A lighthearted piece for the Europhobs

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klearup konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growi ng publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and af ter ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas!!!

Well done 12th Mechanised Brigade

I for one was very proud of 12 MB assisting in the release of two captured soldiers recently. I believe our British Troops are the best in the world. No exeptions. And their behaviour and discipline in combat is unsurpassed. We also have the best trained officers in the world, and some exeptional commanders in the field.

It is so easy for people in the safety and comfort of their armchairs to level critisism at our troops without the faintest idea of what the situation on the ground is like and with no idea of what it is like to function under fire, let alone make good split second dicisions that will result in the loss or saving of life.

Having spent a few moments with this Brigade (picture is me borrowing one of their off road vehicles), and knowing many of them, I just want to say well done, thank you for what you are doing. It is a thankless job, and no-one else could do it better.

My Lydia is a copper!!!

Not only are the police looking younger, my daughter has become one! A scary thought! Yes there is a WPC Clifford on the loose. They cant be accepting people in that young surely?

I am very proud of her. She has always wanted to be a policewoman. And I am delighted she has not chosen to go into the traffic section!! ( I am down to just 3 points at last).

She is going to be a good policewoman. She is strongminded and very determined, but Lydia has a big heart and is very compassionate. Having said that, don't mess with her, she will take no nonsense. And I will be treading carefully if I am out wandering in her patch when she is on duty, in fact it will probably be safer for me to ask permission first.

I am horrified at the abuse they get these days. And it seems the hand cuffs are on the police more than the criminals. The paperwork she has to complete is horrific. All to protect who? The police? No! The victim? No! The law abiding public? No! All to make sure the criminals rights are protected. The only people that love all the paperwork are the criminals and their well paid Barristers (sorry sister in law - well paid Barrister not criminal by the way). Now there is a scary thought, arrested by daughter and cross examined by sister in law!

Anyway. Well done Lydia, and keep safe out there ... its dangerous. And most people just don't appreciate the scum you have to deal with so often. Yet we expect the Police to be perfect, all of the time, while so easily excusing frequently the appauling behaviour of criminals.

Tribute to Ted

I have just been devastated by some tragic news. My good friend Ted Grant died suddenly last Sunday whilst at church with his family. His funeral is Friday 11am 16th September. He will be buried close to my father in Redan Hill Cemetary, Aldershot. He was only 58 and has a wonderful family. Fine sons and a lovely daughter, all of which he has seen married to wonderful companions.

We worked together many years ago when his boys were teenagers and my girls were todlers. We ran a scout troop together 12th Aldershot, he was the Group Scout Leader and I was the Scout troop Leader. he always told me that anyone that aspires to be a politician immediatly disqualifies themselves from being a good one.

We climbed Snowdon, Ben Nevis, Three Peaks and other mountains together. He held the towel while the boys and I did eskimo rolls in our kiyaks, came up from some wet pot holes we were exploring or some other wild activity we got involved in.

My mind is packed with fond memories of our shared experiences. Everytime I saw him, he would greet me with a smile as warm as a summers day in the hills where he loved to be. he was a tall man, but never aloof. He was a quiet man, but never afraid to speak up when things were not right. He was a very clever man, and yet a very simple man. He always managed to say the right things at the right time. He was never happier than when surrounded by his family and friends, which are many.

We will all feel a void.
If you knew him, you could not help loving such a man.
My regret is that I never told him how I felt about him.
How wise the person that said "A rose to the living is of more value than a wreath to the dead"

His legacy however lives on in the lives of his sons and daughter, one sees Ted just looking into their eyes, and seeing lives that are filled with same compassion for others, and that same love of the outdoors.

Thank you Ted for wonderful memories, and making my life here all the richer for having rubbed shoulders with you.

Back from the most fantastic Holiday in France

It doesnt get much better than this. Flying free as a bird surveying the beautiful landscape below, wind in your face, sun on your back, 1000 feet below you and miles of space above you.

The picture is of me with my French wing flying over Le Reole in Bordeaux at 7am in the morning. The sun gently evaporating the clouds which are rolling back to welcome a new day. Its great to be alive.



I have to say, the French could not have been more delightful and friendly. I was warmed by their genuine hospitality and warmth. While out on a flight several of us had to land in a field unexpectedly. In Britain this is a tense moment, not because of any flying danger, but you just are not sure how the farmer or land owner will react. I "landed out"(as we call it) twice while I was in France, the first time the farmer came out to us, unarmed and offered 8 of us breakfast with him. The second time the landowner came out and warmly greeted me. Everywhere we went I found the French to be very warm and friendly. So for the record...I think the French are great and cannot wait to go back.

This sport is one of the cheapest forms of flying, the parawing and engine cost about the same as a reasonable second hand car (more reliable I must add) and with a good instructor, and serious practice you can be up flying in no time.

Here I am landing with my trusty French ITV Tepee Wing and faithful German engine, on our last day of flying in France

If you are interested in learning more about this sport called Paramotoring or want to see more pictures visit our club web site http://www.footlaunch.co.ukootlaunch.co.uk and learn more.

Selected to represent Empress Farnborough

Empress Conservatives strengthen their team

Empress Branch Executive is pleased to confirm that Councillor David Clifford has been selected to stand as the Conservative prospective candidate in Rushmoor Borough Council’s Empress Ward in 2006.

David Clifford joins an expanded and very formidable Empress team alongside Cllr. Patricia Hodge, Cllr. John Wall and Cllr Pat Devereux, the Ward’s County Councillor. This new team has almost 40 years of local government experience.

David, who lives in Empress, has had a distinguished career in local politics, serving as Rushmoor’s youngest Mayor in 1999. Very energetic and enthusiastic, David is keen to see more young people engaged in local politics. He currently chairs the Borough Services Committee. This Committee’s priority now is to scrutinise community safety and the local Police.

Branch Chairman, Adam Jackman said “This selection shows the Conservative Party in this area is not only strong but has a good depth of experience. We are now able to expand our team of councillors from three to four which will enhance quality of service and expertise. We now have a formidable team to fight the 2006 Borough Election campaign”

Councillor David Clifford said “I am delighted to have been selected to fight the seat where I now live, and represent Empress Ward at Rushmoor. I look forward to working with Mrs Pat Devereux our County Councillor and my fellow Ward Councillors John Wall and Patricia Hodge for the good of local residents. We will be a great team, and I cannot wait to get started.”

Our Hope for a better Britain

In the final days of this campaign, the contrast between the Conservatives and the rest could not be starker. Our message is about the future – action on cleaner hospitals, more police, lower taxes, school discipline, controlled immigration.
The Lib Dems want an end to mandatory life sentences for murder and, like Mr Blair, higher taxes and unlimited immigration.
After 8 years in office Mr Blair’s only message about the future is “don’t let the Tories in”. That’s it – that’s the limit of his vision. With 408 MPs and a 161 seat majority, Labour think they can get away with even higher taxes, higher crime and
unlimited immigration.
Days before an election, Mr Blair suddenly pretends he cares about your issues. But if he won on Thursday, make no mistake: he’d be back to his old ways on Friday.
Mr Blair’s hope is just to keep his job; and the Lib Dems will help him do that. Our hope is for a better Britain.
So if you think what we think and want a better Britain too – YOU must send that message.
If you think what we think and want cleaner hospitals – YOU must send that message.
If you think what we think and want more police and tougher sentences – YOU must send that message.
If you think what we think and want lower taxes – YOU must send that message.
If you think what we think and want school discipline – YOU must send that message.
If you think what we think and want a limit on immigration – YOU must send that message.

OUR EIGHT TASKS
Britons are ready for something better. They want a government that will take a stand and act on what matters – cleaner hospitals, lower taxes, more police, school discipline and controlled immigration. And they want a government that does what it says. So here is a timetable for eight specific tasks that Michael Howard has made his personal priority to see achieved.
On 9 May 2005, we will set out our plans to prevent police officers having to fill in a form every time they stop a yob in the street.
By 6 June 2005, we will have signed up hospitals to put matron in charge of delivering cleaner hospitals.
By 6 June 2005, we will have set in train a new 24-hour surveillance scheme to secure our borders.
By 7 April 2006, we will make sure that all 35 major British ports of entry will be operating under the scheme.
By 1 December 2005, classrooms will benefit from unruly pupils being expelled under our plans to give head teachers complete control over expulsions.
By 1 April 2006, up to five million pensioners will have received their new council tax bills showing a discount of up to £500.
By 6 April 2006, the first young families will have benefited from our abolition of stamp duty on houses costing up to £250,000.
By 1 September 2006, students going to university will be freed from paying all tuition fees and Mr. Blair’s planned top up fees will not be introduced.
By 31 December 2006, we will have created a single body to fight illegal immigration – the British Border Control Police – and their 5,400 strong force will be under one unified control.
It’s time for action.
Take a stand on the issues that matter.
VOTE CONSERVATIVE.


Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

Mr Blair: All talk on School Discipline

A documentary to be screened this week on Channel 5 will reveal the shocking extent of indiscipline in our schools under Mr Blair. Conservatives will take a stand on the things that matter – and restore discipline to our classrooms.

Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair stated in 1997: ‘Teachers will be entitled to positive support … to promote good attendance and sound discipline’ (Labour Party Manifesto, Apr 97). All talk.
• A teacher is assaulted every seven minutes (NASUWT Press Release, 3 April 2003, and Times Educational Supplement, 6 Aug 04).
• Examples of pupil violence cited by the NUT include a teacher who was stabbed in the neck by a 14 year-old, another who had a kettle of boiling water poured over them, and one who was left with severe leg injuries after a pupil attack (BBC News Online and The Guardian, 28 Mar 05).
• Truancy is up by a third and over one million children play truant each year. In 1996-7, 965,400 pupils truanted. In 2003-4, 1,264,103 did so - a 31 per cent increase (Hansard, 30 April 03, Col. 413WA, and DfES, Pupil Absence in Schools in England 03-04, 14 Dec 04).
• The National Audit Office reported in 2005 that, despite massive spending of £885 million on truancy initiatives, ‘unauthorised absence [truancy] has not declined’, even using the Government’s own measure (NAO, Improving School Attendance in England, 4 Feb 05).
• Appeals panels overrule head teachers in one in five cases, forcing them to readmit pupils they have expelled. Of 1,070 appeals made in the last year for which figures are available, 21 per cent were upheld – putting 210 expelled pupils back into the classroom (Hansard, 31 Jan 05, Col. 506WA).
• There were over 17,000 expulsions for violence in just one term in 2003. Teaching unions believe even this could be an underestimate, since schools may have failed to report the true figures for fear of being labelled ‘failing’ (Times Educational Supplement, 6 Aug 04).
• 31 per cent of teachers considering leaving the profession cite poor pupil behaviour as a reason (The Guardian, 7 Jan 03).
• Nearly one in ten (nine per cent) of secondary schools have unsatisfactory levels of behaviour, and the number of schools where behaviour is unsatisfactory ‘shows no sign of reducing’, according to the Chief Inspector of Schools (Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 03/04, Feb 05).

Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats have no policies to improve school discipline. They want to continue Labour’s discredited inclusion policy and say that ‘increasing exclusions is a recipe for disaster’ (Liberal Democrat Press Release, 29 November 2004).

What will Conservatives do?
Conservatives have a five-point Action Plan to restore discipline in our schools:
1. We will give head teachers the final say over exclusions and scrap appeals panels.
2. We will give head teachers an unqualified right to insist on parental agreement to discipline as part of the conditions of entry/attendance for their children.
3. We will scrap Labour’s plans to force all state schools to take their share of undisciplined pupils.
4. We will give schools the funds and financial freedom to introduce random drug- testing, CCTV and metal detectors.
5. We will give teachers greater legal protection so that they can enforce discipline without fear of having their lives ruined if a child alleges abuse.

Conservatives are taking a stand on the issues that matter.

Voters have a clear choice on 5 May: schools with poor discipline and falling standards under Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats, or schools with good discipline and high standards with the Conservatives.

Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

Cleaner Hospitals

At this election, Conservatives are taking a stand on the issues that matter. So today we are announcing extra resources to tackle the superbug in our hospitals.

Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised to ‘save the NHS’ and provide cleaner hospitals: ‘for the first time, money set aside specifically to get rid of the dirty corridors’ (Labour Party Conference Speech, 26 Sept 2000). All talk.
• The reality is that 5,000 people die every year from hospital-acquired infections.
• The number of people who have died from the ‘superbug’ MRSA has more than doubled since 1997.
• Mr Blair’s Government insists that it has followed the ‘best scientific advice’ in dealing with MRSA and other health care associated infections (John Hutton, King’s Fund Breakfast, 7 April 05). All talk. They have made 23 announcements but done little else.
• Conservatives have identified 18 specific recommendations – from the Chief Medical Officer and from reports by independent committees – on which after 8 years in Government, Mr Blair has failed to act. These range from investing in more isolation facilities to reviewing and implementing new technologies to combat MRSA and other hospital-acquired superbugs.
A recent Nursing Times survey (8 March 2005) showed that:
• Nurses still do not have access to 24/7 cleaning.
• 40 per cent of nurses said they are not given the time to clean beds between patients.
Most patients do not receive accurate information on hospital-acquired infections. Some nurses said that they do not have access to alcohol-based hand gels and have had to re-use single use equipment.

Liberal Democrats
The Lib Dems have said they would scrap Whitehall targets but have no plans to combat hospital superbugs, only plans to raise taxes.
The Lib Dems have pledged to spend an extra £8 billion more than the Conservatives or Labour on the NHS which would mean further tax rises – regardless of the system they choose. As Andrew George has said, ‘Our slogan at the next election will be “Trust us, we will put your taxes up”’ (Radio 5 Live, Simon Mayo Show, 19 January 2005).

What will Conservatives do?
Conservatives believe in accountability. We believe that putting a Matron in charge will ensure that one person is clearly accountable for delivering a clean and safe environment, ward-by-ward, across the hospital. So we will ask each NHS Hospital Trust to meet 10 standards for cleaner hospitals in order to put Matron in charge and provide the powers and resources necessary to deliver high standards of cleanliness and infection control.
The Conservatives have a 10-point Action Plan which includes:
• Putting Matron in charge of making sure wards are clean.
• Closing dirty wards.
• Giving patients more information about hospital infections.
This will be backed by extra resources. We will provide £52 million in each of the next two years to support NHS Trusts which undertake to meet these standards. This additional support for front-line services will be funded from within the £7 billion of NHS savings identified by the James Review.
Today we announce an important additional element of our strategy to save the NHS from the spread of MRSA.
• £10 million will be made available for NHS Hospital Trusts to implement state-of-the-art technology which will help identify MRSA by nasal swab testing in a matter of hours as opposed to days.
This will be a crucial further step in eradicating MRSA from our hospitals and complements our plans announced so far. All of this forms part of a clear Conservative agenda to take a stand on the issues that matter.
Voters have a clear choice on 5 May: cleaner hospitals and shorter waiting lists with the Conservatives, or dirty hospitals and long waiting lists under Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

Action on Crime

Figures to be released on Thursday this week will highlight the rising tide of violent crime under Labour (Sunday Times, 17 April 2005).
Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised to ‘be tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime’ (Labour Party Manifesto, 97). All talk.
• Crime is out of control – there are now more than a million violent crimes each year, and new figures suggest a further 8 per cent in the last year (Sunday Times, 17 April 2005).
• Gun crime has doubled under Labour, with more than one gun crime every hour of the day.
• Police officers already spend almost half of their time at their desks instead of being on the streets fighting crime.
• Every time they stop someone officers have to fill in a form a foot long with 40 questions to answer, blanks to fill in and boxes to tick.

Liberal Democrats
Liberal Democrats would abolish mandatory life sentences for murder and serious sexual offences, would not send shoplifters or burglars to prison and would give prisoners the right to vote. Mark Oaten, the Lib Dem Home Office Spokesman, has said: ‘I'm absolutely convinced that prison is a complete and utter waste of time’ (BBC Radio 4, 9 November
2003). And Simon Hughes, their President, has said: ‘Liberal Democrats have always been clear that there should never be mandatory sentences (Hansard, 13 January 2002, Col. 433).

What will Conservatives do?
Conservatives believe our society needs more respect, discipline and decent values. We will cut political correctness and police paperwork, and put more police on the beat.
Mr Howard’s five-point plan for dealing with crime in our communities means:
1. 5,000 more police a year. The next Conservative Government will recruit an extra 5,000 police a year. This will give the police the resources that they need to tackle crime in their communities.
2. Scrapping Central Government targets. The introduction of targets has increased the stranglehold of central government on the police. Senior police officers have complained strongly about the burdens imposed by this Government’s targets which distort their proper priorities. We will scrap these targets.
3. Publishing crime statistics on a weekly basis. When the New York Police Department started publishing statistics on a weekly basis, police chiefs began to be held to account for their actions on a weekly basis. We will introduce the same system here so that local communities can see how effective their police commissioners are.
4. Axing police paperwork. Police spend almost as much time at their desks as they do on the streets fighting crime. This must stop. We will cut central control of the police and centrally generated paperwork so that the police can get on with job of fighting crime. Freeing the police from unnecessary bureaucracy – including scrapping police stop forms – will
mean that more officers will be available to walk the beat, working with the community and acting as a visible deterrent to criminals.
5. Making the police accountable to their local communities. Elected police commissioners will reflect the concerns of the people who elect them, and as a result they will focus on the crimes that matter to their communities. They will be able to put police muscle power behind the public’s priorities – tackling crime and disorder: vandalism, rowdiness, thuggery.
People have a clear choice: a Conservative Government that will introduce tougher sentences and put more police on our streets, or more lenient sentences and more talk under Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats.
Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

HEALTH - Talk or Action

An authoritative survey by the Picker Institute Europe, Is the NHS Getting Better of Worse?, shows that dirty hospitals and lack of information about treatments are among patients’ main concerns about the state of the national health service today. The Institute’s Chief Executive, Professor Angela Coulter says, ‘The most disappointing thing is that all the rhetoric about creating patient-centred care hasn’t led to improvements across the board’ (Times, 18 Apr 05).
Among the report’s findings are:
• In 2004 only 54% said that the ward they were in was very clean – 2% less than in 2002 – while only 48% said that bathrooms and lavatories were very clean, 3% less than in 2002.
• In 1998, 87% of GP patients said that they had sufficient time with the doctors, but by 2004 this had fallen to 74%
• Between 2002 and 2004 the proportion of patients complaining about the inconvenient opening hours of GP surgeries had increased from 20 per cent to 22 per cent.
• Reports from patients indicated increasing difficulties in getting an appointment at a convenient time. Under Mr Blair the loss of Saturday surgeries was a particular complaint.

