Those of you who read the Ipswich Star will know that Suffolk Constabulary, Suffolk NHS, Suffolk County Council and Ipswich Borough Council are backing a campaign launched by the police to voluntarily agree to stop the sale of “super strength” products from their shops. The aim of this campaign is designed to stop the sale of “super-strength” beers and cider to “vulnerable” people. Quoting from comments made to the Ipswich Star we hear that:
“We know the damage it can cause, one can of super strength lager can contain the entire recommended daily intake of alcohol.
“The effect it can therefore have on individuals who drink it and on the communities where it is sold and where it is consumed, can be quite significant.”
It is easy to think that these comments are justifiable and that by asking off licences and other retailers to stop selling strong beers and cider will somehow solve the problems of alcohol dependancy amongst those labelled “street drinkers” or those who have no home and that the ‘problem’ will go away. Unfortunately this voluntary form of limited prohibition is heavily flawed and shows, in my opinion, quite a large amount of naivete to the complicated issues that has lead them to find themselves in this situation. Prohibition, voluntary or not does not work. I can understand why the police want retailers to stop selling strong cans of beer, I’m sure their limited resources are often used up by problems with the side effects of this drug. The police use a massive amount of resources on a Friday and Saturday night for example, dealing with people who probably hold down a job, live a comfortable life, but like to let their hair down and get very drunk at the weekend. I often walk around town on a Saturday night to see what’s happening, it can be messy and I’ve heard so many times about how some people don’t like to walk in our fine town in the evening on weekends as they feel threatened. This is not just an issue here, but across the UK. I’m not a betting man, but I reckon the costs of policing binge drinking at a weekend costs far more than dealing with a relatively small “street drinking” community, who, already down on their luck are further victimised by authorities.
Have you ever been homeless? Do you know what it’s like to have no home? Have you ever been sexually abused? Have you ever seen your life fall apart around you? Do you suffer with mental health issues? Have you ever served your country and found it really difficult to adapt to civilian life? These are just some of the issues that have meant some are in the situation they are in? It’s easy for me to say that these people; fellow human beings, deserve compassion and caring, an ideology I strongly believe in, but I know that some people are very challenging, if not down right difficult and don’t want help. Why, probably because they have either adapted well to their new ‘arrangement’ and don’t like change, or don’t like the police because they take their alcohol away from them and move them on. I’ve experienced many of the things mentioned and feel so lucky to have what I do. I was lucky; some aren’t. The emotional pain affects us all in different ways. “Pull yourself together” and other stupid comments are useless. I’ve often heard comments from people about how they’ve been through tough times and didn’t end up on the streets etc. Lucky you!
I attended the Central Area Committee meeting earlier in the week, where a councillor proposed the removal of benches from St Matthew’s street near some shops. He cited an example where he was verbally abused by some people sitting on the offending benches. Like this “Reducing the Strength” campaign, it was a naive proposal (though passed) in thinking that this will stop the issue. I was very dissapointed by Cllr Jones, who wasn’t worried about where these people would go to, but as long as they weren’t outside the cafe. I cried inside when I heard that.
I have so much more to say about this issue, I hope some will comment and discuss this further, but what I will say is this “Reducing the Strength” campaign is pointless. Attempting to sweep the issue under the carpet doesn’t help people, what is effectively about aesthetics and making our town ‘look better’ by pretending it’s not a problem and saving the police a few quid doesn’t help these troubled souls who are looked down upon by too many people.
Remember, we are ALL only a few steps away from being those that many shun in disgust. It could be you one day.
Greetings dear reader and a belated Happy Christmas. As usual I have lots to write about, but with an important hospital appointment today, I shall pen my latest posting whilst I am sat in various waiting rooms at Ipswich Hospital awaiting tests.
Unfortunately, my weekly surgeries at the Waterfront Community Centre will not be happening anymore due to an extended closure at the centre. I am currently pursuing an alternative and will be able to confirm a new location in the new year, once the annual festivities are over and things return to normal.
In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact me with any issues you’d like myself, as a ward councillor for Alexandra, or your Ipswich Liberal Democrat team to help you with – ken.bates@councillors.ipswich.gov.uk
PS – The new Ipswich Lib Dem website will be live soon – I’ll keep you posted.
