With less than three weeks to go until polling day we ask the crucial question, “Who will be the next Brutes?”. Obviously we can’t answer that question but we can still ask it.
The local elections on 22nd May allow residents to have their say on how their borough should be run. There are European elections on the same day too but, quite frankly, despite the fact that Twickenham is actually part of Europe, no one really knows or cares who their MEP is. Be honest, you don’t do you? No, you don’t! So let’s keep it local and stay focused on the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames aka LBRuT.
Will ‘Lord’ True, the Blue Baron, get to be Brutmeister General for another four years? Or will the locals rise up as one, blunt pencils in hand, and vote to go yellow and return the Lib Dems to the position of top Brutes? And what of UKIP? Could we actually see them gain a seat in the Council chamber through the backing of voters? Don’t rule it out.
If a week is a long time in politics then 200 weeks must be a bloody eternity. Think back to the 2010 election. If you do you will recall unrest over the Liberal Democrat Council’s plans for Twickenham riverside and exasperation at the convoluted engine-size parking charges thing which strove to save the world by charging different amounts for permits in the borough’s Controlled Parking Zones. As well as the usual boredom which often leads to a change of control, there was anger too, so out went Serge and the gang (that’ll be Lib Dem leader Serge Lourie who didn’t even get re-elected) and in came the Blue Baron’s battalion.
And what’s happened since? For starters, there’s been progress on Twickenham riverside. The old pool site is now the Diamond Jubilee Gardens (or the ‘Trubilee’ Gardens to give it its formal title), there’s a Twickenham Action Plan aimed at improving our fair town complete with Fancy Dan new pavements and a 20mph zone. Work continues on Twickenham Embankment. There’s even talk of a ‘town square’ by the river off Water Lane (it’s being much touted in the run up to the election although details remain rather sketchy – funny dat). Sixth forms are being introduced to local schools and Council tax has been frozen for several years. The Conservatives want to continue all this work. Good news.
But freezing Council tax can also mean something’s got to give and there are examples of cuts to local services. You might also be pondering on the two (yes two) judicial reviews where controversial decisions made by the Council have resulted in legal action. We are of course talking about the Solum Regeneration plans for Twickenham Station and the approval of a faith-selective Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided school. We’ve covered those issues many times on twickerati over the years and they’re subjects that generate strong opinions. And not just strong opinions, we’re talking real anger too. Will the voters who opposed either (or both) forgive and forget when they enter the polling booth? Or will those who supported the Council press down just that bit harder when they mark their Xs on the ballot paper?
The only viable challenge to the Tories comes from the Lib Dems. Will the Stephen “The Yellow Knight” Knight wrestle control from the Blue Baron and fly the Lib Dem banner from York House once more? They’re pushing the agenda of a ‘fairer, greener, safer Richmond’ which protects frontline services. In other words, don’t bank on more Council tax freezes; take one for the team.
And what of UKIP? With barely a candidate back in 2010 they’re a much stronger presence now. Of course Richmond Council already has a UKIP councillor doesn’t it? Sort of. In 2010 Twickenham Riverside ward returned three Conservative Councillors. Just one remains. One went to Cornwall and the other turned purple, perhaps partly in a state of rage over the whole Twickenham station thing (see above). This time UKIP is fielding one or more candidates in many wards.
Before it descends into a ‘he said, she said’ battle, let’s take a very quick look at the parties standing locally:
- Twickenham Riverside – Three each from the usual suspects, including the one remaining incumbent Tory, Susan Chappell. Add to that one Green and three, yes three, from UKIP. Obviously former Tory Riverside Councillor, Scott ‘Nails’ Naylor, is leading the charge but he’s accompanied by Barry Edwards and Sarah Meagher. Strangely, Messrs Naylor and Edwards have registered addresses in the same Isleworth road, just 9 doors apart so expect to see Nigel Farage, pint in hand, roaming that part of the borough very soon. Voting in Riverside could be interesting
- South Twickenham – no UKIPs here, just the usual suspects from the three main parties and a sole Green. The three incumbent conservatives – Clare Head, David Marlow and the other one – are all standing for re-election.
- St Margarets and North Twickenham – as above it’s the 9 usuals, a Green but with a single Ukipper too. It could be interesting here as the 2010 election returned 2 Lib Dems and 1 Tory.
- West Twickenham – 3 Conservative, 3 Labour, 3 Lib Dem, 2 UKIP and 1 Green. It’s currently represented by 3 Lib Dems.
- Heathfield Ward – 3 Conservative, 3 Labour, 3 Lib Dem, 1 UKIP and 1 Green. Like St Mags, the 2010 result returned 2 Lib Dems and a Conservative so it could see a bit of a change.
In 2010 the good burghers of Richmond returned 30 Conservative and 24 Liberal Democrat Councillors. In 2006 it was 36 Lib Dem and 18 Tory whilst back in 2002 it was 39 Conservative and 15 Lib Dem. In other words, things can change round here. It’s not just about Twickenham though, there are other, lesser, places in the Borough too, like Hampton, Whitton, Richmond, Teddington and those posh bits far, far to the east who will help decide the make up of the Council.
Here at twickerati HQ we’re not going to tell you who to vote for and we hope that even if we did you’d make up your own mind. Will Richmond stay blue, will it go yellow, could a purple person hold the balance of power? Maybe Labour or the Greens might even get a look in? We doubt that.
Only one thing is certain, and that’s whoever takes control of the council on the morning of 23rd May, we’ll be sure to find something worth having a dig at.
So, vote early, vote often. And if you’re not yet registered to vote, the deadline for that is 6th May.
Who’s it going to be?
LINKS:
* Richmond Council Elections Page
* List of candidates
* Previous Election Results
Twickerati 
There was a letter in last weeks RTT from someone called NAS (name and address withheld). It contained statements that were completely untrue and unfortunately request to correct these to RTT appears to have fallen on deaf ears, so I would like to clarify as follows:
I was interested to read the rather rude letter from “Name and address supplied” in last week’s RTT. It’s always interesting when someone hides behind such a ‘title’ rather than reveal who they really are. Not only disingenuous but clearly lacking in the courage of their convictions.
NAS states that the Riverside is a “hive of activity”. To quote your own turn of phrase NAS, “what absolute rubbish”. I walk my dog daily along the Riverside and most of the time its dead. Yes there is the playground, which was there before Jubilee Gardens. The Gardens are certainly better than a derelict pool but it is hardly a “hive of activity”. To state that the UKIP Riverside Candidates are “jumping on the bandwagon” is also a “lot of rubbish”. All three of us campaigned weekly to Save the Riverside – we still have our T Shirts which Scott organised and our Referendum sweatshirts, do you NAS? In fact I took the Referendum sign down every week for the stall outside Santander, were you there NAS? Love to know.
Another of your claims that as part of “Referendum on Riverside” you organised the Referendum are again “absolute rubbish”. The Referendum was organised by a coalition of campaign groups including Friends of Twickenham Riverside, Richmond United Group, Save Our Riverside, Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group together with ROR. It would seem therefore that it is you who are “seizing upon the issue” and using it as an opportunity to criticize UKIP candidates. I would also point out that: although my fellow candidates do not currently live in Twickenham, they have for over 30 years each.
