I have been running two blogs – one using the ‘your councillor’ (provided by the Conservative Councillors Association) template and this one.
I did this so I could write ‘opinions strictly my own’ type entries on here. In reality there is really no such thing.
So in future all my posts will be on the yourcllr site Cllr Graham Cox
I might still cut and paste the occasional thing here but everything will be on that site.
I have thought long and hard before writing about Travellers again for reasons which I will explain. Before doing so I need to set the context.
Over the Easter weekend I was closely involved with trying to help Councillor Dawn Barnett in getting Brighton and Hove City Council and the Sussex Police to respond to an encampment on Greenleas Park at Hangelton.
Dawn was inundated with calls from local residents, understandably angry that caravans and large cars and vans had been driven onto the park. On the first day of the school holidays the large gate and lock at the entrance of the park was sawn/crowbarred through and initially four caravans driven onto the park.
The Council and Police were contacted, visited the site but took no action. At this point there was space at the transit site at Horsdean but the occupants of the park were not directed there. No action was taken over the damage to the lock and gate as there was insufficient evidence.
Over the next 2 days more caravans and vehicles arrived and the local people were effectively prevented from using the park. The caravans on the football pitches meant the youth football for the weekend was cancelled.
Similar encampments occurred over the next few days at Withdean Park (threatening the nature reserve and lilac collection) and at Hollingbury Park.
Many gypsies and Travellers visit Brighton and Hove. Only a small minority cause problems of the type that I have just described. This particular group own large luxury caravans, towed by top of the range 4 wheel drive vehicles. They have become associated with anti-social behaviour, fly tipping, and used the park and bushes as a toilet.
The people which encamped on Greenleas had no intention of using the official traveller sites. I stress again they are in a minority and their actions and behaviour is causing problems for the majority of Travellers who do behave with consideration for the settled community.
The Conservative Group have been asking the Council and Police why s61 powers were not used to move this group – with their history of anti-social behaviour – over the Easter weekend? The Police advised that they were unable to do so because the Council did not ask them to. We have yet to have a reply as to why the Council did not ask. We have now submitted freedom of information requests.
In the meantime plans have now become fully public for the Council to build a new traveller camp for static caravans (i.e. for Travellers to live in permanently). Mike Weatherley MP recently hosted a public meeting about this at Patcham. A video of the meeting can be watched on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuImFWobCg4
The reason I have thought carefully before writing this is because of the question of racism. As the concerns over encampments on the City’s parks have increased, so has the rhetoric used. I am aware that Travellers and Gypsies do face discrimination. I have described this in the past as ‘the last respectable prejudice.’
Councillor Ben Duncan, the Green Party Cabinet Member for Community Safety, has caused me to pause for thought. At a recent meeting of the City-wide Community Safety Forum he said,
‘I urge everyone here today, especially the councillor members who really should know better, to bear in mind their responsibility to respect the law – and the principles of community cohesion – when debating these issues.
A good test may be to substitute the word ‘black’ for the word ‘Traveller’ when discussing the issue: for example a LAT meeting to discuss ‘The Issue of Travellers in the city’ would be as offensive to many as a meeting to discuss ‘the Issue of Blacks in the City’ – and it would probably be illegal to.’
I think Councillor Duncan does have a point and have considered this very carefully when dealing with the encampments in the parks I have described, and in my approach to the meeting at Patcham about the proposed permanent site.
In terms of the encampments on the parks, and associated anti-social behaviour, I have concluded that not dealing with this is actually causing more prejudice against the majority of Travellers. Allowing flagrant breaches of the law like this damages community cohesion and encourages racism.
The issue of the proposed permanent Traveller site at Patcham is more difficult. Before writing about it I tried the test which Councillor Duncan suggested – i.e. substituting the word ‘black’ for ‘Traveller.’ Doing this actually provided me with challenges and much food for thought. It caused me to step back and consider my – and wider society’s – whole attitude to Travellers.
The permanent static Traveller camp will consist of 16 permanent caravans together with separate toilet blocks. They are designed for Travellers with local connections. The site chosen is on the South Downs and in the South Downs National Park. Permission will be required from the National Park Authority. The site would not be for the Irish Travellers who have been camping on our City Parks (they do not have local connections and it is unlikely they would wish to settle there even if invited to do so.)
I am still unclear which Travellers do actually want to move to this site. The more I look into it this seems to be something thought up by non-travellers who have decided what is best for Travellers.
