Boris Island Poll

Sometimes the local media surprises even this blogger in the lack of research undertaken before publishing a story.

This week a poll commissioned by Medway Council, but dubbed independent, has revealed that of 1,000 people surveyed (on the back of another undefined piece of work), the overwhelming majority of people do not support the idea of Boris Island in Kent.

Welcome news indeed it would seem and especially given the whole thing cost less than £500. You wont here me complaining if this is truly reflective.

However, dont expect London policy-makers to be that concerned.

Any one with a basic science degree will ignore a poll like this. Not only have the Council failed, and they do this time and time again, to publish the full statistical breakdown and methodology but they have also not revealed the question.

In any poll; the question needs to be unbias and given with the full facts including the questions asked before. Was this a poll for instance added to a wider one on transport, use of tax payers money, future priorities for UK? Was this a poll on the competence of Boris Johnson or merits of rail v air travel.

Clearly the context of the preceeding questions will impact the outcome of the Boris Island question. My suspicion is that this poll was neither independent nor weighted correctly; therefore will be totally ignored by Tories in London.

If we want to get credibility on this issue widen the poll; focus on Kent; print the statistics and metholodology and open it up to scrutiny. Like most Council polls; this is rarely done...

The local media has some good journalists but instead of printing ad-verbatim Council press statements they should ask the serious questions.

If we are to see a media monopoly in the Medway Towns it is more important then ever that someone does ask the serious questions.

I agree with the outcome of this poll but am suspicious that it was commissioned with an outcome in mind and that is how it will be perceived.

Update

Council has now published full statistical breakdown here

Credit Card Disclosure

For those that moan about Freedom of Information requests there are some that reveal something significant.

One such revelation is found in the Daily Telegraph this week with the details of spend on what can be defined as the Medway Council Credit card.

Some interesting figures lie within from this Conservative, 'value-for-money', Council.

What is clear though is that that without this Freedom of Information request the Conservative administration would not have revealed this information voluntarily to the public and it would have remained behind closed doors.

Medway Labour have rightly examined the figures and there are some concerns around the amount spent on marketing materials and on ‘online search engine advertising’ versus similar sized Councils, including Brighton & Hove.

The question must be asked whether this type of spend represents value-for-money?

That is for you to decide as a member of the public.

Mayor should be the 'first citizen'

The issue of the mayoralty and the manner of selection by the Conservative administration has once again reared its ugly head.

Despite the election of a personally nice guy, Cllr Ted Baker, the Medway Labour group voted against the nomination at this year’s Annual Meeting of the Council, as a protest at the manner in which local tradition, fair play and basic decency have been undermined by the incumbent Conservative group.

Under the previous points based system - which had been in place since 1974, and remains in other authorities across the country - the Mayoralty was allocated in a fair and transparent manner, with selection including all those who sit as members of the Council.

The system allowed for a clear, democratic and unbiased means of appointing a Mayor, potentially offering all political groups a fair chance to represent Medway.

In 2007, the Medway Conservatives broke this tradition by making the office of Mayor a political appointment. The role of Mayor is now selected on partisan grounds, to the notable exclusion of the Labour Group, whose turn for the mayoralty is now overdue.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness and democracy, the Labour Group instead nominated Cllr Nick Bowler (Rochester East) for the position of Mayor.

Leader of the Labour group, Cllr Paul Godwin, who moved the recommendation to appoint Cllr Bowler as Mayor, stated;

“The Tory’s decision to appoint the mayor themselves instead of sticking with the fair and open system we previously used shows clear disregard for the principles of democracy and accountability. Instead the manner in which the mayoralty and its attendant privileges has been closely guarded by the Tories is symbolic of the greed and self interest of the Medway Conservatives in general”

Commenting on the nomination, Cllr Nick Bowler, who was previously Mayor stated;

"Whilst I wish the new mayor well, it is simply unacceptable that the Tories continue to play petty partisan games; it is a grave dishonour to Medway and to all our residents. A rotating non-partisan Mayoralty is a healthy reflection of the community and its diversity”

Both are right.

In this context, the mayor should be the first citizen and not the first politician of Medway

Bailiffs collecting Medway Council debt?

Suspicions are falling on the Medway Conservative group for allowing widespread use of private bailiffs and debt collectors to chase its own residents.

Using Freedom of Information request Big Brother Watch has compiled a list of 320 councils that use bailiffs the most, and several Kent authorities make the chart.

In total, local councils in the UK have passed almost six million cases to debt collectors between 2007-10. The money outstanding is usually Council Tax, of which Medway has a poor record of collection compared with improving rates elsewhere in Kent, and parking fines.

Other Tory run councils in Kent which operate the practice include Bromley with almost 47,000 cases, Thanet with more then 27,000, Bexley with 23,000, Gravesham with 16,500, Canterbury with 13,5000 and Sevenoaks with 7,000. So much for the libertarian streak of the Tories; all good in theory but totally unworkable in practice it would seem.

