John Michael Ward, who was the Conservative Councillor for Horsted, then Rochester South and Horsted, for almost eight years, has decided to cease political blogging, thirty months after resigning from Medway Council.

John’s blogging was always thought-through and thorough, and he would always provide sources and clear evidence where necessary. Though I would not always agree with his posts, he always put his opinion across in the best manner possible.

In his farewell post, John promises us that he will not be hanging up his keyboard, so to speak, but will no longer be providing commentary on political issues.

Instead, his focus will now shift to his other interests – namely cuisine, music and technology – but I hope he will not cease his political activism completely, as he would be sorely missed.

It is a terrible loss for political blogging in Medway.

I said from the outset that the issue was not career-threatening, based on personal experience in a similar matter, and blow me down, I was right. The Standards Board decided “that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation“.

What does that mean in practice? Well basically that the Standards Board would not have prevented him from continuing to be a Councillor as what he said “could be considered the expression of a political view“, which is protected under Freedom of Speech provisions in the Human Rights Act.

Of course, at the moment, it’s all well and good looking back with hindsight and wishing things had turned out differently, as his resignation has been accepted and a by-election is to take place in May.

There is, of course, an election to look forward to in 2011, though, or a Parliamentary Seat up for grabs…

John Ward, former Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted Ward on Medway Council, has resigned following controversial comments on his personal weblog.

Although it was not his original intention, John Ward has said that “in today’s Soviet-style Britain, with all the pressures coming down upon us from on high and with yet more to come … all the indicators are that recent events have, funnily enough, afforded me an opportunity to ‘get out from under’ before even more bureaucracy hits local Councillors”.

John was a fantastic Councillor and still is (and always will be) a good man. He worked hard for the people he represented and his input will, I’m sure, be sorely missed in the local political scene by members of all parties, even those who called for his resignation this weekend.

I continue to maintain that John, like everyone else, has a right to his own opinions, and a right to share his opinions in any medium he chooses. We do, after all, live in a free democracy. However, it would be wrong of me not to point out at this juncture that, in this case, I do not agree with what was said on his blog about people claiming benefits, regardless of whether they were his words or merely reproduced from another source.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to wish the former Councillor the best of luck in his life beyond public service, as he “look[s] forward to the next adventure in [his] life, wherever that should turn out to be”.

As with all forms of (especially written) communication, there are pitfalls awaiting. Sometimes it seems that it would be easier not to bother at all, and let others have it all their own way.

When one is in public service and genuinely accepts what that means, then ducking issues like this is no longer an option. Just like Chad, we should make the effort to inform people of what we have found out ourselves, even if on occasion something doesn’t come out right and needs correction. Once in a while, it might even be appropriate to remove something altogether, and those of us who are responsible will always do that once we are aware of the situation.

The full article, Above the Parapet, can be found on his blog. Post now removed.

Why am I posting this? I hear you cry. Am I standing up for what he originally said? No. Do I think he was right to say it? Probably not. Have I suddenly become Councillor Ward’s spokesperson? Definitely not. My reasons are simple: I too have fallen foul of what is generally considered to be “right” on my blog – and it took me from last April, when the articles were published, until last December before I was properly able to defend myself.

I’m not going to go into details – that would be wholly inappropriate and not warranted almost a whole year after the articles’ dates. However, I know that when you stick your head above the parapet on controversial issues and then get shot down, unable to defend yourself in the correct way, you do feel frustrated, and even angered, sometimes.

So this is me balancing the scales once more, and providing you with an opportunity to see the other side of the story, the side you probably won’t read in the press. And if you think this is serious and career-threatening, I can promise you it will all blow over. It did for me, and it did for Cllr Vaughan Hewett when he, too, stuck his head above the parapet.

The freedom of the borough is the highest honour a Council can give and all but two of the 55 Medway Councillors were present and voted for the motion, which read:

In pursuance of the power vested in it by virtue of section 249 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council confers the honorary freedom of the borough on the Corps of Royal Engineers in perpetuity, in the interests of cementing and fostering the close and longstanding bonds of friendship and mutual respect existing between the Corps of Royal Engineers, Medway Council and its predecessor authorities.

In a rare act during the discussion, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Medway also spoke on the topic, which was dear to the hearts of many of the Councillors assembled.

I for one welcome the move, as a great recognition of the tremendous work that the Royal Engineers do and marking the first ten years of the Medway Unitary Authority.

Discussion

All “quotations” are not verbatim as my tired little hands were not able to write fast enough to catch every word, although I have tried to quote what I can, and where I believe it to be verbatim and of particular interest, I have written it in ‘inverse commas’.