It is at this point that Councillor Duncan’s test begun crystallising some worries I have had all along about this proposal. The site chosen by the Green Party for this camp is, presumably deliberately, located north of the bypass and away from the settled community. It is the building of a camp, separated from the rest of the city by the A27, for one ethnic group to live in. It amounts to the creation of a ghetto, and separates one ethnic group permanently in a camp away from all other people.
Do Travellers want to be put in a ghetto on the Downs? Is it actually racist to treat them in this way?
I think these questions need careful considerations. I still favour helping Travellers to help themselves – allowing them to buy their own smaller pieces of land on which to place 2/3 caravans. This approach can improve community cohesion and integration. I doubt whether the proposal for a camp in this location is in anyone’s interest – Travellers or the wider community – and it is not racist to say so.
The betting market normally provides an even better guide to the likely outcome of an election than opinion polls. Although I think 4/1 about Nicolas Sarkozy represents reasonable value in a two-horse race (with TV debates to come), it does look like his Socialist opponent Francois Hollande is the likely victor in the forthcoming French presidential elections.
A lot will depend on how those who voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round, cast their ballots in the run off. It is wrong to assume that National Front voters will opt for Sarkozy. The National Front is lazily referred to in much of the media – and particularly the BBC – as right-wing. Most of its policies are socialist (nationalisation, protectionism, anti-free trade etc.) and, just as the BNP here obtains most of its support from former Labour voters, many NF French voters are more inclined to support the Socialist candidate rather than the centre right Sarkozy.
My guess then is that Hollande will indeed win, and I am interested in what will happen if Socialism is implemented across the Channel – especially its implications for us here.
Hollande is on record as saying he will implement the following policies in France-
- Cut the retirement age to 60
- Increase the higher rate of tax to 75%
- Increase corporation tax to 35%
- Renegotiate the fiscal compact with EU partners
- Increase borrowing to fund more public spending
- ‘Create’ more than 150,000 state funded jobs
- Unilaterally impose a financial transaction tax
- Close nuclear power stations
Greece is bankrupt because for over 40 years its people voted at election after election for whichever party (Socialist and Conservative, for they alternated) who told them that it was possible to have it all, and fiddled the national books in order to do so.
If the French people decide to do something similar by supporting Hollande’s Socialist experiment we in this country may be the main beneficiaries. Already over 300,000 French people live and work in London because the rigidity of the French labour market prevents job creation.
It is highly likely that many large French companies will relocate to London. If our Green Party led Council stops its anti-business approach, then Brighton and Hove could gain as well. France’s financial services industry (such as it is) will disappear almost overnight. France will start having to buy energy overseas as it closes its nuclear power stations.
The only problem is that the long-term destruction which will be wrought on the French economy by these policies will impact negatively on our companies which do business in France. An even more protectionist France will damage those countries it trades with, although it is interesting to note that France enjoys a considerable trade surplus with the UK.
It is tempting then to hope that the French do commit economic suicide in 10 days’ time by voting for the Socialist candidate, for the UK (and especially us in southeast) stand to benefit substantially as businesses relocate here. It will also highlight to us the dangers of returning a Labour Party to power which has yet to learn the lessons of its disastrous overspending.
Of course the flight of capital, the increased unemployment, the higher interest rates and the pressure on the French currency will make it very hard for President Hollande to actually implement the policies he is currently promising.
Last Friday Mike Weatherley MP hosted a consultation meeting about the Green Party proposal to build a new ‘static’ traveller site at Patcham.
Patcham already has a large transit site at Horsdean. This new site, consisting of 16 permanent ‘mobile homes’ and toilet and shower blocks, will be funded by the taxpayer. The site chosen is north of the bypass, in the South Downs National Park.
One of the arguments being used to support its construction is that it will lead to an end of illegal encampments on our public parks. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support this assertion. Many of us can remember that was the argument used for the transit site, and yet since the Green Party came to power the number of encampments on parks (such as at Greenleas this Easter) has got worse.
Those who drove their caravans onto the football pitches at Greenleas have a record of continually trespassing on sports fields and parks, and engaging in anti-social behaviour whilst there. Flytipping has occurred nearby and the parks left in a terrible mess afterwards.
When encampments ocurred at Greenleas and the nature reserve at Withdean park there spaces on the transit site. despite this and the sensitive nature of the sites the City Council did not request the Police to use their powers to move them on. This pretty useless response leads us to have no faith in assurances that it would be different in the event of another site being built.
There is little doubt that the group who parked on Greenleas have no intention of using a publicly provided site even if built.
