SWALE WEST ELECTORAL DIVISION (35.2% Turnout)
Mike BALDOCK - Labour - 700
Keith FERRIN - Conservative - 2609 ELECTED
Elvie LOWE - Liberal Democrat - 1348
Well, after 5 weeks slog I feel pretty knackered!
The Labour Party suffered a meltdown pretty much across the whole of Swale and Kent.
I had originally hoped to put together an effective campaign across Swale West, to leaflet every house with at least two leaflets and get a good canvass done. I wanted to show the residents that someone was listening and that someone wanted to put their concerns first.
Given the national picture however, and the obvious anger on the doorsteps, the party was forced to concentrate all its efforts on trying to hold the seats it already had rather than expanding into areas where there had been precious little effort for over a decade.
Consequently I was only able to get a single leaflet out, and was able to canvass only a fraction of the people I had hoped to reach. This inability to provide voters with a good campaign hurts more than anything else to be honest. I never expected to win, and never claimed it was likely. But most importantly I wanted to show that people's votes mattered - that they were not being taken for granted, or that people didn't really care if they voted or not.
Under the circumstances, to have virtually matched the votes of the Borough elections in the wards that make up Swale West is quite motivating in itself. To know that many of you were conned by Lib Dems claims of running neck and neck with the Tories in this seat really annoys me.
As the result shows, this was never 'a two horse race' as The Lib Dems declared - people being conned into switching their votes on the basis of false claims and barcharts is an insult to the electors and to the concept of democracy. And it should be illegal.
Full credit to the Lib Dems for running a massive campaign with lots of helpers, lots of leaflets and lots of canvassing - but surely even they would gain more satisfaction from running an honest campaign and doing well, than running a dishonest one and stealing people's votes?
And I have to say how surprised I was that even the Tories were active this time - perhaps some of the comments made during the election hit home, and hopefully a little more attention will be given to our local issues over the next 4 years - I will be making sure Cllr Ferrin knows all the concerns you pass onto me, and he can expect a busy intray from me next week :-)
So a huge thank you to everyone who voted for me - in the current climate it's amazing anyone bothered to vote for any of us!
Friday, 5 June 2009
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Meetings, Doorsteps and Lib Dem falsehoods
Well another hectic week.
Thursday night was a local planning meeting where residents turned up at the Swale Borough Planning Committee to oppose the Care Home proposed for Hengist Field. I spoke on behalf of the Parish Council, and here is my text:
"Firstly, I would like to mention that Borden Parish Council fully appreciates the need for more elderly care homes, and is not averse to having more in our parish. But this current proposal is just not suitable for many reasons, many of which have been admirably highlighted by Mr Gilmartin and effectively ignored by the authors of the recommendation before you. I would urge Councillors to read Mr Gilmartin’s letter in full, and wonder about his detailed observations on how this proposal fails to meet with many of Swale Borough Council’s own supposed policies. Because it would seem from the report in front of you that these concerns have not been considered in much detail by the officers – or at least, they are not addressed in an adequate fashion by this report.
Regarding these proposals, we have heard of the expectation that most of the likely staff would avail themselves of the local bus service – until it was pointed out that the service consists of just two buses each day – one into and one out of the area. So it is with considerable scepticism that the plans and assurances that accompany this proposal are met. There are no local amenities – there is no effective local bus service.
But aside from the totally inappropriate location of such an establishment in this area, there is the vexatious question of traffic and the impact on local roads and residents.
The proposed site is located on a multi-junction, blind corner that already sees traffic passing at inappropriate speeds. The predicted Vehicular traffic movements of 40-45 journeys per day are pure fantasy. With a staffing level in excess of 100 for the two aspects of this proposal, accompanied by additional visitor numbers, deliveries and medical appointments this proposal will inevitably result in far higher levels of vehicular journeys than is claimed therein.
This is a very dangerous piece of highway, and speeding cars, blind corners and multi-junctions designed for days of horse and cart will not be made safer by higher traffic levels. Indeed, this section is already quite risky for cyclists – the idea that a stream of eager new workers will be making their way along these roads to their new job would in itself be a cause of some considerable concern were the prospects of it so remote as to be laughable.
There will be no great flood of cyclists; there will be no reliance on any bus service. People will overwhelmingly access the site by car.
Most of these journeys will have to be made along roads that are already designated Rural Lanes, and will therefore impact negatively on those areas in direct contravention of Policy RC7 which states that Development will not be permitted that would either physically, or as a result of traffic levels, significantly harm the character of rural lanes
I would like to turn to the issue of the Offices. Sittingbourne is not short of available office space. More is planned for the future. There has been trouble filling the available office space in a time of relative prosperity – what are the prospects for the existing office spaces during the current downturn and for the foreseeable future? Consequently one is forced to ask just what sort of precedent is Swale seeking to set by allowing a business to dismiss all this existing office availability but, if they are allowed to build their own offices in a nice rural location they’ll move in? I note also the letter of support for this application from the people behind the Kent Science Park – I wonder why they are so heartily in favour of this application? Could it be because they recognise that any such precedent set will further their own attempts to foist inappropriate developments on the countryside?