Finally, with regard to Mr Ward’s letter, we have made our policies and position on local issues quite clear. Unfortunately unlike Mr Wards party and his neighbours, we do not have infinite resources, clearly they do, given the number of Tory and LD leaflets put through my door recently. This election is clearly not just a vote for an MEP, to suggest that’s what people think is rather patronising to them, and our policies and pledges, reflect the wishes of our residents, which include a Town Square/Market Square, rather than imposing our own views on them.
And, with the election imminent, if you want to give a straight prediction of the way the seats are going to go, you can do it on this new “poll predictor” item here:
UKIP have sent a flyer around. Interesting policy on schools
“Above all we need to offer a school place to every resident in the borough and there are still school place appeals. How is the Borough going to build more and more schools to educate half of London and a lot of Europe? It simply can’t; local school places for local families must be a priority and rest assured we will find a way to make it happen. ”
A touch of hyperbole, what figures back up the assertion that the Borough will need to provide places for half of London and a lot of Europe (I suppose we could nick the idea of the Kingston raving looney party to put a loft room from Thames Ditton to Kingston and put another between Sheen and Twickenham for the schools required). However I am not reassured that my potential Borough Councillors are going to be able to find their way around the government’s Education Strategy and the Admissions Framework……
And of course this comes from Scott Naylor a supporter of Faith Schools with exclusive admissions so “local places for local families who are willing to go and sit in pews” is what it actually should say.
“…and rest assured we will find a way to make it happen. ”
How are they going to make it happen?
Let’s not be too cynical and mix up local politics with the disasterous national political theory of the last 50 years of labour destruction of an excellent school system, lead by Vera Brittan’s daughter, Shirley Williams, who went to a private school, she is now in the House of Lords as a Lib Dem Peer. The “Horsefly” went to Westminster a top public school… they have been keen to send the children to the bottom of the tables… we have the best education system at the top, lets get the rest up to that… don’t let envious or selfseeking people destroy what we are trying to create, because they don’t understand education…
So, who will put their money where their mouth is and predict changes to the Twickenham-side seats on the Council next Thursday?
To set the record straight Sazzy, half of Amyand Park Road is actually in Riverside ward.
If you cherry pick side roads for 20mph, it will only shift the rat-run problem to adjacent roads.
Don’t you think it makes more sense to say 20′s Plenty on all side roads in central Twickenham. This will put an end to the TRAZ, Twickenham Residential Acceleration Zone, where drivers speed up to 30mph down side roads (like yours) to avoid the 20mph main road queues?
It’s also simpler & cheaper to implement and sends a clear & consistent message to drivers.
Not sure if its really half Amyand – more lie 1/3 in Riverside I think. But thats being picky. Otherwise I do agree with you. Yes 20 is plenty in all side roads especially those used by Schoolchildren – Amyand is as bad as Tennyson which is also used by many children. Both roads are bad rat runs. Most drivers as you say have the 30mph in their heads as a target – meaning the 20mph on hte high street has made our roads worse. We also need something to force drivers to slow – not just a sign which many ignore. All our surround roads have some speed bumps except Tennyson again making us first choice of rat run. We are furious that despite applying for LBR/Cllr Harrisons 20mph with over 85% support we were ignored. Time for a change then!
I totally agree that the council’s 20mph on request policy involving petition, biased consultation, serious accident not happened yet, etc sucks big time.
It’s seems sure to lose the Cons crucial votes in Riverside ward.
You are so right. Hence my complaint about to be filed with the LGO. They cant even follow their own procedures and policies. Should an accident happen, or God forbid, a fatality, myself and my neighbours will hold them responsible.
Perhaps the best thing is to get the police to take their afternoon naps on the side roads…
And ban Chelsea Tractors…
Here is my radical solution which of course will never happen.
Take a third of the road away. This third can be made in to a cycle track. (A proper Dutch style infrastructure) .With only 2/3 of the road left this will necessitate the use of small economic vehicles.
To be honest I’m not convinced by 20mph zones. I have yet to see a proper, INDEPENDENT and comprehensive report on all the effects. I’ve only heard catchy slogans from groups with an agenda.
To drive the 20mph in Richmond Park I find there is so little margin of error that I’m constantly watching the speedo and not fully alert to potential hazards.
Secondly these kind of regulations never eliminate the
idiot or the outlaw and so require huge expense and resources to install and monitor. (Perhaps that could be better spent elsewhere) Do we really want CCTV on every corner or the highway strewn with speed bumps and chicanes? Damages your car, slows up emergency services and makes for a very uncomfortable ride especially if you have physical impairment – like a bad back. It might only a few minutes to your journey – but add all those journeys up and where time is money – the costs mount up.
Lastly, it engenders a false sense of security. For pedestrians whom subconsciously take less precaution and drivers who will absolve themselves of personal responsibility in an accident because they were driving within the proscribed limit.
So is there an alternative? I dont know but I think you have to tackle the disease rather than the symptoms and I think it is always better to work with human nature than against it. i.e. engender a better sense of personal responsibility in all road users.
In the meantime, if I lived in one of those roads, (and as a temporary measure) I would be tempted to place one of those child scooters strategically on the road. It would be interesting to see the effect this would have – eh?
You are right in that getting a 20mph doesnt eliminate the idiots who absolve themselves of personal responsibility. For the last hour the vast majority of cars speeding up and down Tennyson Avenue are driver by just such idiots – I guess many of them will have children and would not want their children to be walking to school via our road as many others do. Hence speed calming measures are also needed. Many dont want speed bumps and in our survey this is clear, but some do, at least maybe one or two strategically placed, and possibly a narrowed entrance and exit, or as one other neighbour suggested, a sniper. I dont know how long it would take to engender a better sense of personal responsibility nemesis, but I would guess a lot longer than the time and cost of a couple of speed bumps and the tragedy of a dead or injured child. Having proven to LBR over 85% of residents wanted measures, LBR chose to reject this and ignore all appeals
If the main objective is to reduce accidents – It would seem that 20 mph roads do not work; This report from ‘full fact’ show accidents increase although the tone of the article is that this is inconclusive.
https://fullfact.org/articles/road_safety_20mph_zones_limits_casualties-27766
If the secondary objective is to improve the environment. I think you will find that driving in a lower gear uses more petrol and increases emissions.
Have you examined the accident figures for Tennyson Ave for the last 5-10 years? What do they reveal?
quote
The 24 per cent rise in all casulaties on 20 mph roads is noticeably different from the change in all other road types, most of which saw a slight fall in casualty numbers. This is actually consistent with a trend going back to at least 2007:
Perhaps a little ironic; You are standing for UKIP (imho rightly wanting the UK to make its own laws) yet you fall for what is in effect an EU initiative;
http://road.cc/content/news/44985-european-parliament-recommends-introduction-30kph-20mph-zones-across-europe
Yes I realise how much of Amyand is in Riverside now – its weird having grown up in Hartington which is St Margs that Amyand is mostly Riverside. Its a weird boundary.
