Yarm Residents Association - Missing in Action

At last night's Yarm Town Council meeting, the so-called residents' association demonstrated that all their talk is exactly that - talk.

In readiness for Yarm Gala held each June, Yarm Town Council is obliged to fence off the part of the High Street the Gala occupies. This work has previously been undertaken by volunteers, although numbers have dwindled in recent years.

So much so that last year only two other town councillors in addition to myself (cllrs Andrew Sherris and Bob Wegg) turned up on the day to erect the barriers, and the following day to remove them. (It's worth noting that there were more relatives of Mrs Milburn, the council's clerk, helping out than there were councillors!)

Concerned at the lack of volunteers, Yarm Town Council sensibly asked Stockton Borough Council to quote how much it would cost us to pay them to do the work for us. The answer: a staggering £580 plus VAT.

Given Yarm is still licking its financial wounds incurred in the disastrously mishandled Judicial Review (mishandled by disgraced ex-cllr Jason Hadlow, the 'brains' of Yarm's so-called residents' association no less), it was out of the question that we inflict this additional cost on our town.

So, as last year, I suggested that we undertake the work ourselves, and as last year councillors Sherris and Wegg readily offered their services.

However, when I asked for further volunteers from the members of the public present - including the three candidates in this month's by-election standing under the banner of the so-called residents' association - I was greeted with a stony silence. Not one of them was prepared to give up just a couple of hours of their time for the good of our community.

In stark contrast, I am delighted to confirm that all three of UKIP's candidates in the by-election have confirmed they will be helping out on both days. Unlike others, we recognise that talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words.

YRA? MIA.

Response to the Autumn Statement

The chancellor's statement (see the key points here) this afternoon once again reiterated how little he understands just how much ordinary families, particularly in the north east, are struggling. Whilst hard working families need help with their bills now, the best the chancellor could offer was a pledge to kick them slightly less whilst they are down.

It would be churlish to admit there wasn't some welcome news.

The increase in personal income tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014 will help most in work retain more of their wages. It is nevertheless disappointing however that he won't commit to increasing this further and work towards removing all earning the minimum wage from paying income tax altogether.

The increase of £2.95/week in the basic state pension is also welcome. However, this is hardly news - following the changes announced in 2012 the increase was already guaranteed; the announcement was akin to being cheered to the rafters for declaring tomorrow to be Friday.

We also, finally, had confirmation of the married couples and civil partners tax break to be introduced from 2014. Granted, this only qualifies as good news if you are married or in a civil partnership - if you are single, cohabiting, or widowed this announcement might well be considered a waste of £700million (which, don't forget, we don't have so needs to be borrowed).

Oh, erm, this is rather embarrassing. That seems to be all the good news I can find.

What we also found out is that, despite the much publicised government announcement of a £50 saving, the average energy bill will still rise by £70 this winter. Already exorbitant rail fails will, on average, rise by inflation (ie by more than your wages are rising). Fuel duty will once again be frozen, but that is hardly a help if you already cannot afford to fill and run your car.

Of particularly concerning news for the north east is the announced increase in state retirement age, to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late-2040s. Given the Healthy Life Expectancy for the North East is 59.7 years for men and 60.2 years for women - the lowest of any region of the UK - and the disproportionately high number of employees engaged in heavy manual labour in the region, increasing numbers of us will be forced to, literally, work until we drop.

Although it has been patently obvious for some time now, this government of millionaires really does not comprehend how increasingly difficult the average family is finding it to get by. For 40 out of the 41 months of this government, inflation has outpaced the rise in incomes.

Put another way, for 40 out of 41 months of this government we have been getting poorer. Much poorer.

Indeed, figures publicised by Labour today show that the average household is £1,600/year worse off than when this government came into power. (NB I use this figure with a caveat: as is Labour's way, this figure is incredibly simplistic as it only compares inflation directly with wages and fails to take into account changes to tax allowances, benefits, etc.).

What is clearer than ever is that this country, and particularly the North East, needs support and a change of government priorities. What is clearer than ever is that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have no intention of delivering that change.

What is also clear is that Labour can never, ever be trusted with our economy again. Although the ConDem coalition have proved to be poor stewards, it would be sheer lunacy to throw Labour the keys to the economy they crashed so spectacularly.

