Criminal Policies

Criminal Policies

Good old Ken Clarke (of course it’s Ken Clarke, if a fellow Conservative is going to irritate me, more often than not it is Ken Clarke.)  As if we are not being radical enough already in almost every other area – Ken has apparently decided in his “wisdom” to challenge grass roots Conservative thinking on our prison system. 

Like most Conservatives I subscribe to the view that the first purpose of prison is to punish criminals.  Some readers might think this so obvious as to be not worth saying.  Except that lefties often take a different view - that prisons should first-and-foremost be about rehabilitation.  I appreciate their well-intended soft-and-cuddliness, but I don’t share it.  If rehabilitation can come about as part of the punishment then fair play - but if somebody has done something severe enough to be locked up then locked up they should be.  That’s my first priority.  And do you know what?  Generally – the public agree.

The purpose of this particular blog post is not to get into the right or wrong way to handle criminals. (Though, by all means, feel free to discuss if you want to.)  Rather, it is to argue about how sensible it is to start a war on multiple fronts.  Let me explain:- in order to fix the damage done by thirteen years of Labour we are forced to enact some pretty sweeping changes across the nation.  Many of these are good, solid, sensible ideas – but they are ideas upon which vested interests perch menacingly and glare with dark malevolence.  The opposition know this and, if they weren’t having a Monster Mash leadership battle, would be able to use the situation very effectively to undermine our efforts at national repair.

Meanwhile, our coalition allies (upon whom – let’s face it – a great deal rests) are getting increasingly nervous. Nervous of being intrinsically tied to the tough things we all know need doing.  Nervous of their shrinking poll shares.  And nervous of the pinch between the two ‘main’ parties now that these battles are becoming steadily more ideological.  Personally, I believe they’ll come out stronger at the other end once they’ve proven an ability to take tough decisions in a position of responsibility (something Labour have never mastered).  But others take a different view…

My point is – don’t we have enough going on?  Is now really the time for good old Ken Clarke to begin infuriating the grass roots Conservatives again?  I suppose, if anybody has got to do it then he’s the man – since many already loathe him for signing up to the swivel-eyed slathering Europhile cause.  But even so – if you’re already trying to get a worried public to sign up for a program of adjustment and change you need to occasionally throw a cookie crumb or two to your loyal, long-term, heart and soul supporters.

Instead, as the papers report today:-

It drives a nail through the ideology which has guided Conservative thinking since 1993, when Michael Howard memorably told his party’s annual conference: ‘Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists.’

 Tory backbenchers and party activists are likely to be livid at the decision – which will also enrage police who complain the justice system is already too soft on burglars, thieves and other offenders.

Mr Clarke had already suggested millions could be saved from the £2.2billion prisons budget by jailing fewer offenders.

Millions could be saved by not jailing anybody too, Mr. Clarke.  Billions, in fact.  We could just give crazed mass murderers an old rusty axe, a hockey mask and a taxi ride to the nearest shopping mall if we wanted to and that would cost, at most, a few pounds.  But it wouldn’t be a good idea, now would it?

U-turn: Mr Clarke’s comments are sure to drive a stake through the heart of Tory policy on prisons.  But his comments today mark an ideological rather than simply a practical shift in Tory thinking on sentencing.  Critics will say he is moving closer to the Lib Dem idea of abolishing short prison terms – and allowing almost 60,000 offenders to avoid jail each year.

Ah.  Now it begins to make sense.  Of course this must come from the Lib Dems.  And of course Ken Clarke wants to implement it – since he is so close to the Lib Dems on many issues that its amazing he doesn’t just switch parties and be damned.  But this casually disregards the actual facts which anybody who doesn’t walk around with their eyes closed knows to be true – if there is no consequence to criminality then crime will increase.  A few hours painting a fence for a new youth center (which you can fail to turn up to if you fancy a day at the beach) is not a consequence.  It is, at best, an inconvenience.

Mr Clarke will tell a London audience that he is ‘amazed’ that the prison population has doubled to 85,000 since he was Home Secretary in the early 1990s.  He will add: ‘It costs more to put someone in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton – on average £38,000.  ‘The taxpayer is providing keep and accommodation – albeit in grossly overcrowded conditions – at expensive hotel prices for 85,000 people.’