Cllr Rodney Chambers (Con, Hempstead and Wigmore). Without the Royal Engineers, no professional mechanised army can move forward. Long association withe Medway. Reminded all of the RE’s FA Cup record*. Activities in Northern Ireland – particularly bomb disposal. Medway is predominantly a Naval & Military area – more Military since the Dockyard shut in 1984. Noted recent disquiet in media over lack of appreciation. “It is right and fitting that we recgonise the public appreciation”. We should use this to recognise 10 years of the Unitary Authority.

* The Royal Engineers played in the first ever FA Cup final and lost to Wanderers. In 1985, they beat Old Etonians in the fourth FA Cup final. Source: Wikipedia.

Cllr Paul Godwin (Lab, Chatham Central) was happy to support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Council, but decided to be brief because the Labour Group had decided that Cllr Harriott would be their main speaker on this subject, given his ties with the Royal Engineers.

Cllr Geoffrey Juby (LD, Gillingham South) wasn’t at the last meeting, where this idea was first proposed, but is happy it was brought forward. “We may not like the wars they serve in, but we are happy to have them”. Hoped motion could be supported unanimously.

Cllr Nicholas Brice (Con, Rochester South and Horsted). On behalf of the people of Medway we are asked to give a voice for people to confer the freedom of the borough

Cllr Paul Harriott (Lab, Twydall) sported his Royal Engineers tie as he said that the Royal Engineers are “known worldwide by people and politicians alike for their fighting skills. They are soldiers first and tradesmen second”.

Cllr Stephen Kearney (LD, Gillingham South). Our Country does not always recognise and appreciate our armed forces. This is only a small thank you, but it means so much to them and the people of Medway.

Cllr Alan Jarrett (Con, Lordswood and Capstone). Our Armed Forces go about their duties in a very professional way – they leave people at home to squabble about the rights and wrongs of the campaigns they are fighting. And it is not just the men in uniform we need to praise, but also those who support them.

Cllr Diana Smith (LD, Watling). Delighted to support this – can’t wait to see the priviledge of seeing Royal Engineers marching through the centre of Medway.

Cllr Roy Hunter (Con, Rainham South). Apologised – had to close down parts of London whilst working duing the Northern Ireland troubles. Saw the Royal Engineers’ bomb disposal work first-hand.

Cllr Nicholas Bowler (Lab, Rochester East, Deputy Mayor). Joked “I’ve been quiet for long enough”*. Passionate about the Military. Fully support this. Very good thing we are doing.

* As Deputy Mayor, Cllr Bowler was not usually given the right to speak at Council meetings, however the Mayor, Cllr Val Goulden, extended that right to both of them for this special meeting. Thus Cllr Bowler joked “I’ve been quiet for long enough”. Having seen his performances at Development Control meetings, I beg to differ!

Cllr Herbert Crack (LD, Watling). Definitely support this – and certainly won’t be looking too closely at the costs involved.

Cllr John Ward (Con, Rochester South and Horsted). Moved to Medway 11 years ago and quickly discovered the Military connection. “This is one of the best things Medway has done”.

Cllr Richard Andrews (Con, Strood South). “This is the best thing we can do as a Council”.

Cllr Val Goulden (Lab, Luton and Wayfield, Mayor). Thanked the Leader of the Council for this motion. It will make a lot of people happy – including her late Dad, who is a former RE member.

The motion was carried by 53 votes to 0.

This is a tricky issue for those of us who genuinely want to find out what people’s wishes are, their opinions, and (around election times in particular) their voting intentions if they are prepared to disclose this. Incidentally, that last is actually quite useful as far as the one questioned is concerned, but that is a lengthy discussion, so is for another time, I think.

Being pestered on one’s own doorstep, or in the street, is something about which many of us feel uncomfortable. So much “cold calling” and similar still goes on in this way, especially as other forms of cold calling have (rightly) been outlawed, such as by telephone, fax or email. Obviously, this was done for very good reasons: it wasn’t a spurious reaction, but in the interests of consumer protection.

Not that the legislation stops them: they merely ring, fax or email from abroad instead. Obviously, any outfit going to such lengths to flout our British laws has to be dodgy, by definition — and that leads me onto my subject for today.

Yes, it’s the ongoing saga of energy providers to pay people to come around with clipboards and identity badges to try to persuade you to change your energy provider. The fact that they feel the need to “cold call” in this way — despite the clear message from legislation in this area that the practice is considered unacceptable — once again shows that they are not to be trusted — ever!