Only one party pledges to cut your fuel bills, not just marginally slow the rate of their increase; only one party pledges to cut taxes and business rates across the board for every small and medium sized business in the country; only one party pledges to put the poor of our own region ahead of those in foreign countries.

And that party is UKIP.

Changes to library opening hours throughout Stockton Borough

Following on from Stockton Council's decision in May to cut library provision across the borough, a review of the borough's library services has now been completed and the opening hours at five community libraries will change from Monday 6th January as follows:

Fairfield Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	10-12

 

Egglescliffe Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	2-7	Closed	Closed

 

Roseworth Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-4
New	1-7	9.30-3	Closed	9.30-3	Closed	Closed

 

Thornaby Library (Westbury Street)

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

At Billingham (Bedale Avenue) Library, opening hours will also reduce whilst the new Billingham Central Library is constructed in the town centre.  The pattern of opening will be as follows:

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

In addition, the current Sunday openings at Stockton and Thornaby Central Libraries will be discontinued from Sunday 22nd December – all other opening times at these libraries will be unaffected.  Ingleby Barwick Library will remain open on Sundays as normal, from 11am to 4pm.

Although the cuts are extremely disappointing, we have worked hard to ensure they are not as bad as first feared.  Our libraries are without exception well used and relied upon by very many people, and we will continue to campaign to prevent any further cuts to these vital services.

The Conservatives, in turning on Adam Afriyie, have revealed their true colours

Last week Adam Afriyie announced he was putting down an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill, which would set 23rd October 2014 as the date on which an In/Out Referendum would be held. In its current form, the Bill only promises a referendum to be held before the end of 2017.

There is a lot of merit in such a proposal. Given our current level of contributions to the EU, delaying a referendum by three years until 2017 would see our handing over a further £50billion to those unelected eurocrats before we are even given a say on whether we wish to continue doing so. We are told by the usual scaremongers that the ongoing debate is causing uncertainty and risks damaging trade; not an argument I accept, but an early referendum would quash any uncertainty there may be.

And that’s not to mention that a clear, consistent and growing majority of people want a referendum – now.

The response to Mr Afriyie’s amendment from his own Conservative colleagues has been startling. Instead of supporting his call for an early referendum like the eurosceptics many of them purport to be, he has been roundly abused. He has been branded a “fantatist” who has “lost touch with reality” by Conservative MPs briefing against him, anonymously of course. Not to be outdone, the Conservative-supporting press have branded him “a wally”.
Even the erudite Jacob Rees-Mogg got in on the act. Writing for the Telegraph, Rees-Mogg sought to explain how the amendment wasn’t helping the Eurosceptic cause and called for Mr Afriyie to “pipe down”. His reasons were twofold.

First, he declares the idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe and seeking to repatriate powers to be eminently sensible. Unlike the Prime Minister, he went as far as to name what he sees as the minimum aims for renegotiation: opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, financial regulation and most importantly the free movement of people. And therein lies the problem.

It is incomprehensible to imagine that the Prime Minister will be able to secure the repatriation of any meaningful powers, particularly as the Commission has clearly set its face against it. It beggars belief they will concede ground on the free movement of people when this is the very bedrock of the European federalist dream. It cannot and will not happen, and it seems crazy to argue in favour of three years of negotiations which you know from the outset will not result in a satisfactory outcome. That way madness lies.
Secondly, he argues time is need to negotiate our exit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would allow for transitional arrangements to be agreed thereby reassuring voters they have nothing to fear from voting to leave the EU. Again, these would be negotiations doomed to failure.

Make no mistake, the Commission want to see the UK remain part of the European project (or should I say they want us to continue to bankroll it). So why on earth would they risk damaging the prospects of an ‘in’ vote by agreeing to smooth our path towards the exit door? It makes no sense whatsoever. Instead, once an ‘out’ vote has been secured, we would be in a much stronger negotiating position as a net importer of goods and services from European countries. To borrow and paraphrase a recent quote, Mr Mercedes really isn’t going to want to stop selling us cars.

So why has there been such a vitriolic response to the calls for an early referendum? The answer is patently obvious.

