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?
1 comment:
Hello James
I have just been writing a letter in which I mentioned "Versions of Reality".
Your post brings it back to mind. The letter mentions a Canterbury Law School seminar on "Versions of Reality" at which mature students, retired senior police including anti terrorist officers, admitted they had never heard of Sean Garland (This was before Panorama upgraded his publicity).
An agog young law lecturer had to tell them he was the architect of the IRA terrorist strategy plan.
How could these police have performed their duty properly when for all of their service they were unaware of the Terrorist Plan and capability ?
I rather think that this same versions of reality issue is at the heart of your challenge to Tim.
Is his version of reality a rather over prescriptive one ?
Has he merely picked up and extrapolated beyond reason a trend that should never have developed anyway ?
We are a Constitutional Monarchy. The Crown (people and monarchy) are the guvnors. Government is our servant. The Crown is source of authority for policing and independent admin of justice so that a balance exists by which the Law is independent of Government and can hold any person accountable.
In most people's version of reality now police are employees of a police force managed by a Chief constable who is told what to do by the Home Secretary.
What you are objecting to is the expansion of that concept which seems to be Tim's version of reality.
If the Home Secretary can tell police what to do and police are a managed service (given orders as opposed to being charged with duties) then everyone can be told what to do by a prescribing government.
I agree with you James but suggest that in your argument you have not gone sufficuently back to the basics ... which generations of British fought to create as our way of life. The balance and separation of powers.
Having said that Tim has to be congratulated for putting his head above the parapet.
Post a Comment