Writing in today’s Medway Messenger, Cllr Stamp claimed that the Standards Committee both agreed with the need for an investigation and his version of events.

“But the committee was only able to rule on the information provided to them by the council,” he wrote, “and the council conceded that it is normal procedure for councillors to get privileged access when dealing with their own personal issues.”

Cllr Stamp said that he was concerned with the housing situation?among?Medway residents, and believed that no member should receive preferential treatment because of their role as a councillor.

“The real scandal in all of this is that there are over 10,000 people in Medway who have registered with Medway Homechoice because they need to be re-housed. It’s these residents who are being let down by Medway Council, while those with access to the private offices at Gun Wharf can bypass the normal procedures.”

Cllr Stamp leads with a charge to former councillor Cathy Sutton to answer three questions about her conduct:

“Was she able to get a meeting straight away with the assistant director of housing in a private office at Gun Wharf to raise her own housing case?

“Did Medway Council allocate a house for her within a week of that meeting?

“Did she receive a home bond (a deposit and a month’s rent) from Medway Council?”

The Assistant Director of Housing and Corporate Services, Deborah Upton, whose meeting with Ms Sutton caused the controversy, responded in the same page, claiming that housing was only part of the discussion.

“I saw Cathy Sutton in my office in my role as monitoring offer,” she replied. “I did not know what the meeting was about beforehand and her housing issues were only one part of the issues raised with me.”

Although she said that the other issues they discussed were confidential, Mrs Upton claimed she advised Ms Sutton of private landlords to speak to: the normal procedure when people are potentially homeless.

“Medway Council did not ‘allocate’ a house to Cllr Sutton … Cathy Sutton received a Silver Homebond from Medway Council as she met the council’s published criteria.”

Last week, former chairman of Medway Liberal Democrats Alan Jefferies wrote to the same newspaper calling on Cllr Stamp to resign, saying that he “without doubt damaged his own political credibility for?the future.?

Independent Councillor Andy Stamp had not long left the Liberal Democrats when he started voicing his concerns about a meeting between former councillor Cathy Sutton and Medway Council’s Legal Officer Deborah Upton.

The allegations against Cathy Sutton and another then Liberal Democrat councillor Maureen Ruparel, it transpired after an investigation by Medway Council, were false. But the damage had been done. Cllr Stamp was re-elected whilst Cathy Sutton lost spectacularly. Maureen Ruparel had already decided to retire and did not seek re-election.

I was somewhat skeptical about the allegations when they were made. If there had been any mischief behind the scenes, then, surely, Deborah Upton would have been the first to stand up and cry foul. Cllr Stamp may have had reasonable suspicion in his mind, and, if so, he was right to report it, but they were proven false after Cllr Stamp had succeeded in casting doubt over the reputations of the two people he was elected with in 2007.

There is no doubt that Cllr Stamp should not have been so vocal until the outcome of the investigation was made public, although claiming that he should have acted as though nothing was going on and kept completely quiet goes against every principle of open and free political discourse. I did not see everything he had written nor hear everything he said, but there is a very fine line between what is acceptable and what is not.

Even if Cllr Stamp did cross that line after he reported the pair, he should not resign. Yet.

Alan Jefferies’ comments, whilst deeply rooted in passion for his idea of right and wrong, are not helpful. It is his right to make them, and it is the Medway Messenger’s right to publish them, but, in almost the same breath, he criticised Cllr Stamp for politicking whilst doing the same himself.

If Cllr Stamp has broken the Code of Conduct, then it is for the Standards Committee to investigate. It is their outcome that is gospel, and if he is found to have acted improperly, it is their proposition for punishment which is right. It is, as Mr Jefferies stated, the right way.

If Cllr Stamp has broken the law, then it is a matter for the police to investigate. If, instead, Cathy Sutton and Maureen Ruparel consider that they have been defamed by Cllr Stamp’s comments, then it is for them to pursue through the courts. That is the right way.

A by-election now, so soon after the election, would be costly and unfortunate. The electorate would not take too kindly to the proposition, particularly if Cllr Stamp is found to have done nothing wrong, and would punish the Liberal Democrats just as much as they would any of Cllr Stamp’s colleagues who may run. And, given the national situation, it would most likely result in adding another Labour member to the council.

