Chatham PPC Tristan Osborne's Misrepresentation on housing?

Yesterday's appearance by local Councillor and Parliamentary Candidate for Chatham & Aylesford
Tristan Osborne on a local BBC politics programme caused a stir on Twitter for all the wrong reasons.

Although I agree with the sentiment that the housing ladder is impossible to get onto for the majority of people of mine and Tristan's generation ( I think I'm 3 years older) and many of my friends who I went to Uni with have struggled and even had to get 90% mortgages with their parents acting as guarantors.

I was lucky - I guess - we are a small family and my granddad had divided his estate between my sister and I. I was able to get a 50% mortgage and it has kept our payments down so I've been able to support my small (and growing) family.

For others, it is a lot harder.

So what went wrong?

Well... Tristan made a bit of a sweeping generalisation and said... well here's what he said.

So why is that a problem.... Well there is an implication that he has struggled to get on the housing ladder with the rest of Generation Rent and is one of those that suffered as well.

Local Citizen Journalist Ed Jennings quickly dug out his home address from the Medway Councillor's register of interests (available on the Medway Council webpage) and then hopped on Zoopla to get an estimate value of the house.

It isn't up to me to reproduce Tristan's home address, the information is out there but I know how I'd feel if someone blogged my home address.


Ultimately the value of the terraced house came to approximately £306,942


As I understand it this property is owned not rented (I'm open to correction!!!) and the accusation from local Conservative Councillor Chris Irvine is that he has misrepresented himself to the viewers and voters.

I personally believe that it was a sweeping generalisation that people of our age are having trouble and was not meant to be a deliberate misrepresentation.

However I think that Tristan should clarify this.

Freedoms compromised? Leveson report

Disagreement between Nick and Dave

It could be argued that we've reached one of those great turning points in British political history, one that will be debated by politicos and Historians for decades. We had one a few years ago when the virtually unknown Nick Clegg implored the Labour Government to suspend the Summer recess so that a full investigation into the expenses scandal could be carried out. Real change and legislation could have been brought in.

But it wasn't.

As Nick Clegg said in his statement yesterday, there is a balance between the freedom of speech and of an independent press and that of the individual. It cannot be argued with that the Press have behaved atrociously including hacking voice mails, bribing Police officers, rummaging through celebrity's bins and behaviour comparable to stalking. This has to stop.

I (predictably) agree with Nick that we need to side with the victims on this and need to act.

Parliament failed to do this with expenses, they cannot fail to act again.

I'm not talking about a hasty knee jerk action that would see state control of the media on the Cuban or Stalinist model, rather along the lines that Lord Leveson has suggested. I understand concerns of an attack on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press but self regulation has not worked and the press complaints committee has no teeth.

Under Leveson's suggestions there would need to be legislation to create the independent body and to maintain it's independence. Hardly state control.

There will also be a able to breach the code IF they can prove it is in the Public interest i.e. the Telegraph rumbling the Expenses fraud in Parliament.

We mustn't now prevaricate. I, like many people, am impatient for reform. We owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already waited too long for us to do the right thing says Nick

No more last chance saloons says Ed Miliband.

The Prime minister needs to get a grip and realise what is going on and listen to what the people want. Change is needed and careful steps that follow the Leveson blue print would really make a difference. I don't understand his prevarication on this subject - the course is clear. Yes to freedom of the press and speech but yes, always yes to the freedom of the individual and these suggestions are the best way to reach the happy medium and it is up to parliamentary debate to make sure that any legislation is well thought out and reaches this medium for the real term benefit of us all.

To not act, as Parliament did when the nation was rocked by expenses, is to fail, to break the promises that were repeatedly made at the dispatch box and to perpetuate this broken system. People are losing faith in our Politics and Governing systems, this Coalition was meant to restore faith and only the Libdems appear to be listening to the people - time for the Conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee on this too.

Asda Christmas adverts accused of sexism

I managed to catch a bit of the news this morning before heading out the door. On the Sky news they were discussing Christmas adverts and revealed that Asda are being investigated because of complaints of sexism.

