Rochester Airport Improvements

I notice that the council's Planning Committee has decided to defer a decision on the application for a paved runway and a number of other improvements at Rochester Airport, so that a site visit can be held.

I am not surprised by this, nor do I think it is a negative move: it is important that no allegations of riding roughshod over concerns and suchlike should be able to be levelled against the planning authority (the council) and this is the right way to proceed. The minimal additional delay will be negligible.

I say additional delay because this whole plan for the airport should have been implemented at least five years earlier, and perhaps even ten. There has been no material change in circumstances during the past decade, except that the airport itself has deteriorated and now needs a considerably higher investment to put right – by my reckoning, three times as much as it would have cost a decade ago, though I cannot be certain of the figures as I have been 'out of the loop' for nearly three-quarters of that period.

I have in the past covered the falsity of the fears aroused by scaremongers – and all the intelligent observer needs to do is check what the consequences of the other eight (or perhaps nine by now) small airports that have already been down this path, years ago, have been. I think anyone doing so will find that there has been no problem, and indeed there has if anything been an improvement in (for example) noise levels and safety records as a result of modernisation – which is exactly the same as is being proposed for Rochester.

Is there something odd about our little airport that doesn't apply to those others? I can't find anything...

I notice that the local media are, as usual, putting their own slant on how they are reporting what is currently happening. Here's a good example...

"Councillors dither over plan to use taxpayer cash to expand airport"

Three errors (spin?) in so few words:

1. it's not a question of dithering, any more than any other site visit the Planning Committee holds is ever labelled 'dithering' – it's a standard procedure to ensure those taking the decision have on-the-spot knowledge of the site and how what is being proposed will be in practice;
2. it's capital investment.to reap ongoing returns – another standard practice in business, government and anyone else with an asset that needs something done in order to be able to generate a return – slanting it in the above manner is not only incomplete, but is a hundred percent biased in the message it conveys; and
3. the airport is not expanding – indeed, it is contracting slightly, while the site remains exactly the same size but with new facilities added in one corner.

How's that for being (and it looks to be deliberately) misleading?

Nothing new in that, of course, as I have noted – and recorded in my files, and occasionally in public forums such as this over the years. Never mind: we press onward regardless.

Although I do not know what the committee will decide in due course, I expect the application to be approved – though possibly with changes or additions to its conditions as a result of the site visit. I don't those, if they are imposed, to be big or difficult to manage for the airport.

As far as the scaremongers are concerned, and their buddies in the local media: longer-term residents of this area will no doubt be well aware of the previous (Labour, with Lib Dem collusion to achieve majority voting) council administration's plans to close the airport altogether and have it concreted over, so that 'crinkly shed' automated warehouses could ply HGVs by the hundred up and down the adjoining roads and beyond.

That plan was sneakily inserted into a planning policy document that went to central government as the council's official position, even though it was not the version that the elected representatives of the people here had voted upon. There were another couple of 'new' items sneaked into that version that also had not been included in the version approved by the elected Council. The whole thing was underhand, and still reeks to this day of a corrupt agenda that is being pursued even now.

As long as this decision is made, and is effectively legally binding, before the May elections then the future of the airport will be more-or-less assured, even if there should then be a change of political control. That, as people will soon enough discover – some to their surprise, I imagine – will be the best possible outcome, and set things up for a much brighter future around those parts than any of the alternatives.

Faux ''People's Forum' Meeting

In a rather transparent attempt to further manipulate public perceptions, Medway council's Labour group arranged what they have termed 'an alternative council meeting', under the even more pretentious official name 'The People's Forum'– which was held at the Corn Exchange in Rochester yesterday evening.

As soon as I became aware of this wheeze, about a week ago, I sussed out what it was really all about, and prepared some predictions. I was going to publish them here, then decided it was better not to forewarn the Labour folk that I was well and truly on to them (and no doubt, by extension, others were too) so left it to unfold in its own way. I stocked up on popcorn and awaited the fun...

I had been tempted to put in an appearance myself, but decided against that as well – and, looking back a day after the event, I believe that both those decisions were the right ones. No-one can attempt to claim that I tried to 'influence' or 'subvert' the event in any way: that rug was pulled from under those who might have liked to try that one on!