Well maybe Mr Clarke is “amazed” but there aren’t many others who are.  The question really is why the prison population has doubled.  Apparently, Ken Clarke thinks that locking up criminals is part of the problem.  It’s hard to fault his logic, since if we didn’t lock them up then they wouldn’t be – well – locked up.  But it avoids (conveniently) asking the questions about why our society is creating more criminals.  There are lots of complex things to debate in this area; family breakdown, poverty, unemployment, immigration, cultural shifts, aspirations, community cohesion, opportunity, social mobility, self-esteem and education.  None of which negate the need to keep dangerous or criminal people away from those they would prey upon.  As for it costing £38,000 a year to keep somebody in prison – that says more about the way our prisons are run than about the idea of actually sending them there in the first place.  Yes, £38,000 a year is silly money.  Instruct prisons to cut it, without cutting spaces, by 25% or more.  And if they can’t?  Give the prison management to a company that can.

Prison governors and probation officers have already called for short sentences of a year or less to be scrapped, and replaced with community punishments.  This would put 8,500 more criminals on the streets just as police numbers are expected to fall – infuriating the public and potentially leading to a rise in crime.  But Mr Clarke will tell an audience at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that it is time to stop playing the ‘numbers game’, which measures success in terms of spending and how many prisoners are locked up.  He will say: ‘The consequence is that more and more offenders have been warehoused in outdated facilities, and we spend vast amounts of public money on prison.

It’s surprising that having just spent some time quoting numbers, Mr. Clarke thinks that we should “stop playing a numbers game”.  Actually Ken, no.  Because our opponents will continue playing that numbers game – and cherry picking the most damning figures from those available.  The public, who play a numbers game every time they walk out the door in some areas – do not ask very much of their government.  But they do expect our legal system to keep them safe.  Is that so much to ask?  Using the term “warehouse” is very emotive.  I certainly agree that criminals must be incarcerated in a humane and healthy way – but beyond that I have no interest whatsoever in the comfort of criminals.  Prison is not supposed to be nice.  What would be the point?

The most disastrous fact of the previous Labour administration is that, for a party that is supposed to be “for the working man” and all about “reducing poverty” their final epitaph is of a larger gap between the rich and the poor.  Even if we ignore all their other failures that one damning piece of evidence hangs like a lead weight around their necks.  They are a party which have failed in their key aspiration and lost sight of their reason to be.

In the same way, the Conservatives have always been about law and order.  We are fair, but we are not soft on crime.  We have never been soft on crime.  We believe in personal responsibility and in paying the appropriate price for bad choices.  If you choose (and, whatever the bleating left say, it is a choice) to break the law in a serious enough way to merit imprisonment then you should be locked up.  No amount of weasel words or inane platitudes will change that simple fact.  I, and a great many others, did not become Conservatives to let bad people retain their liberty at the expense of society.

Well, I Like It…

Well, I Like It…

I’m quite busy at the moment so while blogging it a little irregular please enjoy the following image-based analysis of some schools of political thought.

Doing The ‘Proud Dad’ Thing

Doing The ‘Proud Dad’ Thing

I know how annoying it is when somebody rants on about their child and wants to show you pictures and examples of the little cherub’s work and although I am every inch the traditional proud father I do try and avoid going on about it all the time.

But every once in a while – and those of you with young children must have experienced this – kids do or say something so surprising and extraordinary that it simply leaves you speechless. 

Tonight my five-year-old son Joe spent some time playing with his Tomy Megasketcher (drawing pad thingy).  Its one of those plastic devices with an attached pen which allows line drawings to be inscribed through the cover onto the impressionable surface below.  (Like Etch-A-Sketch but with the useful added extra of being able to actually draw real things.)  As usual after a long bout of art Joe brought the picture for my inspection.  This is it:-

“That’s great!” I said enthusiastically – while wondering (in that time-honoured way) what on Earth I was looking at.  The thing the photo above doesn’t really demonstrate well is that although the picture wasn’t anything ‘obvious’ he had clearly spent a great deal of time on the fine and somewhat abstract detail.  As carefully and positively as I could I asked him: “What is it?”

Now you will almost certainly think I am joking when I tell you what his response was to that question, but I promise you I am not.  “Auschwitz,” he told me – leaving me quite literally gob-smacked.

This isn’t quite as oblique as it might appear.  My wife is an amateur artist and writer whose work often centers on issues concerning the Holocaust and my son has seen her doing that work many times.  He is no stranger to it.  But he has never tried to emulate it before.

Intrigued we asked him to elaborate on how this drawing was Auschwitz and he explained that it was “The train track that led into the camp.”
“Why does it go on so long?” I asked.
“There’s no escape.  You just go around and around in the dark,” he said.

Now perhaps I’m doing that classic ‘dad thing’ where I am amazed at stuff that others would not appreciate.  But I’m pretty sure my five-year-old son has just drawn an abstract depiction of a wartime historic event and used his image to convey a serious message that his imagination has supplied.  Bloody hell.

