To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

Tory Pincents Hill Bulls***

I wrote a very short while ago about how the local Tories have betrayed the community by allowing the Local Development Framework to be voted through with Pincent’s Hill as one of the proposed sites to build on. Well now i dirtied myself by stumbling through the West Reading Conservative website where i found this.

There are two quick points i want to make. The first is the results of the survey they put round the local area about building on Pincent’s Hill, i think the results are pretty conclusive:

87% of respondents felt that the Government’s housing target of a minimum of 10,500 homes between 2006-2026 for West Berkshire was not reasonable nor acceptable to existing local residents
A massive 85% of respondents want NO development at all on the Pincents Hill Site
96% of the respondents are concerned about the impact of traffic from any development
87% are concerned about the loss of a green space
86% are concerned about the pressure on local public services such as education
82% are worried about the impact of development on the environment and wildlife

The second point is the comments by Birch Copse ward Tory Cllr Emma Webster. Before reading it remember that she abstained from the vote for the Local Development Framework because of a ‘conflict of interests’.

“I very much hope that Pincents Hill is not included as a preferred site in West Berkshire’s Local Development Framework plans (LDF) and the feedback from 896 local people clearly demonstrates the strong level of local feeling about this issue.  The battle to save the Pincents Hill site from development is one which we must win.”

You can never trust a Tory

Just over a week ago, West Berkshire Council voted through the Local Development Framework core strategy that lists potential sites for housing development in West Berkshire- including Pincent’s Hill.

Without digressing, here’s a picture to absorb:

From left to right; West Berkshire Tory Cllr Emma Webster, West Berkshire Tory MP candidate Alok Sharma, West Berkshire Tory Cllr Joe Mooney and West Berkshire Tory Cllr Tony Linden.

These three councillors represent all the seats in the Birch Copse Ward (my local ward- in fact Cllr Joe Mooney lives literally just round the corner from me).

Over the last few months i have received several leaflets through the post detailing how West Berkshire Conservatives are against the proposed housing development at Pincent’s Hill. In November they organised a local meeting at Little Heath School (attended by around 300 people) where they once again voiced their opposition to the development.

Now consider their voting actions during the voting for the Local Development Framework:

• Cllr Emma Webster- abstained
• Cllr Joe Mooney- voted for the LDF without amendment
• Cllr Tony Linden- did not turn up

The following reasons where given for these positions. Emma Webster holds a conflict of interests as she works for a company bidding to build another development in West Berkshire. Tony Linden was away on other council duty, and as he is not a member of the executive he couldn’t vote on this anyway. Joe Mooney pointed out that “the vote taking place is for this to go out to consultation, and not on any specific sites mentioned. That will take place when it goes to planning.”

A few things. One, don’t voice opposition to a proposal and hold public meetings to oppose something if you have a conflict of interests in the first place. Two, even if you can’t vote you can still turn up and voice your opinion and opposition if you indeed feel strongly about it. Three, if you are opposed to the development, you should do what you can to stop it happening- such as working to remove the site completely from the Local Development Framework.

What this comes down to really is that these councillors are only voicing in public what their Tory overlords require of them. It is indeed the New Labour government that is enforcing local councils and West Berkshire in particular to build 10,500 new homes, and because of this the council need to find places for these. Nationally the Torys, as you would expect them to do, oppose this New Labour idea. [So do i]. Our local councillors need to show that they support what the Tory headquarters says. Whether they put it into practise or not is irrelevant as long as you get the message out that your party is united.

The local Tory opposition has now been exposed as a front for national Tory opposition to New Labour’s national housing policy. These councillors don’t care about what their constituents think, instead they are turning this issue into a political issue in an attempt to mobilise their constituents against New Labour and for the Tories.

Local New Labour MP Martin Salter is opposed to the Pincent’s Hill development (despite his government’s housing plans) and has said “They [the Tories] had the perfect opportunity to deter the developers once and for all by deleting this site from the preferred list, but they have bottled it.” I would go further- i don’t think you can trust a Tory (not even David Davis in his crusade for civil liberty). I think it is obvious that the West Berkshire Conservatives are deliberately leading people in the local area on- opposition to the development is understandably widespread in the area- if the local Tories were not seen to be with the majority public, then god forbid they may lose their seats at the next election.

In simular vein to a local political blogsite, click here and here for good analysis of some of the political goings on surrounding the development. And carrying on the tradition of my last post on the topic, please sign the petition against building on Pincent’s Hill here, visit the local campaign website here and the facebook group here.

For those who wish to take the fight further and directly voice your disappointment to those councillor ‘betrayers’ then here are their emails: jmooney@westberks.gov.uk ewebster@westberks.gov.uk and tlinden@westberks.gov.uk

Further from the email i sent to West Berkshire Planning department you can view near the bottom of this blog post, i have received the following reply:

Thank you for your e-mail objecting to potential housing development at Pincents Hill.

The Council is currently preparing the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework, which will set out the strategic vision for the development of the district to 2026. As part of this work we need to identify a number of strategic housing sites which can help deliver the housing that will be needed over the next 17 years. The Council have recognised throughout the preparation of the Core Strategy that some greenfield land will be needed to meet the housing requirements of the district.

The site at Pincents Hill has been brought forward for consideration, along with a number of other large sites, and we have carried out assessments of the sites, including sustainability appraisal covering analysis of the social, economic and environmental issues.

The Council is intending to carry out extensive consultation on the options for the Core Strategy shortly. If you wish to receive notification of the consultation you can register on our consultation database at www.westberks.gov.uk/ldfconsultation . Alternatively you can e-mail planningpolicy@westberks.gov.uk or contact the planning policy team by post or phone with your details.

Digressing from the email but not the topic, one thing i will be looking into concerning Pincent’s Hill is what precisely the large trench is for that has been dug from the site of the proposed development down through the park and which stops just before the A4 Bath Road. Looks suspiciously like water/sewage supply. Now i don’t want to initiate a conspiracy here, and it is probably something completely innocent, but, perhaps the council have decided that this development is going to happen regardless- so they feel they may as well get everything in place beforehand? No, no that must not be right- surely local government wouldn’t try and pass one over the residents like that…. would they?

The rise of the… my number 8

There is something really scary happening in Britain. I do not think the British, mainly the working class, are racist, but I can see that awful racist party that is the STD after the sex of British politics getting a bit more electoral success over the coming years. I am not going to even mention their name on this blog post, but I think those British readers will know who I am on about.

There is a massive campaign to stop this party getting the votes it does not deserve, with groups like Fight Against Fascism and the TUC mobilising to try and neutralise the treat of that party. But I do not think this is going to work as their very focus seems to be missing the point.

The reason I think that party is going to get more electoral success is because of the lack of another radical (left) voting alternative. For years people have been saying that New Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are all the same, that they are becoming disillusioned with voting because of this. During this time there had been no alternative force to vote for. Sure, you have the Greens, but they wrongly have the image amongst the British public that they are a one issue party, so do not count on them to pose the best alternative to that party. Then you have RESPECT, who, like every other left wing party have (and will do further in the future) become factious and are splitting. So do not expect them to pose an alternative.

The last time the far right ever really got as much support as they do now it was the 1930’s. The time of the Battle of Cable Street. At least this time we had an alternative on the left with the Communist Party. But now where are the alternatives?

People are going to vote for that party because they are different to New Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. And that makes me sad.

Despite the work of Fight Against Fascism and the TUC (among many others) of which I support, and would gleefully help, I think the best way of countering the threat of that party is with a united left wing party who can give us an alternative vote to the main stream parties, and who can grow like that party have. But that is not going to happen, just look at the last attempt, RESPECT, funnily it was RESPECT’s MP that helped with the split. Ironic as getting an MP should had been the basis of expanding its support.

The best we can hope for is for the Tories to get into power, which could force New Labour to become Labour again and perhaps unite the left. But then they have a chance to get into power regardless, and I am too cynical to actually expect it to happen.

I’ll cheer myself up by listening to my number 8 favourite album of 2008:

8. Does It Offend You, Yeah? – You Have No Idea What You’re Getting Yourself Into

I came across this band as me and Johny 2 walked into the NME Awards tour last year down in Portsmouth. We walked in to what turned out to be the last song of their set, of which we heard about 40 seconds of it. But it only took 40 seconds of a heavy droning bass rift to make me explore this band further.

Before the album had come out with only a few songs released on their myspace, they had already become my going out band. We Are Rockstars, Let’s Make Out, Weird Science and Battle Royale were my essential tunes to listen to before going out for a night on the amber nectar. I cheesily call them rock’n’bass, they are the perfect get up and jump sort of band, get your heart beat racing with their bass and synth driven style of rock.

Then, wam bam, they released Dawn Of The Dead as a single. So different to what I had previously heard, primly cut specifically for the radio, I did not recognise who it was at first. It is essentially a pop song, but not one that you would be embarrassed to be seen listening to.

Apart from Dawn Of The Dead, the rest of the album is a fusion of rock’n’bass and pure punk attitude. Does It Offend You, Yeah want you to know where they are coming from, and they don’t care if that offends you. (Oh my cheese continues)

Oh and did I mention they are from my home town of Reading

Personal highlights on the album With a Heavy Heart (I Regret to Inform You) and Let’s Make Out.

Previous:

9. Vampire Weekend – Vampire Weekend

10. The Magnetic Fields – Distortion

Feeling dirty

I thought I was alone in this sentiment: things are getting so bad (environmentally) that I half hope the Tories do get into power. However there is someone else who at least considered it, George Monbiot. That made me feel in better company. Monbiot did go on to say “my first thought was ‘I hope the Tories get in’. My second thought was ‘What the hell am I saying?’”

It is not just New Labour’s environmental credentials that are non-existent by agreeing to a third runway at Heathrow (something Cameron has said he would scrap); it is their complete disregard for our privacy and rights that is really scary. Jacqui Smith is the female Stalin. She scares the hell out of me with her perusal of 42 days, ID cards, DNA, email and text message databases, CCTV systems and now secret gag orders. I painfully remember that it was the Tories who all (but one) voted against 42 days in the Commons.

I know the consequences of me thinking this. I am a Green Party supporter. I consider myself wholly a hippy, liberal, wishwashy, self-hating, weed smoking, terrorist supporting, [add further nonsense claims about left wingers] leftie. I believe the Tories are essentially a party who only look after their own. But my regard of human rights and civil liberties coupled with my passion for the environment have caused me to internally conflict with my dream of economic equality and an increase in nationalisation of important services (banking, rail, reverse privatisation of NHS).

I could have said nothing. If I just voted Green in the next election as I will do, the Tories would have gotten into power anyway, and then people wouldn’t know I had been having this internal conflict. However it is out there now- I have a secret wish for them to get into power.

At least then it might make New Labour turn back to the Labour of old and kick out the business orientated, environment hating, self-demigod believers that inhabit the party at present, and then we would have a more recognisable party that represents truer social democracy, and who have a chance of getting into power. (See, I am trying to justify to myself all of what I said before).

I feel so dirty.