A question on some councillor’s lips I’m sure. Why did one Lib Dem vote against a policy that lies at the heart of his party’s mandate? Localism is indeed a Lib Dem baby, one I stand up for. However in the case of our administration’s baby, one I can’t support. Why? Because it’s not all it seems to be. David “I’m not sure which hat I’m wearing” Ellesmere thinks he has everyone fooled. Why does a Labour councillor suddenly want to embrace Liberal politics? A good question and one I’ve mulled over for a number of days.
Poor consultation, pre-determination and various changes in ‘facts’ all meant I could not support this proposal. Ipswich Labour seem to think they can do what they like. I’ll quote here, verbatim, what one (Labour) councillor thinks of the old structure (directed at the valuable Housing Management Board)
“I support the new Area Committee providing that Ward Councillors have a role to play. Not like the Housing Panel.where councillors have no say in what goes on in their Wards. and panel membership openly says that it’s got nothing to do with Councillors. Cllr seems to be the poor relations on these Committee and Panel.bearing in mind most are unelected by anybody.”
Yes, people of Ipswich, wake up and smell the coffee. On one hand we have an elected administration apparently giving you back power (don’t ask me, ask Paul Geater from the soon to be a weekly newspaper, who came up with that headline) and on the other hand you have the great intellects of Ipswich Labour complaining that an Ipswich Borough Homes tenant had a say in theirs and others tenancies and councillors couldn’t do sh*t about it. Diddums!
This whole Area Committee scenario is a scam. I should be flattered that David “I have a number of different hats to get me elected” Ellesmere is embracing Liberalism. But to lie to the people he wants to elect him, well that’s just Ipswich Labour.
By the way, next time you hear how Labour love Ipswich, ask them about their agent. He lives, breathes and probably poopoos Norwich, yet thinks he can use Twitter to insult a local Ipswich politician who is dedicated to Ipswich, unlike him.
Please, vote Labour by all means, it is your democratic right, but do you really want to vote for a bunch of ******** ****** who can only come up with 144 characters on Twitter, are power hungry and when given the opportunity don’t know their ***** **** ***** *****.
18 December – EDIT – I have crossed out a couple of comments that were perhaps, in hindsight, a little OTT. An unreserved apology to anyone offended.
18 Decemebr – EDIT 2 – Apparently crossing through the offending words out wasn’t enough for some…
Firstly, my apologies for not updating this blog in some time. Unfortunately my body has decided to inflict a vitamin D deficiency, depression and eating issues, closely followed by DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) upon me. The act of injecting myself with drugs is not a pleasant one and the accompanying pain of the DVT has been a pain in so many ways. I have not been well, but my wish to do something positive for a town I love and to represent my ward has never waned. In this posting I will bring you completely up to date with my own personal thoughts on what is being inflicted on all of the people of Ipswich by our Labour administration and the irresponsible actions of the LEADER of Ipswich Borough Council.
At present we have a ruling party that makes predetermined decisions, ignores conflicts of interest, misleads you and me as one of your elected representatives and to top it all has decided to mislead the police. After the recent by-election, I think you and me, the people of Ipswich, are starting to wake up to this fact. The Liberal Democrat percentage of the vote increased. I am glad of that. The Tory candidate would only have been a part-time councillor and has a very poor track record. Even a senior Tory told me that he was a poor candidate. The Labour candidate has his heart in the right place, he just really needs to ask himself whether he wants to be a member of a party that misleads, lies and has developed a ‘we can do what we want’ attitude.
When I left my radio programme from the fabulous ICRfm to pursue my destiny and get actively involved in politics, I was courted by both the Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Tories have given up trying now. I am a Liberal Democrat (A supporter of the SDP previously). A bit left wing and militant at times and have even been accused of sounding like a Tory, but still a Liberal Democrat. I can be described as being over passionate at times, but it has got results for the benefit of many.
Politics is a very personal thing – like religion, and there are times when I was part of the administration, decisions were proposed that I didn’t personally like. The sale of Kiln Meadow being a prime example. But any councillor worth their weight doesn’t endorse decisions because of their own personal opinions but remembers that they represent all of those in their ward and Ipswich as a whole. Being in a coalition means that as a Liberal Democrat we have had to make costly political compromises. Ask Nick Clegg. One political party can never encompass all of our own political beliefs and I joined a party so close to my own personal beliefs.
