31/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Things You Don’t Say
The Cambs Times this week carries an article about the old Queens Hotel, in Wisbech, that was all set to become a shelter for homeless people.  The plan has been scuppered (Cambs Times words, not mine) by Cllr. Phil Webb.  The paper makes a big deal about Cllr. Webb’s use of the word “undesirables” in his statement.
  
John Elworthy, the editor and journalist on the piece says: “HOMELESS people were last night branded “undesirables” by a Fenland councillor who successfully fought off a £700,000 refurbishment of the former Queens Hotel, Wisbech, to accommodate them. “ 
      
Later, Cllr. Webb is quoted as saying:
“My motion said simply that it was in the wrong place- Wisbech is not very attractive and this could make it less attractive,” said Cllr Webb. “The people who would use the centre are a difficult thing to describe but, without being nasty, they are undesirables.”
  
Of course, this makes great “news”.  The Cambs Times grabs a hold of the word which Cllr. Webb was clearly silly to use and shakes it like a dog with a bone, while (deliberately?) ignoring the actual pertinent issue.
  
I’m glad this isn’t my division because this is a thorny subject and sometimes it’s nice to not be the councillor who has to field these sort of problems.  The fact is, pretty much nobody I’ve spoken to who lives anywhere near this proposed shelter was ever in favour of it.  They have  a variety of reasons, some more politically-correct than others.  But the will of the area residents is not in much doubt.  The will of the area businesses is not in much doubt.  Apparently the will of the Town Council is pretty obvious too.
    
So what Cllr. Webb has done is speak on behalf of those people and try and stop a project that many desperately did not want to go ahead.  We can pillory him for using inappropriate language.  It certainly wasn’t sensible, or particularly fair, to call people who are troubled and down-on-their-luck “undesirables”.  But what Cllr. Webb has done on this issue is speak the majority view.  Isn’t that part of a councillors job? 
   
I don’t agree with him that Wisbech is not attractive.  Just lately it’s been an extremely pretty little market town.  I would never condone the language he used about the homeless, but I suspect he really did have no intention to cause insult and has just committed the cardinal offense of forgetting to consider the gravity of his adjectives.  But let’s not let that colour our consideration of what has actually gone on here.  His choice of language in this instance may have been ill-considered.  But the end result, many will think, was not such a bad thing for Wisbech.  
   
People who are homeless, have drug and alcohol problems, or other difficulties obviously have to be helped.  They obviously have to go somewhere to get that help.  No decent person would deny this.  But there are right places and wrong places.  And there is such a thing as balance.  Wisbech already has a number of such places including the Ferry Project (an excellent service) and the new AddAction that resides in the building that used to be the Registry Office in Wisbech’s main car park. 
  
The Cambs Times points out that the Town Council also oppose the Queens Hotel being used in this way.  Again, these are local councillors speaking for the people in their areas.  The Town Council are only saying what many of the residents of Wisbech are telling them.  Again - isn’t that their job?

Cambs Times response?  Another of their ”quicky” online polls.  You might remember they ran one of these during the County elections whose result assured us that Labour were neck-and-neck with the Conservatives - shortly before they met electoral oblivion across the county.  Look, I have no problem with bias in the press really.  A journalist or an editor obviously has to have a position and that is likely to colour their approach to the job.  But would it kill our local paper to at least try and look at a story from both sides once in a while?
   
It’s easy to paint Cllr. Webb as the bad guy.  He set himself against a shelter for the homeless.  He called them something he should not have.  Then he single-handedly managed to stop a development that was going to help them.  Like some sort of Bond Villain he manipulated a meeting in a dastardly fashion.  Or so the press would have us believe.  But I wonder if the businesses and residents of the surrounding roads will perceive it in quite the same way?  Or will some of them be quietly thanking his intervention?  I know several who will be doing just that. 
    
Right or wrong?  You decide.

Posted in Cambs Times, Wisbech | 4 Comments »

30/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Critical Friends
I post quite a lot on the ConservativeHome website and seem to often end up bashing my head against certain ultra-loyalists there, to whom I am apparently considered something of a maverick (mainly because I don’t always ‘toe the party line’ as David Cameron and the gang at the top prescribe). 
  
