Cameron's amoral Christians

I had not intended to comment on David Cameron’s speech of two weeks ago (here) when he ‘did’ God, and this will almost certainly be one of the tardiest blogs on the subject. But for all that was encouraging in the speech, there was one particular phrase near the end of the speech that has niggled me ever since:

‘There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code.’

Now I don’t profess to be any kind of theologian; I lay claim to no deep knowledge of Anglicanism, nor the Bible. But I fail to see how anybody can lead an amoral life yet still claim to be a Christian.

The story in Exodus describing how God gave the Law to Moses means that the Law is sacrosanct. As such, the Law is not just a useful moral compass but to keep it is a religious obligation. It seems to me that this is a pretty basic plank of what it means to be a Christian (or to be a Jew or a Muslim for that matter).

Of course, it is possible to hold high a set of ideals such as the Law, but fall short of actually living in accordance with them – the Law books of the Bible contain 659 commandments, so it is likely most of us will break one or more of them from time to time! Perhaps it is this to which Cameron alluded in his speech?

But to fall short of living up to your own moral code is something completely different to living life without a moral code.

I am always wary of discussing faith, and particularly the Law, in fora such as this. Waiting for the inevitable wit of somebody singling out a line of the Law they object to, usually, and with a tiresome lack of imagination, taken from Leviticus. I would merely ask such critics one simple question.

In Jesus’ summary of the law, He cites the second commandment as being: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.

Irrespective of individuals’ faith (or lack thereof), can there be a better starting point for any national debate of morality, of law and order, as those five short words?

Minimum pricing, on chips?

We read in the Telegraph today (here) that the Prime Minister has instigated plans to introduce minimum pricing on the sale of alcohol.

Whilst such a move will undoubtedly be welcomed by some health professionals, and warmly so by the patronising, preaching nanny statists, it is difficult to see this as little more than an eye-catching gimmick which will achieve little in the way of public health improvements or a curtailing of problem drinking.

Whilst ‘problem drinking’ and ‘preventable deaths’ are easy and emotive phrases to bandy about, I fear we are trying to come up with solutions before we have fully understood the root causes of the problem.

Whilst there have been well publicised and extreme cases of nightclubs retailing alcohol at ridiculously low prices, inviting partygoers to‘drink all you can’ for a fixed price, these are very much the exception rather than the rule.

Minimum pricing will have no impact at all on those individuals that believe their alcohol intake on a Saturday night to be directly proportional to their masculinity, who in the main already pay way above the likely level of any minimum price in their quest to prove their manliness.

We also seem to fall in to the trap of assuming that those who abuse alcohol only buy the cheapest alcohol available to them, and then only because it’s cheap; that we can price alcoholism out of peoples’ reach. The notion that we can tax addicts into kicking their habit is breathtakingly misconceived.

Any solution to ‘problem drinking’ must be centred on the tried and tested approach of education, education, education. No, it won’t give you a sexy headline; it won’t give you overnight results; but it will work.

The Telegraph also reports today that of the quarter of the population which is clinically obese, over 40% thought they were a “healthy” weight. It also reports that even a substantial number of health professionals cannot tell the difference between a healthy weight and an unhealthy one.

As the National Obesity Forum calls for the better education of pupils about the dangers of obesity, I await next year’s inevitable plans for the minimum pricing of fatty foods with baited breath…

Say Nay To Pay And Display

Last week, Stockton Borough Council's Labour / IBIS coalition cabinet voted to introduce parking charges to Yarm High Street.

Stockton council would like me to stress that their argument for replacing the existing disk controlled zone with parking meters is not to raise revenue (honestly, they kept straight faces when they said it and everything), but because the great British public don't have the wit to understand the nuanced technicalities of a disk controlled zone.

As though this wasn't bad enough, they are looking to install meters virtually the full length of the High Street, with the loss of the vast majority of the 127 unrestricted parking spaces relied on by residents of the High Street.

With Stockton's annual madcap parking proposals in danger of becoming an unwelcome tradition, you could be excused for thinking that the situation in Yarm was complicated. That there was no straightforward solution.  Well you'd be wrong.  Both the problem and the answer are breathtakingly simple.

Problem:  Yarm doesn't have enough parking spaces
Solution:  Create more parking spaces

Forgive my being glib, but that really is the crux of the matter.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the solution is simple to implement.  Where could we put a new car park?  From where would we access it?  Who will pay for it?  These are difficult problems to solve - if they weren't, this matter would have been put to bed years ago - but that does not detract from the fact that the answer is simply to create more parking spaces.