Nemesis clearly thinks that its OK to do 30mph+ down a narrow residential road and suggests that I have fallen for what is “in effect” an EU initiative. Hardly. We dont need an EU Initiative to tell us what makes sense. I wonder how much that Initiative cost and whether it has made any difference at all. Nemesis then suggests we look at accident stats to justify a 20mph. That is exactly the response we had from our residents application to LBR – no one has been killed yet so there is no need. Really? Perhaps Nemesis would think differently if it was their child that was the required statistic to make something happen. Meanwhile over 85% of residents replied of which 100% want a 20mph AND speed calming measures. And we are not the only road that needs this, Amyand Park Road is also extremely dangerous for children during the school run. All the parents and children I have spoken to feel the same as do my elderly neighbours. No doubt Nemesis is one of those who tear down side roads at 40mph and shout abuse when asked to slow down.
I think that the proposal to limit speed to 20 mph in side roads is very sensible and it is now conservative policy… it is nothing to do with EU policy, just plain common sense, something which is mostly missing in Eurozone…
I fail to see who could disagree with a speed reduction on the very narrow back streets we have. I’m an ardent petrolhead and even I think it’s a good idea. Just make it a blanket 20 mph rather than just on the main roads. It’s stupid to do otherwise.
Thank you Rufus
That is purely an emotional response – not a reasoned or rational one. You have not refuted any of the points I made, instead to resort to Ad hom, implying that I am some kind of petrol head with no regard to children. I thought better of you.
You also conflate EU initiatives with ‘people power’ with little understanding of how ‘social engineering’ works. It is a proven template (smoking,drinking,sugar,salt, AGW, etc);
1.Engineer conflict – a divide and rule scenario.
2. Then fund and promote NGOs/lobby groups outside of government to promote one side and demonise the other, backed up by dodgy statistics (e.g. cyclists/public transport v individual car use)
3. The cry goes out that ‘something must be done’; think of the CHEELDRUN etc which in turn justifies subsequent government action, without people realizing that yet a little more of their freedom has gone out the window and with it an erosion of personal responsibitlity. Little by little, etc etc.
People love rules and restrictions in the abstract until mission creep catches up with them and they find themselves directly in the firing line.
That you have taken the bait is a shame, that you have taken it under the UKIP banner is a double shame (It is after all the modus operandi of the pro EU Lib Dems – though not exclusive to them).
OMG, UKIP candidate Sazzy Meagher wants MORE parking on Twickenham Riverside!
See her comment below that:
‘parking will of course be needed’
Is she considering a multi-storey car park or just parking on the town square?
Bonkers.
What a very rude person. And also very wrong. Maybe you need new glasses. I said “parking will of course be needed” not MORE parking as you state. Very agressive response to a perfectly legitimate comment. As for Bonkers – gosh, take a good look at yourself. A troll hiding behind anonymity.
Dear Sazzy,
I think you forgot to add that A River ‘will of course be needed’…Not MORE river, just the same old…
…and some Duke of York House stone…and some locals…and maybe the odd foreign immigrant worker…
Anonymouski
See last sentence of my previous message. Nothing more to say except you clearly need help
you guys make the strongest case for voting for Green Party!
Why? What are their plans?
Anonymous,
Are you really that intellectually challenged?
Come on Riverside candidates, let us know what your plans are for Twickenham Riverside?
You do have some plans, don’t you Scott, Sazzy, Barry, Susan’s C & B, Benedict, Roger, Helen etc?
ps We’re looking for a little more than wishy washy ideas about a town square.
If the area by the riverside is made into a public space it would be the ideal opportunity to establish a themed market, maybe a foodie one selling street food, like those springing up all over London.
Just because we are in the leafy ‘burbs doesn’t mean we have to think like provincial folk who would prefer a bandstand.
It could complement the existing farmers market rather than be competition for it as it would sell different things.
I’m sure there might be some opposition, including from established traders, quite understandably as they may believe trade will be taken away from them. But it could transform the town centre and make it a lively and attractive place to visit.
Create a good market and folk will make an effort to come into Twickenham, and they will also spend money in the town’s other shops, bars, cafes and restaurants.
An antiques, art or craft market, or a retro themed one may work well too, especially as a large auctioneers is opening nearby soon, attracting the punters into town. These types of enterprises thrive on being in close proximity each other. You could hold them on different days to maximize the use of the market space.
The markets would generate revenue for the Council in the form of pitch fees, which would help maintain the area. Maybe Jubilee Gardens could be used too and both the areas used for markets in the evenings as well?
This article gives a good idea of what diverse markets are now all over London.
http://www.timeout.com/london/shopping/london-markets
Yes YES YES! Exactly – it would transform the place. It was what it used to be like when I was growing up. You have some great ideas and I completely agree with you, also that there may be some resistance from established traders but many are going out of business already due to rent and business rates esp Church Street. Different markets on different days – it would be FAB and just the thing Twickenham needs. 🙂
Then Let the locals decide… have a local referendum run throught the two local papers… Simples…
Just been told that the Lib-Dems voted against a council tax freeze in the council, despite indicating they would support a freeze.
Ff that is true. It makes all their election literature a lie…
In reply to Iain, the LibDem’s latest literature promises “reducing Council Tax bills in real terms”. Many people might think that means a reduction in the amount they pay, but what it actually means of course is that the Tax can rise by a rate less than that of inflation – ie an increase.
Sadly that has never been the case with the Lib-Dems, you only have to look at the last council, when the Lib – Dems raised council tax by over 10% and got their noses firmly in the trough the then leader of the council Serge Lourie wanted to double his leaders salary and woud have done it if they had retained the council… that is the sort of contempt the Lib – Dems hold the electorate in.
all budding planners should bear in mind that anything put there has to conform to TAAP 7.5.5.3. The immediate residents might not be too happy with markets in the evenings as well?
Hmm. On twickerati back in the summer of 2010 we wanted a bandstand. No one commented on that story but then again no one read twickerati back then.
Gutted to be lumped in with ‘provincial folk’ although we did suggest new-folk and acoustic death metal could feature. Of course, this was back in the days when the DJG was still a derelict site. We also said that the Farmer’s Market should be moved from Holly Road to a better place but lord knows where that post ended up.
You make a good point about local markets, pop up markets etc. A street food market made a one-off appearance near the ‘alternative’ twickerati office recently and proved to be very popular.
I hadn’t seen that post back in 2010 about the bandstand and the reference to Trumpton. –It’s difficult to keep track of all the stories and comments when they become buried deeply away in the cyber-vaults.
Now I’m gutted too. You can’t get more provincial than Trumpton!
I once worked with a lady whose well-heeled parents had a big house in Twickenham. It was referred to as being ‘their place in the countryside’.
I would support moving the farmer’s market to the Riverside. It is is a pretty bleak location at the moment. Personally, I would like to see the Twickenham version of Stein’s…but with Belgian beer. And get rid of some of the cars.