For those of you who haven't seen then the advert basically shows the Mum of the house running around doing everything and all the domestic duties.

I can sort of see this point of view in that in these enlightened times either partner can and does pitch in at Christmas. Indeed the battle that is Christmas dinner can be a team effort but...

Of the people I know and experiences growing up had it that way round. My cooking skills are adequate and there are things I do well, like Shepherds' pie, full English breakfast and my onion gravy is superlative. However I spent around a decade within the Scouting movement and acclimatised to exceptionally badly prepared food including soapy Spaghetti (don't ask) and potatoes so raw we ate them like apples. This has bred a kind of "it's hot, it's food" attitude that my long suffering wife is trying to get out of me. Thus, for Christmas dinner I'm banned from the kitchen.

My sister's Christmas dinners are like D-day. Every detail is planned in advance and there is a rigid time system that cannot be messed around with. As Monica Gellar would say;
"you don't know the system."

For the guys I know Christmas is a rare respite day from work and one we want to spend with the family. Though after a few hours of kid's tv and "Daddy, you fix it" or
"Daddy what's that?"
Or whilst making a grab for your newest boy toy/model "daddy my have it?"
You rapidly wish you were in the safety of the kitchen.

There is a reason dad's fall asleep (or pretend to be asleep) in the afternoon!

Maybe that is a generalisation, like the Boots advert that play to the stereotype that men are useless at gifts and are always whinging at a tiny sniffle but a generalisation rather than an obvious sexist statement like "Women can't drive" or "Men are stupid" which are obviously not true.

I sometimes think people these days are to quick to complain over small things and I know this is rich coming from me, a political blogger/star wars nerd, they should get a life.

The continued Page 3 debate

Page 3 defender Peta Todd, Charity worker, former model

I'm probably about to draw a lot of flak from this but....

I agree with Nick on the subject of Page 3 and the sun. Liberals can, and cannot tell newspapers what to print as long as they are not infringing on other people's liberty by phone hacking or over intrusive journalism and unfortunately Page 3 is not one of those things.

I will, however quickly remind you all that I do think that some sort of age limit is needed on topless material as it is in movies. That would be the only way to remove this feature.

Page 3 is one brick in an entire ediface of similiar things.

The blunt fact of the matter is Sex sells. Women in various states of undress can be seen selling all sorts of things from Cars, deoderant, movies, Soap operas and even security hardware and it is that which captures the male mind. Afterall human beings are still just animals with the same base desires and wants and one of those is sex and clever marketing and advertising execs are happy to draw on that when they hit the market.

Do you think that teenage boys would buy lynx deoderant if the adverts were:

Lynx Africa - Smells great and you will too?

No! They see the army of scantily clad women throwing themselves at some average looking guy and their mind links the product to the ability to get women. I can tell you - it doesn't work!

Television programmes also use attractive and or scantily clad women to get people interested. Take Big Brother for example, not only did the casting teams deliberately try to cause conflict by selecting people who would grate on each other but also a bevy of young attractive people as well. There is no way it was a coincidence that Orlaith McAllister a former runner up in Miss Northern Island, Imogen Thomas a former Miss Wales and her runner up Rachel Rice were all selected at random.
Even Hollyoaks was accused of having far too many goodlooking buxom blonde actresses in it to attract some more male viewers - a problem rectified by a plot device using a Serial killer who only attacked attractive blonde girls!

Using women as sex objects in movies has gone on for decades! I hate to admit it but even Star Wars Episode IV Carrie Fisher was told not to wear a bra under her white Senatorial robes so there was more *cough* movement as she ran around. Sharon Stone said she felt pressured to do the revealing chair scene in Basic instinct and Kirsten Dunst once made reference to the famous Spiderman kiss in the rain scene where her shirt went translucent as Something for the geeks. It has taken decades for Bond girls to be more than just eye candy, in fact Golden eye was the first one with a strong female lead (arguably A view to a kill with Grace Jones) and even in some of the follow ups like Tomorrow Never dies Terri Hatcher's character is a throw back to the old days of Oh James!