Why Labour are all talk
In 1997 Mr Blair said that there were ‘24 hours to save the NHS’. Then in 2002 he said ‘if the NHS is not basically fixed by the next election, then I am quite happy to suffer the consequences. I am quite willing to be held to account by the voters if we fail’ (Sunday People, 27 Jan 02). All talk. Mr Blair has spent an extra £29.1 billion or £1,400 per household on the NHS, yet:
• There are still over one million people on the waiting list throughout the UK – 845,200 in England, 67,406 in Wales, 113,612 in Scotland and 49,250 in Northern Ireland. That’s 1,075,500, or over one million people, waiting for treatment under Mr Blair.
• Mr Blair’s waiting statistics only tell half the story. There are many hidden waits for ultrasound scans. For example, in 2004, 158 hospital trusts found patients waiting for routine MRI scans for more than six months in two-fifths of hospitals (BBC News, The Waiting Game, 11 Jan 05). The survey found that, in one in twelve trusts, the wait was over one
year (BBC News, The Waiting Game, Jan 11 05).
• More people wait for longer under Mr Blair. The average waiting time for treatment in 1999-2000 was 90 days. By 2003-4, it had risen to 95 days (Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health, 7 Dec 04).
• The number of people being killed by the hospital ‘superbug’ MRSA has more than doubled since 1997 (National Statistics, Health Statistics Quarterly, Spring 04, p.16) despite Labour’s 23 ‘initiatives’ to tackle the problem.
• 5,000 people die every year from hospital-acquired infections – more people than are killed on Britain’s roads.

Liberal Democrats
No one really knows how the Lib Dems will fund the health service. Their ring-fenced NICs would raise less than their spending plans indicate for the NHS – there would be a black hole per year of over £6 billion in 2005-6, and by 2007-8 around £15 billion.
The Lib Dems have pledged to spend an extra £8 billion on the NHS - so that would mean further tax rises – regardless of the system they choose. As Andrew George has said, ‘Our slogan at the next election will be “Trust us, we will put your taxes up”’ (Radio 5 Live, Simon Mayo Show, 19 Jan 05).

What will Conservatives do?

Conservatives have a clear Timetable for Action on health.

Within the first day of a Conservative Government
• We will abolish Whitehall targets which mean hospitals cannot close beds or wards for cleaning. Doctors and nurses should control our hospitals.

Within the first week
• We will make it possible for people to have access to information about hospital performance, including on infection rates. Patients will be able to tell how likely they are to contract infection in a hospital department. Hospitals will also have to publish their action plans on how they are fighting infections. Local hospitals should be made accountable to patients.

Within the first month
• We will set out our programme of legislation to give patients the right to choose to be treated in any hospital that provides NHS standards of care at NHS costs. Patients should not be forced to be treated in dirty hospitals.
• We will set out plans to support infection control teams and recruit more front-line staff to back up hospitals’ efforts to fight infection. Rapid action is needed to stop infections spreading.

Within the first year
• We will set out how we can boost training in infection control. Health professionals and cleaners need to know best practice.
• We will speed up work to introduce new solutions to combat hospital-acquired infection into local hospitals. The latest science and research needs to be used to combat MRSA.
We will cut waiting lists by:
• Giving hospitals immediate Foundation status in order to free them to manage their own staff and budgets.
• Giving patients the Right to Choose to be treated in any hospital that provides NHS standards of care at NHS costs.
• Providing those treated in a private hospital or clinic that charges more for an operation than the NHS with 50% of the NHS cost as a contribution towards their bill. This will free the NHS to treat more patients more quickly.
We will reform and invest by increasing the NHS budget by £34 billion within five years of taking office – from £1,450 per head to £2,000 a head. Spending will go directly to the front line. Voters have a clear choice on 5 May: dirty hospitals and long waiting lists under Mr Blair and the Lib Dems, or cleaner hospitals and shorter waiting lists with the Conservatives.
Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

Lib Dem TAX Shambles

Charles Kennedy launched the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto yesterday and already his ‘flagship’ policy of replacing the council tax with a local income tax is a shambles. At his press conference, Mr Kennedy was clearly unable to answer the most basic questions about the local income tax.
Kennedy Confusion. Asked who would be worse off, a floundering Mr Kennedy said: ‘You are talking in the region of £20,000, err. . . yes. If you take a double income couple, £20,000 each, that's what you are talking about. . . £40,000’ (Liberal Democrat press conference, 14 April 2005), before Party Chairman, Matthew Taylor, rescued him on the detail.
Later his Treasury spokesman, Vincent Cable, had to correct Mr Kennedy’s assertion that the tax-take would be ‘no less’ than under the council tax when the Lib Dems own figures state that it would be £2.4 billion less in 2007-8.
It’s no wonder that even senior Liberal Democrats have rounded on Mr Kennedy with one reportedly describing his delivery as ‘irritatingly wrong’ (Daily Mail, 15 April 2005).
As The Sun puts it this morning: ‘What a pathetic shambles the launch of the Lib Dems manifesto turned out to be’ (15 April 2005).
Soaring bills for hard-working families
Liberal Democrats refuse to publish details of how local income tax will affect working families across the country. Their Treasury spokesman, Vincent Cable, said: ‘Well almost by definition we can't publish a print out of the details affecting you know tens of millions of people, all we can do is to give the contours’ (Liberal Democrat press conference, 14 April 2005).

The Facts: Using the latest household income data from the Office of National Statistics, and local government finance data from the ODPM, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive, the Conservative Research Department has analysed the impact of the local income tax on every council in the country. The research shows:
• A typical working family in England in 2005-06 would pay a LIT tax bill of £1,701, compared to an average council tax bill of £1,009. This would mean a typical working family paying over £600 a year more.
• Working families in only one council in Britain will benefit – everywhere else, they will lose out.
Mr Cable has already admitted that many homes would pay more under local income tax. He said: ‘If there are two full-time earners in the house, there would be more tax’ with the new tax starting to bite for families with combined salaries ‘in the mid £30,000s’ (Evening Standard, ‘Lib Dems admit tax reforms would hit families on £35,000’, 21 Sept 04).
• Many areas will face even higher bills, reflecting the inefficiency or efficiency of the council, their spending decisions and the local funding settlement from central government. Liberal Democrats admit that: ‘It may be that areas which currently have very high council taxes will have a slightly higher local income tax rate’ (Liberal Democrats, Labour’s unfair council tax: the facts, Sept 03).
• Under local income tax, in houses with more than two adults the total tax bills would soar. In the words of the Liberal Democrats’ local government spokesman, Lord Newby: ‘More people would pay local income tax than council tax’ (Lords Hansard, 9 February 2004, Col. 943).
• Students who take jobs to boost their incomes would be eligible for the local income tax –deterring them from working and increasing student debt. An estimated 73 per cent of student nurses now have to do part-time work to supplement their income while studying (Royal College of Nursing press release, 8 July 2003). Students and student nurses are currently exempt from council tax.
• Liberal Democrats want to levy business rates on second homes. ‘To ensure owners of second homes pay a fair contribution to local services, we would levy our equivalent of business rates, local site value rates, on the second home’ (Liberal Democrats, Scrap Council Tax: Liberal Democrat plans to replace council tax with a local income tax, January 2004).
• The complexity of local income tax would also mean extra costs for employers, as they would have to administer different local income tax rates for each employee who lived in a different local authority. Liberal Democrats claim they oppose council tax rises.
• Yet Liberal Democrat MPs and peers voted three times with Labour to support higher council tax bands and the rigged council tax revaluation (Lords Hansard, 10 Sept 03, Col. 339; Lords Hansard, 17 July 03, Cols. 976-80; Hansard, 10 Mar 03, Col. 126).

Liberal Democrats support a barrage of new local taxes on hard-working families, pensioners and local firms – including congestion taxes, parking taxes to shop and at work, a dog tax, a hotel tax, development tax, 4x4 tax, VAT on new homes – on top of local income tax. So a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for higher taxes.