I sympathise with Alan Jefferies’ upset. He feels, after all, betrayed by a former colleague. I’ve no doubt Labour felt the same way when an aspiring young councillor named Rehman Chishti left them for the Conservatives in 2006. To see someone you have worked with – and worked hard with – campaigning for causes you care deeply and passionately about, only to then see them leave you and campaign actively against you, is enough to dent anyone’s hardened shell.

It has now been one year since Cllr Stamp left the Liberal Democrats. It is two months since he was re-elected at their expense. Politics should be rooted in important issues, not personal bitterness, and the time for both Alan and Andy to move on has long since passed.

I don’t know if either will read this, but if they do, then I would urge them, implore them, to go back to campaigning on the important issues.

Andy, like so many members and supporters, has every right to feel angered by the national party. When you enter into a coalition, you cannot take every principle and every policy with you. The Liberal Democrats have achieved much, but they have sacrificed as well. A lot of members and supporters will understand the why and accept the what, but a lot won’t. It is these issues that can be argued in public.

Personal animosity to, or injured feelings from, individuals within the local party must be kept away from the public. It will, if not in the short run but in the long run, damage oneself more than the other party to air it in public. The investigation into Cathy Sutton and Maureen Ruparel has ended. It may soothe some bad blood if an apology is made, but if there was genuine suspicion of wrongful actions, then no apology is needed.

Either way, it is time to move on.

Alan is an experienced campaigner, and has dealt with many issues in the correct way, whether I agree with his stance or not. Being proud of being cleared of wrongdoing is nothing to be ashamed of, and publicising vindication to the electorate is something that most campaigners would do. It is an attempt to repair some of the damage to reputation and is perfectly proper.

Any feeling of wrongdoing by an elected representative should be directed to the Standards Board to investigate. They have the authority to decide whether a breach has been committed or not and they have the authority to decide what action (if any) to take. The last council saw four by-elections, of which two should not have been needed. Two months into a new council is not the time to start another, which would be costly to all political parties and the taxpayer.

People may read in Alan’s comments a further sign of personal feelings hampering good political judgement, whether that was the driving force behind them or not. By all means, take your own advice and follow the due process. Or you can cast the issue aside and consider it history.

Either way, it is time to move on.

I have great respect for both Andy and Alan, both as principled individuals and skilled campaigners. I am genuinely troubled by how bitter Andy’s departure has been on both sides and, honestly, don’t much care anymore why it happened. The fact is it has happened, and nothing in the past can be changed.

But we are all in charge of our own actions, and both have the power to, rightfully, put an end to the dispute. It does nothing to help the reputation of politics to attempt to settle personal scores in public.

If Andy and Alan cannot agree on anything else, then they must surely agree that it is time to move on.

In a letter to the Medway Messenger today (Friday, July 8), Alan Jefferies sensationally claimed that Cllr Stamp broke both the Council’s Code of Conduct and the law in the way he acted after he submitted a complaint against former Liberal Democrat councillors Cathy Sutton and Maureen Ruparel.

“I warned him in December 2009 that nothing improper had occurred,” Mr Jefferies wrote, “but he claimed he knew better and I … was trying to hush up the matter.

“This was just plainly untrue and now proved to be so.”

Cllr Stamp had been refusing to comment after his former colleagues were cleared of any wrongdoing by the council, which also caught Mr Jefferies’ attention.

“It was very interesting to note that he was suddenly unavailable for press comment as he has for almost 18 months made every effort to be in the press while he was spouting his accusations,” Mr Jefferies said.

“He has, without doubt, damaged his own political credibility for the future.”

Cllr Stamp was re-elected to Medway Council in May on a slim majority, along with one of his Independent running mates Pat Cooper. The third, Dan McDondald, lost out to Labour’s Adam Price in the marginal Gillingham North seat.

Mrs Ruparel had already taken the decision to stand down at the election, leaving just Cathy Sutton to fight to retain her seat as a Liberal Democrat. With a fierce contest from Labour and the independents, the Liberal Democrats could barely muster a few hundred votes.

