Darnley Road bridge fiasco

One of the big problems that has blighted Strood has been the Railway bridge on Darnley Road. This has become a site of serious congestion but was to be rectified this past Christmas.

Network rail, who had to repair the rail bridge anyway, closed the road at Christma and the Council were supposed to link in the widening scheme at the same time so as to keep the road closures to a minimum, after all they do cause a lot of vexation for everyone.

The council were also granted £500k by Morrison's to assist in the widening works with the proviso it was done by August next year. So what went wrong?

No one is quite sure. Network rail did their work and neatly shut up shop, there were no works carried out by the Council despite £154,000 having been spent on planning.

Local Lib dem Parish Councillor Andrew Millsom, a structural engineer by trade raised questions at last week's full Council meeting as to what has gone wrong - following up with the scathing question of;

Who will be lead an investigation into how this blunder occurred? Will the report show persons culpable and what action will be taken against them?

Cllr Filmer (con) argued that they were dealing with consultants to try and sort the situation and this is certainly not a blunder.

Further to that Cllr Chitty (con) stated The bridge replacement had to take priority. saying that it was in poor condition and It was a matter of health and safety.

However, Cllr Juby (libdem) told our Executive committee back in September last year that he had learned the bridge would be out of commission over the Christmas period - so the Council knew that the bridge would be out which begs the question;

Why had they not moved at the same time?

Andrew, who is an engineering consultant in his professional life. described the council's actions as incompetence.

If i did what they're doing I doubt many people would be using my consultancy services again.

Watch this space for further developments!

Medway Libdem Press release on Labour and Tuition fees.

A week or so ago, Chatham & Aylesford's PPC Cllr Tristan Osborne posted this press release on the drop of UCAS applications and University fees.

As a Local Liberal democrat I had some problems with it and thankfully the Executive committee agreed and I am grateful that they gave the blessing and backing for the following letter to the Medway Messenger as an official press release:

In a recent press release Labour’s PPC for Chatham & Aylesford, Cllr Tristan Osborne, accused local Lib Dems of breaking their pre-election pledge and voting in favour of raising tuition fees up to £9000 a year.

Whilst I am touched that Cllr Osborne believes we locally have quite so much sway over Westminster, the fact is we don’t. With no Liberal Democrat MPs for the Medway towns how could they break/keep their pledge? Student numbers applying for university are declining. This is partly due to the questionable value of some University Degrees but also by the removal of free University for all by the previous Labour Government. Labour also pledged not to bring in top up fees for tuition and then broke their pledge. Labour also commissioned the Brown report that suggested fee rises in the first place. If anything, the Liberal Democrats have made the repayment of student loans fairer and easier to pay for graduates removing the shadow of debt from their heads. It is interesting to see that after a couple of years in opposition Cllr Osborne’s memory is purged of Labour’s abysmal record.

Perhaps he’ll take ownership of the last Labour Government’s many broken promises, e.g. their failure during 13 years of office to re-link State Pension rises to the National Average Earnings, having vehemently protested against Margaret Thatcher’s Tories for having broken the link in 1982, thereby eroding its’ purchasing power year on year. It took the Lib Dems in Government to not only re-establish that link, but also to secure the “triple-lock”, thus ensuring that the State pension will rise annually by the higher of the NAE, or CPI or 2.5%

---

It is also worth noting that there has also been an interesting shift against the predictions of the critics.

According to recent figures, the gap between those from an affluent background and a poor background is closing!

So there are more applying from low income families, could this be because the Liberal Democrats have made it easier to repay student loans with graduates paying less back from their wages?

Simple answer; Yes.

Has the Liberal Democrat presence made a positive difference to this otherwise sorry affair?

Yes.

Lib dem Councillor Juby on EU referendum

Cllr Juby's column for the Medway Messenger:

---

I find it slightly worrying that so much energy and time is being spent on debating the pros and cons of a referendum on Europe.  Most people have definite views on whether we should stay in or come out, but I am getting vibes that the public would rather like to know sooner rather than later. Perhaps not only the public – if I were a foreign investor with a few billions to spare I might be thinking twice about putting my cash into Great Britain, given the fact that half our foreign markets may disappear by the time factories and built and are profitable. 

