Week 39.10 28th Sept. 2010

Tendring Topics…….on Line

Pope Benedict’s Visit

I thought that it was probably wise to withhold comment on the Pope’s official visit to Britain until he had safely returned to Rome. Had I dared to do so while he was still here, fate would probably have arranged some unexpected triumph or disaster!

I am very glad that his visit proved to be a great success and was marked neither by the apathy that had been prophesied by much of the press, nor by the widespread protest and outrage that had been joyfully anticipated by some of our proselytising enemies of religion. There were protestors it is true, but fewer than had been anticipated and with very diverse causes. Peter Tatchell and his disciples haven’t really all that much in common with Rev. Ian Paisley and his, nor have campaigners for women priests, abortion-on-demand enthusiasts, and victims of the appalling child abuse scandal, a great deal of common ground.

I wasn’t impressed with the argument that none of the cost of the Pope’s visit should have been met out of taxation. Remember the much greater cost of the State Visit of the King of Saudi Arabia with his enormous entourage. He is arguably the ruler of the least liberal country in the world and the one with the least respect or regard for human rights? I did resent having to help pay for his luxurious welcome.

At a meeting of ‘the big three’ during World War II when Churchill, or possibly Roosevelt, spoke of the importance of keeping the Pope ‘on side’, Stalin is said to have asked sarcastically, ‘And how many army divisions does the Pope command?’ Today, I suppose the equivalent question would be, ‘How many oil wells does the Pope control – and how many jet fighters is he prepared to buy?’

The child abuse scandal did cast a shadow over the visit. I wouldn’t wish to enter into historical or theological controversy but I do feel that the Roman Catholic rule of clerical celibacy has a lot to answer for, and not a great deal to justify its continuation. The Gospels tell us that St. Peter, the ‘rock’ on which the Universal Church of Christ was built, was a married man. A celibate priesthood was not insisted upon during the first thousand years of the Church’s history, and it is known that that some of Pope Benedict’s late-medieval predecessors, although unmarried, were hardly role models of celibacy.

Much was heard from commentators about the fact that the Pope was welcomed in Westminster Hall, where Sir Thomas More (St. Thomas More to Roman Catholics) had been condemned to be beheaded for obeying his conscience in defiance of King Henry VIII. Thomas More was by no means the only victim of 16th century intolerance. It would have been a nice gesture of reconciliation had Pope Benedict made a short pilgrimage to Oxford to spend a few minutes in silence before the Martyrs Memorial. There he could have remembered Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops Latimer and Ridley and many others who were burnt to death (a far more agonising death than beheading) for obeying their consciences in defiance of King Henry’s daughter, the staunchly Roman Catholic Queen Mary.

It would have been a salutary reminder to us all that while a conviction that God is on our side can inspire us to great heights of heroism and self-sacrifice, it can also lead us to inflict unspeakable cruelties on our fellow men and women, unless we give primacy to Jesus Christ’s golden rule ‘Treat other people exactly as you would wish them to treat you!’ Those who kill, mutilate or torture their fellow men and women never have God on their side. ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it (good or bad) unto even the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me!’ said Jesus and, in teaching us to pray to ‘Our Father in Heaven….’, he acknowledged all of us to be his brethren.

Two views on ‘the deficit'

I welcomed Nick Clegg’s recent affirmation of the Coalition Government’s determination to end income tax evasion (which is illegal) and curb income tax avoidance (which sadly isn’t). These activities result in an annual loss to the exchequer of millions of pounds. They are, said Mr Clegg, as bad as benefit fraud. It could be argued that they are much worse, because serious income tax avoiders certainly don’t need the money that they avoid paying. Many are very wealthy individuals who imagine that, because of their wealth, they should be immune from nuisances like the tax demands that burden lesser folk.

Why should they help to pay for the NHS? They can have the pick of the very best surgeons if they need one. Education? They send their kids to posh private (probably called ‘public’!) schools. Police? They have their own security, and their hired guards aren’t hampered by the pettifogging rules that obstruct official police forces.

Anyway, they hire the very best lawyers and accountants to make sure that their tax avoidance is both effective and absolutely legal. Nick Clegg claimed, and I have no doubt he is right, that making sure that multi-millionaires pay minimal, if any, tax has become a lucrative industry. It certainly gives a new slant on the concept of living on immoral earnings!

I wish the government all success with its endeavours, but I’m not holding my breath. The tax avoiders can hire the very best lawyers and accountants. Can a government determined to cut public services afford to hire even better ones?