I'm not saying it is something that we should accept, far from it. In the last century we have come along way in Women's rights and equal treatment, (not far enough) and with portrayals as more than a sex object. To be honest a good proportion of men (well the right kind) already know that about women because we were brought up that way by our parents.

Modern attitudes to Women can only really be changed by education from parents and indeed schools. It is a root problem that is only contributed not perpetuated by Page 3.

As to the argument that "Torso of the week" is just harmless fun - I'm sorry but it is fairly similar (and there are those who'd say the same about Page 3). The current Moonpig advert or the intermations in the Malteser advert - yes, even the classic Diet Coke advert...
I'm not saying it's right it wrong but meet me half way and admit there is a strong similarity and motivation. Why else would there be "Hunky Fireman" calendars next to the Girlie calendars?

At the end of the day the girls are willing to pose topless, they are not forced like a seedy Axis Comfort woman. Those who wish to look at semi-naked women over breakfast are free to do so as are we who don't are free not to read it.

The crux of it for me, as a liberal is the "not causing offence to others" part which obviously means not reading such material in public and exposing minors to sexually explicit images. Many would argue that "Fifty shades" is bad but it is printed text rather than imagery. I, personally think that a similar age rating on magazines should exist in the same way as movies. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot read in public?

My final thoughts are that this petition is only targeting the Sun not The Star or Sunday Sport.
Also, most kids have access to the Internet on their mobiles and even with the Vodafone filter you can still summon up pornographic imagery.

It is a minefield topic but I don't see any point in regulating printed material as to what can and can't be printed- tis very Mary Whithouse. The cultural attitude to women will not be changed by the removal of Page 3 and it is down to education.

The Page 3 debate

I must admit I only caught a bit of the Page 3 debate on Twitter last night but I think I get the general gist of it, for it is an age old argument.

Basically, the pro page 3 lobby states that it is freedom of expression, a British institution, there are worse images available in lads mags etc.

The anti lobby says that it is degrading to women, brings sexually explicit imagery into the home as well as within the reach of children and is just not the sort of thing that modern enlightened human beings should be looking at.

I offer no solutions to this, only opinions and suggestions really.

Firstly, and much to teenage Chris' annoyance, I do agree with the point about the availability of the paper and the Sun's portrayal as a family paper.
(yep just heard a door slam in my head and Garbage has been cranked up- he's annoyed.)
I don't read the Sun, nor the Star or Sport (if you can read the Sport) unless I'm stood in a takeaway waiting for my order. I find it poorly written and embarrassing when trying to read Page 2's politics and Penny 22 from Gravesend is flashing herself at me. I feel judged by the proprietor in a family restaurant.

I also agree that such images should not be available in a "family" paper. I know that certain Lads mags like FHM and Loaded have an age restriction on the tills at Tesco but the Sun and magazines like Nuts and Zoo do not. Such images, and teenage Chris is definitely upset at me now, cannot appear on television before a certain hour or in a movie without a certain rating (12 or 15) do why should they be available in print to all ages?

In defence, there is the freedom of speech and publication and if you don't like it you have the freedom not to buy it. This is a little flimsy in the face of the age restrictions though.

I'd also say that, although it may be degrading and reduce women to the status of sex objects - sorry but that is how men can be wired- it can also enforce a positive Female image.

Now, hear me out on this...

If you look at models like Sophie Howard, Lucy Pinder, Lucy Collette (pictured) or others, they're all curvy models not the stick thin androgynous models of the catwalk. Also, the Sun's "no implant" policy means they are all naturally curvy.

The other thing is a lot of these girls do a lot of charity work and use their public appearances to raise public interest and money for worthy causes. Take for example all of the hard work Peta Todd has done for Help the heroes. Seriously, she's been tireless - seriously go check it out, she's an inspiration. There's also the tours as "forces sweethearts" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's only through their wide circulation that they're able to do this.

As I say, I've got no solutions just a few considerations. I do think however that an age limit is a good idea.

A Royal scandal!

For the second time this month a member of the Royal family has been caught out in a state of undress and causing "embarrassment" to the Queen and the Royal family.

