A Tale of Two Towns

If ever there was a town with two sides, Margate is it. The Old Town, now the New Town, reinvigorated by the opening of the Turner Contemporary and a number of other businesses around the Harbour now sees countless tourists coming to Margate, something which years ago would have been unthinkable. The Margate Museum is opening with the fantastic support of local volunteers. Congratulations to the Friends of Margate Museum on their success.

The Old Town is what was Dreamland and Arlington Square. Back in the day, they were bustling with huge crowds. The Pride of Margate, mere relics. Faced with proposals of redevelopment, it's opposed by local residents because of a lack of trust in those proposing it, possible heavy traffic and noise and because the main store is going to be a Tesco's.

Looking back at the New Town, those reasons are exactly the ones raised with the Turner Contemporary and look what happened. It’s a complete turnaround and even those who had doubts about it now preach of what a great success its become. Locals working there speak of the enormous change and what benefits it will bring to Margate. Margate Football Club is looking to build a new stadium which will contribute to a vibrant Margate seafront and community spirit, not to mention helping to bring tourism to the town.

The proposals for the rebuilding of Arlington Square are well known and the arguments are as well versed. I don't doubt their sincerity or the strength of opinion in the Labour ranks through their two Ward Councillors that the plans need to be carefully scrutinised but we must not put the cart before the horse. Central Government has approved (Ed-not approved but allowed to be taken locally) the plans and now we can look forward to it coming back to Council to make it a reality.

Change is fuelling the regeneration of a town which has for too long been looked upon with derision. But the town mustn't be complacent. Instead we must strive to improve it further so that Arlington Square and Dreamland is once again the Pride of Margate and earning Margate the envy of Thanet.

Going deaf?

The TDC Cabinet meeting tonight was short but sweet. Only one question for me remains. Did Cllr Clive Hart support TDC in passing the Article 4 Direction on HMOs? He spent so long making the point that this was necessary only because the Government changed the rules on this that I couldnt make out whether he actually supported it or not...

On another point, I've been to 6 meetings at TDC this current political year and in at least half of them there have been problems with the microphone system in the Council Chamber and the system's been abandoned in two of them. At first you could just laugh it off as gremlins but its a serious problem now and it stopped being funny a while back. It is very hard to hear Members sat near the Chairs bench from the public gallery. The reason for the problem is well known so why is it taking so long to sort it out?

Arlington Tesco's approved...sort of

The Planning Committee approved the outline application to build a Tesco's, a car park and associated shops at Arlington on Wednesday evening. Although it didnt. It took a few attempts to explain to Members that TDC cannot decide on granting planning consent by itself because the Tescos is too large for them to call it. Instead it has to be referred to the Secretary of State, but that TDC gives its recommendation. All delightfully complicated.

The three speakers against the application were very good and stuck to planning issues in their speeches. Far too often I see speakers talking about non planning issues which basically cant be considered by the committee. If you are to speak against an application, your chances are vastly increased by speaking on planning grounds.

An amendment was proposed to refuse night time deliveries. It was explained that such an amendment could not be accepted even if a majority of Members agreed because it was considered unacceptable to the applicant. It did sound absurd but clearly its a red line for the applicant.

It was always going to be close and when a Conservative Member spoke against the application it seemed the application could be refused. When it came down to the vote though, it was a 7-7 split which makes me wonder if that Member voted with their speech (I was in the spillover room so couldnt see). The tiebreaker is the Chairs vote which is by convention to vote with the officer's recommendation. It now comes before the Secretary of State.

Comment was made during the debate that "You're not helping yourselves" and a dismissive wave made towards the public gallery when they booed a comment made by a Member. I don't blame the residents for being upset at the plans and for booing. Its a monster of an application which will lead to huge disruption to their homes and they are worried that promises made to them will either be bodged or simply forgotten. One resident walked out of the meeting in frustration after making some choice comments about the officers which I couldn't possibly repeat here.

My feeling is that if we weren't in such a dire economic situation, the residents scheme would be more attractive. But you have to deal with what you have, not with what you want. As with Iris Johnston and others, I hope it comes before Full Council for detailed consideration and that continued public consultation takes place as there are still a lot of questions to answer.

Arlington Square is the sorriest sight in Thanet and the residents support its redevelopment - but change needs to work with the residents, not against them.

Labour move on night flights

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 31st May discussed night flights and the recommendations arising from the Airport Working Party [AWP]. The minutes from the AWPs last meeting was not immediately available at the start of the meeting. The issue appeared of there being a number of new members and whether it would be right to debate the report from the AWP with those new members not having had the time to consider it. After a split vote, the Chair, Cllr King decided after some time not to proceed with it that night and to bring it back at the next meeting.