Closing The Door

Closing The Door

I blame Labour.  But you knew that – I generally blame Labour for most things.  But, in my defence, most things going on today are their fault.  What I blame them for this time is the immigration cap that the coalition government are about to introduce.  However, I’d like to include the really far-out love-everyone anything-goes Liberals in this particular blame cloud.

Since when, dear reader, has the United Kingdom been a place where we shut our doors on visitors and newcomers from elsewhere in the world?  This tiny island is made up of a mix of people from all over the world, of every colour, or every creed, of every faith and of none.  There has never been such a thing as an “immigration cap” here before and, like most Western nations, while we’ve had some challenging times in the past over the issue - at no time have we had to throw our hands up and surrender to our most base instincts.

And that’s what this is, down deep.  Our base instincts.  Our tribal nature.  Our perfectly rational desire to protect our family and community from perceived dangers, twisted out of proportion thanks to fear, sometimes ignorance and often misunderstanding.

I am not one of those that believes in an ‘open door’.  But selective approvals and a blunt ‘cap’ are very different things.  It is perfectly reasonable for a nation to pick and choose who it allows the privelige of a passport and the associated rights that come with that.  Normally, in keeping with the aforementioned tribal nature, you would look for newcomers who had skills or talents the nation could benefit from due to shortage or disinterest.  You might welcome some in out of decency – in order to keep them safe from threats, wars or predatorial governments elsewhere.  Some might join the UK’s ranks through marriage or family ties.   Some, like the Gurkhas, would be welcomed thanks to heroic service on our behalf. 

But Labour went much further than that.  Having entrenched sections of the country into poverty and then given up on ever employing them again they simply surrendered, fed them the opiate of a bare subsistence on benefits, and looked for cheap labour elsewhere.  At some point they perceived that if enough people were allowed in they would change the actual fabric of the country and  – they apparently believed – buy themselves a permanent “payroll vote” at the same time.

All of this without even considering (or perhaps they did consider, but did not care) what this would do to our communities.  The United Kingdom is not a racist country – and its people are not insular or afraid of foreigners.  Indeed, the British spent the last thousand years spreading our influence and language across the globe and bringing its new friends home (okay, not always with the best of intentions - but we grew out of that nonsense.)  We are a country who has adopted the curry as our national dish for goodness’ sake.  But you simply cannot deliberately deconstruct the most fundamental makeup of our societal groups and not expect some consequences.  You cannot force massive, radical change upon the country and not expect to meet resentment and outright opposition.

I have heard people who come from very cosmopolitan areas be somewhat scathing of rural folk who complain that their “own language” is now a minority in their town center.  Perhaps this is an exaggeration – but in some places it is not a massive exaggeration.  The fact  is – when people are not used to change and then that change is enacted upon them – they react defensively.  Calling them names or pre-judging them racist is generally inaccurate and distinctly unhelpful.

This is why, on the doorstep during the general election, everybody wanted to talk about immigration – but the parties were all too terrified to even mention it.  This is why we have small but poignant pockets of sullen anger, brooding resentment and social unrest.  This is why the damn BNP lurk in the dark corners of our society, preying on fear and confusion and mistrust.  This is why some of Labour’s potential new leaders are starting to make noises about uncontrolled immigration – this from the party who brought the present situation about!

So here we are – with an immigration cap coming.  And it’s a popular policy.  According to opinion polls a sizeable majority think its “the right thing to do.”  But its a really heavy-handed tool which lacks finesse.  It’s brutal and it speaks poorly of us as a nation.  If we’d just taken the sensible route  in the first place – refusing people likely to sow dissent or removing people who preach public hate on our streets, making sure that we weren’t simply looking for an easy way to avoid encouraging people already resident to work, and most certainly giving priority to people with a strong grasp of the English language – we would not be where we are. 

And its worth stressing the language thing again – because nothing breeds misunderstanding or prevents integration more effectively than an inability to communicate.  As soon as people realise that their new neighbours shout at their kids, fret about paying the bills, enjoy soap operas, cheer their national football team and worry about their weight or the unwelcome pimple on their chin in the same way as they do nothing seems as strange and uncertain anymore.  

Labour have taken the positive idea of new people; with new ideas, new experiences and new interests – able to come into our country and enrich our culture just as so many other groups have back through history – and they’ve turned it into a divisive issue, a cause of much resentment.  The uber-liberals are just as bad – suggesting that there is no such thing as “too fast” and that everybody will all just automatically love one another basking in the beautiful glow of Disney-esque multicultural joy. 

We don’t need an immigration cap or anything as brutish as that.  We just need a sensible plan for managing who comes and a coordinated method of helping those newcomers integrate.  But it is too late.  Nobody believes that government will do that now – and so the cap becomes necessarily to calm the anger of the “something must be done” crowd.  While the Elephant in the room is that any cap cannot include European immigrants due to our membership of the EU – and so even this unpleasant policy will not “work”.  When this becomes clear to the country at large – what will that do to the people’s already damaged trust in the government?~

Tomorrow Is Here. Tomorrow Is Now.