.Fortunately, there was tweeting going on from within the meeting throughout, most notably by Rd Jennings, who tends to be (on the whole) fairly sharp, and generally spots what os really going on. His tweets are very telling; and the string of them can be read starting here and working forward along his timeline. It is very educational...

Exactly as I expected, it was an attempt to get local voters away from the courtesies of an actual council meeting, so that they could play their political games unimpeded – and, of course, as it was Labour, that was the one and only true purpose of the event, though they will of course claim otherwise. Years of experience has show a hundred percent correlation, though, as simply following how they handle these events and what they claim afterward gives away, every time.

The bottom line was to be (as always) to make Medway Labour look 'good' and 'in touch with residents', unlike 'the wicked Tories'. Plus ça change...

Equally as I predicted, the meeting was stuffed with labour councillors and local party members – and, I suspect, a number of Labour's out-of-area members/activists whom local observers would not have recognised, but who had given away in public places (e.g. Twitter) their intention to be there. The Labour group leaderhas claimed that the majority weren't Labour people. Although this is what one expects to be said, for all anyone knows it is possible.

There is probably no way to find out how many genuine local residents without a Labour affiliation were there: probably not very many in reality, despite that claim, if previous public events by the party locally are any indication (I have been to a fair few of those!) The local media dutifully attended this one, which was of course a vital part of the exercise.

There were two issues to be discussed, and Ed spotted exactly how each was presented in a way that (if you read his tweets in full) was designed expressly for that purpose.

I have to say that I find this sort of thing mildly entertaining: not only is it an attempt to 'cheat' by bypassing rules of conduct at council meetings (and the Labour lot already tried that at the last meeting, much to my non-surprise), but it was selective, one-sided, and with little time for actual debate – just nine minutes for the second item.

That second item, the plans for Rochester Airport's future, had the interesting (and unwanted by Labour) ingredient of my own writings on the topic being briefly quoted. Awkward; and definitely not fitting into Labour's narrative!

The point being raised was that the fears being put about by the scaremongers were ill-founded, as evidenced by the numerous other small airports in Britain that had already done what is now being proposed for Rochester Airport, without trouble and with a reduction in noise – counter to the scare messages.

I shall go into no more detail than that, as it could easily become tedious and make this post over-long. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of what has followed the event is that, rather than their usual trumpeting of their wheezes, claiming this, that and the other, they have in fact been very quiet about it. Apart from a couple of predictably gung-ho tweets, nothing material has appeared in the public realm – or if it has we haven't been pointed to it – a good day later.

My strong suspicion is that they are struggling to find a way to dress it up as any kind of success – which is obviously what they are seeking to do. The impression I have gained from a few sources is that it was something of a damp squib in reality – which at least is consistent with other events run by Medway Labour. For example, one well-publicised event, conveniently located close to shops and on the weekend, attracted fewer members of the public than the exhibitors and presenters.

I was there, so can personally attest to this...

Will people be fooled? I suppose it will depend to a fair extent on how the local newspaper writes up what happened. I don't think they will be gushing with praise for the initiative, though I could be wrong: there are angles they can use as an excuse for builfing this up a long way beyond what it really warrants.

Fortunately, as local election results have shown over the past decade and a half, the public mood had consistently swung more and more toward the Conservatives, and nearly always against Labour. Most people around here who have fully functioning brains have them well sussed-out and aren't falling for any of their nonsense, no matter how cleverly it is dreessed up or how craftily tailored to give the outcome they want (as distinct from that which is true).

Coming as it does some fifteen months before the next all-out local council elections here in Medway, it is likely to have a fairly modest effect for a short while, and that will then fade away, long before polling day. All remains well...

Addendum: It occurred to me, while re-reading it, that those less familiar with my writings might have thought I had actually wished for this meeting to be poorly attended by the public. In fact, for reasons that will probably be obvious to just about any half-decent or better psychologist, my preference is for the exact opposite. I want the public to be drawn into this sort of deception – at least for now.

It is the best way to learn truths, being immersed in the untruths, rather than having avoided them and never learning through personal experience and embarrassment when one realises what has been done to oneself, and just how easily the victims slipped into the pattern so skilfully prepared for them. It is a lesson well worth learning; and will (after it has bitten, and bitten hard!) make my job a lot easier in years to come.