A major question is why Medway Council, which is Tory-led, has failed to respond to Freedom of Information requests by Big Brother watch?

It may be because they have something to hide prior to a local election, whereby citizens maybe somewhat concerned that the Tories are spending money on private agents to monitor residents.

A question will be tabled at the next Council meeting so that residents can find out the truth and why the Council has failed to respond to this simple request.

Other Kent Councils were perfectly able to respond and it raises concerns that once again information is not being distributed to residents.

The Bugle calls for Coalition?

This week will see the final council meeting before the election. It is usually a highly charged affair as nerves are frayed on all sides. Partly as a result of the fact that people are spending time on the doorstep and finally becoming aware that it is looking increasingly bleak.

The Liberal Democrats must surely be aware that the situation is truly dire. With huge numbers of independents and assorted minority parties standing in both Gillingham seats we are now seeing evidence of the Lib Dem vote crumbling and splitting which bodes well for gains.

Results from Labour/Tory marginals are to close to call as both vote shares are holding. A small swing to Labour and a depression of the Tory vote could see 10 gains on wafer small swings.

It is too close to call in many seats, partly as a result of the fact Medway is not seeing the same swing to Labour as in the Midlands and North, but also because people tend to keep their voting intentions close to their chest a lot more here.

The final Council meeting on Thursday will see Labour candidates challenge the Tory administration on Sure Start cuts, tuition fees, Bus services and the state of the Chatham bus station.

With the polls pointing to Tory losses of 1000+ Councillors the Tories should be worried, but they are also relying on the fact that the centre and left vote will split to other independents. Quite simply Labour is the only effective opposition to the Tories and a vote for anyone else will let them in through the back-door. Could you stomach four more years of this lot?

Tory fat cat allowances must stop

This is actually a real fat cat

The Medway Conservative Party talks a lot of hot air on public finance and how it is managing our Council efficiently. It is largely spin and hot air.

One cursory look at the latest budget and the true extent of the cuts comes straight through in clear black-and-white.

Councillor Jarrett let the cat-out-the-bag in December when he attacked Eric Pickles and his own government for a worse cash settlement then he expect.

Add in gross Tory mismanagement and you end up with a cocktail of front line service cuts to elderly services, libraries, leisure centres and teaching assistants.

They can not hide from their actions and choices.

What is more irksome, nay dishonest, is that whilst Conservative Councillors preach the austerity 'we are all in the together' spin they are in fact taking the proverbial biscuit and cream in the form of local expenses for a variety of non-jobs.

It is time this fat cat largesse at the expense of the public was stopped.

Medway Labour is standing in May on a pledge of low Council tax and cutting the cost of local government including the huge cost of stipends and allowances amassed by the current Conservative Group.

It is time that a local party stood up for local services and the squeezed middle class who are being disproportionately targeted by the swinging Conservative cuts.

Labour do accept however that we do need to see greater efficiencies in the Council and it starts at the very top from listening to the public, and treating the public purse with respect, and not skimming the cream of cash stipends at a time of public concern.

The Conservative Group may preach to the public about efficiencies but they themselves are amounting enormous members allowance cost with a glut of special allowances.

They are simply wasting tax money on increasing the salary perks for themselves.

Last year alone Councillors were paid £750,000 of public money with much of this frittered away to sub-chairs and non-entities

A full list of cost reveals the Conservative Councillors are significantly more expensive to the tax payer than Labour Councillors.

This is a total waste of tax payers money and must stop.

Therefore, as part of our pledges for the next year’s local elections, we will be bringing forward proposals to cut approximately £100,000 per annum on the Councillors allowances and expenses budget.

We will also put our future allowance position to an independent remuneration panel, who will be required to make recommendations on allowances.

This will form part of our manifesto.

It’s time to cut the Tory fat cats and you can send that message in May by voting Labour in the local elections.

The Council has too many elected members receiving special responsibility allowances and its time to cut the Tory fat cat Councillors perks

Council to cut 750 staff?

Unconfirmed reports tonight from Council insiders that the Tories are looking to cut around 750 people from the Council headcount in a move which will impact front-line services.

Parks, education services, bin services, road resurfacing and services to the elderly will be impacted.

According to insiders, the cuts in staff are currently being managed in an ingenious but quite dubious manner. Given I spend a chunk of my day dealing with employment law, it appears that the Council is going through a series of 30-day 'mini-consultations' under the guise that the headcount being reviewed is beneath a certain size in defined areas.

Sadly an employment tribunal will look very unfavourably at this type of behaviour on appeal. The Council should of course follow the scripted 90 day consultation to the letter and not try and play games on redundancy. Oh well, warning out of the way. Expect a few appeals.

So why, as members of the public, have we not heard about cuts to staff?

