SADS petition and Oliver King foundation

Sophie Howard - the post'll get more views if there is a picture of her

 on it, which will hopefully lead to more signatures!

I see a lot of petitions flying around Twitter, I do end up signing about half of them - at least the ones I believe are good causes!

Anyway, on the weekend, the former model posted a link to a petition that I duly read and signed and I think it is something that you should do too - after all it is a very worthy cause.

The basics are SADS - not the winter miseries but;

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

It is a growing problem which effects 12-35 year olds killing 12 people a week!

All it will take to reverse this is a simple ECG to see if there is a heart murmer or a problem that could cause a heart attack or cardiac episode.

The other measure that is being discussed is that for all public buildings to have a defibrillator and trained staff to use it so that if someone does collapse, as Oliver King a twelve year old boy who died at a public swimming bath, something can be done.

I won't reinvent the wheel by re-writing all the information that is on the Petition, I would just strongly urge you to at least click the link and read it - then if you agree with it (and me) then do please sign it.

The petition will be discussed by backbenchers if it can get to 100,000 signatories (currently at 76923).

Let's do everything we can to stop senseless deaths in young people and expand our knowledge on this growing health problem.

I will be bringing this to the attention of the Medway Libdem Exec committee in tonight's meeting to see if we can find out and or influence Medway Council to do it's part with defibrillators in public spaces too.

Letter from the leader: Better pensions

This week's letter from the Leader - better pensions because of the Libdems in Government... Dear Chris, Steve Webb MP This week I want to tell you about my good friend and colleague, Professor Steve Webb. Steve is the Liberal Democrat MP for Thornbury and Yate, north west of Bristol. There are two things you will know about Steve if you have ever heard him speak. First: he is originally from Birmingham. Second: he is incredibly clever and understands more about pensions than almost anyone else in the country. A former professor of social policy at Bath University, Steve’s CV includes a stint designing a new pensions system for the Ukraine after the fall of Communism and nearly ten years at the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysing taxes, benefits and pension policy in the minutest of detail. So you can imagine how I felt, back in May 2010, when I got to appoint Steve as Minister for Pensions in the Coalition Government. It felt like serendipity. There simply couldn’t be a better person in the country to do the job. And it wasn’t exactly a big surprise when, only a month or so later, Steve came back to say, with a glint in his eye: “I’ve got a plan. Let’s completely redesign the state pension.” If anyone else said that to you it might be alarming. But from Steve, it was exciting. And after two and a half years that glint has turned into a concrete government proposal to introduce a new, simple basic state pension of £144 a week (up from £107), starting in 2017. Until now, working out what pension you might be entitled to – and so, whether it was worth trying to save extra for your retirement – was a job for a professor alone. From now on, it will be easy for anyone who can count up to 35 (the number of years it will take to qualify in full) to work out what you’ll get in retirement. And it will be worth everyone’s while to save, because every pound in your private pension will be extra, with no more means testing. The new system will be especially good for women, low earners and the self-employed, who can be sure of getting a decent pension instead of falling through the many cracks in the old rules. So when people ask you, "What have the Lib Dems done for me in Government?", you know what to tell them. You can tell them Vince Cable's department is delivering more apprenticeships than ever before. You can tell them the Pupil Premium, an idea I wrote about in a pamphlet more 10 than years ago, is putting money into their local school. You can say we're delivering in April the biggest ever rise in their tax free allowance: a tax cut of £600, a promise that has made it from the front page of our manifesto directly into millions of people's pay packets. And now you can tell them that Steve Webb has delivered a pension change that makes it worthwhile to save, and simple to prepare for retirement. It's a great step forward, and it wouldn't have happened without us - because it wouldn't have happened without Steve. Best wishes, Nick Clegg

Take-aways, obesity and Medway's Kebabgate

Sturdee's take-aways; a thing of the past?

The debate over take-aways and schools within the Medway towns has reignited after a years silence.

The first whispers began in November with a report by the BBC stating the Council will be taking over from the NHS with responsibility over public health.

Cllr David Brake (con) is quoted in Dan Bloom's article Kebab-loving Tory: Let fast food firms sell near schools as saying;
I'm in favour (banning take-aways from opening near schools) it's taking away the temptation away for youngsters to nip out of school and up at the local chippy

However new zoning laws will not effect current take-aways.