What Conservatives will do
Conservatives will:
• Halve council tax for millions of pensioners. We will introduce a new 50 per cent discount for those who live in households where the adults are aged 65 and over, up to a maximum of £500 a year. This will be on top of Labour’s one-off £200.
• Scrap Labour’s plans for new higher council tax bands, a rigged revaluation and a supplementary council tax.
• Cut back the unfunded burdens, regulations and red tape that have forced up council tax.
• Ensure fairer funding from Whitehall, by introducing greater transparency over grant distribution.
• Deliver a fully-funded settlement for local government, with an above-inflation increase for local councils, and significant increases for schools, police and health and social services.

The choice at this election is clear: value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or higher taxes and more waste under Mr Blair and the Lib Dems.
Promoted by Gavin Barwell on behalf of the Conservative Party, both at 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0DL. Printed by the Conservative Party.

French Malaise - from my mate Daniel Hannan MEP

The Euro-sophists are getting in their excuses in advance. This vote in France, they say: it isn’t really about the EU constitution at all. If the French vote No on 29 May, it won’t be a rejection of Brussels, but of Chirac and his ministry. That’s the trouble with these wretched referendums, you see: people will insist on voting on the wrong question. In fact, they go on, the French don’t think the constitution goes far enough. What they think – and they’ve got a point, dear boy – is that it enshrines a British view of Europe. Odd to see you antis lining up with these ultra-federalists.
Most British commentators, including a fair number of Euro-sceptics who ought to know better, seem to have swallowed this line. It makes for good copy, and allows the writer to flaunt his knowledge of French politics. But it bears very little relation to what is actually happening across the Channel.
Let us deal, first, with contention the French and British No campaigns are pushing for opposite things. It is certainly true that the bulk of French opposition to the constitution comes from the Left (although by no means all of it: if there were not also substantial scepticism on the Right and in the Centre, the Yes campaign would be miles ahead).“Et alors?”, as the French say. So what if French socialists and British Tories have different visions of employment law, social policy or human rights? These are questions for general elections. What is at stake in the referendum is whether national parliaments should decide such matters, or whether they should be settled at EU level. On this issue, the French and British No campaigns – and, indeed, the Danish, Dutch, Czech and all the rest – are united.
There were, admittedly, one or two French politicians who would have liked the constitution to go even further, notably the Centrist leader, François Bayrou. But they quickly fell into line behind the Yes campaign once the referendum was called, for the good reason that, from their point of view, the constitution represents a considerable improvement on the status quo. As during the Maastricht referendum in 1992, there is now a near-unanimous line-up of French politicians in favour of closer integration.
Which brings us to the question of whether the referendum is really a rejection of the political class by everyone else – or, as they say in France, of the pays légal by the pays réel. Yes, of course it is. Of all the stereotypes that the British have of the French, one is outstanding in its accuracy: they are grumpy. And they have plenty to be grumpy about, being governed as they are by a self-serving cartel. The point is that they have accurately clocked that European integration is making their government even less accountable. They have grasped that the constitution, by transferring more powers from national parliaments to EU institutions, will remove decisions still further from the people.
To put it the other way around, voting against the constitution means voting against a system of governance that elevates technocracy over democracy. The point is well made in that masterpiece, The House at Pooh Corner:
“When you wake up in the morning, Pooh,” said Piglet, “what’s the first thing you say to yourself?”“What’s for breakfast?” said Pooh. “What do you say, Piglet?”“I say, I wonder what’s going to happen exciting today?” said Piglet.Pooh nodded thoughtfully.“It’s the same thing,” he said.
If you feel that administration is already too remote at home, you are hardly going to want to transfer powers to even more distant institutions. If you have had enough of unelected commissars and énarques in Paris, you don’t want to pushed around by another set of commissars and énarques in Brussels. Pooh nodded thoughtfully. “It’s the same thing”, he said.
The French governing class is the chief beneficiary of the European system. For most of the EU’s history, French civil servants have dominated the Commission. Indeed, the timing of the Commission annual recruitment was timed to coincide with French exams. The very bureaucrats whom the French resent at home, in other words, are also the people who run Brussels.
French souverainistes have been quick to make the connection. One of my friends in the Vendée is campaigning under the slogan “Do yourself a favour: vote no” (Faites-vous plaisir : votez non”). “People are fed up with the whole racket,” he told me. “With the unemployment, with the corruption, with Chirac, with their boss, with their wife or their husband. So I am inviting them to say no to the lot of them”.
This also explains, by the way, why the Left is leading the No coalition this time, whereas the Right – in the shape of Philippe de Villiers and Philippe Séguin (who has since gone over to the Dark Side) – led the anti-Maastricht campaign thirteen years ago. When the socialists were in power, anti-politician feeling was concentrated on the Right; now it is the other way around.
We do not yet know the result of course. My sense, having spent a week with the No campaign in the Camargue, is that they are ahead. But I could be wrong; I often am. In 1992, many voters were moved at the last minute by the pathos of President Mitterand’s announcement that he had cancer. And even so, it was the closest imaginable result. Indeed, the voters of mainland France narrowly rejected Maastricht, but the result was tipped by massive Yes votes in outre-mer and from French voters resident abroad. French Guyana registered a Yes vote of 74.2 per cent, Martinique of 67.4 per cent, Guadeloupe of 72.1 per cent, and there were similar results in the rest of France’s colonial archipelago. Quite why this should have happened has never been adequately explained. These are after all – at the risk of stating the obvious – non-European territories, many of which have a strong tradition of backing the Communist party, which was against the treaty. Could it simply be that the counts took place far away, in different time-zones, and with few scrutineers? It would certainly explain why President Mitterand was able to assure John Major that there had been a narrow Yes vote long before the polls had closed.
But let us hypothesise, for a moment, that the souverainistes carry the day. What would happen next? Would the EU tear up the constitution, go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something better? Not a chance. This would not, after all, be the first time that the project had been rejected. It happened when the Danes voted against Maastricht, when the Irish voted against Nice and, indeed, when the markets voted against the ERM. On all these occasions, the EU simply carried on as before. There is no Plan B in Brussels; Plan A is simply resubmitted over and over again until it is bludgeoned through.
Don’t take my word for it. Large parts of the constitution are already being implemented today, even though ten national referendums are still outstanding. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is being treated as justiciable, even though only four states have ratified the constitution that gives it binding force. Substantial elements of the proposed harmonisation of justice and home affairs are being carried out in anticipation of the referendum results. Now the EU is launching its own diplomatic service, despite the strong possibility that at least one country will reject the constitution that gives it a legal basis.
It is little wonder that the French, in common with every other nation in Europe, feel taken for granted. When people complain that politicians are all the same, that it doesn’t matter how you vote, that the élites will go ahead and please themselves regardless, they are not simply letting off steam; they are accurately appraising the conduct of European policy over the past half century. The founders of the EU deliberately designed the system that way. They knew that their project – the merging of Europe’s nations – would never come off if it had to be periodically referred to the national electorates. So they evolved a method whereby harmonisation could be effected in smoke-filled rooms (or, these days, smoke-free rooms) and then presented to the peoples as a fait accompli.
A No vote, on its own, will not be enough. As long as the same governments remain in power, they will pursue their existing European policy, even if it must formally be done through the old treaties rather than through the constitution. The only way to change the direction of the EU is to alter the complexion of national parliaments – to put majorities in place who believe in decentralisation and democracy. The trouble in France is that, with the exception of Philippe de Villiers’ Mouvement pour la France, there is no such party. But in Britain, happily, there is. That is why the decisive vote in this country is not the putative referendum next March, but the intervening general election.

Garden Waste Recycling Service

Rushmoor Council has launched a new garden waste recycling service, offering residents the chance to get their garden waste collected from their homes.

From Monday April 4, residents will be able to put their garden waste out for collection every fortnight in large, reusable polypropylene sacks.

At the same time, the Council will stop collecting garden waste from household wheelie bins.

The new service is part of a package of ways to help residents to recycle their garden waste.

At the moment, every household in Rushmoor produces enough waste to fill 48 green wheeled bins a year and although 29 of these bins could be recycled, only eight are.

Recycling garden waste helps to cut down on the amount of rubbish going to landfill sites and to reduce the damage caused to the environment by greenhouse gases created by waste disposal.

It also makes best use of a valuable natural resource that can be easily composted and in turn, helps to reduce the need to use fertilisers and peat.

The garden waste collection scheme offers householders two reusable, hard-wearing bags and 25 fortnightly collections for £18 a year. They can also buy extra bags for £6 each and one-off plastic sacks for £5 for five. Residents can opt into the scheme at any time. There are discounts for people on low income and those with disabilities.

The waste will be collected every fortnight in a specially adapted recycling lorry and taken to the Project Integra site near Basingstoke to be turned into the quality soil conditioner, Pro Grow. This is so high in quality that it is used by Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and the Eden Project. It is also sold at the recycling centres.

