Interestingly the BBC hardly reported 20 economists supporting the Conservative contention that the £178billion deficit run up by Labour needs to be tackled sooner rather than later. When 60 other economists supported Brown’s line that we can spend our way out of recession (which is what his policy amounts to) it was headline news on the BBC. To add to its fairness and objectivity the news item referred to the 60 as ‘leading’ economists. There was no qualification of the adjective of course – other than their agreement with Brown (and the BBC?), one presumes.

Locally our papers seem anxious to give credibility to the ’story’ put about by our two Lib Dem MPs about the impending closure of A&E and maternity services at Kingston Hospital. This is in spite of a very explicit letter from NHS SW London setting out the facts in the matter and a clear statement from the Health Minister in the Adjournment Debate last Monday.  One might have thought it in the public interest that this letter be published in its entirety. However, it was written on 27th January and I haven’t seen it in the local papers yet.

One wonders if Mr. Falchikov’s kitchen table isn’t groaning under new confections the media might swallow. Time will tell. Watch this space!

One lady, attending one of her first such events, told of a friend who had asked her doctor about the threat of closure to some Kingston Hospital services. The friend was very worried – understandably as she is rather frail. The doctor’s advice was ‘forget it!’

Whether this was sound advice or not only time will tell – however the likelihood seems to be that the friend and many others had been frightened needlessly for political gain. The reported boast of a well known Lib Dem activist that the whole thing had been ‘cooked up on his kitchen table’ lends considerable weight to this interpretation of events.

If this is so, it’s pretty contemptible in my opinion. We don’t need to conduct our public affairs like this – and the sooner we stop the better!

The meeting proceedings began with a question from the floor by Cllr Geoff Austin (Con) politely seeking clarification of the position on Maternity and A&E services at Kingston Hospital.

The Chair, Cllr Don Jordan (Lib Dem), said Cllr Mary Reid (Lib Dem) had some information and she proceeded to tell the panel that the MPs had previously had meetings with various officials and hospital CEOs (including the CEO of Kingston) about this question and had become incensed when they learnt last weekend that the report on the future, which might recommend closure of these services, was being shelved until after the election. They wanted to bring things out into the open as they ‘thought people had a right to know’. All very noble and not a hint of partisan advantage, of course. Cllr David Cunningham (Con), from the gallery, intervened to say that Cllr Mary Reid’s account didn’t tally with what the Hospital CEO  had told the Trust Board that morning in particular the fact about her having known about the possibility of closures. The Chairman had criticised the MPs’ campaign as well. The CEO wasn’t at the meeting so could not comment, but Cllr Cunningham pointed out that   the Panel clerk, had been there and had taken copious notes and could verify whether the account of the Board meeting Cllr Cunningham had given was true or not. Discussion ensued between Cllr Jordan, Reid and the clerk. The upshot of which was that Cllr Jordan refused to allow the clerk to speak on the issue as ‘it would involve him in what was obviously a burning party issue’. Cllr Jordan made his first attempt to close the discussion down.

I (Con) stepped in at this point to say that possible closure of key hospital services was not a party issue between us, but a community issue and that the matter affected other concerns on the agenda. He pointed out that constituents were contacting him and others in alarm at the story and that Ed Davey (MP, Lib Dem)  had sent emails to all and sundry seeking their support for his petition. I knew this as constituents had already sent copies to me. I asked, if the MPs were sure of their ground and genuinely seeking public support, why had he not sent the email to me? My email address was well known.

Cllr Jordan then tried to close down the subject a second time and Cllr Reid suggested the panel may hold an extra meeting with the MPs in private to discuss the issues concerned. I agreed to the extra meeting but insisted that it be held in public as the present one was being held. This suggestion met with much approval from the gallery, especially persons associated with Kingston’s LINk, who nodded furiously.

The background material to the letter from NHS SW London, passed on to Councillors by the Head of Democratic Services the following morning, was distributed to members, but not the covering letter itself, which blows the MPs out of the water. At least I did not receive one. Readers can see this on the Health and Hospitals page of http://surbitonhillcllr.com

The meeting then went on to discuss Maternity Services at Kingston Hospital and, later, Primary Care plans for RBK, which featured the A&E services at KH as an important part of the poly-system structure for north Kingston.

Incidentally, we have since learnt that the website to which the MPs invited constituents to refer was registered by one of them as long ago as 11th December

Filed under: Elections, Health and Community, Lib Dems, Politics ]]> http://kingstontorycllr.net/2010/02/03/election-campaign-2010-local-no-1/feed/ 6 pauljohnston http://kingstontorycllr.net/2009/11/04/lisbontreaty-letter-to-dt/ http://kingstontorycllr.net/2009/11/04/lisbontreaty-letter-to-dt/#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:13:20 +0000 pauljohnston http://kingstontorycllr.net/?p=279 ]]> In case the dear old Telegraph doesn’t publish my letter, here it is.

Sir,

It is a pity that your headline of yesterday (3^rd. November) accused David Cameron of ‘reneging’ on his commitment to a referendum on Lisbon, when in fact he had no choice in the matter.

The pledge he gave in 2007 was sincere and would have been implemented if it lawfully could have been. Very sadly, now, it can’t. If this broken Parliament had been dissolved after four years like the previous two we would have a new government by now and the referendum would almost certainly have occurred. The Irish changed their mind in their referendum, encouraged no doubt by the intervention of Nigel Farage of Ukip in the Republic’s domestic affairs. The Czech President has attached his signature to it. And Gordon Brown continues to cling on for dear life as the Parliament Act permits him to, more’s the pity. So the ghastly treaty has become Law, but David Cameron is not responsible at all for any of this.

The ‘reneging’ was done by Blair and Brown – and their Liberal Democrat fellow travellers – not by Cameron. However some of your correspondents want to punish the innocent Conservatives by voting for Ukip or some such. When will they ever learn that fragmentation on the right in politics merely lets in the left? If they want another five years of Gordon Brown and his Lib Dem Europhile allies, let them vote Ukip by all means. But let them be aware of the consequences and not expect to find much left of the Britain they have known and loved at the end of them.

This leaflet is one of the most cynical ploys I have seen from this source in quite a time. It asks readers to sign a petition for ‘a fair deal for Gurkhas’ (in large letters) – having just celebrated forcing the Government to give them one! What it really wants is the details of your name, address, email address, mobile number and landline number so that Lib Dem activists can pester you in future – it even says so in very small print, thus skirting round the Data Protection Act. None of this information is relevant to this bogus petition. My advice is not to sign it at all, but if you do, confine yourself to name and address only and state that you do not wish to be included on any database held by the Lib Dems for any purpose.

It also invites you to join the Lib Dms or make a donation. It is fair enough to invite people to join or donate to a political party. We do it all the time – but to do it under cover of helping a justly admired group of soldiers strikes me as beneath contempt.

There are two pieces of literature, a letter from David Cameron (DC) and a glossy leaflet also heavily featuring DC but also all 8 Conservative list members.

The letter from DC is a very meaty read, quite long and in small type. It deals with the expenses scandal and what DC is doing about it. This is not a European issue but the daily drip from the Telegraph, destined apparently to continue until polling day or just beyond interestingly enough, means that, in this election, it is likely to be actually THE issue. It does address European issues in far less frenetic terms than the other parties have done and without introducing extraneous or misleading statements about ‘two horse races’ or whatever. It repeats the pledge about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and it calls for an immediate General Election for Westminster. This would be the text of a really good DC speech. My concern would be that people might not read it or have difficulty in doing so.

Both letter and leaflet are free of WW2 imagery. The front cover of the leaflet shows DC at a lectern with Union flag and ‘Vote for Change’ slogan behind him. Inside on the first page is a montage of anti-Labour headlines from the press and a poster showing Brown facing both ways on the Referendum issue.

The middle page entirely addresses European issues relating to the Budget, jobs, climate change, defence, the Courts, MEPs’ expenses (when is the Telegraph going to get around to that, I wonder, especially on UKIP? – but I digress). It compares votes on each issue by Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MEPs, making the Tories the only party so far to do so.

The third inside page is devoted to London, showing pictures of candidates (unnamed) campaigning, probably in last year’s GLA and Mayoral elections. Below is a group photo of all the candidates, with names attached, with Boris Johnson. Numbers indicate their position on the list, headed by the two sitting MEPs, Charles Tannock and local resident Syed Kamall. No. 6 is Graham Postles, a man I have liked and respected since we were both candidates in the West Midlands in 1987. He’d make a very good MEP, but the list system and the antics of some MPs over expenses have made that highly unlikely – this time anyway.

There’s a further letter from DC and a page of candidates campaigning: Syed Kamall in Kingston market next to a piece about pounds and ounces; J P Floru with Zac Goldsmith talking to a shopkeeper alongside a piece about business; Dr. Ian Twigg with NHS staff (one presumes) and an ambulance next to a piece about the working time directive and the NHS; lastly Charles Tannock, Syed and Marina with DC and Boris, getting ‘the best deal for London’.

In all this is a serious piece of work which addresses the  European election  as an event in its own right and doesn’t try to present it as  a referendum on membership (UKIP and the BNP) or a platform for the candidate for the next Westminster election (the Lib Dems). It names all the candidates (unlike the Lib Dems and UKIP who only name one each!) takes the voters seriously and deserves to be taken seriously by them in its turn.

The communication allowance is a case in point. I note that this morning’s Sunday Telegraph devotes nearly half a page to Conservative MP Angela Browning using hers, last year, to set up a website for herself and maintain it until the next election. Why is the spending of similar sums on ‘Communication’ by MPs dubbed ’saints’ not commented upon at all? I object to this allowance on principle, but I also object to organs of the press being less than even handed in matters of this sort and I am not alone in beginning to have misgivings about the underlying purpose of the Telegraph’s whole approach to this issue.

The same applies to the matter of staff. This is not mentioned at all where the selected ’saints’ are concerned, but there nonetheless, and given major coverage in other cases, especially where a family member is involved. Again, I cannot see why a back bench MP (or a Lib Dem with no real prospect of office, whatever grandiose titles they may assume) should need £85,ooo worth of  ’staff’ in the first place (and another £17,000 for ‘cover’ on top – making £102,000 in all!)  But if some who do this can be dubbed ’saints’ why does the same matter assume demonic proportions in others? If the family member employed is doing no work as per Derek Conway, then fair enough. But shouldn’t the Telegraph, in natural justice,  ascertain whether this is actually the case? After all, plenty of people work  for relatives and are paid. And plenty of MPs’ spouses do, and have in the past done sterling work in their other-half’s constituency unpaid. The late Ellen Dean (see below my comments on the late Lord Paul) was a case in point.

Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury has a point. Which is why the Sunday Telegraph has jumped all over him with self-righteous indignation this morning.

Mind you, anyone receiving the literature circulating in this constituency (Kingston & Surbiton) would be forgiven for not realising that this is a European election at all. Or they might think that our sitting MP is a candidate in the European election. In both cases they would be gravely misled.

There is a letter, headed ‘Edward Davey M.P.’ in big, black letters. Above it is a line of photos showing ED with nurses, ED speaking in the House of Commons, ED chatting to a man with a beard, ED having lunch with some primary school children (one wonders whether he had their parents’ permission to use their children’s images for political purposes!!) and ED with some disabled people and a guide dog. Not a Euro-candidate in sight! It then goes on to mention Sarah Ludford a few times, but none of the other candidates on the Lib Dem London list gets a single mention.

The whole thing is finished off with the usual Lib Dem bar chart, showing their latest favourable election result (the GE of 2005!) alleging ‘It’s a two horse race!’. Now this is deliberately misleading the public.  For a start, they ought to know about Proportional Representation (PR)  if anybody does. They wanted it and Blair gave it to them in the Euro-elections! A two horse race is precisely what it is NOT. PR is the only reason there are any Lib Dem MEPs at all. Secondly, if they want to show a bar graph, why choose 2005? We’ve had Borough elections since then in which there was a constituency swing of 6% to Conservatives over the 2005 GE. Last year we had the Mayoral and GLA election, in which Boris Johnson and Tony Arbour (Conservatives) won the constituency handsomely. And in 1999 the Lib Dems came THIRD in this Borough, behind Labour and a long way behind the Tories.

The glossy leaflet which accompanies this letter does show some pictures of Sarah Ludford (I think) doing things – with Ed, of course. One shows the pair with two police persons outside Bentalls. Again one wonders whether the permission of the Borough commander was sought for the use of images of Police personnel for political purposes. It wasn’t in 2005 – I know because I asked! But Ed’s very fond of this kind of thing.

Lastly, and worst, the resistance of the Conservatives and UKIP to the European Arrest Warrant (not named) is criticised as resistance to the international fight against ‘drug trafficking, gun smuggling and sex slavery’. What utter tosh! Have they never heard of extradition or Interpol? The Tories are fighting the right of a foreign judge to issue an arrest warrant against a British subject for something which may not even be considered a crime under British Law. What is really criminal is to attempt to mislead the public with deliberate distortions of this kind. But then, what am I getting so het up about? Isn’t that what the Lib Dems always do?