“There are a few questions that will need to be answered, though, all related to other positions Cllr O’Brien currently holds. Which of these would he be thinking of retaining, which would be allowed simultaneously, and should he devote all his working time to the new position anyway and give up all others?”

It is an interesting question – and not for the first time has it been on the lips of politicos in Medway. After all, the same was asked of Cllr Rehman Chishti and Mark Reckless when they were elected to Parliament in May 2010 – and of the former when he stood for re-election in Rainham Central last year.

After all, how can an elected representative effectively work for their constituents whilst holding down such a full-time job?

In order to answer that question, one must consider the council in it’s entirety – i.e. all 55 elected members from all four political groups.

Being a councillor is, to be frank, a part-time vocation. It is not, never has been and (for the sake of our Council Tax) I hope never will be anything different. Of course, one must be available sufficiently to meet with concerned residents, and should endeavour to attend all meetings and fully acquaint oneself with all relevant knowledge and information. But being a councillor is not, with the possible exception of portfolio holders and the Mayor, a full-time role.

With this in mind, would one claim that someone who, for example, works as an accountant, for the Environment Agency, in a city consultancy or runs their own business are incapable of serving local residents as their local councillor. After all, they are all full-time jobs held by current members of Medway Council.

Of course, anyone will tell you that such a notion is absurd: local councillors are drawn from all walks in the community for the precise reason that they provide a provide a wonderful mix of experience. Whether they be a lawyer, an accountant, a trade unionist or a retired insurance broker, they all have a different perspective and talent to offer back to the local community.

If Cllr O’Brien does seek the new Police Commissioner role and is ultimately elected, it will be for him to make a judgement on workload as to which positions he should retain and which he should resign.

Being the Police Commissioner and a council portfolio holder would be, in my opinion, too much work for any politician and chairing Community Safety Partnership meetings when you are the person with ultimate responsibility for policing community safety could set an unwelcome precedent.

However, there is nothing, in theory, wrong with continuing to serve on the council for as long as it continues to be both legally permitted and logistically possible.

According to the Messenger, Medway Council’s mobile CCTV enforcement vehicle has been parked by the modern Waterfront Way facility for up to 60 hours a week and, despite an initial amnesty, have issued in excess of 1,000 tickets.

The Labour councillor said “we are not surprised the CCTV car has been working flat-out to raise revenue. A full review should take place, with an option to scrap them if it believed to be in the public interest.”

This from a Labour group which purports to support the vehicles “in principle”.

Regular readers will be aware that I am not the biggest fan of some of the methods the CCTV cars have adopted, but they do have a legitimate value in enforcement against dangerous driving and parking (when they do not mimic the dangerous parking themselves).

However, in this instance I have zero sympathy with any driver who has been fined for such a supremely stupid act.

To be clear: Globe Lane was closed to motorists some time ago, with no suggestion that the new Waterfront Way would be opened as a replacement through route; the previous bus station in the Pentagon has always been closed to motorists; and I am in agreement with Robin Cooper, Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture at Medway Council, who said:

“I would imagine there is no bus station in the country where people are allowed to drive through as if it is an open road and most car drivers fully understand the reasons for this.”

It is extremely dangerous for the general public to drive along a stretch of road reserved for mass loading and unloading of passengers, where there is such a high volume of pedestrians. It would be like opening up Chatham High Street to motorists and waiting to see who came off worse – because it would invariably be the pedestrians!

Mr Cooper added “Since the bus station opened, we widely publicised that people must not drive through the bus station or they will receive a fine and I think it is fair to point out that the vast majority of motorists act sensibly and care about the safety of others.

“We also set up an amnesty for the first four weeks so that those that did mistakenly drive through the bus station received a warning letter asking them not to do so rather than receive a fine.

“But the bus station has been in place for nearly four months now and it is important that those who feel that they can flout regulations and put others at risk realise that they will be fined if they attempt to drive through the bus station.”

The level of stupidity came to light after a civil servant was directed along Waterfront Way by Google Maps and subsequently issued a Freedom of Information request to discover how many people had followed their SAT NAVs like sheep.