Personally I think it says more about today's culture than the Royal family. Take for example let's look at what happened to the Duchess of Cambridge. Kate was on holiday in a hot country and wanted an even tan so she did what millions of women have done and took her bikini top off. The Royal couple were in a private compound as well so hardly in Public.

Now, how is that a Scandal? The biggest scandal for me is that a member of the paparazzi got close enough with a camera to take the picture. If you're within Camera range you're within rifle range and the country could be mourning the loss of the second heir and his wife. Someone should be looking at that.

Further to this is that the photographs would not have been taken if there wasn't a demand within the Public domain. Why though? Will your life be really that enriched for seeing her topless? The same goes for any Hollywood or z-list reality "star" romping around naked?

I know the teenage boy in me is screaming at me but sorry little dude I grew up and so should society really. By even paying these pictures any attention we're encouraging mercenary photographers to be unscrupulous and invade people's privacy. Would you like someone to photograph you on holiday or publish naked pictures of your wife for the whole world to see?

I hate to reinvoke the ghost of Princess Diana but it seems as if a repentant media learned nothing. The woman's privacy was invaded at every turn completely unsolicited and now history is repeating itself and not just with Kate but with her sister Pippa. Let us be honest Pippa is a very attractive woman but she isn't a royal, nor a celebrity, just a normal human being so why hound her?

As for Prince Harry; he's what? 27 years old, single and free. Why can't he go on a lads holiday to Vegas, get a little sloshed and misbehave? I'd say that I disapprove of such behaviour but I'm only jealous!

Compared to some of his ancestors Harry is a saint. The Prince Regent's behaviour is well documented, one of Victoria's sons (I forget which one) is implicated as Jack the Ripper by some theorists (he wasn't), Edward VIII is accused of sympathy with Hitler etc...

My point being, this is nothing, nothing but an attack on a young married couple's privacy and when or if you see the pictures I hope a small amount of guilt will nag at you for being curious enough to look.

Mike Hancock or Dr Fox - whose was the greatest security risk?



Mike Hancock MP



As the enquiry into Mike Hancock's affair with suspected Russian Spy Ekaterina Zatuliveter continues it hit the headlines of a few newspapers today. The Metro's headline read;

THE MP AND THE "SPY" WHO LOVED HIM

The story goes on to detail how Ms Zatuliveter is fighting deportation due to espionage charges and that Jonathan Glasson, who was the Government official at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission stated:

[Ms Zatuliveter] reporting from Londongrad [and she had] eyes and ears in the House of Commons.

Dear God!

If this was forty years ago it would be a scandal that rocked the Capitalist world. A Russian, clearly a KGB operative using a prominent MP to gain access to information and power in Parliament!

This is what good Fiction is about or scandals that rock the Government. Remember the Profumo affair and Christine Keeler?

However fiction is what this seems to be. The more I read the story the less I believe that she is a spy.

As you read Ms Zatuliveter and Mr Hancock's back story the more you can see that it is nothing short of an extra marital affair and the only reason people are screaming SPY is because the girl is Russian.

They met in 2006 in Moscova where he attempted to bed her and she declined. They met a few months later and an affair started. Eventually she relocated to Britain to study at Bradford university but the affair continued with them meeting at the weekend.

In Novemeber 2006 she began working as an unpaid intern for two or four days a week. She was given security clearance to work in the Houses of Parliament and then moved later to being a full time assistant on £250 a month. As his intern and assistant she had access to his parliamentary emails - all above board because Interns often answer enquiries from constituents and help manage an often over worked MP's work load.  So is she a security risk just from that?

The affair apparently ended in March 2010. So.... she was attached to a Liberal Democrat MP between 2006-2010 and saw his emails... What were we doing in that time period?

Yeah that's right we were sitting in opposition and the party looked like it had absolutely NO prospect of affecting Government policy as New Labour held sway. She would have been better off tacking herself on to a Labour or Conservative MP!

It is claimed that Mike Hancock asked questions in parliament about renewing Trident and the renewal of Britain's Nuclear defence! Clearly something that would be of interest to the Russian Spymasters in the Kremlin.

