Friday, May 30, 2008
Cllr McCall must go!
I've taken some time off blogging while I concentrate on life at Home. Carole and I became parents again on the 27th April with a daughter, Olivia Isobel. Needless to say sleep is a precious commodity in the house just now.
There has been a lot of commotion in the letters pages this week of the MK News and MK Citizen about the opposition groups decision to stop Isobel McCall from forming a cabinet of her choice and the demands for her to step down as leader of the Lib Dem group. What many of the letters miss in terms of the salient points are:
1. As the Leader of ther Council she was directly responsible for overseeing the performance of John Best as Chief Executive of the "Paid Service" (the local government officials). She knew he wasn't taking an interest in the school build programme, and she therefore had a duty of care to the people of MK to ensure that that was rectified. She chose not to, which is a complete abrogation of her responsibilities as Leader of the Council. She is therefore culpable for John Best's failures as she did not manage him effectively.
2. The standard prpoject management process used in government is called PRINCE 2 (PRojects In Controlled Environments). That methodology requires a person called the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for a programme who in the case of the school build programme should have been Euan Henderson. He should then have been accountable for the progress of the project to his Council Leader, Isobel McCall. The fact that neither took an effective interest even when the Head Teacher of Giles Brook and the Constituency MP raised concerns is a failing on the part of both Cllr Henderson and Cllr McCall. The fact it took Cllr Henderson 18 months to conveine a project board is inexcuseable, as is the lack of oversight of Cllr McCall.
3. I'm appalled by the backroom deal that seems to have been struck between Cllrs Henderson and McCall whereby he would resign to save her skin and in return he would become Deputy Mayor this year, and usually succeed as Mayor in the following year. Unlike one correspondent to the MK Citizen's view of him, I do not consider him to be quite the noble person portrayed, certainly not if he is as culpable as the Penn report states and he has stood down as a Cabinet member only when offered a deal rather than out of a sense of conviction. Of course Cllr McCall will deny such a deal was ever struck, but nobody could be so stupid as to be fooled by that.
4. The costs that the Council have incurred putting Giles Brook right and the delays in Ousedale's Olney Campus have cost us the Council Tax payer an aversage of £20 each of their £1200 annual bill. That's almost 2% of your council tax bill wasted on incompetence and arrogance (not to mention the cost of John Best's pay-off, and if you want to add them Cllrs Henderson and McCall's councillors salaries as well).
It is entirely reasonable that both opposition parties seek to hold Cllr McCall accountable and to effectively suspend the process of normal business in the council chamber. I respect the fact that at the last election the Lib Dems held 21 seats in a chamber with no overall controll making them the largest party and that they should for the next year form the council administration, however it would be an insult to every tax payer if the one person who had ultimate and final responsibility for the safety and efficiency of the school build programme were allowed to stay in post after showing such appalling judgement, arrogance, and incompetence.
The answer to the Lib dem's problem is simple: acknowledge Cllr McCalls liability and nominate a new leader.
There has been a lot of commotion in the letters pages this week of the MK News and MK Citizen about the opposition groups decision to stop Isobel McCall from forming a cabinet of her choice and the demands for her to step down as leader of the Lib Dem group. What many of the letters miss in terms of the salient points are:
1. As the Leader of ther Council she was directly responsible for overseeing the performance of John Best as Chief Executive of the "Paid Service" (the local government officials). She knew he wasn't taking an interest in the school build programme, and she therefore had a duty of care to the people of MK to ensure that that was rectified. She chose not to, which is a complete abrogation of her responsibilities as Leader of the Council. She is therefore culpable for John Best's failures as she did not manage him effectively.
2. The standard prpoject management process used in government is called PRINCE 2 (PRojects In Controlled Environments). That methodology requires a person called the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for a programme who in the case of the school build programme should have been Euan Henderson. He should then have been accountable for the progress of the project to his Council Leader, Isobel McCall. The fact that neither took an effective interest even when the Head Teacher of Giles Brook and the Constituency MP raised concerns is a failing on the part of both Cllr Henderson and Cllr McCall. The fact it took Cllr Henderson 18 months to conveine a project board is inexcuseable, as is the lack of oversight of Cllr McCall.
3. I'm appalled by the backroom deal that seems to have been struck between Cllrs Henderson and McCall whereby he would resign to save her skin and in return he would become Deputy Mayor this year, and usually succeed as Mayor in the following year. Unlike one correspondent to the MK Citizen's view of him, I do not consider him to be quite the noble person portrayed, certainly not if he is as culpable as the Penn report states and he has stood down as a Cabinet member only when offered a deal rather than out of a sense of conviction. Of course Cllr McCall will deny such a deal was ever struck, but nobody could be so stupid as to be fooled by that.