For those who do not want to join the scheme, the Council offers discounted home compost bins so that residents can compost their garden waste at home. People can also take their garden waste free-of-charge to the Household Waste Recycling Centres at Eelmoor Road, Farnborough and Ivy Road, Aldershot seven days a week.

Blair all talk on School Discipline

The National Union of Teachers have revealed shocking evidence of the scale of indiscipline and violence by pupils.
Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised in 1997: ‘Teachers will be entitled to positive support … to promote good attendance and sound discipline’ (Labour Party Manifesto 97). All talk.
• Examples of pupil violence cited by the NUT include a teacher who was stabbed in the neck by a 14 year-old, another who had a kettle of boiling water poured over them, and one who was left with severe leg injuries after a pupil attack (BBC News Online and The Guardian, 28 Mar 05).
• Under Mr Blair, a teacher is assaulted every seven minutes.
• There were over 17,000 expulsions for violence in just one term in 2003. Teaching unions believe even this could be an underestimate, since schools may have failed to report the true figures for fear of being labelled ‘failing’ (Times Educational Supplement, 6 Aug 04).
• 31 per cent of teachers considering leaving the profession cite poor pupil behaviour as a reason.
• Appeals panels overrule head teachers in one in five cases, forcing them to readmit pupils they have expelled. Of 1,070 appeals made in the last year for which figures are available, 21 per cent were upheld – putting 210 expelled pupils back into the classroom.
• Nearly one in ten (nine per cent) of secondary schools have unsatisfactory levels of behaviour, and the number of schools where behaviour is unsatisfactory ‘shows no sign of reducing’, according to the Chief Inspector of Schools (Report of HM Chief Insp of Schools 03/04, Feb 05).
Liberal Democrats
The Lib Dems have no policies to improve school discipline. They want to continue Labour’s discredited policy of forcing schools to take disruptive pupils and say that ‘increasing exclusions is a recipe for disaster’ (Lib Dem Press Release, 29 Nov 04).
Conservative Action
The Conservatives believe that a small minority of pupils should not be allowed to disrupt the education of the majority. We have a five-point Action Plan to restore discipline:
1. We will give head teachers the final say over exclusions and scrap appeals panels.
2. We will give head teachers an unqualified right to insist on parental agreement to discipline as part of the conditions of entry/attendance for their children.
3. We will scrap Labour’s plans to force all state schools to take their share of undisciplined pupils.
4. We will give schools the funds and financial freedom to introduce random drug- testing, CCTV and metal detectors.
5. We will give teachers greater legal protection so that they can enforce discipline without fear of having their lives ruined if a child alleges abuse.

Action On Immigration

The number of workers coming to the UK from the EU accession countries has topped 150,000 since last May – a rate of 9,000 a month (Daily Express, 28 March 2005). This is more than ten times Government predictions of 5-13,000 arrivals a year.
Why Labour are all talk
Tony Blair said: ‘Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception’ (Labour Manifesto, 97). After eight years in power, and just months before an election, Mr Blair claims that he can fix our chaotic immigration system. People will see that is all talk.
• Immigration has tripled under Labour. Total net immigration to Britain averaged 157,000 people a year between 97 and 2003; between 93 and 97 the average was 50,000. 157,000 people equivalent to a town the size of Peterborough arrive in the UK every year.
• Only one in five asylum seekers is removed from the United Kingdom. Under Labour, there are now over 250,000 failed asylum seekers living in Britain who have no right to be here.
• According to Labour’s own predictions, Britain’s population will increase by 6.1 million over the next thirty years. Immigration will account for 84 per cent of the increase (roughly five million people). That is equivalent to five times the population of Birmingham.
• The cost of immigration and asylum has increased tenfold under Labour. It has rocketed from £200 million in 1996-7 to almost £2 billion in 2003-4.
Liberal Democrats
Liberal Democrats want to surrender Britain’s asylum and immigration policies to the European Union and want to remove the control that Britain has over its borders.
What will Conservatives do?
The Conservatives believe we need a fair immigration and asylum system that helps genuine refugees and gives priority to those who want to work hard and make a positive contribution.
• A Conservative Government will set an annual maximum limit on the number who can settle in Britain, including a quota for asylum seekers.
• Britain will take her fair share of the world’s genuine refugees. We have a moral obligation to help those fleeing persecution.
• Conservatives will introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits – giving priority to people with the skills Britain needs.
• We will ensure that where work permits are temporary, they carry no presumption of a right to settle permanently in the UK.
• We will put in place 24-hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration.
• We will put in place effective health checks for those coming to the United Kingdom.
People have a clear choice: controlled and limited immigration with the Conservatives, or unlimited immigration under Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Blair: All talk on Health

According to this week’s NHS Workforce Survey, almost £1.5 billion was spent last year on extra managers and bureaucrats brought in to support Labour’s micromanagement of the NHS (The Times, 28 March 2005). That would be enough to fund an extra 52,000 nurses.
The Survey shows that the total increase in managers and senior managers between 1997 and 2004 was 15,554. It also shows that the number of staff in central functions increased by 29,183 between 1997 and 2004.
Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised ‘not just to save the NHS but make it better’ (Party Conf Speech, 97). All talk.
• Over one million people in the UK are still waiting for treatment on the NHS (House of Commons Library, 04).
• More people wait for longer on average to be treated in dirty hospitals under Mr Blair. This is because the average wait for hospital treatment has gone up – from 90 days in 1999-2000 to 95 days in 2003-4 (Hospital Episode Statistics, 7 Dec 04).
• The number of people being killed by the hospital ‘superbug’ MRSA has more than doubled since 1997 (National Statistics, Health Statistics Quarterly, Spring 04, p.16) despite Labour’s 23 ‘initiatives’ to tackle the problem. 5,000 people a year die from hospital-acquired infections, such as MRSA (Source: National Audit Office, ImprovingPatient Care by Reducing the Risk of Hospital Acquired Infection: A Progress Report, HC 876, 14 Jul 04, p.24). That is more than the number killed on Britain’s roads.
Meanwhile, taxpayers’ money is not going to the frontline:
• The number of managers in the NHS is increasing three times as fast as the number of doctors and nurses (Department of Health, NHS Workforce Statistics, 22 Mar 05).
• The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, contained over 200 targets, plus a whole host of ‘aims’ and ‘aspirations’.
• Under Labour, spending on the NHS in England alone has risen by £29.1 billion (Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 04, Cm. 6201, April 04) or £1,400 per household. But productivity has fallen by nearly one per cent per year since 97 (National Statistics, Major step towards measuring health service productivity, 18 Oct 04). If the private sector was run like the NHS, the economy would have been in recession for the past seven years.
• Between 1999-2000 and 2002-3 spending on hospitals increased by nearly 30 per cent, whilst output increased by just under 5 per cent (House of Commons Library, January 2005 and Hospital Episode Statistics, 7 Dec 04).
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrat plans for the NHS don’t add up. They want to spend billions more, but they haven’t said where the money would come from. They also haven’t said how they pay off Labour’s borrowing. That’s why taxes would have to go up under the Lib Dems – and why their spokesperson Andrew George MP has said: ‘trust us we’ll put your taxes up’ (Simon Mayo Show, Radio Five Live, 19 Jan 05).
Conservative Action
Conservatives will act to clean up our hospitals. We believe local hospitals should meet required standards of cleanliness, and should be made accountable to patients by more information about the level of infections. Doctors and nurses need help to tackle infection. We will cut waiting lists by:
• We will reform and invest by increasing the NHS budget by £34 billion within five years of taking office – from £1,450 per head to £2,000 a head. Spending will go directly to the front line.
• We will scrap all of Mr Blair's politically inspired targets on the NHS which distort clinical priorities and have lead to the proliferation of hospital 'superbugs' such as MRSA.
• We will put matron in charge of making sure wards are clean. There will be a matron in each hospital and a senior nurse for each ward. The nominated person will have both the responsibility, resources and the power to control all aspects of cleanliness and infection control on their ward.

People have a clear choice: cleaner hospitals and shorter waiting lists with the Conservatives or dirty hospitals and long waiting lists under Mr Blair and the Lib Dems.

Mr Blair - All talk on Asylum & Immigration

New figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that Britain still accepts more asylum seekers than almost all other industrialised countries.

Why Labour are all talk
After eight years in power, and just months before an election, Mr Blair claims that he can fix our chaotic immigration system. People will see that as all talk.
• Mr Blair said: ‘Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception’ (Labour Manifesto, 97).
• Mr Blair recently proposed a points system which would: ‘only allow into Britain the people and skills our economy needs’ (Home Office, Controlling Our Borders: Making Migration Work for Britain, Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration, Feb 05). But the proposed points system will enforce no annual limit – the Government has simply repackaged and tinkered with the existing arrangements.
• Mr Blair said: ‘There is no, and should be no, tolerance of abuses [of the immigration system]’ (BBC News Online, 7 Apr 04).
• But the Government itself has abused the system. Mr Blair’s former Home Secretary said: ‘I’ve doubled the number of work permits this year to 150,000… so that we can open up those opportunities rather than literally hundreds of thousands of people working illegally’ (David Blunkett, Speech to the Social Market Foundation, 26 Jun 02).
• The number of work permits has almost quadrupled since 1997.
• The number of grants of settlement, which allow those who have worked in the UK for four years to settle permanently, has almost tripled under Labour.