Whilst I am a big fan of Twickerman, I think he is being a tad unfair to (all) candidates on this occasion. I doubt that any of them have the necessary architect/town planning skills to put out a full plan of what should go there. General ideas are more realistic together with some genuine consultation.
I’d like to see the farmers market relocated as well. But there’s scope to do considerably more than that.
At the very least the candidates could give us some broad brush plans of what they’d like to see (or not see) on the Embankment space. There’s loads of room, on different levels, for different uses so why can’t they share their plans with us.
We’ve already been Consulted on Riverside options, what has happened to that?
Where’s Scotty and his ‘sticky back plastic’ models of the riverside? At least he made an effort 4 years ago, but now he seems to have given up on Twickenham Riverside in favour of anti-European campaigning (and tweeting)?
Mr Goodrich, who is standing for the LibDems in Hampton Wick, supports moving the farmer’s market from Holly Road car park to the riverside – he says that it is a bleak location. Is it? I don’t think so, we visit the market most Saturdays, meet friends and chat to the stallholders many of whom have also become friends. The car park is full of trees, bustling with people and right in the town centre with plenty of parking spaces for those who need to drive. It’s easy for those who want to pop into M&S, Sandy’s, Starprint and all the other local stores, so why change something which is thriving and doing good for our community?
The LibDems seem determined to eradicate car usage, so perhaps that explains Mr Goodrich’s enthusiasm since parking on the Riverside will be very limited – no wonder the stallholders, most of whom have been there for years are reluctant to relocate, since, by the time they have parked their vans there will be little room for customers cars.
I do hope this isn’t yet another secret LibDem wheeze – remember, their current mantra is: “A fairer, greener, safer Borough”. They hid the CO2/CPZ tax scam behind “Putting the environment at the heart of everything we do”. Given their past form – “fairer” probably means higher taxes on property, “greener” higher taxes on cars and bigger houses, “safer”. 20MPH zones?
Let’s hope that the Twickenham farmers market, which works perfectly well, isn’t consigned to history by LibDem interference and that Mr Goodrich concentrates on local issues in Hampton Wick.
Alexis
Whilst we may not agree on some things i respect Mark personally and the children and parents (and pets) who use Amyand Park Road desperately need a 20mph. It is a very dangerous situation with so many schools nearby. It is scandalous king st is 20mph and childrens school walk routes are therefore even more of a rat run. Even if st margs is out of my ward now, i grew up in Hartington rd so i get it.
I don’t understand Alexis’ criticism that the Lib Dems want to reduce car usage. The government published a report a few weeks ago concluding that particulate emission from cars costs the lives of about 1 in 12 Richmond Borough residents. At the same time, road accidents are the largest cause of deaths among children and young adults in the UK. Add to that the fact that anyone who drives, cylces or catches a bus is well aware that they lose hours every week to congestion. I can’t believe there are any residents who would like to see more cars in Twickenham. For me it’s one of the biggest issues, and it will affect how I vote. The debate to be had is to what extent voters will support measures to reduce car use, especially as this necessitates some element of stick as well as carrot.
This is not party political – here I seem to be in agreement with a Lib Dem and a UKIP candidate.
James
May 13, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Im guessing – you never passed your test?
FYI, half of Amyand Park Road is in Riverside ward.
If you cherry pick side roads for 20mph, it will only shift the rat-run problem to adjacent roads.
Don’t you think it makes more sense to say 20’s plenty on all side roads in central Twickenham?
It’s also simpler & cheaper to implement and sends a clear & consistent message to drivers.
Have a licence and a car, because much of the time it’s better than the alternative. But I don’t get your point. Are you saying you want to see more cars, more congestion, more pollution, or am I missing something?
See below – totally agree with Purple Haze – this is why the Town Square idea took off in peoples imaginations because it could be used for markets and cultural events, art market, craft, designers, food, all sorts. Its an absolute must and I fail to see why anyone would object to it but no doubt there will be some.
Sazzy,
This is not a response to your post but the closest I can get to that from James.
I’m sorry James, I fear you have only homed in one little bit of my post – probably this: “The LibDems seem determined to eradicate car usage….”. With hindsight I probably should have written thus: The LibDems seem determined to reduce car usage by subterfuge and coercion by taxation. I prefer the approach of the Green party who are pretty upfront about their aims although Brighton seems to be a bit of a mess – did anyone else hear the Today interview with Natalie Bennett – their new leader?
James points out that deaths due to particulate emissions are a significant factor in our Borough. Could I please point out to him that this wouldn’t have been the case without the political/tax incentive to go diesel? Look at the mess Paris has been in recently for exactly the same reason.
As to subterfuge – as a resident, people like Mark Goodrich have every right to campaign for a 20mph speed limit in Amyand Park Rd and comment about the paucity of electoral literature from the other parties in Twickenham Riverside ward in which he lives, but it would have been much better to have declared his LibDem candidacy in Hampton Hill rather than trying to bluster his way out of a mess of his own making having been outed, so to speak. Sadly this seems to be the LibDem way which is why I don’t trust them any more.
James says: “This is not party political – here I seem to be in agreement with a Lib Dem and a UKIP candidate.” Really James? – there’s a surprise!
Alexis
PS: What does James think about the farmers market location? All too often things that work are broken by political agendas and interference – I do hope this is not yet another example.
PPS: As usual, Nemesis presses most of the right buttons.
As I said below in response to Nemesis, I have a car and I drive, but for me, during the hours I mostly travel, running, walking or cylcing prove to be quicker. I use the busses as much as possible in preference to driving, although I resent that they are slower and more expensive than driving. However,we shouldn’t get too personal here.
You’re absolutely right about the diesel taxation/ incentive issue, and I suspect the report is part of a movement towards correcting that. On the other hand, the UK government is being sued for nitrous oxide levels well above the legal limit (3 times the limit in some parts of London, I beleive). The particulate report doesn’t include the impact of NOx on health in the UK, but it’s a big problem. Switching diesel engines to petrol won’t solve this problem. And neither does it deal with the congestion issue.
My point is that incentivising people to drive over taking public transport or walking/ cycling benefits no one, especially not drivers who have to spend hours in traffic every day. In economic terms, the external costs and benefits of driving and public transport ought to be considered in policy decisions. e.g. when deciding on a policy to spend public money on giving free parking to shoppers, why not also consider spending money on free bus journeys for shoppers, freeing up parking spaces for those who want them and reducing the length of time drivers spend queing to get into town?
On the farmers’ market location, sorry but I’m not sure about this one. The current location is pretty good. Riverside would also be good. How about Chruch street, to throw another option into the mix?
Twickerman see below – the Town Square idea isnt wishy washy it was suggested by lots of people and Purple Haze has some great ideas with which I totally agree. What are your thoughts?
Show us a plan, rather than an idea.
It’s a large area from King Street down to the Embankment road, and from Water Lane across to the Diamond Jubilee Gardens.
-What will it look like (a big squarish sloping patch of York stone maybe)?
-Will you demolish the existing buildings and what will you do with HANDS?