After all, it seems other Councils have not had a problem. Kent Council Council is to cut 1500 staff, Hampshire Council to cut 1200 staff, Norfolk 750 staff, Durham 1600 and East Sussex 200 staff.

In these austere times most people accept that we need to live within our means but they would also believe that the rules should be followed, not only in spirit, but to the letter. Given the hollow tributes given by Medway Conservatives to the public servants who have worked for our community for years, it is the least for them to expect a fair and transparent process.

This blog also wonders how many senior Directors of the Council are also included in this restructuring exercise. Whistle-blowers to this blog indicate that despite being a top-to-bottom review it appears senior Directors are not included. More mid-level to bottom then. How convenient?!

Coming from a private sector background it would be remiss of this blog to point out that Managing Director's were the first to take the hit in the banking sector. How odd that in the public sector it appears to be the indians that get the chop whilst the chiefs sit smoking their pipes.

And the Medway Conservatives...?

Councillor Jarrett maybe poor at schmoozing the press but he is also quite transparent politically. He is probably backdating the really harsh front line cuts until after the May local election because he does not want the public to make it an election issue.

Not only a slight-of-hand but atypically dishonest once again.

Ironically it is also likely he will be turfed out at that point as well. His febrile backbenchers and the Rochester & Strood faction are sharpening the knives.

Whoever takes the job after him has therefore been left a poison chalice in every sense. Whether Labour or Conservative.

Ouch!

Medway Council Meeting III

The first Council of 2011 was dominated by the £23.5m cut to the Medway Council grant and the impact of cuts to police and Sure Start

Attendance was surprisingly good considering a number of Councillors are likely to be on there final stretch of service before retiring. Cllr MacKinlay was noticeably absent which was somewhat surprising given that that European Union was on the agenda. Looks like it was only John Jones speaking up for River ward once again.

The public questions began at pace with an early question on toilets at the Pentagon knocked back by the Conservatives. The administration accepts no responsibility for the appalling state of the toilets and will do nothing about the charge. It was not just Cllr Mark Reckless (Con) who was taking the piste, his colleagues were seemingly happy to join him.

The nightmare roadworks, a constant irritation to residents across Medway once again came up. The questioner wanted to know why Conservatives seemingly ignored traders and residents and engaged in programmes which were poorly timed and planned. The Rochester Corporation Street roadworks were mentioned as incredibly damaging. The Tories suggested that all that opposed the roadworks opposed regeneration and that the schemes were overwhelmingly supported by business. Facts disputed by the traders themselves. No apology for loss of trade was forthcoming.

The leaders reports were notable as Cllr Chambers (Con) railed against his own government and the cuts that have disproportionately impacted Medway. Cllr Godwin (Lab) reminded the Tories that this was the same government that they had campaigned and leafleted for, and that distancing themselves from the government was ridiculous. The Medway Conservatives are the 'cuts people' he went onto say and they would be judged in May on that.

Cllr Vince Maple (Lab) then raised the issue of the Chatham bus station. The response was farcical and notable for its total lack of content. The Conservatives have utterly mismanaged this major programme and it is now running late with the money due to run out in March. The Tories are consulting banks and government for an extension of a loan, but the Tories would not disclose the total sum. They did disclose that the government had not confirmed any extension to the budget for the programme. This is a major problem for the Conservatives - will they leave Council tax payers with another debt legacy?

The motions were contentious and well debated.

The Labour motion to oppose Conservative cuts to Police through the wasted election of a Police Commissioner was well debated. The Tories supported the elected commissioners despite many of them sitting on non-elected boards themselves and receiving stipends. The Conservative hypocrites were out in force. Cllr Mike O'Brien (Con), the probable Gillingham faction candidate for leader, put his foot in it by suggesting Councillors should not mandate there MPs, seemingly oblivious to the previous Council meeting and the Conservative-led motion on the EU. Cllr Mark Reckless (Con) even suggested that having the Police Commissioner spending their time canvassing for support would not be a conflict of interest; totally ludicrous. The Tories voted for Police cuts.

As predicted by this blog, the second motion on the EU budget was indeed a warning shot to Cllr Rehman Chisthi MP to stop sucking up to government and start to act in the interests of the lunatic right-wing fringe that is the Tories in Medway. He was made to look a plum as he stood up to defend the indefensible Conservative settlement to the EU budget. He was the only member to oppose the motion led by Cllr Jarrett (Con).

The Rochester & Stood Conservative faction knifed him in open Council which shows that the games in the Tory ranks are getting worse. At no time, and this blogger noted, did any of the Tory speakers talk about Medway residents. It was a total naval gazing exercise.

The last motion was led by Cllr Teresa Murray (Lab) on the the cuts to Sure Start. The motion was well timed given the announcement in the BBC that all Councils would need to cut Sure Start facilities. Medway Labour pre-empted this announcement by forcing the Conservatives to safeguard the Sure Start facilities.