Though this seems a bit like shutting the gate well after the horse has bolted as the BBC reveals "nearly all" of Medway's take-aways are within a 15 minute walk of a school.

My God! That means kids have to walk up to a mile to a chip shop! How many newsagents that sell coke and sweets or bakeries that sell cakes and pasties are also in this net?

If we start putting out restrictions where will it end? As Cllr Irvine said on his blog recently;

From my point of view it's a slippery slope, who decides what counts as healthy and what doesn't?

Then of course there is the School itself.

In December 2011 I was proud to announce that the then Children's minister Sarah Teather had brought in steps to capitalise on Labour's attempts to make School meals more healthy which had been sparked by Jamie Oliver's frightening expose!  She stated:

School meals beat takeaways hands down on the quality of food they serve but until now they have struggled to compete on price. Getting Children into the school canteen is vital - the benefits of healthy school meals are clear

The idea that Schools would now be able to compete with take-aways and offer meal deals to kids who would find it cheaper to eat in rather than wander out and get a Sausage and chips or cod and chips (paying £2.50 ish for a foot long sausage and a huge feast of chips from a local kebabbie).

This move was slightly undone when Michael Gove took away the obligation to meet the basic nutritional standard in academies and free schools which are unfortunately becoming the norm!

On top of that there is what the schools offer at dinner time. Chips, burgers, sausages, cake, chocolate are all freely available at school dining halls. When given a choice between Veg and chips I would put a fiver on nine kids out of ten saying chips! The Take-away isn't to blame and neither are the parents. After all when you send your child into school with money for school dinners you trust them to buy responsibly.

In response to Cllr Irvine's blog, Labours PPC and blogger Tristan Osborne is quoted (in the same Medway Messenger article) as saying the state should intervene: In the same way the council has the ability to change licences for alcohol sales in our pubs for the social good.
Erm... what?

I understand this is with a motivation to do good BUT it is ultimately striking a lot of innocents too. Firstly the take-away businesses themselves who are struggling to survive in this fragile economic climate as it is, secondly adults who, may want to get Fish'n'chips at lunchtime, the kids themselves....

The basis of British law is that you are free to do whatever you want as long as your actions or speech does not encroach on the sensibilities or freedoms of others.

How is nipping out for Sausage and chips encroaching on anyone's freedoms? The state cannot dictate be it pacifily or aggressively on what you eat. It's my body and if I want to eat Bigmacs until my heart explodes so be it. Any intervention by the state on freedom like this makes the German word Verbotten spring to mind.

I grant fact that obesity is on the rise, I also admit that my body is hardly a temple but I think going after hard working caterers directly is the wrong way to go about it, as is going after the schools - after all they can only effect kids during school hours and term time.

What needs to be done is advice and education for parents who are the ones who decide what their kids eat in packed lunches and also feed them for the other 2 meals a day. This is happening with new adverts on the television encouraging better nutrition.

This is also only part of the battle. Time constraints on busy families and the need to feed kids quickly means eating whatever can be made quickly or cheaply and super market chains do sell "Bad" food cheaply and veg for a lot more. Although, this again is changing as Sainsbury's are bringing in their "Eat healthier for cheaper" with almost War time frugality to stretch a joint of beef out over 3 dinners - something I can get behind!

If Medway Council want to discourage obesity and encourage a healthier lifestyle there are COUNTLESS options available to them. I've been working on one for the Medway Libdems and although I'm not allowed to talk about it yet it will encourage a healthier regime but more to follow soon!

They need to improve outside facilities, encourage places like the Blacklion swimming pool (I know it has had a name change but it will always be the Black lion to me), Splashes and other sporting venues to be cheaper for families and kids to go to, more green spaces for children to play in and better cycle routes.

Although the youth of today is now uploading itself to the internet or sat on their Xboxes during their free time rather than being out and running free, partially because society has waged war on "lay about teenagers on the streets" and partially because computer games offer more scope than wandering the streets of Gillingham in the cold and wet or sitting down at the Strand wasting time.

There are a lot of avenues open to the council to improve health in Medway and tackle obesity (if they can get over Society's sedatary past times) and scope to further educate and advise parents and children about nutrition, avenues that do not dictate what you can and can't do and curb freedom of action, a basic human right, because it's for the social good as they see it.