-Will there be restaurants, cafes, shops, a river centre, landscaping, more parking…?
Come on candidates – show us that you’ve actually thought about it rather than just jumped on the town square bandwagon. This is your opportunity to shine and differentiate yourselves from the general negativity of the Riverside campaign so far.
For markets to work, the council need to take the lead and set up a markets office at the council, or set up a non-profit company to run the markets. This new borough wide organisation could set up markets in all the towns in the borough, and set up a mini-circuit.
At the moment the council is delegating the organisation of the markets to trader organisations who have a vested interest in sabotaging any meaningful commercial market.
For example, in Whitton, The traders group (WBA) will only organise a monthly market, and I have heard from a number of people that there proposals for a stall would not be acceptable as it would clash with an existing shop.
This just wont do. There are many successful markets in South East England, and many good quality traders could be brought into our towns. But what is needed is oversight from the centre, and a professional organisation to run the markets on a day to day basis.
Generally the more a council gets involved the more likely it is to fail Councils know nothing of business and how it works.
John – far from jumping on the “bandwagon” you well know we have been involved in this for many years. No there is no plan for a River centre as was previously planned by the Lib Dems with a huge restaurant, there is already a cafe and whilst it would be great to reveal a “plan” it is important people are consulted first – otherwise we would just be forcing our ideas on people like others have in the past. Maybe you could try and be a little bit less negative about the town square ‘plan’ – it will need significant space, and parking will of course be needed. The farmers market doesnt necessarily have to move – there are opportunities for plenty of other markets, clothing, food, arts, crafts etc.
Anyone with a serious interest in politics and sociological perspectives should take a look at the recent report, ‘A Portrait of Modrn Britain’ from The Policy Exchange.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/a-portrait-of-modern-britain
Click to access a%20portrait%20of%20modern%20britain.pdf
In this Riverside house we are all at a loss to decide who is least worse.
Lord True has led the borough like a little fiefdom, behaving with complete disdain for the views of local voters in spite of two judicial reviews and the private reservations of some of his Councillors. You wonder if his friends in the Catholic Church and the RUFC etc. had more influence. He sacked the one Councillor who spoke up and he failed to call by elections when one Councillor became to all intents and purposes invisible, and the other took off his sheep’s clothing. So he leaves us with his legacy school when a school that would have served the community has no site and a high rise many of us will have to stare at for as long as we live here, on top of a station that will be a bit more new and shiny but limited for all time. Jury is still out on whether the town centre improvements are value for money and whilst buying the Santander building is promising do we trust them to have a vision for something that will really make Twickenham a destination as well as something special for our community? On the plus side Councillor Chappell is well intentioned and reasonable and when not under Lord True’s thumb responsive and the other candidates seem like reasonable people too.
The Lib Dem candidates all seem like nice reasonable people too but their party has not really been there standing up for our views for the last three years either, you can always rely on the yellow Knight to weigh in with some point of political principle or point scoring but rarely does he actually reflect the real mood of the voters let alone do it in the strongest terms. For instance on the school place issue we have seen much mud thrown between the trenches but neither party is actually offering any vision or change to the fundamental strategy which leaves so many parents pressured to move, go private or even home school because they just happen to live in a road not served by local schools, or at least not by local community schools that you don’t have to sit in a pew to get into.
I am sure all our UKIP candidates are principled people but you worry about the principles. Councillor Naylor has already taken off his sheep’s clothing but is his wolf’s clothing covering something even more scary. And whilst you wonder what relevance policies on Europe and immigration have for Twickenham, I think many of us like to think we live in a liberal (small l) and tolerant borough that does want to be part of the world as well as the UK.
So Twickenham is undecided amongst these four voters…..
Suspect there are a lot of undecided voters out there in Riverside and many who will remain undecided and sadly stay at home. My prediction is Riverside will become a split ward. I am resolving my indecision by putting my cross against the one sitting Tory and the two LibDems at the top of the ballot paper. They seem to have been the most hardworking of the candidates.
Vote Lib Dem and you will see council tax rise by at least 10% in the four years that they are in power, what benefits will you get, look at the way they wasted money last time Lourie was intent on doubling his annual stipend at a time when the rest of us were having our incomes frozen. At least the current administration cut councillors allowances. They have also frozen council tax for four years and have built up a cash reserve, when the Lib-Dems left an overdraft.
The Tories have not frozen council tax for four years. The LibDems froze council tax four years ago and, with assistance from the government, the Tories have continued the freeze for the last three years. If in a moment of madness there was a council tax increase of over 2% this would trigger a referendum. Interesting that recent research has shown that the highest council tax increases recently have been in Conservative run authorities, eg just over the border Conservative run Surrey County Council have put up council tax by 1.99%.
Last time the Lib-Dems were in our council tax was raised by over !0% over their 4 years in power. They may have frozen it in the last year, but that was just an electioneering ploy…
I just wanted to say that I agree we all want to live in a tolerant borough and country, for that matter. But tolerance can be taken too far and become iniquitous in itself when foreign criminals cannot be removed from this country due to their ‘human rights’ and their victims have no such rights. There are many people in the UK who clearly feel we pay too high a price for the benefits of being in the EU, and there are obviously some. ‘Do the negatives and the cost outweigh the benefits?’ is what people need to decide. Certainly all the mud slinging at UKIP calling them racist and other insults is par for the course with the media and establishment in general. As mentioned previously, we have some oddballs and a few bad apples but so does every party. Finally, if standing up for your ward residents and turning into a ‘wolf’ is scary what hope is there for democracy. Just off to work – have a good day everyone. Its good to read so much passion from people for their home town.
Please show me a case where ‘foreign criminals cannot be removed from this country due to their ‘human rights’ and its relation to the EC.
Sassy I exercised my democratic right and voted for a Conservative Councillor at the last election. I am of course disillusioned that under Lord Trues regime his party then went back on their promises concerning the station and applaud Scott Naylor for the principled stand he took on the planning issues. It was wrong for Lord True, and Counsellor Samuels, to lead the party as they did, with some sort of illusion of entitlement to divine rule, brooking no disagreement from individual Councillors. I do not even think party politics has much relevance in a local government setting. However the fact remains I voted for someone who claimed to be a Conservative and that embodies a certain set of values, and associated beliefs which I can just about tolerate in a local Councillor. I am afraid as you have illustrated above UKIP embodies a set of values and associated beliefs that I certainly cannot tolerate even in a local Councillor and when the Councillor I voted for turns out to have those values and beliefs then I feel betrayed by the democratic process. I can approve a Wolf’s actions but it is still a wolf.
Well, plenty of comments on here but seems strangely apathetic in the real world. Twickenham Riverside has a small smattering of Lib Dem posters and I haven’t seen one for any other party!
I am grateful to get Sarah Meagher’s support for 20mph limits on Amyand Park Road. That means that all parties have indicated support other than Labour (silence) and the Tories (opposed). I will return the favour. I agree with her that the granting of a long lease of the Diamond Jubilee Gardens on uncommercial terms to a trust which is not accountable to the local community was council cronyism at its worst. Twickerman is right that the new space acquired should be opened up and let’s have a more inspiring vision for it than Tory bandstands (or even the rather sterile DJG). No need to rush – let’s get it right.