At no point did any Conservative mention Council tax during the evening which was significant given the fact that they have failed to collect approximately £4.2m in Council Tax.

The Rochester Riverside programme of works passed with little debate but John Jones did highlight the major concerns that one of the building developers 'Crest' had pulled-out the process and left the development at risk.

All in all a very good evening for Labour and a good evening for the Rochester & Strood Conservative faction. Cllr Chisthi looked foolish.

We can all celebrate that!

Medway Council Agenda

A new year dawns with the echo of cuts, closures, job losses and complaints as the long campaign for the May election begins in earnest.

Labour is buoyed by poll leads, the River ward win and the simple fact that once people begin to think about local issues it boils down to the incessant traffic jams, bodged bus station and poor fiscal management of the Conservative administration.

People are very very unhappy with the current Council. There is enough residual anger now for a change in a number of seats in May.

The Tories enter the long campaign in the weakest position in a decade. Some of our MPs openly criticise the incompetence of the current Leader and Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group in surgeries. The selections for Council seats have not been based on merit but rather the internal political agenda's of the MPs to secure themselves against a battle royale over the next three years which will see Mark, Rehman and Tracey slog it out for the two seats that will be created from the Boundary re-organisation.

We have the Tory factions squabbling over who will take over when Chambers resigns, retires or is ousted this year if the results are poor. The Rochester & Strood faction is privately briefing against those in Gillingham & Rainham and no doubt vice-versa. It is clear that this administration is not firing on all four cylinders in the interests of local people.

It is falling apart and thats before people even discuss the major programmes of work which have been mismanaged.

So it is on this backdrop that Council meeting takes places next Thursday 13th January at 7.00pm in the St George's Centre (hopefully heated).

First the public questions. The first on the Pentagon Toilets and the second on the totally bodged programme of roadworks in Chatham which have paralysed the town for 4 years and which has undermined business and trade. A road scheme no one wanted, no one voted for and which has very little cost benefit after taking into account the capital cost and the opportunity cost of the project. In time alone, people who live and commute in Medway will have wasted at least an hour every week stuck in or having the secondary effects of a Tory traffic jam. It matters. This blog believes the project will have cost millions in wasted time alone and for limited real benefited.

Councillor Vince Maple (Labour) then asks the question which could define the evening on the financial impact of the Chatham bus station. The Tory programme has run over-time and it is likely it will not be complete within this budget year. The rumours are that the Conservatives have asked for loans from banks, there are also rumours and leaks that they have been desperately lobbying the minister to get an extension on the budget into April. Either way the impact of another mis-managed programme is ill-timed. Ignoring the fact that the 'mushroom patch' is not considered sensible by thousands of bus-using pensioners who, yes, vote, and you get another dynamic for May. The Tories have annoyed the highest voting segment. Pensioners. If the Tories can not secure a concession from the Minister then there will be a million pound (or more) black hole in the project during the local elections...

There are a number of motions.

The first on the Tory Police cuts and the plan for the Tories to waste millions on elected Police Commissioners whilst we loose bobbies on the beat after 20% cuts to Kent Police budgets were announced in November 2010. This is a fundamental test on the credentials of Tory Councillors on law and order. Will they seek to politicise the Police against the interests of the community, Police and KPA or will they back Labour and oppose the unnecessary and unrequired move to inject party politics into policing.

The second on the EU budget is a warning shot to Rehman Chisthi to stop sucking up to government and start to act in the interests of the lunatic right-wing fringe that is the Tories in Medway. Public interest is limited given the pro-federalist agenda of the Cameron government which makes this whole anti-EU motion but a hollow fig to those gullible enough to believe that the Tories in government are anti-EU. This blog warned in its previous incarnation that Cameron would need to move to the centre on this, he has, but he has failed to take a rump with him.

UKIP should take note, there is a massive exposed flank of Conservatives just waiting to be poached. Labour will tease splits here.

The last motion is on the cuts to Sure Start which is well timed given it has been threatened in other Conservative-controlled areas such as Wandsworth. There are major concerns by those who run Sure Starts that Tories will cut paid staff and force the centres to try and hire volunteers when none exist. This will undermine the service to the poorest. The Tories have put out a rebuttal, but we will wait to see the final budget figures.

Particularly interesting is the Council Tax document which shows that since the Conservatives won the last election they have failed to collect approximately £4.2m in Council Tax. What is interesting is that other Conservative Councils in Kent have improved performance. The Medway Tories have wasted your money and failed to collect it from people.

The Rochester Riverside programme also comes to Council with a confirmation that Crest has withdrawn and that Hyde will be building social housing close to Doust Way from October 2011. This blog will raise the concern that creating a pocket of social housing at one of the major artery roads to the privately rented-site needs to be well managed and scrutinised. There are strong cases of poor management in the past, specifically, Canal Road in Strood where the housing project has not worked as planned. Positive news that road improvements will be happening in advance but given the amount of money which has been spent on making the site usable, it needs to be well managed and not rushed.

