The elected role was created by the coalition government after being a key Conservative election pledge to introduce accountability to policing and elections are due to take place on 15 November.

Until now, only the Iraq war veteran Colonel Tim Collins had announced that he wishes to seek the Conservative candidacy for the position – stating his intention to stand at last year’s Conservative Party Conference.

However, Cllr O’Brien will be a formiddable opponent. He has lived in Kent all his life and took on the council community safety portfolio after Cllr Rehman Chishti was elected to parliament in May 2010.

He is also chairman of the Medway Community Safety Partnership.

Cllr O’Brien told the Messenger “I am considering my application. The opportunity’s there and I think it’s an exciting one.

“I feel my experience stands me in good stead.”

Col Collins expressed concern about the role going to a “sunset councillor” – a charge Cllr O’Brien dismissed.

It is not yet clear how many other potential candidates will put their names forward.

The Conservative European Parliament member, who recently came second in the election for the Parliament’s President, added his name to a growing list of opponents to the scheme.

Deva, who has been an MEP since 1999 and was previously Member of Parliament for Brentford and Isleworth, visited a meeting of local Conservatives on the Isle of Grain on Sunday where he discussed the issue with Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless and Peninsula ward Councillors Phil Filmer, Chris Irvine and Tony Watson.

“The proposal to consult on building a new airport in the region of the Thames Estuary is a complete nonsense,” he said. “If additional capacity is required, the government should be looking to improve existing facilities and infrastructure.

“The government should be doing all it can to protect our natural and unique habitats here in the South East, not wasting time and taxpayers’ money on unnecessary and extravagant schemes.”

Deva also raised concerns about the impact a new airport would have on existing sites – particularly Heathrow, at which over 76,500 people are employed by over 320 companies.

“If this proposal is to succeed, existing traffic at Heathrow will have to be diverted to the new Estuary airport,” he added, “otherwise it will not be sustainable financially with only added and marginal increases in capacity.

“Closure of Heathrow would follow. A folly so great that it is does not bare thinking about.

“The impact which the possible closure of Heathrow could have on the West London economy would be staggering. Heathrow supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and is one of the biggest single-site employers in the UK.

“There will be a considerable amount of anxiety amongst local residents and businesses should the government decide to proceed with this preposterous Thames Estuary airport consultation. I urge the government to think again.”

Cllr Filmer, who was one of the local councillors asked to talk about the issue on Sky News on Sunday, added “we are against an airport being built anywhere in the Thames Estuary.

“We will work hard to persuade the government that such a proposal would cause significant damage to the local environment and is neither a safe, affordable or sensible solution to the country’s future aviation needs.

“A Thames Estuary airport would be bad for Medway and bad for Britain.”

Conservative leader Councillor Rodney Chambers, Labour leader Cllr Paul Godwin, Liberal Democrat Deputy leader Cllr Sheila Kearney (in leader Cllr Geoff Juby’s absence) and Independent leader Cllr Andy Stamp have all signed the following letter after news that the Prime Minister David Cameron may be about to launch a public consultation on a Thames Estuary Airport – and throw his weight behind it:

Dear Secretary of State,

COUNCILLOR ANDY STAMP
LEADER OF THE INDEPENDENT GROUP – MEDWAY COUNCIL

The national paper last night revealed that Mr Cameron is expected to launch a consultation on a new airport within weeks, with the expectation that the Conservative Party leader will support a new airport in the South East.

The decision to back a new hub airport in th Thames Estuary will provide a major boost to the Mayor of London’s re-election bid this year. Boris Johnson, who will see a challenge from Labour’s Ken Livingstone in the contest, has been calling for an airport to be built on an artificial island in the estuary – dubbed “Boris Island”.

The announcement had been due to be made on 3rd January, but was blocked by the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Conservatives claimed it was purely a cynical political move, to avoid a boost to Mr Johnson, who the Liberal Democrats will also be challenging in May.

However, a Liberal Democrat source told The Daily Telegraph that “aviation policy is very sensitive and we didn’t support rushing out an announcement over the New Year.

“The consultation will almost certainly be launched in March and Nick Clegg does not have a fixed view on the outcome.”

The UK is in need of aviation capacity expansion in order to remain a major economic competitor on the world stage, and failure to act now could have dire consequences over the next 50 years.

However, there are also serious enviornmental and safety concerns to building an airport in the Thames Estuary and The View from Medway will be abondoning policy independence and Founding Editor Alan W Collins will be abandoning party loyalty to fiercly and publicly oppose these proposals.

We will be looking at the issues in more detail over the coming days, weeks and months (and, if necessary, years!) and will be fighting alongside every other opponent to the airport (irrespective of party or ideology), focusing energy where it matters: at the heart of government and government influence.

Ladies and gentlemen of Medway: this is no longer an issue we can silently shake our heads in disagreement to when we read it in the paper. The government has stepped up the challenge – and we, too, must step up our opposition.

If you care about Medway, if you care about our countryside, if you care about our landscape, then join the fight. We need to send a clear, consistent and resounding message to the government:

THE PEOPLE OF MEDWAY SAY NO! TO A THAMES ESTUARY AIRPORT!