Conflate and Confound

I see that Medway Labour continue to peddle the (frankly desperate) line that our council's investment in Rochester Airport somehow relates to perceived effects on front-line services. Like other dishonest propagandists, they are hoping that most of the public will not understand how (and why) these things operate, so will be taken in. Several vital points show the (deliberate? Almost certainly) falsity of local Labour's message...


1. Capital has nothing to do with revenue

One-off capital investment in projects, especially with existing council-held assets that are in danger of losing the council money through degradation, is encouraged by all parties in government – including the previous Labour government, for one notable example. Indeed, Medway Council's then finance spokesman, councillor Glyn Griffiths, often pushed this message even more strongly than the Conservative Administration of the council did – and we were no slouches on this ourselves.

2. Legal matters

Capital funding comes from a separate fund from ongoing 'revenue' expenditure – and it is illegal to use one fund for the other, though there are occasions when certain seemingly revenue items (usually only very small amounts) are able to be 'capitalised'. We here in Medway have seen this with recycling sacks, for example, which – as they are an alternative provision to the decidedly capital-spend recycling boxes – do fit the profile, though are a slight anomaly and don't quite fit either category. Still, the auditors were happy with that...

Whatever happens, the funding stream is separate, including government grants for specific projects that have nothing to do with the revenue provision. Often, capital projects will be partly or (sometimes) fully funded from capital funds raised by the disposal of old assets that are no longer required. An example that springs to mind from my own time on the Council was a pair of houses in The Tideway, Rochester. All sides agreed they needed to go anyway...


.3. Capital is once-off, revenue is not

There is no point in taking capital funding for revenue purposes anyway, even if it were legals to do so, as it comes as a single amount (though sometimes spread over a period, as appropriate to the specific project's needs) and then that's it. Revenue spending goes on year after year.

Medway Labour has been caught out by their woolly thinking in this regard several times in recent years, and still they don't seem to be able to 'get it'. What's wrong with them? The rest of us can understand this from our own budgeting, even though we don't necessarily have separate accounts for (say) shopping and bills, and one-off purchases.

We know how and why it works, and we apply our own sense to such things. It is hardly surprising that auditors (especially the independent firm and the National Audit Office) apply a rigorous policy along the same lines to our councils. Only Labour seem to think it doesn't apply to them – which no doubt helps to account for the numerous stories of financial mismanagement that emerge from Labour-run councils on an almost regular basis.


4. The airport plan is nothing new

Labour always wished to close Rochester Airport, against the wishes of many thousands of residents. Take it from someone who helped with the severely time-limited campaign to lodge objections to the relevant policy (S11) in the then Deposit Local Plan, back in August/September 1999. There were thousands, just from the Davis Estate (which was all the Residents Association covered), and hardly anyone did not wish to support the airport's retention. They knew!

The plan that is now being opposed by Medway Labour – and the claque they regularly bring to Medway Council meetings – and they are trying to suggest that public opinion has suddenly turned to face the exact opposite way. Well, over the years, on the doorstep and elsewhere, I have consistently found ongoing support. especially when I explained to residents (including those living in Cloisterham Park) what the intended changes would do. After all, it is almost the same as what was being proposed a good decade ago.

Briefly: the paved runway allows 'planes that can use it to take off sooner so that they are quite a lot higher by the time they pass over residential areas, and their effect therefore much quieter than ever before. Secondly, modern mini-jets will be able to use it, and they are quite a bit quieter than the propeller 'planes. Thirdly, the same has been done at other small airports already, producing these very benefits; and it is easy enough to check what the views of residents in those airports' vicinities have noticed since the changes were made there.


In conclusion

Thus it is actually not exactly difficult to (a) debunk the emotive non-story that Medway Labour are putting out, and (b) allay fears about what the planned changes will mean in reality. Scaremongering is for those who have no real credibility: the rest of us just have to wise up and see it for what is is. Don't ever let Labour manipulate your and your thinking – it only encourages them to do it again and again...

UPDATE at 2135 hrs: local Labour councillor Tristan Osborne has unintentionally (through his lack of understanding) bolstered my position considerably. The Twitter conversation can be followed here, and I think it is self-explanatory.

