Doorstep Brighton 15: Websites, Patcham, and denying Christopher Hawtree a famous victory in Rottingdean Coastal

There has been a great deal of interest in the new Labour Party website. And even Green activists have applauded its launch. Luke Walter, for example, said:  “A few kinks, but fair play. A big improvement to the last one.”  So, too, have a number of new readers (and now probably ex-readers) who were attracted to the last post having searched ‘lap-dancing club Brighton’.  Probably the same ex-readers who were no impressed with the picture of me dressed in nothing but a sheet!

Warren also answers some of the gaps in the new website: “Thanks for all the comments and for pointing out the glitches/omissions, all being corrected. …. Yes, Celia Barlow was selected to stand in Central Hove (her bio will be changed), and Brian Fitch in Hangleton & Knoll. Their experience – and that of Simon Battle and all 13 Labour councillors running for re-election – is balanced by the new talent we have in Queens Park, Regency, Goldsmid, Hanover, Wish, St Peters, Preston Park and elsewhere.”

Dr Faust criticises me for hypocrisy: “On the ‘Thumper principle’ you seem to be failing yourself with your rather snide comments about Brian Fitch and others. Your respondants have followed suit as well – but I think that’s OK. Say what you like about candidates, preferably let it be true, but if not someone will hopefully point out your error.”

Tom Matthews says that this is a fair point, points out that I can get away with making snide comments because “(s)he’s not running to be a councillor, or IS (s)he??”. Thank you, Tom, I’m a sensitive soul, finding criticism hard to cope with! As for standing for Council, I wont confirm or deny rumours that i might be standing as an Independent Green in Rottingdean Coastal inspite of accusations that I will split the anti-Mears vote, thereby denying Christopher Hawtree an historic victory.

But Dr Faust is wrong. I wasn’t being snipe about the People’s Brian. I said he was a legend and that he would save the No 5 bus to Hangleton. I couldn’t be fairer.

‘Andy’ points out that the new website seems to suggest that one of “Labour’s candidate for Patcham seems to also be standing in Brunswick. That’s a good start!”.

And talking of Patcham, Serenus Zeitblom said: “You can tell it’s getting close to election time in Patcham because we’ve just had a flyer through the door advertising Messrs Theobald, Theobald and Pidgeon’s surgery times … however in the seven years I’ve been living in the ward I don’t think I’ve seen any evidence of Labour activity ever.

But I’m not wholly convinced by the new Labour website. Smart and slick at first appearance, it appears to be full of slips and errors – almost as if the webmaster has been filling in a template. And here in Brighton where you’re never more than a few yards from a web developer you expect slick digital campaigns.”

Two points regarding Patcham, “Messrs Theobald, Theobald and Pidgeon” surely refers to councillor Geoffrey and councillor Carol Theobald” as well as councillor Pidgeon. And secondly, there has been practically no reports on the campaign in Patcham, not even a convincing opinion from the Peter Snow of Brighton politics, Christopher Hawtree, that with a swing of just 187%, Patcham will fall to the forces of the Greens.

Doorstep Brighton 10: General round up and more on the Mary Mears Budget

I have been overwhelmed by the reaction that this blog is having of late, not least the volume of comments, emails and direct messages received.  Apologies to those who I have been unable to respond to or include in subsequent posts.  A feature of the responses that amuses/interests me is the number of Tories who are reacting including comments from Adam Campbell (Brunswick and Adelaide, Maria Caulfield (Moulsecoomb and Bevendean), Peter Booth (East Brighton), Momma Grizzly (Rachael Bates, Hollingdean and Stanmer) and Rob Buckwell (Estate Agents, Seven Dials, sorry Goldsmid Ward).  But they are equalled by Labour and Green activists, and the occasional sad Lib Dem.  I am aware my posts are getting longer and longer.  It is, in fact, your fault, Dear Readers.  I will try to make them briefer, but it may take longer to comment and respond to you, let alone post something original of my own.

