29 May 2010

CSI Somerton



Recently I've been thinking about the difficulties that the individual faces when seeking to address what they may see as wrongdoing. We live in a world where crimes in Miami, New York and LA (and possibly other places as well) are solved by clever people with torches and huge laboratories. They establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that Colonel Mustard did the dastardly deed in the library with the lead pipe and they do it within 60 minutes (less adverts).

But the real world is a very different place where the taxpayer forked out £40M only to find that the Blue Arrow defendants walked away. The real world is a place where, more and more, the evidence needs to be absolutely bulletproof (.....where's that confession.......) before the CPS will risk going to trial. And who, exactly, does this situation benefit? The Scumbags of course.

Now, before anyone suggests that I'm in favour of 'guilt before innocence' ( mmmmmm........... ) I would say that I'm not. But I do begin to wonder about the degree of evidence that is required in this country today in order to secure a conviction. As an example, there will be no doubt about our weird friend the 'Crossbow Cannibal' and, partly because he's probably bonkers, the Old Bill will have no trouble amassing enough evidence to send him off to the funny farm for the rest of his natural.

But then you look at the situation here in Somerton where, up till 27th October 2009, we had a Council which was clearly quite out of control. Buildings were bought, land was sold, contracts were executed, services were purchased, tractors were bought and spirited away but when you try and establish 'who dunnit' you are met with a wall of silence. The individuals who undertook these actions are definitely not like our friend the 'Crossbow Cannibal'. The individuals who undertook these actions clearly knew what they were doing and knew, like the scumbags who attacked my home, that if they left no trace then there would be no come-back.

And the records maintained by Somerton's Town Clerk certainly aren't overflowing with information about who did what and when. How convenient.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

24 May 2010

They're havin' a laugh......


I heard something today that would put a smile on the face of delinquent Councils the length and breadth of our fair isle. Evidently Dumb & Dumb have decided, as part of their package to renew the electorate's faith in their elected representatives, that they will "..... abolish the Standards Board regime...." or something of the sort. Now the word that is creating the greatest interest here is the word 'regime'. In some quarters this is being interpreted as referring not just to the Standards Board itself but to the 'code of conduct' which the Standards Board might have referred to in the consideration of any claimed infraction.

How bloody wonderful. We've had to put up with our elected representatives charging the taxpayer for double mortgage relief, expenses for houses that didn't exist, moat cleaning, duck housing, the rental of porn videos, kit-kat bars and uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The public has been genuinely dismayed at the greed and venality of some of our elected representatives and generally wouldn't trust an MP further than they could throw them. And the new Administration's answer seems to be to get rid of any standards of ethical behaviour so that our elected representatives will do what? Probably behave just like the last lot of moat-cleaners and duck-housers.

I look back at Tony Blair and remember just how let down and betrayed I felt by his crass behaviour. But we set ourselves up for it because we had put up with the Tories for 18 years and they had redefined greed and self-interest. So Blair trots in with his Pepsodent smile and perfect children and we all think, Hallelujah, we are saved. And the next thing we know we are up to our armpits in Iraq, Afghanistan and extraordinary rendition. So, once again, after 13 years, we turf out the remains of the Blair rump and we get the 'Nick&Dave' show. And they all want to clean up politics. And how are they going to do that? By throwing away the rule book.

Where are The Who when you need them?

Till next time, I think that I'm Niall Connolly

20 May 2010

Call me irresponsible........



Like many people in Somerton, I suspected that the new Somerton Town Council would face very real challenges when they took up office and that is proving to be something of an understatement. Nothing illustrates this better than the utter shambles that is the Town Council's 'records'.

The enquiries that I have made via the Freedom of Information Act still take me back to the Dunny and, each time, I am struck by the level of disorganisation in the Town Council's record keeping. Take, for example, the little matter of the 'Office Diary'. This document would give you an idea of what business meetings, discussions, phone calls etc etc were being undertaken by staff and councillors. Its a common business tool most notably used by solicitors and lawyers use to track their business activities and most businesses keep one to make a daily record of what's been going on or what is going to happen.

But such sensible business methods were clearly not popular within the Keenan/Canvin Town Council where there is no record whatsoever of what was done when, by whom and on whose instructions.

The 'filing system' at Somerton Town Council simply doesn't exist and if there is any rationale to what does exist there, then it certainly escapes me. There is no index to what exists and there is no index to where it might be. The same documents, both in original and copy form, are scattered throughout the filing system with absolutely no semblance of order or intention. The only saving grace is that the shambles is so consistent and even that it must have existed for years rather than having been instigated recently - cock-up rather than conspiracy.

And that brings me to the position of the Town Clerk who is also known as the 'Responsible Officer'. The Town Clerk is, in other language, the Chief Executive or the Chief Operating Officer which means that the Town Clerk is responsible for the manner in which the Council is run. It also means that the Town Clerk is responsible for the proper running of the Town Council which, in layman's terms, means that he is meant to know the law and the regulations that constrain the operation of a Town Council.