Also for the record, whilst the UKIP candidates don’t live in the ward, the Tories don’t either!
Personally, I will never vote for UKIP but in recognition of your support for 20mph limits, I will make a helpful suggestion. if you want to make an impact, could I suggest that you may want to deliver some leaflets with your local policies?
So far during the electoral period, my house has had 5 pieces of local Lib Dem literature, 2 pieces of local Tory literature and only Euro leaflets from UKIP and the Greens. If that is any indication of work-rate, the choice for local councillors should be clear.
The UKIP R&T website http://ukiprt.org/ is also a bit short of content.
Hi Mark
We are getting some leaflets printed and we have worked on these ourselves rather than being told what to say ‘top-down’ from what our experience of locals in the ward want and aspire to have. This covers all the people of Riverside and businesses up to Richmond Bridge as many forget about E Twick. I really hope we can get 20mph for our roads esp those like Amyand Park and Tennyson used as rat runs and busy with schoolchildren.
How about UKIP proposing kilometers instead of mph and changing the side we drive on so we could be the same as the mainland? Now I would vote for that!
Don’t change the miles to Kilometers, or drive on the wrong side of the road… next you will be advocating an increase of VAT on glider fuel…
To reply to Mark Goodrich We, the conservatives, have a belief of letting the Liberal Democrats bore everybody for some time, before we tell the truth…
This is a pretty significant statement, ie ‘we have worked on these [leaflets] ourselves rather than being told what to say “top down” ‘. The definition of a “political party” is (Collins) “an organization of people who share the same views about the way power should be used”;; OK, so if UKIP in Riverside support freezing council tax but UKIP in Hampton support raising it, you are not sharing the same view, etc. As was written previously by someone in this thread, you are really Independents (very praiseworthy) not a specific political party.
In response, we have regular meetings with other wards and discuss and agree on our stance that affects issues across all wards eg council tax, but we also are free to represent the people in our wards with specific ideas and policies to reflect their views. Something no other party seems to do. But yes you are right, we are more ‘independent’ hence the name UKIP.
It may be idle speculation on my part but I notice that a Mark Bernard Goodrich is standing for election in Hampton Wick for the LibDems – could “MarkyGoodrich” and he be one and the same person? If so, would it not have been better to nail his colours to the mast rather than continue to masquerade as an “interested resident” of Twickenham Riverside ward?
He writes thus:
“Also for the record, whilst the UKIP candidates don’t live in the ward, the Tories don’t either!”
Nor does Mark Bernard Goodrich live in Hampton Wick!
Needless to say I will issue a grovelling apology if my speculation is incorrect although no trip to the new Sushi bar will be on offer.
Alexis
Alexis you are right, I think, It is the same person, but he won’t have the guts to admit it, preferring to hide behind the lies that the Liberal Democrats constantly put out, including starting scare stories with their disingenous petitions, a very good example is S.O.S. (Save Our Stores), Which party allowed Starbucks and Tesco into Kew… the Liberal Democrats… At least Tesco pay tax.
No worry about my guts, chaps. I am more than happy to admit it! So presumably by your logic, I am now owed an apology…. I think it is important for everyone to have a chance to vote for which party they want to represent them and so agreed to let my name go forward in Hampton Wick. This is especially so given that people may want to cast a positive vote for 20mph limits, space for cycling and an end to the Tory cuts.
You will note that I made no criticism of the fact that none of the UKIP or Tory candidates live in Twickenham Riverside ward. It was just an observation given that people were criticising the UKIP candidates for not living there.
Finally, I do not “masquerade” as an interested resident of Twickenham Riverside. I am an interested resident of Twickenham Riverside. Not really for me to say how you Tory types should campaign but perhaps it would be better to deal with the issues rather than attacking individuals?
The Tories also are proposing a 20 mph limit for side roads, the debate is on how to ensure that the large Gas Guzzlers dont break the limit. on Sandecombe Road in Kew, where I live, I have to look carefully before crossing the road, to avoid being run down by said vehicles, which seem to breed in this area… The Lib-Dems create peoples’ fears by running false petitions…
Just produce another dubious petition to frighten the electorate, such as Kingston Hospital closure… Accept that the Lib-Dems are a busted flush and unfortunately UKIP are stealing your votes…
What strange logic, even for a lawyer! So no apology will be forthcoming, I’m afraid.
I’m delighted to hear that Mr Goodrich’s guts are in fine fettle. What a pity he didn’t choose to use them and declare his party loyalty and candidacy before triggering off this sad little spat rather than after. I wonder how many politicos rue the day that they tried to bluster their way out of a mess of their own making only to make it worse by doing so?
He says: “You will note that I made no criticism of the fact that none of the UKIP or Tory candidates live in Twickenham Riverside ward. It was just an observation given that people were criticising the UKIP candidates for not living there.”
Right, so no hint of an implied criticism there then!
I asked my beloved, who’s good at this sort of stuff, to google Mr M.B Goodrich. Lo and behold he stood as a LibDem candidate in a By-Election in New Addington in 1997 and polled 97 votes compared with the winning Labour candidates 755 votes. Good for him for effort but hardly an auspicious start.
As to dealing with the issues rather than attacking individuals: What a tired old response. The issues exist whoever is in power next time around so it’s all about who we think will come up with the best fix. Thats why we need to know something about the character of those like Mr Goodrich who wish to govern us.
Alexis
ALexis searched into Mark Goodrich’s past. Let us not forget Alka Seltzer’s past… He tried to mislead people in Kensington, but thankfully was rejected… Now we have him facing us in Richmond against Zac Goldsmith, who is the most principled politician on another matter… Will Vince be replaced by an unpleasant horsefly, who may have to vacate his Sheffield seat??? Let’s keep the election truthfull.
I am replying to my own message because for some reason the website is not coming up with a “Reply” option for the latest from Alexis below (who obviously decided not to take me up on the offer of talking about the issues).
Anyway, I was really amused to see that Alexis had tracked down a local authority by-election of 17 years ago. I had honestly forgotten that particular youthful indiscretion. Although it is flattering to have my very own Google-stalker, it is worrying to see that Alexis is only a few years off my University days…hate to say what he/she will find there.
But I don’t really see what it is all about. I make all my comments on this site publicly linking to my Twitter feed. There is absolutely no mystery about who I am. I mean it is not as if I am hiding behind an alias from Dynasty to take pot-shots at people…..
Since Mr Goodrich had a pop at the other parties paucity of electoral literature in Twickenham Riverside, the ward in which he lives, I, yet again, googled Hampton Wick LibDems, where he is standing, to have a look at their election stuff and was surprised to find… nothing! Just this rather sad message barely two weeks before the election:
“Sorry, but there aren’t any posts in the Hampton Wick category yet. … I support the Lib Dem campaign to introduce 20 mph limits on our residential roads.”
Right – is that it! Perhaps Mr Goodrich needs to put his own electoral house in order before having a pop at others?