Clegg v Cameron on Euro referendum

Since before recorded history the inhabitants of this island have not got on with the mainland and conflict has been rife between the two ranging from raids to invasion to full out genocide. This has all subsided in the aftermath of World War Two. As Britain's star waned and her position as the World's greatest superpower was lost, Germany's star has risen from complete annihilation to economic powerhouse and let's face it, the real voice in the EU.

The Conservative party has always had this divide over Europe that has gained even more relevance during the economic crisis and the collapse of the Eurozone. There are many calls from backbenchers, including Rochester & Strood's Mark Reckless MP, for a referendum.

There is also another dynamic to the Conservative divide and that is the Libdems. As a party, we're generally quite receptive to the notion or ideal of the EU, though not always the reality! It has however caused rumblings, one the The Telegraph were happy to exploit and make more news worthy than it probably is.

On Radio 4's Today programme Nick stated that;

We should be very careful, at a time when the British economy is still haltingly recovering from the worst economic shock for a generation, to create a very high and prolonged period of uncertainty.

His argument being that this continued debate and uncertainty of a referendum before the already legislated time has the potential to put off business and economic investment.

To a degree, I agree. Government has set the ball rolling on a referendum and the Coalition agreement clearly states that a referendum will only be called in this parliament if there is to be a serious shift of powers to Brussels.

However, the Tories have gone back on their word before...

However you feel about Europe, you must see it from a Business point of view. For stability and certainty you want a potential scheme to have a certain amount of continuity and not be subject to an expensive change in circumstances. It could be another painful pin prick to our already lacerated economy.

The Prime Minister's office have contradicted Nick and stated that it is in the National interest to have this debate now. Indeed many of the British public want to, UKIP want to and Tory strategists who want to halt their advance and heal rifts with in their own party want to.

As Pratchett's Lord Vetinari said;

What is in the public interest is seldom in the public interest

I tend to follow this point. Though a debate is needed caution and an ear to possible business and economic currents is needed. All of the uncertainty is causing ripples that are effecting many side issues like falling stones on a mountain that causes an avalanche.

I suppose my meandering, sleep deprived and overworked mind is to either, be quiet, stick to the agreement and wait for the legislated referendum or, lets schedule one for the summer and get it out of the way. The next battle would be for the vote to be fair and open. At current the British public would vote No based solely on misconceptions of certain issues - yes the EU has some horrednous problems but then agian it has its bonuses but it is not the purpose of this post to discuss that - that, is as they say - is another story.

How do Libdems sleep at night?

I'm often asked, as a Libdem, how do I sleep at night?

I could ask similar questions of Labour activists (how can you believe half of what your party says sometimes?) and Conservatives (How can you believe that some of these policies are actually going to benefit anyone?).

That aside, the answer is not well. The last six or so months have been trying. At one point I was managing about 5 hours a night. Lots of staring at the ceiling and thinking;

How can one so small make so much noise?

Indeed, my conscience is clear. It is only my boy Ollie and the alarm for work that rises me from my slumber - and I do love my sleep!

The truth is, there are things that the Party has done within the Coalition that make me cringe. There are bills we've voted for that make my blood chill and sometimes I've bitten my tongue and told myself it is all for the greater good find there are some I've been vocal in my criticism of.

Unlike the caller to "Call Nick" who had torn up his membership card in disgust, I have no such plans.

The reasons are two fold;

1: I've paid for it and as a member I have a voice and can, with like minded others, effect change to the party I believe in and love.

2. I believe in our local message. Now I know our critics will sneer and say; "What message?" but we have one.

You have to ask yourself why we as a group were not wiped out in 2010? Why didn't Labour mount a serious challenge in Gillingham South?

The answer is simple; despite national politics our local councillors have a history and record of hard work. Geoff Juby, the Kearneys and Diana Smith work exceptionally hard for their residents. It is by sheer hard work rather than party politics that have kept them in.

We're beavering away in the background and with a list of future candidates due for release soon and a raft of policy ideas and aims to make Medway better for the residents that I'll, hopefully be able to talk about soon!

It is this local message, the local party and our local aims that help me keep the faith buttressed by the good work we have done in Parliament. That's how I keep the faith and, Ollie and Sophie allowing, get a good nights sleep.