I don’t mind that tag at all since it’s rather cooler than “lapdog” or “whipping boy” but its gotten me thinking.  Since I began my work at the County Council I have come across the term “critical friend” and have previously thought it to be something of a “buzz word” (of which local government has rather a lot.)  But like so many of these sort of things you can snicker to yourself about them only to find at a point in future a lightbulb goes on in your head and you’re all: “Ohhhh yeah!  Now I get it!”
   
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with questioning the party line.  There is nothing wrong with making your case and arguing for what you believe. If it is done in an intelligent and respectful manner - and if you are prepared to lose the argument as often as win it - then it is the sign of a healthy, vibrant and dynamic party. 
  
On the flipside, being so loyal that you never question, never argue, never speak out of turn may ingratiate you with certain sorts of leader but is unhealthy, undemocratic and rather dangerous. 
  
I’ve found in local government (certainly in Cambridgeshire) that we have positive leaders who encourage participation and individual thinking.  I find that refreshing.  I’ve never met David Cameron so it may well be (and I hope it is) that he appreciates this too.  But if so, it hasn’t filtered down to some party activists who seem to think anything the boss says just must be right.  I’ve never met a boss who was omnipotent yet.
   
Being a critical friend means more than mindlessly cheering: “Go Blue!” at a ball game.  It means more than presuming that everything we do is right and everything they do is wrong.  It means having the courage to speak up, often and clearly, when you think something is awry.  Sometimes you’ll be right.  Sometimes you’ll be wrong.  But at least you’ll always be involved in the game, not just cheering from the sidelines.
  

Posted in ConHome, David Cameron, Conservatives | 1 Comment »

29/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Hitchhikers Guide To The Public Sector
Genius science-fiction author Douglas Adams, who wrote the classic Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy series, managed (through a convoluted and extremely clever storyline) to populate prehistoric earth with refugees who crash-landed there, consisting mainly of service-sector employees - marketing types, management consultants, telephone sanitisers, as Douglas Adams pointed out.  As it turned out in his story these were all “useless” professions who leeched from the productive classes on their original world and that their own planet had gotten rid of by shipping them away under the illusion that the world was ending.

Today we are told a billion pounds is to be spent on creating tens of thousands of “soft” public sector jobs for unemployed people including dance assistants, tourism ambassadors and solar panel engineers. The taxpayer-funded jobs are being created by councils, quangos and charities under a desperate Government scheme to remove people from the unemployment register over the next two years.   Apparently the public sector is not yet big enough or expensive enough so we need to fatten it up a little more.  We can always print the money to pay for them…

But let’s look on the bright side.  When the country is struggling under the burden of ever higher debt and ever lower tax  revenues, when millions more are unemployed, houses are being repossessed and businesses closed - we wil least know that our handful of tourists will have plenty of guides, that our solar panels will be secured with precision and that we’ll all be able to dance like Fred Astair.

Douglas Adams, born in Cambridge, may have written mostly humorous speculative fiction, but it’s surprising just how prophetic he seems to have been.  I can’t help but think we might be needing a starship of our own soon. 
   

Posted in Labour Party, Credit Crunch | No Comments »

29/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Good News Poll

CON 42 (+4) LAB 24 (+1) LD 18 (-4)

That’s the result of the latest ComRes poll whose results were released today.  I don’t usually do poll numbers on this blog but it’s been a quiet week and I was struck by the interesting mathematical result here that the Conservatives have as many polling points as Labour and the Lib Dems combined. 

Reproduced at a General Election this would result in a 150 seat majority for the Conservatives.  Happy Days.

Customer Service
I had to pay some money in at the bank today so I took a stroll there and was pleased to see nobody in the queue, just a couple of customers at the two open counters.  I stood at the end of the aisle and waited for one of them to finish their business.  Sadly, things were not as they seemed.  One of the customers was involved in some complicated business that was taking a lot of time, while the other was involved in an animated but friendly discussion with the cashier. 

I waited patiently, impressed that the bank staff were taking a little time to engage with their customers and be civil.  A few minutes passed and there was no sign of either counter clearing - the discussion continued with both ladies laughing and joking about something or other.  By now, there were half a dozen people in the queue.  Everybody was relaxed but a couple of customers had that harried look about them of people who’d hoped to get finished in a hurry and had seen that expectation dashed on the rocks of fate.

