Last night was the monthly meeting of Launceston Town Council. The biggest topic of the night was the renovations at the Town Hall. The architect and the designer were both there to give presentations on their work and the Town Council gave its approval to go ahead.
The scheme will cost around £1m overall and the proposed works will be on display at the Town Hall before work starts. It will mean a much more accessible building with a more welcoming feel and the ability to host small conferences as well as dinners, dances, shows and theatre.
The second big issue was the very disappointing reply that had been received from Cornwall Council in response to the Town's offer to take over on-street parking enforcement in the town. As residents will know, the parking in town is a mess at the moment - in the main because the signs and lines are not right and so are unenforceable. But, although the Council claims that Launceston gets 1900 hours of enforcement time per year (that's 36.5 hours per week), we hardly ever see a traffic warden in town and so people know they can park with impugnity. Bad parking causes obstructions and means that locals and visitors cannot get to local shops easily.
But Cornwall Council has failed to understand the offer the is being made and seems determined to put all sorts of obstacles in the way of any real action.
I have promised to take this up with the Council at the next council meeting.
Also on the agenda was the proposed closure of the magistrates court (see below) and the usual reports back from councillors, the Mayor and myself on behalf of my fellow Cornwall councillors.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Equality in Social Care Conference
Yesterday I was delighted to be asked to chair a conference in County Hall on equality in Social Care.
An audience of 80+ heard from Pam Vickery of the Care Quality Commission and Tracy Sweet of NHS Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and discussed topics such as religion and belief, literacy, mental health, data usage and human rights - and how all of these can affect the type of care a person receives and whether they have equal access to it in the first place.
There were also the inaugural care equality awards with the winning team being the CHAMPS - a project for people with learning disabilities who become healthcare champions, testing access to services and spreading information. A number of the CHAMPS also helped to run the day. Othr projects to be honoured were a longstanding horticultural project at Eden for people with mental health problems, an information project for young people which accredits health services as being young people friendly and the Community Health Services Healthy Lifestyles project for people who have lost a limb.
It was a great event and I hope that other attendees learned as much from it as I did.
An audience of 80+ heard from Pam Vickery of the Care Quality Commission and Tracy Sweet of NHS Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and discussed topics such as religion and belief, literacy, mental health, data usage and human rights - and how all of these can affect the type of care a person receives and whether they have equal access to it in the first place.
There were also the inaugural care equality awards with the winning team being the CHAMPS - a project for people with learning disabilities who become healthcare champions, testing access to services and spreading information. A number of the CHAMPS also helped to run the day. Othr projects to be honoured were a longstanding horticultural project at Eden for people with mental health problems, an information project for young people which accredits health services as being young people friendly and the Community Health Services Healthy Lifestyles project for people who have lost a limb.
It was a great event and I hope that other attendees learned as much from it as I did.
Launceston Magistrates Court set for the chop
The Government has put out a consultation paper on the proposed closure of Launceston Magistrates Court in Dunheved Road. It looks like they have been learning from the Conservatives on Cornwall Council as the 'consultation' is so biased that there is only one possible answer.
There have been court sittings in Launceston stretching back to the middle ages. But the claim is that the court building is now not fit for purpose.
I agree that the current set up is not particularly tenable. The building is too small, there is no accommodation for prisoners, it is not accessible for people with disabilities and does not have the right rooms for witnesses.
But the Government has completely failed to consider the option of bringing it up to scratch. The only considerations given in the paper are to leaving it as it is or closing it. With the loss of the tax office, this is another example of the Government leaving Launceston high and dry.
Ironically, we have a new extension to Launceston Police Station to allow prisoners to be kept there but these prisoners will have to be driven to Bodmin to attend court. The new Bodmin police station, meanwhile, has no cells - so prisoners from the town will have to be transported to Launceston overnight before being sent back to Bodmin for court appearances.
In a sign of just how little the Government cares about our area, they have even managed to put out a consultation paper spelling Cornwall as 'Cornwell' five times - a paper signed off personally by the Minister as being accurate.
The paper goes on to say that there is adequate public transport between Launceston and Bodmin for anyone who needs access to the court and does not have a car. Local people know that this is a fallacy. So much for Jack Straw's promise that justice must be accessible for all.
It looks inevitable that the court will close. Make no mistake that this is a Labour Government that has given up on Cornwall.
There have been court sittings in Launceston stretching back to the middle ages. But the claim is that the court building is now not fit for purpose.
I agree that the current set up is not particularly tenable. The building is too small, there is no accommodation for prisoners, it is not accessible for people with disabilities and does not have the right rooms for witnesses.
But the Government has completely failed to consider the option of bringing it up to scratch. The only considerations given in the paper are to leaving it as it is or closing it. With the loss of the tax office, this is another example of the Government leaving Launceston high and dry.