Now, our Town Clerk, Mr Rodger Calderwood, has been in post for some 20+ years so you'd have thought that he would know the job and know how things should be done. You'd have thought that he would have advised the Council that obstructing the Freedom of Information Act would be a bad idea. You'd have thought that when the District Valuer 'valued' the Tin Dunny, you'd have thought that the Town Clerk would have made sure that the District Valuer was in possession of all the material facts influencing its value. You'd have thought that when the Town Council decided to sell off land at Etsome Terrace, you'd have thought that the Town Clerk would have made sure that the sale was handled properly with a genuine public tender of the asset.

But no, Mr Rodger Calderwood, Somerton's Town Clerk, did none of these things. In fact, I am unaware of any written record of the Town Clerk ever having objected to any action that the Town Council took or any action that the Town Clerk was instructed to undertake. And from this, I must assume that Mr Calderwood approved of everything that he did and was instructed to do over the last 10 years. And from this, I must assume that Mr Calderwood will accept responsibility for what he did and what he was instructed to do.

Which makes me ask if Mr Rodger Calderwood, Somerton's Town Clerk, is 'fit for purpose'. I'd say not. I'd say that Somerton could spend £36,000 per annum a lot more constructively and productively.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

14 May 2010

Looking back at Michael Crick........


I took a moment, last evening, to revisit the Newsnight piece done by Michael Crick in the aftermath of the 'resignation of the sheep' and something struck me as both sad and funny.

Michael Crick directed a question at Mr A H Canvin (the one in the black shirt and bouncer shades) where Crick referred to my own regular comments about conflicts between Mr Canvin's business interests and his position as an (ex) Councillor. The Pied Piper's response was (and I quote), "What business interests?". See it for yourself here around 1:48 into the piece.

Now, forgive me for saying it but when Canvin uttered those words he was standing outside the Tin Dunny which is located on land that he sold to Edgar Builders. Not only that, he was standing on land owned by Somerton Town Council but influenced by a restrictive covenant which he had inserted into the title before the land was sold to Edgars. Furthermore, both the BBC crew and the sheep had driven to the Tin Dunny over roads owned by Canvin. And still the man can say, on national tv, "What business interests?".

But there is another aspect to Canvin's curiously selective approach to reality. At the time that he uttered the immortal words, "What business interests?", the Register of Member's Interests at SSDC was blank for District Councillor A H Canvin. It wasn't until 8th February 2010 that District Councillor A H Canvin 'corrected' his entry and declared interests at Badger's Cross, Langport Road and Bancombe Road.

Methinks the maiden was protesting too much.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

13 May 2010

No sense in hanging about......


The electorate's decision not to give any party a clear mandate means that, in the eyes of the electorate at least, one party is much the same as another. What is also curious is just how quickly, after all the dire warnings of doom and gloom, the ConDems have got together and hammered out a way of working together - just a few days and the world didn't end in the process. Was it Dave 'Man of the People' Cameron who said that they were going to get on with the job in an adult way. It begs the question 'what was going on before' and it makes me wonder what benefit the party system offers.

The Party system is undoubtedly sectarian. It encourages division rather than cohesion. It promotes the concept of a divided nation which, at an election, is at war with itself. The Reds vs the Blues vs the Yellows vs the Greens vs the Others. Yet all the time we are one nation, albeit made up of 60+million souls, who can and do work cooperatively together for much of the time. We have inherent skills enough to get on with our lives (even if government does as much as possible to make those lives as complicated as possible).

So what does the ConDem government have to teach us? Well, it has already taught me that when individuals recognise and embrace a common purpose, they can put aside their prejudices and seek to work together towards common goals. In the case of Britain today, the common goal will be to stabilise the economy in order that Britain rides out the choppy waters ahead and avoids becoming a meal for the currency speculators.

Oh, and I almost forgot, one of the big advantages of the invented furore over the 'hung parliament' and the new ConDem government's need to tackle the 'debt crisis' is that everyone (i.e. our politicians) will quietly forget the much trumpeted need to 'clean up politics'. David Heath was returned as the MP for Somerton & Frome and I wonder what David will do with regard to his own campaign to 'clean up politics'. I seem to remember that I invited him to help me in cleaning up the mess within Somerton Town Council (pre 27th October 2009) and I'm still awaiting his call.............

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

11 May 2010

The ConDems have made up.......

Well bless my soul, I voted for the LibDems and I got the Tories.

Till next time, I'm baffled.

9 May 2010

Selling out.........

Who exacty did you vote for? Did you vote for your particular candidate because you believed in them or did you vote for the party that you believed in? Either way, as we await the result of the horse-trading between the Tories and the Lib-Dems, I noted that the boy Clegg was rather particular with his language as reported this morning on Radio 4. He made reference to discussing changes in the "political system" rather than what I thought he was interested in which was the electoral system. This suggests that a major part of the Lib-Dem proposal, electoral reform, will go straight in the dumper when they sign up to the Con-Lib-Dem coalition.