I make no apology for the length of this latest posting, but Ipswich Labour are digging such a big hole for themselves, I feel a duty to inform you of how they’ve been using their digging tools. Of course, when Labour are digging a hole, they have their record player with them. They only have a small record collection, as they like to play the same track a lot. Their latest is one they haven’t been able to play for a number of years and with your help it will stop in May. It’s called “We Do What We Want”. No it’s not the Lil’ Wayne version, it’s Ipswich Labour’s. It’s sung by their agent and is based on the classic “We’ll Keep The Red Flag Flying”. I make no apologies for the ‘humour’ and crass accusations that may follow, but our current administration are making a joke out of their responsibilities.
How are they fulfilling the demands of the record player? Read on as I type my own opinions on each issue…..
The Golden Key Planning Application.
I start with this, as it demonstrates completely the lack of respect that Ipswich Labour seems to have for the constitution of our fine borough and planning law. In case you don’t know about this, please allow me to fill you in with the details. Some time ago Greene King as the owners of the Golden Key decided to sell the site of their pub. Anyone who watches “Homes Under the Hammer”, or has some knowledge of property development will know that any land or building with planning permission for change of use etc. will be able to command a higher price when it comes to selling it. This is what Greene King had aimed to do. They submitted a planning application to change the site of the pub to retail and convert the pub. Ipswich Labour got wind of this and a supposed source of the group allegedly told them that Tesco were intending to open a shop there. Please note this was allegedly from a ‘reliable source’. The Labour group jumped on this and got themselves heavily involved in an anti-Tesco campaign. Greene King and their representatives denied this, but Labour, as usual didn’t want to listen. They started a petition with the title “Petition to stop Tesco in Woodbridge Road!”, closely followed by their survey with leading questions. First question – ” Do you support the proposal to build a Tesco on the Golden Key”. This was accompanied with a picture of Labour group members and misled individuals holding placards saying Tesno and the such. This posting on Ipswich Spy shows the picture and this posting shows the accompanying argument I and others were engaged with a certain Labour councillor over this issue. Please look at the picture and read the comments on both Ipswich Spy posts, it makes for very interesting reading.
So at this point we have the Leader of Ipswich Borough Council and PPC (Party Candidate) for Labour holding a placard saying “No to Tesco”! Is this individual aware of his responsibilities and the implications of his actions? Evidently not. I’ll tell you why in a bit.
You thought that was bad, it gets worse.
I am a ‘sub’ on the Planning and Development Committee and my online argument with a certain Labour councillor (who is also a sub and is in the picture I just mentioned) over this meant that I would have to leave the meeting during the part where this application was discussed, if my fellow Lib Dem, Cllr Richard Atkins was unable to make the meeting. This was due to me making a predetermined public decision on the application and is not allowed. I knew what I was saying, but being completely incensed by what I saw happening and the instantaneous nature of the Internet, I made my feelings known.Why? It stunk!
This was a Labour campaign against a major employer in Ipswich. Love them or hate them, Tesco are expanding themselves and their Metro stores are springing up all over the country. You can blame a Labour government for it happening if you don’t like Tesco or any major retailer. They took even more powers away from local councils and it’s only thanks to the Liberal Democrats in government that the Localism Act is reversing this very issue.
When it came to the Planning and Development Meeting, which I didn’t attend, you would think that any councillor who had any link to this application would declare their interest and leave the meeting during this discussion? Not so. Not only had the Labour councillor I mentioned sent in a letter that lied about what his constituents were against, some of his fellow colleagues didn’t declare an interest and leave the room.
There are some members of the Labour group who are members of Ipswich Labour and Co-Operative Parties. Yes it’s the very same Co-Op that has a store very close to the proposed site. The Ipswich and Norwich Co-Operative Society make a sizeable donation to the Ipswich Labour group and having retail interests, you would think that any councillor who has such a link, would declare that interest and leave the meeting. Would Ipswich Labour stand with placards outside the Golden Key, saying “No to the Co-Op!”? Of course not. To top it all, one particular member of the Planning and Development committee lives with the Leader of Ipswich Borough Council. An evident conflict of interest in which I understand only Cllr Quinton (Labour) was aware of, as his wife wrote a letter to say no to a store being built on the site. Apparently, the certain councillor who is also a sub reckoned that it was because of his homes vicinity to the said proposal. More lies and rubbish. I live within my ward. Does that mean I have to leave any meeting that has an application in Alexandra?
