Roger Gambba-Jones

Simple question for all the wise people - how does an MP that lives in or around London, justify claiming for a second home?

I well recall the strictures that were placed on military personnel by the regulations in regards to claiming for things and the major efforts the civil servants who drafted these regulations had gone to to make absolutely sure that you didn't get a penny more than you were entitled to.  In fact the regulations seemed to be designed to make it as hard as possible to actually qualify for any of the allowances.  When the military salary was introduced the bean counters took the opportunity to introduce food and accommodation charges on those servicemen and women who were married, but had to live in service accommodation because they lived too far away from the house they owned.  Okay, the Services provided housing for scaleys (those on a married persons pay scale), but I'm sure you've all seen what that's like! 

So somebody in the military whilst serving in the north of England buys a house.  They then get posted to the south of England where the house prices are way beyond most ordinary working folks reach, so they keep their house in the north.  They then have to 'live in' as we called it because their house is too far away to commute.  So, now as well as supporting the family home in another part of the country, they have to pay for the privilage of living a lonely life from Monday to Friday in accommodation that most students wouldn't put up with!

Meanwhile our MPs get to claim enough allowances to have a mirror image of their family home either at their 'duty station' (Westminster to you and me) or in their constituency! 

How the heck do they get away with the type of allowances they get, the lack of control and the lack of any real accountabilty - oh that's right, they set, control and monitor them themselves!

Borrowed from the Daily Telegraph Comment page for Weds 28th May 2008  

"Given that council taxes have doubled in a decade, and that the owner of the average Band D property now hands over almost £30 a week to the council, such behaviour is doubly indefensible. It is symptomatic of the self-aggrandisement of our councils, many of which now pathetically ape Westminster with their cabinets and policy units and PR departments.

What the majority of people want from their local council is quite modest - the collection of rubbish, clean streets and well-maintained roads.

Instead, they get cash-hungry empire builders constantly seeking to justify big budgets and over-stuffed bureaucracies. And when local government becomes oppressively intrusive as well as expensive, a backlash is inevitable.

If the people running your council act not as your servants but as your masters, the response is simple - vote them out."

Having read this in yesterday's (Weds 28th May 08) Daily Telegraph Comment , I couldn't resist quoting part of it, as it seems to sum up exactly what is happening to local government in this country and more importantly, the way many taxpayers must be feeling about it.  Read the whole thing by following the link below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/dl2801.xml

Unfortunately, the writer has chosen to ignore the issue of how we got into this state in the first place and how voting out the current lot will only see them replaced by more of the same.  The people who need voting out first are the ones in Westminster and the people who need voting in are the ones who make a commitment to getting The State off of the people's backs.  As well as getting rid of the MPs who spend more time concerntrating on expenses claims for their 'essential' second homes than on actually running the country, we also need to cull all of the senior civil servants who seem to take so much pleasure in gold plating every EU regulation that lands on their desks.  We could then get back to allowing local government to do what it does best - provide local services for local people and hopefully at a price they can actually afford.

Having just responded to a call to support the campaign against the closure of our local tax office, local councillors, along with the MP, are being asked to give support to another campaign - this time against the loss of our local driving test centre!

I've been on my soap box about this one before and I suppose I'll only stop when there's no more local services left to close down. 

The government are continuing to push the localising agenda, telling local government that they are ‘duty bound' to take the lead on delivering local services and ensuring that their communities are ‘empowered'.

Trouble is, by the time the other government departments have finished, the only local services that will actually be left to deliver are the ones that nobody in Westminster actually cares about.

Okay it's time for a shouty, soap box, table banging, ranting, grumpy old.......... well you get the idea I think!

http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/stuart%20speech%20to%20nalc.pdf 

The link above is to a speech by Dr Stuart Burgess to the NALC ‘Making Local Connections Conference' Eastbourne Winter Gardens - 22 May 2008.  I'm not going to bother repeating what he said other than to highlight what's got me wound up - what doesn't get him wound up?  I hear you asking! 

Anyway, the bottom line is, that Dr Burgess is advocating greater involvement of councils in all things local and makes all sorts of wonderful statements such as:

'Rural communities can have greater influence over local decisions'

'Local councillors could be made stronger democratic champions acting on behalf of their communities'

'In essence - we support greater ‘Double Devolution'! Whitehall to local government and from local to Parish - working in partnership with strong community voices.'

'It is only at the very local level that policies and services can truly reflect local circumstances.'

‘Seeing that localism and local decision-making is in the ascendancy.'

‘Seeing that Town and Parish are an under-utilised resource - and that given the right tools for the job, they have potential to deliver real and positive change for their communities.'

These are all great aspirations and I've no doubt something is happening along these lines in some way or another in most parts of England - whether we like it or not!