I wonder if the LibDems are hiding a few other nasty little surprises this time? Remember the CO2/CPZ/Meter tax scam they inflicted on us with no mention in their manifesto? Remember the ill-fated vanity project to sell off Twickenham Riverside? If anyone is still in any doubt about how close that came to happening, we were only saved by the demise of the chosen contractor and Lourie’s hubris when challenged to make it an election issue. Fortunately he did, lost the ward and probably the election.
On the national stage – Lets not forget Clegg’s roll-over on the tripling of Student Tuition Fees despite a manifesto pledge? Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, for goodness sake, being caught out bragging about how he would stop Murdoch by two young female reporters from The Telegraph? Today we learn that all is not well with the funding for Clegg’s free infant school lunches. Yet more leaked e-mails questioning the diversion of funds?
Whilst Vince was almost certainly right about Murdoch. Bragging about his power to a couple of young women shows how easily a silly old buffer can be suckered into indiscretions. Perhaps Iain is right – he might need to move over for Clegg who, otherwise, may well pay the price for his broken pledge to students, very many of whom live in his Sheffield constituency. Apart from anything else, Twickenham is an awful lot closer to home!
Alexis
PS: Sorry Marky, nothing to do with Dynasty – a simple typo from long ago, easier to live with than rectify.
How about some info about your plans to transform Hampton Wick apart from introducing a 20mph zone? After all, you have chosen to be in the electoral spotlight, not me – but then critics are always rubbished when off message, aren’t they?
PPS: What offer to have a chat about the “issues”?
There’s lots of talk about what the ukip gang did for the Riverside 4 years ago.
But what the electorate need to know is…
…what plans do ukip have for finishing off the half completed Riverside redevelopment?
Well it’s not got much to do with UKIP because it’s being completed right now and the plans are readily available to view. I don’t personally think the riverside regeneration is much to be excited about but then it’s quite possibly the best for now. I’m rather disappointed that it still seems to be nothing more than a car park.
All, its a shame it has taken so long to get this far I agree. It does have to do with UKIP because it wouldnt have got this far if so many of us didnt fight to save it from private housing. It would have been good to get the Town Square up and running before now, but no doubt some delay was caused to some extent, by getting agreement to purchase the Santander site. I remember when it used to be a pub! The Birds Nest I think it was called. Anyway, we want to see a Town Square that could maybe even host a regular market and cultural events. We lost the one that used to be at the end of Church Street years ago in front of the car park and where Crusader and Pinchos are. Then we lost the cinema and the pool so the ‘buzz’ went out of Twickenham. This is about getting the ‘buzz’ back.
Its good to have some fair questions and comments like yours on Twickerati rather than just political trolling.
Besides the Riverside car park, there’s a huge undeveloped area on The Embankment that includes Santander, the car park, the semi-derelict buildings and waste ground.
The Tories have some rather vague ideas for a bandstand (yes we are in 21st century!) and maybe a slightly better cafe.
But is this really the best they can come up with for such a magnificent site? Richmond and Kingston will hardly be quaking in their well visited boots.
The other parties seem to have even fewer ideas.
This is all incredibly disappointing given the site’s history and that Twickenham Riverside is being tagged as a pivotal electoral ward.
All parties must stop their infantile bickering about the past, and try much, much harder to give us some positive plans for the future.
It wasn’t only the “ukip gang” that saved Riverside 4 years ago. There was a whole host of others, happy to work hard and remain out of the limelight. I fear there is some exaggeration going on in some quarters, and even possibly tampering with the facts.
The Conservatives’ plans for the rest of the site can be envisaged by reading the Riverside In Touch Election Special, in conjunction with the TAAP
YES…there was cross party agreement in the condemnation of the riverside plan. Many people were involved from all parties!
Yes I didnt say it was just us – at no time did I say that – but some were more involved, and regularly every week, than others. I was very interested with the Conservatives In Touch and their statement to give residents a 20mph where the majority want it – completely not true as you may have seen from my letter in last weeks RTT.
3 of you were involved out of 20 or so active campaigners and 100’s more supporters. The Cons, Greens, Labour and those of no political affiliation could also make exactly the same claim.
Strange that UKIP like to depict themselves as champions of Riverside ward yet they cannot find a candidate who lives in the ward – two of them live outside the Borough! If Ms Meagher is interested in 20mph limits on Tennyson Ave why didn’t she stand in Twickenham South. No UKIP candidate has knocked on doors on Amyand Park Road seeking a 20mph limit.
As a South Twickenham resident I live about 50 metres from the Riverside Ward – much closer than many councillors and candidates across the board. Cllr Naylor has done more for Riverside Ward than any other and lives outside Twickenham now as many others have had to, due to cost of renting. We are not all independently wealthy, Richmond Resident. Barry E was also a campaigner for Save the Riverside. As for Amyand Park Road, there most certainly are serious concerns about the rat run there including from Mark Goodrich who had a letter about it in the RTT in response to mine. He has my full support. If you would like to knock on doors in Amyand Park Road you may find there is significant support for a 20mph.
Typo – meant Riverside Resident
If 20mph limits are so important to UKIP candidates why isn’t it mentioned in your manifesto. Indeed, there is a suggestion that there will be “a moratorium on wasteful traffic schemes”.
At least the Libs are clear, who I see Mr Goodrich has nominated, about what they would do – a 20mph limit on all residential roads.
It’s that tedious political mud-slinging time again.
As one-time Twickenham resident Pete Townshend once said:
‘Why don’t you all just f-f fade away?’
Or how about? ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…’
Strange choice to quote – Pete T – one-time Twickenham resident who contributed nothing to it (refusing to support a long term neighbour in distress – I still have a letter somewhere) and who is not exactly known for his personal integrity. Suggest taking ‘Pete’s’ advice yourself.
Does it have his signature on the letter? You could sell that and donate the money to charity…
Yes it does. I should dig it out. Am sure I kept it. Not sure if it would be worth anything ? but would happily donate to Shooting Star or a charity of your choice
I think what matters most is that people are properly and honestly represented. The Lib -Dem brigade were in it for as much as they could get. At least the Conservatives reduced the allowances that councillors get each year. Herr Lourie planned to vastly increase his annual stipend if he had been re-elected, thankfully David Linnette beat him.
AH, the ‘town square’ .. the recent RTT paper seems to be confused that this will be behind Santander!
I thought we had a ‘town square’ with the new riverside?? That carpark could easily be redone… when will they get those old buildings refurbished?
Its not clear if the Town Square will go ahead yet or its exact location – all seems to be a bit vague. It would have been less disruptive to have the work done at the same time as the work on the embankment I would have thought. Still thats my view as a lifelong local resident and someone so frustrated with failed promises by both LD & Con I have together with my fellow Save the Riverside Campaigners, decided to stand for UKIP. I hope those who also have concerns about our narrow residential roads being used as a rat run saw my letter in RTT last Friday week.
illiad: the carpark has only very recently become the Council’s property, as the article in Rich &Twick (p2, May 2) explains.