Regarding the Mary Mears budget, Serenus Zeitblom makes a very interesting observation regarding the text of the letter to the Times sent by 88 Liberal Democrat council group leaders last week. “It’s arguing that local government cuts should not be front-loaded but spread more evenly over the next four years. In effect, that’s exactly what Mary Mears and co appear to have done, drawing on reserves to cover funding for next year while keeping the big cuts in reserve. (The Lib Dem letter looks rather Micawberish to me, founded on a pious hope that future cuts will be softened because something will turn up).  Strange – we all know that the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant in Brighton and Hove, but here are Brighton Tories implementing Liberal Democrat policies in apparent defiance of Eric Pickles.  If Mary Mears brings this one off it may be testimony as much to her bare-faced cheek as to her strategic sense!”

Andy Richards (do read his blog People’s Republic of Hove – stuck a bit in the 1980’s but nevertheless providing an important Unison/Left perspective)  takes issue with Rachael Bates: “What a joke. The council tax cut is being financed by a central government grant. I’m presuming that Rachael knows where the government’s money comes from? We’re paying for our own tax cut!”  And in reply to a comment from Rob Buckwell who had said he hoped that opposition councillors would not block the cut in Council Tax, Andy writes: “I am sure you DO hope the opposition parties block it. If it goes through, people will be able to reflect at leisure about what a meaningless gimmick it is. If the opposition blocks it, this will provide you with some short-term ammo for the election campaign. The Tories don’t actually believe that this measure brings any real benefit any more than anyone else does.”  You are absolutely correct, Andy.  It is why I believe Mary Mears to be a cunning political operator.

I recently asked whether I should lay off those absolutely dreadful Lib Dems, you know who I mean: the Party that betrayed the electorate over student tuition fees, the ones that have enabled the Tories to form a government, the ones who deserve to be at 8% in the opinion polls, the ones destined to be wiped out in Brighton and Hove come May’s local elections.  It has been suggested I might, on occasions, show my bias against that party. Michael Taggart writes: “They were amusing when they wore long beards, chewed dung and danced around Stone Henge in their shoes made of lettuce. And that was just the women. The nasty Lib Dems of 2011 are just annoying. I think it’s time to send them to Room 101 where they can be afforded space to come up with a big plan for a return to relevance.” ‘DAP’ concurs: “They deserves all they get; belonging to a party who have lied and mislead their voters (especially Students on tuition fees) and who are now carrying the Tory cuts through Parliament (however recognition here to Eastbourne MP Stephen Lloyd who voted against the Tuition fee rise)… A disgrace to what used to be thought of as a principled party… and as your analysis shows; i wouldnt be surprised (in fact; slightly pleased) to see no LibDems in the Council come May.”

DAP also makes a compelling statement regarding LGBT candidates being named by political parties: “Im glad parties have candidates who are openly LGBT. Im not naive enough to think that LGBT people in Brighton & Hove will vote for the candidates with the same sexuality as them (and i dont think thats why the Greens/any other party announce it), but openly showing than LGBT people can hold office and achieve great things is an inspiration to the younger LGBT community. Having more ‘out’ LGBT role models can be nothing but a bad thing.”  I agree.

Following my identity being ‘outed’ as Roy Pennington, Dan Wilson isn’t convinced. He asks: “People from all parties are asking me who you are Bappy. I have no shame in asking a simple question: Do you reside in the city of Brighton and Hove?”.  Perhaps the Ghost of Nobby Clarke is closing in: “Hove resident I think…councillor maybe.”  Maybe Hove, maybe a councillor.  But there again, maybe not.  Who knows.  In fact, who cares?  But a straight answer to Desperate Dan: Yes, I live in Brighton … or Hove.

A Hove councillor (who will remain nameless) recently told me that her campaign for re-election was going well (I predicted she would hold her seat in a marginal fight) but said that she wondered what my ward predictions are based on.  A bit of knowledge, an understanding of electoral politics, a bit of feedback, a lot of guess work.  My track record isn’t too bad.  For example, I predicted the result in the Goldsmid by-election well before polling day.

More tomorrow ….

On the Big Society and a recommendation for a much better blog than this one!

In response to my challenge to local Tories to explain the Big Society, and to say whether they share their Great Leader’s enthusiasm for the idea, a couple of brave Conservative candidates have raised their heads above the parapet. 