This hiatus gave me a little time to consider the issue of 'electoral reform' and how the results (based upon the BBC's stats here) of the election would look if the votes cast were reflected in the seats gained by individual parties. But first, a graph showing votes cast for each party plus total votes plus the size of the electorate.

Now to compare how the seats gained under the current 'first past the post system' would be altered were the seats gained to reflect the votes cast for each party.

So, the Lib-Dems are the real losers under the current system and a coalition under a proportional system would have made either a Con-Lib-Dem or a Lab-Lib-Dem government equally workable. It would also more truly represent the voting intentions of the electorate because, simply on voting numbers, the Lib-Dems are hugely under-represented. Will the boy Clegg fight his corner on this issue or will he fold in the face of David's charms?

Till we have a government, I'm still Niall Connolly

7 May 2010

Woke up this morning.........

......and nothing had changed. Wouldn't it be a better idea to pull names out of a hat?

But the bickering has already started. Who has the MANDATE. Who has the MORAL right to form a government. Its hilarious to see these politicians talk about 'moral rights' when ignoring morality is a core part of their job description.

So lets look at this curious thing, the Mandate (I thought it was something that you organised online or got from the personals in your local paper). The Conservatives are claiming that they have the Mandate because they got more votes than Labour and they are the largest party. However, the stats show that, right now, the turnout has been around 65% which means that the Conservatives are the largest party with around 1/3rd of the votes from 2/3rds of the electorate. Which means that their Mandate comes from only 25% (at most) of the electorate. Not a resounding vote of support for them and, more importantly, not a resounding vote of confidence in our electoral process.

Its pretty obvious from this election, and those that have gone before, that the electorate are not really convinced about our electoral process. Many people that I speak to say that they only vote because they feel that, having done so, it gives them the right to complain. Many people also vote along sectarian lines because they feel that one candidate represents their social class or self interest better than another.

When you start to think about it, where is Britain in all of this. Where is the whole country and where are all the people. The answer is that the whole of the country and the whole of the people are not considered by any of the political parties. Our politics is all about us vs them. Its comforting to know that some things don't change.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

PS Have a look at the Guardian's view of the factors that have influenced the voters. Find it here.
The BBC also sums up the current election stats very well here.

5 May 2010

There's a change a comin'.............

.....or not as is far more likely.

Here we are, standing almost on the very edge of yet another electoral farce where everyone claims to want to bring change yet none of them have any intention of changing anything, or at least anything significant.

Its probably not fair to call politicians 'liars' because, from their viewpoint, they probably believe all the garbage that they spout. But from my viewpoint, they are liars because, outside the boundaries of an election, they all know that they can't change anything significant. Brown, Cameron and Clegg are all fully paid up members of the political establishment. They've paid their dues, received favours and done all the things that they needed to do to clamber up the greasy pole and now they are there, its time to pay off those favours. The poor, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, they don't have any favours to grant so they won't get anything from their politicians over and above the bare minimum that our society defines as decency. But the bankers, the industrialists, the venture capitalists, the fund managers, the press barons, now they do have favours to grant and they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they want something.

So, sometime in the next few days, one of our three musketeers will step forward and form a government and then the great pay-off will start. The favours will be called in and the gravy train will rumble off on its merry way, just as always. No change there then.

2 May 2010

Shoes

A friend alerted me to an article from the Daily Torygraph dated 14th April and written by Liz Hunt. Its a cracker and I thought that it would be worth sharing.

It's time to gently insert the stiletto
I would like to dedicate this item to the inhabitants of Somerset, writes Liz Hunt.



I would like to dedicate this item to the inhabitants of Somerset. The denizens of that happy county are lucky to have two blue-blooded Tory candidates – Jacob Rees-Mogg and his sister Annunziata – vying to represent them in the neighbouring seats of Somerset North East and Somerton and Frome respectively.

But because Jacob and Annunziata are very posh and the Tory party is trying very hard not to be, their campaign has to be low key. So low key, in fact, that a journalist who went in search of the siblings this week failed to spot either on the stump (although there was an alleged sighting of Ms Rees-Mogg in the butcher's).

I know little of Jacob, other than legend has it he fought a seat in Central Fife in 1997, touring the streets in a Bentley with his nanny handing out leaflets. But Annunziata – Nancy Mogg to the plebs – once worked at the Telegraph and I am happy to give what assistance I can to her campaign by sharing this arresting shot of feet shod in £440 satin and chiffon Louboutins. They're Nancy's feet – yes, really! Three years ago, Ms Rees-Mogg conducted an investigation into the rigours of life in high heels, concluding that such shoes "are designed only for those with chauffeurs – or for the bedroom". Enjoy, good folk of Somerton and Frome. It might be the most you see of your candidate before May 6.


The message here is clear - Annunziata's idea of 'cleaning up politics' will be to make sure that everyone is well dressed.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

1 May 2010

Illegal sell-off........

The Guardian carried an article a couple of weeks ago about Edinburgh Council's sell-off of land, a sell-off which has now been declared illegal by the European Commission. The reason for this declaration is that Edinburgh Council didn't put the land for sale on the open market. Does this ring any bells?

Find the article here.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly