Cllr Carr remarks ill-considered

The remarks attributed in the Medway Messenger today to senior portfolio holder Councillor Carr should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who has worked to build bridges between communities in Medway.

Irrespective of the perception it is responsible for all politicians to be sensitive to issues around community cohesion; issues and differences between communities will always exist; the way of alleviating is through dialogue and management.  

If these comments were from a backbench Conservative Councillor they would be reprehensible; coming as they do from someone responsible for building bridges and working on community safety for minority groups, it makes the position untenable.  

Voters will rightly worry that he harbors other views on minority groups and that they could cloud his ability to do the job fairly for all people.

The article has suggested that prosecutions may come as a result; if true Council resources may be deployed in having to defend these remarks. 

The Conservative Leadership should suspend Cllr Carr from his Portfolio pending any legal outcome. 

Anything less would be a breach of trust to the electorate who are once again having to deal with a Portfolio holder seemingly unable to do his job responsibly.

Update

Within six hours the following Medway Conservatives issued this statement over alleged comments made by Cllr David Carr about travellers.

“In light of the comments printed in the Medway Messenger, Cllr Carr has been suspended from his position as Portfolio Holder for Community Services and Customer Contact pending a review of the issues covered within the article.

Cllr Carr’s comments were not acceptable and he now appreciates that this is the case.

We do not support the comments Cllr Carr said in the interview he gave shortly after being appointed to the portfolio."

The long journey to Equal Marriage

This time last year I had a debate with two opposition activists about the Equal Marriage proposals and the passage of this seminal piece of legislation through the corridors of power.

The debate was not about whether we supported the proposal; it was clear that all of us - from across the three main political parties - were cheerleaders of the matter. I from the civil liberties perspective that Equal Marriage was the last great piece of equal rights legislation after almost 15 years of action on social justice from an ostensibly Labour government. They from the perspective that the Coalition was in the centre, had changed, and was proud to be introducing something that Labour didn’t; reflecting middle England and progressive social change.

I warned them both at the time that the Bill would not get through without Labour votes and was universally rounded upon. I warned them both that their local parties did not share their idealistic views about the issue. I was right on both accounts.

Medway Labour locally is a plural and diverse organisation and it is the intent to represent all the people of Medway irrespective of gender, creed, colour or religion. We are a tolerant and outward looking organisation. Our motion at Full Council backing the Coalition on Equal marriage should have got firm support from across the spectrum; it instead descended into a group therapy session for the Conservative Party who to this day have never quite apologised for some of the arguments presented. The Medway Liberal Democrats alas did not support Equal Marriage either; and one activist resigned.

Some younger Tory voters locally have suggested that this solely reflects the dinosaur tendency of the Medway Conservative Council Group and some traditional party members. The vote in Westminster busts that myth entirely with MPs under 40 backing the wrecking amendments just as strongly.

This is not a dig at two of our MPs who backed Equal Marriage; but it is a dig at their party for which they, as members, should accept responsibility as influencers.

Equal marriage was delivered by a Coalition government but it was not delivered by the Parliamentary Conservative Party; who actually backed the wrecking amendment in more numbers then didn’t. After months of dither and delay on this issue – and brutal attacks on Maria Miller from her own side - Cameron announced it was a free vote; knowing full well the scale of discontent. The same man who stood before his party conference when in opposition and made it a totemic issue of his modernising premiership. You know, I didn’t see Tory PPCs turning, talking to the press or running away on issues of religious principle then; and nor do I now. Convictions are strongly held on these issues it would seem; but for Tories to claim they were not pre-warned is just balls.

For those over the age of 25 many recall the Tories as a tribe on LGBT issues, such is the so very recent history to this. Many can recall the opposition to civil partnerships; the voting records on adoption rights; the statements on equal age of consent; the maintaining of localised versions of ‘section 28’ which meant teachers were gagged not to talk homosexuality. I was a product of this education; no education, nothing. The Thatcher speech to party conference code for a party which was happy to play divide-and-rule with the LGBT community. Tories in hindsight claim there was a culture shift since the 1980s yet it was this week, in 2013, a majority of Conservative MPs didn’t back it.

Labour could have backed the Loughton amendment and used this amendment to highlight Cameron’s own weakness. It could have kicked an issue into the long grass and merely added Equal Marriage in its next manifesto for government; I know many were concerned in Labour to this end; and the pressure was I can assure being applied. Instead and rightly the party put the national interest and that of millions of its citizens first. There can be no prouder moment after almost 15 years of changes under New Labour to see full equality in relationships and as a result of our votes.  

The Tories have never apologised for the misery caused to millions of our citizens who felt victimised by a right-leaning political culture which only changed with the election of New Labour in 1997. Former Conservative chairman and MPs blaming Equal Marriage for local election failures and lesbian Queens tell you everything. Utterly grubby.

Many LGBT Tory voters will rightly celebrate Equal Marriage and I am the first to lift a champagne glass with them; but it wont remove the pain caused by the Tory party over the last thirty years; and the ignominy of huge numbers backing a wrecking amendment earlier this week or the language used by those on the right. For many younger Tory voters I just say this is why this mob were out of power for 13 years and fought tooth and nail to stop social progress. Your rights as individual citizens were not in there party self-interest to persue.  

Have the Tory tribe as a whole really learnt the lesson of opposition and accepted social progress? I don’t think they have.

And yes that really matters because judgement counts on not just issues like this where the majority of Conservatives were on the wrong side of history, but its character judgement on other issues as well; jobs, economy, law & order, health and our armed forces.  

A party in touch and in the centre; or one that isn’t. I let you judge. 

Why refuse Estuary Airport ballot?

Despite all the furore around Equal Marriage and the Tories descending into a right-wing induced frenzy of self-cannibalism it would be remiss not to point out the referenda results from the Hillingdon and Richmond elections on Heathrow expansion

Some 140,000 people cast their vote in the four-week referendum with a turnout of 41 per cent. In Hounslow, 72 per cent opposed expansion although the majority expressed concerns about the impact on the local economy if a rival London hub emerged, according to the results of a separate consultation also published today. In Hillingdon, 66 per cent opposed expansion

It is a real pity our Conservatives in Medway have completely refused a ballot of local residents on this issue when other areas know the political weight of such results and the impact on those in government. If Cameron were now to progress with Heathrow expansion he would snub the voices of 140,000 people across a number of marginal seats.

The real worry is that the London Conservative Party machine uses this result of 'real people votes' as an excuse to promote the Estuary Airport proposal despite the result of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee chaired by a Labour MP. Already Boris has tried to leverage the vote to call for the immediate withdrawal of Heathrow from the Davies Commission; which when Medway Labour requested the same thing only two weeks ago, was attacked by local Tory Councillors. 

And to coincide with this referenda result comes the consultation for an additional Thames Crossing; whose option C includes a bridge and further road development very closely situated West of a number of Estuary Airport proposed sites.

The simple truth is that this Estuary Airport proposal has some way to go and is not the dead duck some papers will have you believe.

When 140,000 speak; it does as Boris Johnson states “set Whitehall aquiver" ; it is a real pity our Tory MPs don’t trust our residents to make the same judgement on the Estuary Airport plans. 

Will Medway MPs lurch to right?

One of the least palatable outcomes of the General Election in 2010 were a number of victories to Conservative MPs across the country that effectively sold-off there own party policy positions to subscribe to UKIP to secure victory.

Less then three years later and it should not come as a surprise that those malcontents are back again causing problems. The economy has flatlined and an increasingly febrile Tory backbench majority are drowning many on the liberal and moderate wing of the Conservative party whose coat tails they hung onto to get into office.

Day by day we can read it in the press; Tory moderates are silent; those with siren voices are clammering to get onto the news channels to make a mark. The Tory leadership contest is in full swing with how many contenders now: May, Hammond, Hague, Adam Afriyie... and is the Cabinet in control? No way.

The British national interest is becoming a government of parody. The focus of the British people ignored.

And who is to blame? Not the government but the membership? An ever dwindling banned of not-so-merry elderly men ostensibly bereft of common-sense. Or is it the elitist Eton toffs in Number 10 or the swivel eyed membershi?

The exasperated British public look on. A split, dithering, factional, inward looking mess.

For any mainstream national party of government, or its representatives, to agree to shrill calls for an unholy alliance with an extreme party of the right should be of grave concern. The fact Cameron doesnt have the strength even to challenge the UKIP joint-ticket is because he is now too weak to challenge the right of his party. 


It is no wonder therefore the public now see an utterly factional and divided government.

Since February when Cameron blinked to his base on the referendum we have seen a rightward lurch. 

The only liberal piece of legislation to get any comment has been derided by Conservatives. If it wasnt for Labour the keynote civil liberties reform of Equal marriage would never have got through; it still remains threatened with referenda amendments. Not ironic that UKIP opposes Equal Marriage.

It is now open conversation that Tories would consider a pact; many see this as the only way to stop Labour; whilst ignoring the fact its conversation only highlights the weakness of Cameron. If Tory MPs cant even believe they can win without UKIP it tells the moderate public everything they need to know about whether this is a government of the centre. It clearly isnt.

Moderate Conservative and former MP; Matthew Paris

Tory MPs locally need to tell us whether they will sign-up, or agree to a UKIP approach, with either a joint brand on the ballot or an 'agreement' of UKIP not to stand. Will they be 'connivers', as the former Conservative MP Matthew Paris, has today suggested? Will they brandish themselves susceptible to the 'UKIP blackmail'? 

The Tories should have reformed their party structures between 2005-2007 and not just the brand; they should have done, quite frankly, what Blair did to Labour from 1995/1996. Blair had the strength of leadership to destoy the draconian structures, impose all women shortlists and fundemantally change the nature of Labour Party democracy. This publicly highlighted by Clause 4. He forged a New Labour machine which to this day has undermined the Tory ability to form a cogent majority in Britain; despite the worst recession since the 1930s.

I was gobsmacked when I was speaking to a Conservative friend of mine at just quite how much glad-handing and sucking up to Tory Association power-brokers that needs to be made before getting even a non-winnable seat on a local Borough Council. He indicated to me that many bed-blockers were stuck in a rut and that opportunities for those under forty were ultimately self-limiting. The level of simmering frustration is now palpable. I indicated he should look on the bright side; UKIP will only have won against lazy Tories in Kent, and as such he has an opportunity to stand in 2016/17. He pointed out that the next  elections would coincide with the European referendum ballot. Ouch.

The truth is Tory hierarchies are closed shops; and whilst they parrot the same old line about Labour (to keep you delivering leaflets and believing their is opportunity for you) nothing further could be from the truth. The Tory Association machine is wired wrongly to be a truly open and meritiocratic force; it needs reform but from whom?

Cameron could have done the bold thing but it is now too late; he could still challenge his minority fruitcake MPs and face-off to them but if he did he could lose the trust of the wider electorate for obessing on internal issues. 

I highlighted the Tory efforts surrounding the Kent PCC selections where a handful of members selected a candidate from an anti-Federalist background. Unlike Labour there were no online ballots and the result was a candidate not really supported by the majority of Conservatives. The electorate in November responded; albeit in a pathetic turnout and expensive ballot, by electing not a Conservative in deepest blue Kent, but an independent with alleged links to centre left of British politics. 

Association structures are ultimately the problem by design for the 21st century; where an ever smaller and increasingly aged membership are now influencing and leading MPs positions, only and ostensibly because they can turn up to all the meetings scheduled [sometimes] in working hours and not helpful to families. The smaller the membership of any organisation the more likely it is to become susceptible to the views of a minority and that is what we are seeing. 

Many moderate Tory voters - and some who perhaps lent their vote in 2010 - should watch this debate closely because the 'swivel-eyed loons' comment today is very much reflective of what most feel with Conservatives. Including, I suspect most younger members of the Conservative Party, frustrated by a ruling Association clique.

It is a moot point today on whether had Cameron challenged his rabid right to walk the plank in 2006/07 he would have a more moderate and centrist backbench crop today. I certainly think he could have de-toxified the brand enough in the process to make a compelling offer; I also think it could have probably won him the election outright as the public would have seen him kick his party hard in preperation for office. 

As it was the Tories marketed a slick but ultimately superficial brand offer and an Association structure which is now bereft of common sense in the modern world. It is all very well stacking up masses of votes in Tonbridge and Tunbridge but not when you lose middle-England who now live in aspirational suburbia; many of whom holiday in Europe, enjoy Eurovision and are open to the world and not closed or scared of it.

If the events of the last year highlight anything it is the Tories are now moving back to an ideological comfort zone of the Association chieftain; reactionary, inward looking, socially moralising and ultimately cruel and out of touch with peoples lives.

Our Tory MPs now need to tell us whether they want to move to that comfort zone as well?

Alternatively, if they are too weak to speak out, then the choice is clear. Labour is the only moderate, centrist and socially liberal party in British politics.

You're fired; You're hired

So the night of the blunt knives came to pass and despite the media commentary it appears it is mostly a continuity cabinet.

• Leader – Cllr Rodney Chambers
• Deputy Leader and Finance – Cllr Alan Jarrett
• Adult Services – Cllr David Brake
• Children’s Services (Lead Member) – Cllr Mike O’Brien
• Educational Improvement – Cllr Kelly Tolhurst
• Community Safety and Customer Contact – Cllr David Carr
• Front Line Services – Cllr Phil Filmer
• Housing and Community Services – Cllr Howard Doe
• Strategic Development and Economic Growth – Cllr Jane Chitty

In post remains the leadership team of Cllr Chambers and Jarrett with minor deck shuffle of ostensibly Rainham Councillors into positions of key influence over portfolios.

I have made no secret that I believe Cllr Chambers needs to move after a decade at the helm; and whilst I have predicted (incorrectly) the demise in almost every year, it is clear there is still no majority in the Tory group for any departure to this end or change in political control. This is disappointing as new energy is needed at the top of the Council; the inability for change to happen is the most deadly aspect for the Tories. People are getting tired of the same faces.

The major comment in the press surrounds the dropping of Cllr Les Wicks which will no doubt take most of the headlines. This was a necessary move given the level of incompetence and/or the perception of incompetence; Cllr Wicks was becoming the story and was overshadowing the necessary work needed to improve schools.

The replacement by Cllr O’Brien sends a signal that they want to change the perception of how the education is run. No doubt expect lots of glad-handing, glib PR and site visits but the proof will be in the pudding when it comes to the results on the ground. There should be more confidence though; the perception of incompetence has been shifted with this move and I suspect Cllr Mike will be given time to settle into what is an immensely challenging portfolio.

The lack of other moves however show a weakness in leadership which will cost the Tories. Far from me to rock the boat...

Noted are the following:

I am surprised the former Kent PCC candidate Cllr MacKinlay was not given the Community Safety portfolio given his high profile; he has been left to Audit Committee for which I will now shadow. I suspect the leadership challenge in 2007/08 remains a moot point. Cllr David Carr is a very amicable and diplomatic individual and will fare well in forums, but it is more important that the Police are challenged robustly and held to account. Cuts to PCSOs and Police officers can not be allowed to disproportionately hit Medway and specifically inner Medway wards. A strong leader would have seen through the leadership challenge and positioned the best person for the job. Cllr Carr is a safe choice but not the right one.

Clear disappointment on a lack of focus on small business and regeneration. As someone who works in the private sector I can say with some confidence that Cllr Chitty wouldn’t be given the time of day in any board room, which I have made clear consistently time and time again. It is sad because small business is crying out for a capable leader to generate investment and work on getting bids and pilots into place; if this were truly performing a Cllr MacKness would be more astute. The economic development brief always fell under Cllr Chambers and its clear that Chambers/Jarrett would feel threatened. As it is a welcome move would have seen a Small Business and Inward Investment portfolio into post with links to business that are tangible.

It is also disappointing to note that we do not have a specific portfolio for public health and leisure with the link between the two at cabinet level given the challenge with obesity, alcoholism and exercise. The Council has recently gained significant oversight over Public health and with many of our demographics amongst the worst it is clear that dealing with health inequalities remain low down the priorities under this leader. It is welcome to see Cllr Tolhurst promoted onto Cabinet but I would have pushed the proverbial boat out further and given oversight over an area she has passion; leisure with strong links to public health with perhaps a nod or link to the former Mayor Vaughan Hewett. Inexperience aside there is a real concern that issues around public health are just not being challenged robustly enough.

In short whilst we have seen a politically necessary move in education this is a weak reshuffle caused ostensibly as a result of a stubborn leader who refuses to change; a continuity cabinet which has not promoted the best talent but shuffled the chairs to keep the leadership secure.