One comment comes, of course, from Rachael Bates who comments in true Momma Grizzly fashion: “The Big Society is about encouraging a resurgence of the volunteer sector and rightly saying that the state is not, and should not, be the answer to everything. It is about cutting red tape, decentralisation and allowing people to take proper control of their own lives rather than being dictated to by central government. There are many fantastic examples throughout Brighton of the Big Society in action and David Cameron is completely right to allow this to grow and flourish. It is about time we said goodbye to Big Government and hello to the Big Society.”

Clive asks Rachael: “Could you explain how you are promoting ‘a resurgence of the volunteer sector’ by cutting their grants? The Standard yesterday ran a short piece about a London-based voluntary network which had been excluded from a Big Society promotional event because it supports the ‘living wage’ campaign. Perhaps Rachael and her friends can explain how this squares with not ‘being dictated to by central government’?”

When reading what Momma Grizzly says, I begin to lose the will to live.  Rachael, you’ve just turned 22, for goodness sake.  Go out, have some fun, get a life.  If I can find the strength to respond, if there are so many examples throughout Brighton (any in Hove?) of the Big Society in action, why do we need Big Government to tell us we need to do it? It is about time we said goodbye to Big clichés and hello to a bit of Original Thinking.

The other Tory to comment was Peter Booth, one of the ill-fated candidates in East Brighton, who says that it is “making little people big! It is that simple. Ideas should start from individuals, work up to groups and then influence government (local and national).”  So, if I get this right, the Big Society that little people have worked in groups and then influenced the government to launch the Big Society?  I thought that it was an idea conceived by David Cameron and forced on an unsuspecting Conservative Party and nation.  Silly me.  But Peter says that “the ‘left’ don’t get it because their only answer is to pour money into everything.  That has proved not to work.”  Pouring money into everything has proved not to work?  I thought the Tories supported subsidising the banks, bankers, etc.  Finally, Peter suggests that the government should “let people decide how their own lives work.”  I DO get it, the Big Society allows Boots, Vodaphone et al decide for themselves how their own tax lives work.

‘Clive’ rejects Peter Booth’s explanation: “Money is generally quite handy if you want to set up some local project or other, that’s the problem. Shame their aren’t some lefties in government to pour some out. What tickles me is that the right generally accuse the left of being utopian and silly and blah blah blah, yet here we have a notion – lots of people working voluntarily, for nothing – that knocks all that into a cocked hat for daftness. People pay their taxes and expect to get something back, not to be told to go away and do it themselves.”

Paul Perrin (UKIP activist par excellance) thinks I am ‘simple’ minded to ask what ‘big society’ is. He says that “the government should be looking at *PROBLEMS* and then thinking about solutions.  But yet again we have a government vanity project ‘Big Society’ looking for problems to solve. Only the state can afford such stupid indulgence, because they don’t need to justify it to anyone other then themselves. Cameron announced his passion for ‘Big Society’ a month after the EU announced 2011 as ‘The year of the volunteer’. The EU required each member to design and deliver a programme to support this idiocy, and Cameron obliged. What is ‘Big Society’? A label that costs us a fortune and gives us nothing.”

Clive congratulates Paul by observing that when he managed 4 sentences before mentioning the EU and asks if this is a record.

There is more of the Clive / Paul Perrin love in in the comments section of this blog.  If you don’t have a life, you might enjoy the exchanges

Dr Faust has a problem with the Big Society (surely not!).  He writes: “The problem with ‘Big Society’ for me is that I think its a great idea – if it means that we help and support each other simply because we share the same planet, and that we are stronger when we work together. The trouble for Cameron and the Tories is that it is fundamentally a socialist principle, and so they don’t believe in it, and will never convince us that they do.  The danger for Labour (in particular) and the Green Party is that they think the kind of services and strutures to bring this about need to be provided by the state – rather than focus on the outcomes that are being sought and harnessing local, voluntary activity. At least the Green Party have more of a recent tradition of community based initiatives. They must resist the move to statism that would undermine this.”

Christopher Hawtree’s view will resonate with many: “I suspect that the dreadful title of ‘Big Society’, which means nothing, was the result of a ‘brainstorming’ session. If people are doing something voluntarily, they do not want David Cameron to come along and hijack it for his own purposes.”  If you are right, Chris, I imagine it was a brainstorming session of one, DC himself. 

