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.”

Here in Medway, the Liberal Democrat Group Leader has fallen short of calling for Nick Clegg to part ways with David Cameron, unlike many of his colleagues across the country, but accepts that it was as a result of the coalition that a group that once had a firm grip on Gillingham Borough Council has been reduced to just three members: Leader Geoff Juby, Deputy Leader Sheila Kearney and Whip Diana Smith.

Even the party’s strongest ward of Gillingham South faced a battering, becoming in one night a Liberal Democrat / Labour marginal. Worse for the party was the loss of respected veteran councillor Stephen Kearney, who made way for Labour’s David Colman.

And in Gillingham North, Alan W Collins‘ prediction about two Independent wins (ridiculed by almost all but those candidates themselves) came to pass. Indeed, at the count this author spent most of his time watching that result and the one in River (where he had spent the day campaigning) and, though close, it looked like they would take at least one seat. What was evident, though, was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats who had won that ward with a reasonable majority in 2007. Indeed, they had lost so much support, they came fourth, behind even the Conservatives and with less than half their number of votes.

In Watling, where the Liberal Democrats had unseated the Conservatives’ Wendy Purdy in 2007 with a strong show of support, only Diana Smith was left standing after an emotional night which began to hint, at one point, to a loss for both Liberal Democrats fighting for that seat.

In Rainham North, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginal in 2007 turned into a Conservative stronghold, with the Liberal Democrats pushed into third place behind Labour. In Rainham Central, once a close Conservative/Liberal Democrat ward (they had held St Margaret’s, a predecessor to Rainham Central – narrowly beating this author’s mother in 1997) and where they came second in 2007, they were technically pushed into fourth place, being beaten by the UK Independence Party candidate and even one candidate being beaten by the Green Party candidate.

River ward, which took in part of the old Liberal Democrat-held Brompton when the boundaries were redrawn for the 2003 elections, saw the lowest number of votes for any candidate polled by Liberal Democrat Nem Juby with just 85.

Last week was not disappointing for the Liberal Democrats, it was a disaster which has sent shockwaves through a party not used to fighting local elections whilst in government. Locally, the party has been in decline for the past fourteen years or so, but last week was almost completely wiped off the electoral map. Nationally, they have lost seats they have held for years, along with the goodwill of a largely once-tolerant electorate.

And with councils electing in thirds seeing elections over the coming few years, things could go even further downhill for a party who once had a firm grip on local authorities across the country.

Veteran Conservative Councillor Ted Baker will be Mayor of Medway for 2011/2012, after being chosen by the ruling Conservative Group.

Cllr Baker (pictured above), who was re-elected in Rochester West last week with almost 200 extra votes, will be officially elected Mayor at Medway Council’s Annual Meeting on Wednesday, 25th May, along with his Deputy Mayor, Cuxton and Halling Cllr Ray Maisey.

Cllr Baker was Mayor of Medway in 2002/2003 and Deputy Mayor of Medway in 2008/2009, and will be accompanied by his wife Sylvia as Mayoress.

Cllrs Baker and Maisey (picture left) will take the chains of office from present Mayor, Cllr David Brake, and Deputy Mayor, Cllr Vaughan Hewett.

The new Mayor was announced following the first Medway Conservative Group meeting since last Thursday’s local election, which saw Cllr Rodney Chambers and Cllr Alan Jarrett re-elected Leader and Deputy Leader of the group.

It was also announced that, following Ken Bamber’s failure to be elected in Strood South, Cllr Barry Kemp will take over as the Group’s Chief Whip.

Meanwhile, Labour have confirmed that Cllr Paul Godwin will continue as their Group Leader, though, in a surprising move, Cllr Vince Maple replaces Cllr Glyn Griffiths as Deputy Leader. Cllr Julie Shaw will be their Group Whip.

And the Liberal Democrats have announced that Cllr Geoff Juby and Cllr Sheila Kearney will continue as their Group’s Leader and Deputy, after their disappointing results last week, with Cllr Diana Smith as Group Whip.

