What Next, The Rehabilitation of Pervert Barry Phelps?

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/what-next-the-rehabilitation-of-pervert-barry

Blog Reaches Over 52,000 Site Views

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/blog-reaches-over-52000-site-views


We would like to thank everybody who visits this site for helping us reach this truly amazing number of site views since this blog went online in July this year.  We will be doing our best to justify this degree of support and interest by providing you with more articles on issues as they affect the borough, and an important developing news story which we hope to bring to you soon.

Coming Soon ...

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-16

What Next, The Rehabilitation Of Pervert Barry Phelps?

Email Scandal Ex-Councillor Mark Daley Seeks To Resume Political Career

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/email-scandal-ex-councillor-mark-daley-seeks

In what is both an amazing and profoundly disturbing news report in the Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle,  it appears that ex-Councillor Mark Daley is positioning himself to make a political comeback, perhaps in helping Boris Johnson in his re-election campaign for London Mayor.  You can read the story here:

http://kensington.londoninformer.co.uk/2010/09/ex-councillor-defends-role-in.html

Readers of this blog might know that our policy concerning ex-Councillor Mark Daley has been that as he had resigned as Councillor and had appeared to wish to remain in obscurity, this blog believed that there was no further purpose in focussing our readers attention on this particular recipient of Phelps' emails as he had already paid the price of receiving them.  However, this situation has radically changed now that there appears to be a campaign to rehabilitate Daley and in some way prepare him for a return to a public role in politics.  This would be an absolute outrage in view of the evidence which this blog has presented, notwithstanding any further evidence which may be presented.

This blog has not been convinced by anything so far said in defence of Mark Daley for the reasons stated in the article posted on 27 August entitled "Mark Daley Revisited" which can be found at the following link:

http://barryphelps.posterous.com/mark-daley-revisited-0

It should be emphasised that Barry Phelps' pervert emails were sent to a select and small number of individuals, and did not constitute part of Phelps' mass mailings on Earls Court matters, as Daley misleadingly implies.  It should also be noted that one of the willing recipients on Phelps' email list has stated that he had to gain Phelps' trust before being included on the email list.  Why was Mark Daley, alone among all the Councillors on the Council, a recipient on the pervert email list?  Are we to believe that this was just purely random, that Phelps just happened to include Daley on this list, perhaps risking Daley not taking too kindly to them and reporting him to the Council Leader, or even the police?

There are many unanswered questions concerning Daley's role in being a recipient of the pervert emails.  We cannot accept uncorroborated and self interested statements which appear to be motivated by a desire to return to a political career, when the known facts appear to be incompatible with what Mark Daley is saying.  From taking an honourable decision to resign and return to a private life, which this blog believed he was entitled to have after sacrificing his political career, we can only view with disgust and dismay this cynical attempt to return to public life while not giving the full facts and answering all the questions concerning why he was one of the few individuals who were in receipt of Phelps' pervert emails.  It is pure obfuscation to allege that he had blocked Phelps' emails because they were about Earls Court matters that did not concern him, when the emails in question were never mass mailed by Phelps and are in a totally different category.  For these reasons, this blog will campaign to inform the public concerning the many questions concerning this man which he must answer fully and convincingly before he should ever re-enter public life.  There is nothing in what Mark Daley, or his defenders, have said so far which resolves the doubts and concerns about his role as a recipient of Phelps' disgusting emails.  Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense for some individuals who are seeking to rehabilitate Mark Daley, for them to condemn Barry Phelps for sending these disgusting emails, while seeking to find excuses for Mark Daley on the basis of only his self interested testimony and nothing more.

More BS Than "Big Society"

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/more-bs-than-big-society

The ConDem Coalition's "Big Society" And How It Will Affect The Borough

There is a scene in the film "Angela's Ashes" where Frank McCourt's impoverished mother, played by Emily Watson, went to a local welfare board to plead for some money to feed her family.  It was a humiliating experience.  If the ConDem Coalition Government has its way, this will be the future for many impoverished families throughout the country, as the "Big Society" manifests itself as a postcode lottery for social welfare provision by local charities and voluntary organisations staffed by local busybodies and individuals with missions to moralise the poor.  Readers of this blog might be sceptical that this is where the "Big Society" will take us, but some of those experts who have studied what exactly this notion of the "Big Society", so often referred to by the Coalition, actually means have come precisely to the conclusion that it involves the dismantling of the welfare state and collective provision of government services.  You can read what one of these experts has to say here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2010/07/19/camerons-big-society-will-leave-the-poor-and-powerless-behind