But the renewal of Trident or scrapping of it, was a major part of our manifesto and so his questions in parliament are actually/probably to do with party politics rather than Russian military intelligence.

Ms Zatuliveter also had a fling with a NATO official and a diplomat in her time.

And?

She used to work as a chaperon for foreign diplomats in Moscova, it is possible. Also should we look at her past relationships and jump to these sort of conclusions? There is no proof.

All the actions are easily explained.

Dr Fox, however, has been cleared by enquiry as allowing his friend Mr Werrity actually into the Ministry of Defence and on official visits with the Defence Minister as posing no "risk to security".

But he was Minister of Defence with an unknown man, without security clearance wandering around the MoD building, possible access to secret documents, going on business trips with the Minister abroad.

Doctor Liam Fox MP



Yet question marks remain as to what Mr Werrity actually saw or did. I'm sure he is also innocent of any wrong doing and that all actions were just an oversight as Dr Fox allowed his friend to visit him at work etc. However has he been Russian and Ms Zatuliveter been English would Mike Hancock be on the front page still?

I doubt it.

Of course if History is to teach us anything it is that when it comes to espionage trust no one. Christine Keeler was British and supposedly passing secrets, Kim Philby and the other Cambridge spies - British and passing information to the Kremilin before defecting.

I'm not passing judgement on either case, merely making suggestions and making comparisons. If anything in my opinion the Dr Fox case is far more serious than the Hancock case and it is only because the girl is Russian that it is even news worthy.

Are Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem party evil?

It is easy to demonise Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. We represent the worse kind of political scum in the country. We are riddled with corruption, traitors, weak willed cowards who betrayed the electorate and are out to do the same to our Coalition partners. At the head of this collection of cut throats and blaggards is Nick Clegg, a spineless sell out who swapped his idealism for a comfy ministerial car and whose incompetent blundering knows no bounds. He wants your votes so he can overthrow the electoral system and rig it with AV to ensure future political instability that only his party would benefit from. He then wants to get rid of the Lords and replace it with a Senate?!

Then what? Remove the Monarchy and proclaim himself PRESIDENT CLEGG!!!!!

Of course this is all Boo-hockey - Unless you read the popular press.

For years the Lib Dems have been a nothing party -  A sad remnant of a once grand old party, a group of humus eating sandal wearing idealists or a desperate band of ambitious political animals - Take your pick, these are all popular views.

Granted the party provided some excellent MP's and leaders but it is only Lord Ashdown and Charles Kennedy that stick in anyones mind. One election the party was even vilified for saying they would be increasing income tax by 1p per person so that they could improve public services whilst the main two parties promised that they wouldn't be raising tax at all and then did.

Ever since the first successful leadership debate the media appears to have taken a dim view of the Lib Dems and Clegg. I'm not including genuine, researched critique of the party's policies or role in government as these are the duties of a the press, to report the truth and to criticise policy. This does include the prickly nettle of Tuition fees.
The press were right to single us out for a certain amount of Flak. The party had stood against tuition fees in principle and against rises, pledges were signed and SHOULD have been upheld by all those who signed them, no abstentions, straight "No" vote.

What wasn't mentioned in the press is that not all the party voted "Yes". Greg Mulholland gave a very impassioned speech to the house imploring his LibDem colleagues to vote "No" and I believe Julian Huppert also voted "No" to name just two. It would be a shame for them to lose their seats in 2015 for the Tuition Betrayal.
Nor is the LibDem inspired revision of the repayment system that actually makes University fees cheaper to pay back if you don't get a high paying job, which lets face it is fairly difficult for graduates.
What is also cannily forgotten is Labour's role in all of this. The party that brought in Tuition Fees, then raised them, then commissioned the Brown review in the first place. They cannily sat on the opposition benches and denied any involvement and repainted themselves as the defenders of young people. Nor are the Conservatives attacked for it either, after all the majority vote of "Yes" came from them!