The decision came following a motion submitted to last night’s meeting of the full council by Labour Group Deputy Leader Cllr Vince Maple on what has been dubbed “legal loan sharking”.

According to Cllr Maple, the pay day loan industry has ballooned in value from about £100m in 2004 to about £1.7bn.

Providers, such as Wonga or QuickQuid, offer short-term loans which are designed to provide emergency money until pay day.

However, due to the ease and high cost of available credit, some people can end up using the services long-term and find themselves in ever-increasing debt, with many companies charging four-digit APR levels. Wonga has an APR of 4214%.

In proposing his motion, Cllr Maple expressed his concern that, at a recent Planning Committee meeting, all members wanted to refuse an application that was before them to change the use of a high street shop for a pay day loan company. “The officer’s advice was that it could not be realistically opposed,” he said.

The full motion read:

“This Council:

• “Welcomes the UK-wide cross party campaign to end ‘legal loan sharking’.
• “Believes that the lack of access to affordable credit is socially and economically damaging. Unaffordable credit is “causing a myriad of unwanted effects such as poorer diets, colder homes, rent, council tax and utility arrears, depression (which impacts on job seeking behaviour) and poor health.
• “Further notes that unaffordable credit is extracting wealth from the most deprived communities.
• “Believes it is the responsibility of all levels of government to try to ensure affordable credit for all, and therefore pledges to use best practice to promote financial literacy and affordable lending. This will help to ensure that wealth stays in the local economy.

“This Council therefore:

• “Calls on the government to introduce caps on the total lending rates that can be charged for providing credit.
• “Calls on the government to give local authorities the power to veto licences for high street credit agencies where they could have negative economic or social impacts on communities.
• “Pledges to promote credit unions in Medway, as community based organisations offering access to affordable credit and promoting saving.”

Labour Cllr Tristan Osborne, seconding the motion, said that the impact of pay day loans was being felt across Medway. “They may be legal,” he said, “but they are a leech on society.”

The principles of the motion were met with broad consensus from all members of the council. However, Conservative Cllr Tom Mason did not like the idea of creating council policy “on the hoof” and introduced an amendment which resolved to create a cross-party task group to examine the issue in depth, possibly inviting other interested parties, such as the Medway Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) Chief Executive Dan McDonald, on to the task group.

Conservative Cllr Howard Doe said that the council was already working with the Medway CAB and used the mobile library to try to educate residents on pay day loans and personal debt. However, he supported the task group to formulate a coherent policy and said that the companies are “an ill in society that needs to be eradicated and closely regulated.”

Cllr Teresa Murray said that she was “disappointed” that her party’s motion was being sidelined as “this is a problem which is happening now.” She said “we are all only a couple of months’ pay away from a bad situation.” However, Cllr Diane Chambers (Con) replied saying that the motion was mostly about writing letters and “that is not action now.” She said that she believed that the council needed to examine the issue in more depth.

And Cllr Mike O’Brien, who had spent some time earlier that day with Medway CAB, said that action did need to be taken about “a generation of people the previous Labour government encouraged to borrow.”

Independent Cllr Andy Stamp, who declared an interest at the start of the meeting as the Medway CAB Chief Executive’s partner, said he, too, was disappointed that the substantive motion was being lost and a principle could not be established there and then, but he urged cross-party support for the amendment to set up a task group.

Wrapping up, Cllr Mason promised that his intentions were honourable, and that, owing to the seriousness of the issue, he wanted to give more time to examine it in depth. However, before the amendment was put to the vote, Cllr Maple requested that the third bullet point of his original motion – relating to credit unions – be included in the amendment.

Initially, Cllr Mason refused, saying that that should be one of the things examined by the task group. However, after barracking from his backbenchers and prompting from the Leader of the Council, Cllr Rodney Chambers, he agreed.

The proposal to create a task group was then unanimously supported by the council.

Medway Messenger reporter Alan McGuinness had the chance to briefly ask Mr McDonald if he would sit on the task group if invited. Commenting on Twitter, Mr McGuinness said “he would take up an invitation to sit on the cross party group. It’s a start in tackling the issue, he adds.”

Just spoken to @CABMedway. Says he would take up an invitation to sit on the cross party group. It's a start in tackling the issue, he adds.

Thursday 12th January 2012 23:38 via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@Alan_McGuinness

Alan McGuinness

And writing on the Medway CAB Twitter account afterwards, Mr McDonald called it “a great night for Medway and its fight to protect residents at risk from Legal and Illegal Loan Sharks! Medway will lead the way!”

What a great night for Medway and its fight to protect residents at risk from Legal and Illegal Loan Sharks ! Medway will lead the way !

Friday 13th January 2012 02:01 via Twitter for BlackBerry®ReplyRetweetFavorite

@CABMedway

CAB MEDWAY

It is not known how quickly the task group will be set up, or who will ultimately sit on it. However, Medway Council has shown a united front in seeking to protect its residents from the risks of using pay day loan companies.