Again, I have zero sympathy for any motorist who slavishly follows their SAT NAV regardless – no technological invention (no matter how “smart” it is billed) is designed to be a substitute for good old-fashioned common sense. To twist a popular adage: if your SAT NAV directed you to drive off the edge of a cliff, would you expect your executors to claim compensation for the funeral expenses?

The same civil servant claimed that “drivers obviously need to be educated”. Educated? Said drivers should not not be on the road at all if they cannot follow simple instructions from road signs (of which, incidentally, there are plenty) or understand what, exactly, a bus lane is!

Cllr Osborne subsequently asked on his blog why the CCTV cars were spending so much time at the bus station instead of immediately installing an Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera.

I’m no expert on the internal affairs at Medway Council – or any council, for that matter – but I would imagine that after installing more than adequate signage in the area and working with the police for the first month after the bus station opened to inform drivers that Waterfront Way was for buses and taxis only, no one pacing the corridors of local power could have imagined there would be such a need for a permanent fixture.

It should only have taken a few weeks of the CCTV car parking occasionally by the bus station to act as a sufficient deterrent to educate drivers!

If the CCTV car or any other council initiative is being operated in a questionable manner, I am usually the first to start jumping up and down in protest – it is what has made my blog so popular – but in this instance, it has to be said that it is not the CCTV car acting questionably, but the drivers who have been caught (most of whom would have accepted their guilt and paid the due penalty).

They are guilty of idiocy, placing lives at risk for the sake of their own convenience and deserve whatever fine lands on their doorstep!

One of the main problems, it is thought, was that pupils wishing to take the test were herded to a small number of test centres (by a blind sheperd, it would seem) – though the schools and Medway Council both disputed the other’s account as to where blame should lie.

Both agreed, though, that something needed to be done to avoid a repeat when the test is taken again later this year. So, eager to get a rough idea of what the pulic thought, Medway Council threw the matter out to a public consultation.

The result was overwhelming.

Of the 76 responses (okay, maybe after 2000 pupils sat the test it was not overwhelming in every aspect), 71 (or more than 90%) said that they wanted to see the test return to the pupils’ own schools.

And why not. Eleven-and-a-bit years ago when I sat the 11-plus, I did so in the comfort of my own school environment with no delays and no pages missing from any of the papers.

Council sources have indicated to me, though, that some primary school teachers are not happy with the idea – because of the “increased workload”.

Yes, the same “workload” they had before the test was taken out of schools.

The issue was discussed at the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee last week and, I’m led to believe, was put to the vote.

I am informed that, whilst the proposal was met with cross-party support (Labour’s Councillors Sam Craven and Dorte Gilry both voted for the idea), there was one notable opponent.

Labour’s Spokesman for Children’s Services Cllr Adam Price voted against returning the test to individual schools.

Which begs the question: is Cllr Price interested in the best interests of the children, or a minority of “hard-up” teachers?

Ed Miliband has criticised the government’s decision to change the inflation index used when calculating public sector pension increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a harmful cut.

Last year, he laid down a motion opposing the move, saying that it left “public sector workers and the poorest in society disadvantaged permanently, year on year.”

However, in a further blow to his credibility, his party’s accounts reveal that Labour took the same decision with their own pension scheme – wiping millions off of the value of their employees’ pensions.

YouGov’s latest daily polling has Labour on 36% – a drop of 6 points on last month – whilst the Conservatives are five points ahead on 42% – an increase of two points. The Lib Dems are on 9%, whilst others account for 14%.

The headline polling figures are just the tip of the iceberg, though. In a poll conducted between 18 and 19 January, 33% said that Labour “seems to chop and change all the time” (28% Lib Dem, 16% Con) whilst just 12% thought it was “led by people of real ability” (3% Lib Dem, 25% Con).¹

And, according to The Times, a ComRes poll found that, whilst the two parties were neck-and-neck, Labour would be enjoying a three-point lead over the Tories if Ed’s brother David was leading the party.²

Notes

1. Figures obtained from publicly-available documents available on the YouGov website.

2. M Savage, ‘Hypocrisy charge as Labour cuts its pensions after criticising cuts’ The Times (London, 23 January 2012)

As usual, there was no public statement from the man himself to that effect, however there is never a yellow ally too far away to do his dirty work for him.

