Councillor resigns from Medway Council

6 Comments

1. John Ward says:

   Wednesday 22nd July 2009 at 11:23

   I’m pleased that at least someone else (i.e. apart from me) is covering this story online. Even now I can still find nothing in the online editions of any of our local newspapers on any of it ? not even in Gun Wharf Tales.

   That in itself seems strange; and one does have to wonder why it hasn’t even been announced in any of the local press, let alone any details. I was hounded by the media when I resigned (something it later turned out I needn’t have done after all) with big splashes trying to make out how “evil” I was ? including wheeling out all the Lefty/Communist types to feature their views ? yet this is being completely ignored.

   I’m sure there are plenty of easy excuses ready to be deployed by the media, should they be challenged on this, but the vast, tending toward the infinite, difference in handling these two not dissimilar cases (as they are essentially the same in their effect) tells a story that no “excuse” can negate.
2. Alan W Collins says:

   Thursday 23rd July 2009 at 21:19

   Yes, John, there was nothing (as far as I saw) in any of the Medway Messengers printed since the resignation, nor Yourmedway or the News.

   Whereas I’m constantly trying my hardest to learn as much as I can about the by-election. Medway Council has posted nothing further as of yet, and none of the parties have announced via the media who their candidates will be.

   Let’s hope the media pick up on this soon.
3. Chris B. says:

   Wednesday 19th August 2009 at 22:31

   I too would be extremely interested in exactly why the resignation occurred (the latest one that caused the need for the by-election).

   About all i managed to determine (according to the running candidates and their ‘hype’) is that is was due to benefit ‘irregularites’ – clearly, that covers a multitude of possible sins.

   Clearly, we need to know (those of us who are in the affected ward most importantly, and equally in general for clarify) what the nature (even if only in general terms) this ‘irregularity’ equates to.

   After all, if it was in fact fraud it relates to, we need to avoid getting someone in the door who is prone to misrepresentation of a legal fashion as well as avoiding a candidate who is politically misrepresenting the situation they claim to represent.

   Then, that said, sadly out comes my instinct in the open – the one that simply recognises that in fact ALL promises and shows of intent that are used to convinvce us are also the first things to be compromised once the successful candidate has to moderate their hand to gain loyaty in offce and also deter impressions of being too ‘radical’.

   So ultimately, political survival realitites tend to end up being the indicator of what a candidate will indeed do if they suceed in getting elected.

   I don’t believe this will change if any of them succeed, and so on for any future elections (local or national).

   In my mind, the only worthy candidate is someone who is (irrelevent of their political career prospects) literally prepared to lead from the front, when dealing with local people issues, and when it comes to the awkward position of being ‘radical’ and drawing a distinct line in the sand (the way trade unions used to work) and say that a situation is unacceptable and it will change will even if it costs the livelihood of the empire-builders and pocket-liners who seem to suceed normally.

   No longer, i think and believe, is it a case of favouring a candidate based on past political alligences (inheirited or based on experience) – since the days when distinct and hard lines in the sand are long gone.

   Now, realistically, you need to look at candidates and ask yourself :-

   1. Will they draw the line in the sand and (to use the battle analogy) defend the line and protect it..??

   2. Would they risk their political career (tinpot or otherwise) to defend a cause to within the means within the letter of the law, for the greater good and to protect a cause?

   3. Ultimately, are they sheep who’s intent becomes simply PR hogwash and hype that dissolved quicker than eraseable ink or are they the kind who’s word and beliefs are set in stone and is written in their own blood.??

   And in that general set of personal evaluation criteria, it has left me in a postition where the only candidate who i believe actually closely fits that criteria is also aligned to the political part i could never (if i used past alliegence as a criteria) morally or philosophically aligned myself to and therefore vote for.

   Ironically, the subject of that very same moral dilemma is the only candidate who has made an actually, physical spent time to get in touch with the locals in person, and neither treated me like one of the sheep nor restricted the time i could spend talking to at the door (and due to my mobility, normally wont spend time standing at the door talking).

   In fact, i would say he was more concerned at not unduely taking up my time and seeing me in discomfort standing at the door, and also (i believe), if i requested, would actually take time to sit down one day and actually have a blunt and frank discussion – in his role and as an individual fellow local.

   However, please do not think for one minute this is in anyway a veiled bit of PR of the candiate in question – it’s simply an example of real life experience that describes why i will be torn between what i feel i should do (in the ‘nail your colours and be part of that of which you support’ philosopy) or do i simply choose the candidate i would stand side by side with and help defend the line in the sand he/she also supports and defends for a greater non-individual good..??

   Oh well, all i will say is – i hope some fraction of the truth of the ‘fraud’ or ‘irregularities’ comes to light so whatever due action should be taken gets take ….

   *laughs hysterically…., at the thought of such utopian fiction actually happening*

   and hopefully, the successful candidate will be a line in the sand defender and protecter and lead from the front.

   I don’t have time to waste on yet another empire-builder or another two-faced attention seeker – and god knows, physical immobility or not, if we get another one in the door out to build personal empires and be loyal to those with the biggest self-interest voices in the local business and political world, i’ll personally start and lead the next revolution.

   After all, sometimes, you do need a revolution to rip up the roots of decay to allow new roots to form and maybe build a new healthy political plant.

   As for the missing info, we seek regarding the outgoing name, thank the official secrets act and stupid uk legislation and equally stupid ‘priviledge’ shelters that tend to keep important decision making information from us poor mere mortals who have to carry the can.

   Would be nice, regarding the candidates, to be able to get em all together ’round table’ fashion and do a podcast/radio prog centered on a ‘voter, from a voter’s perspective group interview’ where the voter chairing the interview could essentially ‘grill the interviewees’ and fire-test their creditability and their ability to show their ‘draw the line in the sand’ intent.