Liberal Democrats
Liberal Democrats want to surrender Britain’s asylum and immigration policies to the European Union and want to remove the control that Britain has over its borders.

What will Conservatives do?
The Conservatives believe we need a fair immigration and asylum system that helps genuine refugees and gives priority to those who want to work hard and make a positive contribution.
• A Conservative Government will set an annual maximum limit on the number who can settle in Britain, including a quota for asylum seekers.
• Britain will take her fair share of the world’s genuine refugees. We have a moral obligation to help those fleeing persecution.
• Conservatives will introduce an Australian-style points system for work permits – giving priority to people with the skills Britain needs.
• We will ensure that where work permits are temporary, they carry no presumption of a right to settle permanently in the UK.
• We will put in place 24-hour security at ports to prevent illegal immigration.
• We will put in place effective health checks for those coming to the United Kingdom.
People have a clear choice: controlled and limited immigration with the Conservatives or unlimited immigration under Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats.

BRUSSELS: A note from Daniel Hannan MEP

An occasional euro-briefing from Daniel Hannan MEP.

BRUSSELS OWNS UP TO LAWBREAKING

Regular recipients of these bulletins may remember reading about some of the more colourful ways in which the EU tries to buy itself popularity. There was, for example, the infamous booklet aimed at young children, entitled “Let’s draw Europe together”, whose opening exercise involved writing “Europe – my country” in the various official languages. There was the fund dedicated to flying local and national journalists out to Brussels and showing them a good time. There were the bungs given to federalist pressure groups, such as the European Movement. And – my personal favourite, this – there was the hilarious Tintin-style comic book, Troubled Waters, featuring the adventures of a feisty MEP called Irina. This, you may recall, was the book that contained such sizzling lines as “You can laugh! Wait till you’ve seen my amendments to the Commission proposal!”

Over the past four years, I and other Conservative MEPs have tried – without much success, I’m afraid – to reduce the amount of your money being spent on all this. Yet it now turns out that much of the EU’s propaganda is not only irksome, but illegal. Don’t take my word for it: listen to the EU itself. The following excerpt is from a legislative proposal “to promote active European citizenship” which is currently clunking its way through the Brussels machinery:

“For several years, support has been provided for promoting active European citizenship, especially under headings in Part A of the budget:
· Heading A-3020 co-finances the costs of the “Our Europe” Association
· Heading A-3021 co-finances the operating costs of European think-tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe
· Heading A-3024 co-finances the activities of associations and federations of European interest
· Heading A-3030 co-finances the operating costs of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles
· Heading 3036 co-finances the operating costs of the Jean Monnet House and the Robert Schuman House
· Article A-321 supports town-twinning schemes in the European Union
Most of these operations have hitherto been carried out without any legal basis.” [emphasis added]

What is most striking about this is the blatancy. There is nothing new, alas, in the EU acting first and legislating later. On the contrary, this is the normal way for it to proceed. The extension of Brussels jurisdiction into environmental policy happened during the early 1980s, and was retrospectively legalised in the Single European Act. The Common Foreign and Security Policy was forged during the late 1980s, but only formally recognised in Maastricht. The integration of justice and home affairs had begun well before it was given a legal basis in Amsterdam. As often as not, new European treaties are there to give de jure approval to a de facto extension of EU competence.

But I can’t remember seeing such a brazen admission before. Here is the EU saying, in effect: “Oh dear: we’ve been spending all this money to make people love us without any basis in the treaties. But rather than now complying with the law, we will change the law so as to comply with what we are doing”.

Is it surprising that an organisation which takes such a casual view of its own rules is rather hopeless at cracking down on fraud, corruption and other abuses? Is it wise for Britain, which has a strong tradition of the rule of law, to hand more and more powers over to such a body? Is it sensible to be part of a project which proceeds on the basis of making up the rules as it goes along?

If you know of anyone else who might like to receive these bulletins, please email their address to dhannan@europarl.eu.int

The REAL LIB DEMS

The Lib Dems today launch a campaign, but they won’t talk about the issues that matter– more police, school discipline, cleaner hospitals, lower taxes and controlled immigration – and they won’t talk about many of their real policies. LibDems would:
1. Oppose tough punishments for criminals. LibDems would scrap mandatory sentences for murderers & repeat rapists (LibDem Policy Paper 51, Justice & the Community, Jun 02, p 42).
2. Propose higher council tax. Lib Dem councils talk more, cost more, deliver less and their local income tax would cost a typical hard-working couple in England £630 a year more than even today’s council tax (Local Gov Precepts, Band D 2004-5, ODPM Press Release, 25 Mar 04; correlated with Party control at Mar 04).
3. Propose 40 higher taxes. Lib Dems have already pledged to raise taxes 40 times to help pay for their own 100 spending commitments. And they have no way of filling the ‘black hole’ in Mr Blair’s financial plans, so they will be forced to raise taxes even further. They have even admitted this, saying ‘Our slogan at the next election will be “Trust us, we will put your taxes up”’ (Andrew George on Radio 5 Live, Simon Mayo Show, 19 Jan 05).
4. Oppose controlled immigration. Lib Dems would give Europe control of our immigration system and would oppose any limit on numbers (LibDem Policy Development Paper, Safe Havens, Sept 04, p. 11).
5. Propose abolishing good schools. Lib Dems want to abolish faith schools, grammar schools and specialist schools – the types of school that are doing well and where discipline is good (Phil Willis, Speech to Lib Dem Party Conference, 9 Mar 02).
6. Propose more tax on transport. Lib Dems would impose new congestion and parking taxes on drivers and new taxes on air travel for hard-working families (Lib Dem Press Release, 15 Oct 03 & Lib Dem Policy Paper 46, Transport for People, Aug 01, p.26).
7. Propose health plans that don’t work. Lib Dems want to rename and ring-fence National Insurance Contributions to fund the NHS (Lib Dem Policy Paper 53, Quality, Innovation, Choice, Sept 02, p. 53). This would leave a shortfall of £15 billion by 2007-8. So to avoid jeopardising NHS funding, they would therefore have to increase their renamed National Insurance every year.
8. Oppose extending home ownership – and impose unwanted development against local people’s wishes (Lib Dem Internal Briefing Document, Housing Full Portfolio Briefing, Aug 02, p. 13 & Lib Dem Press Release, 6 Feb 01).
9. Propose handing control of our defence to Europe. Lib Dems think we should rely on Europe to provide Britain’s defence (Lib Dem Policy Paper 47, Defending Democracy, 02, p. 16).
10. Propose handing over more powers to Europe. LibDems would scrap the pound & join the euro (Lib Dem Policy Briefing 34, Policies on Membership of the Single Currency, May 04), and give unelected judges and bureaucrats more control of our lives by signing the European Constitution (Lib Dem Press Release, Britain should do everything it can for EU Constitution, 28 Nov 03).

LABOUR: All TALK on CRIME

Surrey’s Chief Constable, Bob Quick, has told a national newspaper that ‘nearly 90 per cent’ of police time is spent filling in forms, rather than fighting crime.
Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised to ‘relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more police officers back on the beat’ (Labour Party Manifesto, 97). All talk.
• Yet Mr Quick has said that: ‘It costs a third of a million pounds to train a constable in the first four years of his career, so it does seem bizarre that nearly 90 per cent of their time they are either doing form-filling and bureaucracy’ (The Sunday Telegraph, 20 Mar 05).
• He went on to say ‘Only 10 or 12 per cent of their time are they doing things that I feel constables should do’ (ibid.).
• Across the country as a whole, police officers already spend almost half of their time at their desks instead of being on the streets fighting crime.
• Detection rates in Surrey have fallen by almost a half since 1998-9, which means that only one in five crimes is cleared up by the police.
• Crime is out of control – gun crime has doubled under Labour and there are now more than a million violent crimes each year.
• Last week, the Chief Constables of Nottinghamshire Police and three other forces said that Government bureaucracy and inflexible funding are preventing them from fighting crime.

Liberal Democrats
Liberal Democrats are soft on crime. Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat Home Office Spokesman, has said: ‘I'm absolutely convinced that prison is a complete and utter waste of time’ (BBC Radio 4, 9 Nov 04). And Simon Hughes, their
President, has said: ‘Liberal Democrats have always been [clear] that there should never be mandatory sentences’ (Hansard, 13 Jan 02, Col. 433).

What will Conservatives do?
We believe our society needs more respect, discipline and decent values. We will cut political correctness and police paperwork, and put more police on the beat. Under our Timetable for Action:
• Within the first day of a Conservative Government, we will announce plans to prevent police officers having to fill in a form every time they stop someone.
• Within the first month, we will start the recruitment of an extra 5,000 police officers each year.