Although the government hasn't given a detailed programme of what the "Big Society" will mean, from what we know it seems that it will involve the replacement of collective and state provision of services with greater reliance on voluntary, charitable, and private sector provision in such areas of welfare, social services for the poor and elderly, housing, education, healthcare, and even policing.  Some of us who have studied British political history might have the feeling of deja vu all over again, as these ideas, although packaged as new by the Coalition, are as old as the nineteenth century.  The debate concerning state versus voluntary and private provision of services was very lively at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly at the time when Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was laying the foundations of the welfare state.  In fact Lloyd George was playing something of a catch up with the rival economic power of Germany, which had pioneered the welfare state and state social insurance in the late nineteenth century.  The debate we are going to have about the ConDem "Big Society" is going to be a rehash of the old arguments we can study in our history books, whereby the case for state collective provision for welfare and other services will have to be made all over again, only this time it will be about dismantling state collective provision rather than establishing it.  Back at the beginning of the twentieth century there were studies by many early sociologists and philanthropists such as Rowntree's studies of York, which showed considerable poverty was in no way eradicated or diminished by charitable and voluntary sector provision.  This was the main argument of those proposing state provision of welfare and other services, in that charities and the voluntary sector just would not be able to provide what is needed or provide a consistent universal standard of help and service nationally.  Also there was the stigma of those who were poor and needed help having to apply for something discretionary, rather than as a statutory right.

Anybody studying Rowntree's periodic studies of poverty in York will note the gradual improvement in the condition of the poor as each instalment of the welfare state was being constructed throughout the first half of the twentieth century.  Charitable and voluntary provision for the poor, as well as other social services and healthcare, were supplementary to the state becoming the main provider for social security, social services, and free health care through the National Health Service.  This is something which Britain could be proud of.  Most Conservatives accepted this arrangement, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath.  Even Margaret Thatcher never went as far as the ConDems in their plans to dismantle the welfare state and even the National Health Service and to take us back to the nineteenth century where such services will be local, and the voluntary and charitable sectors will be involved in service provision.

But how would all this manifest itself on a local scale in the borough?  The blog will try to provide a preview of how the dismantling of the state's provision of welfare and social services, and many other services provided by the local authority,  will affect local residents.  The devolution of many government and local government statutory services to voluntary and private bodies, will be a recipe for chaos and a postcode lottery for service provision for not just the most vulnerable and poor in our community, but also for all residents who rely on statutory and regulated services from the Town Hall.  It will be a charter for busy bodies and for crones and cronies of the Town Hall to establish themselves with quasi authority, and funded by your Council Tax to govern and intrude in all our lives in many areas of service provision currently provided by the Town Hall.  In a prosperous borough such as Kensington and Chelsea, there might be no shortage of articulate individuals with the time and the money to engage in many local initiatives to bring decision making on many issues away from the Town Hall to Residents Associations, or local societies or local planning campaigns.  This will ensure their voices will be heard more than the inarticulate and those too busy with work to get involved in local decision making or providing local services.  Do we really want to move to a society where a committee of prosperous residents acquire for themselves powerful decision making roles over many aspects of our lives, from local policing, to parking regulations, to planning decision making, as well as local charities being the port of call for when we are poor?  Do we really want a post code lottery for finding a General Practitioner who will be willing to provide an expensive but effective medication for a chronic illness?  Some parts of the borough may be very desirable places to live in, but others may deteriorate with poor standards of service provision, dragging down house prices, and with there never being enough money to maintain the infrastructure of the area.  Also, there will be the risk of increased poverty and crime, as collective provision of social services and welfare is withdrawn in favour of more local initiatives with limited budgets which cannot cope with the extent of local need.  In short we will be going back to how things were in the nineteenth century.  Except that the world has changed much since then, and the problems which gave rise to the intervention of the state in the twentieth century will be even more urgent after we get a taste of what the ConDem Coalition has in store for us.

Coming Soon: More BS Than "Big Society"

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-more-bs-than-big-society

The ConDem Coalition's "Big Society" And How It Will Affect The Borough

There has been much talk among the chattering classes concerning the Coalition's big idea concerning the "Big Society".  But the government hasn't given a detailed programme of what the "Big Society" will mean, but from what we know it seems that it will involve the replacement of collective and state provision of services with greater reliance on voluntary, charitable, and private sector provision in such areas of welfare, social services for the poor and elderly, housing, education, healthcare, and even policing.  Some of us who have studied British political history might have the feeling of deja vu all over again, as these ideas, although packaged as new by the Coalition, are as old as the nineteenth century.  The debate concerning state versus voluntary and private provision of services was very lively at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly at the time when Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was laying the foundations of the welfare state.  But how would all this manifest itself on a local scale in the borough?  The blog will attempt to provide a preview of how the dismantling of the state's provision of welfare and social services, and many other services provided by the local authority, and their devolution to voluntary and private bodies, will be a recipe for chaos and a postcode lottery for service provision for not just the most vulnerable and poor in our community, but also for all residents who rely on statutory and regulated services from the Town Hall.  It will be a charter for busy bodies and for crones and cronies of the Town Hall to establish themselves with quasi authority, and funded by your Council Tax to govern and intrude in all our lives in many areas of service provision currently provided by the Town Hall.

The Madness Begins

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/the-madness-begins


Coalition Plans For Abolition Of Many Quangos

The Daily Telegraph published today, Friday, 24 September, a leaked document providing details of the 177 quangos that the Coalition government will be abolishing, as well as some 94 public bodies that are still under review.  You can read the story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html

This blog strongly regrets the proposed abolition of the Standards Board for England as readers of this blog will know what an important role the Standards Committee, the port of first call, has played in holding to account the then Councillor Barry Phelps in the complaint made by Mr Donald Cameron.  Although this blog has criticised the failure of Jennifer Ware to publicly declare an interest concerning her friendship with Phelps, and Sophia Lambert's failure to exclude Jennifer Ware despite knowing of her friendship with Phelps, the Standards Committee is nonetheless an important institution which this blog believes needed to work better and within the proper rules of natural justice.  The abolition of the Standards Board takes away an important safeguard for residents who have a legitimate complaint against a councillor, and removes any independent scrutiny that can ensure that councillors conduct themselves with probity.

But looking at the list of those public bodies proposed for abolition, this blog was also dismayed by the recklessness of this government in abolishing other public bodies which perform an important function and service which will affect people's lives.   The blog considers that there are many public bodies that are to be abolished which it believes provide an important function for people and will adversely affect people in the borough.  One such public body  which it is unwise to abolish is the General Social Care Council.  The GSCC regulates social workers and was partly set up in response to the series of failures by social workers in providing child protection.  It regulates all social workers, by requiring them to register with the GSCC and comply with their code of conduct.  This provided, for the first time, a means by which members of the public and service users could make a complaint against a social worker concerning fitness to practise that would be independently investigated and adjudicated.   The abolition of the GSCC will have an adverse affect on standards of social care in that a professional body which was there to protect the public and ensure a good standard of care from social workers will be removed and replaced by what?

The effect of some of these abolitions will be to remove important public bodies which offered protection for the public and a means of holding government and local government service providers to account.  Far from empowering individuals against the state, the Coalition seems to be doing its best to leave us at the mercy of unregulated public bodies, where those in power and that make decisions affecting our lives will not be properly held to account.  At the Town Hall this increases the risk of poor standards of conduct from our councillors, poor service provision, and an entrenched culture of corruption and sleaze.

Some Background On Why We Are In This Economic Mess

Originally posted on:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/some-background-on-why-we-are-in-this-economi#

While on the subject of the Coalition government's drastic cuts in public spending, such as housing benefit, social services, and how these will severely affect many people in the borough, either directly through unemployment, debt and homelessness, or indirectly, through increased begging, crime and social disorder, here are some articles which readers of this blog might find of interest:

www.futureeconomics.org/2010/06/camerons-deceitful-cuts-rhetoric
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/06/europes-fiscal-dystopia-new-austerity.html

The borough is not hermetically sealed from social and political events nationally, and this blog's coverage of the recent Earls Court by election has sought to discuss how the policies of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in government will affect residents in this borough, even though these parties in the by election have directed your attention away from these important issues.  However, as the cuts in public spending begin to translate themselves in fewer services available to residents in the borough, this blog believes that local politics will be increasingly dominated by issues of social cohesion, homelessness, poor service provision, and even possible rises in Council Tax.  It is also important to consider how the proposed dismantling of the NHS by the abolition of Primary Care Trusts will affect health service provision in the borough after General Practitioners are given control of the NHS budget.  Will the GPs just award themselves higher salaries and pay management fees at the expense of patient care?  What access to health care can many residents in the borough with chronic illnesses expect to receive, with GPs needing to control their budget expenditure, and how will this affect patient choice in access to medications, services and hospitals?  These are the really important issues which will affect everybody in the borough, and which the parties will need to urgently respond.

A Council Run For Whose Interests?

Originally posted on:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/a-council-run-for-whose-interests

An important observation which can be made from the Earls Court by election is just how narrow and socially exclusive a pool of people that the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat candidates were selected from.  Both Linda Wade, the Liberal Democrat candidate, and Malcolm Spalding, the Conservative candidate, are committee members of the Earls Court Society.  Linda Wade's friend, and colleague in the Liberal Democrat party, Jennifer Ware, is also an officer of the Earls Court Society.  It can be said that these individuals come from a similar social milieu and are colleagues and socialise in the same social circles.  While this is no crime, and these individuals are perfectly entitled to associate with whom they wish, the observation which this blog has always wished to make is that when individuals are selected for public office from such a narrow pool of people, the parties which select such individuals become increasingly out of touch with the world outside and less and less representative of the people they seek to represent.  Once they get elected to the Council, they make the Council less representative and responsive to the needs of the wider community.  They tend to have established contacts with the leaders of Residents Associations or other socially exclusive interest groups in their ward and the borough, populated as they are by articulate, often well heeled, individuals, who also have the time to devote to such voluntary organisations.  So it came as no surprise that the campaigns of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were dominated by issues of concern to the local residents associations to the exclusion of issues which directly affected those who were dependent on Council social services or who were in private rented or social housing.  Issues of housing benefit, security of tenure for social housing tenants, cuts in services and whether they will affect care for the elderly, are just not issues for those who inhabit the rarified atmosphere of such organisations as the Earls Court Society.  These issues were not highlighted by either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. The Labour Party did raise the issue of housing benefit cuts but as their campaign in Earls Court was minimal, or rather invisible, this blog believes that a potentially much larger turn out of Labour voters did not transpire.  This failure by all of the parties to engage with a wider range of voters is one reason for the low turn out.

Although Kensington and Chelsea is an affluent borough, it is also a remarkably diverse borough in terms of social and ethnic groups and you would not think this if you looked at the Councillors.  It is not just in the north of the borough that there are concentrations of residents on a low income, and in social housing or from an ethnic minority.  Anyone visiting Earls Court, or Cremorne wards during the by elections would also observe that the borough is not just home for the rich.  In Earls Court there is a large concentration of private rented bedsits and in flats in multiple occupancy buildings, as well as social housing interspersed among the owner occupied houses on the leafy streets.  There are also some sheltered residences for vulnerable people who need supported living.  When the Earls Court by election was announced it was the belief of this blog that there was a vast number of voters who needed to be reached who were previously ignored and who probably didn't vote.  These communities of the poor and vulnerable needed to be reached to find out how their Councillor could be more representative and responsive to their needs and concerns.  Unfortunately, none of the parties engaged this electorate as to do so would involve more than just putting leaflets through the letterbox.

But the price of ignoring a huge swathe of residents who are inarticulate, poor, or from an ethnic minority, and who do not really fit in with the existing mechanisms of communication with the Council through residents associations or other interest or cultural groups, is that on something as big as housing benefit cuts or cuts in services the political parties and the Council will be oblivious to the impact these policies will have, and their consequences for the community.  Contrary to the Daily Mail sensationalist stories of housing benefit claimants living in the lap of luxury in huge houses in Kensington, most claimants in the borough either live in modest private rented accommodation, probably bedsits, or they live in social housing.  A cut in housing benefit and in their other benefits is at risk of causing these individuals homelessness, debt, and a worsening of health problems.  If the problem is not resolved, residents in the borough can expect an increase in homelessness, prostitution, crime, drugs dealing, and begging on our streets.  This problem will affect everybody who lives in the borough, which is why this blog is raising this important issue.


A Council that is out of touch with the concerns of its poorer residents is in danger of storing up problems of social isolation, apathy, and social exclusion which undermines community cohesion.  Part of the problem is the limited experience of many of those on the Council, with many Councillors having no experience of poverty or interest in how it affects those communities.  The blog is not suggesting that Sir Merrick Cockell should live on a council estate for a month, but it is urging him to consider having his administration give greater consideration to the impact of cuts in spending on the least well off and vulnerable residents in the borough.  We are also suggesting greater consultation with local groups, not just residents associations, but also those organisations that work with vulnerable people locally such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, local churches that work with the poor, and so on, as well as housing associations and tenants associations to get as wide a range of opinion as possible on the policies that will affect them.

But all the political parties need to reach out to recruit members from these communities, to listen to their needs, to select candidates for the Council or nominate individuals from a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds for other positions in the Council, including the independent members of the Standards Committee.  More importantly, the solution will require the socially excluded and ethnic groups themselves to find ways of getting their interests represented at the Council.

Coming Soon ...

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-12

A Council Run For Whose Interests?