Meandering back to the point of the article, I'll put this equally simply:

Stockton's proposals to introduce a tax on those visitors to Yarm that had the audacity to drive there won't achieve anything but deter shoppers from visiting Yarm.  Granted, that's one way of solving traffic congestion in Yarm but it has the one minor drawback that we would likely end up with a High Street which looks something like Stockton's in no time at all.

As for their plan to convert free long stay spaces into charged short stay spaces, Stockton would have you believe that this will boost business, by encouraging and enabling more shoppers to visit the town. My response to that is...well, just re-read the previous paragraph.  Not only that, in their misguided attempt to help the High Street what they will actually do is ensure that some 100 residents won't be able to park anywhere near their own home.

Furthermore, 100 or so people that work on the High Street that rely on these spaces to park during the day will just park elsewhere.  On West Street. On Worsall Road.  In Eaglescliffe.  Stockton would have you believe this won't happen, but it already does - ask the residents of Butts Lane, Eaglescliffe how much they enjoy Yarm Fair week.

I could go on - the report to cabinet was so full of holes one would need to write something of a similar length to correct it - but I won't.  Put simply, these recommendations are the veritable unholy trinity - they're bad for residents, bad for traders, bad for commuters.

I'll leave you with one last thought.  Mary "queen of shops" Portas recently completed her research into the state of the nation's High Streets and has made a number of suggestions.  One of these was to call for councils to "implement free controlled parking schemes".

It's not clear if she based her recommendation on the current arrangement in Yarm specifically, but we would already seem to be exactly what she's recommending.  But you never know, I suppose it's possible that Mary Portas' recommendations (and common sense) are wrong, and that Stockton Borough Council know what they are doing...

I'm back

After a truly hectic few months, my redesigned blog is here and ready to go.

As predicted in my very first post, parking in Yarm is well and truly back in the news (see here).  Stockton council's daft, sorry, draft proposals for 2011 - parking charges.  Well it was only a matter of time before the Labour led council looked to bleed that particular stone wasn't it?

I will post my take on the plans tomorrow.

Core Strategy consultation update

Two weeks in to Stockton Council's consultation on where up to 2,800 new homes could be built and a pretty clear picture is already taking shape.


Of the three sites being considered in Yarm and Kirklevington, the two to the south of Green Lane are both receiving the thumbs down from residents with roughly 44% of respondants either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that they should be considered for new homes.  The picture is less clear with the third however (to the west of Yarm along the length of Allerton Balk); 43% of respondants agree / strongly agree that this site should be considered with 41% disagreeing / strongly disagreeing.


With the consultation due to run for a further 8 weeks there is still everything to play for.  I will shortly be announcing details of a drop in session for residents to come and see the plans, where I and other Conservative councillors will be on hand to answer questions.


In the meantime the proposals can be viewed clicking here, or can be obtained by e-mailing spatialplans@stockton.gov.uk.

Thousands of new homes in Yarm & Kirklevington?

Monday saw Stockton Borough Council start of a 10-week long consultation as to where to potentially build 2,800 new homes.  Three of the sites being considered lie within Yarm & Kirklevington.


Current projections suggest that whilst the existing and planned housing stock is sufficient to meet the borough's needs until 2021, an additional 2,800 new homes will need to be built to satisfy those needs up to 2028.  Sixteen sites throughout the borough have been identified of varying sizes that could be utilised for new homes.


Whilst the three sites on the outskirts of our communities are certainly large enough to accomodate housing, it's highly questionable whether we could cope with literally thousands of new residents.  The current difficulties driving through and parking in Yarm could increase exponentially;  the loss of acres of farmland and countryside could never be undone;  local children could increasingly miss out on places at local primary schools which are already bursting at the seams;  the shortage of recreational facilities would be ever more keenly felt; I could go on...


The consultation papers can be found here.  This is your opportunity to influence how our communities evolve for many years to come - make sure your voice is heard.

Planning Committee - Tall Trees, Yarm

My first planning committee earlier this week and a familiar name on the agenda - Tall Trees Hotel, Yarm.

As you will have seen in the press, planning permission was granted for the construction of 62 executive homes and 81 apartments on the land immediately adjacent to the hotel (much of which is currently parking).  The committee accepted that the benefits the linked renovation and expansion of the hotel would bring to the area outweighed the fact that the development was outside the limits of development.

Whilst some residents may have greeted this news with dismay, it is still far from certain however the approved development will ever take place.

The applicant states that the development of the hotel is reliant on the funds generated by the planned housing.  In accepting this argument the committee imposed a number of planning conditions to ensure that the development of the hotel and housing proceeds hand-in-hand.  In addition, contributions of £100,000 and £154,000 were demanded towards the costs of providing long-stay parking in Yarm and for providing a footpath and cycle lane from the site to Yarm Station respectively.