What does frustrate me, and other Lib Dems around the country is the non stories that are thrown around including headlines like:-

NICK CLEGG IS A NAZI!

A story followed that stated that all Nick had said was that World War Two had ended and that we were no longer the Empire we used to be. All true, no National Socialist policies there, no antisemitic or pro Germanic slogans.

Other stories include:

CLEGG DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS RUNNING THE COUNTRY!!!

Again, a nothing story about a sarcastic throw away comment by the Deputy Prime minister.

But the media's attention is just limited to Calamity Clegg!

Doctor Vince Cable, a well respected Liberal Democrat and economist, whose wisdom and experience made him indispensable to Clegg and the party in power. Yet he was a target of a sting by the Telegraph along with many other Lib Dem ministers because "There might be a story there..."

As it transpired there was a story... Doctor Vince had an opinion! What's worse he had an opinion that was contrary to the Governments and he was willing to talk about it!!!!

Now Vince is somewhat of an outcast among the front benches and distrusted by the PM and maligned as a trouble maker in the eyes of the media rather unfairly as he was stating Lib Dem policy and his beliefs.

Of course the biggest casualty was David Lawes. The Telegraph's timing was well placed to strike at this rising star within the party just as he came into office. I don't deny that fraud is not illegal, nor that it should not have been published its just that it happened some months after the main body of accusations and the sceptic in me says they only released the story in May last year because before then no one had heard of him.

Even Chris Jefferies, the lead suspect in the murder of that poor girl at Christmas was described as an eccentric loner Liberal Democrat. What has his party affiliation got to do with anything? He wasn't a councillor, nor an MP, just an activist. I don't think I have ever seen anyone else described by their party membership, nor is the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat got any link to murder.

The other parties have a deft ability to manipulate the printed media. Ed Miliband has been able to absolve any former guilt for his party or himself and is able to oppose for oppositions sake and criticise Government action. His impassioned speech at the TUC cuts event had negated the fact that his party had no alternative to the cuts and whose mis-management had caused the crisis in the first place. He was also quick to criticise any government policy and play off people's passions without any substance or an alternative. Good opposition should offer alternative routes and policies rather than sniping from the side lines.

As for the right-wing, Murdoch press - well, we were always going to lose there as we are diluting right wing policy.

It is as if the left and the right fear what the Lib Dems could be, a new voice of the left or a new direction that could alter British politics for good. A party that does not have allegiance to the TUC or to big business and the young charismatic Clegg could have led the party to greatness. Not now though.

The Public love a hate figure, they also love to get riled up over causes and campaigns the Sun or Mail start. Clegg, as an outsider, is an easy target as are the Lib Dems but it is a real shame as our policies are actually benefiting real people, higher threshold for income tax, free preschool education from poor backgrounds, pupil premium, scrapping the ID data base, setting up the Green bank, none of which are publicised. The people aren't interested so why should the papers report it? Last week a friend and colleague said we were Spineless and cowardly and Labour should be given another go, all this a year after they were ousted for mismanaging the whole problem! He was also unaware of what we had done for the people, including himself! Also ignorant or ignoring the fact that we have a mere 50 odd MP's so only have a limited affect on national policies, in fact we have been punching above our weight in the policies we have pushed through, this is also little reported on! This for me is a mass failing of the media and it isn't isolated to one person.

It should also be mentioned that the populous are lazy or lack time to seek out information and were more interested in whom was responsible for the Super injunction for the sleaze factor than the notion of freedom of speech. The press must therefore deliver a fair and balanced view of party's policies and actions, it is their duty as well to be neutral rather than sensationalist to sell papers. I understand people aren't all interested in politics As it has been said before;

"What is in the public interest is seldom in the public interest."

BUT surely the amount of negative press received by the Lib Dems is disproportionate to the amount of bad press. In Nick Clegg there is no evil oppressor nor crook and the Lib Dems are not the harbingers of evil out to oppress your rights and steal your hard earned money, far from it.

I apologise if this has turned into an angry rant, however I feel quite strongly that the Press have a duty to report all of the news all of the time and treat every party on its merits and drawbacks weighing them against each other.

.