Day: 01/04/2015

Prittlewell Liberal Democrats think election rules don’t apply to them


prittlewell lib dem contact details

I noticed Julian Ware-Lane’s blog last night about Chalkwell Conservatives failure to follow instructions, in putting council email addresses on their election literature. I, too, was at the candidates and agents’ briefing at the civic centre last week, and I too heard the strict instructions from the Head of Democratic Services, Colin Gamble, that council email addresses were not to be used in political campaigning.

So, on a whim, I reached for the nearest piece of opposition literature that I had. It turned out to be for Prittlewell Liberal Democrats, the content of which I have already weighed and found wanting on this very blog. But I hadn’t twigged to the domain of the email address on the bottom: @southend.gov.uk.

A slow hand clap for the Lib Dems then, demonstrating in one fell swoop a high-handed inability to follow the rules, and a contempt for a level playing field. That Liberal Democrat commitment to fairness only goes as far as it they’re not facing electoral wipeout, then.

I wonder how many other Southend councillors think the rules don’t apply to them?

Southend Tories: “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”


Southend Tories we don't have a clue

Last week, at a “special” meeting of Southend Borough Council, the final decision was made on the new waste collection contract for Southend.

Because of the commercial sensitivity of the matter, it was held behind closed doors with the public excluded, but we now know that Veolia will be the new provider, delivering significant savings over a fifteen-year period.

This has, of course, been opposed at every step by the Conservatives, chiefly by Cllr Mark Flewitt. There has been more than a little scaremongering, with claims that the departure from previous provider Cory would mean a switch to fortnightly collections (It won’t -Ed), no more textile recycling collections (They will still be recyclable -Ed), rubbish piling up in the street (That one was just fanciful, to be honest -Ed), and probably even dogs and cats living together.

The line they eventually settled on was Everyone likes Cory, so we should spend an extra £1m-ish a year to keep them, which shows a breathtakingly wasteful attitude to public funds. But nonetheless, throughout they have been very much against.

So when it came up for a vote, why did they not vote against it?

Read on…