the middle and by putting up all manner of shocking “People Die Here!” types of signage.  Yet last week there were three more accidents, one of which ironically smashed one of those new signs to smithereens. (Hat Tip, Cllr Martin Curtis who pointed this out at the meeting today.)
   
I have been working with the A1101 Action Group for months now although I must stress, they have been involved longer and done far more than I, but even so I have put a hell of a lot of time into this because I firmly believe in the cause.  I have lobbied colleagues, written letters, responded to countless emails, drummed up support, made media statements and written detailed blog entries.  I’ve spoken at meetings about it as a passionate advocate, including at the last two Area Joint Committee meetings.   But most of all I have discussed and negotiated with the officers involved in the delivery of safety on our roads to try and find a solution. 
   
This week, much to their credit, County Council officers led by Amanda Mays have come up with a proposition which – finally – gives us some real movement on this issue.  The new scheme involves considerable expense and it is to the credit of the officers that they have managed to find a way to use the extremely tight budget created by well-known present economic conditions, to ‘think outside the box’ and come up with such an exciting proposal.  
   
The big cluster of accidents that happen on this highway are mostly constricted to a particularly frightening, but short, length of road.  The bend there, a major contributory factor to the problems, will be reconstructed and widened in such a way as to provide much clearer and longer lines of vision and, everybody hopes, to reduce or remove the regularity of incidents there.

Today at the Area Joint Committee meeting during the debate over the improvements I argued the case again and the rest of the members agreed.  The Area Joint Committee approved the proposed scheme wholeheartedly!

None of this prejudices the future argument about cameras or lower speed limits.  Indeed, the County Officers seem ready to give us the double white lines and a 50MPH speed limit as well.  Perhaps we will need a 40 MPH limit and a camera, perhaps not.  It is not impossible that this new work will completely solve the problem.  We can but hope!  If it does, all well and good.  If it does not … we can have that debate then.
  
In my original campaign literature it plainly said: “Steve Tierney is a local resident who believes passionately in the power of local politics and in the ability of neighbours, working together, to achieve the best for themselves and their families.”  Anybody who thought I was naive or sentimental needs only see what we have achieved here.  Working, campaigning and not giving up, we have made a powerful case for improvements in the A1101.  And we have won!

For further information about the A1101 Blackspot see  http://www.ablackspot.co.uk/

I Hate To Say I Told You So But…

The Wisbech Standard reports this week “Moss In The Clear” in regards to the news that while so many MPs are getting letters from the astute Sir Thomas Legg regarding over-claiming their MP’s expenses and needing to pay the balance back,  our local MP Malcolm Moss is required to pay nothing back at all.  Why?  Because, as I’ve said before (even in the midst of Expenses Rage earlier this year when you risked being flogged if you praised ANY MP) we have one of the good guys.  I said so before, I say it again.  Malcolm Moss is an MP we can be proud of in every sense.  And now you have it from the horse’s mouth.  Not that I’m calling Sir Legg a horse, of course.

From The Wisbech Standard this week