However, Mr Jefferies is now calling for Cllr Stamp to resign – two months after being re-elected – though he accepted that, if Cllr Stamp believed that any wrongdoing had been done, he should have reported it then kept quiet.

“You may ask, should he have complained? Yes, of course, if he really felt there was an issue to complain about, but he should then have kept quiet and let the system do its job and not broken the rules and the law for his own political gain.

“How can the public have confidence in this man if he ignores the rules and the law that are there to ensure a fair hearing? The answer is they can’t, he needs to go.”

Former Liberal Democrats Pat Cooper, Dan McDonald and incumbent Councillor Andy Stamp have spent the past few months blitzing the ward with large glossy leaflets and canvassing voters.

They have pledged to serve the residents of Gillingham North first – and have vowed not to claim the councillors’ allowance for the first year, instead saying that they will request that the council diverts the funds directly into the ward.

“We are not happy to accept the allowance during the first year while everybody else in the community is suffering from rocketing fuel, VAT and food bills,” Mr McDonald said on a recent leaflet.

“We want to be more accessible to residents and as your Councillors we’ll put local people before party politics,” Mrs Cooper added.

If all three are elected that could provide an extra ?19,000 for projects in Gillingham North.

It is a token gesture, but one, they hope, which shows residents that they are seeking election to serve the community and not themselves.

The trio face an uphill struggle in the hotly-contested ward, though indications suggest that the ward is now a three-way marginal between the Lib Dems, Labour and the Independents.

With Cllr Stamp having already left the Lib Dems and Cllr Maureen Ruparel standing down from the council next month, only Cllr Cathy Sutton is re-standing from the original slate that won the seat from Labour in 2007, any work put in by those councillors could go unnoticed.

And with a bleak national standing for the Lib Dems, Cllr Sutton and her two new running mates could face disapproval from voters on election day.

Alan W Collins has now established more sources in the ward than almost any other in Medway, though they all have differing opinions (and none) on local politics.

When put to them the pledge by the Independents, though, they all believed that it would be good for Gillingham North. Most said that it would make them more likely to vote for them, but some remained sceptical.

“If you’re standing for election as an Independent, you don’t have the weight of a party machine behind you, so you’ve got to find different ways to court support,” one said.

“They seem to be seasoned politicians, so how do I know that they’re not going to say one thing now and do another if elected?”

Another who voted for Andy Stamp in 2007 was unimpressed when he left the Lib Dems and is equally as unimpressed now.

“He seems to have retained the same principles he had when I voted Liberal in 2007,” they said. “What’s the difference between them and the Lib Dems locally?”

Others were more upbeat.

“The problem with politics is that it is dominated by parties,” another said.

“Individuals can vote independently based on what we think, not what their parties tell them to think.”

The general feeling across the ward, though, is that the Lib Dems have lost their support in Gillingham North. Some residents believe they have given up already, claiming not to have seen the show of force they saw in 2007.

“I have not had a single knock on the door from the Lib Dems or Labour,” another former Liberal Democrat voter said. “I have had a couple of leaflets from Labour, but only one that I can recall in the past year from the Lib Dems.

“They obviously can’t want my support again much.”

The Gillingham North result could play a huge role in deciding who runs Medway for the next four years if the Tories lose overall control next month.

Labour are keen to stress that they have been working hard in the ward over the past few months, “but where have been for the past four years?” a concerned Labour voter asked. “They only seemed to start appearing when the Lib Dems joined the Tories in government.”

The mood in the three camps is mixed, and though all appreciate that tactical voting from Conservatives will probably be important in deciding the winners, none can say for certain who they will vote for, and no one is risking complacency.

And with a result too close to call, the election could be won, or lost, on the basis of a pledge by three people not to claim allowances for one year.

Cllr Cathy Sutton, together with former group leader Cllr Maureen Ruparel, are now under investigation by the Council’s deputy monitoring officer after they were cleared by the Lib Dem regional party’s own internal investigation.