As Guido Fawkes points out, Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott touted the “nuclear bomb” – this time after David Cameron’s veto of a treaty which allegedly placed British interests at risk – with The Observer saying “one of Vince Cable’s closest allies, Lord Oakeshott, has refused to rule out a possible resignation by the business secretary.”

It is so regular an occurance that it hardly warrants column inches any more – but, feeling betrayed by the party The Guardian threw it’s weight behind during last year’s election, the sisters have been perhaps one of the most violent to try to break up the coalition.

To back-track and take some perspective, an EU-wide treaty was never really likely to be in the British interests when it sought fiscal unity. The 27 economies within the EU are markedly different and a one size fits all solution to the eurozone crisis would see some member states’ financial position improve, whilst others would be put at risk.

The Times¹ hits the nail on the head when it compares the City of London to the key financial hub of France (Paris) – one of the key proponents of the new treaty alongside Germany.

The City of London generates a larger share of GDP than Paris (10% to 5.1%) and is a larger employer (1.6m to 1.2m) but, crucially, whilst Paris has a trade surplus of €36.4bn, the City of London has a negative trade surplus of -€0.2bn. Any new treaty enforcing stricter fiscal control and potential new taxes (for example the Tobin Tax) could cause lasting damage to the City and risk crippling the British economy still further.

It is not for ideological reasons David Cameron vetoed a treaty – but the real and substantial threat it posed to British interests!

Of course the Europhiles are not happy. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg toed the government line about British interests, before declaring that it was not the outcome he had hoped for. The Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband called the Prime Minister weak for not negotiating the required safeguards into the new treaty.

The fact is something needs to be done to avoid disaster in the eurozone and the fact that it would be felt across all EU member states meant that a unilateral treaty needed to be agreed “at 27″. Such negotiations should then have seen relative safeguards for each member state to protect their economy.

Unfortunately, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany (dubbed Merkozy by the media) claimed that David Cameron’s “modest” demands were “unreasonable” and refused. Cameron was left with no alternative but to wield his veto.

And, lo, the Business Secretary was not amused with the outcome. Once again, he threatened (by proxy) to resign – and, once again, he chickened out.

“Yellow to his core”, says Guido. In more ways than one…

Notes

1. C Bremner ‘Same story, two versions, divided by the Channel’ The Times (London, 12 December 2011) 10 – 11

“These directly elected Commissioners will ensure that public concerns are reflected in local policing priorities,” Cllr O’Brien says.

“Instead of the current invisible Police Authority (research has shown that only 7% of people have even heard of them) an elected and mandated Commissioner will set goals and priorities for our Police Force according to the wishes of the public –a public they will be accountable for at the polling station.”

In the PCCs debate, the key buzzword has always been “accountability” – if you don’t like the way the police are operating at present, you can complain, you can scream through the media, but, ultimately, you cannot effectively influence the great unelected overseers on the Police Authority because they don’t need to worry about you or your neighbourhood. You didn’t put them there.

By contrast, your PCC will have to listen to your views and react because it is your vote that put them there. If you don’t like the way the police are operating in your area, then the PCC will have to listen or face being voted out. Indeed they will need to work harder to listen to the views of everybody they represent as, unlike the government or the local authority, it is not the number of MPs or councillors that will decide who has the top job but the individual votes of individual people.

That is not to say that Chief Constables will become soulless puppets, or that a PCC can ever abuse their power to drown out the voice of opposition as in a stereotypical police state. As Cllr O’Brien continues:

“This does not mean that the operational independence of the police will change. The Police are there to protect the public and should not have political affiliation to any party and these changes will not “politicise the Police” as some have suggested.

“Chief Constables will actually have greater professional freedom to take operational decisions to meet the priorities set for them by their local community – via their Commissioner. This will include being able to appoint all of their top management team.”

In the great exercise of democracy, some people will argue their point using cold hard facts, some people will argue their point by misrepresenting the facts and some people will argue their point by simply making things up. The “PCCs will politicse the police” argument falls directly into the third category. It is an argument which has no basis in basis in fact and can, by their logic, be turned against the Police Authorities which they defend, being comprised, at least in part, by (wait for it) politicians!