Tomorrow Is Here.  Tomorrow Is Now.

Watching Question Time last night I was depressed by those members of the public who ranted and raved about how seriously the budget was going to hurt this group, or that person.  And often they were keen to point the finger of blame at one group or another.  Or to deny there was a problem at all and try to pretend that we could carry on borrowing and printing billions of pounds for another decade or more.

Ed Balls, for Labour, was in hilarious denial about what his government have done to our once-proud country.  But from the way he was grinning throughout I rather thought he knew the facts and was playing the audience for political advantage.  I guess I can’t blame him for that.  If I’d systematically gutted the wealth and prospects of a great nation in order to fund a mindless debt-binge I think I’d try to spin it away too.

It wasn’t Ed Balls who scared me.  It was Caroline Lucas MP.  Surely I cannot be alone in thinking that the lady’s ideas are as mad as a march hare?  You would have thought, given its regular and successive failure everywhere anybody tries it, that socialism would just lay down and die in a dark corner somewhere.  But instead, like some evil scientist’s insane lab project become sentient – it keeps mutating and spawning newer and more terrifying versions of itself.

Caroline Lucas and the Green Party are a very special group of socialists.  They’re eco-warrior, capitalism-hating, tree-hugging radicals.  They’re what (back in those wicked Eighties we are always being warned about) we would have called “the Looney Left.”  And they’re back – with a smiling face and Ms. Lucas’ earnest gesticulation.  They’re so far to the left that Ed Balls – Ed Balls – looked at Caroline Lucas like she was bonkers on several occasions.  What terrifies me is that people might listen and be fooled.  There is nothing ‘new’ here.  This is just the same experiment gone awry, the same economic and social monster crashing and lumbering through the mad scientist’s lab as it morphs and changes into more and more malevolent incarnations.  It is not your friend.  It wants to eat you.

But back to the real world and let’s look at who is to blame for all of this.  Labour threw a thirteen-year debt-fuelled wild party.  It was a crazy party.  Like most parties – some people had fun, some people had a horrible time.  But we are all left with the mess to clear up in the aftermath.  As a nation we have done the economic equivalent of spending a crazy night drinking, dancing and letting our hair down - and now it is the morning.  We all like a good party, though you might argue this was excessive even by Labour standards.  But in the bleak morning light with your throat like a desert, the world spinning and your head ringing like an angry bell - there is no point moaning about the hangover. 

Now don’t get me wrong.  I won’t try to tell you the austerity budget isn’t going to hurt.  It’ll hurt me, it’ll hurt you, it’ll hurt everybody.  This is because Labour Spent All The Money (And Then Some.)  When you borrow money what are you doing?  You are spending tomorrow’s wealth.  The Labour Party borrowed like there was no tomorrow, but sadly tomorrow has come.  Tomorrow is here.  Tomorrow is now. 

You know who to thank. 

It’s Alive…

It’s Alive…

Regular readers might remember a few months back when I was somewhat critical of a proposed new super-community website that the council had secured £80,000 of funding to build.  I would encourage you to reread the original article in order to confirm that the majority of my issues with the plan were based on its ridiculous cost – particularly in a time of austerity.

Today, the new website, Shape Your Place, was on display to great public fanfare. (Well, half-a-dozen of us had coffee and biscuits in the new library and there was no brass band – but it was interesting nonetheless.)  Now I admit, I had already seen it.  I had a couple of meetings with officers during the production in order that they could explain how they were spending the money and I tracked down the test version of the site some time ago (and secretly) so I could play with their project in suitably sneaky fashion. 

So, as originally promised, here’s my analysis.

What’s Good:

The Mapping System : The site allows you to report problems to the council and other associated bodies (like the police) and your report is shown as a pin on a zoom-able map, a la the Google Maps method.  It works well and is easy to use.

The Cost:  Without wanting to say “I told you so” too loudly and upset anybody again, the site did not cost £80,000.  The team put it together for £18,000 – a full £62,000 less than originally suggested.  I believe the word is ‘vindicated’?  <ahem>

The Vision:  Rather than bypassing existing methods of reporting problems, like Neighbourhood Fairs, the site is designed to compliment them. 

Presentation and Functionality:  The site looks professional, but is simple and easy to use.  Beginners will need some help (which is, apparently, going to be available from places like the Rosmini Centre) but anybody who uses Facebook, Twitter or other social media will find much that is familiar and easy to grasp here.