Pre-determination is also an issue. Labour like to have pre-meeting meetings before any meeting. I’m under the impression that you go into planning or licensing meetings with an open mind. OK, you might have a predisposition about an application you have received paperwork for, but you only make a decision based on the evidence presented to you. That is only right and fair. I don’t know what Labour discuss in their pre-planning meetings, but should they happen? In my opinion, no. Gavin Maclure makes a very good point about it here.
This opposition to the application was heavily flawed. The IBC legal department advised members of the committee that any representations that mentioned the ‘T’ word must be ignored. So Labour had managed to ensure that anyone with concerns over any store (not just Tesco) had to be ignored. A waste of time, paper and people’s opinions. Combined with undeclared conflicts of interest, the potential denial of any future actual Tesco application that might be denied on whatever grounds will result in a judicial review and that very picture I linked to will be presented as exhibit A by the might of a multi-national retailers solicitors. Well done Labour. Very clever!
So far, in my blog entries the Tories haven’t really had any flack from me. We’re both in opposition now. I’m new to the council, but the conversations I’ve had with my fellow Lib Dems and some Tories say it was on the whole a good relationship between the two parties. I was involved as a councillor when, in a full council meeting, we didn’t back the Tories, much to the surprise of Labour and annoyance of our coalition partners.Some front bench councillors questioned our coalition! If the Tories do something I don’t like the sound of, it will be blogged – mark my words!
Tories have complained about Labour voting together on things in any meeting, so why did they all abstain in the Golden Key planning application? Beats me. Did the feedback they received from people within their respective wards say “Don’t vote on this one”? Doubt it. I’m inclined in a cynical way to think that maybe they knew which retailer it was and didn’t want to rock the apple cart, so to speak, as they may have a good relationship with this particular retailer historically. This is all purely conjecture, but a whole group abstaining, there’s definitely a reason for it.
School Crossing Patrols and Libraries
Please read my earlier postings about this.
Councillor Locality Budgets
Also mentioned in my earlier postings, with correct predictions and about to be mentioned again in a mo’.
Area Committees
Now on the face of this, this is localism and Liberal Democrat policy being used by the Labour group. A good move if I say so, until you read the finer points, then the true facts come to light. That and a particular Labour councillor writing to Area Forums to tell them of their demise and pre-determination comes to the fore again as the public were told what was happening before they could give feedback at the very forums they were destroying! The Executive of Ipswich Borough Council hasn’t even met to make this decision, yet an assumption has been made by a portfolio holder that it is going to happen. I don’t think our Labour administration have a clue to either; a) the rules, or b)democracy. Since the Labour group gained control of the Borough, they don’t appear to have a clue what they’re doing. I imagine that IBC’s legal department and the Labour group are in constant communication. How do I make that assumption? Well the constant emails being sent to me and all other councillors about protocol, both online and between councillors and officers. That, and emails about other elements of the constitution is indicative of just that.
Anyway, back to my point about the problems with the proposed Area Committees and it’s flawed propositions.
Some of my colleagues have an issue with the elected chair of these committees getting an allowance of £3,000 a year. To begin with, I was OK with it. But when you think about the number of meetings planned, you have to question the validity of this expense. No doubt the expertise of Ipswich Spy will tell me the ins and outs of the Local Government Act and that this amount is stated in law, but it is a bit cheeky to give someone £3000 (according to other blogs) to attend up to six meetings a year. Farcical in fact. I attend meetings all year and do other work as a councillor and only receive the basic allowance that all councillors get – £3750 a year. I do believe that the amount a Chairperson will receive will be assessed by an independent body and I hope that it reflects both the responsibility and time committment properly.