4. The costs that the Council have incurred putting Giles Brook right and the delays in Ousedale's Olney Campus have cost us the Council Tax payer an aversage of £20 each of their £1200 annual bill. That's almost 2% of your council tax bill wasted on incompetence and arrogance (not to mention the cost of John Best's pay-off, and if you want to add them Cllrs Henderson and McCall's councillors salaries as well).
It is entirely reasonable that both opposition parties seek to hold Cllr McCall accountable and to effectively suspend the process of normal business in the council chamber. I respect the fact that at the last election the Lib Dems held 21 seats in a chamber with no overall controll making them the largest party and that they should for the next year form the council administration, however it would be an insult to every tax payer if the one person who had ultimate and final responsibility for the safety and efficiency of the school build programme were allowed to stay in post after showing such appalling judgement, arrogance, and incompetence.
The answer to the Lib dem's problem is simple: acknowledge Cllr McCalls liability and nominate a new leader.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Fib Dems
The Fib Dems are at it again!
This time they are having a dig via their PPC, Jill Hope, at Mark Lancaster for not supporting MK by voting to increase Government funding to support the ailing finances of the city. Mark was abraod in his role as a Shadow Minister for International Development and was "paired" in the vote. If you haven't come accross pairing before, it is a system whereby MPs on opposite sides of the floor who are away are paired off against each other to effectively cancel out each other's absence for official reasons. That way one party does not have an unfair advantage over the other by timetabling debates and votes when MPs are away on official business. A quick check of the official records would have established this. But the Fib Dems love playing fast and loose with the facts to make them fit the line they wish to take.
Of course if the Fib dems could build schools on time and on cost with a degree of competence that means they don't fall down as soon as they are built and need more money to repair than they cost to build, then the City's finances might not be in such a bad shape after all. How typical of them to try and pass the buck of their own mis-management in any random direction inthe hope they can "smokescreen" their way out of trouble.
Nice try, but a "D-" attempt at best.
This time they are having a dig via their PPC, Jill Hope, at Mark Lancaster for not supporting MK by voting to increase Government funding to support the ailing finances of the city. Mark was abraod in his role as a Shadow Minister for International Development and was "paired" in the vote. If you haven't come accross pairing before, it is a system whereby MPs on opposite sides of the floor who are away are paired off against each other to effectively cancel out each other's absence for official reasons. That way one party does not have an unfair advantage over the other by timetabling debates and votes when MPs are away on official business. A quick check of the official records would have established this. But the Fib Dems love playing fast and loose with the facts to make them fit the line they wish to take.
Of course if the Fib dems could build schools on time and on cost with a degree of competence that means they don't fall down as soon as they are built and need more money to repair than they cost to build, then the City's finances might not be in such a bad shape after all. How typical of them to try and pass the buck of their own mis-management in any random direction inthe hope they can "smokescreen" their way out of trouble.
Nice try, but a "D-" attempt at best.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Lib Dem School building....... oh dear
The Fib Dems latest comments on their website about how effective they are at building schools is a bit worrying They boats that:
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
1/3rd of the buildings were complete within 2 weeks of the target completion date
2 were built under budget
1/2 were within 4% of the budget.
That's hardly amazing.. in fact look at it this way:
[b]2/3rds of the schools they commissioned and had built were more than 2 weeks late;
all but 2 went over budget
50% went over budget by more than 4%[/b]
Now I am responsible for a building programme worth about £1bn per year. If I delivered 2/3rds of my projects late I'd be shot!
Why are they going wrong? well for a number of reasons, but the starting point has to be poor management of the contrac tual design and build process. MK Council is one of the last places to use something called a "Partnering Contract" which were recommended by the Egan Report in the mid-90's. They prefer the old-fashioned "Design & Build" where the architect is the lead designer, the constructors lack any responsibility for the design process, and the net result is you get snags in the build process that can otherwise be easily overcome, but the process is long-winded and expensive. You also don't get cost certainty from the outset of the project, and so costs escalate.
How would I solve this problem?
1. Use a partnering contract that allocates both risk and financial responsibility for carrying that risk to the involved parties. Everyone signs up to working in partnership, so there is a collective responsibility to resolve deisgn or construction problems as everyone shares the financial risk. It gets away from the "not my problem mate" mentaility. It also sets out an Agreed Maximum Price for the project, so you go into it instages without having committed to the full cost until you know what it will be. the net result, you don't then exceed your budget.
2. use modular technology. There are a number of companies who manufacture component build systems in factories that then put them together on site. It means you can work 24/7 and are not subject to weather delays. your supply chain is certain, and your ability to control time and cost is greater. The buildings are in effect, made in units in a factory, fully fittted, and then assembled on-site. They have a life of between 60-100 years, and are cost effective. In fact you wouldn't even know you were standing inside one that was made off-site unless someone told you they are now that good. Ask local system build manufacturer terrapin. They are a world leader in the technology!