However, the applicant stated during the committee hearing that the conditions imposed designed to ensure the phased development of the site in fact serve to make the plans economically unviable.  With such stringent conditions imposed the applicant felt that he would not be able to proceed with the development and as a consequence, with the hotel like many others currently running at a substantial loss, he may have no option but to close the hotel.

This results in something of a quandry.  Whilst a substantial number of objections to the development were received, the thought of Tall Trees being closed is not a happy one.  A mothballed Tall Trees would almost certainly act as a magnet for vandals and rogues of all sorts, and could well end up becoming an unsightly blight on the edge of town.  You can bet your bottom dollar that it wouldn't then take much of an upturn in the market of the vultures to start circling and piecemeal plans for development of the site to be submitted.

It's well known that it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, but I worry this situation could well deteriorate to the point of displeasing all of the people for a very long time to come.

Searching scrutiny?

Last week saw Stockton Borough Council's Annual Meeting which agreed, amongst other things, appointments to the various council scrutiny / select committees.

Scrutiny is a vital principle of democracy.  It is the process by which the council's decisions, policies and performance are examined closely to ensure the services provided are done so as efficiently and effectively as possible.  The importance of the searching scrutiny of decisions before they come into effect cannot be understated.

In recent years (whilst Conservative led) the council strived to ensure that the chair of each select committee was appointed from a different political group to that of the cabinet member holding the corresponding portfolio.  This resulted in an highly robust and effective scrutiny process, with material improvements to policies recommended (and accepted) across all areas of council business.  It was therefore with great trepidation that I sat and watched the Labour group, in one of its first actions since forming a coalition administration with IBIS, move away from this successful model of corporate governance in favour of appointing the vast majority of the chairs and vice-chairs from within its own ranks.

Why Labour decided to do this, with no ostensible benefit other than to the Labour & IBIS members now pocketing the special allowances that come with their appointments, is genuinely puzzling.  It's all the more puzzling to see a number of important posts handed to individuals newly elected to the council just two weeks earlier who have no prior experience of sitting on a scrutiny committee, let alone chairing one, whatsoever.  I for one would love to hear the rationale behind these appointments, but I doubt I ever will.

Yarm Farmers' Market

A busy couple of days kicked off with Yarm Town Council's annual meeting on Tuesday evening.  Wasting no time in delivering on their pre-election promise, local Conservatives secured the necessary agreement for the return of a farmers' market to the cobbles of Yarm.

The market - arranged in conjunction with the Northern Dales Farmers' Market Association - will be held on the cobbles around the Town Hall on Sunday 24 July 2011, 9am - 3pm.  Further trial events will be held in October and December, and assuming the events are a success we intend to introduce a monthly market thereafter.

I'm sure the market will prove to be a wonderful boon to our area as well as providing valuable support to local farmers during what are very difficult times. 

A huge vote of thanks should go to retiring town councillor Paul Smith for all his hard work in organising the market.

Political pointscoring

I hear that it will be announced tomorrow that Labour, who fell 2 seats short of an overall majority on Stockton Borough Council, will form a council in coalition with IBIS.

It goes without saying that, for all our sakes, I wish the new council and its cabinet well.  That said it is extremely disappointing, however, that the Labour group flatly refused to consider continuing what had been a relatively successful power-sharing arrangement with the Conservative group (which culminated in Stockton being named 'Council of the Year' in 2010), not because the Labour group thought that an agreement with IBIS was in the best interests of the borough, but because of their objection to government policies.  One can only smile at the hypocrisy of the Labour group then opting to instead work with IBIS given Labour's objections to free schools, such as the one IBIS hope to secure!

It remains to be seen what impact a Labour - IBIS run council will have on Yarm and Kirklevington, but given Labour's track record of only spending money where it enjoys support and the extremely parochial attitude of the IBIS councillors these are likely to be challenging times.

Welcome

First of all welcome to, and thank you for visiting, my blog.  I hope that this will eventually prove a useful tool for keeping residents informed of news and events in and around Yarm & Kirklevington.

Having undergone two days of induction as a new ward councillor, it is apparent that the next couple of months are going to be a steep learning curve.  Luckily I will be aided by two other Conservative councillors; the hugely experienced Andrew Sherris, who has been a ward councillor for Yarm & Kirklevington for more years than he'd rather I'd mention here, and Ben Houchen, who like myself is new to the council but I'm sure will prove to be an excellent ward councillor.

The coming months are likely to prove incredibly busy with the old chestnut of parking in and around Yarm High Street high on the agenda, and we'll continue to keep residents updated with progress on this and other issues through our regular Intouch newsletter.