Trouble is, by the time the government has finished, the only thing that will actually be devolved down is the cost and the aggravation, everything else will have been hived off to the regional non-government - it can't be government if it's not elected can it?

I'm dismissing these promises of genuine devolution and genuine localisation based on what has happened in South Holland to date.  Not what's happened to services provided by local government, but to the local services controlled by central government, or one of its many instruments of ‘control'. 

We are currently been asked to lend our support to campaigns to fight the closure and relocation of our local tax office and our local driving test centre.  We have yet to hear about any local post offices that will be closed and whilst we still have our local magistrates court, unlike some other nearby towns, I wonder how long it will before ours is ‘reviewed', consulted on and then shut anyway!  And don't forget my previous rant about health provision that requires a trip to Lincoln, 45 miles away, to receive treatment that used to be provided locally in Boston at the Pilgrim Hospital. 

So the version of localism that is now on offer to us in local government, seems to mean picking up the tab for whatever doesn't want, (because these are the bits that don't matter to them) whilst shouting impotently about the loss of genuinely valued and genuine localised services.

There's no such thing as bad publicity they say - well that must depend of the reason for the publicity to some extent and which side of the publicity you're viewing it from!

I managed to get in the local paper twice this week - both of them because of this blog site!  So for those who might be wondering if it's worth the trouble, my experience should help them to decide.  Anyway to the point - at last they cry!  I've got prostate cancer, hence the logo and the point of this entry, which is to try to encourage other men to get themselves checked out before its too late - which of course I hope it isn't for me!  I'm not going to bore you by repeating myself, you can read the story by follwing this link.  

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/Sufferer-urges-men-to-test.4097648.jp

However, I will bore you by saying that if you're a man, if you're over 50 and if you pee more frequently and or not as easily as you used to a few years ago - GET YOURSELF A BLOOD TEST!  That's all it takes to start with and it could save your life!  If you can't even face that, at least read about by following the link below - it's better than doing nothing!  http://www.prostate-cancer.org.uk/info/info.asp . I'm no expert on the subject, but if you want to talk about your concerns or have any questions do get in touch - even though I'm a politician, I can keep a secret when I have to!

The letters page of our local newspaper has been used by two people to make a personal attack on an officer of the council for doing their job!

Pinchbeck Church car park

The writer of this letter choose to focus on a single issue more than any other and launched their attack based on a supposed attempt by the council (or rather the officer!) to prevent disabled people using the church!  I appreciate the strong emotions that can arise when a person is committed to something. Particularly when that something appears to relates to something to do with their religion.  However, how Christian is it to attack somebody personally just because you don't agree with them and worse still to use a spurious reason for doing so?  Just in case anybody reading this thinks 'he shouldn't be bringing religion into this' (that's what my wife said when I read her that bit) all I can say is - they started it!

The Bull Hotel Long Sutton

This is an even more orchestrated campaign, using not just letters to the papers, but also behind closed doors briefings and complaining and now I'm told possible public meetings that will no doubt use this issue as a cover for some early electioneering by certain parties!

I believe our conservation service to be very well placed at present; mainly due to the level of expertise and knowledge we currently have available to us. This expertise has also seen us attract a very substantial amount of money for conservation issues in South Holland, well above that available to any other local planning authority in our region.

I appreciate the high level of commitment that has been put into the Bull Hotel project and the importance of it to the people of Long Sutton and beyond.  However, great passion and wide levels of support cannot be seen as a reason to short-circuit or circumvent the policies that SHDC has put in place, policies that have received the full support of elected members and been the subject of public and professional scrutiny. As well as seeking to safeguard and improve the developed areas of our district, these policies are there to ensure equitable treatment for ALL those who wish to develop in our district, whether they be major developers or private householders.

Even where certain members of the community may believe they have more ‘influence' than others, I believe our policies and procedures, combined with the professionalism of our officers, are robust enough to make sure that this is not the case and no more than a vain hope.

My advice to anybody seeking planning permission in South Holland is to work closely with our officers and where appropriate their local elected member(s) and not to put their faith in the support, encouragement or advice of those who think that our policies can be ignored when it suits their purposes, or simply don't understand them!

Hopefully, when people stop focusing on personalities and ego massaging and start concentrating on the real issue, we will be able to move forward on this and achieve the flagship development that has been promised and one that we can all be proud of.

You know how you never take any notice of something until it actually affects you and then it seems to be everywhere; well I've had that experience at least twice in the last three years. 

The first ‘big' thing was when I was getting ready to leave the RAF after 38 years.  Knowing that few people seem to be keen to employ us old'uns (over 50s - 50 is not the new 40 when it comes to getting a job!), it seemed like becoming a driving instructor might be the answer, be your own boss, choose your hours, make good money, meet lots of different people, you've seen the adverts! 