Sazzy (aka Sarah): If your colleagues really have at heart the long-term future of Twickenham Riverside, why did they, as I hear, at a recent Scrutiny meeting, oppose the vesting of The Diamond Jubilee Gardens into a Trust? This will ensure that no development can take place on the site, in accordance with the expressed wishes of more than 7500 members of the public in a petition presented to 10 Downing St. I find their action very strange.
I would also like to ask why UKIP? Why not stand as an Independent? UKIP candidates in other wards seem to have no specific policies, just telling residents “we will do whatever you want”. Such an approach simply will not do, as it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.
Boanerges (aka?) we really do have at heart the long term future of the Riverside and have proven this. We are opposed to the Riverside being taken out of the hands of the people of Riverside – how is that democratic? The land is now in control of a few unelected people who do not represent the people of Twickenham and no one was consulted on whether the land should be handed over to a ‘Trust’. Are all Riverside residents being given membership of this ‘Trust’? Many of us who fought for the Riverside now have no influence or control whatsoever. That as you say, “simply will not do”. As for UKIP, we have been allowed to set our own local policies in line with our experience of what our ward residents would like and we do I can assure you have specific policies. As for saying it is impossible to please all the people all the time, you are right, but what we can do is try, and we can also not lie. I have just read a Conservative leaflet stating their candidates pledge to “introduce 20mph zones” where the “majority of residents want it”. They said that last year. We applied for Tennyson Avenue where 100% of the 85%+ residents who replied wanted it – we were refused and not even invited to the “public” meeting at which the decision was ratified. That also, “simply will not do”. Maybe I have the wrong interpretation of the word “pledge”?
As for standing for UKIP, they are the only people it seems to me who are actually reflecting and prepared to act on, most peoples concerns. Yes they have a few oddballs, but I would suggest to the Con/Lib Dems – ‘people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones’.
Sarah Meagher
Sazzy says that there nobody was consulted about handing Riverside to a Trust; perhaps she has forgotten the Conservatives’ 2010 election manifesto (on which she stood), that made exactly that pledge. I am sorry she has no trust in the Trust.
On the matter of UKIP’s “specific policies”: I’m sure we would like to hear what these are. For example, raise or freeze council tax? How about green spaces, education, social services, traffic etc? It doesn’t seem a good idea to have different views depending upon ward on these borough-wide problems.
Hold your horses. Santander and the car park haven’t been purchased by Council yet. Lord True hasn’t informed us how much longer this will take.
Remember that he promised Solum towers would be finished in time for the rugby world cup, so perhaps he’s given up making unrealistic promises in favour of secrecy.
. Anonymouse – your horse can be let free – see Rich & Twick May 2, p2: “the Council’s purchase of the Santander site in Water Lane is irrevocably agreed”.
That was only 5 days ago and we have had a bank holiday during this time so only 2 days of council time.
‘Agreed’ maybe, but not finalised or completed. There are also outstanding commercial leases to respect (which are probably quite lengthy otherwise Santander wouldn’t have recently refurbished the whole bank).
The horses remain in the LBRUT stable block very patiently awaiting starting instructions from his Lordship.
A fair article and yes there is a good chance that purple could hold the balance of power – all 3 Riverside candidates were stallwarts campaiging to Save the Riverside and fought against the Croydon on Thames development over the Station which cost Scott Naylor his deselection at the hands of his “follow the party line” colleagues. Its also pure hypocrisy for The Yellow Knight to say they are pro the Town Square which was the ‘peoples’ idea not his whose party were determined to sell off the public land for a massive private housing development. The affiliated ‘social’ housing to be built on the remains of an award winning community Garden in Sherland Road which they destroyed!
Think carefully folks – this is a chance for real change and a chance to elect people who will represent you not just ‘toe the party line’.
R U T is by and large naturally Lib Dem territory with occasional bursts of Conservatism. Which way it will go this election I am not sure. One thing I am pretty certain of is that the borough will not return one ‘purple’. Wouldn’t mind seeing a Green make it though.
Not sure how long you have lived here but RUT is not naturally LD – as a resident all my life from Orleans Infants to date, it has always been hard fought Con/LD – you probably dont remember Toby Jessel? As for not returning one purple, the more we hear that from LD and Cons the stronger UKIP gets. The same tired old mantra from two tired old parties too arrogant to think UKIP have a chance. I hope they are proven wrong.
These are council elections not national elections. From 1986 the Libs have led the council 5 times to the Cons 2. 1982 split. I grant you from 1964 to 1982 it was Conservative.
Yes I think I know these are council elections – given I have lived here long enough to know the difference. And yes, ex Twick, you are right, we did have Lib Dems 5 times which is probably one of the reasons our Riverside was left to rot for so long then they tried to sell it off to private developers despite 95% of the ward being against this and LD leader Serge Lourie who lives in Kew, ignoring what residents wanted. I remember campaigning at York House against the sell off and your Mr Lourie and ex-Cllr Denise Carr standing on the balcony mocking the protesters – just before they lost their seats….
um well my card says ‘Election of Members of the European Parliament’ – Where is the LOCAL MP one???
Also…may I add that all UKIP is going to achieve in R U T is to split the Tory vote.
On a wider issue as UKIP’s central plank is an anti EC stance could I ask how in anyway this policy is going to be of any consequence in a local council election?
Oh dear – another Lib Dem smear – no we are not going to split the ‘Tory’ aka Conservative vote. I think the residents of Twickenham have a fairly good memory of the Lib Dem plan to sell off of their public land of the Riverside only just averted by the help local campaginers like us gave the Conservatives. It is interesting that you tried to point out to me the difference between national and local elections and then revert to UKIP national policy. UKIPs Riverside candidates all have a proven committment to the residents of Riverside campaigning against the sell off and against the high rise over the station. Scott has represented the people of Riverside with integrity having been elected by them, I have been campaigning locally for 20mph for residential roads for over a year due to several near misses with school children and pets being hit by cars, despite coping with a very serious illness, and Barry has been involved in the Riverside and environmental issues for local people for years. I dont think anyone has better credentials. If I am wrong please enlighten me.
As for national policy – since you raised it – it would seem to me that only UKIP believe the people who live in the UK are not too stupid to be given a vote on the EU.
Sazzy – I would just like to say I am not a Lib Dem nor have any affiliation to them.
Apologies for presuming LD!
Surprised to find that Green Party candidates are able to list themselves as first choice green party member, 2nd choice etc.
That looks like gaming the system in order to increase their chances of getting at least one candidate to accumulate more votes.
Still time to book a last minute holiday !!!
Sazzy does make good points and the problem is the duplicitous Lib-Dems… Sadly as a deputy Chairman of a Conservative ward, I can’t do anything to support Sazzy, who is a very close personal friend, but I wish her the best of luck and hope she will continue to speak what all of us wish to hear… Go girl… Go
And iain You are one of the most loyal and really honest human beings i have ever met. What i love most is that you have the courage to speak your mind.
Sent from my iPhone
Sazzy, Just make sure that Frodo wears a blue band on election day, Purple does not suit him…