Anyone who has taken the time to view what a PCC actually is, and what their role entails, will have known this all along. Yes, political parties will field candidates, but that only means that those parties’ policing policy will be reflected in the candidate choice – at the end of the day, as I mentioned previously, candidates will also need their priorities to reflect the concerns of their electorate to be successful.

Finally, Cllr O’Brien reflects upon another concern:

“Some have raised the issue of costs, but Police Authorities (which will be abolished) cost the taxpayer £65 million per year and have spent £25 million on expenses and allowances in the last three years.”

Given that Police Authorities, and what they do, is so little known, it is hardly surprising that their cost is so alien to most people as well. Replacing the multi-member Authorities with a single individual (and, thus, a smaller support staff) will inevitable save costs, rather than add them.

It is an issue which has, inevitably, divided opinion. However, I firmly believe that a single accountable Police and Crime Commissioner is a better way to prioritise local policing and ensure that local police work harder than ever before for local communities.

And it did. Alan W Collins survived for three years with the same name, same editorial style and, for the most part, same theme. Despite a mixed three years in my personal life, this website retained a constant, consistent, brand.

That was until the biggest change of my life occurred in August. I took the biggest gamble of my life, left my two secure jobs, my family and my home to move to Birmingham. The original plan was to study the Legal Practice Course and work part-time around it but when it became clear in July that I would be unable to secure funding, I deferred my course and sought full-time employment instead.

I moved to Balsall Heath on 21 August and rebranded this website Birmingham and Beyond. I invested in a new WordPress theme and moved it from my Medway-based hosting to my primary server to present me with more options and more control. It also saved money as I was working off two paid-for servers – and the web-based server was cheaper and offered unlimited everything.

It is now 7 December. It is over four months in to my official tenancy (having started when I signed the paperwork two weeks before we moved) and I am still painfully unemployed. At the last estimate, unemployment in my area stands at around 33%, whilst youth unemployment (which I fall into) stands at over 40% – the former being three times the national average.

Despite hundreds of applications, I have received only a handful of phone interviews, fewer face-to-face interviews and not one ultimate job offer. Competition is fierce – “not enough experience” and “over-qualified” are two phrases I have heard all too frequently. To top it all, I am not in receipt of any benefits from the government and am surviving purely by the generosity of family and friends – indeed, it is costing my parents more now than it did when I was living at home.

I think, by now, you may have guessed where this is going. Obviously, my situation here in Birmingham is not sustainable.

On Friday, I returned home to Medway to visit family and friends, before coming back to Birmingham yesterday. Whilst there, I put some hours in to help both my previous employers out and that, really, sealed the deal. Everyone complains about their job from time to time, but you only really appreciate it when it is too late.

The past three months, stuck inside the same four walls doing little more than making job application after job application and acquainting myself with daytime TV have begun to drive me a little bit mad. I have recently taken to driving Nessa to university and waiting parked in a lay-by all day just for a change of scenery. But one can only count so many sheep before they, too, send you baa-rking mad (sorry).

So the decision has been made, and only the practicalities and dates remain to be organised. I have, from February, a new house to move in to and can, until then, go back to my old abode.

In short, I’m coming home to Medway!

I have already been offered one of my old jobs back and I know that the other would probably appreciate the extra help I could offer until I could get something full-time. My family and friends are, naturally, happy that I will be returning and I am looking forward to being able to return to helping out the Conservative Party in an active role.

Quite what this means for Birmingham and Beyond, though, is presently unclear. Naturally, the name will need to change – although I am reluctant to revert to Alan W Collins, so suggestions on a postcard would be helpful – but the new WordPress theme will remain. I will update you on any new plans for the website as they are formulated.

Birmingham will always hold a special place in my heart – and a return move here will not be ruled out in the mid- to long-term should it become more viable. But I realise now that now is not – and, in all honesty, never was – the right time. It is only through taking risks in life that we live and learn, and, unfortunately, this risk has not paid off. I have no regrets about any decision that I have taken so far in life and do not instead to start now. I don’t know what course my life will take next, nor what my situation will be in 12 months’ time. For now, it is enough to repeat my earlier statement with both excitement and anticipation as I prepare for yet another new (old) chapter in my life:

I am coming home to Medway!