The best comment, I feel comes from ‘Dani’.  (Great to have you on board Dani.  I have been a long term admirer of you and your politics).  She writes: “How exactly is David Cameron “allowing” voluntary activity to grow and flourish? It takes zero effort on the government’s part for ordinary people to get on with organising community activity as they always have. But the government can easily shut down a lot of the fantastic community work that is happening in Brighton and around the country, by slashing funding to local government with the inevitable knock-on effect on the grants that sustain community and voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations can’t run on thin air, even those who rely heavily on volunteers.”  Spot on.  Rachael Bates should listen and learn from your experience in Brighton politics over the last 20 years or so.

And finally, Serenus Zeitblom writes eloquently on the subject.  “I immediately thought of the Cones Hotline, the Citizen’s Charter, John Major’s Back to Basics campaign – all of which seemed to me to have the same roots and all of which became objects of ridicule.”  Serenus has written a great blog of his own Notes from a Broken Society which I commend to you.  A great read, in fact a must read.  Much better than this blog!

More reactions to Mary Mears’ Master Plan for Brighton’s budget and May’s local elections

There has been quite a response to Friday’s post Budget Masterplan shows the campaigning skills of Mary Mears.  Some people ‘get it’, others (Dan Wilson) doesn’t.

Serenus Zeitblom (is that really your name ….?) does get it: “Genius? Perhaps not. But it’s very, very clever. It puts all the opposition parties on the back foot; oppose the budget and you’re campaigning for higher taxes, support it and you’ve accepted the cuts. And in a minority administration the votes of the opposition parties make a difference. Both Greens and Labour are going to have to be very careful – both in the way they vote and in the way they present the case. Yes, it’s potentially hugely damaging in the long run. And, yes, the Tories are being less than forthcoming about how many jobs will go in the long term. But it shows that anyone who thinks the Tories will roll over is seriously mistaken.  And, frankly, it’s difficult to see Labour in Brighton having the nous, the skill or the energy to fight this. If the Greens can pass this test it’s a sign that they’re ready for power.”

Rob Buckwell (one of the Tory candidates in Goldsmid ward and a keen supporter  of low Council Tax – Rob, you need to get out more) says: “You are right to point out that I am delighted about the council tax cut, I only hope the opposition parties don’t block it.”  He goes on, “There was great excitement in the Estate Agents office this evening”.  (I made the last comment up.  Why am I being so mean to Rob?  I actually like him and have enjoyed meeting him).

‘HP’ suggests that the Budget announcement is just an interim measure to see the Tories through to the May elections: “The Tory strategy is to delay the inevitable. The big number redundancies, that other councils are getting to grips with, will come but it will be after May in the form of big in-year cuts. By then they will either be someone else’s problem or they will be at the start of a new term for them (even better, a new non-tory administration might have to reverse the 1% cut). Who cares if another 50 or 60 hard working public servants have to go to pay with their livlihoods for that last throw of the dice she has given herself. Why should she care? This isn’t just the rough and tumble of local politics – it’s people’s lives and once again Mears has shown herself to not give two hoots. As long as she can stay on top everything else can go to hell. This includes the future prosperity of the city which she has personally seen to it is no longer open for business as progress – development, homes, jobs – tend to cost votes rather than gain votes.”

And then there is Dan Wilson: “If this is genius, I’ll stick to being a fool.”  (I’ll resist making a cheap joke here).  He continues “I do hope the tenner or so people save on this is a comfort as vital services close and 250 people lose their jobs. It’s as cynical as it is reckless and will still have to be paid for.”  He doesn’t get it.  It is the headline that counts.  There won’t be 250 people losing their jobs.  That’s the whole point.  Mears and Co are far too smart to make hundreds of real people redundant.  As I pointed out, the Council press release shows that the Tories have this covered: “Job losses will be minimised because the council has already started deleting empty posts and reducing use of agency staff as well as redeploying and retraining. These principles have helped reduce the risk to jobs overall.”  These will be jobs lost to city, but they will, on the whole, not be actual people losing their jobs. 

The most likely opposition will probably come from the voluntary sector, at least the opposition that will have the most resinance with the general public.  Details of what cuts they will get have yet to be announce.  It is a very very interesting time.