Ever since the Conservatives reneged, in 2010, on their promise to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there have been calls for an immediate in-out referendum on Europe, from within the Conservative party and from without. These calls were contemptuously and consistently rejected, right up until 2013. Why the sudden u-turn?

Between 2010 and 2013 something incredible happened: UKIP started doing rather well. From strong showings in parliamentary by-elections up and down the country, to gaining hundreds of council seats in local elections, we gained momentum. Whilst the Conservative party finally admitted its membership had halved during the years of Cameron’s leadership, UKIP’s had doubled in no time at all. That’s not to mention we now consistently poll ahead of the Liberal Democrats, making us the third party in British politics, and continue to punch above our weight whenever and wherever elections are held.

Suddenly, Conservative MPs with tiny majorities (such as James Wharton, the sponsor of the Referendum Bill and my own local MP) began to get twitchy and panic, and out of their terror the Bill was born. Not through any principled desire to give the voters the referendum they demand, but to kick the whole issue of Europe into the long grass until the next general election in a desperate bid to curtail the rise of UKIP.

But the electorate are neither stupid nor gullible. We may never know the real motives behind Adam Afriyie’s tabled amendment, but the Conservative party’s reaction to it tells us all we need to know about the party machine’s motives for the bill.

This article was first published on UKIP Daily.

Why I left the Conservatives part 2: Gay 'marriage' and the quadruple lock lie

Whilst it may not be a major concern to many readers, I have decided to bump this piece up the pecking order following today's front page story in the Daily Mail (read it here) that David Cameron now regrets having "forced through gay marriage law".

We know how you feel, Dave

Despite a pledge to introduce gay marriage not being in the 2010 manifesto of any major party, and despite the public having never been asked for their opinion (Cameron's sham consultation only asked how, not if, legislation should be introduced), the Bill received Royal Assent and passed into law in July 2013.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of her backbench colleagues, Maria Miller announced the so-called 'quadruple lock' designed, we are told, to prevent any religious leader being forced to conduct same-sex 'marriages' against their beliefs. Her statement to the House of Commons focused particularly on the Church of England, given its unique position as the established church and which had opposed the legislation.

The quadruple lock consists of the following measures:

1. The legislation states that neither religious organisations as a whole nor individual ministers will be forced to hold same-sex weddings on their premises;

 

2. Parliament will amend the Equalities Act so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations who refuse to conduct gay marriages;

 

3. Religious organisations who do support gay marriage can opt-in, and then their individual ministers will also then need to opt-in before they can conduct the ceremonies; and

 

4. The legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Church of England and Wales to marry same sex couple: the Church of England had already said that it did not want to carry out same-sex partnerships.

This lock would, we were told, ensured "beyond doubt" there could not be a successful action brought in the courts against any church for failing to conduct a same sex 'marriage'.

Regrettably, and all too predictably, the 'quadruple lock' is not worth the fresh air into which Maria Miller's words were breathed.

On 24th June 2010, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the matter of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. The applicants claimed they had been discriminated against as Austrian law did not allow them, as a same-sex couple, to contract marriage.

Their claim did not focus on any specific benefits available to married couples which they were unable to take advantage of. Rather, their claim focused solely on the fact they were being prevented from contracting marriage based only on their sexual orientation. In other words, they argued that a law defining marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was discriminatory.

Although the chamber of the Court found, unanimously, against the applicants, the detailed judgment handed down puts the lie to the 'quadruple lock'.

Whilst the European Court's case-law had previously determined "...the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes 'private life'" [para. 92], the judgment in this case ruled for the first time such relationships also constituted 'family life', because "... the rapid revolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member states" [para. 93].

So as a result of legislation sanctioning same-sex marriage and/or civil partnerships having been enacted by a number of EU countries, the European Courts have already started to re-write the rules.

In ruling that, notwithstanding the new case-law it had just created, it was not discriminatory for states to legislate only for opposite-sex marriage, it was made eminently clear this position was not set in stone.

The judgement reads:

"The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet [emphasis added] a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes " [para. 105]

In other words, once a majority of EU countries - or more likely, those countries constituting a majority of residents of the EU - have legalised gay marriage, the Court would see its way open to rule it discriminatory (i.e. illegal) for member states not to permit same-sex marriage.