The investigation was instigated by a complaint by their Gillingham North Ward colleague Cllr Andy Stamp, who quit the party last June after coming third in the general election in Gillingham and Rainham.

Although Cllr Sutton refused to comment to the News, Cllr Ruparel said “I never flout the rules. Cathy and I were put in front of a panel and were exonerated”.

Cllr Stamp alleges that the pair tried to put “excessive pressure” on the Assistant Director of Housing and Corporate Services, Deborah Upton, during an October 2009 meeting, in an attempt to speed Cllr Sutton into a council-approved property.

Alan Watkins, from the Medway Messenger, claims that Cllr Sutton was advised of a number of private landlords, after speaking to Mrs Upton in a meeting brought about by the breakdown of her relationship with a member of another party.

It is unclear why the allegations are only being publicised now, nor why Mrs Upton did not make the complaint to them herself.

However, Cllr Stamp, now sitting with the Independent Group, has confirmed that he will be standing as an independent in this year’s local elections, along with two other independents, former Lib Dem councillor Pat Cooper and former Lib Dem press officer Dan McDonald, in a battle that will likely see them campaigning against Cllr Sutton. Cllr Ruparel has already announced her intention to quit the council in May.

Cllr Stamp said that he is “in no doubt that the conduct of local members was just as important when making my decision to leave the Lib Dems”, although at the time he only cited the party’s decision to join a coalition government with the Conservatives.

It is unknown when the investigation will conclude, but it could take months before a decision is made.

Cllr Stamp, who is currently the youngest serving member of Medway Council, had already resigned as Deputy Leader of the group, which paved the way for Cllr Sheila Kearney to take the Gillingham North councillor’s place.

Labour blogger Tristan Osborne posted on his Twitter feed last night that a well-placed source was suggesting that something bigger may be happening, with Alan W Collins hearing conflicting rumours that the twice Parliamentary Candidate for Gillingham (and Rainham) may have resigned as a councillor, or defected to another group.

But confirmation came from Medway Council today that Cllr Stamp has indeed joined the?Independent?group, becoming the fourth member after former Labour Councillors Tony and Val Goulden, who joined last year, and long-term Independent Cllr Ian Burt, who was also previously a Lib Dem councillor.

The movement comes weeks after Cllr Geoff Juby retook the reigns as group leader, having left Cllr Maureen Ruparel in charge for a year whilst he focused on his parliamentary campaign.

For many Medway residents, the general election will not be the only time they head for the polls this year.

Residents in Gillingham North, Gillingham South, Rainham Central, River, Rochester East, Rochester South and Horsted and Rochester West wards all face the prospects of a second visit to the polling station weeks after the general election.

Of course, not all of the wards will face a by-election, but at least one of them will almost-definitely be heading to the polls a second time, and anywhere up to four wards may see the familiar signs up more than once.

Which wards will, it’s hard to say. But all (bar one) of them are represented by councillors hoping to bag a 60,000 pounds plus per year job representing the likes of you and I in Parliament (and trying to not to be tempted by the lure of expenses!).

The exception, of course, is Rochester South and Horsted, where former Conservative Councillor Nick Brice has yet to decide on his future after being caught kerb-crawling. However, I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about whether or not he should go, as that is not what this article is about. Smart money says, though, that we are unlikely to see a by-election there any time soon.

So to the crux of my thinking. In Rochester and Strood, Geoff Juby (LD, Gillingham South), Teresa Murray (Lab, Rochester East) and Mark Reckless (Con, Rochester West) are all hoping to replace Bob Marshall-Andrews as the constituency MP. In short, unless something major should happen between now and then, one of the above will be vacating their seat on the council.

In Gillingham and Rainham, Paul Clark MP has announced that he will be trying to cling onto his seat, facing a challenge from Rehman Chishti (Con, Rainham Central) and Andy Stamp (LD, Gillingham North). That gives a two-in-three chance that there will be a second by-election.

The more observant will realise that that still leaves River ward. Well Bill Esterson (Lab) is leaving us to fight his own battle up in Sefton Central, although he’s not actually leaving the council just yet – but that’s another story.