Community Run:  The team who have put together the website have made a very valiant effort to be sure it will be community-run rather than taking up the time of officers and the expenses that would entail.   There is, of course, a flip-side to this of potential unreliability and the dangers of linking the council name to the efforts (and moderation) of private individuals.  In fact, I think its a courageous decision and I admire it - while hoping it doesn’t all go horribly wrong.

What’s Not So Good?

Lack Of Elected Member Involvement:  While it is true that thanks to its Wordpress architecture any councillor can ’subscribe’ to items and areas of interest and receive emailed updates - it lacks a built-in update system for local elected members. 

Duplication Of Effort – Some of what the new site does overlaps with existing sites and services like Wisbech People, the recently rolled out ‘My Cambridgeshire” and even blogs like this one. 

Missed Networking Opportunities – I’d have liked to see a built-in function which allowed facebook (and maybe even Twitter) users to subscribe and which would then use their facebook and twitter feeds to occasionally publish news about areas they’ve expressed an interest in to their social network.  This would mean that the new site would be advertised, for free, to an exponentially larger group of people than the core group of users – every day! 

Final Conclusions

Okay, I’m sold actually.  The fact that they delivered the project for a small fraction of that original silly figure wiped out the majority of my criticism (and, at the same time, proved that I was correct that it was indeed a silly figure.)  I have voiced my suggestions for improvements and the team have been incredibly willing to listen and take on board those ideas – some of which I hope we’ll implement in due course. 

Still, £18,000 remains a lot of money for a new website.  I’ve given the way it was spent some pretty close scrutiny and I’m fairly satisfied it was not unreasonable for what has been achieved and that the potential for benefit to the people of the area was worth the cost outlaid so far.  But that will not be proven until the service is advertised to the public and they begin to use it.

The new site includes the ability to share and discuss news and events, to write blog posts, to advertise local events, to find out information about important local services and – primarily – to report issues of concern and see the progress made on resolving them.  It’s government for the modern age.  It’s what district council leader Alan Melton would probably call a “twenty first century solution to a twentieth century problem” and – after the previous fuss I’ve made – I’m quite excited about it.

At this point, I would call on the users of this site to please get on board.  This is a new idea and, I think, one which has a good chance of catching on.  We, the regular users of the net, have a chance to help it get started and give it the early momentum that might mean the difference between make or break.  I intend to be a regular on the new site; using all its functions wherever possible.  If enough of you readers do the same then we’ll have the core of an online community and from there – the sky is the limit.

I’d also encourage the local media to use the site.  When you have a big new story on your website – trail it with a teaser on the Shape Your Place site and a link to the newspaper’s site.  This sort of collaborative working is what makes the web so powerful – enabling us all to compliment one another in a dynamic and positive way.
 
This project, put together in a short space of time for a fraction of the available budget and under the intense scrutiny of an annoying councillor who wont “sit down and be quiet” has nonetheless emerged as something of a triumph.  I’d like to think my scrutiny helped a little.  But the work has been done by a team of very smart, very dedicated council officers who deserve to see their creation used and loved by all.

Helping Yourself

Helping Yourself

I was browsing the internet today (looking for some good language course software) and I stumbled onto a site which was advertising “self help” books.  I can’t really be doing with most of this self-help mumbo-jumbo (apologies to anybody whose life has been ‘changed’ by one) but the titles certainly did make me chuckle. 

“Become a Millionaire in 3 Years” by D. Sutphen.
Yes, it really is apparently true.  Anyone can become a millionaire in only three short years – all you need to do is buy D. Sutphen’s book which will (presumably) have only a single page of advice – “print a book like this and sell it to enough people.”  But in all seriousness, it would appear D. Sutphen has solved Europe’s woes.  Instead of all this ‘austerity’ nonsense and “cuts, cuts, cuts” the governments of the EU can just invest in millions of copies of this book and give one free to every citizen.  Then we can all make loads of money without actually doing anything or producing anything.  Sounds similar to Gordon Brown’s Britain, actually.  Ugh.  I said his name.  Better keep quiet – apparently if you say it three times he appears.

“100 Ways to Motivate Yourself”
This one sounded sort of interesting.  But I couldn’t be bothered to read it. 

“Activate Your Sexual Magnetism”
Ooh.  Will this mean that, having mastered the secret methods therein, passing females will be dragged onto me like iron filings onto a magnet in one of those old school science experiments?  I can’t see that going down well, to be honest.  Not with the victims of said ‘attraction’ or with my wife. 

“Amazing Brain Training”
I presume, to take part in “amazing brain training”, you must first have an amazing brain.  Sadly, I have a pretty ordinary brain, so I’ll have to give this one a miss.  Maybe my new friend Cllr. Belinda Brooks-Gordon PhD would like to try it in between meetings with the residents of Gilbert Road?  I’ll have to send her the link.