ACTION on TRAVELLERS

Michael Howard will today launch the Conservatives’ action plan to tackle the growing problem of illegal traveller sites and unauthorised developments. He will argue that planning laws should apply equally to everyone and it is time for fair play.

Why Labour are all talk
Before he was elected, Mr Blair declared, ‘I love our countryside’ (Country Life, 26 Sept 96). All talk. Labour’s human rights laws and new planning regulations have undermined the planning system, with one rule for travellers and another set of rules for everyone else.
• In the Government’s own words, ‘there has recently been a large increase in the number of unauthorised Gypsy and traveller encampments’ (ODPM, Planning for Gypsy and traveller sites, Dec 04, p.33) and ‘the total number of caravans on unauthorised encampments and developments increased by 38 per cent from January 1997 and Jan 04’ (p.34).
• A survey by the National Farmers’ Union has found that illegal travellers are costing Britain’s farmers £100 million a year, with more than half the respondents reporting that the number of cases of illegal encampments has increased in the last five years (NFU Press Release, 7 Nov 03).

Liberal Democrats
Locally, Liberal Democrats often oppose new encampments when travellers arrive. Yet nationally, they oppose new enforcement powers for local councils; they would force every council to build traveller camps – irrespective of local wishes; and they support Labour’s Human Rights Act even where it undermines planning laws.

What will Conservatives do?
The British people have an inherent sense of fair play. They do not believe it is fair that we should have one planning law for people wanting to build new homes or make alterations to their houses, and another for travellers.
Conservatives propose a seven-point action plan to stop illegal traveller camps and unauthorised developments, to give stronger rights to local residents, and to ensure planning controls are fairly enforced for all.
• Reviewing or repealing the Human Rights Act: Applying the same planning laws should apply to everyone.
• Preventing abuse of retrospective planning permission: Giving councils powers to refuse retrospective applications where the law has knowingly been broken.
• Making traveller trespass a criminal offence: Adopting the tough laws introduced in the Republic of Ireland, with measures to provide protection against criminalisation of unintended trespass.
• Stopping irresponsible land speculation: Extending councils’ powers of compulsory purchase, where the land is in continuing breach of a Stop Notice.
• Tough new enforcement powers for councils and courts: Including larger fines to stop travellers from profiting from illegal development.
• Better guidance for police and councils: Replacing John Prescott’s new regulations which restrict the ability of the police and councils to take action.
• Greater say for local people: Opposing interference by regional bureaucrats and the imposition of crude quotas for new traveller camps.

ACTION ON THE COMPENSATION CULTURE

Michael Howard has announced that a Conservative Government will review the Human Rights Act.
Why Labour are all talk
Mr Blair promised to ‘pass a Human Rights Act that incorporates the rules of the …[European Convention of Human Rights] directly into British law, and gives citizens the right to enforce those rules in court' (City Hall, Cardiff, 15 July 1994).
Mr Blair introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998 but instead of protecting British citizens’ rights and ensuring the
Government plays fair, it has fuelled a compensation culture based on political correctness.
• A convicted rapist won four thousand pounds worth of compensation because his second appeal was delayed (European Court of Human Rights, 17 July 2003).
• A boy expelled after lighting a fire at school had the decision overturned after judges ruled that he had been denied his ‘right to education’ (Court of Appeal, 29 March 2004).
• Edinburgh Council banned the filming of nativity plays because it feared that the Act meant every parent had to give written consent (December 2002).
• The Act gave the burglar who broke into Norfolk farmer Tony Martin’s house legal aid to sue Mr Martin for compensation (Nottingham County Court, 13 June 2003).
• The Act has allowed failed asylum seekers to remain in Britain even though they are not genuine refugees (Sunday Express, 7 April 2002).
• When Mr Blair tried to erode trial by jury it was the House of Lords, not the Human Rights Act, which saved it.
• When Mr Blair recently tried to abolish habeas corpus and give the Home Secretary the right to imprison people without trial, the Human Rights Act could not be invoked to stop him.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats want to give more power to unaccountable European judges. They support the European Constitution and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which will only make the problems of the Human Rights Act worse.
What will Conservatives do?
The most basic human rights are individual freedom and an absolute assurance that the Government will play fair.
Fairness is the heart of good government. We should all have to play by the same rules – whatever the colour of our skin, whatever our sex, whatever our religion.
We will review the Human Rights Act to see if it can be improved so it protects these rights.
If it cannot be improved we will scrap it.

MR BLAIR’S DODGY FIGURES

Mr Blair – the man who gave us the dodgy dossier, and whose Chancellor does not believe a word he says – is now not telling the truth about Conservative spending plans. After eight years in power, and just weeks before a general election, he thinks that he can get away with this again. He can’t.
Conservative plans are fully costed and fully funded. We will spend the same as Labour on schools, hospitals, transport and aid, and slightly more than Labour on pensions, defence and police. We want give taxpayers value for money and focus on what matters to them.
The only thing we will cut is waste. We are making modest savings of 2p in the pound, which means we can pay back Government debt and lower taxes.
The simple fact is that Mr Blair is trying to distract attention from the fact that he’s spending and borrowing so much that he would have to put up taxes if he won again.
The choice at the election is very clear. Value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Mr Blair.

Our Value for Money Action Plan
• We will invest in people’s priorities, spending the same as Labour on the NHS, schools, transport and international development.
• We will spend more than Labour on police, pensions and defence – and give more help to pensioners with better pensions as well as up to £500 off their council tax bill of households where people are over 65.
• We’re able to spend more on what matters by cutting back Mr Blair’s wasteful bureaucracy and
unnecessary government activity, including:
- 168 public bodies
- 235,000 bureaucratic posts
- the regional assemblies
- the new supreme court
- the small business service and
- the New Deal.

In the first two years, we’ll be saving £12 billion a year - just 2p in every pound the government
spends. In a civil service that is now the size of Sheffield, is Mr Blair really saying it isn’t possible
to make modest savings like this?
• Nothing in the Budget makes any difference to our tax and spending plans.
• We will implement all of the changes announced in this Budget including the payment to
pensioners, free bus travel and increasing stamp duty and inheritance tax thresholds.
• By spending £12 billion less, we will pay off the £8 billion of Mr Blair’s borrowing so we can avoid his next round of stealth taxes.
• The remaining £4 billion will be used to cut taxes in our very first Budget, including halving council tax for millions of pensioners, worth up to £500.
Will you cut spending by £35 billion?
No – that’s more propaganda from Mr Blair, the man who gave us the dodgy dossier. We will spend more on schools, hospitals, pensions and police, as we want give taxpayers value for money and focus on what matters to them. The only thing we will cut is waste. We are making modest savings of 2p in the pound, which we means we can pay back Government debt and have lower taxes.
But won’t you be cutting spending £35 billion by 2011-12?
No – that’s more propaganda from Mr Blair, the man who gave us the dodgy dossier. We will increase spending by 4 per cent a year each year more during the next parliament. If Labour are saying that they will spend even more than us, they need to come clean and say where the money will come from.

Local Tory Bloodbath ?

The much prophesied bloodbath following the announcement that John Marsh was standing down as leader of Rushmoor, has evaporated as quickly as it was created by Labour and Lib Dem councillors, who are desperate for another story to take the "heat" off them, and the light away from illuminating their abismal performance.

John Marsh has resigned as Leader not because of any "in fighting" or pressure as some wish you to believe. He has left office to serve the Borough with his wife as Deputy Mayor & Deputy Mayoress, and I hope as Mayor & Mayoress the year after. I want to applaud this move by John, who has taken the opportunity to work in an asignment that involves serving the Borough with his wife. The spouses of elected members are the forgotten hero's sometimes, while we as local polititians are taking credit, and busy working for local people. This must be especially true of the Leaders wife. I know Margaret has been a tower of strength to John as leader, and look forward to seeing them work together in this special role that enables politicians to work along side instead of in front of their spouses. Well done John

The Leader elect was nominated and supported unchallenged. Peter Moyle has served with John as Deputy Leader since John Marsh's appointment as Leader, and has carried out that role with great enthusiasm and dedication. Peter was unapposed which gives you an idea of the respect he has within our group. Congratulations Peter. We look forward to you building on the good work John Marsh has done in the face of intolerable constraints put in our path by this Labour Government.

John & Margaret will take office as Deputy Mayor & Deputy Mayoress this May, when Peter Moyle will also officially take over as Council Leader

Only in Britain...

… can a pizza get to your house faster than an Ambulance.

… do Supermarkets make the sick people walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.

… do people order double cheeseburger, large fries and a Diet Coke.

… do banks leave both doors open and chain the pens to the counters.

… do we leave cars worth thousands of pounds on the drive and put our junk and cheap lawn mower in the garage.

… do we buy hot dogs in packs of ten and buns in packs of eight.