It is nowadays well known that the cold-calling “representatives” at your door are very highly trained to elicit a sale, particularly to the most vulnerable and susceptible members of society, and even in extremely difficult circumstances — they have the “patter” and the techniques to break down resistance. Personally, I put them in the same category as all others with a similar self-serving agenda. To me, they are amongst the lowest of the low. I can and do handle them, usually quite emphatically after reminding them that no reputable business would conduct itself in such a manner (which it plainly wouldn’t).

I permanently “blacklist” any organisation that ever tries this on: they will never get my business. This is the only way to discourage these people — make sure they lose out through their dubious practices.

Remember that, no matter how attractive the sales pitch might be, that is all it is. The rep’ will do very well out of a sale (i.e. by signing-up to them) as will the company behind the initiative. These people aren’t trudging around our streets as volunteers — they are well-paid employees (or equivalent) of very profitable companies.

My advice: don’t deal with them — ever!

Councillor Ward is one of the 3 Councillors for Rochester South & Horsted Ward on Medway Council – you can view his website here.

It is a disappointing decision, but at least Cllr Murray will have a terrible fight on her hands if she actually wants to win. Cllr Ward is in two minds about it, though.

A small group of friends go out for a meal at the local Macdonalds (or similar). On checking the money they have hey find there isn’t enough for them all to have (say) a burger, fries and a cup of tea or coffee. So, they pick on the least liked member of the group and say “Sorry, you’re having just the burger — no fries, no drink — so that the rest of us can have ours.”

That’s what the Government wheeze called “floor damping” means to Medway Council and Medway residents: several million pounds taken away after an already poor financial settlement, for no proper reason.

In the case of our group of friends, the correct approach is of course obvious: all to have their burgers and fries, and make a brew-up when they get home. It’s what I’d have done!

Instead, central Government chooses to take millions away from Medway every year, starting two years ago. Worse than ever, today’s published setllement shows that the level of floor damping for the next financial year (2008-2009) has been increased by an additional three-quarters of a million pounds! It will be no less than £5,369,000 top-sliced off our funding, with no possible justification whatsoever.

We already know how tight things are here, what with the restrictions we have had to place on opening hours at the Stirling Centre, closure of creches and additions to parking charges, including extending their hours. Today’s settlement is the clearest, most blatant case of fiddling wuch funding that this country has probably ever seen in its entire parliamentary history.

We all accept that there are reasons for small tweaks to iron out funding discrepancies, as and when these are identified. When the Government’s own data shows that this can been carried to such an extreme that, if Medway were funded on the same basis as (say) Leicester City Council this would result in no less than an additional £365 million coming to us each and every year — well, it’s something that quite frankly should be made illegal.

Bottom line: why should our more than a quarter of a million people — including 29 of the most disadvantaged and deprived neighbourhoods in the nation — have to suffer and go without, just because our national Governmnt (already in huge disgrace over their own Party funding) feel that they can play fast and loose with taxpayers’ money to suit themselves?

It’s about time the law on all this were changed, so that governments were legally compelled to serve the nation, rather than their own personal and party ends. I’d vote for that!

Councillor Ward is one of the 3 Councillors for Rochester South & Horsted Ward on Medway Council – you can view his website here.

It seems that, after contributions of several other “excellent” blogs, including Alan Collins, Strood Conservatives, Iain Dale, and Guido Fawkes, the temptation has become too much for Cllr Ward.

Yesterday “Medway Councillor John M Ward” appeared on the popular blog hosting site blogspot, meaning that I now have competition.

But don’t think that he is done with contributing here…

The motion’s text, which was agreed unanimously, as written in the agenda, is as follows: “Our armed forces are acting in the highest traditions of our nation in their conduct of operations overseas. Reservists and regular servicemen and women alike share the burden and risks and they do so in the most difficult of circumstances, with great pressure on manpower and other resources. On behalf of the people of Medway this Council wishes to express admiration at the bravery, endurance and professionalism of our servicemen and women, as well as the fortitude and quiet courage of their families at home in the United Kingdom.”

The response from members was overwhelming, and below I have decided to share as much of it with you as possible, interspersed with my personal opinions on some members’ comments.

All “quotations” are not verbatim as my tired little hands were not able to write fast enough to catch every word, although I have tried to quote what I can, and where I believe it to be verbatim and of particular interest, I have written it in ‘inverse commas’.

