I saw this today – Tory MP Made 734 Wrong Expenses Claims
Bob Blackman reminds me of someone a little closer to home: Martin Heatley.
Neither is fit to wipe Bert Crane’s shoes.
Yesterday one of the first things I saw was a status on facebook to tell me that Bert Crane had died on Tuesday.
I knew Bert from when I was very little – he was a friend of the family and a constant presence during my life in Crawley. This is partly because we were very much a Labour family, and based in West Green. But also because we liked him immensely.
In the 1950s, when he was becoming about the first ever Labour councillor elected in Crawley, my grandparents on both sides moved down with young children (they didn’t know each other then). They, along with Bert and many other were part of the New Town expansion and the establishment of the Labour Party.
My paternal grandfather joined him as a councillor in the late 1950s, but died in 1961. My father joined him as a councillor in the 1970s, and after the transfer from the UDC to the Borough Council he stepped back after me and my sister came along. I joined Bert as a councillor in 2000 and stood down four years later due to work commitments and the possibility of having to relocate. So Bert was not only a councillor continuously for 58 years, but he outlasted three generations of Richards.
He is often referred to a “Young Bert”, which is not some ironic teasing, but because in the 1950s his father was very active politically and well know locally and was also called Albert Crane (the Albert Crane Court in Ifield was named after the senior Bert). However, it was appropriate even as Bert aged, as he always had a twinkle in his eyes.
Aside from politics, the main thing that my family shared with Bert was supporting Fulham. It was always, umm, interesting to watch a game with him. Relentlessly pessimistic about the outcome, even if we were winning, but unfailingly loyal to the club even as it plummeted down the divisions. When we went to games, he would insist on going to the Putney End, the crumbling stand next to Bishop’s Park which was supposed to be for away supporters, because that’s where he’d always stood. It was at least a test of keeping quiet surrounded by opposition supporters in the 1980s.
Over the next few weeks I expect a lot will be said about Bert’s political life over the next few weeks. His energy, his deep knowledge of the workings of the Town Hall, his successes like the Greenfields sheltered housing. But he had a full life outside politics.
He was a stalwart supporter of the Arctic Convoys veterans’ association. I believe that he had not spent much time on the British Navy escorts taking the dangerous trips around Scandinavia to protect ships carrying material to aid the Soviet war effort in WWII. He was in the navy but my recollection is that he spent more time in the Pacific. But after the war, he did spend time in the Baltic and got to know many of the men who had survived those terribly costly convoys. At the time, he was unknowingly at grave danger himself from TB – a mix-up in test results at the end of the war that took two years to sort out meant that the disease had progressed disastrously. After being discharged and admitted to treatment, he was given a year to live. However, the use of antibiotics to treat TB had been shown to work only a few year before, and thanks to streptomycin, care from his parents and the newly created NHS, he survived. I like to think a fair degree of stubbornness on Bert’s part made a major difference.
I didn’t always agree with Bert, but that never seemed to affect our friendship. One day he did shout at me in the Council Chamber after I rebelled on a vote, and I recognise that we were both wrong and right at the same time about that: I was right about the issue (whether the council should investigate the causes of flooding across the town in 2000 and 2001), but wrong in how I’d approached it (ambushing the Labour Group with an amendment to the Tory motion rather than pushing the issue earlier). In the end, I got a rap across the knuckles and we had a proper review of flooding (instead of one only looking at Maidenbower, and around the corner from where Henry Smith lived, which was the extent of the Tory proposal). And Bert forgave my transgression, as I forgave his outburst.
As I moved out of Crawley 6 years ago, I hadn’t seen Bert much in recent years. He was still a serving councillor then, but his health was starting to fail and he stood down in 2012. The last main memory I have of him was when we celebrated his 50 years of council service by having a dinner (pie and mash-based) and Dennis Skinner was invited down to speak. Bert looked so happy, and so honoured, to be spoken of in high terms by a political hero.
But to be honest, my abiding memories tend to involve Sundays in the Labour Club, after a branch meeting talking over some beers, with a man with good humour, strong opinions and a caring heart.
Rest in Peace, Bert. You deserve it, mate.