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.

Suddenly, an angel appears, and tells him that, if he follows her to a new site, then he?could catch 100,000 more fish during his lifetime. But, she would keep almost 54,000?for the privilege.

The fisherman is 21. Assuming he continues fishing until he is 65, how many extra fish?per year would he catch? And, for extra credit, how many of them would he be able to?keep?

No conferring! And, whilst you work that out, here?s some light entertainment from Mr?Conway Twitty:

All done?

Okay, so, over the course of 44 years, our fisherman friend would catch an extra 2,273?(rounded) fish per year, of which the angel would take almost 1,273 (rounded) and he?would keep just over 1,000.

What the fisherman decides to do is up to your own imagination, but it is a dilemma?that will soon be facing a whole generation of university students, with grateful thanks?to Liberal Democrat pressure in the coalition, and our friend the Business Secretary, Dr Vince Cable.

The question is, if after a graduate tax is introduced the average increase in annual wage is just ?1,000, are people really going to want to go to university and burden themselves with so much debt? And if not, how is Britain?s productivity going to cope as a result.

The Chief Executive of Pizza Hut, Jans Hofma, wrote an article in The Times today (online for subscribers), claiming, rightly, that people who perform menial jobs, such as cleaners, and people who work on the ?front line? at home, such as waiters, are just as valuable to our economy as the big earners in the City ? for who else would keep their offices clean and serve them their coffee to keep them working? And who else would ensure that tourists, whether domestic or international, are looked after to the extent whereby they want to keep coming back?

But what Britain can seldom afford is a new generation of McDonald?s workers. We need scientists and surgeons as much as cleaners and cooks. Bankers and lawyers, though often derided as the scourge of the British public, all started at the same place ? university.

Can the next generation really afford to be deterred by a new ?graduate tax? (though not referred to as such by the higher education minister, grudgingly forced to accept the idea after staunch opposition), sucking away over half the financial incentive driving students into universities in the first place?

If I were the fisherman, and extra 83 fish per month would not be enough to persuade me to leave the environment I felt most comfortable in.

I just hope that the coalition, in the end, does the right thing when Lord Browne?s Higher Education Review Panel report concludes.

Let’s be clear before I continue, however, that I have every sympathy for anyone losing their job, but, sadly, c’est la vie, as the French saying goes. Public sector jobs are historically volatile as they depend on the mood of the country-at-large at the time.

Strangely enough, I can think of another similar job, and I believe with those employees, too, there has been quite a significant (proportionally) turnover of staff. As a brief aside from this post, I would like to suggest the coalition government agrees to reduce the number of MPs by 10%, as per the Conservative Party manifesto.

Why? Well, at present, an MP’s salary is ?65,738 and each receives roughly ?100,000 for staffing. If the number of MPs were to be reduced by 10%, i.e. 65, then salary costs would be reduced (at the present rates) by almost ?4.3m and staffing costs would be reduced by around ?6.5m – thus, a total saving of almost ?11m would be made, per year, for just 65 MPs – not including additional expenses!

(And Labour suddenly wanted to create a second chamber of salary-taking elected representatives, when the current one is costing almost ?107m on just MPs and their staff¹?! 1997 would have been a good time for such a reform, but the focus now needs to be on reducing the deficit.)

Anyway, to return to the original point of my post. Public sector workers are introduced into a volatile working environment from day one. Remember the Department for Education? It was created in 1992, before becoming the Department for Education and Employment in 1995. In 2001 it changed again to the Department for Education and Skills, then in 2007 to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. This year, the department made a full-circle return to being the Department for Education. And remember the Home Office? Of course you do, it still exists, but so too does the Ministry of Justice, which came into existence after the Home Office was split in two.