Labour was not happy at all because they wanted the AWPs recommendations brought up with Cabinet, something they had said just before the meeting started. Shouts of "Disgrace" were made by more than one Labour member. Now a resolution has been tabled for the next Council meeting by Cllrs Clive Hart and Alan Poole with the recommendations of the AWP the proposed motion.

Scrutiny needs to be done properly on this issue and that includes due process as to scrutiny. The Chair had decided to consider the AWPs recommendations at the next meeting and that for some members of Overview and Scrutiny isnt good enough, so theyve gone round it straight to Full Council. I dont agree with that tactic and suspect that was the plan all along.

The Scrutiny process should be followed through to allow the Cabinet to make an informed decision on a Night Flight Policy and thus conduct a proper public consultation. Labour want to pre-empt this process by stonewalling night flights.

Tescos for Arlington?

This coming Wednesday evening sees the Planning Committee considering an application from Tescos to build a new store at the foot of Arlington House with a car park and works to the local roads to boot. The plans can be found at UK Planning here. The report prepared for the Planning Committee is here.

So how do you feel about the plans?

Scrutiny

Big News Margate reported earlier this week on the recent Kent Cabinet Scrutiny meeting and the debate over the Ofsted inspections last year. The webcast makes it clear that the pledged 'post mortem' report isnt going to be provided.

Its also clear that the Peter Connelly tragedy and the ripple effect of increased demands on social services was a major factor in the negative reports from Ofsted and no one holds that against the Council. Two years ago on this blog Cllr Chris Wells commented on the impact it would have. Kent hasnt suffered alone either with authorities across the country hit by increasing demand.

The key issue here is that while its valid to say that its best to just move on and get on with the job in hand, those who have a job to scrutinise need to do so as a matter of public interest. Its not about being party political or wanting to apportion blame. Its about accountability. By spending time considering the causes of the current problems will help to avoid them in the future.

A visit to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee brought up a similar issue over Manston. Yes, its easy to just say it'll be alright and to trust those making the decisions but public confidence can only be maintained if proper scrutiny is able to take place. Local residents still may not be happy simply because the flights will cause disruption to them, and I understand that, but at least no one will say that the proposals hadnt been looked at in detail prior to the decisions being made.

Gifts, promises and confessions

At the TDC AGM held earlier this month the Opposition were given the pick of Overview and Scrutiny Chair, under the pretense of working in a more friendly atmosphere. Whether it'll last is a matter for debate but given TDC elections on May 5th next year, Im not optimistic.

We see in election literature often enough "I/We will work with others to...", a pledge which in the cold light of practical politics goes out the window pretty quickly. I should know since 3 years ago I used that very language when talking about the proposed Westwood development. Of course I wasnt successful, perhaps thats an indication why. You will hear that a lot more in months to come though.

Labour, shunted into opposition by the coalition, is still shell shocked by whats happened. This is most clear when you look at the immediate actions of the former Cabinet members now standing for the leadership and their comments on how wrong the Iraq war was. Such an admission is not enough as their keeping quiet led to the invasion. Their journey is only just beginning and they shouldnt assume that admitting guilt over Iraq will absolve them of 13 years of abusing the trust of the public.

Results are in...

Thanet North held by Roger Gale with a modest increase to the Conservative vote but a severe drop in Labour support, just 828 votes ahead of the LIb Dems. As I commented elsewhere, the candidate was the wrong one for the area. It was obvious early on, a candidate no one had heard of making very little comment and what looked like a half-hearted campaign.

Thanet South was won by Laura Sandys with a strong 7617 majority. Labours vote dropped by around 2000 and an increased turnout worked in her favour.

In a slight non-Thanet deviation, it was good to see Charles Elphicke see off Gwyn Prosser in Dover last night. He will make a great MP.

Nationally its looking like a hung Palriament with the Conservatives as clearly the biggest single party. There is talk that Labour is looking for a coalition with the LIb Dems, the cost being electoral reform. That would be a bad thing for the country. A decision over electoral reform shouldnt be a bargaining chip to be offered in exchange for retaining the keys to Downing Street.

Thanet MPs split on Gurkhas

Last night the Government was defeated on a Lib Dem led motion on Gurkhas right to settle in this country. As I posted last time, its a disgrace that the Government wont grant the right to settlement, which is their dues after their own sacrifices for this country. The Governments argument is basically on costs, claiming it would cost upwards of £1bn. If those numbers exist, then publish them. A number of times the question was asked of how such a figure was arrived at but no answer was given to it.

Roger Gale voted in favour of the motion while Stephen Ladyman voted against.