It was perhaps, therefore, bad timing for the public sector to walk out on strike against changes to their pensions, when another 300,000 of them will lose their jobs by 2017 and unemployment already stands at a worrying 2.62 million – an almost 20-year high.

Indeed, many factors have contributed to a terrible economic outlook – and warnings abound that, if the eurozone fails (as the FSA has ordered banks trading in Britain to prepare for), the direction our country will take economically does not even bear contemplating.

With such dire prospects ahead, and with families looking to struggle even more, as one of the 2.62 million unemployed (but not one of the 1.6 million claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, or, indeed, any benefit from the state), I welcome any measure the government can offer to help (VAT cut, please, George!) – and am more than a little bit miffed that those who do have an income are willing to risk their own jobs by trying to protect their superior (as against the private sector) pensions.

I mean what, exactly, do they think is going to happen in the most unlikely event that the government turn round and agree to their demands? Where do they think the money is going to come from to maintain their pension pot? An increased tax on families? An increased tax on small businesses? An increased tax on large businesses (e.g. banks)?

No, if the government ever decided to protect the public sector pensions, there would be one source of the funding: alternative efficiency savings. I.e. extra cuts. I.e. extra staff cuts. I.e. sending P45s to some of those who fortunate are enough to have a job but who were on strike today because they still were not happy.

Take one for your comrades!

Of course those people paid by us do not always make life easy for themselves. Take, for example, the Office of the Public Guardian, which employs 481 people. I have dealt with a few of them myself, and have often been left wondering how, in an office no member of the public visits, it can take so long to process documents. The last acknowledgement I received before I became unemployed informed me that it would take 12-13 weeks to process the documents. Could this be because, whilst the documents are sent to Birmingham, they need to be passed back-and-forth between the three offices?

Now, the Office of the Public Guardian earns its £22 million from the Ministry of Justice and administration fees charged to the weak and vulnerable when they are applying for Lasting Powers of Attorney (the fee for which has recently gone up), and 177 of their staff working in their London office are milking the taxpayer and the weak and vulnerable for all they are worth:

“…Nor any member of the public ever set foot in this office….

“Had they done so, they might have been surprised by the baskets of fresh fruit on each desk, including a ‘mix of apples, pears, bananas, Satsuma’s and plums.’ All paid for by the most vulnerable people in society.

“The fresh fruit and hand gel cost a mere £26,000 per annum. Yes, that was £26,000. For 177 people. £150 a year each. A lot more than the proposed increase in pension payments for the average employee earning £20,000 a year…”

Anna Raccoon was keen to know what the 177 were up to today:

“Naturally I was keen to learn from my spy in the office whether these fruitbatcosseted creatures were on strike today, on account of being asked to contribute more to their pension. He looked out of his window.

“‘Can’t see any sign of activity, difficult to tell the difference’ he said.

“I had to phone the Ministry of Justice to find the answer. Yes, they are on strike. All 177 of them.

“Absolutely outraged that they couldn’t find a way to get the elderly widows, children, and severely brain damaged to fund the increase to their pensions. They are being expected to pay for that themselves. Can you imagine?”

They want their cake and they want to eat it, too. And why not? I do not wish to be disingenuous to the majority of public sector workers – after all, if they believe their telephone-salaried union leaders, then there are countless alternatives to the government’s plan of action. There are alternatives, granted, but few lead us anywhere other than to Greece – and then the public sector workers really will have a reason to complain. When they are added to the jobless pile.

This issue is complex, and certainly not something I could cover in one post (particularly one which is already at 900 words when I am nowhere near halfway through my thoughts), but to summarise my thoughts on the strikes, I would say thus:

I support the right to strike. I will argue and fight to the death to support the right to strike. But union leaders’ attempts to manipulate their members into holding the country to ransom on ideological grounds at a time when difficult choices need to be made are disgraceful. If Labour were in power still, they would be cutting the public sector, too (though maybe not quite as courageously) and, whilst the unions would oppose these, their opposition would not be so fierce.