A few things have really benefitted working people here, the main one being the introduction of the minimum wage.  Also we have a couple of million British nationals who live in Europe, many of them with jobs – not to mention that the cheapest holidays to the sun, all involve travel within the European union (don’t forget that the Canary Islands, Majorca etc. all come in this category). Many Britons enjoy the ski slopes as well, and  we do not know how the rest of Europe will react to us pulling the plug - we may all end up holidaying in the rain here!

 Most of our problems seem to stem from popular objection to the  immigration from Europe, especially at a time when we are desperately short of jobs and houses.  A lot of European countries seem able cherry pick which dictats they choose to obey but it always looks as if we fall over backwards in order to meet the letter of European law!  Perhaps I am wrong in this, but public perceptions are a very powerful force and I am glad that Nick Clegg, for once, has spoken out on this issue.

Disbelief at Libdem abstaining over Gay Marriage motion

Before I start, I want to make it clear that is definitely a personal blog and has no connection to the Local or National party - more a vent.

Last week, at full council Medway's Labour group brought forward a motion to discuss Gay Marriage and urge the Council to write a letter to the Medway MPs urging them to support the motion as it passed through Parliament.

I was unable to attend full council as I had an early (4am) start the following day but I followed along on Twitter.

There was an amendment made by the Conservatives arguing the MPs had a free vote and that the Council should leave it to Parliament to vote on.

Without putting words in their mouth there is the problem of Rehman Chishti MP who also sits on the Council and is opposed to Gay Marriage. You can see that it could be embarrassing and that they'd argue this was a wholly political move.

I, on the other hand disagree with this hypothesis. I truly believe that Medway Labour submitted this as a genuine move with good motivations. After all this is an important piece of civil liberty legislature and has got a lot of support on the ground a fact ignored by Rehman Chishti who claims 80% of responses in Gillingham & Rainham have opposed it despite the petition he received from Mid-Kent College in favour.

Anyway, the chamber descended into a debate which became very heated with one Tory Councillor saying that marriage was out of the question as there could be no chance of children (-I Know! News flash adoption!) and another who intimated that next step would be polygamy!

Labour put in a spirited defence led by the indefatigable Vince Maple but the Tory wall stood firm and in a heated moment and understandably angry Cllr Osborne referred to the Tories as Thatcherite bigots - this obviously caused a backlash amongst the Conservative benchs especially with Cllr Tollhurst who took umbrage at being tarred with the same brush.

The motion was rejected by the Conservative majority and their amendment passed. Only Labour (minus Cllr Igwe who had a convenience break), the Independents and one Conservative (Cllr Watson) opposed.

So where were the Liberal Democrats? How did our three councillors feel?

Who knows? They didn't partake in the vote and abstained on both votes!!!!

When I read Ed Jennings' twitter stream I shared his horror and spent the next day exchanging DMs discussing wtf had gone amiss. As Exec members when been eager to speak to our councillors beforehand at our meeting two days before - unfortunately only Geoff had attended and we'd not got round to it before he left. Our mistake was presuming that a civil Liberty would be backed by Liberals.

The fact that the Council group sat on the fence on something we as a party have agreed as policy was ridiculous!

I could understand if they had voted for or against Labour's motion (not my view but I can respect their opinion) or if Geoff had taken the stand to say that in the group's opinion this was not a council matter or was purely an opportunistic move by Labour (again, not my position but at least it is a position!).

Both Ed and I have voiced our opinions publicly online and our local chair has been contacted - questions will be asked.

I feel the need to apologise for the council group dropping the ball on this, believe me that you aren't the only ones who have been let down by this inaction.

Letter from the Leader: People Count

Dear Chris,

The week in Westminster has been dominated by two events: the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe and this Friday’s Gross Domestic Product figures.