“How To Change Your Life In 7 Steps” – John Bird
Why seven steps?  Why not six?  Or eight?  Is seven a magic number?  Actually, I think I could write this one myself, but I can do it in just three steps. 
1/  Quit Your Job.
2/  Sell Your House.
3/  Become a monk.
Hey!  This is easy!  I should write self-help books!

“The 25 Ways to Create Financial Success”
Twenty-five?  Another of those magic numbers?  So, if I do all twenty-five of them I’ll be twenty-five times as successful as I would if I did only one of them?  Or do I need all twenty-five?  I which case, if I enact only twenty-four is the plan ruined?  Will I go to my death bed a poor and miserable old man, thinking that my life would have been different if only –  if only - I had remember that twenty-fifth step.  Still, this is better than John Buchan’s self-help book, which demanded a full Thirty-Nine Steps during which you would play a deadly game of cat-and-mouse with the threat of death a constant companion.  Not very helpful at all, really.

“The Secret Art Of Great Conversations”  – Igor Ledochowski
I’m pretty sure that the secrets of ‘great conversation’ do not start with you having your nose in a book which purports to assist you in the endeavour.  If anybody has a “first date” pending and wants to make a good impression then I’d advise against taking Igor Ledochowski’s book along for some “quick tips”.  You could read it in advance, but if you’re trying to remember its advice you probably wont be the most interesting guest at the party.  Or perhaps you will – if its a very boring party indeed. 

But my favourite of all is this instant classic:-

“The Stealth Warrior Program”
When you read that title you have to do it with the movie man’s voice… you know, the guy who tries to get you excited about some back-shelf B-Movie at the local Blockbuster by telling you all about it in a gravelly voice.  I did think, at first, that this book might be about Ninjitsu, or some other martial art.  The “little boy” in my brain (most guys have one, I promise) was quite excited to hear more about the dark arts of the stealth warrior.  Unfortunately, like those aforementioned back-shelf B-Movies, its really not the blockbuster it appears.  It’s write-up assures us that:-

You will start to…
Diminish all fears as you walk amongst challenging situations with courage and finesse!
Wake up in the morning with new realms of power that grow every single day..
Start to attract positive people into your life as you radiate congruent ‘magnetic’ energy!
Walk through the world in a positive light with ease and smooth approach to resolve challenges quickly
Melt hesitations and open up new levels of possibility and unlimited success potential!
Release yourself into a calm peaceful stream of never ending success….

Sounds good, huh?  Want to rush on out and buy it?  You’ll radiate energy like one of the kids from the old ready-brek ads.  Walking around in your nimbus of positive light people will think you are either a religious prophet, an alien visitor or somebody who works with nuclear waste. 

Having mused on all this I believe I have come up with the perfect self-help book.  Something which will salve even the most pained of circumstances.  I haven’t written it yet, but I think i’ve got a working title: “One Hundred Secret Ways To Be Sexy And Brainy In 25 Sets Of Seven Easy Steps – Revised Stealth Power Edition.”  Snappy, huh?

“Pimped Out” Library & Leverington Garden Party

“Pimped Out” Library

I attended the public opening of the Wisbech Library today.  Having benefitted from a Big Lottery grant, a large chunk of County Council cash and further income from other sources the library has been afforded a much-needed and rather spectacular revamp. 

I have to admit, it looks pretty awesome!  In its previous state it looked and felt its age but the project has taken that tired old building and created an attractive and extremely functional new space.  Much thought has clearly been given to the variety of tasks that a modern library is now expected to perform and the team have created a vibrant and exciting environment.

Personally, I haven’t used a library in years.  Books are cheap enough these days, particularly if you enjoy rooting through bargains and musty old bookshops for lost ‘treasures’ as I do.  Or if you are a frequent visitor on Amazon or E-Bay, as I also am. 

But I spent many long, happy hours in libraries when I was a teenager – losing myself in colourful worlds and impossible landscapes.  Browsing the rows and shelves today I found myself picking up volumes, reading the backs, eyeing collections by authors I have not yet discovered.  As I did so I found myself rediscovering all the things I used to love about the library. 

The public turned out for the opening in healthy numbers, as did a variety of dignitaries; the mayor and mayoress of Wisbech, the leader of the county council, the chairman of the county council, the relevent cabinet member, the leader of the town council and more.  With good reason – this is a great addition for Wisbech.  It is something to be proud of.  Or, I should say, another thing to be proud of.

Opened by the youngest and oldest members of the library (a cute baby carried by proud parents and an elegant lady) the only missing demographic were the teenagers.   Never fear – I am assured that there are plenty of young people among the thousands of new members the library has recently enjoyed.  I expect they had more exciting things to do with their Saturday afternoon.  