When Labour came to power, Gordon Brown raided the private sector pension pot, costing private sector workers at least an estimated £100 billion. The government’s proposals for public sector pensions would not be nearly as damaging, though they are, admittedly, being asked to contribute more whilst they are working. Gordon Brown gave private sector workers little choice, whilst the government are trying to negotiate with the unions to create an affordable solution. Negotiations are still ongoing, but unions decided to strike now, anyway, with barely one-third of their members supporting such action.

Surely, logically, logistically, the obvious route would be to wait until negotiations had finished before going on strike if you still weren’t happy? Oh, but of course, the union leaders care not about logic or logistics, they also care not about their members, they just want to fight the Tories so that the public hate them and vote their chums in Labour back in to dole out yet more taxpayer-funded perks and non-jobs to their members and prospective members.

The trouble is, there’s no money left for them!

It read: “I am writing to say that I do not feel that there is a need for your pipe dream of an airport scheme on or near the Thames Estuary and believe that you should drop this pie in the sky idea with immediate effect. I feel the same about the other schemes that have also been presented, which I notice you have also added your support to.”

As I stated in my letter to the Daily Telegraph last week, I, like most people, can recognise that airport expansion is greatly needed to promote and protect the UK’s national and economic interests. As I wrote, the most damaging prospect is not doing the wrong thing, but not doing anything at all:

“What is needed is an immediate consultation on the proposals, followed by a decision. Action needs to be taken before permanent damage is done to our trade links, a damning prospect for our economy.”

However, I do not believe that the Thames Estuary or the Hoo Peninsula is the right location for a new hub airport – it is at almost the south-eastern-most tip of the UK and would require a costly forward journey from London for almost any end destination outside of the capital. So, whilst I see due process as being essential, I will, both preceeding and during, use that due process to voice opposition to either site as the location of a new hub airport.

Today, I received a response from the Mayor of London’s office, which is no doubt a stock response being forwarded in turn to everyone who has used the above e-mail template. I have my own thoughts on this, but I will leave them for another day and, instead, allow you to make your own minds up first:

“Over the past year and more a national debate has begun about London’s future airport needs and the Mayor of London has been a leading participant in this. In the wake of the economic and financial crisis it is clear that both London and the UK must urgently find ways to rebalance and recover their economic vitality.

“This will require identifying new trade and investment opportunities, many of which are likely to be with emerging economies, in addition to our traditional trading partners. The Mayor believes that it will only be possible to do this if we ensure we have first class aviation links with the rest of the World. If we fail, we risk further damage to an economy that has become highly aviation-reliant.

“The Mayor’s recent research has shown that for the most economically beneficial forms of aviation -business travel, inbound tourism and air freight, sufficient hub airport capacity is essential. This work has also shown that Heathrow is no longer capable of performing its role as the nation’s sole hub airport sufficiently well. Its expansion would not only have unacceptable environmental consequences, it would not be able to meet our long-term capacity needs.

“For these reasons the Mayor is keen to explore alternative solutions and to have a broad and open-minded debate about them. He is not wedded to any single location. Rather, he is keen to ensure that decisions are made by those responsible on a proper basis, following a rigorous assessment not only of the economic costs and benefits, but also the social and environmental impacts of the various options.

“The Mayor has now completed a first phase of work in which he has made the overall economic case for a new hub airport. He is planning further work to help move the debate forwards and this is expected to involve consideration of commercial and environmental issues as well as options for the location of such an airport.

“The complexity and scale of implications regarding the choice of a new airport location are such that a huge amount of work will be needed before any particular location becomes a preferred option.”

In a nutshell, someone (for reasons known only to themselves) created a fake Twitter account for Mr Chishti that duped hundreds of journalists, MPs, councillors, constituents and others (including myself). The content of the Tweets was harmless enough – though the mundane nature of their content only added to the realism of the account.

There may be some merit in Mr Chishti’s calls, however it should not be for an inflated nanny state to place strict and unworkable controls to reach a target which responsible social media companies, such as Twitter, Facebook and Google, should be striving to achieve without prompting (and, to be fair, Twitter does present a verification process for public figures to confirm their genuine accounts). However, that is not the focus of this post.

Chris (if he can excuse the familiarity) made a far more pertinent point in the same linked article (if you can excuse the extensive quote):

“[I]n the case of Mr Chishti’s “hacker” it has done nothing but actually give him some column space.