By the time I had been in the bank for ten minutes the mood of the line was changing.  When I had arrived I was the sole member of this queue, but now I was at the front of a snaking, muttering row of people that reached all the way to the banks external doors.  And still the chatterboxes showed no signs of ending their little natter, let alone noticing that they were holding up a significant portion of the population of Wisbech.

You know when a group of people has reached the end of their patience.  They begin snarling pithy comments beneath their breath, staring angrily with the sort of petrifying gazes that make you glad looks cannot actually kill.  Tutting, tapping their feet, coughing pointedly.  Since I was at the front of the queue it felt like all eyes were on me to try and move the situation forwards.  I resisted, but I was pretty irritated myself since this had already eaten up an unnecessary quarter of an hour or so of my day. 

Finally I decided to take action.  “Excuse me,” I tried.  “I don’t mean to be rude, but there is a long line waiting here.”  Some people grunted their agreement.  Others looked embarrassed, which was a bit of a stab in the back since just moments ago they had been mentally willing somebody to say something.  (I’m fairly sure.)

Both the gabby lineblockers (the customer and the staff member) looked at me like something slimy they had just found in their pasta but joy of joys they did seem to get the message.  Helpfully, at that moment the other cashier cleared too and finally the line was moving.

I shuffled up to the lady who had held me up for so long and put my paying-in book on the counter.  She smiled in a sweet-but-dangerous way and said: “Thank you so much for your patience, sir,” her voice dripping with irony.
“No,” I replied, my own tone absolutely deadpan, “Thank you.  This is just how I wanted to spend half my day.”

At which point a number of people in the queue starting laughing, the other cashier started laughing, then my own cashier and I started laughing too.  The tension eased away as quickly as that proving, if nothing else, good humour is a wonderful salve.  
  

Posted in Election, Wisbech, Conservatives | No Comments »

28/07/2009 by Lister Wilson.

This post has been submitted by a contributor.  The author of this guest post would like to stress that it an expression of personal opinion and does not represent the opinion, official or otherwise, of the Cambs. County Council, of the owner of this blog (Steve Tierney)  or of any other person or body.  (Future guest posts by other contributors would certainly be seriously considered.  If you are interested - email Steve Tierney with details of what you’d like to write about.)

Traveller’s Sites In South Cambridgeshire
By Cllr. Lister Wilson

Essentially this is a District Council matter but, as you will see from what follows, I’m not leaving it just to them.

The biggest investment in assets that most ordinary people have is their house. Some spend years improving theirs but all expect some kind of long-term return, at the very least for the value of their property not to fall. The current recession has caused a short-term setback in house prices nationally but they will recover. Even if you live in an Equity Share house, you expect your slice of the value not to fall and actually to increase. So it is that all house-holders, including those in fully-rented accommodation, look with alarm at the prospect of a Traveller Site nearby. For some, far away is not far enough. The effect of a Traveller Site in close proximity to settled housing is an instant drop in value. This arises because the house becomes virtually unsaleable and it may become nearly worthless. This is an intolerable imposition on anyone and for this reason I’m not in favour of Traveller sites anywhere near residential housing. I have not met any resident of any village who is in favour of a Traveller Site nearby. Maybe there are some, it’s just that I’d be surprised if there were and I wouldn’t mind hearing their point of view.

The proposal to site 10 plots for Travellers has been in the pipeline for a long time but it has originated with the East of England Regional assembly (EERA) and their puppet-masters the (Labour) Government. EERA  is an unelected quango  which the Conservatives will abolish. I believe that this Government doesn’t care too much for villages and rural areas and I draw that conclusion from their track record. South Cambridgeshire District Council has identified 12 likely locations based on nearness to services, including public transport. The facilities they deemed necessary to support a Traveller community are, on the whole, far better than most house-owners could expect. I think the priorities and policies need to favour the settled population first.

The experience of South Cambridgeshire (District Council) with Travellers is not a happy one. A group of them invaded (I use the term with precision) Smithy Fen north of Cottenham in 2003-4 and the Council asked John Prescott’s Department for help with finance (amongst other things) to pay for the legal challenges to move them. There was a deafening silence from Prescott. Eventually, last month, judgement was granted in favour of the Council and now the land is being restored to farming. Prescott’s Department wouldn’t even help with enforcing the law. There is an overwhelming suspicion that at least one of the travellers was responsible for the murder of an off-duty soldier outside a pub in Cottenham but no-one would admit to witnessing the event, all intimidated into silence. In Meldreth a purpose-built site with shower and laundry blocks had to be closed because the travellers destroyed it. Petty crime in the village rose during the time they were there. Again, one of the Council’s officers was badly injured being assaulted when he went on to the travellers’ site at Milton in 2002. They break the law with impunity by camping on our Park-and-Ride sites and on public parks in the centre of Cambridge. One of my constituents had his Land Rover stolen by gypsies from Potton and could prove it by flying low over the Site. It was recovered with a police escort. When Fred Moss, a Traveller from Sawbridgeworth went missing on 30th. November 2004, a throng of Travellers descended on South Cambridgeshire, entering farm houses and buildings without permission and intimidating the owners. Non-travellers cannot do these things and get away with them. That is the background to our view of Travellers.

The Government has decreed that South Cambridgeshire find about 159 pitches for travellers. It is another measure of Labour’s contempt for the countryside. It seems to me that to find permanent pitches for Travellers is a contradiction in terms, but there you are. The Council is using the argument that, travellers have a history of pitching their caravans on illegal sites so the solution to that problem is to provide them with legal ones.  It is a straight-forward sell-out to law breaking. There just isn’t masses of free land in South Cambs not near any villages, but I can assure everyone again that I have not met anyone who wants a traveller site anywhere near them. The residents of Bassingbourn, for example, are appalled that one of the proposed sites is in their village. Much the same reaction will occur elsewhere. I must point out that the Travellers do pay rent for their pitches.

I understand that the exact site of the traveller-pitches in Cambourne is yet to be decided. You can infer my view on this subject from what I’ve written here but South Cambridgeshire District Council, and its responsible member Dr. David Bard, are well aware of local feeling. Travellers’ issues have no votes – a bit like Overseas Aid, but much less important. You can be assured that this issue is well to the fore in my work and I will keep you informed of events and progress.

Just for the record, Travellers have suffered disproportionately since the joining of Poland and the other “eastern European countries” to the EU. In particular, well-educated Poles with immaculate English, first-rate manual skills and a prodigious capacity for hard work, and who look the same as the local community, have taken the unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in agriculture and construction which used to be the mainstay of travellers’ livelihood. Travellers also suffer very high infant mortality (a simply huge number of still births and deaths before school-age*) and a life-expectancy lower than any third-world country (including Zimbabwe - the lowest). There is no doubt that the travelling life-style is under pressure as never before. We may ask whether allowing Travelling to continue is not trying to preserve a quaint piece of history, because the benefits to everyone involved are hard to see. Maybe the time has come to bring it to an end.Cllr. Lister Wilson sent the above post to his local paper.  This week he has amended the article by sending a supplementary article to the paper.  For the sake of completeness, and because Lister has asked me to, here is the letter that was sent:-

The Editor
Cambridge News
Milton
Cambridge
29th. July 2009Re: Travellers in CambourneDear Paul,

I need to balance the article in Tuesday’s Cambridge News headed “Gypsy sites will hit house prices”, before I’m targeted by the Travelling community for misrepresenting them.

As Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee at Cambridgeshire County Council for the last two years, I was increasingly drawn to the huge difference in health and life expectancy between the settled population and the Travellers. This was a theme of my original article which contained such facts as very high infant mortality (up to twenty times that of the settled population), astonishingly low life expectancy – around 35 years shorter, and health needs which go with that life style.

In Cambourne we already have settled Traveller families. Indeed this is the pattern we would welcome for any more and the Parish Council has said so. Housing, I contend, is the most basic right in a contented population. With permanent housing goes a near doubling of life-expectancy, a good education for good jobs and all one’s children surviving. So I wonder why Travellers continue to travel when the disadvantages seem so clear.

My article listed nine breaches of the law, all traced to some Travellers and all featured at some time in the last 5 years in the Cambridge News. I did not make any accusations at all but others drew their own conclusions like Basil Burton of the Romany Rights Association and my colleague Councillor Kindersley. I wonder if either of them read what I wrote. The jobs market is collapsing for everyone but it’s especially hard for Travellers as their traditional employment is overtaken by machinery or immigrant workers.