The GDP figures are always surrounded by secrecy. I am among a small group of people who get to see the data the day before it is released but with strict instructions not to breathe a word to anyone. In other words it's the exact opposite of the Prime Minister’s speech, which seemed to be the subject of about a year’s open speculation before we finally got to hear it.

The GDP numbers were disappointing, but not entirely surprising. This country is still recovering from the massive economic trauma of 2008 and our recovery will be slow and a bit choppy. But I firmly believe we are slowly but steadily pointing things in the right direction. The fragility of the recovery makes it all the more important that we remain pragmatic, rather than dogmatic, as we reduce the budget deficit. We faced a choice in the autumn, when it became apparent how badly damaged our economy was, and how deep the black hole in our finances had become. We could take more time to balance the books or rush to cut expenditure even more deeply. We took the sensible option and decided to take more time.

For me there was a number this week that was just as important as GDP, and that was the encouraging unemployment figure that we received on Wednesday. I don’t say that just because those numbers showed another improvement - another 90,000 people in work - but because every number represents a person’s livelihood, their ability to look after their family, and their hopes for the future. The difference between having a job and not having a job matters far more to people than fluctuations in the decimal points of GDP.

That’s one of the reasons why I disagreed with the Prime Minister about his speech. I believe our focus in Government has to be on making sure we get people in work and keep them in work. And with millions of jobs in Britain relying on our participation in the EU now is not the time to be putting that into doubt.

Of course, life in Westminster isn't only focused on the big things like Europe and jobs. This is a place that can get completely lost in its own introverted debates, as I learnt on Tuesday when I presented legislation to change the rules of Royal Succession so a princess can't be usurped by her younger brother and heirs to the throne are permitted to marry a Catholic (they can already marry anyone of any other religion). You'd think that in the 21st century, when we have outlawed sex and religious discrimination everywhere else, MPs would be able to agree quickly on outlawing it in the Royal Family. But no: MPs argued for a full hour about whether we were rushing things, before we even got to the debate about whether it was the right thing to do!

Ensuring the next royal baby accedes to the throne might not affect people's everyday lives. But it's another small achievement for liberal principles, even if it isn't one we'll be discussing on every doorstep.

Speaking of doorsteps, I hope you will all join me in our day of action of February 9 when we will be getting out and telling people how we have cut their income tax and put money back in their pockets, how we are creating green jobs and protecting the British economy. You can sign up here.
I believe the Liberal Democrats are delivering real help to people on the issues that matter, and we should all take pride in getting that message across.
Best wishes,

Ed misses the boat on Europe Referendum

As the EU referendum row continues to rumble, one man seems left behind. Is it Cameron being dragged by extreme elements of his party? Is it Clegg, lost in a world of euro sceptics as a lone voice of Europe?

Nope - it's Ed Miliband.

While there are fundamental differences of opinion between Nick and Dave about this - and some Labourites are siding with Nick on this, at least they are both in touch with the general feeling of the population that there should be a referendum on Europe.

I know some of my readers will disagree with my stance on Europe but I am sure we agree that taking this to the populous to vote is the right strategy, in fact the only strategy.

I agree with Nick, however, that 2017 is far too late and could be detrimental to British business as it remains unclear as to what is going on and can and will have detrimental effects on investment. By putting at 2017 it is clearly a carrot for people to ignore UKIP and vote Conservative again so you can get a referendum.

That aside it is Ed, who has been hurriedly bypassed by some of his MPs, who is flailing. At PMQs he said that Labour did not support an In/Out referendum (despite it being in their last manifesto) only to be corrected on line by MPs saying We do support it just not in post 2015.

So, has Ed blundered?

Whether he got it confused or was just continuing Labour's seeming policy of being the complete opposite to the Coalition and Conservatives that just back fired, Ed has indeed put his foot in it.

There have been severe vocal grumblings by a minority of the country for quite sometime amd discontent from a much larger number too!