So I’m going to throw my neck on the line and make a prediction – that by the end of the year, by-elections will have been held in Rainham Central, River and Rochester West wards, as Conservatives Rehman Chishti and Mark Reckless see the fruits of their hard work pull off and win huge majorities in the election, whilst Labour’s Bill Esterson secures a wafer-thin majority.

In the subsequent by-elections, Rainham Central (one of the Conservatives’ newest safest seats) would remain blue (although I cannot thus far see any possible contenders for the candidacy), River would turn blue (as it already turned half-blue in 2007, but again I cannot see any possible candidates) and Rochester West would also remain blue (and I have in mind a possible candidate, or two, but shall remain tight-lipped for the time being).

But don’t hold me to that!

The Medway Council Liberal Democrat group has been shaken-up after Cllr Geoff Juby resigned as leader.

Cllr Juby, who is also Parliamentary Candidate for Rochester & Strood, wishes to give more time to his family and his Parliamentary campaign.

He has been succeeded as leader, it was announced, by Cllr Maureen Ruparel, a familiar face in local politics having previously been group leader.

The Lib Dems had re-registered their domain name (or, more specifically, Alan Jefferies had) the day after I made my warning post. Their website now contains little more than a holding page – but it is, at least, better than some anonymous webster* to register it for them and create for them a potentially damaging spoof website. I was, myself, considering buying the domain name and selling it back to them at the same amount as I’d paid for it to protect them from such underhand tactics, before I came to my senses. After all, if I’d have done so, I’d have been open to the accusations that I was going to be said anonymous webster*.

Their holding page indicates that their website is being completely changed. There’s nothing wrong with this – I too am currently in the process of re-designing and re-programming the Gillingham Conservatives’ website – I just hope that they learn from their previous website and don’t make it off-putting to potential supporters.

They also link through to the not-been-update-since-Noah-built-the-ark websites of their two parliamentary candidates, Andy Stamp (Gillingham and Rainham) and Geoff Juby (Rochester and Strood). Tactical use of the Internet is important to all parliamentary candidates – so it’d be interesting to know what these candidates think when they search Andy Stamp or Geoff Juby on Google and see the list of results. Number one is the official Lib Dems’ national site, then for Andy I am number two and for Geoff I am number three and John Ward’s backup site is number two. Their own websites don’t even feature!

Contrarily, Rehman Chishti has been making good tactical use of the Gillingham and Rainham Conservatives’ website to send his message out to voters. He too is now branching out – both rehmanchishti.co.uk and rehmanchishti.com have been registered. The former heads to a holding page and the latter heads to a page reading “This site is currently unavailable” – with the Conservatives’ tree logo as the favicon.

The importance of the Internet can be over-stated by many, but is also often underestimated by a large breed of politicos. The best advice this humble blogger can give to all interwebically silent politicos is thus: at the very least, register for a Blogger account and blog away. Alternatively, you can find someone like myself to help build you a website contianing many features to best make the use of the Internet for political activism.

*Please note: my references to websters are not references to cloth weavers, but my second made-up term, referring to Internet-savvy people with a web presence, such as myself.

Yes, that is the road in which Cllr Stamp wants to install a zebra crossing – and I was thinking that Council officers would do the sensible thing and cast the request aside.

What the picture doesn’t show, however, is the fact that, hidden behind the white van in the center of the picture, is another white van parked on the corner of Charing Road. I only just noticed it out of the corner of my eye whilst walking past.

I had to look, in sheer disbelief, take a double-take, then finally a third, less-than-subtle glance, but the fact didn’t change. Clear as day, parked, watching the flow of traffic (oh, and me!), was a van clearly displaying the text, on the bonnet, in large blue letters: “Highway Services“.

If you want to do something useful in Goudhurst Road, guys, then resurface the road just below Twydall Shops. Pave over the grass verges, sell them to the owner of the houses they sit in front of and allow them to turn them into driveways, easing the increasing parking problem.

I can commend their efficiency, but this is absurd! I have been talking to various different people, who all agree that there is no point whatsoever in installing a zebra crossing in Goudhurst – even near the foot of Twydall Shops! How much Council Tax will they waste before they realise that?