"I have a cunning plan"

There are many rewards to being a local councillor, not least (as I am sure most councillors would agree) the feeling of achievement when you've helped someone.  Having a chuckle is not normally a fringe benefit, but it was last night.

Last night was the annual budget debate.  The choreography here is simple: the ruling party lay out their proposed budget, the opposition try and pick holes in it, each defends their position as being in the best interests of the public and the ruling party use their majority to vote the budget through.

Last night in Hart was different.

The opposition came up with a cunning plan.  After years of careful management, Hart has a small surplus.  Once Ken Crookes, the affable and hugely competent Tory Leader of Hart District Council, had presented his budget Stuart Bailey, the ever-courteous and likeable LibDem spokesman for finance stood.  His speech went on for a few minutes but in essence said "Good budget.  Now, since you have a surplus, why not use some of that to eliminate Sunday parking charges and hence give a boost to Fleet business?"

I listened in admiration.  The LibDems had put up this proposal knowing that (a) the Conservative majority would vote down any amendment and (b) voting down this amendment would be tough to explain on the doorsteps when campaigning for the May elections.  It was delightfully clever and - in my view at least - a reasonable proposal.

Now, if the LibDems had proposed a lot of amendments, they could have overreached themselves.  If there's a long debate, the Chairman will call a break and the Tories could have had a huddle.  By having just one amendment, there was no chance for this.

Various speakers rose to have their say with the Tories roughly saying "Not a bad idea, but it needs some thought.  Might there be better ways to spend the money to boost Fleet?  Or should we save it to put our finances on a sounder footing?" and other councillors saying "Jolly good idea: no time like the present.  Let's do it."

Meanwhile, as a Tory councillor, I squirmed in my seat.  I thought it was a good idea on the whole.  In fact, it's a good Tory idea: cut taxes to boost the economy.  The Tory majority on the evening was just 1; a single Tory councillor voting against the grain would be enough for the LibDem amendment to win.  My neighbour, Stephen Gorys, was also inclined to support the motion.

So when it came to the vote, Stephen and I supported the amendment, as did the Tory chairman.  So far the enjoyment had all been on the LibDem side.  However, I am sure they had never anticipated winning the amendment - it was to be a Pyrrhic victory.  Having won, how would they vote on the budget?

Just as it Goes against the Grain for the ruling party to support an opposition amendment to the budget, it is a Fundamental Rule that the opposition vote against the budget.  But if the LibDems voted against the budget, it suddenly struck them that they would be voting against their own amendment, which was now in that Budget.  And since they had proposed just the one amendment, on what basis could they not support the Budget?

The vote was called.  Brian Burchfield, of very nimble mind, asked for a recorded vote where members vote in turn as their names are called.  Suddenly those squirming were on the Libdem benches.  Most abstained, one or two voted against, one or two were savvy enough to vote for the budget.

The result: a good budget for Hart; hopefully (there are negotiations to be held still with Fleet Town Council) some relief for people parking in Fleet; and the most amusing meeting I have attended in almost 10 years as a councillor.

As the Greek said "Be careful what you wish for: your wish may be granted".

Clark and the Feudal Spirit

I've been trying to decide whether Bertie Wooster's Aunt Dahlia, who was famously direct in her language, would have called the Rt Hon Greg Clark an inveterate scoundrel, a lying toad or a congenital idiot.

He was interviewed on Sky News last week.  When talking about the government's proposed National Planning Policy Framework on TV on 21st December, he said

"The purpose of the planning reforms is to have decisions taken by local people who know their area best. That is the reason that we are making these changes.  We want to see local decisions taken locally.  That's what we want to introduce."

Now this is not entirely true.  Indeed, what Greg Clark said is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth.

Let's try phrasing it accurately.

The purpose of the planning reforms is to dilute or remove decision taking capability from local people who know their area best.  That is the reason we are making these changes.  We want to see local people bypassed so that developers can build large numbers of houses across the green fields of England and hence, we desperately hope, give a boost to the economy.

Of course, we have to look at it from Greg's point of view.  He's an up-and-coming MP, hopes to have a glowing career in politics and so he is carefully toeing the government line.

It's interesting to watch him saying these sentences on TV.  As he speaks his eyes flicker and one may imagine he's thinking "I really hope I can get away with this brazen economy with the truth." His body language is so uncomfortable that I found myself thinking "The decent person inside Greg Clark is very, very uncomfortable with what his political persona is saying."  He looks in this interview a little like a rabbit in the headlights.  You can quite imagine that he's wishing he'd never taken up politics and that it may well be that he's only doing the interview because some party whip explained to him that in any political career you have to take a few tough interviews for the good of the government if you want to get anywhere.