That good old executive agency HM Land Registry has also taken a hit, its office closures, which could lead to the loss of up to 2,000 jobs, were announced before the election. And let’s not forget those 192 executive non-departmental public bodies (just part of a total 766 quangos) employing over 111,000 people and spending almost ?46.5bn in 2008/2009² – that is where the brunt of the government savings will come, and yes, staffing levels will be affected.

Just as c’est la vie, la vie continue aussi, to continue les paroles fran?aises started at the outset of this article. I have listed above just a small – and hugely limited – summary of a selection of government entities – and believe me, there is a lot more to be seen!

From MPs to government departments, executive agencies to quangos. ?6bn is a very small figure when compared to government expenditure, and there are doubtless many ways costs could be cut back in order to make such a minimal saving.

I will not try to second guess Osborne-Laws’ programme to be released later on today, but I can imagine that the unions will be up in arms, as a few of their members will be suffering at the hands of the blunt axe. However, many of their members’ jobs should never have existed in the first place, and after yesterday’s Sunday Express story about a certain union’s ?100m country mansion, the unions certainly don’t have my sympathy at the moment.

There are so many ways Osborne-Laws can get the cuts right today, and so many ways they can get them wrong. But any attempt to scale back the state and public expenditure can only be welcomed as the coalition government aims to reduce the massive deficit it has inherited and the poor state public finances are in after 13 years of Labour.

Notes

1. It is recognised that, at present, there are just 649 MPs, but the five Sinn F?in MPs who practice abstentionism have not been counted in this sum.

2. Civil Service Public Bodies 2009 report.

Garry Mann had been in a bar in Portgual during Euro 2004 when a riot broke out in a nearby street. In what must have seemed like a daze, Mr Mann was arrested, tried and convicted of hooliganism within 48 hours, with no idea what was happening around him.

Medway blogger Alan Collins has been following Mr Mann’s case closely over the past few weeks, as a law student looking at (amongst other things) EU Law and as a proud British citizen embarrassed by his government’s willingness to surrender one of its own citizens to face a prison sentence following a “serious injustice”.

Mr Collins commented: “It was, undoubtedly, one of the most grossly unfair trials faced by a British citizen within the Eurozone. 12 football fans were tried en masse, with one seemingly clueless lawyer and no chance to prepare a defence.

“After six years, Mr Mann, a former fire fighter and proud England supporter, has been forced back to Portugal after a European Arrest Warrant was released – a system introduced to aid the war against terrorism in Europe.

“Garry Mann may or may not have been innocent, I honestly cannot say either way. However, what I can say is that, in Britain, and indeed in most European countries, we live by the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental human right.

“Clearly, that human right was breached back in June 2004, a human right laid out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that ‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing … Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.’

“Fundamentally, Article 6 states the minimum rights any person charged with a criminal offence has: ‘to be informed properly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence … to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court’.

“The British Government, under the leadership and direction of the Labour Party, introduced the European Arrest Warrant. It is they who could have supported Mr Mann in his fight against extradition, but they chose to throw him to the wolves. The Labour Government abandoned one of its own citizens who had clearly not been afforded his basic human rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“This fact was recognised by the courts and judges of the United Kingdom which oversaw Mr Mann’s application against the extradition. They recognised, correctly, that, as Lord Justice Moses put it, ‘serious concerns’ had to be raised by the case, which ‘lends force to the belief that a serious injustice’ had occurred. Ultimately, following his judgement, he called the case an ‘embarrassment’.

“But the fact is, our country is constantly willing to bend over backwards to Europe, and, not only were the Labour Government willing to throw a British citizen to the wolves, our legal system is undermined by that of the European Union, and, no matter how much they agreed with Mr Mann’s case, accepted that they had not the jurisdiction to prevent the extradition.

“Mr Mann’s only hope was with the politicians in the Labour Government, who were too busy appeasing everyone else in Europe to care about one of their own citizens.

“On Tuesday night, a new dawn broke in British politics. Prime Minister David Cameron and his Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg put tribal, partisan differences aside and formed a strong, exciting coalition government to work for the British people and to make great swathes of reforms where reforms are desperately needed.