Well, as soon as I started the training, every corner I turned whilst driving around Spalding, seemed to have a car with a driving school's name on it - how could a little place like Spalding have so many driving instructors in it? Where would my customers come from?  Of course, I hadn't allowed for the fact that Spalding was actually a test centre, so many of these cars were from places far and wide!  The point is, that until it affected me personally, I never gave all these driving school cars a second thought!

My most recent experience is to do with moving local services away from being local.  By coincidence, given my story above, local driving instructors are fighting the proposal to close the Spalding test centre.  Also, the local tax office is under threat of ‘rationalisation', ‘in order to provide a better service to the public'.  No doubt readers (are there any?) can think of two or three more local services that have disappeared over the years under the bull s..t excuse of improving services to the public.

Anyway, the piece of 'rationalisation' that has now effected me personally, is the location of specialist hospital treatment which, by yet another coincidence, was a story in Saturday's Telegraph.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1939162/NHS-shake-up-to-axe-hospital-services.html

The story said, that plans ‘were in the pipeline' to close many local treatment centres and move them to centralised locations (it actually said regional centres, but I hate that word - ‘regional' that is, not centres!).  What pipeline? Its already happend!  I've been told that if I want my treatment (surgery for Prostate cancer) I will have to go to Lincoln, because the good old NHS decided, at some point in the past, to stop doing this surgery in Boston. 

My wife is disabled, but luckily is still able to drive.  However, her overall health makes a 90 mile round trip (everyday if she has her way, for up to 7 days) a daunting prospect.  I could of course go private and still have the operation in Boston at the Bostonian - same hospital, same surgeon, (possibly quicker?) just loads of money!  I knew I should have taken out that private medical insurance when I left the RAF!  So that's what they mean by patient choice - take it, leave it or go private! 

So, yet again, until it was me personally, the story in the Telegraph might not have registered - not very much anyway.  Just to prove the point, the same thing applied when I got my diagnosis (the day before the Easter break).  That night a crime drama on the television had a prisoner dying of - guess what?  The next day the newspaper had a story about some bloke who was appealing against a fine or penalty of some sorts based on the fact that he was suffering/dying from - guess what?  Bl..dy hell, its just like all those driving school cars!

Incidentally, if you're a man over the age of 50, go to your doctor and ask for a blood test to check your Prostate specific antigen - NOW!  That's all it takes and it could save your life (I hope it will mine!).

I see in today's local newspaper that some members of the public continue to be unhappy about the leader's comments about the current level of remuneration for district councillors.  One of the writers is a long time critic of all things local government, no doubt based on his previous insider knowledge and now rather outdated experience.

These critics may well be right in their belief that the whole thing is getting out of hand and that those elected to represent the people of a ward or division, should do it for the love of it!  However, rather than targeting those actually doing the ‘job', they should consider directing their anger at this government and its predecessors, which have forced many lead members to become virtually full time representatives of their councils.  As such, is it fair to expect lead members to continue to be grateful for what they get?

Political commentators often remark these days on how the job of leading MPs has changed dramatically in recent years, with them having little or no time to do anything else.  It would appear that our political masters now feel that all levels of government should suffer the same fate!   

I'm no good with figures (as my bank manager will tell you),  but I'm sure some bean counter (that's my rather rude description for accountants) could produce a nice little chart showing what percentage of the council tax was available to be spent as the council saw fit 20 years ago, compared to today.  I'm sure I heard some ridiculously low figure of less than 10% now, compared to over 40% pre-1974.

The upshot of this is that, if the council wants to actually ‘do' anything other than collect the council tax, empty the bins and now catch stray dogs, they have to go to all sorts of different government agencies, quangoes, panels, boards, bodies, committees, etc, etc, etc, to plead for the cash. 

The government keeps telling us that councils are at the heart of their communities and that they should be leading on just about anything and everything - health improvement, binge drinking, crime reduction, ASBOs, global warming, carbon footprint, place shaping, community cohesion, equality and diversity, the voluntary sector - you name it, we should be leading on it!

Don't get me wrong, I think these are all important issues and that those of us who are directly elected should be the ones responsible for making the world a better place for people to live in, in any way we can - bring it on!

However, somebody has to keep running around with the South Holland begging bowl and making the case for giving us the money that central government keeps waving under our noses - be good boys and girls and you can have a share of this particular pot - but only if you really convince us that you deserve it!

So, unlike in the good old days, when elected members were able to make some real decisions on how to spend the money raised via council tax and government grant, they are now required to go begging for it.  Sorry, I meant ‘bid for it by making a case based on a well evidenced business plan, ensuring that it addresses all those areas that the government consider to be a priority'.

Whether we like it not, elected members and in particular leaders (coz they won't listen to anybody if they don't have leader somewhere in their title, I'm told) now have to scurry around the various corridors of power, making the case to get a share of some particular cash pot, on behalf of the people they represent.    