Greg needs your help.  If he's to defend himself against these Party Schemers who have backed him into a corner, he needs some ammunition.  The best ammunition you could give him is a bunch of letters from voters across the land who are concerned that their hamlets are about to become villages, their villages to become towns and the green fields in the countryside will disappear under a mass of builders' concrete.

Then, when cornered by some party hack, he'll be able to pull out a few thousand letters and say "I'm not willing to sign up for unemployment benefit after the next election: are you?" and the political conniver will creep quietly out of his office.

So please do write to him.  He can be reached at the Rt Hon G Clark, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.

I realise now I was wrong in the first paragraph.  Armed with  a few thousand letters opposing the government's ill-thought-through national planning framework, and letting his true self come to the fore, Greg will become a Man among Men.  Aunt Dahlia would no doubt rise to the occasion and, with a voice that could be heard in the next county, exclaim "My hero!"

Back to school

My parents are to blame.  Also my wife's parents.

They made each of us feel that the most important thing we could do for our children was to see that they got a good education.  I'm not saying we did perfectly in our attempts, but we certainly tried and it seems to me that the government should have a similar responsibility to the children of the land.

Right now.  Let's just leave that thought there for the moment.  I'll be back to pick it up before it goes missing.

I have watched with bemusement the various occupations of recent months.  Occupy Wall Street.  The St Pauls protesters.  One thing that does surprise me is that the authorities find it so difficult to remove the protesters.  I'm quite happy for the protesters to have their say but not day after day.  There are more important things to demonstrate about.

Like Education.

Which leads me back to the strikes planned for two days' time on 30th November.  For years, head teachers across the land have insisted to parents that their children's education is too important to be trifled with and that unexplained absences aren't acceptable.  Indeed, a good friend of mine recently put up on facebook the following

Dear Head Teacher



Thank you for your recent request for little Tommy to be absent from school during term time. As you have pointed out on several occasions, the school does have a strict policy on this subject. I therefore must decline your request.


(ref teachers striking on Nov 30th)

But what really can we do about it?

Given how important children's education is to their future, it seems wrong that it should be trifled with to make a political point.  Driving into work this morning, I wondered what would happen if parents initiated a protest of their own: perhaps choosing tomorrow to Occupy State Schools.  Perhaps little Tommy or Tamsin could take a sleeping bag and 36 hours' provisions with them when they go to school tomorrow and then refuse to leave - and indeed have their parents join them at the end of the school day?

I am not recommending this.  I just wondered what might happen, since I believe in education.  Blame my parents.

Unforgiveable

H

Well, H, you know who you are.

In the mid-1990s you had us around to dinner.  I don't remember the main course, but the dessert was a simply exquisite home-made ice cream.  Even as I write this, many years later, I find myself salivating at the happy memory, the subtle flavour, the delicious and sublime experience.  I clearly remember saying what a remarkable and excellent dessert it was and how much I had enjoyed it.

Clearly, the Code of the Hostess kicked in. On two subsequent occasions when we were invited to dinner, there was no sign of home-made ice cream.  I assume this is because the Code of the Hostess means that you are forbidden from ever serving the same thing twice.  Blow the guests: it's all about diversity.

Or did England run out of dairy products?

M

Well, M, you know who you are.  (You are not Margaret).

About ten years ago you invited us around for a meal.  You even did the decent thing, knowing what a fussy eater I am, by phoning up a few days beforehand to ask if I ate Mexican.  I clearly remember my reply "Everything other than beans."

So I was a little surprised on arrival to discover the meal consisted of a good deal of beans.  I suspect there was widespread starvation in Mexico that year as there were so many beans in the food.  I did look at the driveway afterwards to see of there were imprints from the tyres of the heavy lorries that must have been needed to deliver all these blasted beans.  Indeed there must have been a platoon of chefs and a portable kitchen required just to cook them.

I ate everything else on my plate and consequently all that was left was a plate filled to the brim with beans.  And a hungry me.  You need to remember advice given to trainee lawyers "Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to."  Strange though it may seem, when I said I don't like beans what I actually meant was I DON'T LIKE BEANS.

I am already working on the steak and kidney pudding for when you next visit us, little missy.  Lots of kidney.