Silence from Medway council over future of elderly care homes

Concern over the elderly and specialist care homes within Medway council are again under scrutiny. (some bits archieved here and here) Maureen Ruparal, a former Libdem Councillor who led the fight to defend the selling off of the Dementia care home of Nelson's court has again raised the issue with a letter to the Medway Messenger:


The ways of Medway council become more and more hard to understand.

  Residents, staff and relatives of service users in our linked service centres are fed up with sitting in limbo and not knowing what is happening.  At a meeting last Autumn, after the campaign to keep these centres in council control was lost council officers assured us that we would be kept informed, and we were also promised that specifications for the tendering process would be run past us before being published. 

 So far, nothing appears to have happened at all (after one and a half years of uncertainty), and I am forcibly reminded of the shambles when there was a huge rush (and incidentally huge expense) to empty out the sheltered schemes over six years ago.  Then Shalder House, one of the homes in question, was only sold last year!

  Private sector care homes in Medway have taken a bit of official criticism over the past few months, can we hope that the Tory controlled council are having second thoughts about disposing of the best run care homes in the area?

Medway Council are apparantly still not taking this seriously.

This is an important issue for residents and their families and will have serious ramifications if not addressed and handled correctly.

It is too late to save the homes, we tried and failed.

It is not too late to make the process of privitisation as painless as possible but we need the Council to assist in this and be as transparent as possible.

It is not playing politics to say;

Families and residents are concerned and worried, they can't be left in bureaucratic limbo - they're listening, time for the Council to start talking.

US government says No to the Deathstar

It is indeed a dark day for the Empire.

Recently some 35,000 signatories signed a petition to lobby the US government to begin construction of a Deathstar in orbit.

Such a project would arguably create hundreds of thousands of jobs and have epic National defence implications.

The Whitehouse has predictably declined. Their response, laden with Star Wars clichés does have some good points too.

The overall cost to building a Deathstar is fairly astronomical. OK, so you don't have to build a fully functioning hyperdrive (after all if we had hyperdrive technology we would have access to the Galaxy!!!) which will save a vast amount of money but on the flip side the US will be paying its construction teams rather than using Wookie slaves and convicts from the planet Despayre.

Also there is the problem of resources. The Empire were able to strip mine whole planets for resources and leave them dead or heavilly polluted. We've only got one planet and if we were to construct a Deathstar on the scale of the Second Deathstar, which would be preferable, it would have a diameter of 900 km which, although small compared to the moon's 3476.28 km diameter, is still an lot of metal, more than would be attainable from this one planet.

There is of course the problem of the gravitational pull of this new small moon effecting the tides, weathers and seasons on Earth and interfearing with the Moon's own effects. For further details from renowned Star Wars physist Curtis Saxton on a much more detailed level try here.

As for the operational use of the station, the US government are indeed wrong. The Second battle station, perfected by Limelesk's team got rid of the thermal exhaust port that proved so hazardous to the first station and instead vented exhaust through 2cm square vents across the skin of the whole station. Had it been completed the station would have been somewhat indestructable from an external battle fleet and would have only been vulnerable to sabotage from the inside. Should the station explode in high orbit then the results planet side would be horrendous. As Curtis Saxton theorised the Forrest moon of Endor would have been plunged into a Nuclear winter. This may be a risk that religious fundamentalists are willing to take, in the resulting chaos and collapse of Government they could indeed take over. It is however not a risk the US government are willing to take.

As for the ability to destroy a planet, it would be seriously unlikely that any US officer would give the order to fire at full Primary ignition, but then again it only takes one! The weapon also has a powered down setting and can be used for orbnital bombardments or merely used for cutting the crust down to the molten core. A very powerful diplomatic tool yet would attract a lot of protesters and world wide condemnation as the US could hold the rest of us to ransom.

Although painful, I am going to admit the construction of my favoured battle/space station is best put on the backburner for now...

Instead let us commence lobbying the Americans to build a more efficient alternative:

Babylon 5

Babylon 5 is a much cheaper station with less high tech gizmos on her. She is only 8kms long built around a spinning hull (or O'neill hull) that creates an artificial gravity.

There are no scary superlasers, wings of TIE fighters and its destruction, although dangerous, would not plunge the Earth into a nuclear winter!

There is also the peaceful applications of the station with a UN style chambers and quarters which could allow ambassadors and delegates to have a better persective of the planet and scale of things. A truly neutral standpoint and one where groups could learn to understand one another.