I did locate one young man – who I asked: “So, what do you think of it?”
“They’ve really pimped out the library!” he enthused. 
I think that’s as good a description as any…

The youngest and oldest members receive flowers.

Mayor Nick Meekins in all his “bling”.

The multi-coloured thing* is called “Elmer”, or “Elmo” or
something.  It’s got an evil glint in its eye, I reckon. 
A caption competition would seem to be in order…

Leverington Garden Party

The afternoon called for a trip to Leverington to attend a garden party thrown by the friends of the local church.  As you might expect in England, in the middle of June, during a summer fete which planned to serve cream teas – it rained.  As you equally might expect of the good people of Leverington, and the English in general – that didn’t bother anybody in the slightest. 

Huddled beneath what was inevitably going to be not enough tarp-covered shelters; people bought raffle tickets for the chance to win fruit hampers, released inflatable champions into the cloudy sky during the balloon race, bid good-naturedly against one another in the fun auction,  purchased home-made knitted, pickled and baked delights, tutted resignedly at the global warming climate change and were quintessentially English in all those wonderful familiar ways.  Maybe its all this international football, or maybe its just the friendly village life which infuses our countryside, but I’m feeling pretty patriotic today.   Ah, hell.  Who am I kidding?  I feel patriotic every day.

*I have a picture of county council leader Jill Tuck with that
multi-coloured”Elmer”  thing.  She warned me, on pain of death,
not to put it on my blog.  So if you want to see it you’ll need to
donate some money to a local cause and then I’ll risk her wrath
for a good cause….

Thrills And Spills

Thrills And Spills

Today was a big day for Wisbech.  After the decisions about the pedestrianisation of the market place and the move of the taxi rank were “called in” – the meeting, open to the public, was scheduled for this morning.

If you’re interested in such things this was exciting.  If not you’re probably raising an eyebrow and moving your mouse towards the little red cross in the top right corner.

Sadly, though I would have loved to have been there, I could not make it.  Work commitments from which I could not escape meant I was in London at the time.

Having been given a rough transcript of what occurred I have a feeling I missed a really good one too.  Of course, by “good one” I do not mean that there were any car chases, or that anything exploded furiously in an unlikely and exaggerated fashion (though from the colour of some councillor’s faces you might have expected otherwise).  But in its quiet local way, what occurred was actually rather significant.

Any worries I had about FDC’s recent decisions were quashed when their committee voted unanimously to refer the cabinet decision to full council!  There will be a large body of traders breathing a sigh of relief, let me tell you!

Of course, its not over yet.  But at least at full council the decision will be taken by all the members, including a fair contingent of Wisbech representatives. 

Now listen – I know that to anybody who is not a poltical nerd like me this is all rather boring.  The cogs and machinations of local government are not the stuff of film noir.  There are no genuine cliff-hangers to tantalise, no square-jawed heroes to cheer, no sultry femme fatale to rescue.  Nonetheless, local people and councillors worked hard to come to a decision that was fair on a complicated and difficult issue.  While this may not qualify as ‘thrills and spills’ there’s certainly something admirable about that.

So Why Was I There?

So Why Was I There?

I’ve just returned from a county council cabinet meeting (in the public area – don’t worry.)  I didn’t have to be there.  There was nothing directly concerning my division being discussed and the only issue with which I was intrinsically involved (the Member-Led Procurement  Sub Committee report) was presently ably and coherently by my colleague Cllr. Nick Clarke.

So why was I there?

Far down at the other end of our county near a little-known and rarely-visited backwater settlement called Cambridge, rests Gilbert Road.  The county council, as part of their strategy to make the city more ‘cycle friendly’ and in cooperation with a national cycle organisation have been considering a plan to make significant changes to the road to allow this to progress.  The problem, as it stands, is that the existing advisory cycle lane is sometimes blocked by parked cars – forcing cyclists to weave in and out of the lane as they travel.  The desire to ’streamline’ the cycle route and thereby make it ’safer’ is the guiding light for the proposal.  The plan involves preventing parking along the road and this is where the argument begins.

Right now, most readers are probably nodding in agreement (or nodding off, perhaps).  The road is dangerous!  Solution = make it safer.  Right?  Except that the residents of Gilbert Road take a different view.  They consider that removing their parking amenities and thereby changing their use of their most local road is something they should have a say on.  They are angry on a number of levels and they maintain that; the consultation wasn’t handled fairly, their own representations have been ignored, they have not been properly represented by their local councillors, the evidence that the road is dangerous is not supported by the figures, the evidence that the proposed measures will make cyclists safer is not proven, local groups and organisations will be disenfranchised or even forced to close due to the changes.