For full details on the meeting and attending please visit the Medway Council Democracy site.

Income Inequality will hit hard

Following on from conversations on our local government grant with a number of colleagues elsewhere in the UK.

In the case of Medway, the cut to our Local Government Grant will be approaching £12 million this year. With the prospect of it reducing by another £20 million over the three years that follow. A truly shameful sum given the groans of Conservatives about floor damping.

This cut is not just floor damping. It is removing the floor from under the feet of hard pressed Medway people.

What Tories overlook, and evidently so in Medway because it is never discused, is the significant variations of alternate income between Councils. Tories make basic assumption that income streams from Council tax and other sources are the same in every area.

They assume a level playing field where one does not exist.

For some councils, like Westminster for example, the grant from government is a fairly small proportion of the their overall income. This is true even in the North, for York council the grant is only about 40% of their total income. For Barnsley it is almost 80%.

To mitigate the drop in grant councils like these will have options. Increasing parking charges in Westminster, for example, by a modest sum will replace the loss they are expecting. In Medway the punitive increases in fines from CCTV cars and traffic fines, under the name of enforcement will be key.

What about the other options for increasing our income? Well planning fees are dropping, because nobody can afford to build, this is a national problem for all councils. One of the biggest income generators are care packages, but we are having to outsource more and more which takes them away and again, increases here would target the most vulnerable in society directly. Across the whole range of potential income streams, weaker economy areas just don't have the options to available to others.

There is council tax of course which is being frozen. But look at its impacts; In Surrey, the council are facing a cut of around £13 million in grant next year. A 2.5% increase in council tax on the properties in leafy Surrey would bring in around.. er.. £13 million to the council. Handy. In Medway, which has significant numbers of poorer housing and far more differentiation an increase in tax does not generate revenues like this.

In the end poorer areas including Medway will have very little prospect of dealing with this massive loss of finance by finding other money to invest in services. We only have one real option. We can only spend tens of millions less. Which will mean less services, less jobs, less council.

Pickles says, only 'lazy' councils will cut services. He couldn't be further from the truth. Only wealthy councils will be able to lose this much money and not cut jobs and services.

Hard pressed councils in hard pressed areas, who have to get the most from every penny and work hard to get it, will be the ones who have to cut the most.

Another concern is the suggestion that business rates ought to be repatriated to the areas they came from. The system where the wealthy areas who can charge what they like, help to support the areas where business needs to be encouraged with low rates, should be dropped? Once again the money flows to wealthy areas and away from the areas of greatest need.

If this happens, Councils in the South East may have to repatriate money to London as we are overwhelmingly reliant on the capital for jobs.

The weak are an easy target for the Conservatives. Medway will suffer not only because of the cut in grant but because when compared with leafy Tory shire areas we do not have the same measures to increase income to mitigate cuts.

Medway Council Meeting II

Better late then never some might say. Austerity is very much in season and bitterness, betrayal and revenge were clearly on display at the full council meeting last Thursday.

The St George's Centre, based in a renovated church hall, is lofty and somewhat grand. It is pleasant in the summer months and is a cool temple from the beating sun. However, in what could be prescient of months to come, the room was as cold as ice with many in the public in coats, scarves and blankets.

Despite the usual good timekeeping, was an hour late to the meeting and missed the usual fireworks from members of the public. Ironically was late because South Eastern trains had once again put on a shoddy service. It was a pity because was quite keen to hear the question from Robert Heathfield. The Strood campaigner had tabled an excellent question on the cuts to PlayScheme budgets. Robert is a hard working campaigner in Strood and has a good profile in the local community. One to watch.

A number of issues arose over the course of the very long evening

LEP Partnership

General consensus that new LEP being proposed will squash Medway Council autonomy, service provision, and its independence by linking us with far larger Conservative-controlled Councils. Opposition from all sides was evident and this issue above all others pains the point that the Tories pay lip service to 'localism' but are actually all about scalability. All fine in theory; but dont deceive people about it. Creating a local council whilst consolidating back office services is not unreasonable. Unless you lie about it before the General Election.

Whilst all Councillors voiced opposition the conversation descended into what can only be described as 'bureaubabble.' I use this term to describe something which concerns greatly those on the Council but has so very little interest amongst the general population, it is barely on the radar. Sadly, this issue is not on the public radar; it will never come up on the doorstep. It is management not politics.

City Status (Image from Peter Cook)

The news that Cllr Jarrett (Con) made a fool of himself with a journalist was subject to lengthy discussion led by the leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Paul Godwin. Labour re-iterated its principled support for the City Status, which was submitted today, but thought that Cllr Jarrett owed an apology by unilaterally affirming the city status, and by spending money on re-branding at a time of austerity.