To summarise then, Borden Parish Council object to this application. We object because this is not a suitable location for such a development, that the increased traffic will be a blight to the residents and communities nearby, that the entrance will be on a very dangerous piece of road, and because the development would set a precedent that could be used to further undermine the policies that Swale have introduced. "
The meeting was going well, with good contributions from local residents and our Borough Councillor Nicholas Hampshire, followed by some good contributions from the Members, but a decision has been delayed because it was decided to arrange a site visit...
Monday was the Kent Association of Local Councils AGM which was as ever well attended and we had an interesting speaker from DEFRA on EU funding.
On the doorsteps the reaction has still been pretty good given the National Picture, but once again the Lib Dems have been seeking to mislead voters about their chances with fantasy figures showing that they can win and Labour are out of the picture. These figures bear no match with reality, but it's a tactic they trot out at every election, even when they know they can't win, and even when they know they are going to come last as they did in Grove Ward last time. It is duplicitous and it is trying to deceive the electorate.
They cannot win this election and shouldn't pretend they can. If they tried some honest hard work, attended local meetings and didn't just turn up at election time they might have something positive to offer the voters...
Thursday night was a local planning meeting where residents turned up at the Swale Borough Planning Committee to oppose the Care Home proposed for Hengist Field. I spoke on behalf of the Parish Council, and here is my text:
"Firstly, I would like to mention that Borden Parish Council fully appreciates the need for more elderly care homes, and is not averse to having more in our parish. But this current proposal is just not suitable for many reasons, many of which have been admirably highlighted by Mr Gilmartin and effectively ignored by the authors of the recommendation before you. I would urge Councillors to read Mr Gilmartin’s letter in full, and wonder about his detailed observations on how this proposal fails to meet with many of Swale Borough Council’s own supposed policies. Because it would seem from the report in front of you that these concerns have not been considered in much detail by the officers – or at least, they are not addressed in an adequate fashion by this report.
Regarding these proposals, we have heard of the expectation that most of the likely staff would avail themselves of the local bus service – until it was pointed out that the service consists of just two buses each day – one into and one out of the area. So it is with considerable scepticism that the plans and assurances that accompany this proposal are met. There are no local amenities – there is no effective local bus service.
But aside from the totally inappropriate location of such an establishment in this area, there is the vexatious question of traffic and the impact on local roads and residents.
The proposed site is located on a multi-junction, blind corner that already sees traffic passing at inappropriate speeds. The predicted Vehicular traffic movements of 40-45 journeys per day are pure fantasy. With a staffing level in excess of 100 for the two aspects of this proposal, accompanied by additional visitor numbers, deliveries and medical appointments this proposal will inevitably result in far higher levels of vehicular journeys than is claimed therein.
This is a very dangerous piece of highway, and speeding cars, blind corners and multi-junctions designed for days of horse and cart will not be made safer by higher traffic levels. Indeed, this section is already quite risky for cyclists – the idea that a stream of eager new workers will be making their way along these roads to their new job would in itself be a cause of some considerable concern were the prospects of it so remote as to be laughable.
There will be no great flood of cyclists; there will be no reliance on any bus service. People will overwhelmingly access the site by car.
Most of these journeys will have to be made along roads that are already designated Rural Lanes, and will therefore impact negatively on those areas in direct contravention of Policy RC7 which states that Development will not be permitted that would either physically, or as a result of traffic levels, significantly harm the character of rural lanes
I would like to turn to the issue of the Offices. Sittingbourne is not short of available office space. More is planned for the future. There has been trouble filling the available office space in a time of relative prosperity – what are the prospects for the existing office spaces during the current downturn and for the foreseeable future? Consequently one is forced to ask just what sort of precedent is Swale seeking to set by allowing a business to dismiss all this existing office availability but, if they are allowed to build their own offices in a nice rural location they’ll move in? I note also the letter of support for this application from the people behind the Kent Science Park – I wonder why they are so heartily in favour of this application? Could it be because they recognise that any such precedent set will further their own attempts to foist inappropriate developments on the countryside?
To summarise then, Borden Parish Council object to this application. We object because this is not a suitable location for such a development, that the increased traffic will be a blight to the residents and communities nearby, that the entrance will be on a very dangerous piece of road, and because the development would set a precedent that could be used to further undermine the policies that Swale have introduced. "
The meeting was going well, with good contributions from local residents and our Borough Councillor Nicholas Hampshire, followed by some good contributions from the Members, but a decision has been delayed because it was decided to arrange a site visit...
Monday was the Kent Association of Local Councils AGM which was as ever well attended and we had an interesting speaker from DEFRA on EU funding.
On the doorsteps the reaction has still been pretty good given the National Picture, but once again the Lib Dems have been seeking to mislead voters about their chances with fantasy figures showing that they can win and Labour are out of the picture. These figures bear no match with reality, but it's a tactic they trot out at every election, even when they know they can't win, and even when they know they are going to come last as they did in Grove Ward last time. It is duplicitous and it is trying to deceive the electorate.
They cannot win this election and shouldn't pretend they can. If they tried some honest hard work, attended local meetings and didn't just turn up at election time they might have something positive to offer the voters...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)