Another year, another set of local elections and so another exciting* round-up of the local scene on this blog
(*warning: may not actually be very exciting)
The main headlines are that the Tories lost two seats, with the Liberal Democrats and Independents gained taking one each. Otherwise no seats changed hands. Now for the detail: Read the rest of this entry »
What happened was that there were some works going on at the Paddox end of Ashlawn Road, and Severn Trent had needed to dig a hole. They also put in 3-way lights at the junction with Hillmorton Road.
I also spoke to a local resident, who had some pictures (including the one the paper used) to show the impact.
Basically, because the lights were right on the corner and there were no signs to say it was a 3-way control, some drivers were jumping the lights when coming in from Hillmorton.
Also, because of the queues, impatient drivers were using Elms Drive as a rat run, a road which is usually very quiet and has a fair number of pedestrians crossing and cyclists using it.
What is worse, some people were entering Elms Drive from the eastern end – which is a No Entry.
Luckily no-one was injured or hurt, but someone told me that there had been a couple of near-misses.
The hole has been filled and the lights went during the week. But Severn Trent will apparently have to come back soon as they could only do temporary fixes and the damaged sewer will need a permanent work done. On the positive side, they will at least have to go to Warwickshire County Council who will be able to set out how they can close lanes/roads and use controls.
Having spoken to the WCC Highways department about it, they are aware of the issues, and I know that local residents spoke to them as well. I was also worried about safety – especially for the Tuesday morning when schoolkids would be trying to cross roads in the area – so I called the police and asked them to take a look.
I think going forward this is a serious challenge to the proposal to put traffic lights there permanently (which is related to the Mast Site housing development). The junction certainly needs improvement – being near Ashlawn School and on the main route from Rugby to the DIRFT, it gets very busy at peak times. But if lights just encourage drivers to break the law, and create congestion, then they may not be the right answer.
So, in less than 4 weeks’ time we will have another set of elections. The European Parliamentary ones (which I will vote in, and vote Labour, but are not the point of this post), and local ones. Here it is Rugby Borough Council up in thirds, with the first elections since the ‘all-out’ poll of 2012 when boundaries were last changed (the changes and the all-out nature mean that direct comparisons are not easy)
Anyway, ward by ward (* denotes an incumbent, bold is the Labour candidate)
Admirals & Cawston
Currently 3 Tories, Labour have been catching up over the years here – Mark Williams only held on by 44 votes in 2012. UKIP did not stand last time, so could make a difference. I predict Labour GAIN, but it will be close.
Gordon Davies (UKIP)
Gwen Hotton (Lib Dem)
Hamish Livingstone (Labour)
Peter Reynolds (Green)
Mark Williams* (Tory)
Solid Labour seat with over 50% of the vote most years. Labour HOLD
Lorna Lyttle (Tory)
Claire Sandison (Lib Dem)
James Shera* (Labour)
Bill Smith (TUSC)
Steve Wright (Green)
The safest Tory seat in the town area. Martin Walton (Tory) is not standing – he only became councillor last year in the byelection caused when David Wright stood down. Despite the merry-go-round, a Tory HOLD.
Michael Avis (Labour)
Chris Cade (Tory)
Kate Crowley (Green)
Lesley George (Lib Dem)
Stephen Roberts (TUSC)
Coton & Boughton
This includes a lot of northern Brownsover, and looks like being a close finish. Another Tory incumbent not standing – David Cranham (about whom more later). I will go out on a limb for another Labour GAIN with a former Conservative standing for UKIP.
Fiona Barrington-Ward (UKIP)
Zoe Reeves (Green)
Jill Simpson-Vince (Tory)
John Slinger (Labour)
Dunchurch and surroundings. In theory this is a solid Tory seat. But with a staunch anti-development Lib Dem and his wife holding it until he passed away a few years ago, and then a staunch anti-development Tory-turned-Independent winning one of the three seats last time, this could be an Independent GAIN. The Tory standing is the one who lost out in 2012, so Ian Lowe is not defending his place.
Kieren Brown (Labour)
Deepah Roberts (Ind)
Ian Spiers (Con)
David Wolskehl (Green)
My own stomping ground, but it will not be me standing here for Labour. I have decided to pioneer elsewhere, and let someone who really wants to win have a go. He has a chance, but the Lib Dems are putting all their resources in. David Cranham is standing for the Tories in a seat where they’ve been in 3rd for a while now. So clearly he’s out of favour. I’d say, unfortunately, a Lib Dem HOLD (but again a reduced majority over Labour).
David Cranham (Tory)
Phil Godden (Green)
Rob Jonson (TUSC)
Dale Keeling* (Lib Dem)
Steve Weston (Labour)
All three main parties contend for this one (which makes me wonder why UKIP don’t chance their arm here), with the Tories usually ahead. Labour are the main challengers and caught up with the same candidate in a by-election last year. Too close to call, but if I have to I think a very close Tory HOLD
Nigel Allen* (Tory)
Barbara Brown (Labour)
Tim Douglas (Lib Dem)
Tim McKenzie (Green)
Labour held and again pretty safe. Steve Birkett won a byelection in late 2012 after another Labour councillor moved away for work. Should be a Labour HOLD with over half the vote.
Steve Birkett* (Labour)
Charlie Hull (Tory)
Roy Sandison (Green)
Newbold & Brownsover
The other safe Labour seat. Brownsover South alone used to be very close, but the new seat was pretty solid last time. Dunsmore’s current Tory councillor, Ian Lowe pops up here, not defending his Dunsmore seat. Labour HOLD
Lorna Dunleavy (Green)
Chris Holman (Lib Dem)
Ian Lowe (Tory)
Ramesh Srivastava* (Labour)
As much as I would love to win, this is the safest Lib Dem seat in town. I do hope to reduce the majority a bit though, from second. Lib Dem HOLD
Greg Lyttle (Tory)
Amber Merrick-Potter (Green)
Noreen New* (Lib Dem)
Owen Richards (Labour)
Revel & Binley Woods
This contains some of the edges of Coventry (Hyacinth Bucket country), and like most areas outside the town of Rugby is pretty solid Tory. Of all of them, this is about the best chance for Labour, and it will be interesting to see if UKIP can pick up votes here too. Tory HOLD
John Birch (UKIP)
Doreen Cox (Labour)
Belinda Garcia* (Tory)
Roger Hill (Green)
Rokeby & Overslade
This is a true marginal – it is currently the only ‘split’ ward, returning 1 Labour (who topped the poll) and 2 Tories. The Lib Dems were not far behind. Kam Kaur is another Tory not defending her seat. Another close one. Would like to see a Labour GAIN
Julie A’Barrow (Tory)
Laurence Goodchild (Green)
Bill Lewis (Lib Dem)
Bill Scott (Labour)
Julie Weekes (TUSC)
Wolston & the Lawfords
Mainly rural and so likely to be Tory, even though yet again the incumbent, Claire Watson, is not standing. The UKIP candidate is a former Independent councillor and perennial campaigner, which may give them their best result in the Borough. Tory HOLD
David Ellis (Tory)
Pete McClaren (TUSC)
Emma Nuttall (Labour)
Ellie Roddick (Green)
Pat Wyatt (UKIP)
Wolvey & Shilton
Right in the northern corner of the Borough, this is the only single-member ward up this year. The incumbent is defending their seat for the Tories, despite a public spat with the Humph over planning last year. Tory HOLD
Rob Bevin (Labour)
Chris Pacey-Day* (Tory)
Louisa Taylor (Green)
My predictions (which are to be taken with a large dose of salt) give 3 Labour Gains and 1 Ind Gain, would bring a Hung Council (with the Tories one short of a majority):
6 Lib Dems
What is interesting is that there are four Tory councillors who are not defending their seats. Two of those have popped up as candidates in seats they are not likely to win, so it’s not exactly a ‘chicken run’. None of them appear to be particularly old so I don’t think it’s retirement. Are these signs that the local party are not happy with some of their representatives, or that certain councillors are lacking confidence in themselves?
In terms of candidates, Labour and the Tories are both fielding full slates of 14, one in each ward. As are the Greens, but they are not really gaining popularity based on the last few years of results. The Lib Dems have 8, which is not a good sign for them. TUSC (Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts) have 5, UKIP have 4, and there is one Independent.
[edited on 28th April as I had David Wright as the Tory in Bilton not defending their seat, rather than Martin Walton]
Just before the local elections kicked off officially, Rugby had a Full Council meeting. It lasted about 10 minutes, and had little business in it, except for a question from councillor. This is the exact text from the minutes:
QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 10.
Councillor Miss Lawrence asked the following question of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Humphrey:-
“Given the number and nature of questions that have been presented to Council and Cabinet by elected members and the public in the last year, does the Leader of the Council consider the amount of officer and member time spent on this process is justified ?”
Councillor Humphrey to reply as follows:-
“Our aim as a local authority is to be lean and efficient. That way we can provide the services that the people of Rugby want. Enquiries are dealt with, wherever possible, at the first point of contact, driving waste from the system.
We are open and transparent. It is therefore frustrating to note the volume of work created for officers from quarters within this Council. It often does little to help us deliver our corporate strategy, distracts us from being efficient and is often used to appease a different audience.”
I’m still trying understand what it means. I did ask the Rugby Tory party what their view was, as the question was from a Conservative councillor, and the answer from the Leader of their group (and of the council). The tweeted response was less than helpful:
@DanivonUK Questions aren’t asked as a political group, you would need to ask the councillor who asked the question.
— Rugby Conservatives (@RugbyTory) April 25, 2014
I am detecting a pattern here – Tories don’t like “questions”.
But to go back to the point of Cllr Lawrence’s question, and the answer…
What is interesting about it is that it does not tell us how many questions have been asked, or how much they ‘cost’ to answer. I can think of a way to save officer costs, though. Perhaps instead of insisting that the public (and councillors) present their questions in writing, days in advance to officers, and perhaps if the answers were not pre-arranged, officers would have less to do.
And perhaps the ‘value’ of allowing councillors to ask questions freely is that they get to do their job – holding the Council itself to account, overseeing the work of the officers, and representing their constituents.
And perhaps the ‘value’ of allowing the public to ask questions is to hold the councillors to account.
It seems to me that the only bit of democracy that Craig Humphrey and his cronies like is the elections bit (because they have been winning them). But the part where people have an open debate, oh no, that gets in the way, “distracts us from being efficient” etc.
It was asking awkward questions that helped to scupper the waste of money that was the “pedestrianisation” in the Town Centre.
And I am perhaps to blame in part for the idea that people are asking unfair questions of our ‘lords and masters’ at the Town Hall. Earlier in the month, this was my question to the Cabinet (I could not make the meeting myself as I had done my back in that day):
(i) The following question was received from Mr Owen Richards. Mr Richards did not attend the meeting.
“In recent media articles, it has been reported that the Borough Council has changed an aspect of housing policy, particularly affecting people who are homeless and going through local shelters. What was the basis for this change, and was it change determined by officers with or without reference to the Cabinet member responsible – was there any consultation with other councillors or the public?”
For reference, an excerpt from the Rugby Advertiser: http://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/local-news/homeless-figures-reachcrisis-levels-in-rugby-1-5920881
“Senior support worker Pete Wayman said many winter shelter guests automatically qualified for council help under what is called ‘band one provision’.
He said: “This meant that some guests were helped to leave the shelter and find accommodation much more quickly.
Published 9th April 2104
“The council housing team remain very supportive of us and do what they can but their recent decision to make winter shelter guests ‘band two’ only this winter has only added to our pressures.
“We have asked the council housing team to urgently reconsider this decision.”
Councillor Humphrey, Leader of the Council, responded as follows:
“The council has a responsibility to allocate fairly the limited number of council homes to local people. Prior to the review of the allocations policy in May 2013, on which we consulted widely in line with the Warwickshire Compact, local homeless people were being given different priority for housing depending on whether or not they had approached the winter night shelter or not. Now homeless people living rough or sofa surfing are placed into Band One, a high priority for social housing, if they are so vulnerable that the council has a statutory responsibility to house them, regardless of whether they have visited the winter shelter or not. Homeless people who are less vulnerable are placed into Band Two, which still gives them a good chance of being offered a council home. The council continues to work closely with people allocated this lower priority to find them housing with other providers, such as housing associations or private landlords.
Most recently, the council has had a number of discussions with those managing the winter night shelter, HOPE4, on this issue since the opening of this year’s night shelter, in part to discuss with our community partners the reasons for the changed approach.
As we review the allocations policy later this year, we will again be consulting widely with local community groups in line with the Warwickshire Compact. We are happy to revisit this issue then, but I must be clear that fairness in letting scarce public housing will be at the centre of any changes”
First of all, I don’t understand why Craig Humphrey answered, rather than the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing. Secondly, this does not actually answer my question.