UPDATE @ 22:04

Courtesy of Cllr Mike O’Brien, the full motion passed by Medway Council last night read:

“This Council:

• “Welcomes the UK-wide cross party campaign to end ‘legal loan sharking’.
• “Believes that the lack of access to affordable credit is socially and economically damaging. Unaffordable credit is causing a myriad of unwanted effects such as poorer diets, colder homes, rent, council tax and utility arrears, depression (which impacts on job seeking behaviour) and poor health.
• “Further notes that unaffordable credit is extracting wealth from most communities.
• “Believes it is the responsibility of central government through legislation to ensure access to affordable credit.
• “Agrees that the issue of debt and affordable credit is an important and complex issue and is causing stress and anxiety to many families in Medway.

“This Council therefore:

• “Resolves for this issue to be referred to a cross-party task group of Overview and Scrutiny as a priority. This will enable the Council to consider all the implications, form a better understanding of the role the Council can play in supporting our residents and develop a clear policy.
• “In particular it recommends that the task group considers how the Council can lobby the government to strengthen the rules governing the issue of lending licences and address the lack of affordable credit and how the Council can promote financial literacy and affordable lending.
• “Pledges to promote credit unions in Medway, as community based organisations offering access to affordable credit and promoting saving.”

It is estimated that, by March 2012, Mr Cameron will be presented with an app for his favoured iPad – which will give him access to information from a wealth of news sources, including Google and Twitter, along with up-to-the-minute data from across Whitehall.

The Prime Minister already enjoys using his iPad to read his daily newpapers and blog articles from websites including ConservativeHome as well as listening to the radio and catching up on missed TV.

According to The Times (£), he is an infrequent e-mail user, preferring his staff to follow the formal procedure (official papers on which he can write notes in reply) and using text messaging for less formal discussions with MPs and advisers.

He does, however, make time to play the popular Angry Birds game – along with his Chancellor George Osborne.

The Times also claims that the app may be made available to other ministers and Whitehall staff – and possibly even given a public release – which raises doubts that his red box briefings will be included.

If a public release is offered, it will be interesting to see if it will be exclusively for iPad, or if it will be ported to the more popular Android mobile platform.

“Banging on about Britain’s relationship with the European Union is a sure-fire way to turn off voters. That, at least, is the conventional wisdom of many advisers in No 10. Three years ago, they may well have been right. But not any more. Following the Prime Minister’s rejection of a new EU treaty, polls show a surge in Conservative support. Seventy per cent of voters want a referendum on Europe. Half want to leave the EU altogether. Euroscepticism has gone mainstream.

“[I]t is no wonder Euroscepticism is on the rise. The question now is what that means for our relationship with the EU, and for the Government’s strategy. Ministers should, of course, govern in a way that is consistent with popular opinion, although it should never dictate the details of negotiations, or the tactics used. Yet the rising tide of Euroscepticism is an opportunity. It gives the Government permission to negotiate a new relationship that better serves our interests.

“This relationship must focus less on integration and more on competitiveness, trade and prosperity. We should be able to veto damaging EU proposals like the Tobin tax and sidestep laws detrimental to our interests. We must follow the principle that if the EU proposes a law and Parliament rejects it, that law must not apply here.

“We are seeing the emergence of a new European politics – one dominated by the triumvirate of Germany, France and the European Commission. Now is the time to think seriously about our future in Europe – to discuss where Britain fits in, and what role we should play. That should be for the British people to decide in a referendum, something that may not happen any time soon. But we do know this: on the issue of determining our relationship with Europe, last week’s veto was not the end, but only the beginning.”

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!

Sean Varnham, who was also Deputy South East Area Chairman, National Council Member and Young English Democrats Chairman, announced that he would be resigning from his positions on his blog on Tuesday.

Then, today, he confirmed that he would be resigning from the party completely, saying “my heart is heavy as I walk away from the organisation I gave 6 years and 100% dedication to”.

He continued “in brief, some (but not limited to) reasons for my resignation today are my frustration for the lack of support for smaller Parties amongst the voters (including membership), events over the past few years within the Party have made my continuation and defence of the Party untenable and I have recently became gradually more and more disenchanted with the Party and its constant internal bickering.

“After being pushed to the sidelines locally, I am now of the belief that the reduced branch can only take one step forward and two steps back.”

Mr Varnham has shown great political promise since he stood in last year’s General Election in Chatham & Aylesford, then this year’s local elections in Walderslade ward.

His resignation follows that of fellow former English Democrat council and parliamentary candidate, and Hoo Parish Councillor, Ron Sands, who resigned in September and joined the Conservative Party.

Mr Varnham added “this is the end of an era, where the local EngDems (under Mike Walters) go now I don’t know, but it is time that I moved on.. it is pretty much common knowledge now that I am in the process of joining the local Conservatives, some of whom being people I have known for a few years now.

“I know for a fact that I am going to be vilified with bitterness for this resignation and my destination, half of which I expect from Medway Labour, however I’d like people to know that I am not surrendering my beliefs – I am still a member of the CEP and a devout euro-sceptic – I will be more like Mark Reckless than Rehman Chisti.”

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…