Paul Johnston

Council last night debated at length some changes to our constitutional practice which were the result of six years' experience and extensive work by an outside consultant. There was all party agreement which followed all party participation in the discussions upon which the proposed changes were based. Key to the whole reform was that the new single Scrutiny Panel should have an opposition majority, so that the Executive/Cabinet could be held more closely to account than has been possible under the existing arrangement, whereby the Administration party has majorities on the current five overview Panels.

To be accepted all councillors had to vote for the change. This is some legal anomaly such as one might expect in an Act of the Blair government. One member out of 48 is able to block the collective will of the other 47 - a curious revival of the 'liberum veto' which prevailed in the Polish 'szlachta', before Poland was dismembered by its neighbours in the late 18th century. Well, it happened last night. All present voted for the agreed structure save one, the enfant terrible of the Kingston Labour Party.

Principle or pigheadedness? You pays your money, you takes your choice!

Amused to read a Focus put out by Berrylands Liberal Democrats. It states that a petition supporting objections to a flag pole phone mast in my Ward is being presented by their MP.

Of all the brass cheek! The petition, signed by 295 residents, mainly of Surbiton Hill ward, was presented to Council last night by me, as their ward Councillor. Mr. Edward Davey MP was nowhere in sight.

I just wonder where the Berrylands Lib Dems got this untrue story, which they have published to over 6000 people. I wonder if the source was the same member of Mr. Davey's office who failed to tell my constituent that his boss has no role in planning matters...............

An email today suggests that the staffing level in Kingston Council has risen by 1200 since 2000. Another email 2 days ago from the Sustainability Officer (I think that's his title - or one of them) reveals the existence of a Travel Awareness Officer(sic). Whether this official is employed to advise mobile citizens that they are moving when they thought they were standing still is something I doubt. Much more likely s/he is employed to persuade citizens that they should walk more, take more bus rides and leave their evil cars at home. All very worthy no doubt and in response to another 'target' from the most nannyish government in British History. But what an egregious waste of that scarce commodity, the money that belongs to our Council tax payers, now about to pay the highest Council Tax in London.

The problem with the approach to staffing which the nanny state approach of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats creates is that ever more bureaucrats are recruited to deal with ever more 'problems'. Their whole career path depends on these 'problems' never being solved but growing and getting worse. Anything else would put them out of work. They are themselves increasingly clients of the state or Council that employs them and a major interest group within the electorate. Where will it end, I wonder?

The London Borough elections are on 4th May. Today I had a lengthy interview with the Electoral Registration Officer about the arrangements. Not only am I defending my own ward, I am also acting as Borough Agent for all the Conservative candidates in Kingston. There are 48 in all!

This year, for the first time, polling hours will be the same as at General Elections, 7a.m to 10 p.m. I seriously doubt if this will have any impact on the turnout. The most significant factor is that there will be something like 15,000 postal voters across the Borough, which is roughly 15% of the electorate. The votes of most of these will already have been cast before the polling stations open. Let us hope that those cast are all cast in secret by the people to whom they have been sent.

Last night's Panorama (www.bbc.co.uk/Panorama) on BBC1 TV highlighted the plight of many of our people who need long term care because of disability caused by either lifelong conditions or by conditions they have acquired in life by accident, by disease or simply by getting old.

If their condition is rated as being 'medical', they are entitled in Britain to free care on the National Health. If, on the other hand, their condition is regarded as requiring primarily 'social' help (like getting up in the morning, going to the toilet etc.) they become the province of local authority Social Services and are likely to have to pay according to their means.

The point of the programme was twofold:

1. There is a very fine line between what constitutes 'medical' and 'social' care and there are budget pressures being applied by the NHS to classify as much as possible as 'social'.

2. This is resulting in more and more people being forced to realise capital by selling their homes to pay for care which the NHS says should be free.

The experience my Overview Panel had over the means testing of domiciliary care suggests a third point: people caught by meanstesting resent the intrusion and indignity involved and will sometimes go without services they need rather than submit to it.

Now I'm a believer in low taxes. You could call me a Thatcherite and I wouldn't be in the least offended. BUT - and this is a good reflection for Lent - for no good merit of my own, I have so far been spared having to live with the difficulties in life I see other people having to cope with through no fault of their own. It's surely a duty imposed by conscience to do all in one's power to enable those who do have to cope to do so with as much dignity and support as our society can manage - and not to be made to feel that they are scrounging on the state in seeking the support they need.

I am proud that our Group proposed measures at Budget Council to remove means testing from domiciliary care and saddened that our amendment to that effect was not supported by the Lib Dem Administration or its supporters.

Visited this last Tuesday with Priyen, our researcher.

It's dangerous, in my view. We saw a near concertina accident when one bus slowed down to go through the gate. Cars following couldn't see the gate and probably had no idea what the bus was doing and nearly ran into it.

The cycle lane on the slip road is dangerous as any bus going down the road completely occupies it. The only safe place for a cyclist when a bus comes down is on the pavement. What then happens to pedestrians?

A bus going too fast on the A3 overshot the gate and had to stay on the dual carriageway. Even so it managed to stop at the same place it would have stopped at if it had used the gate. So what use is the gate anyway?

I'm told there was a councillor on the first bus to go through the gate for the official opening. She allegedly declined to get off and meet residents. I wonder who it was............