Despite his long career in local government, Cllr Jarrett has never been gifted with the ability to manage the press, which is part of the reason this Conservative administration is lousy at it.

There was for a brief, fleeting moment, a 'sort-of' apology for his action before the journalist was blamed for doing her job of reporting.

In a surprise move, the Liberal Democrats opposed City Status and one independent even suggested the city be called Rochester instead. A can of worms if ever there was one...

Education Maintenance Allowance

Cllr Murray (Labour) asked a question on the Education Maintenance Allowance which is due to be scrapped by the Conservative Government.

A popular initiative which supports poorer students in college, it is being axed because of Tory austerity. This at the same time that Ireland is being lent £7 billion.

Cllr Doe (Conservative) was on robust form and decided that he would answer his question with the usual bravado, but was seemingly unaware that the EMA is currently supporting thousands of families and students. 60% of students at Mid-Kent College rely on the support it gives and its a lifeline which is being removed.

The Conservative Group are very happy to scrap EMA because they do not think the students desire it or use it. They are wrong.

Tuition Fees

Cllr Vince Maple (Labour) submitted a motion opposing government plans on tuition fees after Labour candidates supported the recent NUS march in November.

The Conservative Group is clearly very comfortable supporting increases to £9,000 per annum and are very happy to see the full marketisation of the University sector. Sadly, a number who represent poorer wards could not recognise the massive impacts (statistically proven) on the rise in fees from £3000 to £9000 per year and how this will deter students.

I pointed out to one Tory Councillor that Grammar school pupils from poorer backgrounds are just as impacted as those from Secondary Moderns. Surely, if that can not move them, nothing can. The lip quivered.

The Liberal Democrat Group however were a total mess. Cllr Crack (Lib Dem) stood up and proceeded to defend tuition fees despite the pledges of Liberal Democrat campaigners (including himself) in the General Election.

If there was ever a moment to highlight the total inability of the Medway Liberal Democrats to understand that it was probably best to stop digging, this was it. They could have abstained out of principle, they could have, as colleagues across the UK, decided to vote against it. They did not.

Cllr Stamp (Independent), a former Liberal Democrat PPC, eloquently put the knife firmly into his former colleagues by stating in a calm but cutting manner how they had sold out on his principles. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Kerb-crawling Antics

Cllr Julie Shaw (Labour) then tabled a full motion putting to rest the issue of Councillor Brice and demanding a Council resolution calling for Brice to resign. Julie was also a member of the Standard's Board which lambasted Cllr Brice for his actions.

Cllr Brice (Independent) did not bother to turn up, which was symbolic of his inability to recognise his own failures and about his attitude to the Council generally. He does usually attend but now rarely contributes to any debate. He is speechless at the best of times so his absence was only noted because the topic concerned him. If ever there was a case for austerity - one salary could be saved.

This motion was put in part to highlight the seeming inability of the Tory Group to release a press statement on the matter. If they had done so in January this year, the issue would have been lanced. They did not.

A council resolution put the issue on the table and all accepted his behaviour was unacceptable. Not all Tories agreed and there was a notable exception which shows that despite all the evidence, the proven and stated guilt and his attitude that some people just don't get it.

Train Fares

Cllr Paul Godwin (Labour) led a motion calling for SouthEastern trains and Tory MPs to oppose the government move towards increasing fare prices whilst cutting government subsidy.

The Tories have played a game of cat-and-mouse on this issue for two years by complaining about the RPI +3% settlement to SouthEastern given by the previous government. They ignored of course increases in government subsidy and the direct investment in High Speed 1 and the fact that the increases were as a result of the bodged Connex franchise which was awarded in 1996 by the Conservative Government.

The Coalition government, despite the promises of Kent Conservatives, have now not only lied but have actually introduced parliamentary term increases of +3% RPI for a period of four years. They have also, and Mark Reckless MP has failed and consistently so, removed the cap on FLEX which was introduced by Labour. The FLEX cap removal means that we could have higher increases on some tickets and some areas suffer way above RPI + 3% whilst other areas have less. This is political gerrymandering of train fares and Medway may suffer.

Tory activists have failed to articulate a response and have lunged out with Early Day Motions which have generated hardly any signatures and by trying to turn-the-screw on friendly media publications. The problem being that the commuting public read the Evening Standard on the way back form work, and that has slammed the government for its duplicity. Posturing to YourMedway or MedwayMessenger on commuters is a total waste of political capital. Oh well, I dont advise them.

Basically, this is a colossal u-turn and a massive two-fingered salute from Conservatives to commuters.

The Tories know they have an exposed flank so decided to support the Labour motion and attack their own government which was a welcome development. However, the motion was watered down, and with one MP Cllr Rehman Chisthi not present, and the other showing a poor argument, it is very unlikely that either will vote against the CSR settlement.

The Meeting finished at 11.30pm and most of the Labour team felt satisfied. We may be in opposition but it is clear we are leading on the issues which matter.

