My first responsibility on Southend Council was to be the council’s ‘Youth Champion’. It was a very interesting and enjoyable role. I attended Youth Council regularly and gave updates on what the council was doing, helped with the Youth Mayor elections, passed a motion through council to get us to fund a member of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, worked with the Youth Mayor on a campaign to raise the age discount on local buses, chaired the Positive Activities Forum (probably the only opposition councillor to chair any subgroup of the LSP) and many other things besides.

Unfortunately the role of ‘Youth Champion’ along with other member champions was axed by the Conservatives a year or so back. This wasn’t a cost-cutting exercise, my role didn’t cost the council an extra penny. They disliked the fact that opposition councillors may have been gaining a small amount of influence and perhaps one or two other ‘champions’ were causing some very minor trouble for the administration.

‘Youth Champion’ might sound like a bit of a silly title, but in actual fact the issues I was dealing with were very important. “There’s not enough for young people to do” always scores very highly as an issue raised with councillors on the doorstep and in official surveys. Sadly our target for the number of young people participating in positive activities is not being routinely reported as a target anymore – perhaps this is convenient for the Conservatives given how they have cut youth work in the borough.

Still, I always enjoy working with our youth workers who are striving valiantly to do the best they can with limited resources. A previous push for more targeted youth work in parts of Victoria Ward led to football training sessions being run for young people in the ‘poets’ area. Yesterday I met with people in order to try to fill some more gaps in youth activities and give the young people in Victoria a greater range of positive activities.

I usually tend to think that politics should be conducted in a more civilised spirit. I have friends in the Conservative Party and normally manage to maintain civility with opponents in the Civic Centre. Sometimes though, something comes along that makes me believe that actually Nye Bevan was quite right with his aphorism about the Conservative Party and vermin. This article is one such thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/16/disabled-unpaid-work-benefit-cuts

Yes, in 2012, our government is proposing to force terminally-ill cancer patients to do unpaid work or lose their benefits.

BAA lends credence to Boris Johnson’s estuary airport plan:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2012/feb/13/baa-boris-johnson-estuary-airport

The Conservatives say that they are opposing ‘Boris Island’ but they are still soliciting support and donations for the one person who is responsible for this plan. The website of the local Conservative Party is particularly ironic, a ‘Back Boris’ badge right next to the seafront view that Boris Johnson is trying so hard to destroy.

In 2009 George Osborne said:

“quantitative easing – printing money by another name – is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed.”

Today we learn that there will be another £50bn of ‘qantitative easing’ – money pumped is to be pumped into the economy. As George said, a desperate government who’s policies have failed. If I had time I’d go into some detail about why a monetary stimulus is not likely to be effective at a time of fiscal contraction…

Crime is a big issue in Victoria Ward, and papers I received yesterday show that as a borough we are in danger of missing our crime targets, a range of crimes are up on a year ago. After housing, anti-social and criminal activity of one kind or another represents the biggest casework issue that people bring up with us as councillors. Every crime represents real suffering in a victim. The Police are finding it harder to cope as their workload increases and their resources decrease.

I therefore read with deep concern that Essex Police face a funding black-hole:

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/9521315.Increase_council_tax_or_cut_100_police_officers/r/?ref=rss

This reminded me of an argument I had with my Tory opponent last year. I first noticed his blog when I reacted with incredulity to his headline: ‘Police numbers to rise in 2012′. An astounding claim given that the Chief Constable of Essex has said his force will lose one in ten police officers over the next few years.

What he’d done is recycled a press release that James Duddridge had put out pointing out that the number of NEIGHBOURHOOD Police was set to rise, certainly not the total number of police in Essex or anywhere else. If I were cynical I might say that James Duddridge deliberately wanted the ‘police numbers to rise’ headline and hoped that people would miss the fact that he’s simply talking about a change of designation within an overall cut.

I’m all in favour of neighbourhood policing and I welcome the fact that the Chief Constable was prioritising it. However,  ‘Neighbourhood’ Police get dragged off onto other policing work whenever there is significant pressure on police resources – such as with the Dale Farm eviction, the riots and even when there was a large run of burglaries in the area. Therefore protecting the ‘neighbourhood’ element of policing whilst cutting resources elsewhere is a hollow achievement – I’d be willing to bet that these officers spend a fair chunk of their time doing other general police work.

Now it turns out Neighbourhood Police numbers may not be rising after all, they could well be cut along with all the other Police roles. I wonder if we’ll see a correcting press release from Mr Duddridge? Somehow I doubt it.

By the way, if people want an idea for savings, start by scrapping the unwanted and unnecessary Police Commissioner elections and put the hundreds of thousands of pounds that will save into front-line policing. When the Conservatives stop wasting money on daft projects (as with the ludicrous reorganisation in the NHS) then people might take them more seriously.