I know settled Travellers, I have bought their services and even employed them. So let’s be very clear about this – life in even a luxury caravan has more drawbacks than living in a house. I know because I’ve done my homework. Welcome to a place of your own in Cambourne and a brighter future.

Yours sincerely

Lister Wilson
County Councillor for the Bourn Division
Cambridgeshire County Council

Posted in Guest Post, Travellers | 2 Comments »

28/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

I just found a neat bit of software which makes cartoon and sketch versions of you.  It’s kinda fun.  (I know, I know, photoshop can do it too.  Nevertheless, it was an enjoyable distraction.)

Posted in Interlude | No Comments »

28/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

Education Ejucashun Edyoocayshon
That’s what Labour promised, right? They told us all that a couple of terms of a left-of-center government would see a huge increase in school expenditure which, it stands to reason, would result in all our kids leaving for work awash in an ocean of qualifications and knowledge. And let’s be fair, that’s exactly what happened.  Sort of.

Let’s deal with the funding first. Labour spent huge sums of money on the schools. They literally showered them in funds. But that didn’t work because as usual the lefties, unfamiliar with the concept of money as a tool, thought that just throwing cash at a problem makes it go away. So what did they do? Introduced targets and tests and quangos and an enhanced national curriculum to fix the problem. And that didn’t work either - as any businessman would have told them it could not. Quite the opposite, it stifled the schools ability to excel and experiment, or even just to do the job at which they are the experts, locking them into a system that was mired in box-ticking politically-correct bureaucracy.

Since this was clearly not producing the desired result the government had no choice but to preside over a steady and relentless “dumbing down” of examinations - if only to encourage an endlessly larger number of people into university. It didn’t matter that a hefty proportion of those people were wholly unsuited to university. Labour, who have always claimed to be the “party of the people”, seem to only mean this when the people they are referring to are some stereotype that fits their mould. Their aspiration to “send everybody to university” is mean-spirited. It demeans those people whose gifts are somewhere other than regimented further education, somehow suggesting that if they don’t aspire to a particular brand of learning then their skills are second-rate. Frankly, in a survival situation I would prefer a carpenter or a builder or a labourer to an art history or sociology graduate on my desert island - but perhaps that’s just me.

What I like about the current direction of Conservative education policy is the idea to let the markets provide. I’m not one of these free market idealists who think an uncontrolled and unregulated free market is the solution to everything. But in general, if the problem is fitting people’s needs with available resources in a cost-effective and organised way - markets deliver.  You have to keep an eye on things, but you have to give the markets the freedom to do what they do best. 

In practice, the premise to let businesses and other interests set up schools outside of the established monopoly is a wonderful one. Some regulation and control will be necessary to be sure schools meet certain basic standards, but beyond that they should be free to design their own criteria. As long as government funding follows each individual student the schools will be forced to meet the demands of the kids and their parents. If there is demand for a certain type of school - the markets will provide it. If a school is failing - the markets will remove it. All schools will be forced to be cost-effective and progressive if they want to attract students.

Teaching unions wont like any of this, of course.  It removes their cosy monopoly and forces them to consider the service they offer and how they offer it - or face closure.  Instead of parents fighting to try and get their kids into the school they want, those schools will humbly beg for their partonage.  Instead of having to put up with the status quo, parents will be able to express their unhappiness with the school’s governance by taking their child elsewhere - and safe in the knowledge that there will be somewhere else to take them! 

When you put the power into the hands of the consumer instead of the grasping claws of the establishment it is like shaking the very foundations of a clunky old beast and watching the dust and cobwebs float free.  It is time to give our children the education they need and deserve.  And this time, when they leave with qualifications, they should be qualifications that employers can trust.  What was that?  Did somebody say O-Levels?  Now there’s a thought…

Posted in Education, Conservatives | 1 Comment »

24/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

1st: Conservatives — 13,591 votes
2nd: Labour — 6,243 votes
3rd: Lib Dems — 4,809 votes
4th: UKIP — 4,068 votes
5th: Greens — 3,350 votes

Majority: 7,348
Well done all!  Teamwork and hard graft come up trumps again.

