Tag: Annie

I’ve always been clear, since the my first pay cheque, that taxation is a one way thing. I either pay more tax or less tax, but it’s always me paying the government, not the other way round. That’s not the way Ms Snelgrove likes to spin things.

Last week the Pre-Budget Report announced a one year cut in VAT of 2.5% and the Government will give a payment to every basic rate taxpayer of £145 (up from £120 this year).

If the government’s representative in South Swindon thinks I’m going to be grateful to her for being allowed to keep a little more of my own money, whilst at the same time her government is running up massive debts that will cost me much more in tax later, and is insisting that banks cut the interest they pay on savings, then she’s very much mistaken.

Today I received Ms Snelgrove’s latest spin Parliamentary Report. This appears to be an annual event. She seems to think that, in the circumstances, Swindon’s economy isn’t doing too badly.

These are challenging times but I am confident Swindon can hold up better than most during the down turn in the global economy. Government schemes in Swindon… have meant that we are still seeing high levels of investment coming into the town. I am confident Swindon will continue to prosper and there will be new jobs in the future through this investment.

Today there was news of over 1,200 job losses in Swindon, at Honda and one of its suppliers.

Anne Snelgrove, keeping out-of-touch with Swindon.

With the current financial problems caused by far too many people — including Mr Brown’s government — borrowing far more than they can afford, you might think that the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, would recommend a little caution with how the council spends our money. No, she wants Swindon Borough Council to join the throwing-money-at-bad-debts party.

We all have to make sure that people are helped so I think that Swindon Council should be looking at its capital reserves and seeing if it can do something even if it is a one-off. Clever accountants can do clever things.

Leaving aside the banality of that last sentence, Ms Snelgrove seems not to have noticed that it’s clever accountants that weren’t quite as clever as they thought that got us into this mess. But then, Ms Snelgrove has never been one to allow reality or the needs of Swindon to get in the way of her spouting her party’s latest spin… which she is doing in abundance.

Government is not sitting back and doing nothing, it has cut VAT to put cash into more people’s pockets and there are a number of measures that the Government is carrying out to help hard-working families.

Ah, how generous of the government to allow us to keep a bit more of our own money, not that 2½p in the pound (or 0p in the pound on essentials like food) is going to make much of a difference when many retailers are already discounting prices heavily. And as the government’s intending to take this and much more back later in far higher taxes, this is really nothing more than an electoral gimmick, trying to bribe people — using their own money — into keeping Mr Brown and his fellow economic incompetents in power.

We are living in extraordinary times and we all need to be thinking about what action we could be taking and it is not just central Government that should be acting.

The only action I’m thinking of taking is voting for a party that doesn’t lie about ‘An end to boom and bust’, doesn’t lie in order to take the country to war, and is rather more careful what it does with our money.

As it will, no doubt, be subject to a considerable amount of spin, below is the text of the amendment (number 48) that Ms Snelgrove has had inserted into the Climate Change Bill.

Insert the following new Clause—

“Report on the civil estate

1. It is the duty of the Office of Government Commerce to lay before Parliament each year a report setting out the progress Her Majesty’s Government has made towards improving the efficiency and sustainability of its civil estate.
2. The report must include the progress made towards—
   1. reducing the size of the civil estate;
   2. improving the sustainability of the buildings that already form part of the civil estate; and
   3. ensuring that any new buildings procured for the civil estate are in the upper quartile of energy performance.
3. Where any new building procured for the civil estate is not in the upper quartile of energy performance, the report must state the reasons why this is the case.
4. A report under this section must be laid before Parliament not later than 1st June in the year in which it is to be so laid.”

I leave you, for the moment, to judge for yourselves whether it matches Ms Snelgrove’s current rhetoric or earlier intent.

Anne is therefore intending to table an amendment with the provisions of her Bill at the Report Stage of the Climate Change Bill. The amendment will require all newly procured central Government buildings to have an energy efficiency rating of A or B in accordance with the energy rating system used for Energy Performance Certificates.

With the economy in trouble and signs that the local economy could suffer soon, you’d think that how the government spends billions of our money as it attempts to prop-up the economy would be worthy of serious debate. The government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, thinks otherwise and can contribute no more than petty point-scoring to the debate in parliament.

Ms Snelgrove

Is it bad judgement to oppose Government action to protect small savers’ money in banks and building societies, or just another example of social justice from the perspective of the Bullingdon club?

Mr Speaker

Order. The honourable Lady really should cut that behaviour out.

Ms Snelgrove often berates Swindon Borough Council for not talking to her first before bidding for money from central government. With the infantile approach to politics that she displays, it’s amazing that anyone would waste their time talking to her at all.

I see that Ms Snelgrove has been assisting her red nest colleagues in tidying my local area. The reasons given are all very laudable. Ms Snelgrove:

The problem is that litter attracts more litter. We want to make sure the canal walk is free from litter and we think it is part of our civic duty. We want to set an example and help keep Swindon a lovely place to live.

Mr Montaut:

We want to make the public aware that communities need to work together to keep areas clean. The cost of cleaning waste is high and there needs to be a cycle of change to keep areas clean.

Mr Wright:

We can all do a small part to help put things right. It is as simple as that.