So, until the government stops being control freaks and starts passing on the ‘tax dollars', without making everybody in local government jump through hoops, every time they come up with a new priority, the situation is only going to get worse.

The debate rumbles on and the first casualty, if you can him that, has been recorded.  No doubt he had his reasons for choosing to do what he's done, but if he'd stuck it out he could of been far more influential in the outcomes.

The Civic Society continues to rail against the principle of selling the land that the Castle Sports sits on to fund a new sports village.  Their main reason seems to be more to do with the loss of the green open space than the displacement of the Castle Sports to another location. 

Others keep telling us that we're not listening, or paying attention to the results of the consultation.  Unfortunately, these people are being very selective about the sticks they pick up to beat us with i.e. 'we want it to remain where it is or be very close to the same place', whilst ignoring some of the other 'sticks' that don't suit their case, i.e. 'we want the place to remain open whilst the new one is being built'. 

I was going to put the following questions into Survey Monkey, but given the response to my Wygate Park community centre survey - zilch! I'm just going to list them below and people can come back to me if they want to answer them.  Then again, if you want to answer them as a survey, follow this link and fill yer boots!

Click Here to take survey 

Questions about the Castle Sports Complex (CSC) and Leisure Options

1.  Should the CSC be refurbished or replaced?

2.  Should the CSC remain where it is, even if it is replaced?

3.  Is the fact that over 25,000 of the 78,000 people who live South Holland, live in Spalding, a good enough reason for the CSC to remain in the middle of Spalding?

4.  Is it fair to the rest of South Holland's taxpayers that the CSC is in the middle of Spalding?

5.  Would you care where the CSC moved to, if the useable green space remained available for Spalding people to use?

6.  How should the refurbishment or replacement of the CSC be paid for?

7.  Whatever happens to the CSC, should the Halley Stewart Field remain closed off to the public, or should it be opened up for everybody to use as a public park?

When is a pedestrian area not a pedestrian area?  When it's in Lincoln apparently.

If you've ever visited Brayford Wharf in Lincoln, you'll know that it is designed to encourage people to use the river side for leisure including a multi-screen cinema, several bars and a number of places to eat. 

The area is a great asset for Lincoln and I wasn't surprised to see how busy it was this bank holiday, with people using all the places on offer and just bimbling (sorry old military phrase from my days in the Falkland Islands, it means going for a ride or walk just for something to do - there's not a lot to do in the Falklands you know!)

Anyway enough war stories, with all these people walking about enjoying themselves, it's a really good idea to prevent cars etc driving around or parking on the wharf area.  Unfortunately, without anybody policing it, the wharf has a constant stream of cars moving around and parking up where they like despite the ‘not at any time' signs.  It's still the police's job to enforce parking laws by the way, just in case you were wondering.

Whilst sitting in one of the eateries I watched a driver have the bloody cheek to blast his horn at a young couple who had the nerve to be walking along the pedestrianised area in front of his car!  The couple scurried out of the way and the driver accelerated away as if to confirm his absolute right not to be delayed by these damned pedestrians!  If it had been me I wouldn't have done any scurrying, I would have given the bloke in question the reverse of the Churchill victory sign!

Stupid thing is, there is a hotel in the middle of the wharf area and the only access is along the pedestrian walking area, so these cars are allowed to be there, they just aren't allowed to park, which several were also doing, thereby restricting the areas that were safe for pedestrians to walk along.  Completely barmy piece of planning I say! Come on Lincoln City pedestrians before cars please!    

Take every paint pot you can find in your garage and I know there are at least a dozen different ones (there's 30 odd in mine!) pour them all in to a bucket and mix - what do you get? 

Well, that of course depends on the actual colours and the amounts used, but in most cases you'll get a muddy looking non-colour that is not much use for anything, you certainly wouldn't want to use it for any important jobs.  What is he on about now? I hear you cry!  Well, (starting a sentence with well again - it's that comprehensive education again!)  I'm using this rather poor analogy to represent what can happen when you take kids of wildly varying abilities (colours) throw them in to the same class (pot) and stir; which leads me on to the subject of my latest whinge. 

The renewed attack on grammar schools by 50+ labour MPs, as highlighted in an earlier entry, has disappeared from the front pages, but not from their agenda I'm sure.  The damage to the education of bright pupils, who have been denied access to the type of education that would be available via a selection system, is confirmed in a report in today's Daily Telegraph  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547591/Bright-pupils-'dragged-down'.html

To date, I haven't had anybody come back to me to explain how the existance of grammar schools dis-advantage those being educated in secondary or comprehensive schools (you know I've never been able to figure out the difference - must be something to do with my sub-standard comprehensive school education).  However, this story seems to offer some evidence that the lack of access to a grammar school really does screw things up for some kids!