Note the strong UKIP showing … almost up with the Lib Dems.  Important, bearing in mind the Ramsey By-Election result yesterday.

Labour vote has collapsed dramatically, but they did still maintain second place (which is more than I’d expected.)  Down to their hard-core voting base, I presume. 

There’s just no way to spin this other than a massive victory for the Conservatives.  This was a Labour seat and it has swung so far over that we have more than double their votes now.  Repeated at a general election this would result in a huge and resounding majority.

The Lib Dems and the Greens (battle bus notwithstanding) must be feeling pretty dejected.  This is Norwich, after all!  If they can’t get a decent showing here, then where?

Posted in Victory, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Labour Party, Parliament, Conservatives | No Comments »

24/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

What Happened In Ramsey?
This is going to be the question which gets asked amongst strategists, particularly Conservative ones, over the next few weeks.  The By-Election held there yesterday delivered a “surprise” (I wasn’t particularly surprised, but I suspect others will be) at both District and County levels when UKIP stomped home with a double win. 

On paper, Ramsey should be a Conservative seat.  The Lib Dems have always provided a respectable opposition.  But times, as Mr. Dylan used to say, they are a-changin’.  The scary thing as far as I’m concerned is that far too few of my fellow Conservatives seem to appreciate just what this threat actually means and just how serious it is becoming.

The common thread among many Tories runs something like this: “UKIPpers are Conservatives casting a protest vote about Europe.  They are in the minority, they are a single-issue party and they are all looney-tunes anyway.”  It is generally assumed that they will come flooding back to the Conservatives come a general election and help us towards a dramatic win.

I’ve been challenging this received wisdom for a while, but my arguments fall on deaf ears.  It is true that many UKIP supporters’ natural home is the Conservative party and that some will vote with us at a general election.  The rest of the supposition is wishful thinking which belongs firmly in the “sticking head in sand” school of political discourse.

We Conservatives are collectively terrified of campaigning on an anti-Europe platform because when we tried this in years gone by it did us no good whatsoever.  I respectfully suggest that was then, this is now.  A mood change has washed over the British public in recent years.  At every level and in every area resentment at the meddling in our affairs is growing.  

Many people are horrified that we systematically give away authority over our proud sovereign nation to foreign  powers, throw immense amounts of money at a project that no British person has ever had the opportunity to vote for, and that we throw liberty and independence to the four winds and stick two fingers up at centuries of history. 

Conservative leaders hope that the rise of UKIP is a temporary phenomenon - that it will wither away over time.  I don’t believe that is the case.  The fact of the matter is that there is only one party who can overturn their relentless growth - the same party who is suffering as their core membership dissolves away. 

I do not believe that anything good can come of electing UKIP councillors in local areas.  I suspect the good folk of Ramsey will come to regret their decision and I feel dreadfully sorry for the excellent Conservative candidates who were denied the seats.

The reason I am a Conservative and not a ‘Kipper is that I believe in the core Conservative messages.  UKIP messages are not massively different actually, but they have put on our clothes without having the depth and scope of our ideas.  Nevertheless I have a great deal of sympathy with their stance on Europe (as, I believe, do the majority of Conservatives). 

The Conservatives could have put a stop to all of this months ago.  We could have taken both the Ramsey seats in a landslide.  Our UKIP cousins would (for the most part) love this to be the case.  Because it would mean we had spoken the words that the vast majority of Conservatives do actually believe.  We have had enough of the failing European project and we believe in British independence. 

In fact, wouldn’t we actually be Better Off Out?

Posted in UKIP, Ramsey, Cambs. County Council | No Comments »

22/07/2009 by Steve Tierney.

The Bramley Line
Today’s full county council meeting was a somewhat muted affair, thanks to the absence of Cllr Moss-Eccardt, everyone’s favourite procedural expert.  In fact, during the first few agenda items I began to wonder if the Liberal Democrat contingent had been suddenly struck dumb - so quiet were their ranks.  Not so!  When it came time to talk about the Bramley Line our colleagues on the opposite benches became highly animated.  You would almost be forgiven for thinking that this was a clever political machination.  They had clearly spent some time getting all their ducks in a row.