Ironically, we have a new extension to Launceston Police Station to allow prisoners to be kept there but these prisoners will have to be driven to Bodmin to attend court. The new Bodmin police station, meanwhile, has no cells - so prisoners from the town will have to be transported to Launceston overnight before being sent back to Bodmin for court appearances.
In a sign of just how little the Government cares about our area, they have even managed to put out a consultation paper spelling Cornwall as 'Cornwell' five times - a paper signed off personally by the Minister as being accurate.
The paper goes on to say that there is adequate public transport between Launceston and Bodmin for anyone who needs access to the court and does not have a car. Local people know that this is a fallacy. So much for Jack Straw's promise that justice must be accessible for all.
It looks inevitable that the court will close. Make no mistake that this is a Labour Government that has given up on Cornwall.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Liz Truss - right to stand, wrong to win
A story that is exciting the interest of the Westminster-centric surrounds the right of Elizabeth Truss to stand as the Tory candidate for South West Norfolk. She was selected but then immediately the process began to de-select her after a number of local members claimed that they were deceived by her about a previous affair with a married Tory MP.
Last night she (very) successfully fought off the de-selection challenge
Iain Dale has led the charge in favour of her staying on in the position and I think he is right. Here's why:
I knew Liz Truss (as she styled herself then) back when she was a member of the Lib Dems and involved in the Lib Dem Youth and Students - as was I. I didn't find her the easiest person to get on with. Alex Wilcock has his own take on this and he writes far better than me, so go there to find out more.
Liz's affair with Mark Field was well publicised at the time. She claims that she mentioned it in her initial application and believed that this information would be passed along during the selection process. I see no reason to disbelieve her but it really doesn't matter.
What goes on in a person's private life is just that - private. A right to a private life is guaranteed in the Human Rights Act - even in the Tory version. Unless, it appears, you are a politician.
Should there be a different standard for politicians? Possibly yes. In cases where a person is blatantly hypocritical then there is a public interest defence to exposing this. But there is nothing of the kind here. Assuming Liz does not try to put 'family values' at the forefront of her selection or election campaign then there is no hypocrisy and so no case to answer.
Clearly the likes of Sir Jeremy Bagge and others in the SW Norfolk Conservative Association believe something different. The question arises - should we now judge him by his own standards. I would assume that he is not a hypocrite and certainly do not level that charge against him. So presumably he would view questions about his own family life as being legitimate.
All that said, I very much hope that Liz Truss fails to be elected to Parliament. Not because she is wrong to stand, but because her policies are wrong for the country. That is the basis on which this issue should be judged.
Last night she (very) successfully fought off the de-selection challenge
Iain Dale has led the charge in favour of her staying on in the position and I think he is right. Here's why:
I knew Liz Truss (as she styled herself then) back when she was a member of the Lib Dems and involved in the Lib Dem Youth and Students - as was I. I didn't find her the easiest person to get on with. Alex Wilcock has his own take on this and he writes far better than me, so go there to find out more.
Liz's affair with Mark Field was well publicised at the time. She claims that she mentioned it in her initial application and believed that this information would be passed along during the selection process. I see no reason to disbelieve her but it really doesn't matter.
What goes on in a person's private life is just that - private. A right to a private life is guaranteed in the Human Rights Act - even in the Tory version. Unless, it appears, you are a politician.
Should there be a different standard for politicians? Possibly yes. In cases where a person is blatantly hypocritical then there is a public interest defence to exposing this. But there is nothing of the kind here. Assuming Liz does not try to put 'family values' at the forefront of her selection or election campaign then there is no hypocrisy and so no case to answer.
Clearly the likes of Sir Jeremy Bagge and others in the SW Norfolk Conservative Association believe something different. The question arises - should we now judge him by his own standards. I would assume that he is not a hypocrite and certainly do not level that charge against him. So presumably he would view questions about his own family life as being legitimate.
All that said, I very much hope that Liz Truss fails to be elected to Parliament. Not because she is wrong to stand, but because her policies are wrong for the country. That is the basis on which this issue should be judged.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Labour's Jedward poster - is it really such a good idea?
Labour have launched a new campaign poster comparing Tory bosses David Cameron and George Osborne to X-Factor stars John and Edward Grimes. The tag-line is "You won't be laughing if they win".
Hmm
Does this mean that Labour are accepting that the Conservatives are set to win the next General Election?
Are they accepting that people vote for Jedward because they fill the John Sargeant quotient - so bad that it's funny to see them win?
Is there are real danger that electors might take the same point of view when it comes to the General Election?
I just can't see it. I think there are two real possibilities. Either that people will continue to be so hacked off with politics that they just won't bother to vote (or, if they do, they will cast a lot of votes for 'none of the above' style parties such as the Greens, UKIP and the BNP). Or they will be so desperate to get rid of Labour that they will vote for anyone they feel can get rid of Labour - nationally the Tories are best placed, but locally the Lib Dems will be the main challengers in many seats.
So what should the Lib Dems feel about this poster? Is anything that damages Labour good for us?