R

Well, Big R, you know who you are.

It's amazing.  I won't see you for two weeks and yet the moment I open my lunch at my desk, there you are, having decided that the ideal time for a business discussion is when my mouth is full of sandwich.  Perhaps you don't like the replies I give you when my mouth is empty; possibly your preferred mode of conversation is a monologue; it may be that you have an astigmatism in your eyes that somehow makes food invisible.

Now this may be a flaw in me.  If one could go back a few million years and see my ancestors, crouched over their latest kill in the wild plains of the Serengeti, you might observe that they didn't like company while eating.  Typically this would have been because when your neolithic neighbour came across to ask how the hunt went, what they really meant was "Ooh, that looks delicious, can I have some?" and when it's taken you three weeks to hunt down the fleeting gazelle that was the best substitute available in those days for cornflakes and that only appeared on your breakfast menu because it was a sickly runt, the whole subject of sharing was something that people did not talk about in polite company.

I suspect those genes have passed down through countless generations to me.  So, Big R, listen carefully.  The only time I am happy to talk business over a meal is when you are paying.  I have a list of restaurants you could invite me to, available at a moment's notice.

I realise this limits you to only eight or nine hours a day we can chat but do be a good fellow and try.

Bad Science, Good Deal

A few years ago my older son gave me Ben Goldacre's excellent book, Bad Science.  It is, quite simply, the best non-fiction book I've read in the last 10 years.  For the rest of the week, the Kindle version is on sale at Amazon UK for just £2.49.  This is an outstanding bargain and if you don't yet have a copy, I thoroughly recommend it.

What's it about?  In essence, it's about how to make sense of a world where science meets homeopathy, how to detect fraudlent claims by politicians and people selling pills and cosmetics, how turmeric allegedly cures cancer and more.  It shows you how to be rationally sceptical without being paranoid.

An excellent read.

Whither Labour?

Wither Labour?

Well, here's the opportunity for you to say.  How do you feel about Labour's chance of forming the next Government? Just vote below!

No smoke

So Ed Balls thinks that he should suggest how we run the economy, does he?  This is the same person who was Gordon Brown's key adviser when the economy was being systematically run down under the last Labour Government.

Why would we put an arsonist in charge of the Fire Brigade?

3,000 More Houses in Hook?

The standard way that government imposes a controversial policy is the following.

1. Give it a really boring title.
2. Claim it's just a draft, for consultation.
3. Publish it during the summer holidays, or while MPs are distracted by party conferences or both.
4. Deride those who oppose it as NIMBYs.
5. Stress that the policy is in the national interest.
6. Claim opponents don't understand the proposal or are exaggerating.
7. Tell civil servants to start giving weight to the policy when making decisions, even before it is implemented.
8. Say that those who don't agree with the policy are creating myths.
9. Implement the policy and when people complain say "The papers were all published and you had plenty of time to comment."

All of these ruses have been used by the Government in the draft National Planning Policy Framework.

Let me explain what this policy would mean for Hart, and Hook.

First, the policy takes away most of the protection for green fields that previously existed.

Second, it says that councils must assess every possible need for a house for anyone who might be in the district or who might choose to settle in the district.  (This is called a Strategic Housing Market Assessment)

Third, the council must identify land where these houses might be built.

What change would this make for Hart and Hook?

At present, Hart District Council has draft plans to build 220 houses a year for 20 years: a total of 4,400.  Of these, about 500 might be built in Hook (this is one option, but not definitely decided yet).  Under the NPPF, Hart might need to identify enough land to build over 1,500 houses a year: 30,000 over 20 years.

Where would these houses go?

They can't go in and around Yateley (in the east of the district) because building there is restricted under European law.  So they would need to go in the centre and West:  Hook, Hartley Wintney, Fleet, Odiham, North Warnborough, South Warnborough, Rotherwick, Winchfield.

It's possible that 3,000 or more would be built around Hook, which would double the size of the village.  In fact it wouldn't be a village any more - it would be a town.  The most likely place to build these houses would be in the fields between Hook and Rotherwick.

Now perhaps that you think this is a good idea.  I clearly don't.  

You have the opportunity to tell the government what you think, whether you like the policy or you don't.  Here's how you can do this.

1. Read the draft document.  It's here.
2. Fill in the consultation response form here.
3. Write to your MP.  You can find out who your MP is here.

The government wants your response by no later than October 17th.  So don't be caught out - please write today.

Don't let Sir Humphrey win!