Ipswich Spy quite rightfully point out that these new Area Committees will be held with the same formality of all other council meetings. That is problematic. Like many councillors, it’s all to easy to become encased in the bubble that is, Ipswich politics and forget the all too often alienation that this formal structure creates on those that do not attend formal meetings. It’s a daunting task for many to attend such meetings and the great advantage of the Forums, is the ability for a member of the public to show up and ask questions of councillors, police and other official bodies that may be present. This will no longer be the case, as questions will have to be submitted at least two days before the meeting. Labour are alienating the very people the idea of these committees was set up to bring governance closer to.
There will be times that some elements of meetings that will be closed to members of the public. Transparency – I don’t think so!
Funding will come from the previous locality budget that has already been set aside to save libraries, save crossing patrols and subsidise the reduction in funding from central government. Damn, I wish I could spend my income three times!
Right, 2500 words later and I think I better get my dog, Arthur to the park. My head hurts! More to come later about the Leader of our Borough, N30 and people complaining about Ipswich.
Please comment, I like feedback and a good debate.
So, Ipswich Labour’s Socialist gramophone has started playing its record in reverse. Just like those LPs with sinister messages when played backwards, the “Save Crossing Patrols, Save Libraries”, tune actually says, “We must stop Locality Budgets at any price.”
Confused? Well, so am I. Myself, other councillors and anyone else have been under the impression that our Locality Budget was being withheld because the County haven’t put their well publicised assurances that county funded crossing patrols and libraries are safe, in writing. It had been a very loud record on constant repeat. You could hear Labour councillors across the Borough singing it loudly at numerous full council meetings, to various journalists and the people of Ipswich.
1) Cllr Mark Bee (Leader of SCC and Waveney councillor) should spend his time telling fellow Worlingham councillor, Andrew Draper to resign from Waveney DC, (even though he’s no longer a member of their Tory group).
2) Labour have found ‘gaps’ in the budget, including, according to Cllr Ross, “not receiving as much money from the Tory Government in the form of the ‘New Homes Bonus’ as the Tory budget had us down to receive…so it is only responsible to keep that money in reserves’.
3) Even county councillors shouldn’t have Locality budgets, ” when the County is about to shut care homes and close youth clubs.” (Maybe someone should tell the Labour county councillors to stop spending theirs if they feel so strongly).
You mean to say that there are cuts in local services and government funding because a Labour government messed up our country’s finances?
David Ellesmere, on the Ipswich Labour website in April, states that the council ” is facing a £100,000 financial black hole after money it assumed it would receive from the government failed to materialise.” Now, if Cllr Ellesmere was so aware of this ‘issue’ back then, why hasn’t he mentioned this excuse in any full council meeting since the election? All the people of Ipswich have heard or read is “Save Crossing Patrols, Save Libraries”. This can be clarified by updates on the Ipswich Labour website which started in December 2010, the story in the Evening Star, just one week ago, which I highlight in my earlier posting and countless Rose’s. No mention of the New Homes Bonus as an excuse to deprive £240,000 from community groups and charities in Ipswich.
If Cllr Ross is correct, the ‘withhold money from community groups and charities because of the Tories”, policy takes a new dimension. Labour could use any excuse to cut the quarter of a million pounds from local groups and charities to attack the county council and government – and this latest excuse is the proof of that. Apart from the obvious, why are Labour so determined to stop community groups and charities from receiving £240,000 of your taxes? The very community groups that are needed more than ever in these difficult times.
I suspect that should the administration at Grafton House finally decide to make the money available after November’s Cabinet Meeting at SCC, it won’t be given to councillors. Labour’s love of centralisation will see any funds made available by the Borough for charities and voluntary groups, being controlled by a new committee, made up of a majority administration. This way Labour can control the money and allocate it where they feel best.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the plan, and in the meantime, it allows Labour to criticise any decisions made by the Lib Dem and Tory Government and Tory controlled Suffolk County Council and play pass the buck at any cuts, with reserves to save the day at a later time. Very sly.
So, the song “Save Crossing Patrols, Save Libraries”, released on Centralisation Records will continue to play. Backwards.
On Wednesday 12 October, I’ll be holding the first weekly Alexandra Ward Surgeries. It takes place at the Waterfront Community Centre in Grimwade Street (opposite the football training centre), from 1 to 4pm. No need to make an appointment, just come along and ask for me, but if you’d like to meet at a time that suits you, please don’t hesitate to contact me on 01473 210134.