I think the effect will be pretty negligible. While the poster is amusing, it's a bit ambiguous and it won't be appearing on too many billboards near you (too much danger of Jedward being voted off the X factor and being forgotten).
The only lasting effect is likely to be that politics in general (and the Tories in particular) will be cheapened. This is hardly an issues poster. It simply trivialises things in the way that morphing William Hague's head on to Margaret Thatcher's body did in the 2001 election. And you also have to remember where the message is coming from. Nothing that Labour says at the moment has much credibility and descending to photoshopped images is hardly adult.
If Labour are determined to take the campaign this far down market then I really don't think they have much left.
Hmm
Does this mean that Labour are accepting that the Conservatives are set to win the next General Election?
Are they accepting that people vote for Jedward because they fill the John Sargeant quotient - so bad that it's funny to see them win?
Is there are real danger that electors might take the same point of view when it comes to the General Election?
I just can't see it. I think there are two real possibilities. Either that people will continue to be so hacked off with politics that they just won't bother to vote (or, if they do, they will cast a lot of votes for 'none of the above' style parties such as the Greens, UKIP and the BNP). Or they will be so desperate to get rid of Labour that they will vote for anyone they feel can get rid of Labour - nationally the Tories are best placed, but locally the Lib Dems will be the main challengers in many seats.
So what should the Lib Dems feel about this poster? Is anything that damages Labour good for us?
I think the effect will be pretty negligible. While the poster is amusing, it's a bit ambiguous and it won't be appearing on too many billboards near you (too much danger of Jedward being voted off the X factor and being forgotten).
The only lasting effect is likely to be that politics in general (and the Tories in particular) will be cheapened. This is hardly an issues poster. It simply trivialises things in the way that morphing William Hague's head on to Margaret Thatcher's body did in the 2001 election. And you also have to remember where the message is coming from. Nothing that Labour says at the moment has much credibility and descending to photoshopped images is hardly adult.
If Labour are determined to take the campaign this far down market then I really don't think they have much left.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Cornish Language signs - what do you think?
There was a bit of a row at the Cabinet meeting yesterday about introducing Cornish language street signs as part of a wider Cornish language strategy.
The proposal is that, when new or replacement street signs are needed, these either be in Cornish or bi-lingual. There would be encouragement to use Cornish names wherever possible.
Thus, Plas-an-Gwarry would stand on its own (it is Cornish), but Richmond Hill would have (in smaller letters) Bre Richmond underneath.
Whilst many councillors were in favour and the Cabinet voted it through, others, such as Morwenna Williams and Fiona Ferguson, were very much opposed.
The additional wording on the signs would cost no extra and no signs would be changed unless broken and so there would be no additional burden on the council tax.
So it's over to you. What do you think of this proposal? Please leave a comment or contact me using the details on the right hand side of the page.
The proposal is that, when new or replacement street signs are needed, these either be in Cornish or bi-lingual. There would be encouragement to use Cornish names wherever possible.
Thus, Plas-an-Gwarry would stand on its own (it is Cornish), but Richmond Hill would have (in smaller letters) Bre Richmond underneath.
Whilst many councillors were in favour and the Cabinet voted it through, others, such as Morwenna Williams and Fiona Ferguson, were very much opposed.
The additional wording on the signs would cost no extra and no signs would be changed unless broken and so there would be no additional burden on the council tax.
So it's over to you. What do you think of this proposal? Please leave a comment or contact me using the details on the right hand side of the page.
Post Office closure consultation was a sham says report
Perhaps Cornwall's Conservatives have been learning from the Government on how not to conduct a consultation.
A report out today from the House of Commons Public Acounts Committee says that ministers showed a "real lack of concern" for communities across the Westcountry when ordering the closure of dozens of post offices across the region - including Newport Post Office in Launceston.
The report says that the consultation was 'little more than window dressing'. By stating the number of closures in advance, the Government had, to all intents and purposes, already taken the decision they were consulting on.
The report goes on to say that few people were aware that there was a consultation and that the savings achieved by closing the post offices were comparatively small.
Outrageously, the Government has already brushed the report aside. The minister responsible has said that, despite the failure to consult and take the decision properly, the decision stands.
Sounds a lot like Cllr Robertson.
A report out today from the House of Commons Public Acounts Committee says that ministers showed a "real lack of concern" for communities across the Westcountry when ordering the closure of dozens of post offices across the region - including Newport Post Office in Launceston.
The report says that the consultation was 'little more than window dressing'. By stating the number of closures in advance, the Government had, to all intents and purposes, already taken the decision they were consulting on.
The report goes on to say that few people were aware that there was a consultation and that the savings achieved by closing the post offices were comparatively small.
Outrageously, the Government has already brushed the report aside. The minister responsible has said that, despite the failure to consult and take the decision properly, the decision stands.
Sounds a lot like Cllr Robertson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