… do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won’t miss a call from someone we didn’t want to talk to in the first place.

… are there disabled parking places in front of a skating rink.

And did you know....

3 people die each year testing if a 9v battery works, on their tongue.

142 people were injured in 1998 by not removing all the pins from new shirts.

58 people are injured each year by using sharp knives instead of screwdrivers.

British hospitals reported 4 broken arms after cracker pulling accidents.

101 people since 1997 have had to have broken parts of plastic toys pulled from the soles of their feet.

18 Brits had serious burns in 1998 trying on a new jumper with a lit cigarette in their mouth.

A massive 543 Brits were admitted to A&E in the last two years after opening bottles of beer with their teeth.

5 people were injured last year in accidents involving out of control Scalectrix cars.

In 1987 eight people cracked their skull whilst throwing up into the toilet.

Abolish Regional Quangos

I almost choked when I read the article about the defeat of the North East Assembly proposal in last weeks News by Alex Hamilton. Apart from the cheesy grin leering out of the article from the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, even I, a seasoned councillor familiar with the sanctimonious attitude, false promises and hypocrisy of local LibDems could not believe the Lib Dem PPC was welcoming a defeat that his whole party and especially his leader was falling over, and falling into bed with Labour to support.

Lib Dem Spokesman Don Foster stated clearly “no ifs, no buts, we back regional government” (Lib Dem Party Conference 2000). Obviously the only “but” (or should we say butt?) is the local Lib Dem parliamentary candidate.

The support of LibDems for the Regional Assembly has been a high profile affair, and widely reported. Professor John Tomaney, Chairman of Yes 4 the North East, said: “Charles Kennedy’s backing is significant as it shows that people and politicians in other parts of the country are realising the benefits that an elected regional assembly could bring to the North East.” Prime Minister Tony Blair and LibDem Leader Charles Kennedy felt it so important an issue they joined forces for a photo to try and win support for this white elephant.

Labour and Lib Dems reform of local Government has turned out like the reform of the House of Lords, a mess. The No campaign against a North East Regional Assembly was apposed by Labour and the Lib Dems and supported by the Conservatives who pointed out that another expensive tear of Government would not contribute one extra nurse or policeman and would lead to higher local taxes.

The people of the North East spoke, and the answer was deafening and clear. NO. Politicians now need to listen and take action.

The next action that needs to take place is for the unelected regional assemblies to be abolished. SEERA (South East England Regional Assembly) is a quango based in Guildford given power by Government to draw up 20 year regional plans for transport, housing, employment and environmental issues. Conservatives are demanding that these powers should be with elected local authorities.

However, I realize that an election is in the air, and this proves Lib Dems will do almost anything to get extra votes. Which reminds me, the LibDem parliamentary candidate will no doubt use his position on the Police Authority again soon, as he did last General election, to launch his election campaign by dragging reluctant and embarrassed senior police officers around the constituency claiming he wanted feed back from the public about how the police are performing. Please don’t bother this time…there are enough local councilors who actually live in the area and are more than capable of telling them ourselves thank you.

Anti-Social behaviour Task Group

1. Introduction

The Borough Services Panel set up at their meeting of the 20th September, an Anti-Social Behaviour Task and Finish Group.

Attached to this paper are:

r Membership – Appendix 1
r Terms of Reference – Appendix 2
r People interviewed – Appendix 3
r Bibliography – Appendix 3

2. Key issues identified:

The group identified the following issues for further investigation (as set out fully in the interim report dated 6/12/04):

r Procedures
r Data
r Partners
r Role of the Council

3. Recommendations

i) Housing – issues examined:

a) Housing Register checks
b) Tenant transfers
c) Probationary tenancies
d) Information regarding previous criminal convictions, anti-social behaviour, evictions etc on the Housing Register application form
e) Housing Associations’ anti-social behaviour policies, exclusion policies
f) Sharing of information between agencies
g) Key performance indicator on housing associations deal with anti-social behaviour
h) The regularity and representation at the annual liaison meeting with housing associations
i) Housing Corporation Guidance.
j) Temporary Accommodation Policy.


Preliminary recommendations:
a) Housing register applications – information should be requested on previous criminal convictions, anti-social behaviour and evictions on the Housing Register application form
b) More appreciation and consideration should be given to the use of changes in tenancy security through probationary tenancies and demotion orders.
c) Housing associations anti-social behaviour policies and exclusion policies (and performance) should be a factor in selection of partner registered social landlords (key performance indicator).
d) The annual liaison meeting should be formalised and focus on anti-social behaviour, legislation, policies and performance, and have appropriate executive level representation from all social landlords. This is an opportunity for all parties to be updated on the latest changes in legislation.

ii) Park Rangers – issues examined:
a) High level of maintenance work carried out by Park Rangers rather than ‘policing’
b) Funding of service - 4.5 fte (RBC), 0.5 fte (Community Safety Partnership)
c) Good police liaison and links with Surrey Police regarding Rowhill Nature Reserve
d) Good links with partners
e) Accreditation of Park Rangers – pilot scheme in hand and welcomed
f) Recording of incidents/statistics
g) Majority of incidents recorded are encountered through routine patrols (80%) – 20% reported to Park Rangers.
h) Positive support received from the Police

Preliminary recommendations:
a) The proportion of time in policing our parks should be increased
b) Incident recording needs to be clearer with crime references linking serious incidents

iii) Street Scene and Parking officers – issues examined:
a) Majority of work carried out was clearing up the results of anti-social behaviour rather than dealing with anti-social behaviour
b) Fixed penalty notices and other legal powers appear adequate
c) Role of Parking Attendants and Street Scene officers
d) Repairs to telephone boxes and non Council street furniture
e) Costs of repairs

Preliminary recommendations:
a) Better intelligence feedback from Street Scene officers and Parking Attendants
b) Need to re-charge BT and others for repairs and clean ups





4. Corporate and General Recommendations

a) Co-ordination of all front line services through a regular (at least quarterly) meeting to ensure that work is targeted in priority areas, that intelligence is shared efficiently and officers are updated on legislation.

b) Need to keep better track of vandalism costs.

c) Consider potential for harmonisation of roles across all services involved in dealing with anti-social behaviour.

d) Develop the use of the website to encourage reporting of anti-social behaviour and to inform the public of the actions we are taking.

e) The Council should encourage and promote better parenting (eg parenting courses).

f) Use legislation to hold parents responsible for their children’s behaviour.




S:\SHARED\Borough Services\Notes\ASB\ASB report 310105.doc


























Appendix 1

MEMBERSHIP


r Councillor David Clifford

r Councillor Linda Neil

r Councillor Mike Roberts

r Councillor Peter Sandy

r Councillor Neil Watkin

r Peter Gardner, Director of Resources & Lead Officer for Borough Services Panel

r Andrew Colver, Head of Democratic Services

r Kathy Flatt, Democratic Support Officer




























Appendix 2

TERMS OF REFERENCE

r The Purpose
To examine available data and information and develop proposals to tackle and develop anti-social behaviour in the Borough for recommending to the Cabinet and the Rushmoor Community Safety Partnership.

r Methodology
1. Identify and examine data/information on anti-social behaviour in the Borough and to discuss local issues with appropriate agencies, such as the Police, the Youth Service and housing associations.

2. Identify options for dealing with anti-social behaviour for recommendation to appropriate bodies.

3. Provide support to the work being undertaken by the Rushmoor Community Safety Partnership.

4. Formulate any specific recommendations in relation to services provided by Rushmoor Borough Council.

r Timescale
Report to Borough Services Panel on 6th December 2004.

r Membership
Four Members from the Borough Services Policy and Review Panel with support from the Community Safety Team and other agencies as required.

The Group’s principal adviser will be the Borough Services Panel’s Lead Officer.
















Appendix 3

PEOPLE INTERVIEWED


The following have attending the group meetings and assisted in explaining their role and provided information:

r Superintendent Jo Apps, Hampshire Police
r Helen Lolley, Environmental Health Manager
r Jim Pettitt, Head of Street Scene
r Brian Stephens, Parks and Horticulture Officer.
r Steve Harris, Senior Park Ranger
r Alison Whiteley, Head of Housing Services
r Suzannah Hellicar, Housing Advice Manager
r Bob Lampard, Community Safety Manager
r Clare Holland, Anti-Social Behaviour Co-ordinator
r John Edwards, Director of Environmental Services




BIBLIOGRAPHY

r Rushmoor Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy 2002/05 (Rushmoor Community Safety Partnership)
r Rushmoor Crime and Disorder Audit 2004 (Rushmoor Community Safety Team)
r A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (Home Office)
r Typology of Anti-Social Behaviour (Research Development and Statistics Directorate)
r A Local Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Rushmoor and Hart Community Safety Partnerships)
r Human Rights Act
r Sustainable Solutions to Anti-Social Behaviour (Local Government Association)
r Good Practice in Managing the Evening and Late Night Economy (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)
r ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ (Home Office policy paper)
r Comments received from local residents