Playing games with Gurkhas...again

How dare the Government mess the Gurkhas around. The Gurkhas lay their lives down on the line and for what? So the Government can screw them over with immigration rules?

The new criteria are (they need to meet one of the following):

-Three years continuous residence in the UK during or after service
-Close family in the UK
-A bravery award of level one to three
-Service of 20 years or more in the Gurkha brigade
-Chronic or long-term medical condition caused or aggravated by service

Each and every one of them simply by being there has shown more than enough bravery to meet that requirement. Quoting the Gurkha Justice Campaign, "The Government decision of 25th April 2009 on Gurkha settlement rights is yet another huge betrayal of the Gurkhas who have served our country".

Invitation to Tim Garbutt

As local bloggers may have noticed, Tim Garbutt and I have been debating his emerging policy platform for the next General Election as Independent Green candidate for South Thanet on his blog. Weve gone over policies such as the viability of him as MP sacking the "Gang of Four", the strength of a corporate manslaughter prosecution against Thanet District Council and the ability he would have to interfere in planning decisions made by TDC and reverse those decisions he personally disagreed with.

After the first post I made on his blog questioning his policies, he put into effect a moderating rule, which is very typical in light of anonymous flaming attacks we see on local blogs. However recently my comments havent appeared at all. A glitch Im sure. To make up for this and to continue our debate on his policies, I invite him to comment on my own blog, safe in the knowledge that posts wont disappear.

Id like to know under which laws he will enact many of his policies. If such powers are available then surely he can quote them. I invite him to explain how he will create a "County Senate", its composition and how it will operate. How will the new organisation fit in with the rest of local government?

Does he think it fair that men who are democratically elected to TDC should be sacked to make it fairer for women candidates not elected? Does he feel that someones demographics should matter or is it more a case of their ability to perform that should matter? Bearing in mind that age goes both ways, is he indicating that he would sack older Councillors to make sure that younger candidates are allowed a free ticket to the Council Chamber? In short I am asking, does he believe in meritocracy?

He may not wish to respond to these questions, but Im sure that the residents of South Thanet would be interested in his answers. Looking at the local papers he isnt able to conduct surgeries and his email address is out of action. He refuses to go to Council meetings so the ability to talk to him directly about his policies is limited. So come on Tim Garbutt...what's the worst that can happen?

Children in care bashabout

With local elections on the way, you could bet on a political row to spice things up. This time its about children in care and the apparent lack of action in the years since the publication of the report into children in care in Thanet way back in 2005. The report was scathing about it and described a community at "tipping point". In response to Cllr Chris Well's comments on the situation and calling for more action not words in this weeks Kent on Sunday, fellow County Cllr Clive Hart has taken offence, accusing him of jumping on the issue for political purposes and claiming the credit for himself (something I havent really noticed despite living in Cliftonville for not far off 3 years).

My concern is that with this turning into a "who was there first" argument, the serious issue behind it will be lost. I remember just before the report was published being shown the preface to it and told that "finally we can do something about it". Since then its fair to say not an awful lot has been done. As I have said in previous posts here, these are very vulnerable people with futures dependent on the provision they receive.

Its all well and good highlighting the issue and complaining about the lack of action but what exactly can be done? Laura Sandys has spoken about appealing to London boroughs and the Mayor of Landon not to send more our way and yet I doubt little will change by asking nicely. Some have indicated that sending them back to their previous local authorities will deal with the problem. It may well be out of sight and thus perhaps out of mind but you would have washed your hands of it without actually dealing with the actual problem. If the children are in Thanet then surely we have a duty of care to ensure the best interests of the child are taken at all times.

I'd like to know who is ensuring that the children in care in Thanet are actually building a future. Is it not possible for a TDC Cabinet member to add to their responsibiliities an overwatch function for children in care? On this issue I would suggest the Cabinet member for Community Services, in this case Cllr Zita Wiltshire. As far as I know this is done solely at County level, which doesnt help much given KCC interest appears to stall when they get to Canterbury. Surely this is something where TDC can step in and work more effectively with KCC to improve things.

The numbers entering the care system are increasing substantially since Baby P and it is absolutely essential that a proper strategy be in place. Many in Thanet may not like the children in care being here, but here they are and we must do all we can to provide for them. The cost of failure is simply too high to just ignore our responsibilities.

Endcliffe Hotel Enforcement Notice?

The Planning Committee came across a tough decision at last month's meeting regarding the Endcliffe Hotel in Cliftonville. It was granted planning consent to be rebuilt for housing after it was burned down in 2005, but hasnt been rebuilt according to the plans approved by the Council in 2006 and as the owner, claiming financial problems, has refused to put in a fresh planning application (the Council would be minded to refuse the current building if proposed for a fresh application). Therefore Officers are recommending that an Enforcement Notice be served insisting upon demolition and rebuilding according to the approved plans as no changes would alleviate the problems in the eyes of the Officers.