I am uncomfortable with the shape of the public debate thus far.  Some very emotive charges have been made by pro-cyclists of the kind that goes: “If we don’t make the road safer then the next child to be killed will be on your conscience!”  It’s powerful rhetoric, but its unfair and misleading.  In fact, in ten years, there have been only six cycle-related accidents on Gilbert road – an area which apparently features 900 cyclists per day.  Now look – of course any accident is a tragedy.  But these accident statistics are actually low if you consider the huge volume of cyclists that reportedly use the route.  The only “evidence” of how unsafe this road is appears to be anecdotal.  So, perhaps we can turn the emotive logic on its head?  If we DO go ahead and make these changes and in the next ten years there are more than six accidents involving cyclists on Gilbert Road then each of those additional accidents are “on the conscience” of the pro-cyclists?  Because clearly, by their own logic, the changes they enact will be responsible for the difference.  Fair?

At the cabinet meeting the room was packed with members of the public.  There were a few pro-cyclists, but I would say the majority were Gilbert Road residents and people from the surrounding streets.  They had genuine evidence, a real case and a powerful gripe over the way they have been and are being treated.  I will not go into the details – they are public knowledge and if you are interested you can look into the issue or give me a call and I’ll fill you in.  I’m not actually here, on my blog, trying to make the case that the Gilbert Road residents were right.  My point is that what has happened here is worrying.

First, I lay the blame on the system.  A system which can take a perfectly honourable aspiration – to make a city more cycle-friendly – and get so bound up in it that it forces its policies upon an unwilling local population in a way that leaves them feeling bewildered, disenfranchised and desperately disappointed.  Instead of doing these things with the people we are doing these things to the people.  This is what the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville would have called “The Tyranny Of The Majority” where a majority, often ill-informed or at least unwilling to consider themselves in the other’s shoes, enact their will upon the rights or desires of a smaller group.  This is democracy at its most brutal.  It did not have to be this way.  The people of Gilbert Road are not unreasonable – nor do they entirely disagree with the aspiration of cyclists.  The compromise solution was that the “no parking” restriction would take place in time blocks; perhaps 8-10AM and 3-6PM, to protect the rush hour bike travellers and schoolkids while maintaining their right to park outside their houses in quiet periods.  This seemed to be fair and reasonable middle ground.  But apparently not.

I don’t really blame the cabinet for this, actually.  I’m disappointed with their decision, but nobody could deny the way the wind was blowing.  Taking a more controversial stance would have been difficult, given the outcome of the official public consultation and the PDG discussions.  The cycle groups could afford to put out glossy flyers full of what some would call “information” and others might uncharitably deem “propaganda”.  The lobbying of members was fierce on both sides, but a cycling organisation has a lot more contacts that a single road’s resident’s group.  Local schools when faced with the rather leading question: “Do you support making the road safer for cyclists” or some variation on the theme unsurprisingly came out in full support.  The media decided early-on that there was more traction in supporting the emotive campaign of those whose own parking would be unaffected than the one being run by people who actually lived there.  In the end, the variation that cabinet agreed was better than it might have been. 

But there is one place where I do lay blame – and I lay it squarely.  On the heads of the Liberal Democrat councillors who are supposed to represent this area.  Their policy of not attending Policy Development Groups meant that the case of the Gilbert Road residents had to be made by a Conservative councillor and a UKIP councillor – both of whom live on the other end of the county.  Not that those Liberal Democrat councillors would have supported the Gilbert Road residents even if they had been there.  They are utterly blinkered on the issue.  But don’t get me wrong – they are entitled to hold that opinion.  They would argue, no doubt, that a majority of their voters are in favour of the changes.  But even if they disagree – they have a duty to support resident’s groups in their area in the democratic process.  While expressing a different point of view they must still enable their resident’s voices to be heard.  That’s their job – a job in which they fundamentally and desperately failed in this instance.  As a councillor you do not have the freedom to ignore your constituents simply because you don’t share their view.  They should come up here to Fenland.  As much as I disagree with them on many issues, our local Liberal Democrats could teach their Cambridge colleagues a thing or two about their democratic duty.

So, the people of Gilbert Road did not know where to turn.  Divorced by their elected county councillors, estranged from the public debate by an overwhelming larger interest – they asked for help.  There wasn’t much I could do.  I live an hour and a halfs drive from cosmopolitan Cambridge.  Out here in Fenland the events of that city can seem quite distant.  But I went along to the cabinet meeting, met them outside and supported them throughout the meeting.  Because nobody else seemed interested – and for democracy to function fairly and properly that just is not good enough.  And that’s why I was there.