PMQs saw Ed struggling as he didn't seem to grasp Cameron's answer and kept playing the line;

He doesn't answer the question so I'll ask again.

He got the question Ed - You just didn't get the answer.

Cameron said that he was in favour of a reformed Europe and would clearly vote yes in a referendum if the EU could be reformed - duh!

The question is now Ed; Do you stand by your position that you are against a referendum (flying in the face of all popular and media opinion) or are you in favour of democracy and giving the people a voice (albeit against the 2017 time frame and want it sooner)?

If it is the former - God help the Labour party in 2015 as I fear many will vote Tory just to get a referendum on this EXCEPTIONALLY important issue.

As the EU has changed and other nations have held referendums so has the cry for a referendum grown in this country. Sooner rather than later is the cry now. Better for us as a nation, better for business, better for the EU as they can finally decide things and know where they stand rather than have the possibility of the UK leaving in four years time.

The people deserve a voice on this and there should be cross party support for actually giving it to them (with a time frame that can be agreed fairly.) not believing that the people are too incapable of deciding.

Defence cuts and reshaping

Lions led by Donkeys - as always

The British armed forces have always been badly treated by the Governments who sent them to war. The sailors who fought of Phillip II of Spain's armada were left in port to die from disease unpaid, the infamous redcoat of the 1770s was poorly paid in comparison to other less dangerous jobs in the motherland, battalions were sent to garrison forts in the Caribbean and decimated by yellow fever. The Boer war saw poorly trained troops massacred for financial gain and the First World War repeated the same mistakes for no gain at all.

Now occupation forces from Afghanistan are returning to redundancy and uncertainty on civy street- Thanks for all you've done guys!

Whilst I remain horrified at the human cost and the treatment of the heroes by the Ministry I can also see the motives, however cold, and insensitive they are.

Warfare is a fluidic and evolutionary creature that needs to be kept up with, something we failed to do in 1914.

Although the teachings of Guderian in Achtung Panzer and the Blitzkrieg showed that the day of the Infantry and Cavalry were well and truly over for successful offensives but it soon became evident that vast swathes of infantry still had to be used for garrisons and policing roles. Some seventy years on and we're in a similar boat. In fact things have moved backwards as aircraft design has accelerated. Modern fighter jets are too noisy and fast for photo reconnaissance and satellites too expensive to move. Moreover in a war against insurgents who hit and fade into the countryside rather than fight as a division it is hard to spot them, especially when you're travelling at 600mph and filling the area with noise sending people running for the hills. So who has to go on patrol and see what's what? The infantry.

Unmanned drones are silent, hard to spot on radar and visually, they're also slower as well as more fuel efficient. For recon purposes they are the pinnacle and they save lives. No one will be put in danger of attack and the drone can coordinate an artillery barrage, air strike or missile strike.

Once the occupation is started it is difficult to mount strikes with infantry ales time. Helicopter infantry is very dicey these days as any untrained fool can take down a helicopter with a one shot rocket launcher. Also the time needed to mobilise infantry, who aren't trained for surgical strikes, takes time. Modern warfare against plain clothed terrorist insurgents requires time and effort that is watched. If an incident happens around the world , and let's face it it is happening now in Mali, Algeria, Somalia - an armed response can be a logistical nightmare to organise and deploy.

Small teams of highly mobile elite squads is much more preferable for special operations. SAS and SBS teams can be mobilised and dropped into a combat zone within 48 hours rather than 48 days plus. They're harder to find and combat too. You can also arm and equip small teams with the best equipment for a lot less than outfitting a regiment and it's support staff with standard equip. It is thus very understandable, from an operational point of view, to why the MoD are scaling back and moving to a more fluidic form of warfare that will be more effective at combating terror and insurgents than sending our boys enmasse into a situation they're not equipped or trained to deal with properly.

If this scale back is to occur though, it is the duty of this government to thank the troops for their return and help get them jobs, homes in the same way demobbed troops were received after World War Two.