The Committee chose to do a Site Visit to the property to see it for themselves and therefore to decide at the next meeting on 18th February on whether to issue an Enforcement Notice. Its a very tough call to make. It is very much out of keeping with the adjacent buildings, looking very bland sadly like so many other developments, without any character (we're not expecting masterpieces of architecture, but we surely expect buildings that fit in nicely and show quality) and certainly does not look like the approved plans. Its also obvious that there are people living in the property. It is apparent that conditions of the original planning consent have been breached.

There are questions for the Council to answer as to why the building was allowed to be built as far as it did before the Council noticed. Hopefully this will mean that the Council sharpens up its monitoring operations.

Reckless caution or moral hazard?

A new term has entered the political lexicon in recent days, describing the reluctance of banks to lend money at levels previously seen. Such "reckless caution" is said to be causing further economic problems by stunting consumer spending, one of the key drivers of the economy in the past decade, now replaced by the Government advancing its own spending programme in an effort to stimulate the economy. But is it reckless?

The banks get told on the one hand that theyve been stupid with their policy of lending to anyone and everyone at rates which were clearly unacceptable and yet when the banks take the action they believe to be right, that of removing the drip of credit to protect themselves for the future, they get criticised for it accused of endangering the economy. I disagree that such action is recklessly cautious. If the banks do not take the action they are doing will we ever learn the lessons that the banks have, that such lending is unsustainable and was based upon us borrowing against hopes of continuing growth?

Moral hazard is a key principle we must never forget in relation to this credit crunch. Banks do learn from their mistakes and are rightly arguing that the action they are taking will be of long term benefit to the country, even if such benefits arent noticed now, which is why I warn against heavy government interference as is to be promoted in the Queens Speech. Banks will never lend in that way again so such action by the Government is effectively pointless.

The principle of moral hazard applies to us as much as it applies to the banks. We are credit junkies and we need to learn that we helped cause this by taking the credit when it was offered and to now wean ourselves off, even if it takes longer to recover from the recession.

No excuse for a witch-hunt

With a number of inquiries underway to work out how to avoid a repeat of the horrific Baby P case and the recent case in Brighton on the news, a warning will be made today by the Chairwoman of the LGA about the risk of causing damage to the system in an effort to improve it.

“If we don’t work hard to maintain an objective and balanced approach, we’ll find the numbers of children entering care rising sharply, with some children who are objectively better off staying with their families unable, any longer, to do so, as the system becomes unreasonably risk-averse."

This is a key problem with the reaction to this case. Its understandable that the argument will be made that the problem with Baby P was that he wasnt taken into care soon enough and that lead to his death and therefore more children should be taken into care thereby stopping any future cases like this. Of course such an argument assumes the very worst of the parents and the very best of the care system. As Newsnight reported last week and will be reporting again in the coming months, care leavers have a whole range of situations and not many of them come out of the system ready for the wider world. Higher rates of mental illness, criminality and poor educational qualifications therefore leading to a restriction on their ability to find work are well known trends related to this.

While its easy to say "put those who might be at risk in care", there are serious issues with that. Is the care system able to take them? Will we not run the risk of overburdening social workers who are already being used as scapegoats for the Baby P case, when they will be criticised whatever happens? They get accused of either breaking up families or keeping children in abusive families. Its an incredibly hard decision to make for a social worker as to what to recommend unless its obvious which course to take. They make decisions that will affect the people involved for the rest of their lives and I for one applaud them for the work they do. They dont get given the credit they are due.

Does the care system have the capacity to provide an environment for them which is both safe but allows them to prepare for the future when they inevitably leave the system? Do we have the foster carers and interested prospective adoptive parents or will they spend their time effectively in limbo stuck in some care home? Placing a child into the care system means removing them from an entire family.

Its absolutely essential we not make a knee jerk reaction while the issue is hot then forget about the issue amongst the economic crisis. We are at serious risk of causing more problems than we solve and the lives of so many vulnerable children are at risk here and we must be wary of overreacting.

Economists criticise Government economic plans

The debate over how to bring economic recovery continues with a letter to the Sunday Telegraph signed by 16 leading economists with the following :

"SIR - Further to your interview with Alistair Darling (October 19), we would like to dissent from the attempt to use a public works programme to spend the country's way out of recession. It is misguided for the government to believe that it knows how much specific sectors of the economy need to shrink and which will shrink "too rapidly" in a recession. Thus the government cannot know how to use an expansion in expenditure that would not risk seriously misallocating resources.
Furthermore, public expenditure has already risen very rapidly in recent years, and a further large rise would take the role of the State in many parts of the economy to such a dominant position that it would stunt the private sector's recovery once recession is past.