Councillor Rodney Chambers (Con, Hempstead and Wigmore) started off the debate. “I hope this motion can gain unanimous support. It is not intended to be political or controversial. Over the past few weeks, many of us have attended services of remembrance. ‘It is right to remember those who have given their lives’ and also serving forces. This topic has had a great deal of publicity recently. It is said that there is a feeling of a lack of appreciation in our community and lack of understanding as to why they have been sent there. Soldiers fighting abroad fell their families are being neglected, in particular their welfare and housing. I would like to convey to all personnel our grateful thanks and appreciation for everything they do.”

Councillor Paul Godwin (Lab, Chatham Central) was next. “In principal I am happy to support this motion. The issue of the current position is always a concern for all of us and for decades has been a feature of all Army leaders’ concerns. However, support comes at a cost, and the cost must be proportional.”

I should just like to point out here that £9bn for fighting African aids against £400m for fighting in Afghanistan is greatly disproportional and immensely unfair in my view, and is disgraceful treatment of our Armed Services by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Councillor John Ward (Con, Rochester South and Horsted). “I am fully supportive of this motion. Warring and fighting is terrible, but recently I was reminded by a song from the Innes Book of Records (and its video), Time to Kill, which brings a lot of things home. Members from all sides can view it, courtesy of Cllr Etheridge, at StroodConservatives.com.”

Councillor Teresa Murray (Lab, Rochester East). “It is very important to remember the contribution they play in peacekeeping and rebuilding communities. Soldiers retiring, particularly younger ones, need to find jobs, affordable housing and even such things as a family doctor. I hope Councillor Chambers enshrines in his motion our responsibility to them.”

It is indeed true that we all have a responsibility to help our serving and retired servicemen and women, particularly when they are getting younger and younger.

Councillor Nicholas Brice (Con, Rochester South and Horsted). “I was discussing with the Mayor outside Rochester Cathedral on the day of the Remembrance service the right we have to differ in public on any issue. If we cannot move this declaration, then our grand plans come to nought. ‘We thank you. We admire you. God bless you all.’”

Councillor Stephen Kearney (LD, Gillingham South). “I like many people have sold poppies, but we [as a Council] need to show what we can do. People will need specialist care, particularly as there are now people in their early 20s coming home. Whatever we can do to help these people we should do.”

Councillor Paul Harriot (Lab, Twydall). “I am reminded by the vicar of St Mark’s Church [Canon John Saunders]‘s sermon at the remembrance service there, when he said “the price of freedom is not free”. It is important for servicemen to understand that they serve their Country and the Queen. Young men enter service of their own choice (unlike me, who like most people my age were called up for National Service). I give 100% support to this motion.”

Canon John Saunders’ sermon was indeed as thought provoking as some of the responses given to this motion. He reminded us that the cost of war (and thus freedom) is higher than the statistics show, because for every serviceman who dies or gets injured, there are family and friends who are directly affected. Freedom comes at a price, and we must ensure that the people who will be paying that price with their lives are adequately cared for and feel valued and appreciated.

Councillor Herbert Crack (LD, Watling). “I endorse this motion. We hear so much about the youth of today and the “hoodie culture” that we often forget that it is the youth of today out there fighting for our Country today.”

Councillor Diane Chambers (Con, Hempstead and Wigmore). “A friend’s son died fighting in Iraq. In the last letter he sent to his parents he said “it’s a mess here but I love what I do. I wouldn’t be anywhere else but here with my men.”"

Councillor Jane Etheridge (Con, Strood North). “It is times like these that draw communities together. It would be appropriate if we could remember those in newer conflicts.”

Councillor Tony Goulden (Lab, Luton and Wayfield). “This is an excellent motion.”

Councillor Alan Jarrett (Con, Lordswood and Capstone) had a slightly different way of putting things. “Today’s soldiers are all volunteers (unlike those, including Cllr Harriot, who were conscripts). For different reasons we all choose to serve our community, but our wives and families expect us to come home. Some servicemen are unable to. The media gives little mention to soldiers who die for their Country, yet are likely to debate for months how ‘McClaren’s dire tribe and bunch of misfits’ let us down last night. It is a sad sign of the times when our servicemen and women are dying, yet the only photograph on the front page of a national newspaper is that of a deflated football.”

Councillor Rodney Chambers (Con, Hempstead and Wigmore). “Local people who died should be remembered locally. I have had the pleasure to live amongst the RE Corps for nearly 32 years. I think we should grant the freedom of Medway on the Corps as part of our appreciation.”

Councillor Chambers then proposed a motion to be discussed at a special meeting of the Council before the next full Council meeting on January 17, which read that “the freedom of Medway be conferred upon the Royal Engineers.” This was agreed.