“I’ve said before that I’d almost forgotten who my MP was and low in the last month he has appeared in two stories locally, both seemingly self serving, this one and the one defending boundary reforms which could be argued was saving his majority for the next election.

“He doesn’t sit well in the media that in the same paper (Medway Messenger 21-11-11) there is this article on Rehman Chishti wittering on about a fraudulent Twitter account that did no real harm and in this case is only applicable to him (on page 11) and on Page 7 is a picture of Tracey Crouch doing good in the community of Chatham and Aylesford raising money for Children in need with Freddy the fox.

“Where was Rehman on Children in need? Is this just the media being selective of its stories? I’m not really in a position to say (with any proof) either way but in my honest opinion no they aren’t.

“Rehman Chishti does seem to be MIA in Medway and again in Friday’s paper … he was yet again available for comment. A good question would be; would Mr Chishti have brought this up in Parliament if it hadn’t happened to him?

“Could the accusation that he is only representing himself be levelled?”

It is a question that has reared it’s head time and time again since the heady days of March 2006, when a Conservative majority government seemed a forgone conclusion, and a former Labour parliamentary candidate and then Labour councillor defected to the Conservative Party. Ever since, Mr Chishti spent countless hours courting local journalists and trying to find every excuse to appear in the local papers – with press releases seemingly flying out at a rate of two per week.

Except, after May 2010, Rehman Chishti MP seemed to fade from the pages of the local media. Where once stood a photograph of a smiling young political hopeful now stands Pudsey, Jedward and (shudder) Ed Balls. When a journalist contacted Mr Chishti for a comment on finally using Twitter to keep in touch with constituents, there was little more than silence and tumbleweed in return.

Of course, although local media is useful for local politicians to keep in touch with constituents, it is more profile than public notice. The real bread and butter of a constituency MP’s work comes from attending local events, whether they are publicised or not – you show up, meet and talk to your constituents, maybe make a presentation or two, maybe have a photograph or two then leave, leaving everyone feeling special and glad to have had your attendance.

Before the election, Mr Chishti attended plenty of events, spent plenty of time talking to constituents and smiled for plenty of photographs. He seemed to revel in and enjoy meeting people and understanding their concerns. But has this changed since the election?

Well, according to my sources, yes. It has. I have heard from a few people who have been at events to which Rehman Chishti MP had been invited, disappointed by his apparent boredom at being present – and failing to hang around too long (often even missing the obligatory photograph). Of course, I should point out that this is not every event that he has attended, but it is a concerning revelation nonetheless.

Finally, before the election Mr Chishti accused his predecessor of being ineffective in Parliament, rarely speaking in Parliament (until he finally made junior minister). It is one’s role in Parliament to represent one’s constituents’ views – which means one needs to be speaking and voting regularly. Has Rehman Chishti MP made the grade in the House of Commons?

In a word, yes. According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Mr Chishti has spoken in 93 debates and received answers to 69 written questions in the past year. In this Parliament, he has voted in 89% of divisions. My particular favourite (as regular readers will understand) was when he voted aye to the following division:

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt public houses and private members’ clubs from the requirements of part 1 of the Health Act 2006 relating to smoke-free premises; and for connected purposes.”

I have heard it said, even from people who voted blue in May 2010, that Paul Clark was more effective as a constituency MP than Rehman Chishti is. He turned up to events (albeit sometimes late), he hung around and he posed for as many photographs as his constituents desired.

However, although it is important for MPs to keep in regular contact with their constituents, they have not been elected to look pretty at school fetes. They have been elected to represent their constituents in Parliament, raising local issues in debates (such as the Thames Estuary proposal at Prime Minister’s Question Time) and voting on important Bills. In this regard, and in spite of his dual roles as both a councillor and a Member of Parliament, Mr Chishti has been tireless.

There may be an element of careerism and self-serving to Mr Chishti – but then that is the same for almost every politicain at every level. The fact is, as a constituency MP, representing Gillingham and Rainham in Parliament, Rehman Chishti exceeds his predecessor’s benchmark by miles.

Just don’t mention the “E” word…