If the current proposals from the Boundary Commission are enacted, Victoria Ward will fall with Southend West constituency, which is currently represented in Parliament by David Amess MP.

Today whilst PMQs was dominated by a debate over the future of the NHS, David Amess chose to use a rare question to raise the issue of the government of the Maldives. Previous Parliamentary Questions from Mr Amess include his infamous question on the subject of an entirely fictional drug called ‘Cake’ after being set up by a TV spoof.

PMQs is the one opportunity that backbench MPs have to guarantee an audience for an important issue. Does Mr Amess think that there are no more pressing matters to his constituents than the government of the Maldives?

You will no doubt hear me make a lot of criticism of the council’s budget over the next few weeks. Cuts to Children’s Centres, meals-on-wheels, Day Centre charges are just some of the areas that are causing us deep concern.

However, one bit of welcome (if overdue) news is that the council has indicatively marked a sum of money for building a new Primary School in the central area of Southend. The Labour group has consistently warned that a new school would be needed as the density of housing in the town increases.

There are two concerns however – firstly the council has to find (and probably acquire) a site. Second, the new government’s rules favour the setting up of an academy of free school. Needless to say we’d prefer a proper community primary school, and I’m sure most local Tories would too if they were being honest. We’ll have to look very carefully at the options.

Given the level of upheaval in the council’s children’s services directorate caused by government cuts and the academies bill, I feel very sorry for staff who are having to cope with all of this. Plans should have been drawn up before now.

I thought I’d get back to blogging to take issue with Tony Cox over his remarks about the housing benefit cap.

http://www.shoeburyblogger.blogspot.com/2012/02/proposed-benefits-cap.html

Personally I’m more inclined to believe Shelter about what the real results of the government’s welfare ‘reforms’ will be:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/july_2011/welfare_changes_could_cause_homelessnes

£26,000 is a lot of money, and I can quite understand why people would be horrified that people could be taking that much in state benefits. In that respect it’s smart politics from David Cameron. However, Tony Cox picks on Ed Miliband – he neglects to criticise Tory mayor Boris Johnson who said that the benefit cap would result in ‘Kosovo style ethnic cleansing.’

The fact is that benefit cap in itself makes no direct difference in places like Southend – no one gets that sort of money in benefits. What it does mean is that the poor, unemployed (of which Tony Cox’s government are making more and more) etc will not be able to afford to live in central London. This is why Labour is calling for a regional cap that takes account of the local price level.

Tony may believe that the unemployed shouldn’t be able to live in central London, and anyone losing their job their should be forced out, regardless of their children’s schooling, family ties or anything else.

However, people have to go somewhere. Southend Council’s officers are concerned about the impact this could have on places like Southend. Tony should be as well.

Figures just out show that youth unemployment has risen above 1million for the first time in history.

Whilst growing up in the early nineties, it was the belief that we had so many people were out of work and a government who couldn’t care less that was a major spur to me becoming involved with the Labour Party.

Unfortunately history repeats itself.

Not being at the Chalkwell meeting where Councillor Roberston’s controversial comments were made, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn’t mean his remarks  to come out as they did. Nevertheless, the thrust of the comments as reported need a response.

My understanding is that Mr Barber was talking about his work with Turning Tides. I have to say that Turning Tides is one of the best initiatives I have had the priviledge of working with. They have helped innumerable people with all sorts of problems, regardless of people’s background, they have helped those who needed help. The neighbourhood management scheme made people living in some tough areas feel safer, more secure and more part of their community. They have tackled anti-social behaviour, cleared up streets, help put criminals behind bars, run a fantastic junior wardens program for kids, checked on the welfare of the elderly and hundreds of other things besides. It is perhaps a shame that their funding for neighbourhood management has come to an end, but they continue to do good work in the town with the ‘Triple Ts’ activities for children and the Active Citizens pilots.

Just one part of that work has been with the Zimbabwean Network in town. There are many reasons why we should welcome the creation of the network. Firstly, I know that a significant number of Zimbabweans arrived in Southend fleeing the brutality and persecution of Robert Mugabe. Basic human compassion should move us to offer them assistance. Some have been here a very long time and are British citizens, all have shared history with Britain through the Commonwealth. More importantly and more relevantly now, anyone who meets members of the Zimbabwean Network will know that these are people who really want to make a positive contribution to the town. The group has had a small amount of help to get them off the ground. Anyone who believes that they are somehow a drain on resources or are stopping help getting to other groups in society is very much mistaken.

When we talk about Britishness and patriotism, what do we mean? A patriotism based on confidence, belonging, a sense of community, that we’re comfortable in the world as it is? Or a narrow and bitter nationalism forever based on division, as sense of grievance and fear of the other? The community groups mentioned have done much that will engender that better form of patriotism and deserve to be praised, not condemned.