3. Have a better understanding of programme management and outsource it to the professionals. If you are manufacturing a system build design then you can utilise manufacturing processes such as Lean Six Sigma. It manages in quality and manages out cost redundancy.
4. On time = lower c ost. You don't need to find alternative accommodation, bus children all around MK, and pay support staff more to feed/look after more students than the schools mopping up the over-demand of students take, not to mention the hammering on maintenance and degradation costs on the acillary equipment needed to feed/warm/service the buildikngs that are over-utilised while the new supply of schools is late.
The fact is, it can be done. With the school building budget being squeezed the last thing MK needs is more incompetence from the Lib Dems in delivering 2/3rds of new schools late, and over-budget.
MK News last week ran this article:
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
Lone Labour voice argues against dumping elected mayor option in review of how the city is governed
Milton Keynes Council has thrown out proposals for a publicly elected mayor in favour of a more powerful leader.
Former Labour MP Brian White, now a councillor for StantonburyAt its meeting on Tuesday, December 11, Milton Keynes Council set up a working party to consider possible changes to democratic arrangements in the city.
This follows a Government Bill passed on October 30, which requires all councils to choose to have either an elected mayor and cabinet or enhanced leader and cabinet model.
The council chose to support plans to have an enhanced leader, who is elected by the council and would have the power to appoint his/her cabinet and determine the powers allocated to each councillor.
The cabinet is currently elected by the whole council.
The working party will look into the issue in more detail, as well as considering plans to review ward boundaries, to hold elections every four years instead of every three years out of four and, to review the number of members of the council.
The working party will also ensure that the public can give their views on any proposed changes.
However, Cllr Brian White believes these decisions should be made by the people of Milton Keynes in a referendum, rather than by the council.
"I just don't think it is right that councillors should be making this decision and not the people," he said.
"Councillors won't vote for an elected mayor as they will look after their own, the turkey wouldn't vote for Christmas.
"The people of Milton Keynes should choose who leads them.
"Why are they afraid of democracy?" He added that an elected mayor would provide the strong voice that Milton Keynes needs and, would allow the public and media to more easily hold the council to account if things go wrong.
Council leader, Cllr Isobel McCall said: "Except for one individual nobody supports having an elected mayor as it concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual." She explained that even though an elected mayor may not be a member of the party with a majority in council, their power is such that they can force all kinds of decisions through.
"We have had several debates in the past but there has never been an appetite for an elected mayor," she said.
She added that the council will be reviewing all electoral arrangements in an attempt to make the system more simple for voters.
Cllr Kevin Wilson added: "The difficulty of having an elected mayor is that they would be super powerful and the potential for division with the elected councillors would be significant, as well as the potential for power being wielded in a heavy handed fashion.
"It would not be possible to replace an elected mayor for four years. There are no recall powers that would be available."
I have to say, I agree with the Council's decision in this regard. No surprise that it was a former Labour MP who will have voted on legislation to create that bohemoth of a beaurocracy and waste of time and effort known as the "London Assembly" that is in favour of a directly elected Mayor.
It does not, in spite of Cllr White's assertion, bring democracy closer to the people, in fact quite the opposite.
Look at the Regional Assemblies. I cannot think of a single purpose that is served by this administration other than to impose Gordon Brown's houses on us. Local planning decisions are taken away from local councils. How is this democractic? Would a mayor be any different? Of course not.
One example of democracy in action is the Wind Farm application. Using the democratic system of checks and balances the decision has been recalled to full council to debate the appointment of an [b]independant[/b] advisor and to set aside the flawed and biased report commissioned from White Young Green. Would this have been achieved if we had a "democractically" elected Mayor with quasi-presidential powers? I doubt it.
So thanks for the opinion Cllr White, but I'd prefer to see a system of Leader and Cabinat, however flawed, as it is a better system than the one being proposed.
The article also talks about boundary changes and all-out elections. I do support this notion. I have said before it is confusing to have 2 councillors or more representing the same Ward, especially when they can (and often are) in different political parties. Take Olney as an example, with 2 councillors, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, but BOTH representing the same town. Surely it would make more sense to have Olney North/South or Olney East/West with only one councillor representing a smaller geographic Ward with an equal population split. If the ratio is 1 councillor to 3000 residents, rtather than have 2 councillors for the same 6000 residents of Olney, splt the Wards so that they have 3000 residents each as a sole charge. It makes more sense than the current system. Equallly the "election in 3rds" or a 3rd of the council's seats being elected each year for 3 years out of 4 and then no elections in the 4th year is confusing. People want to have a system whereby they know who represents them and when they are due for re-election. It is a system that favours the Lib Dems because of the confusion it causes, and they want to keep it!
As I said last year, it is time for a change!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Emberton Wind Farm
I attended the Planning Committe meeting on 17/12/07 that approved this scheme. Rather than go through a blow by blow account, I'll bullet point some of my observations and end with the letter that was published in the Citizen on 27/12:
Tuesday 18th December 2007
Dear Editor
The decision taken last night by the Planning Committee of Milton Keynes Council to approve the environmentally disastrous wind farm in Emberton can only be described as the wrong decision made on a wind farm application at the wrong time, proposed in the wrong place. Indeed Cllr John Bint summed the situation up quite succinctly when he suggested that what the committee was being asked to decide upon was destroying “first division countryside for fourth division wind (power)”.
I believe that the process itself was fundamentally undermined by the quality of the advice given by officers to the elected members. Inexperienced in determining wind farm applications the decision was taken to obtain advice from White Young Green partners, a consultancy well known in the property sector as being one of the more aggressive supporters of development. Asking WYG to offer advice on whether or not to approve the decision to press ahead with such a damaging scheme was akin to asking turkeys their views on the abolition of Christmas: a foregone conclusion before they began. Indeed having read their submission it is apparent that it weighs less heavily on the arguments against the development as for. Cllr Bint got less than satisfactory answers from WYG’s representatives on the accuracy of the photomontage and questions went unanswered as to why 125m turbines were necessary if, as YourEnergy claim, technology is advancing. I urge BLEW to consider mounting a legal challenge as a matter of urgency and seek to have the decision referred to a Judicial Review.
But what of the community? Emberton is a village in conflict with itself. The Parish Council and the majority of residents have expressed their opposition to the scheme. Indeed 86% of residents polled by the Parish Council wanted the application turned down. Petsoe has been the scene of angry protests in recent months and this has not been helped by one or two residents attempting to give the false impression that there is muted support for the scheme within the village, claims that are only leading to resentment and ill feeling. The challenge now to the village is to try and reconcile itself and to try and heal the divisions that exist. As a resident I will do all I can in the coming months, however I think it is important to recognise that the blame for what has happened does not rest with individuals but with YourEnergy who have cynically sought to exploit Government subsidy with utter indifference to the consequences to the village. Should this scheme go ahead the residents of Emberton will have to try to find a way to put recent events behind them. I doubt very much that once YourEnergy have repaid their venture capital and run off with their subsidies leaving behind their monstrosity wind turbines, un-productive and thus un-maintained and left to rot as they no doubt will be, you will not see the “caring, considerate face” of their PR machine attempting pacify the community as they will be long gone and onto their next “project”. How sad that not enough of our Councillors recognised the dangers in time to prevent the potential devastation their decision will no doubt cause.
Yours faithfully
Keith Fraser
Conservative Party Spokesperson
Sherington Ward
- Many of the "pro-windfarm lobby" in attendance were from outside M K. In fact the couple sat next to me had travelled from outside Kettering in Northamptonshire.
- Their behaviour was quite odd to say the least. One man was sat on the front row with 2 big green stickers stuck to his forehead, while the other campaigners who had been bussed in were sat all holding up A4 posters with "Vote Yes" on them. Cllr Isabella fraser (LD) commented in the chamber that the presence of so many people from outside MK was obviously intended to put undue pressure on the committee and that she fgound it quite intimidating.
- Cllr I Fraser also commented on the deluge of papers submitted the day of the hearing from YourEnergy to be verging on being out of order, and that it was impossible to consume so much information in such a short space of time.
- Cllr John Bint (Cons) quite rightly attacked the bias of the paper submitted to advise council officers as being biased and inaccurate. He also pointed out that WYG's own website extols their ability to obtain planning consent for contentious schemes in areas of outstanding natural beauty and as such they were not likely to giv e a balanced opinion. He then went on to examine the bias in their report, noteably the inaccuracy of their photmontage.
- Cllr Bint made the observation that WYG were recommending that we trade "first division countryside for 4tyh division wind (power) generation".
- The Labour members voted en bloc in favour of the scheme in line with their party's n ational policy mandate.
- Cllr Barbosa (LD) made a tangenital point about Portugal that was, frankly fatuous, and how we had to act to prevent the UK from becoming the kind of arid dustbowl that he was used to in that country before voting for the scheme.
- Cllr Chris Williams (LD) made a pantomime show of waving in his arms in the air in indecision before voting for the scheme. It was obvious that he took the matter so seriously (sic).
.
Tuesday 18th December 2007
Dear Editor
The decision taken last night by the Planning Committee of Milton Keynes Council to approve the environmentally disastrous wind farm in Emberton can only be described as the wrong decision made on a wind farm application at the wrong time, proposed in the wrong place. Indeed Cllr John Bint summed the situation up quite succinctly when he suggested that what the committee was being asked to decide upon was destroying “first division countryside for fourth division wind (power)”.
I believe that the process itself was fundamentally undermined by the quality of the advice given by officers to the elected members. Inexperienced in determining wind farm applications the decision was taken to obtain advice from White Young Green partners, a consultancy well known in the property sector as being one of the more aggressive supporters of development. Asking WYG to offer advice on whether or not to approve the decision to press ahead with such a damaging scheme was akin to asking turkeys their views on the abolition of Christmas: a foregone conclusion before they began. Indeed having read their submission it is apparent that it weighs less heavily on the arguments against the development as for. Cllr Bint got less than satisfactory answers from WYG’s representatives on the accuracy of the photomontage and questions went unanswered as to why 125m turbines were necessary if, as YourEnergy claim, technology is advancing. I urge BLEW to consider mounting a legal challenge as a matter of urgency and seek to have the decision referred to a Judicial Review.
But what of the community? Emberton is a village in conflict with itself. The Parish Council and the majority of residents have expressed their opposition to the scheme. Indeed 86% of residents polled by the Parish Council wanted the application turned down. Petsoe has been the scene of angry protests in recent months and this has not been helped by one or two residents attempting to give the false impression that there is muted support for the scheme within the village, claims that are only leading to resentment and ill feeling. The challenge now to the village is to try and reconcile itself and to try and heal the divisions that exist. As a resident I will do all I can in the coming months, however I think it is important to recognise that the blame for what has happened does not rest with individuals but with YourEnergy who have cynically sought to exploit Government subsidy with utter indifference to the consequences to the village. Should this scheme go ahead the residents of Emberton will have to try to find a way to put recent events behind them. I doubt very much that once YourEnergy have repaid their venture capital and run off with their subsidies leaving behind their monstrosity wind turbines, un-productive and thus un-maintained and left to rot as they no doubt will be, you will not see the “caring, considerate face” of their PR machine attempting pacify the community as they will be long gone and onto their next “project”. How sad that not enough of our Councillors recognised the dangers in time to prevent the potential devastation their decision will no doubt cause.
Yours faithfully
Keith Fraser
Conservative Party Spokesperson
Sherington Ward
Friday, December 07, 2007
The Fib Dems
Thanks to the blog Ridiculous Politics for this entry:
Lib Dem lies .... again
"It seems to be a text book Lib Dem campaigning technique: get a disparaging comment about your opponent reported in the local paper, then "quote" the paper on a leaflet, misrepresenting your comment as the opinion of the paper itself. Then hope you don't get caught.
Well, after doing that in Moray in 2006, the Lib Dem spindoctors have been caught out again. Liberal Democrats in Watford have apologised to Watford Observer for misleading information contained in its latest campaign leaflet. The leaflet purportedly reproduces a quote from the Watford Observer stating: "The signs look good for the Lib Dems to topple Claire Ward the Labour MP" and attributes the words directly to the newspaper. But in fact, the comment was published as a quote from the local Lib Dem Mayor. Tut-tut. And the editor of the paper is not amused. Watford Observer group editor Peter Wilson-Leary said:
"We are very disappointed to have had this brought to our attention. Whether this was an unintentional slip or a deliberate ruse, it is very misleading and could be very damaging to our credibility. To the casual reader it suggests the Watford Observer is backing the Liberal Democrats when, in fact, we have said no such thing. The newspaper would never endorse an individual candidate nor their party for that matter." "
Where have we seen these type of dirty tricks before? Hyping up the Buchanan Report and attempting to link the authority who commissioned the report with MK Conservatives who opposed it, before accusing us of playing dirty by refuting the link.
The Fib Dems:
Lib Dem lies .... again
"It seems to be a text book Lib Dem campaigning technique: get a disparaging comment about your opponent reported in the local paper, then "quote" the paper on a leaflet, misrepresenting your comment as the opinion of the paper itself. Then hope you don't get caught.
Well, after doing that in Moray in 2006, the Lib Dem spindoctors have been caught out again. Liberal Democrats in Watford have apologised to Watford Observer for misleading information contained in its latest campaign leaflet. The leaflet purportedly reproduces a quote from the Watford Observer stating: "The signs look good for the Lib Dems to topple Claire Ward the Labour MP" and attributes the words directly to the newspaper. But in fact, the comment was published as a quote from the local Lib Dem Mayor. Tut-tut. And the editor of the paper is not amused. Watford Observer group editor Peter Wilson-Leary said:
"We are very disappointed to have had this brought to our attention. Whether this was an unintentional slip or a deliberate ruse, it is very misleading and could be very damaging to our credibility. To the casual reader it suggests the Watford Observer is backing the Liberal Democrats when, in fact, we have said no such thing. The newspaper would never endorse an individual candidate nor their party for that matter." "
Where have we seen these type of dirty tricks before? Hyping up the Buchanan Report and attempting to link the authority who commissioned the report with MK Conservatives who opposed it, before accusing us of playing dirty by refuting the link.
The Fib Dems:
The Military Covenant
I'm delighted to see Douglas McCall ask MK Council to call on the government to honuor the covenant it owes our servicemen and women. The Royal British Legion is campaigning for improvements in the terms and conditions of servicemen as well as improved support for those who return from conflict zones with injuries, as well as support for the families less fortunate.
What a pity then that the "call to arms" omitted to join the Conservative MP for Milton Keynes North east, Mark Lancaster who is a serving TA officer and who has spoken out extensively in support of the RBL's campaign. This smacks of playing politics with what ought to be a united call for support accross all party lines.
What I find quite perplexing is that during the local election campaign, voters under 25, who were most likely to have anti-war views about Iraq and Afghanistan were written to and asked to vote for a Lib Dem councillor to express their views against those conflicts with a reminder that the Lib Dems would pull troops out of Iraq. I never cease to be amazed at the Lib Dems distaste for intellectual consistency. The Lib Dems are asking people to vote in local elections for a withdrawl of troops that can only be decided upon at a national level, in Parliament, by MPs, when we all know that the lib Dems are never going to be in a position to deliver nationally onm a promise they make at a local election.
I, like Mark, always believed that we were taken into Iraq on faslse promises. Now we are there we have an obligation to remain until we can restore law, order, and peace to that troubled land. As a former TA officer myself I have many friends, regular and TA, who are serving in Iraq and who believe that they ought to stay until the job is done. I suppport this view.
I'll go further and invite Cllr McCall to join me as a member of the British Armed Forces Federation http://www.baff.org.uk/ who are leading a number of strategic campaigns for the benefit of serving and ex service personnel. Unlike the RBL their mandate is to lobby for the best interests of those who serve. They are policially neutral (insofar as part allegiance is concerned) and a "broad church". I also call on him to align his views with those of Mark and me and to add his voice to ours.
Finally, for those of you inyterested to know more about the work of the British Army in Iraq, I would commend the online magazine of US journalist and former US Marine, Michael Yon. You will find an excellent report on The Rifles (who have a TA unit in MK) at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/men-of-valor-part-i-of-about-viii.htm
What a pity then that the "call to arms" omitted to join the Conservative MP for Milton Keynes North east, Mark Lancaster who is a serving TA officer and who has spoken out extensively in support of the RBL's campaign. This smacks of playing politics with what ought to be a united call for support accross all party lines.
What I find quite perplexing is that during the local election campaign, voters under 25, who were most likely to have anti-war views about Iraq and Afghanistan were written to and asked to vote for a Lib Dem councillor to express their views against those conflicts with a reminder that the Lib Dems would pull troops out of Iraq. I never cease to be amazed at the Lib Dems distaste for intellectual consistency. The Lib Dems are asking people to vote in local elections for a withdrawl of troops that can only be decided upon at a national level, in Parliament, by MPs, when we all know that the lib Dems are never going to be in a position to deliver nationally onm a promise they make at a local election.
I, like Mark, always believed that we were taken into Iraq on faslse promises. Now we are there we have an obligation to remain until we can restore law, order, and peace to that troubled land. As a former TA officer myself I have many friends, regular and TA, who are serving in Iraq and who believe that they ought to stay until the job is done. I suppport this view.
I'll go further and invite Cllr McCall to join me as a member of the British Armed Forces Federation http://www.baff.org.uk/ who are leading a number of strategic campaigns for the benefit of serving and ex service personnel. Unlike the RBL their mandate is to lobby for the best interests of those who serve. They are policially neutral (insofar as part allegiance is concerned) and a "broad church". I also call on him to align his views with those of Mark and me and to add his voice to ours.
Finally, for those of you inyterested to know more about the work of the British Army in Iraq, I would commend the online magazine of US journalist and former US Marine, Michael Yon. You will find an excellent report on The Rifles (who have a TA unit in MK) at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/men-of-valor-part-i-of-about-viii.htm
Latest polling
Our latest polling shows us increasing our lead over Labour nationally:
Friday, October 19, 2007
Stokes Post Flood Meeting on the 8th October
I hope that many of you reading this will have seen the letters page in this week's Citizen. I wrote about my dissapointment at the response of the Lib Dem Councillors to the very real concerns of the residents of Stoke Goldington after the recent floods. Let me add a little detail as to why after reproducing the letter:
Lo and behold, at the meeting on the 8th, Cllr Potts gleefully boasted about what he had done and the fact that Cllr Dougl;as McCall was livid with him. Hardly a start to the issue any sensible cllr would want, alienating the very people with the authority to act. £30K had to be found to fund the work, but it turns out that was a waste of money because there are in the Council surveyors who are qualified and experienced in these matters and who, after the first flood, had done most of the work that they then handed to WSP who re-presented it on the 8th October. That was £30K that could have been better spent!
On the evening we then got into the semantic arguments. Cllr Irene Henderon announced that she would be "sympathetic" to the residents of SG, but being sympathetic and actually doing something are two completely different things. I can be sympathetic but utterly unresolved to act. The report suggests that £150K will be needed immediately, but there were no hard and fast commitments given that night, only hedged bets. Jane Geary did a marvelous job standing up to Cllr Henderson's dodging of the issue, and so did Phil Gott for pointing out to the Cllrs present that it was WSP that were doing all of the talking about funding issues and legal issues that only the Cllrs themselves could truely answer.
For my part, what would I have done instead?
Well I would have started by checking my facts and not announcing anything without the assurances of my colleagues that funding was available now. I certainly wouldn't have wasted £30K on a half-finished report that was already nearly complete by council officers. If I were going to commission a report outisde of the competences of the council I would have put an options appraisal in the brief. Remember any consultant will do only what the brief asks, and if it doesn't ask for a series of costed options all you will get is the "ideal" solution, which in this case looks to cost up to £1m. In other words I would have secured capital funding in this financial year, next, and the year after, and had the work to improve defences organised around the funding. Far better to do much needed work according to affordability (and I would have pressed government hard for the extra funding that has gone to more densly populated but less affected areas) than do what has been done in this instance and find that you are staring down the barrel of a commitment you can't afford because you acted unilaterally and botched the brief.
You will see some small things done over the next few months, it would be political suicide if the Lib Dems didn't atempt to do something. But expect to see a poorly planned, poorly funded damage limitation exercise rather than a coherent strategy to defend the village from future flooding.
Monday 15th October 2007
Dear Sir,
Anyone who attended the public meeting to hear the results of the report into the recent floods in Stoke Goldington could be excused for feeling short-changed right now.
The report commissioned by the Council from WSP, and reported on at the meeting on the 8th October, identified a number of measures that it categorised as short, medium, and long term improvements to drainage, none of which came as any great surprise to residents of the village who have been calling for the Council to make many of these improvements for some time as a quick reading of the Parish Council minutes from January through to March of this year will show.
Where I join residents in feeling utter astonishment is at the response of the Liberal Democrat Councillors who chaired that meeting. When pressed by residents about how much the works would cost, whether the council would commit to funding, and when they could expect the work to be delivered, Cllrs Potts and Irene Henderson were evasive to the point of allowing a consultant from WSP to field those questions. While Cllr Henderson repeated that she was “sympathetic” towards the residents of the village, I couldn’t help but note that being sympathetic, and being resolved to act are not the same thing!
The cause of the entire debacle is clear: an opportunistic attempt to grab publicity. Cllr Potts took pride in the fact that he unilaterally and irresponsibly announced an independent report live on TV without fist discussing this with his own Cabinet, who have now evidently had to embark on a damage limitation exercise much to their obvious annoyance at being bounced into policy commitments they have no means of keeping. The fact that the report has cost £30,000 when there are arguably council officers with the skills to undertake the investigation at no cost to the Council Tax payer has obviously escaped Cllr Pott’s attention. Equally, with a remit as flawed as it is, it is no wonder that WSP reported that the full cost of the solution they are proposing potentially runs to “seven figures”. I would certainly have ensured that any report included an options appraisal that covers a number of other costed options for consideration, it seems that this report does not.
I now repeat the calls on the Council made by the residents of Stoke Goldington last week that it funds the £150,000 of works of urgently needed works, with a commitment to a timescale of when they are to be completed, and an action plan detailing when the money will be found to begin the medium and longer term drainage improvements needed by the village. Anything less will be a waste of £30,000 spent on a paper exercise with no net gain to the residents affected.
Yours sincerely
Keith Fraser
Conservative Party Spokesperson
Sherington Ward
When the floods did happen the Lib Dem Cllr saw it as a prime time to grab some publicity and sew SG up (or rather stitch it up!) and take it out of being a safe "Tory" area, just like they had done in North Crawley and Moulsoe by scaring the villages half to death with lies and insinuation about MK Conservatives (i.e. me) being in league with our neighbouring authorities (and probably the Devil if they could have stretched it that far) to build over the villages in a plan that was never going to be accepted by the SE Regional Assembly anyway. Our Cllr announced, live on TV and without consulting his own Cabinet member, an independant enquiry. Was that nieve or irresponsible? I vote the latter because the nieve politician would have gone back and checked their facts first before speaking, the irresponsible speak without thinking.
Lo and behold, at the meeting on the 8th, Cllr Potts gleefully boasted about what he had done and the fact that Cllr Dougl;as McCall was livid with him. Hardly a start to the issue any sensible cllr would want, alienating the very people with the authority to act. £30K had to be found to fund the work, but it turns out that was a waste of money because there are in the Council surveyors who are qualified and experienced in these matters and who, after the first flood, had done most of the work that they then handed to WSP who re-presented it on the 8th October. That was £30K that could have been better spent!
On the evening we then got into the semantic arguments. Cllr Irene Henderon announced that she would be "sympathetic" to the residents of SG, but being sympathetic and actually doing something are two completely different things. I can be sympathetic but utterly unresolved to act. The report suggests that £150K will be needed immediately, but there were no hard and fast commitments given that night, only hedged bets. Jane Geary did a marvelous job standing up to Cllr Henderson's dodging of the issue, and so did Phil Gott for pointing out to the Cllrs present that it was WSP that were doing all of the talking about funding issues and legal issues that only the Cllrs themselves could truely answer.
For my part, what would I have done instead?
Well I would have started by checking my facts and not announcing anything without the assurances of my colleagues that funding was available now. I certainly wouldn't have wasted £30K on a half-finished report that was already nearly complete by council officers. If I were going to commission a report outisde of the competences of the council I would have put an options appraisal in the brief. Remember any consultant will do only what the brief asks, and if it doesn't ask for a series of costed options all you will get is the "ideal" solution, which in this case looks to cost up to £1m. In other words I would have secured capital funding in this financial year, next, and the year after, and had the work to improve defences organised around the funding. Far better to do much needed work according to affordability (and I would have pressed government hard for the extra funding that has gone to more densly populated but less affected areas) than do what has been done in this instance and find that you are staring down the barrel of a commitment you can't afford because you acted unilaterally and botched the brief.
You will see some small things done over the next few months, it would be political suicide if the Lib Dems didn't atempt to do something. But expect to see a poorly planned, poorly funded damage limitation exercise rather than a coherent strategy to defend the village from future flooding.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
I would like to thank all of the 911 residents of Sherington who voted for me on May 3rd. Although I didn't win the seat, that vote was exceptional! Here's a few statistics on the election itself:
The turnout was nearly 60%, higher than any other local election in MK, and one of the highest in the country.
The vote in Emberton was over 200 to 17 (LD) in my favour!
I won Sherington by 55% to 49%
I averaged 46.65% of the vote accross the ward (Lab 3.79!)
I lost by only 10 votes!
The Lib Dem vote went no-where at all from previous elections, so their scare tactics, lies, and reliance on national issues (such as the anti-Iraq War letter making promises that they will never be in a position to deliver on for example) made no impact at all on their turn out. The seat has gone from a lib Dem safe seat with a majority of 150 to a seat they held with their finger-nails on 10 votes. This is no mandate at all.
For the past few weeks I have been taking some time off, however I will continue to campaign for better representation of the smaller villages, not just some, as well as improvements to the services of the ward residents.
One thing I will continue to oppose is the lib Dem mendacity in allowing expansion into the villages by the back door. They have already started with their slipping through 1600+ houses and then window dressing it as building for future generations when their lies were exposed. When the bulldozers turn up to start levelling the green spaces within and around our villages to make way for the 1600 lib Dem houses I will be the first to stand in their way, rest assured.
The turnout was nearly 60%, higher than any other local election in MK, and one of the highest in the country.
The vote in Emberton was over 200 to 17 (LD) in my favour!
I won Sherington by 55% to 49%
I averaged 46.65% of the vote accross the ward (Lab 3.79!)
I lost by only 10 votes!
The Lib Dem vote went no-where at all from previous elections, so their scare tactics, lies, and reliance on national issues (such as the anti-Iraq War letter making promises that they will never be in a position to deliver on for example) made no impact at all on their turn out. The seat has gone from a lib Dem safe seat with a majority of 150 to a seat they held with their finger-nails on 10 votes. This is no mandate at all.
For the past few weeks I have been taking some time off, however I will continue to campaign for better representation of the smaller villages, not just some, as well as improvements to the services of the ward residents.
One thing I will continue to oppose is the lib Dem mendacity in allowing expansion into the villages by the back door. They have already started with their slipping through 1600+ houses and then window dressing it as building for future generations when their lies were exposed. When the bulldozers turn up to start levelling the green spaces within and around our villages to make way for the 1600 lib Dem houses I will be the first to stand in their way, rest assured.