Occasional economic slowdowns are natural and necessary features of a market economy. Insofar as they are to be managed at all, the best tool is monetary and not fiscal policy. It is inevitable that government expenditure and debt naturally rise in a recession but planned rises in government spending are misguided and discredited as a tool of economic management.

If it is believed that this recession has features that demand more active fiscal policy, which is highly disputable, taxes should be cut. This would allow the market to determine which parts of the economy shrink and which flourish to replace them."

The Chair of the Commons Finance Committee John McFall has argued for tax cuts saying "There is a need for a focused approach, to reduce the tax burden of the lowest paid working people. Now is the time for further reform of tax allowances to take millions of low-paid people out of income tax altogether, and benefit many millions more basic-rate taxpayers."

One of the main features of this downturn is that it has been caused by easy credit and loose spending by not only the people (easy credit kept the economy ticking over through consumer expenditure) but also by the Government when it spent so profligantly. We all had a hand in this and the Government must not try to spend its way out of this.

TDC China Gateway vote

The always excellent ThanetOnline has a breakdown of which way the Thanet District Councillors voted on the recent decision to grant planning consent for the China Gateway development. If you dont know which Councillors are yours, check here.

Ministers abandon 42 days after Lords humiliation

As reported yesterday the Government were under tremendous pressure about what to do with the Counter Terrorism Bill if it were as expected defeated by the House of Lords. We got our answer after the Lords voted with a massive 191 vote majority against the Counter Terrorism Bill last night with a raft of prominent Labour Lords revolting against the party line.

Jacqui Smith made a statement to the Commons soon after the vote saying that the 42 day proposal will be removed from the Bill and will be set aside in a separate Bill to be introduced "should the worst happen". This brings back memories of the Patriot Act in the US, where no one read the Bill when it went through Congress but shoved it through at a time of national emergency because the political imperative forced them to do so. Parliamentarians must be wary of this tactic and the Government should just bury it and move on avoiding this underhand manner of enacting bad legislation which wouldnt pass otherwise.

In other Lords news, the Immigration (Discharged Gurkhas) Bill [HL] received its Third Reading and will now move to the Commons for discussion. The Bill is a very simple one, the amendment of the current Immigration rules to allow former Gurkhas indefinite leave to enter and remain in the UK whenever they were discharged. I hope our local MPs will support the Bill in its passage through the Commons.

Counter-Terrorism Bill Lords vote today

Today is big for Brown for reasons other than the bailout of the banks. The Counter-Terrorism Bill comes before the Lords and is expected to be rejected heavily. That will lead to the process restarting with the Commons and Lords voting a second time. Should the Lords refuse a second time, Brown could invoke the Parliament Act to force the Bill onto the statute books. The BBC has reported that is unlikely and if Brown had any sense he would abandon the Bill if today it falls. He wont get it through without the Parliament Act as thats been used too many times by Labour.

Unemployment

Yesterday in the Commons, Roger Gale spoke about unemployment and other associated problems in Thanet such as looked after children. He spoke out against the proposed closure of the Whitstable JobCentre as it will put extra pressure upon the Herne Bay branch and attacked the legislation surrounding empty property rates, an issue highlighted in the past by Laura Sandys:

"As the Minister knows, Thanet has suffered historically from the highest levels of unemployment and social deprivation in the south-east—among the highest levels in the country. The reasons are not hard to find. Thanet has suffered from an enormous amount of immigration. During the 1980s, the immigration came from around the United Kingdom in what was known as the “dole on sea” syndrome: the unemployed came to the seaside to live on the dole in hotels and guest houses, and Thanet took more than its fair share. That contributed to its unemployed base."

"Thanet has also been the dumping ground for cared-for children from London boroughs and, shamefully, from some of the home counties as well. Those young people have grown up. Very many of them have been damaged and found it extremely hard to find employment of any kind, so we are used to unemployment in Thanet."

It is clear as day that we are in recession, with retail and manufacturing already proven to be shrinking. The credit crunch isnt finished at all despite the package announced yesterday and there is a lot more pain to come. The Government must take a wider view rather than concentrating solely on the banking crisis, which while important in itself, is not the only problem. Unemployment will inevitably increase and the Government must recognise that more must be done to lessen the pain of that. The point about children in care is a pertinent one as these are people who require state support as a pre-requisite rather than it being a voluntary option they take up.