He is trying desperately hard to 'manufacture' something, including (glaringly obvious) diversionary tactics, as usual – but it's not working. Watch how the wriggling and squirming progresses as this goes on: it'll no doubt be entertaining to observe... It was; and he finally gave up around 2200 hrs.

Weekly Political Digest – 2 August 2013

Despite being within the holiday season, this has been  a surprisingly busy week, so there are a number of subjects I need to cover – though I'll try to make it all reasonably concise...


Daniel Pelka

There can be no doubt that this is the biggest human story of the week, where yet again we find a child treated so badly, so abominably, that he eventually dies, in this case at the age of four years.

Predictably, out of the woodwork spring all those whose agenda is to use any excuse they can to have officialdom allowed ever greater powers to intrude into people's lives, as in Scotland where the SNP plans to allocate a State 'guardian' to every child; but in reality if the authorities were doing their job properly, this could easily have been spotted under existing powers.

Not that these facts have stopped the BBC trying to manipulate the story away from being about the child to being about the 'concerned' public sector workers. This is transparent and, as so often occurs, shows the true nature of the BBC. No regular reader of this 'blog should be taken in and be diverted from the core issue.

As far as the social workers et al are concerned: if they could even handle this, no additional powers would change that situation: indeed, existing resources would end up spread more thinly across a wider spectrum of 'potentials' and many more would be missed. No: sensible and intelligent targeting is what is needed here; and so far the record is somewhat dismal, though not as bad as these occasional isolated severe cases might suggest.

The truth lies in between; but the only way to achieve a better and safer country for all our children is to think straight and avoid the pitfall of 'more regulation/intrusion/whatever' that seems to have become the near-universal answer to all ills and (in particular) shocking headlines ever since 1997, significantly. Remember the then Labour government's response to the Climbié case and the impositions on councils that were well-intentioned, but were demanding on resources yet unfunded, so deprived other services as a consequence...


Rochester Airport

?I touched on this last week; but this (admittedly simplistic, to suit the needs of the local newspaper) column by the Deputy Leader of Medway Council explains at least some of what it's really all about. The most important aspect is that the council is investing in one of its own ongoing assets – hardly a first – and will generate a considerable amount more in return, and in fairly short order (it should break even in a relatively short period, and it's all gain from then on).

Those of us who have been involved with this subject, and especially those (seemingly comparatively few) who have a clue about how such  things work, fully understand what it means – but the chip-on-shoulder local Lefties, who haven't a clue, continually show their complete ignorance and inability to comprehend.

For now, while the public consultation is under way, I shall leave matters there (unless something huge comes up), but I fully expect to comment in considerable detail in a special post once that period has passed...


Untie the Union

Untie or otherwise detach it from Labour. That is the message that is increasingly bearing down upon that party and, in particular, its nominal leader. Ed[ward] Miliband is being seen as weak by ever more people in a widening circle, and it looks as if it's heading towards an untenable leadership.

Although this at The Commentator is written in a slightly sensationalist style, and I for one do not go along with all of it (even the quoted song lyrics are wrong!), much of what is in that piece is beyond reasonable challenge.  This is turning out to be a lot more than a mere storm in a teacup, awkwardly for Mili-E and Labour, and it just isn't going away.

How the public perception of this 'in their back pocket' suggestion can be changed is far from clear, as the Unions will not permit it anyway – and they are the ones who really call the shots. I do not envy Ed-M on this: the 'rock and hard place' analogy never seemed more apt.

Nevertheless, he has no realistic alternative but to devise an original and manageable (to all sides of the party) solution to this issue, or Labour will tear itself apart from the inside and also call for his replacement as party leader. He will be unable to resist that widespread a demand, and he obviously realises this.

It's probably why he and the shadow cabinet are so quiet on the news front right now, as at least one leading commentator has remarked: my guess is that they're probably spending the time trying to thrash out a workable plan to deal with the Unions...


Banking On Success

Here's another example of Labour and other Lefties not 'getting it', as I saw at the Medway Council meeting just over a week ago. Their banker-bashing Motion for a financial transactions tax (not part of the council's business anyway!) shows a complete lack of understanding of how the competitive world works, and would if implemented put us at a significant disadvantage relative to the parts of the world without such an imposition.