All good stuff and nothing anyone could disagree with… except I’m not sure it is quite so simple. Canal Walk is one of the better maintained parts of Westcott, with regular visits from the council’s cleaners. If their intention was to encourage the community to keep the area clean, why so little publicity in advance of Saturday’s outing? Were they frightened of being joined by members of the public other than party activists? And if she regards it as part of her ‘civic duty’, can we expect to see Ms Snelgrove back cleaning the streets when the cameras aren’t around?

If they really wanted to make an impression on the area, rather than seeking a photo opportunity, their time would have been much better spent encouraging those whose garages face onto Canal Walk to take up the council’s offer of cleaning off the graffiti that defaces Canal Walk to a much greater extent than litter ever does.

Having ignored the story when it was first reported, and again later, it’s probably no surprise that I don’t have strong views as to whether Swindon should or should not be part of the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership. I don’t have any sympathy for anyone that gets caught speeding: if you break the law and get caught, tough. I do care about my money being used in the most effective way and like many I’m not convinced that cameras are as good a road safety measure as some would make out — but that doesn’t mean I want to get rid of all of them.

What has been most disappointing about all of this and has, I suspect, done nothing for the reputation of either Mr Bluh or Ms Snelgrove and her entourage, is the rapid descent into petty politicking. The willingness of Ms Snelgrove to distort the facts behind the current state of speed cameras in Swindon and the effects of their removal hardly befits someone accusing her opponents of ‘playing politics with lives’. (And who other than Ms Snelgrove could regard something as a stealth tax if money goes to local government but not a stealth tax whilst it goes to central government?)

The original motion at last November’s council meeting proposing withdrawal from the safety camera partnership was itself laden with party political point scoring. To respond in a similar, but worse, manner just helps to lower the already poor reputation that politicians, and Ms Snelgrove in particular, already have.

The difficulty planning authorities have rejecting any application without the decision being overturned on appeal is well known. Strength of local opinion counts for nothing if an application complies with guidelines set by central government. Whilst some degree of central influence is necessary, so that national needs are met, there needs to be a reasonable level of local flexibility and accountability too, otherwise the local planning process appears pointless: just another sham consultation to make the people feel good when there is no intention of listening. So when a constituent says

Ask any of them and they’ll say what difference does it make talking to your councillor? It’ll happen anyway.

you might think that any sensible MP would interpret that as a judgement on the excessive central government control of planning. Sadly, Ms Snelgrove though an MP is not sensible. In a distortion of reality Ms Snelgrove interprets it as an indictment of the abilities of the local councillors.

I think it is really worrying that so soon after a local election, when only 29 per cent of those eligible went to the polls, there is this level of disillusionment with the work done by councillors. Something has to be done to re-engage people with the democratic process.

It’s not disillusionment with the work done by councillors: it’s disillusionment with the lack of power councillors have. If you want to re-engage people with the democratic process, how about freeing councils of central government controls and targets, not just in planning but other things too, such as education and social services. No doubt the press would scream ‘postcode lottery’ at every opportunity, but at least there would be something worth voting for in local elections.

Just a day after Mr Wills’ hypocritical outburst over post office closures, Ms Snelgrove has been talking on the very same subject in parliament. Did she take the opportunity to express concern over the closure of post offices in Swindon, or to express surprise that, despite representations to the ‘consultation’, all the Post Office’s closure plans in this area remained unchanged? Of course not. Instead she chose to repeat Mr Wills’ attack on the local council.

I share concerns about the consultation process, but does he share my anger about the fact that Tory-controlled Swindon borough council has not taken part in the consultation exercise, and did not attend any of the meetings held by Postwatch or the Post Office? The Conservatives in Swindon are now jumping on the bandwagon, but have made no representations to the Post Office or to Postwatch about the closures in my constituency.

And just what did Ms Snelgrove do for the post offices in her constituency, apart from having her photo taken in one of the doomed post offices? Although she sent out a letter inviting people to sign a petition against the closures, she has, since then, been remarkably silent on the subject. Clearly, she’s far more keen to attack the opposition than do anything for her constituents. It’s no wonder Ms Snelgrove is often referred to as The Government’s representative in South Swindon.

When yesterday given the opportunity again to express their opposition to the post office closures:

• Mr Wills voted in favour of the government’s programme of post office closures;
• Ms Snelgrove voted in favour of the government’s programme of post office closures.

With duplicitous behaviour like this, it’s no surprise that politicians are held in low esteem.

Yesterday I received a letter through the post from Ms Snelgrove. Not the most local affair, having been printed in London and with a return address on the envelope in Newcastle upon Tyne. Apparently, she’s had an

Action Team in Central to listen to your concerns about anti-social behaviour and the mounting rubbish on your streets.

The letter even solicits for volunteers to her ‘Keep Central Clean and Safe Team’. Ms Snelgrove seems not to realise that listening is not itself action. Even if it were, her ‘team’ have been most noticeable by their absence. The rubbish is now subsiding, especially since the council started putting little orange ‘Council aware’ labels on bags of rubbish left for days on the streets. The rubbish was ‘mounting’ on the streets several months ago, when Ms Snelgrove’s ‘Keep Central Clean and Safe Team’ didn’t even exist… not that there’s any evidence it exists at all. There’s no evidence of in on the local red nest’s website, nor on Ms Snelgrove’s.

The only things that are mounting now are the local election campaigns… and Ms Snelgrove’s hypocrisy. Real action speaks much louder than words.