Needless to say the views of the Confederation of British Industry (“the bosses’ TUC”) are very different from Nick Clegg’s. They have their eyes on ‘benefits’. Not, of course, that they want to abolish them. Perish the thought! They do feel though that some benefits, Child Allowances and the pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance for instance, should be means tested so that funds can be diverted to the really needy. I hadn’t heard really needy enunciated quite so unctuously since the departure of Mrs Thatcher from the political scene!

What the CBI and the top politicians, of all parties, overlook is that there is already in force a Means Testing mechanism that assesses everybody’s income and extracts contributions in accordance with ability to pay. It is called Income Tax. It needs only to be progressively and properly graded to ensure that it demands a fair proportion of everyone’s wealth, and tightened up so as to eliminate both tax evasion and tax avoidance. Then it would claw-back unneeded universal benefit, eliminate the need for any other means testing, and ensure that we all shared fairly the burden of closing the deficit.

Beach alert as Sunshine Coast is named skin cancer hotspot

Now there’s a headline calculated to create panic in hundreds of homes! Families who spent a happy holiday here this year will be searching their backs and arms for unaccustomed moles or warts. Those who were thinking of spending a holiday in Clacton (or Brightlingsea, Walton, Frinton or Dovercourt) next year will be having second thoughts. As for us natives, we’ll be seeking urgent appointments with our doctors!

The headline was in the Coastal Daily Gazette on Monday of last week (20th Sept.) and it could hardly have given a more inaccurate impression. Mind you, another accompanying scare headline AREA IN WORST 20 FOR MALIGNANT MELANOMA (yes, it was in black capital letters!) if carefully read, suggested that the situation might not be quite as desperate as had been suggested.

‘In the worst 20?' Well, since Malignant Melanoma is usually caused by over-exposure of unprotected skin to sunshine, it would have been astonishing if East Anglia’s seaside areas had not been more prone to the condition than, for instance, London, Birmingham or Manchester – though almost certainly less prone than Spain’s Costa del Sol or the south of France, where so many Brits. head for their holidays.

In fact we are 18th – only just within the worst 20, wherein are also to be found such famous holiday towns and areas as Bournemouth, the South Devon coast and the Isle of Wight. This means that there are seventeen British holiday areas more dangerous than we are. They must surely include almost every other holiday resort in southern and eastern England.

Our incidence of malignant melanoma is higher than the national average but remember that that average is brought down by inland towns in the Midlands and North-West, better known for their high rainfall than their hours of sunshine. It is also true, and is included in the small print of the Gazette’s news story, that mortality from Melanoma in our area is below the national average thanks to early detection and good treatment.

I reckon that that Gazette headline would have been at least as accurate had it read, Essex Sunshine Coast is well down danger list for skin cancer – and local victims have better than average chance of recovery! But there, good news doesn’t make good headlines!

Tendring Careline speaks for itself on www.tendringcareline.co.uk !

It is now nine months since I signed on as one of the many clients of Tendring Careline, the telephone SOS service available throughout our district, principally to enable old and/or disabled folk like me to get instant help in an emergency. At that time I had recently had a fall. It had been out of doors and my son and daughter-in-law were with me at the time. Consequently I suffered nothing worse than a black eye and broken glasses.

It made me realize though how much worse the situation could have been had I been alone and at home. I might very well have been unable to get onto my feet again without help – and no help would have been available. I am very fortunate in having concerned and caring neighbours, but it would have been many hours before they, or anyone else, realized that anything was amiss.

At about that time Essex County Council (never backward when it comes to self-congratulation!) were publicising what they claimed was their telephonic home-care alarm system, with a ‘special offer’ of a free service for twelve months for new clients over eighty. They could have had me in mind! I contacted County Hall Chelmsford and was a little surprised when a very friendly and helpful lady turned up in a Tendring Council van. It appeared that this ‘new’ County Council service was the tried-and-tested Tendring Careline run by the district council. I remembered having written about it in Tendring Topics ‘in print’ in the Coastal Express when it was first launched in the 1980s. It was now vastly expanded and with thousands, rather than just a few hundred, clients.

The last nine months have been fairly uneventful for me. I haven’t needed the Careline service. I have though, as requested when the system was installed, remembered to press the red button on that gadget round my neck (had I preferred it could have been on a bracelet round my wrist) once a month, to hear a cheery voice asking if I am OK – and to know that the system is working properly. Meanwhile, as I approach my ninetieth birthday, I am conscious of becoming frailer, less steady on my feet and more and more grateful for the Careline safety net. When my ‘get one free’ period ends in the New Year, I shall gladly pay my £16.80 a month (I think I’ll be VAT exempt) for continued protection and reassurance.

Now Tendring Careline has its own web site ( www.tendringcareline.co.uk ). On it you’ll find everything you need to know about the local careline service, including the answer to questions that it might not even have occurred to you to ask! I was very pleased to note that under ‘Testimonials’ there is a very long extract from the blog that I posted onto this website when I first had the Careline installed. Today, I wouldn’t change a word of it!

If either you, or friends or relatives, are old, living alone and vulnerable, do click on that website and find out what Tendring Careline has to offer. Sign on with Tendring Careline and you’ll sleep more easily for knowing that, whatever happens, there’s a friendly voice on hand offering practical help and reassurance.

Week 38.10 21st Sept. 2010

Tendring Topics……on line

An Outbreak of Truth – and Common Sense!

Yes, there does seem to have been a worrying outbreak of truth and common sense recently. There is no cause for alarm though. It is probably just a mild attack that won’t spread and from which we can hope for a complete recovery.

Here are a few of the more distressing symptoms: The Governor of the Bank of England, addressing the members of the Trades Union Congress (whom The Sun could have told him were ‘a bunch of loony lefties’) confessed that the current financial crisis was not, as had previously been thought, all the fault of the previous government; nor even that of work-shy receivers of benefit and public services. The causes were the greed and incompetence of ‘the financial sector’, bankers like himself. The members of the TUC were, he went on to say, ‘right to be angry’. Fortunately he refrained from suggesting ways in which those who were responsible for the crisis might be made to pay their share of the cost of its remedy, thus easing the burden of those who were innocent. That would have suggested that his condition was terminal!

Nor was the Bank of England’s Governor alone in showing worrying symptoms. The East Anglian Daily Times, is a very good and reliable regional newspaper. I always enjoy reading it and have recently greatly appreciated its ‘readers letters page’. Its core readership consists of comfortably off residents of small towns and rural communities in Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex. It would, I think, be fair to describe its political position as ‘centrist’ though with a tendency to veer to the right. It has certainly never before, to my knowledge, strayed to the left of that centre line.

Yet below is an extract from a leading article on Tuesday 14th September, below a less-than-snappy headline Greed is not good:

‘Some people appear oblivious to reality and devoid of common sense. Many FTSE 100 firms have cut costs because of the recession – a euphemism that invariably means staff have been axed. Yet executive bonuses are close to pre-financial crisis levels. Average bonuses for directors equated with 100 percent of salary. That displays no sign of empathy with those less fortunate…………

…………It is an affront to their fellow men when those who enjoy comfortable lives abuse their positions. Let’s hope that, one day, they realize it and act rather less selfishly.

. Not exactly a rabble-rousing call to ‘Raise the red flag and man the barricades!’ but, for the East Anglian Daily Times, a worrying lurch to the Left.

So much for Truth; how about Common Sense?

Well, if Honesty is the Best Policy (though it is rather sad if that is the only reason for adopting it!) it follows that the pursuit of Truth must be Common Sense. What I actually had in mind though was that the question of whether or how we should replace Britain’s Trident independent nuclear deterrent may possibly be left until after the next General Election*. To renew it would cost billions of pounds at a time when we are told we must save every penny. I hope that, by the time of the next election a comfortable majority of voters will have realized that Trident isn’t independent (can you imagine it being used, or even used as a threat, without the approval of the USA?) and it hasn’t yet deterred anybody.

It didn’t deter Turkey from invading Cyprus, Israel from invading Lebanon, Georgia from invading South Ossetia, and Russia responding by invading Georgia. It didn’t deter the USA and its allies from invading Grenada, Argentina from invading the Falklands, or Iraq from invading Kuwait. Its use against a non-nuclear state is unthinkable and its use against a nuclear one would result in Mutually Assured Destruction. How appropriate that the acronym for such a policy is MAD!

The armed forces, like every other field of human activity, have to face cuts. Considering all that members of the present government have said about their predecessors starving troops in Afghanistan of necessary equipment, they can hardly look in that direction for savings. It has been suggested that the building of two new aircraft carriers might be cancelled. I hope not – not because to do so would deprive an impoverished area of Scotland of much-needed jobs – but because the giant craft are pieces of ‘defence equipment’ the use of which is not limited to the killing of our fellow men and women.

Aircraft carriers, and the aircraft they carry can be, and have been, used for the relief of man-made and natural humanitarian disasters. They can carry vast quantities of badly needed relief and reconstruction supplies and can be used to evacuate threatened civilian populations. They are the very last items of war equipment that should be considered for sacrifice.

*This now seems to be in doubt. An official spokesman says that it has already been decided ‘in principle’ to renew the Trident programme. Others seem less certain. We’ll just have to wait and see.

A real cause for concern

I have just watched on tv the ‘distribution’ of desperately needed food to a starving community in flood stricken Pakistan. I have put ‘distribution’ in quotes because it was, in fact, a riot demonstrating a practical application of Darwin’s theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ . Those who were fittest and strongest grabbed the food that they and their families needed. The weakest went hungry – and are destined to become even weaker! Long before the truck was emptied, the driver for his own safety and that of his helpers, drove away – with the truck still full of food-grabbing rioters!

It was an incident that underlines the need for ‘the West’ to do much, much more, not only to provide more help for Pakistan but to ensure that aid is distributed fairly and competently. The situation is dangerous, not just for the people of Pakistan but for all of us. How long do you suppose it will take Taliban fanatics to persuade a starving population that all their troubles, the deluge and its aftermath, are God’s punishment for their government’s support of the infidel British and Americans? The remedy, they will urge, is in their own hands!

Don’t forget that Pakistan is a country that has nuclear weapons and, thanks to unstinting military aid from the west, the means to use them. I reckon that the fact that both India and Pakistan and, not too far away, Israel, actually possess nuclear weapons is something that should be giving us many more sleepless nights than the fear that Iran may, just possibly, be trying to acquire them!

It seems but yesterday………

And, in reality, it wasn’t very long ago, that Clacton’s Pier Avenue had its layout altered, its pavements widened and re-laid, and was provided with new vandal-resistant street furniture. There was also the famous or infamous town centre water feature, about which I wrote – over-optimistically it seems! – last week.

I think that we Clactonians have now accustomed ourselves to the new town centre. As a mobility scooter user (and there are nowadays quite a few of us!) I very much appreciate the wide, smooth-surfaced, footpaths.

Work in progress in Pier Avenue (Sept. 2010)

Now though, believe it or not, they’re at it again! Tendring District and Essex County Councils are spending £325,000 narrowing the seaward section of Pier Avenue to a single lane, widening footpaths, improving street lights and CCTV, and planting trees.

Admirable, perhaps – but aren’t we supposed to be at the very beginning of a financial crisis in which we have all been warned to expect cuts in or the abandonment of essential public services, never mind new projects that are, at best, of dubious benefit.

If the two councils really have over a quarter of a million pounds ‘in the kitty’ that simply must be spent on Clacton’s highways, I would have thought a better objective for their prodigality would have been the repair of the broken, uneven and dangerous-to-pedestrians footpaths in many parts of the town.


Right - footpath in Clacton's Anchor Road (Sept. 2010)

Twice the Prime Minister’s pay packet!

Once again we find the Prime Minister’s salary used as a benchmark for wealth. Joanna Killian, Essex County Council’s Chief Executive, is said to have a salary of £285,000 a year, almost double his! Ms Killian, who has held the post with the County Council since 2006, was also appointed Chief Executive to Brentwood Borough Council a year later. That £285,000 must be the salary for both jobs. She surely can't be drawing another six figure salary from Brentwood!

It seems too that she is a firm believer in ‘no expense spared’. In 2009 she used a council credit card to pay for a staff member, who had been struck down with food poisoning at an office event, to take a room at Claridges Hotel in Mayfair. She also spent £270 on champagne for two officials from Kent County Council who had helped with an Essex project and £55 (just small change really!) on flowers for another colleague.

I am not all that interested in comparing her salary with that of the Prime Minister. He does, after all, enjoy other worthwhile perks. I wonder how it compares with other professionally qualified colleagues at County Hall. They all, I am sure, do difficult and important jobs serving the public. They couldn’t do her job – but then I’d be very surprised if she could do theirs. One of the reasons why there is such an enormous gap between the highest and the lowest paid employees of the council is the practice of paying staff percentage pay increases. This enables top earners to claim, ‘I had just the same pay increase as my secretary and my PA’, while pocketing thousands of pounds more. With every national percentage pay increase the gap between the highest and the lowest widens. As I have pointed out before in this blog, five percent of not-very-much is very little. Even one percent of a six-figure salary can be a considerable sum.

One thing that I find really extraordinary is that Ms Killian should simultaneously be chief executive of Essex County Council and of Brentwood Borough Council. When I was appointed Clacton’s Housing Manager and again when I became Tendring Council’s PRO (both infinitely less important and infinitely less well paid than a CEO!) it was stressed that I should devote all my time to my work and could not take any other paid employment. I had to get the Council’s permission to pursue my freelance writing, which was by that time earning me a few hundred pounds a year. They agreed when I explained that my writing was a hobby and that, unlike most hobbies that cost money to pursue, mine actually made a little money. They would certainly never have agreed to my taking on a part-time job with another authority!

Quite apart from the principle involved there must surely have sometimes been a conflict of interest. In my experience County Councils and their constituent District and borough Councils don’t always agree.

Mind you, I had been astonished – a few weeks ago - when I learned that the wife of the County Council’s Head of Communications (now on leave of absence) was a senior officer in the same department (she has now resigned). Essex County Council is clearly a law unto itself in these matters!

Week No. 37.10 14th Sept. 2010

Tendring Topics…….on line

Prophetic Topics?

Hardly; the fact that likely future events mentioned in this blog often actually occur a week or so later, doesn’t mean that I have the gift of second sight. It is simply that the probable result of some political actions is blindingly obvious to anyone endowed with common sense, devoid of party dogma and immune to the headlines of the popular press.

I wrote, some time ago, that since much of the private sector depends upon the public sector for its work, savage cuts in the public sector were likely to affect private firms before their public authority customers. And so it has. Recently I learned that 5,000 small private firms, contractors of services to local authorities, were already in financial difficulties. The private and public sectors were, I said, like conjoined twins – whatever, good or bad, is done to one of them will inevitably affect the other.

That was just small contractors. Now we learn that the division of the giant building maintenance organisation Connaught, that deals with the upkeep of social housing countrywide, is in financial trouble with thousands of job losses. That is just the immediate result of the cuts. The other, and less easily remedied, effect will be neglected repair and regular maintenance and the descent of social housing into irredeemable slums.

On a recent tv news programme the presenter asked randomly selected members of the public if they would prefer the government to try to reduce ‘the deficit’ by cutting benefits, or services. Most, no doubt inspired by press headlines about ‘benefit cheats’, unhesitatingly replied ‘benefits’ – until they were reminded that ‘benefits’ included child allowances, rent and tax rebates, retirement pensions, free tv licences, bus passes, winter fuel allowance and so on. Many of those interviewed imagined that ‘benefits’ just meant large sums of money paid to ‘other people’ the majority whom were layabouts and/or cheats.

A very great many people (I am among them) are in receipt of some kind of benefit. It can’t be too strongly stressed that, just as the vast majority of young people are not violent drunken hooligans, and the vast majority of Muslims have no sympathy whatsoever with terrorists, the vast majority of people in receipt of benefit are not cheats.

What should have been asked was, would you prefer the government to reduce the deficit by cutting benefits and services to the public, or by modest increases in direct taxes such as income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax?

Cutting services, reducing benefits and increasing indirect taxes like VAT and excise duties on such items as tobacco, alcohol and petrol, disproportionately penalise the poor. Income tax rises would affect a wide swathe of society from some with relatively low incomes (they would certainly affect me!) to the seriously wealthy. They would claw back some of the ‘benefits’ from those who didn’t need them and – by their very nature – they are only demanded from those who are able to pay them.

Funny thing, the idea of an extra penny in the pound on the standard rate of income tax, which would reduce no one to penury but would raise a great deal of money, appears not even to have been considered.

I would find it easier to accept all this stuff from the present Chancellor about belt tightening, what the country can and cannot afford, and how we all shall have to suffer, if I could only forget that, just a year or two ago he and Lord Mandelson (then a Labour Government Minister) were together enjoying the hospitality of a multi-millionaire on his luxury yacht. I wonder how much discomfort, never mind suffering, their then host will have to suffer?

Clacton’s Water Feature is back

Recently I expressed my regret at the fact that Clacton’s much criticised and crisis-ridden water feature seemed to have been turned off forever. It had had a short ‘normal’ life during which it had brightened up the town centre. On warm days adventurous children had plunged through its jets to the entertainment of passers by. Sadly though, it appeared that by doing so they were risking their health and safety. The feature didn’t have an adequate water purification plant. Goodness knows what dire pollution may not have been introduced into the ever-circulating water by stray cats, dogs and passing seagulls!


Last summer it made a brief appearance behind a steel fence, intended to protect those of the younger generation from their own bravado. It was anything but an asset to the town centre. Amid universal derision the fence was removed and the jets switched off. This year the Council brought cutting-edge electronic wizardry to its aid. There was no fence. The water feature was switched on - but if any one, adult or child, approached too close to the jets, they faded and died. Sadly, some of the younger generation discovered a blind spot in the defences and a way through the metaphorical minefield. Once again they endangered their health by venturing through the jets. The feature was again switched off. This time I feared, for good.

I’m glad to say that, by means beyond my understanding, the blind spot no longer exists. The path through the minefield has been successfully blocked. The jets of the water feature have been restored. Unless there has been another catastrophe since I took this photo (on 9th Sept.), they are happily jetting away now!
Power to the People!

Last week in this blog I commented on what seemed to me to be two totally outrageous ideas suggested by the Policy Exchange ‘think tank’ to alleviate Britain’s housing crisis. They involved bribing members of rural communities to vote against their own instincts in proposed referenda on whether or not development should take place in their villages; and seizing the thousands of homes provided and run by Housing Associations, using their rent to build more houses for sale.

I said that although I understood Policy Exchange to be an organisation close to the government, I felt sure that both David Cameron and Nick Clegg had more common sense and integrity than to think seriously about adopting either of these (currently criminal!) ideas. Now……..I am beginning to wonder.

Policy Exchange’s report has evidently reached Whitehall. This morning on tv I heard a government spokesman explain that among the problems afflicting would-be developers were long delays in the current planning procedures. They would prepare and submit their plans for housing estates, supermarkets and so on. The district or borough council concerned would consider these plans. They might be passed, passed subject to conditions, or rejected. If they were rejected or it was considered that the conditions were unreasonable, the Developer could appeal – Central Government would become involved and the procedure might drag on for months.

This, as the spokesman said, was clearly unsatisfactory. It might have thought that a government devoted to ‘giving power to local communities’ would decide that, to speed up the process, there should be no appeal for most proposed developments. The decision of the democratically elected district council, taken in consultation with the parish or town council where there was one, should be final. I say most proposed developments because if it were a universal rule, there would be no refuse disposal plant, no sewage works, no penal institutions and no provision for ‘travellers’ anywhere. These are developments that most of us agree are essential but none of us want in our backyards!

That was not the solution favoured by the government spokesman. He suggested that decisions should be passed to local communities and decided by a public referendum, adding that it might be possible to provide ‘inducements’ for the local community to accept the development! His words could have, and possibly did, come straight from the Policy Exchange report.

As it happens just such a development as the government spokesman had in mind is being considered within the Tendring District at this moment.

The owners of St Osyth Priory, a historic stately home in a picturesque and historic village had, to the villagers’ consternation, proposed the building of 200 homes on their land. They were to be part of a scheme needed to raise millions of pounds to restore the Estate. Even more recently that number has been doubled, increasing the number of proposed new houses to 400 This, say the villagers, would increase the number of homes in the village by 50 percent, totally altering the community’s character!

I was particularly interested in this proposed development because in 1974, in the immediate wake of the local government reorganisation of that year, Mr Colin Bellows, the then-new Tendring District Council’s Engineer and Surveyor and I, as Public Relations Officer had visited every town and parish council in the district to familiarise their members with the responsibilities of those local councils under the new Act of Parliament.

I spoke about the newly formed District Council, serving the whole of the Tendring Peninsula, and its relationship with parish and town councils. Mr Bellows explained the new planning laws. These for the first time gave such councils the power to examine and comment on the plans of any proposed new development in their area, before the Tendring Council, as Planning Authority, made its decision.

It was thirty-five years ago and there is only one of those meetings that remains in my memory. It was in the village hall in St. Osyth. An elderly parish councillor had stood up and expressed his regret that we had wasted our time coming to see them. ‘St. Osyth’, he said, ‘already has all the development that is needed and the parish council is opposed to any more whatsoever’.

It seems that that old gentleman’s spirit lives on today. An unofficial poll of local residents taken by the Save our St. Osyth Group after the earlier proposal to build just 200 new homes, revealed that 90 percent of villagers objected to the scheme. Now that the proposed number of homes has been doubled, I would expect there to be even more objectors.

I reckon that it would take a pretty hefty inducement to make that lot change their minds!

The Paradox of Life

The September issue of the Southern East Anglian Area Quakers’ newsletter contains quotations from ‘The Mahabharata’ on life’s paradoxes. Reality, the quotations insist, is composed of opposites. To assert the one is to assert its opposite as well.

Here are a few examples: The paradox of having is that the more one has the greater is one’s discontent. There is a paradox of limits – one becomes aware of one’s limits only by transgressing them; there is no known way by which one can know one’s own limits in advance and The paradox of the self is that without the other, the self would be inconceivable.

These made me remember some paradoxical thoughts on happiness that have developed in my mind over what is now a very long life.

Those who spend their lives seeking their own happiness are destined never to find it.

We realize how happy we have been only when we are happy no longer.

It is our happiest memories that are most likely to bring us to tears

Week 36.10 7th Sept. 2010

Tendring Topics…….on Line

Policy Options!

Probably you have never heard of ‘Policy Exchange’. They’re one of those mysterious ‘think tanks’ that spend their time considering Government future policy. When the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet comes up as, often they do, with ‘a brilliant new idea’ to solve this that or the other national problem the chances are that the idea will have originated in one such ‘think tank’. I am told that Policy Exchange is very influential and close to the present coalition government.

I hope that I’m wrong about that, because to solve the national housing problem to which I referred a few weeks ago, they have come up with two of the most outrageous ideas that I have ever heard. Should these ideas ever became official policy I would expect the collapse of the government to follow. If Nick Clegg and his Lib.Dem. colleagues were prepared to endorse them, they could surely say farewell to any remaining shred of credibility.

Britain, so Policy Exchange rightly claims, needs many more affordable homes to house those who need them and to help bring down the prices of existing housing stock. They don’t, of course, suggest the repeal of 'right to buy' legislation and the encouragement of local authorities to build homes for letting. They believe that local authority reluctance to give planning permission for new homes in their areas is a major cause of the problem.

Their report suggests that the power to grant or refuse planning permission for the building of new housing estates should be withdrawn from the local authorities. Instead, it should be decided by referendum of the community where the development will take place – a simple majority of the vote deciding yes or no. Those with knowledge of these matters may find this an astonishing suggestion. Experience suggests that village communities are much more likely to refuse planning permission for new housing estates in their area, than a borough or district council whose members have to consider the interests of the entire district.

Policy Exchange has a brilliant idea though. They believe that such local resistance could be overcome by the offer of cash incentives to local people by the developer. ‘If a village decided to increase in size from 2,000 to 3,000 households there could easily be a £10,000 cash payment to every householder in the village!’

Alex Morton, the former civil servant who prepared the ‘Policy Exchange’ report, says that such payments shouldn’t be regarded as bribes – the money might perhaps be used to provide a park or similar amenity. Yes, I suppose that it might – and pigs might fly! Who needs a park in a rural village? If villagers are to be persuaded to vote against their natural instincts, they’ll each want their own bribe, cash-in-hand, at the close of poll!

I wonder if Mr Morton has considered the possibility of leaving matters as they are and bribing the existing councillors instead. That, I think might well prove more cost effective and wouldn’t be all that much more outrageous! Yes, I know it would be illegal as things stand. It would though, be a government-backed scheme – and hasn’t the government promised to sweep away pettifogging regulations that impede progress?

But that’s only the half of it!

Modestly, Policy Exchange doesn’t suggest that that one ‘big idea’ would solve all Britain’s Housing problems. They have another one – surely a real clincher!

Such houses as Councils still have left in their ownership should not, when they become available for letting, go to those in greatest need. They, for some reason, are not considered to be quite so needy, or perhaps not so deserving, as others. Any such tenancies should, first of all go to the severely disabled. That sounds fine – except that the severely disabled housing applicants whom, as Housing Manager, I have rehoused (I wonder if Mr Morton has ever actually met any?) wouldn’t consider it much of a privilege to have first call on the tenancy of a third storey flat, or a house with an upstairs bathroom!

When the severely disabled have been satisfactorily disposed of, tenancies should be allocated to those housing applicants who have been waiting the longest or who have the greatest local connections (I hope he means 'associations' and not 'influence'). There’s no mention of the local authorities that actually own these properties, having any say in this allocation. Perhaps, as part of the ‘power to the people’ that David Cameron is so keen on, all Council owned housing would, in the future, be controlled directly by central government.

Policy Exchange clearly thinks so because they also suggest that all Housing Association stock should be handed to the government and could then be sold off to tenants who wanted to buy. New houses would be built by issuing bonds to be repaid out of rent. This would enable 100,000 extra homes to be built and the Treasury would make £2.64 billion a year from house sales.

(Just imagine the, quite justifiable, outrage there would have been if it had been suggested that a Labour government might seize all privately owned tenanted homes – and use their rent to build new Council houses! ‘Neo-Stalinist snatch of our homes’ would have been among the more moderate headlines in the popular Press)

The present financial crisis was triggered by the folly and cupidity of leading bankers, first in the USA and later in the UK and elsewhere. There is a certain irony in the fact that among the victims of the proposed act of highway robbery would be the Peabody Housing Trust, which currently provides homes for some 50,000 Londoners. The Trust was founded in 1862 by George Peabody, an American Merchant Banker who settled in England and whose philanthropy, particularly in the field of public housing, earned him a burial in St. Paul’s Cathedral. I hope that the Cathedral’s foundations are sound, because he’ll be turning in his grave!

No, it hasn’t happened yet, and probably won’t happen. Surely Messrs Cameron and Clegg have sufficient sense - and integrity - not to pursue that course.. It is worrying though, to know that this is the kind of poisonous drivel that is being dripped into their ears!

A New (mini) Supermarket

I was sorry to see the closure and demolition of The Black Bull in Clacton’s St Osyth Road. It was my ‘local’. I had watched it being built, I had had an occasional meal there, either alone or with a companion or companions (at one time they did a very good lunch, with an adequate menu and very competitive prices). Occasionally too, I had strolled down there in the evening for a nightcap and a friendly chat. Such conversations had sometimes been the genesis of items in Tendring Topics (in print!) that I wrote for the Coastal Express for twenty-three years.

I would have thought that, with competent management and some professional publicity, it could have continued to serve the neighbourhood in which I live for many years.

However, it was not to be. I watched its conversion into a Tesco Express mini-supermarket without enthusiasm – though I had to concede that it seemed that an imaginative and attractive conversion was in progress, and the builders were certainly getting on with the job.

Well, as those who live in my neck of the woods know, it is now open. I paid my first visit there last week and must say, a little reluctantly perhaps, that I think it is going to be an asset to the neighbourhood. It is bright and welcoming, well-laid out inside and, considering its size, carries a very wide range of stock. Not, of course, such a wide range as Morrisons where I expect I shall continue to do my main shopping – but very useful for a quick foray, perhaps after normal closing hours or for items forgotten on the shopping list!

It has a ‘self-service’ check-out that I found a little daunting. However, a friendly assistant operated it for me and promised that, if I dropped in when they were a bit less busy, he would introduce me to its mysteries.

It is not far from my home and well within what was once my ‘walking distance’. Now though, I am glad to be able to park my mobility scooter (I like to think of it as 'tethering my iron horse') immediately outside its entrance. And, of course, it is ‘open all hours’. Not quite all – but 6.00 am till 11.00 p.m. should meet most people’s needs!

‘No new thing under the sun’

A few weeks ago the Government’s Housing Minister suggested, as his own brilliant new ideas, facilitating exchanges of tenancy between council tenants in different parts of the country and encouraging – or forcing – tenants to move into less roomy accommodation when their families grew up and left home. These measures, he thought, would reduce ‘waiting lists’ for council tenancies and generally help the housing situation.

I pointed out in this blog that in Clacton, and no doubt elsewhere, both those policies were pursued in the 1970s, though without either the element of compulsion, or the extra layer of bureaucracy involved in setting up a national exchange agency. My personal experience was, of course, BC (before computers) and thoroughly out of date. My idea of advertising a desire to exchange was limited to the local press and cards in tobacconist’s windows. Now, I am told, there has for some time been a web site with no other purpose. I didn’t know that. Nor, it seems, did the Housing Minister.

Staff of Public Libraries feel particularly vulnerable to Government cuts. Most of them have experienced a marked reduction in public use in recent years. Moreover they mainly serve leisure and cultural interests. We haven’t yet quite reached the state of mind of the late Air-Marshal Hermann Göring ‘When I hear the word “culture” I reach for my revolver’, but in the brave new economic world of the 21st century, activities that aren’t ‘wealth creative’ can hardly expect generous government support. And, of course, those that are, don’t need it!

We have a Culture Minister (in George Orwell’s 1984, there was probably a Minister of Freedom!) but I suspect that Ed Vaisey’s main job is to find ‘efficiency savings’ that will reduce spending on matters as non-creative as leisure and as ephemeral as culture. Recently I understand, he has been explaining how money can be saved by improving online library services. He has also been extolling ‘the scope for savings in reducing the number of library authorities through voluntary alliances’.

It might have been imagined that he had been inspired by just such a voluntary alliance as What’s in London Libraries? (WiLL) which had been running since 2003 in the London area. Using WiLL, readers were able to search, on line, the catalogues of all 33 London Boroughs' Public Library Services. Having located the book or books they wanted to borrow, they could do so through the inter-library loan service, thus saving both time and money.

If WiLL was Mr Vaizey’s inspiration it can be so no longer. The web site is no longer available. Queries to London Libraries, the body set up to create and run WiLL produce the following message: ‘Due to financial constraints WiLL has now been discontinued. To access individual authorities’ library catalogues please visit their respective websites’. Who, one wonders, imposed the financial restraints?

So much for encouraging voluntary alliances and on line services!