The present government is able to be 'played' by officials (one Coalition partner against the other, using Sir Humphrey.-style methods), so is also failing to take the best approach that it could. Let Patrick Minford explain the fallacies and a possible way forward in just eleven paragraphs – which is good going for what is a complex subject.

Politically, what he suggests is bold, neck-sticking-out stuff; but it looks to be the only way I have seen proposed that has the feel of a real improvement to the way the sector operates in this country and within the global market as well (it is inextricably intertwined with the world's monetary sector).

I fear that the proposals in the City AM article have little chance of being implemented by anything other than a Conservative majority government, and that with a Chancellor who by then feels able to make such changes through being no longer encumbered by coalition partners who, frankly, haven't (as a party) much of an idea about this kind of activity.


The Royal Baby

This is interesting: was the media coverage of the event appropriate or over the top? Two opposing views appear together in The Observer (Sunday Guardian), from a slightly tongue-in-cheek Quentin Letts and the Observer features editor Elizabeth Day, put their views in an interleaved print debate, with the latter naturally being given the last word.

What each of us thinks will vary from one person to another; but the advantage of the media is that one can always avoid them, which is what I did and thus got only a minimal amount of news and commentary during those last few days and beyond. We're not all telly-obsessed, tabloid-buying soaps-and-celebs' followers...

Not that all (public) commenters had what might be considered a normal, straightforward take on the baby, as this image comprising a number of oddball tweets reveals(!)


Councils' Parking Income

Now here's a classic example of cause-and-effect – and it isn't necessarily a bad thing, though it isn't ideal however it is done. Parking charges are the 'Kobayashi Maru' (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) of council activitity: there is no 'correct' approach, only the best compromise one can devise to fit all the prevailing circumstances at least reasonably well.

This Independent article does rather mix up parking charges and parking fines, and isn't always as clear as it ought to be (and I suspect this is a deliberate attempt at conflation), but it is a thorny subject, including here in Medway where the council's CCTV cars have become far too controversial, largely through their drivers' behaviour.

I have long wondered whether that was a deliberate (perhaps Union-driven) attempt to discredit the Conservative administration, but sadly have no solid evidence one way or the other – yet. That could change one day...

The whole point behind parking charges being made into a money-spinner is the sheer cost of maintaining a council's road network and the government grant system having been substantially gerrymandered during (mostly) the Labour years of government, along with those years' never-ending programme of costly and unfunded (except perhaps, if we were lucky, the first year or two) impositions from Westminster via Whitehall.

It should be noted that most of what has been implemented during the past fifteen years or so has been engineered by Whitehall 'mandarins', especially in regard to councils where they are sufficiently remote to escape being directly accountable and thus vulnerable to scrutiny, such as the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny political management model whose only purpose was to allow those same mandarins to control council's policy agendas: look at any council Cabinet agendas to see what I mean, including here in Medway – it's staring you in the face!

Thus the reality behind the parking charges is Whitehall's powerful efforts to minimise local democracy, with the ultimate aim of destroying it by starving councils of funds – so those councils have been forced to find other ways to fund the work that their electorate expect of them. Thus we end up with the so-called 'cash cow' of parking charges, and – more relevantly – parking fines.

The fines are fair enough, of course, provided they are justified; and I am pleased to see that challenging dubious and borderline decisions has a tendency to have fines rescinded in a number of cases. eventually this will settle down, with a body of what in other circles would be termed Case Law (but without having needed to go to that extreme to demonstrate).

As we all here know that the road repair programme is even now failing to meet the needs of road users, it suggests that fines in particular might need to be raised. I do not automatically go along with that, not because I have any particular sympathy with road users (it's all such ancient and primitive technology, any form of 'carts on wheels', so I am no fan of any of it) but because one always needs to strike a sensible balance.

If it hadn't been for the Labour-era starvation of many (especially the good) councils of necessary funding, none of this is likely to have arisen. Now that we are living with that legacy, our local elected representatives need to find innovative ways of getting this balance right without discouraging those who might otherwise spend their money in our town centres and tourist spots, among other places.

It has become increasingly tricky over the years to make it work well, as I have seen from the inside – but let us give our councillors a chance and support their efforts rather than perpetually criticising them. Monitor by all means, but do try to understand the difficult situation they face, and put yourself in their place. Could you do any better? Seriously? I very much doubt it!.