We are urging the Green party to think again on this, and hope that labour will not support them either. Building a taxpayer funded site on the South Downs, deliberately separating it from the settled community north of the bypass, amounts to the ghettoising of an ethnic group. It is not even in the Travellers interest that this site is built, and I have yet to see any reliable evidence that they even support its construction.
Far better that the travellers who wish to settle down (for surely that is what a static site implies) are allowed to find their own small plots which they purchase and apply for planning permission to build on in the normal way. Once again we have the Council telling the Travellers what is good for them – doing things to Travellers rather than helping them to help themselves.
Some film of the meeting can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuImFWobCg4
I have placed on the record my support for directly elected mayors, particularly because they can get things done – ‘driving through change in the face of scepticism and tepid support from cautious council officials.’
Likewise I have highlighted stories and reports of how ‘Whitehall mandarins’ (ie senior civil servants) frustrate ministers in their attempts to introduce new policies.
I was sent this view yesterday which has a different take and it made me think a bit-
‘With regard to yesterday’s meeting I thought it interesting that the issue of politicians and their interaction with civil servants arose because this was something I remember discussing with you a while back. I do get the impression that politicians, indeed, the ‘political’ culture in general, does not know how to get the best out of the civil service. Many of the things that infuriate politicians – sticking strictly to procedures, extreme caution, reticence and so on -are the reasons our civil service is possibly one of the least corrupt and most respected in the world.
It is not surprising that when politicians go in determined to radically shake things up and bring about major changes to whichever part of the civil service their remit covers they often come unstuck because ‘evolution’, rather than ‘revolution’, is probably a better way of improving things. In recent weeks I have seen several commentators give some praise to John Major’s achievements whilst noting that he was ‘unsophisticated’, ‘lacking in charisma’ ,’unspectacular’ and generally ‘grey’ and ‘dull’- all qualities enthusiastically embraced by the civil service that, unlike many politicians, shuns the microphones, cameras, bright lights and make-up of the media. More than any other PM in recent times, John Major knew, not only how to get the best value for money out of the civil service, but also how it thinks and, as a consequence, how to get it to change and improve. More often than not just a few small changes to existing procedures and structures can bring about radical and far reaching improvements in efficiency and the quality of service offered.’
I have always enjoyed sport (apart from motor racing and tennis). Partly as a result of the influence of my dad (stepfather) I have followed horse racing for as long as I can remember. He told me stories about being a bookie’s runner at Hackney Wick before the war, and working for the Tote afterwards – of gambles landed, and more often gambles lost, of dodgy jockeys, trainers who ‘couldn’t train ivy up a wall’ and those in the supposed know who ‘couldn’t tip a wheelbarrow.’
My earliest firm sporting memory that I felt I had an interest in was the Chelsea v Leeds FA Cup Final (and replay) when Ian Hutchison clinched the win after 2 games with a header from a David Webb long throw. Looking back at the replay on retro TV all the players seemed to do was kick each other (and adjust their combovers!)
Over the years the magic of early football memories has worn off. Not so with racing. For some reason I remember a horse called The Fosse which we used to back in the National. It showed up and then never got placed. There were the regulars – Spanish Steps and The Pilgarlic _ who would plod round every year and get placed without ever looking like winning. I can still recall Churchtown Boy who very nearly won the National after winning the Topham the previous day. As a result I backed him a few times afterwards and he never came anywhere (probably as a result of being asked to run twice in two days over those fences).
My love for horse racing was cemented though by my first big bet – on Red Rum, aged 12 (the horse not me, I was old enough to bet by then), at 12/1 to win his third National. He did and I was addicted to racing for the rest of my life.
For many years I preferred the jumps, waiting for that meeting at Chepstow near the end of October which signalled the beginning of the jumps season. but over the years I have became increasingly concerned about the injuries that jump horses suffer. For every Kuato Star, coming back year after year to win the top races, there have been many other horses which get injured and are never seen again.
My interest has veered towards the flat. Maybe the horses do not come back year after year, but at least they do not get injured at the same rate and the thrill of a close finish at the speed the best horses on the flat run at beats the thrills and spills of seeing slower horses plod on over the jumps.
I also got irritated by the people who linked love of horse racing with support for hunting. I am happy with the hunting ban. It seems a reasonable British compromise, with the worst cruelties ended but keen hunters still able to continue to chase a scent if they wish. Indeed the biggest advocates for hunting suggested it had thrived since the ban (which made me unable to work out why they wanted the ban overturned).
Over the years then I have become increasingly keen on high-class flat racing, and less interested in the jumps. The only exception has been the Gold Cup at Cheltenham and the Grand National. The Gold Cup remains the blue riband – most years it is won by the best long distance chaser in the country. A true championship.
At the same time the Grand National has changed. The fences have been made easier in the name of safety, but this has enabled the horses to speed up. More importantly it remains a handicap. The best horses carry more weight. This year Synchronised was top weight, having won the Gold Cup.
In fact in racing terms, Synchronised was a handicap ‘blot.’ Having won the Gold Cup it should really have carried even more weight but in order to encourage its owners to run this did not occur.
No horse has won the Gold Cup and the National in the same season for over 70 years. There is a reason for this – one is a championship race and the other is a handicap over unique fences. The last horse to try – Alverton – died in the attempt. As we now know Synchronised suffered the same fate. By a tragic coincidence Alverton was ridden by Jonjo O’Neill, who trained Synchronised.
If the National was run over a normal course then Synchronised would have been an odds on favourite. The bookies are not stupid and realised that actually this champion horse was not suited to the National and priced him up at 10/1 plus. Maybe there was a clue there.
Anyway the race was incredible with the closest finish in history. Sadly it was marred by the death of two horses, including Synchronised.
Deaths in horse racing will happen. Horses break their legs when they run – whether in a field, on a flat course or over the jumps. Unfortunately the safety measures introduced over the years to the National at the behest of animal rights/welfare campaigners have not worked. Making the fences smaller has allowed the horses to go faster, causing more injuries.
I love the Grand National. It is a great British institution. Contrary to some tweets I read yesterday horse racing is not a middle class sport. In fact it is probably the only sport where people from all backgrounds mix. If anything it is a non-middle class sport. It is one where the royal family and working class people are far more likely to be seen together than the ‘middle classes.’.
The National is under attack and fighting for its life. It remains a unique test for horses and their riders. I want to see it retain its unique place in our British sporting culture. Messing about with the fences will make no difference. Instead I suggest the uniqueness of the race makes it the ideal situation to do something which racing has always resisted. Make the Grand National the one horse race where jockeys are not allowed to use their whips.
Last night I was invited as a guest to the London Mayoral debate at the Emmanuel Centre in Marston Street London. People were queuing round the corner to get in 90 minutes before it was due to start. It was an old-fashioned hustings. I was struck by how many young people were there – impassioned, engaged in the debate and enjoying politics. I gave my (admittedly biased) political commentary on how it went at the time on twitter, but my view on who ‘won/lost’ is not the point of this post.
Rather I continue to be struck how in amongst all the criticism of negative tactics, personality politics and so on that the London Mayoral election engages many more people in local politics than standard council elections do.
Here in Brighton and Hove we had one of the first votes on introducing an elected mayor. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. My party, and as far as I recall the Greens, campaigned against an elected mayor for the City. At the time I thought that was short-term and a mistake.
There will shortly be votes on whether to introduce elected mayors in many of our major cities (Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Coventry etc). Prominent Labour MPs (Liam Byrne and Gisela Stuart in Birmingham for example) are thought to be planning to run if elected mayors are supported.
The elected mayors in these cities will have more power than in London, with responsibility for education, social services and all the other parts of local government.
I am unashamedly in favour of elected mayors. To quote Daniel Finklestein, ‘Mayors will experiment and compete with each other. Mayors will be judged on their executive ability, on their success in getting their cities to thrive economically and socially. And cities all over Britain will gain champions, identifiable and controversial champions.’
Brighton and Hove could have already been in that position. Many councillors, in all parties (no names I’m afraid) make excellent representatives of their wards. However they are not so good at running things and when in office then become over reliant on unelected council officers (bureaucrats who tend to be cautious and unaccountable). As a result things do not get done. Better surely to have a Mayor who gets directly elected on the basis of their plan and vision for the City, who is then held to account by the local councillors. At the end of 4 years the people of the City then get to vote on whether they should be reelected, or to chuck the Mayor out and replace with someone else with a new mandate to run the City.
Would Black Rock still be derelict, the Marina tired, Saltdean Lido shut, the Brighton Centre unmodernised, Preston Barracks a waste ground, London Road an embarrassment, the old fruit market wasted and the King Alfred half dead if we had a directly elected Mayor in Brighton and Hove? My guess is no.