It really is simple – who changed the policy? Which councillors were involved or consulted? Why can’t you share with the public the ‘reasons for the changed approach’?
I tell you what, these question thingies may or may not be ‘value for money’, but perhaps if the leader of the council answered them (and truthfully), it would help a lot.
Rugby has been covered by quite a few Boundary Reviews lately:
In 2004 there were changes to the County Council boundaries, which came into force in the 2005 elections. Another one is on the cards at the moment, and it is about due after 10 years.
In 2010 we had the first elections after the Parliamentary boundaries in Warwickshire were changed. Rugby & Kenilworth lost the Kenilworth bit (and MP Jeremy Wright) to a new constituency of Kenilworth & Southam, but the new Rugby seat gained the village of Bulkington – much to the chagrin of the Bulkingtonians.
After 2010 there was the national review provoked by the coalition’s wish to reduce the number of MPs, which would have seen a ‘Rugby’ that stretched all the way down to the M40 near Banbury. That review was killed off by the Lib Dems when they did not get their way on Lords Reform.t
In 2012 we had a set of all-out elections after changes to the Borough Council boundaries. This reduced the number of councillors, and dealt with the changes in population that had already happened and were likely with planned development.
So you’d think that we’d not have another one for a while. And that if anything, the least likely one to need a re-do was the one we’d just had. But of course you are not the genius Craig Humphrey, Rugby’s answer to Vladimir Putin (thankfully less often topless).
You see, because of some spat with the Warwickshire Tory heirarchy over whether there should be a county-wide Unitary Authority, and because autocrats love an opportunity to reduce the prospect for dissent, it makes perfect sense to change all our council boundaries. And to reduce the number of councillors from 42 to “30-35″.
And because in order to start one this year, a council needs to contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) by early April, a report was knocked up in a hurry and rushed through an ‘emergency’ Full Council meeting last night.
And what a report it is. Shoddy does not come close.
It claims that since the 2012 review, “a number of factors have emerged that mean we need to request a review of electoral arrangements and council size.” And they are, in full, deconstructed below.
The Government’s programme of reducing local government funding means that we
must review all aspects of our services, including electoral arrangements and
council size. We believe that we have substantial local reasons to make changes
that will provide synergy with this national priority and provide a sustainable basis
for adapting to future population growth:
The government was making cuts to local government funding well before 2012 – pretty much since the 2010 election is was clear. Interestingly, Rugby has been fairly lucky in that the building of hundreds of new houses provides it with a “New Homes Bonus” income that keeps council tax down. But this is not new. Oh, and anyone who uses the word ‘synergy’ should at least understand what it means. Ignore the colon at the end, it’s erroneous.
Rugby is currently undergoing considerable change as the fastest-growing borough
in the West Midlands and the latest expectations of further growth are different to
those envisaged in 2011/12 at the time of the last review. Several housing and
employment development schemes are underway, with more to follow within the
next 10 years. Our ability to provide effective and sustainable electoral
arrangements must therefore reflect the revised housing growth pattern within the
The main new development in the Borough is the housing planned for the Mast Site between Hillmorton and the DIRFT. This was already allowed for in the boundary review of 2012, which is why Hillmorton and Clifton are both currently over-represented and over the next 5-ten years that will balance out. When they are done, it would make sense to have another review then.
During the past 3 years, Rugby Borough Council through a close partnership
between the Leader and Cabinet, Executive Directors and Heads of Service. We
now have conclusive evidence that this innovative arrangement has been of great
benefit. In addition, in September 2013 an LGA Peer Group Review report
confirmed the efficacy of our executive arrangements, approving them as a model
of best practice. We now wish to build on this model across applicable areas of the
Authority, enabling greater involvement by Councillors working closely with Council
It’s been of great benefit to the Leader, who acts as if he is also the Chief Executive of the Council, and has taken it upon himself to push other councillors out of the usual pattern of representing RBC on outside bodies. Essentially, this is about the desire to change the council body from being a set of representatives of the public, into a group who are so closely working with senior officers that they are co-opted. Reducing their representative role
The authority has applied “systems thinking” techniques towards the delivery of
services during the past 5 years, resulting in streamlined practices and structures
that deliver better services at reduced costs. We now wish to deploy considerations
towards electoral arrangements, the size of our council and the way councillors and
officers work together.
I get enough of this corporate BS working for or with large financial companies in my time in IT. This is meaningless except for the key parts – ‘streamlined’. What do councillors do? They set policy, they represent the public, they challenge each other and they hold the council officers to account. Streamlining that means less of it.
Warwickshire County Council’s recent budget consultation demonstrated public
opinion that there are too many councillors for the work that needs doing, and that
the reduction in costs associated with electing and supporting fewer councillors
should contribute towards the spending reductions needed in the public sector. It is
worth noting that this was specifically aimed at the county council, which needs to
identify £92million of cuts and is struggling to meet this target. Nevertheless,
ignoring the financial considerations and taking into account the local context
where neighbouring district authorities have 36 (Daventry District Council),
37 (Harborough District Council), 35 (North Warwickshire Borough Council) and 34
councillors (Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council), there is clearly a view
among the general public that there should be fewer councillors.
This conflates several things – the WCC review was asking for people to identify £92m in cuts, and politicians being unpopular it was an easy target (but would have saved tuppence-ha’penny compared to the real cuts WCC is making). Elections cost money, but that is the price of democracy. It would be cheapest not to hold any elections and just live in a dictatorship, but as a nation we rejected (and fought wars against) that kind of thing. And looking at neighbouring councils to just compare the number of councillors is not enough. Population and make-up would be factors too…
Daventry (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 78,100 – people per councillor 2169
Harborough (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 85,700 – people per councillor 2316North Warks (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 62,000 – people per councillor 1771
Nuneaton and Bedworth (mainly urban) – pop 125,400 – people per councillor 3688
Rugby (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 100,500 – people per councillor 2393 – already more than the similar neighbouring councils cited.
If we went to 35 councillors, that would change to 2871 people per councillor. If we went to 30 councillors, it would be 3350, about double that of North Warks.
Interestingly, the nearby councils of Warwick (46 councillors) and Stratford-upon-Avon (53 councillors) were not used for comparison, despite both being immediate neighbours of Rugby. Warwick has 2993 people per councillor, and Stratford District has 2279
Basically, Rugby has a lower ‘density’ of councillors than most of these comparators, and a higher one only than two – both of which are more compact and more urban.
Also, public hostility to politicians is not new, and neither is the make-up of any of these other districts and boroughs, so it was known in 2012.
Rugby Borough Council are also keen to incorporate Central Government’s desire
to reduce the cost of Politics. We believe that by reducing the number of
Councillors to between 30 and 34 there will be a minimal annual saving of at least
£80,000. This amount added to the savings that will be created from changing from
election by thirds to all out elections will generate substantial savings.
Ignore the fact that the numbers change (sometimes it’s 30-35 councillors, others it’s 30-34). What is the basis for the ‘belief’ that there will be savings of at least £80k?
A councillor’s allowance is £5,214. Even if you removed 12 councillors (down to 30), that would only save £62,528. If you took the lower saving option of removing 7 (to 35) it’s down to £36498. So where does the other £45k come from?
Not to mention that councillors’ allowances are based on recommendations from an Independent Panel. Who look at, among other things, the number of people they represent. If you increase that from c.2400 to c.2800, they are likely to suggest a higher allowance, diluting any savings.
Nowhere in the report is the £80k figure broken down. It is asserted, but never substantiated by anything more than ‘belief’.
The changes to our electoral arrangements and council size are based upon :-
o All-out elections from 2016
o A reduction in the number of Councillors to between 30 and 35
o A baseline of 2700 electors per ward
All-out elections are not really the issue – the boundary commission has no real say in that and the Council could move to them if they wanted to. They had the chance to in 2012 and, largely through Tory opposition, did not. So what changed?
The reduction in the of number of councillors is vague, but the ‘baseline of 2700 electors’ is oddly specific. It also is leading toward single-member wards, which is fine for rural areas with lots of small parishes, but in urban areas it means lots of tiny wards with odd boundaries (not that Rugby is a stranger to that thanks to recent reviews).
We wish to reinforce our compliance with provisions within the Local Government
Act 2000 regarding effective and transparent decision-making.
Why just this Act and not the several others since (2002, 2003, 2007, 2010)? And why not the spirit of the legislation on Boundary Reviews that they should not take place within five years of the last one?
Last night the Tories forced through the report to approach the LGBCE, despite the faulty reasoning given. Because they are Humphrey’s little followers now.