I should probably explain.  The Bramley Line is the disused railway track which runs from Wisbech to March.  To cut a long story short the people of Wisbech would quite like it opened again, the people of March (who already have a railway station and probably see no need to burden themselves with more rail traffic) aren’t so sure.  There is a very active and dedicated group of local enthusiasts who have been working for several years to get the line re-opened.  There are Conservative councillors like Cllr. Simon King who are part of that group and have been working alongside them towards this goal.  To the best of my knowledge nobody has really seen any Lib Dem councillors anywhere near the project - ever.  This could well be because Fen Folk prefer not to elect them anywhere in the region.  But even so… their sudden interest and support furrowed some brows.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats had really grown a sudden fervent interest in the Fens traffic infrastructure?  If so, good. Any ideas and support are always welcome.  But there are some amongst us who think what actually happened is that they saw an opportunity for division.  The Bramley Line is a very interesting project, but it’s also a controversial one.  Not everybody feels the economic case has been made for it yet.  Some people prefer other options for improving transport in the area (like giving the A47 the dual-carriageway treatment all the way to Wisbech.)

So when Cllr D.Jenkins (leader of the Liberal Democrats) proposed that a new funding method called TIF be considered to assist in the re-opening of the Bramley Line some people questioned the motives.  I have to say I really don’t know if this was a machiaevellian move or not and I think I’m prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and presume that it was just an honest, well-meant idea.  What a shame then that the motion had to include a load of party-political swipes that devalued it and forced the Conservatives to table an amendment that stripped the unhealthy fat from the bone and left only the meat for consumption.

Cue lots of long speeches by councillors on all sides which basically seemed to be saying the same things from slightly different perspectives.  Cllr. Alan Melton delivered one of the blistering verbal barrages for which he is so famous in support of better transport all over the Fens.  Cllr. Geoff Harper read a prepared speech full of deft lyrical flourishes in which he pointed out the many improvements that had already taken place - in order that proper perspective be maintained.  Speaking to the chamber myself, I took the opportunity to make it quite clear that Conservatives do not oppose rail, nor the Bramley Line (quite the opposite, as far as I’m concerned) and that our amendment unequivocally expressed that we felt this was a strong option that deserved serious consideration.  There’s no lip service there.  We do.  Because it is.

All’s well that ends well, the amended motion met the approval of all councillors and resulted in a (very rare) unanimous vote of “yes”.  Which doesn’t mean the Bramley Line is suddenly going to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but does surely bring Wisbech one step closer to getting the rail link it wants so badly.

Armed Robbery
When I got home from the council meeting today I was surprised to find the Police in my shop and a member of my staff clearly badly shaken by something.  It turns out that we had been victim of a robbery.  Two young men had entered the shop and snatched a laptop from behind the counter (one made a distraction while the other snatched, then both ran.)  Dominic, who works for me part-time, gave chase!  Following the two men out of the shop he managed to grab one of them.  During the struggle a gun fell from inside the jacket of the criminal and landed on the pavement.  The man made a grab for the gun, Dominic (no doubt terrified of the consequences of this nutcase getting his hands on the weapon) kicked it across the street.  The man struggled free and both of them fled with the laptop - leaving the weapon behind. 

Now it appears that the gun was actually not a ‘real’ gun, but an airsoft weapon or something that looked very authentic.  At least, that’s what the police suggested before they bagged it up as evidence.  Even so, you wouldn’t want to be shot in the eye with something like that, nor meet the sort of person who carries it around.  The police officer was clear that somebody caught carrying one of these would expect prison time.

I’m a little torn about all this.  In the first instance I’m horrified that this sort of thing can have happened on my doorstep (quite literally), I’m angry that I wasn’t here to try and prevent the crime and I’m furious that they have (so far at least) apparently gotten away with it.   But I have got to give it to my staff member Dominic, who found himself in a dangerous and frightening situation and whose first instinct, against all common sense, was to come out fighting.  I suspect many people would have let the criminals go.  Why risk your safety for a part-time job and a single stolen item?  Even the police were keen to point out that they suggest people do not try and tackle criminals of this type.  What did Dominic do?  He chased two guys out onto the street, struggled with them and relieved them of a firearm.  

Where I come from they call that sort of person a hero.
  

Posted in Fenland District Council, Cambs. County Council, Wisbech, Conservatives | No Comments »