   Ironically, i believe only one of the candidates would – sad really, for the same moral and philosophical dilemma reasons i mentioned earlier.

   Ok…thanks for taking the time to read this (or not as the case maybe) – and hopefully i’ll never have to dissect such stuff again over politics.
4. John Ward says:

   Thursday 20th August 2009 at 08:26

   ChrisB

   Very good to read that! I too have thought that a "Question Time" kind of event would be useful, run by someone genuinely politically impartial and competent at running such event.

   Something of the kind happened at our all-out council elections in 2000 and 2003, but not since as far as I am aware. I attended the 2000 one myself, and found it very interesting and certainly worthwhile.

   The general branding of councillors and local candidates as virtually all the same and easily compromised once elected is actually incorrect, I can say from having observed from the "inside".

   Yes, there are some who are certainly personally ambitious, some who have a broader than personal agenda but seemingly ideologically driven (mostly within the Labour ranks), but the majority come in on a stated platform and usually get at least the majority of it implemented, though it can take a while (as most things do in this regulation-bound nation of ours) and with occasional compromise when there is a legal impediment.

   I have also had pressure groups come out of the woodwork once I was elected to directly oppose something that another group wanted, and had to try to find a mutually acceptable "middle way" ? so it isn’t as black-and-white as might be thought by anyone who hasn’t actually been a councillor, especially in the 21st century (which is more regulation-bound than ever before: I could quote chapter and verse on this?).

   As I have blogged only a few hours ago, as it happens ? before reading the above comment ? it is the underlying attitude that counts most of all, not just of the individual candidate but of the political group (where appropraite; though Independents cannot achieve much in isolation, of course).

   No party is perfect, being made up of imperfect, fallible creatures called Humans, but some genuinely do try to do the best they can in even the most trying of circumstances. Others have a different agenda in mind; and that is first and foremost how I make my decisions on whom to support.

   Others will have their own approaches, and that is fine; but I hope that what I have written here is at least of some interest.
5. Chris B. says:

   Thursday 20th August 2009 at 19:25

   Hi John, and thanks for the comments.

   As far as my comments were concerned about all being pretty much alike, that was reflecting the general attitude i noticed with people when it comes to this sort of thing, so folks tend to vote on past loyalties unless there’s a massive motivation to see who is really potentially more suited to difference and change.

   Clearly, some well intended folks who run for candidacy find they have to drop their best intents just to survive because the cards are stacked against them from the outset, others just take the easy road.

   But certainly a ‘question time’ insight would do a lot, especially at times when you feel the need to ask ‘who is the lesser of evils?’

   My ‘other side’ experience comes from not being in politics in any way, but from when i worked in local radio, locally.

   Having candidates come in the door, to have their fifteen minutes of propaganda spreading (which, in truth, a lot of it came down to just short of that… legally speaking), but being told by their erm… hangers on and also by your own boss, to not engage into any kinda of real dialogue – just essentially ask the pre-arranged generic stereotype questions to allow the candidate to present their pre-set agenda – did nothing to really inform me as a member of the on-air team, nor did i feel it benefit clarity in any way for the listeners. It got to a stage when i literally avoided being part of the on-air team on days when we had candidates in.

   I respect that a degree of guarding of what you say, so as not to show your hand too openly, is a necessary evil – but when it all sounds like speeches and more speeches, it’s really just advertising under the guise of public service broadcasting.

   I almost put an outline together, to present to the current candidates, to host a podcast session to allow for a bit of a question time format presentation – but when i talked to my old employers (hoping they might see some value in a bit of non-scripted advertising) the same old reasons came flying back to me – and i realised that nothing has changed when it came to taking it from a podcast to acutally translating it into a proper radio format session instead.

   So, knowing when to quit, i quit on the idea – and instead hopefully someone with the patience to bang their head til it hurts maybe will try the idea out for size.

   Mind you, i don’t think anyone would get the right kind of co-operation from the candidates.

   But, John, i’d say in your favour having been in the other side, it sounds like you would have taken up the challange yourself had it been feasible to set up.

   As for hoping what you submitted here being of some interest hopefully, likewise, that’s really why i committed all my thoughts to post, in the hope someone gets a bit of value from it, even if only to start idle cogs in the head whirring (we all have moments where that happens).

   Regards to all, after all – you don’t judge a person on the basis of their work and politics – we are all just trying to survive and get through the day best we can
6. Chris B. says:

   Thursday 20th August 2009 at 20:09

   If forget to add, in the previous comment :-

   In fairness to those who do try, some of the apathy that exists with us voters is partially self-created, and partially created by those delivering the message because of the way we tend to not pay attention and listen.

   The best explaination of why i say that should ring alarm bells to any previous candidate or their followers who doorstep to gain insight etc.

   How often did you talk randomly to people, and feel a sense of almost despair when you were ready to maybe lay your cards on the table and talk at whatever level would create the conversation, to find realistically that unless you were telling the person at the door etc what they wanted to hear, they were almost switched off..??

   Hardly suprising then, i guess, when you find that what is presented to you stinks of being ‘telling em what they wanna hear’..??

   Now i say, with the exceptions of the times that the message being delivered is simply an old one reinvented… and not very creatively or with any attempt to make it much better and relevent, that we sometimes create the impression that if we hear what we want to hear, then we’ll follow our instincts and what will be will be at voting time.

   Surely, making an atmosphere that forces people to deliver a message that is ‘giving them what they wanna hear’ is helping neither side of the voting dilemma..??

   So does that make us all equally responsible for creating that situation, and at the same time, making the quick-winners who thrive on such an attitude have a remarkably easier time..??

   Just a thought that came to mind soon after my previous post tonight…

Leave a Comment