My Party nationally – the Conservatives – has taken a kicking over the last two weeks on the subject of fund-raising. It all seems quite surreal here in Brighton and Hove. The Conservative Party locally, of which I am now Chair, exists on a shoestring. We rely on funds raised from coffee mornings and fish and chip evenings. The perception that the Conservative Party is the Party of big business and wealthy donors certainly does not reflect the reality here in Brighton and Hove.
In fact we are the underdogs. We face a Labour Party which continues to enjoy the financial support of the local Trade Union bosses – they even share an office with the GMB.
As for the Green Party, they are very well resourced in the City. For reasons I still do not fully understand, the Greens have decided that Brighton and Hove is the place where they should focus all their considerable champagne socialist middle class resources. At election time they bring in supporters from across the whole country. This is probably the reason why they were able to win Brighton Pavillion, despite actually performing quite poorly throughout the rest of the country. I well remember at the last local election having a pleasant conversation with the very posh Green Party supporter who was ‘telling’ at a polling station alongside myself in Hollingbury. She told me about her wonderful holiday in Australia, her enjoyable city breaks in Prague and other cities in Eastern Europe, before announcing that she hoped to get away fairly early as ‘the traffic is terrible on the M25 on a Thursday evening’.
So how should we address the situation? I happen to believe we need functioning political parties for our democratic system to work. In my view my Party needs to become less reliant on big donors. Far better that we attract lots of small donors who can contribute to our debates and policy formulation, and ensure we remain rooted amongst ordinary people. I think that we should therefore unilaterally declare that the Conservatives will impose a voluntary cap on donations to our Party at £10k
What about Labour you ask? This will give them an advantage as they will continue to rake in funds from the Trade Union bosses. Actually I am not worried about this. As long as Labour rely on Union funding they are compromised. In fact if they needed to fund raise from individual members they would become stronger and much more of a threat.
Finally though a ‘left field’ idea from one of our members in Brighton. He has suggested a Conservative Trade Union. I remember such a movement in the 1970′s but it never really got going. Let me repeat my colleague’s suggestion in full below. Off the wall it may seem but actually when you think maybe there is something in it?
‘The Conservatives are correct to routinely complain about the unfair advantage union membership payments give to Labour. I know for a fact that many people pay their union subscription, not because they particularly support Labour-though undoubtedly, many do - but because they want union rep support should they fall foul of attendance or disciplinary rules.
Imagine that you are sitting on a train at the station. There is another train across the platform and suddenly you get the sensation that your train has started moving until you realize that, in fact, it is the other train that has started moving in the opposite direction. I believe that a similar misreading of the situation surrounds the Conservative view of fundraising vis-a-vis Labour. What the Conservatives need is a Conservative Union. If you can’t beat them, join them. The only difference would be that the funds raised-from employers signed up to the scheme-would be invested and an annual return/interest payment made to employees having a nominal deduction from their pay towards the scheme. Obviously the funds would need to be administered and invested wisely in much the same way, say, that good pension scheme funds are run. This would give the Party a steady, secure source of funds-akin to those Labour gets from the unions. The only difference would be that employees get a monetary return for their subscriptions rather than the odd bit of help and advice over employment matters.’
In their first ever council budget, the Green Party in Brighton and Hove imposed massive increases in the charges levied on football clubs to use sports pitches and changing facilities. The Brighton Amateur Football League have now been told by the members of the Brighton and Hove Council Sports Booking department that for season 2012-2013 new pitch charges have been set – for the use of an adult pitch the charge has been set at £50.45 (inc VAT) and the charge for the Pavilion has been set at a £30.00 (new flat rate charge inc VAT).
This is not the half of it though – if there is more than one game at a venue using the same pavilion then both matches and both teams will be charged.
Examples of Charges include-
Waterhall Sports Ground 8 pitches if all used £403.60 Pavilions charge £240.00
Preston Park 4 pitches if all used £201.80 Pavilion charge £120.00
(The pavilion only has room for two teams)
Costs have been increased even further at Preston Park, where the Greens have imposed parking charges for the first time.
As a result of this the Brighton League has already been told by its members that at least 15 clubs will not run next season because of the charges.
The result of this Green Party measure is that many people - on lower income and students – will no longer be able to play organised amateur football. As many of us predicted this will mean that the massive hike in charges will probably actually result in a loss of revenue to the Council.
The suspicion remains that fundamentally the Green Party does not ‘get’ foot ball. As it is now clear the rises will not raise extra revenue, is the Green Party’s fundamental opposition to competitive sport the real reason behind these increases? They are more concerned with gestures such as boycotting Barclays Bank than providing sport for all in our City.