“I would suggest that the first reform they should look at with regards to Europe is to scrap Britain’s unwavering commitment to the European Arrest Warrant, and to fight for Garry Mann to be released and brought home, or, at least to face a fair trial for the charges laid out.

“It was a system introduced to fight terrorists, not tourists, and it needs to be made clear that that is the only use of the European Arrest Warrant Britain will recognise.

“I understand that Hugh Robertson, Mr Mann’s local MP, made representations to the Foreign Office under Labour, and attempted to do the same on Wednesday. Unfortunately, not all ministerial posts were filled in time, and so Mr Robertson’s attempts to spare Mr Mann the effects of Portugal’s injustice were met with no response.

“But Britain need not give up now. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government cannot use the excuse that it is too late. It is not nearly too late. Garry Mann has two years to serve, during which time our government should be making representations to the Portuguese government that his being in prison following a travesty of a grossly unfair trial is simply unacceptable.

“Mr Mann leaves behind a partner and six children, not to mention other family and friends. That is to say, at least seven individual lives torn apart by the European Arrest Warrant. The Labour Government showed no mercy and no thought for Mr Mann’s case, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government had no time as Mr Mann was on a flight bound for Portugal before the end of their first 24 hours.

“The fight is not over. The real fight is only just beginning. Every day the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government sits on the fence is another day of freedom lost to Garry Mann. He cannot get those days back.

“The government needs to recognise that he suffered a serious injustice, and that he should be at home supporting his family while they are at school and suffering the mundane stresses of life.

“Most importantly, though, the government must recognise that the European Arrest Warrant is deeply flawed, and needs to be opted-out of before any more British citizens face a similar travesty of injustice and, too, get caught in its net.

“The government wants to be united, strong and firm in standing up for British citizens. I cannot say this any more strongly: Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg, now is your chance!“

In the week that also saw Liberal Democrat Cllr Geoff Juby bitten in quite an awkward place by a dog whilst on the campaign trail, the Gouldens broke their silence for the Medway newspaper.

‘Derogatory and disgusting’

‘We were going to stay until after the by-election,’ Val Goulden was quoted as saying. ‘Until we were shown something she had posted on her Facebook page.

‘What she said was derogatory and quite disgusting.’

The interview explains how they have been increasingly fed up at being ignored – even though Tony Goulden was the Labour Group Whip.

And despite being councillors since Medway Council’s inception over a decade ago, the Cllrs Goulden were allowed no input into the selection of the Labour candidate.

‘Democratic and Fair’

The News feature also highlighted the reaction of two Medway bloggers – AlanWCollins and Labour activist Tristan Osborne – and another commenter on this very website.

In a recent Opinion article (‘Like rats fleeing a shrinking ship…‘, 12 August 2009), AlanWCollins said that ‘rising a three-week-strong member to the office of candidate by the local party simply just does not sit right in local politics – even if you do have the backing of the local under-fire MP’.

One-time commenter Angie Hill was also quoted, responding that ‘it is not the fault of Ms Whittington that due to her hard work and faultless campaigning, that she was brought to the attention of the senior members of the Labour party’.

Meanwhile, Mr Osborne had stated that the selection was democratic in its nature. ‘Sam was democratically selected. She contested with a number of other very strong candidates. The candidate selected reflected the will of those in the audience and the membership. The process even took some time to make it fair to all those involved’.

There is now less than one week until voters go to the polls – and if Labour’s controversial candidate selection proves to be fatal, then, as one local commentator noted, it will be ironic, tragically for Labour, that the date of the by-election falls on the seventieth anniversary of the British declaration of war against Germany.

Gary Allanach, a lawyer, had his domain name registered on 23 July. His website, though not as aesthetically-advanced as Labour’s Sam Whittington’s, focuses on a range of more issues and tries to be more personal to voters.

Mr Allanach is aiming to be open and honest with voters, and to communicate with them on a semi-regular basis, including an annual report of his activities.