Mixed Feelings

The Labour lead in the polls has now been confirmed today by ComRes shows topline figures of CON 36%(+1), LAB 40%(+3), LDEM 12%(-4). This echoes polls from ICM which has a Con 36%, Lab 38%, LDem 14% (21/11) and IPSOS-Mori which has Con 37%, Lab 38%, LDem 13% ( 19 /11).

Margins of error aside, the evidence from polls points to a Labour recovery from before and under the leadership of Ed Miliband. Given our 10% gain in the polls since January 2010, Labour leaves 2010 in a happier place in the polls than it entered. Who would have thought that would have reflected a year in which it lost the General Election?

For the opposition there is reason to have some merriment this Christmas. The right-leaning YouGov polling (in the sense that Telegraph / News International favoured) over the last month, shows that government satisfaction is falling and that Labour is at least on level pegging with the Cameron government. Given the responses to Ed Miliband in the media this is a remarkable result given the Labour collapse in May 2010. The austerity message and unpopular measures from government have indeed been announced but the impacts are yet to be felt.

The attacks on Ed Miliband from the right are also failing to land; we have had the petty jibes, we have had 'ignore' him as an irrelevance to actively challenging him on his links with the Unions. All of these attacks have failed to find a resonance with the public who at this stage just see a man who beat his brother, an underdog who came through to win. Ed would do well to take the RedEd label and make it his own, he would do well to distance himself from the Unions and he will do well to reflect that he needs to be Prime Ministerial and not partisan. He is ticking some of those boxes already.

This blog is used to the media in Kent being anti-establishment. Tories claim it is left-wing bias but actually the media is just anti-politics. Given the media tends to reflect the popular opinion of its readership, its commentary on Ed Miliband and his visit was about as fair as you could expect. Ed Miliband can not give firm policies because that is the whole point of having a National Policy forum and re-engaging with people to get policies. If Ed had come out with clear policies now, he would have been attacked for running roughshod over internal democracy and it would not have been outward looking to the public. A strong party setting direction was one of the strengths and weaknesses of new Labour. It lectured and did not listen. It is akward for Labour members used to government, but now is the time to set the mood and to build the tent. It is not the time to put the chairs down and invite the guests.

The key message from the National Policy Forum through was not delivered from the podium but to Council candidates. Medway matters and it is clear that with a new generation of activists for Council seats, who are engaging on issues with popular appeal, and taking the issues to the Conservatives, that Labour has a drive to win here. Given our inherent disadvantage this is not a small achievement. The Liberal Democrats have lost their appeal and we are attracting members at such a pace currently, that I am meeting several a month who want to get out and engage. The Greens do not have the capability to win and are simply not speaking to people on the doorstep but only in the Council chamber. UKIP has been undermined locally. The BNP are skint. The English Democrats have no local recognition on the doorstep. The Liberal Democrats who were once in a position to challenge are on the defensive, with poor leadership.

Labour however in Kent is still decimated and this recovery in the national polls can not be directly translated into big swings in Kent wards. The polling figures are nation wide and may reflect the solidification of the Labour vote in Scotland, Wales and the Northern areas of the UK. This is supported by polling which shows that Labour has a 10% lead over the SNP in Scotland and a 26% lead over the Tories. Wales also shows a significant Labour gain since May. On such numbers, Labour will gain the Scottish executive and hold the Wales Assembly as a majority party. Converse polling in London where Boris Johnson is well ahead and you get the sense that there is perhaps still a long way to go.

Labour polling is improving in areas which have an historic link with Labour, where the Labour Party and its resources are concentrated, and where the Tories have a socio-population and polling disadvantage. This does bode well for seats locally in Strood South and Luton & Wayfield which have held Labour Councillors in the past and where Labour has polled about 35%.

It must not be underestimated however, that the Tories rule Kent like a fiefdom and are the party of the establishment. They have significant resource, now including MPs for every seat in the county, and have the ability, if organised, to destroy any opposition through out-funding and out-resourcing. The River ward and Luton & Wayfield by-elections also show that they play dirty despite the pleasant platitudes. These dynamics do not favour Labour even with current polling so the swings next year must be measured on this line. Resources for opposition parties therefore must be funded where it can achieve the most. Sadly, the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in Medway benefits Tories and Labour alike.

Polling in England is much more difficult due to major regional discrepancies, but taking into account by-election results from marginal wards in swing seats, we are now polling ahead of the Tories for all results pre-21/11. The River Ward poll is too localised to spell a message for May 2011 but it does show that where Labour speaks to its vote, increases postal vote turnout from those who are unable to reach the polling station, and constant engagement can reward.

The overwhelming message to the Conservatives in Medway is also not as stark as the polls suggest. Given the fact they could loose seats to Labour on these national figures including Strood South, Luton & Wayfield and Princes Park. It also ignores the fact they could gain from a Liberal Democrat collapse. The Tories could still run the Council next May. Given the selection-situation for all the Parties I would pose that unless the polls massively shift, we must look at this outcome as a real potential.