In those circumstances, not only would the UK have then been compelled by the EU (had it not already) to sanction same-sex marriage but the Church of England, as the established Church and de facto extension of the state, would equally be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.

So there we have it. Irrespective of the Conservatives' 'quadruple lock', the European Court has already indicated it is only a matter of time before it forces all member states to recognise and conduct same-sex marriages.

But that is not the worst of it. Look again at when this judgment was handed down - 24th June 2010. Long before the government brought forward its legislation, and long before Maria Miller announced the 'quadruple lock'.

In other words, the announcement on the 'quadruple lock' was made despite full knowledge of its long-term impotence, and of the judgment of the European Court.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party which not only brought forward this legislation without any democratic mandate to do so and whilst ignoring the millions of faith in this country who objected, but who have lied to us in doing so.

I am proud to have joined UKIP, the only party to stand up for faith and the traditional, the only, definition of marriage.





Why it won't be UKIP that leads to Cameron's demise, but himself...

 

There has been much written in recent months about the rise of UKIP and what is perceived to be the resulting decline in the prospect of a Conservative majority in 2015.  This has lead to talk (from outside of UKIP it must be said) of an electoral pact between the two right-of-centre parties.

 

Although much that has been written about UKIP of late doesn’t hold up to any meaningful scrutiny – for example, contrary to their portrayal in much of the media, the EU ranks as only the third most important issue amongst UKIP supporters – that they appear to be benefitting from their stance on ‘equal marriage’, as widely reported over the weekend, does appear to stand up.

 

The Sunday headlines were predictably dominated by UKIP’s rise to 14%, securing a clear third place, in this month’s Comres poll for theIndependent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror:

 

Conservative 28% (-3%)

Labour 39% (-4%)
UKIP 14% (+6%)
Lib Dem 9% (-1%)
Others 9% (+1%)

Despite the headlines, the polling isn’t all bad news for the Conservatives. They continue to be more trusted on the economy than Labour, which is widely expected to be the key battleground come the 2015 election.  But drill down further into the in depth polling and a worrying picture emerges for Cameron.

 

It’s well documented that older people tend to be more likely to vote in elections than younger people.  They also tend to be far more likely to identify with and vote for Conservatives. Amongst 55-64 year olds, Comres finds that Conservatives hold a one point lead over Labour; this lead rises to 8 points amongst those aged 65+.

 

Whilst these figures tend to be relatively stable – certainly more so than amongst those younger voters – Conservative support amongst the key 65+ age group has fallen four points in a month, to 30%. This is despite, according to Comres, 44% of this age group, generally speaking, identifying themselves as Conservatives.

 

Put another way, one in three Conservatives aged 65+ would cast their votes elsewhere if there was an election tomorrow.

 

Tellingly, over the same period support for UKIP amongst this age group has surged by five points, to 21%.

 

Of course, it would be reckless to purport these figures illustrate support switching from Conservative to UKIP over any one single issue.  That said, the polling does add weight to the suggestion that Conservative voters, no longer just activists, are being haemorrhaged to UKIP as a consequence of Cameron’s ‘equal marriage’ crusade.

 

It’s hardly a surprise that ‘equal marriage’ enjoys considerably less support amongst older voters.  What is, perhaps, more surprising is the criticism of Cameron’s leadership on the matter from those minded to vote UKIP, with a huge 74% being critical of the Prime Minister – this compares to figures of 51% and 31% amongst Labour and Conservative voters respectively.

 

With UKIP maintaining a consistent stance on marriage – they accused the government of ‘picking a fight’ with religious groups earlier this year – they are increasingly becoming the logical, the only, alternative for those of all political persuasions who are vehemently opposed to ‘equal marriage’.

 

Whilst I may indeed be guilty of making too many inferences from what is only two months’ polling, if these patterns are repeated in the months to come they will represent a major headache for the Prime Minister. (So watch out for more good news for pensioners in coming budgets).

 

Should Cameron fail to deliver a Conservative majority in 2015, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his door. It will not be because of the activity of UKIP, not even because of Cameron and Clegg’s civil partnership.

 

Cameron’s political obituary will lead with his electoral suicide over ‘equal marriage’ and his alienation of an entire generation of Conservatives.