Despite the inherent advantage, the Tories in Medway are cumbersome and they dislike each other. They are also the incumbents on a Council which has made some public relation disasters and who fail to consult and who do outwardly resemble the past. Canvassing on the doorstep in marginal wards show discontent with the manner in which the Council is being managed and despite significant resource all historic precedence shows opposition party gains at the expense of the government. The Tories will have inherent weaknesses in the national polls but have the potential to show organisational strength. The underlying polls tell you one message, but they sadly, do not tell you the whole story.

Expectations therefore managed.

Medway Tunnel revisited

Road tolling. Happen in Medway?

It is not quite Brideshead Revisited but it does have a parody story-line with betrayal, scheming and Conservative revisionism embedded within.

The tale of the Medway Tunnel is a sordid affair. Like a Dickensian novel with old traditionalist protagonists, this is something which has the potential to damage and inflict terrible pain on future Council services and the car driver or commuter of Medway. It is a very real legacy of conservative back-room committee style politics that so permeated local government for decades.

The Medway Tunnel was bought by the local authority for a nominal sum of £1 in 2008.

At the time, the Medway Conservative Council said members voted to buy the freehold from the Rochester Bridge Trust to "safeguard the future of road transport" in the area. This despite the fact the Rochester Bridge Trust has millions of assets and was responsible in its own rule-book for managing the tunnel for its serviceable lifetime

The Conservative-controlled authority said the decision would give them greater freedom to manage it. The trust gave the council a £3.6m one-off payment towards the upkeep of the 12-year-old structure, on the A289 near Rochester. It also gave it responsibility for all liabilities.

The Tunnel was purchased by the Medway Conservative Council, rubber stamped by its administration, after the Rochester Bridge Trust wardens agreed to sell the Tunnel with a sizeable donation to the Council for its upkeep.

At the time the Medway Labour Group opposed the purchase of the tunnel and deployed the following reasons

i) That the Tunnel has a mixed safety record and that the cost of liabilities should be fully reviewed before going ahead with the purchase. In 2006, safety standards in the structure were rated "very poor" and it was placed 43rd out of 52 European tunnels in a survey by the AA

ii) That there is an inherent conflict of interest that Cllr Chambers was also the Conservative Leader of the Council and was also Senior Warden of the Bridge Trust from 2007 - 2009. He was therefore responsible for the Medway Tunnel and its standard before hand-over.

iii) That the contribution from the Rochester Bridge Trust negotiated by the Medway Conservative administration was disgraceful and was a gross abdication of responsibility to the Council tax payer.

iv) That £3.6m will not cover the liability or full cost of the Tunnel and was a miserly one off payment negotiated poorly and without transparency. Full details of conversations surrounding the Tunnel are not in the public domain.

Some may squirm at the prospect of full transparency but the fact is this is not a small sum of money and its potential legacy is devastating on the budgets of future Labour and Conservative administrations. If the government were not to take ownership, a future Council would be expected to raise cash itself to fund the structure, which at that point would require significant maintenance.

The Conservative administration has left Medway a potential terrible legacy. Negotiated behind closed-doors and without transparency, this poor deal will leave the Council in a very unfortunate situation. They will be forced to find an income stream to fund the tunnel. This will come out of local services and/or could be raised from measures such as a toll.

This would be a massive blow to thousands of commuters who rely on the Tunnel every day.

Conservative MPs are right to press for government ownership of the Tunnel and they are right to do so now. The worrying fact is that the government of course has no obligation to purchase the tunnel at all, and in times of cuts and austerity they will be aware of its liability on their own budgets.

In addition, government will be fully aware that Medway Conservatives negotiated themselves a miserly buffer of 5-10 years, so they are very much within their rights to say it was a Medway Council deal; 'Your mess, clear it.'

It is however a great pity that at the time of the purchase all three Conservative PPCs sat on their proverbial hands, said and did absolutely nothing. They abdicated responsibility.

Medway Labour will continue to raise this issue because of the future concerns on budgets. Once in office we will be utterly transparent around the costs of the tunnel that were negotiated by Rodney Chambers and the Medway Conservatives. This legacy is there's and we will remind people of this fact.

Medway Labour will also work to move the Tunnel onto the government books as has been stated on record and will work with any that seek this objective.

The purchase of the tunnel stinks. It stinks of back-room deals, it stinks of poorly negotiated contributions, it stinks of liabilities being deliberately moved onto the Council tax-payer books. It stinks that not one Conservative at the time opposed the deal in public.

If it does move into the government books then future Councillors can relax.

If it does not, it could form an issue which will set the local political agenda for the next twenty years.

Mark Reckless MP can see this, and he can see this now. Pity he did not say this in 2008.