An important observation which can be made from the Earls Court by election is just how narrow and socially exclusive a pool of people that the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat candidates were selected from.  This is a symptom of a much deeper malaise affecting how politics is conducted in the borough, and the blog will argue that this operates to the exclusion of many social and ethnic groups whose views and interests are just marginalised or not represented at the Council.  This affects the priorities the Council will give to the provision of local services.  The forthcoming cuts in housing benefit and local services, and changes to security of tenure for residents in social housing, will affect poorer residents and it seems only the Labour Party is discussing these issues.  The problem is not centred on Sir Merrick Cockell and his leadership, as there is no reason to believe that a change in leadership of the Conservatives will bring about a more inclusive and socially diverse Council, which is responsive to the wide range of interests of residents of all social and ethnic groups.  The solution will require the political parties to have a wider range of candidates for election to the Council, for the parties and the Council, to reach out to different groups that are not articulate and organised in Residents Associations or the Earls Court Society, and for the socially excluded and ethnic groups themselves to find ways of getting their interests represented at the Council.

Blog Reaches Over 30,000 Site Views

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/blog-reaches-over-30000-site-views

Wow!  Great news.  The blog [http://barryphelps.posterous.com] has now reached over 30,000 site views.  Thanks again everyone for visiting.  If there are any issues and news stories in the borough which you would like us to cover please feel free to write to us at iamdisgustedatrbkc@gmail.com

Standards Board to be Abolished

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/standards-board-to-be-abolished

The Liberal Democrat local government minister has announced at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference that the Standards Board is to be abolished.  You can see the story here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/sep/19/liberal-democrat-conference-lilve-sunday

The minister, Andrew Stunnell, is cited in the report from The Guardian as giving the extraordinary reason that this was because the system was generating "petty complaints and malicious vendettas".  That's one excuse.  Most people think it's because of the Coalition's plans to save money and their hatred of quangos, irrespective of how important the function they perform.  Where is the evidence of these "petty complaints and malicious vendettas"?  Does this Liberal Democrat minister believe that Mr Donald Cameron's complaint against the now ex-Councillor Barry Phelps was petty and malicious?  What could Mr Donald Cameron do to get any justice against Barry Phelps who defamed him?  An expensive legal action for defamation?  Or a letter of complaint to Sir Merrick Cockell to be filed in his bin?  Does this Liberal Democrat minister believe that Mr Justin Downes was petty and malicious in making a complaint against Phelps concerning the sending of  disgusting emails sexualising young underage boys using the Council's email system?  The emails did not reach a criminal standard, but they were disgusting and perverted nonetheless.  Without the complaint made by Mr Justin Downes to the Standards Committee, Phelps might have tried to stay on as Councillor.  So much for the Liberal Democrat commitment to greater openness and transparency at the Town Hall.  It looks like we have been stabbed in the back by the Liberal Democrats once again.

So it seems that Jennifer Ware and Sophia Lambert will be going but not through an honourable resignation but because their jobs will be abolished.  One person who must be very happy with the news that the Standards Board is being abolished is Barry Phelps.  We can only fear how many other pervert Councillors like him will be strengthened in their positions now that one means of complaining against them is to end.
As we have said on this blog, those who place their hope in the Liberal Democrats to bring about change at the Town Hall will be bitterly disappointed.

Liberal Democrat Throws A Hissy Fit At The Blog

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/liberal-democrat-throws-a-hissy-fit-at-the-bl

One of our writers at the blog received an email from a senior local Liberal Democrat who was closely involved in Linda Wade's campaign.  The blog is not going to name this individual at this stage, and it will not reproduce the email on this site.  However, we feel it is important to share with our readers the tone and sentiments of this email inorder to refute some of the arguments that will be used by Liberal Democrats to justify what they will be doing both at the Town Hall and in national government to support their Conservative colleagues.  The email could only be described as a hissy fit from this individual who clearly took exception to this blog's criticism of Linda Wade as not representing change but instead as being an appendage of the Conservative Party at the Town Hall, who will join with her Conservative colleagues in voting for the forthcoming policies of the Coalition government as they affect the borough.  Our writer was then subjected to a patronising and sarcastic lesson in politics, the likes of which he never received even from his supervisor when he was writing his PhD.  But our writer is used to Liberal Democrat pretensions to knowing everything about the art of politics.  At the blog we believe that irritation with the Liberal Democrat tactics and opportunistic campaign techniques is shared by anybody who has had experience in fighting with them or against them in politics.

There are two parts to this email, one is the hissy fit and the other part is where some attempts at argument were made presumably after this individual had calmed down.  The blog will deal with some of the criticisms made in this email.  One of the criticisms was that the blog is too serious.  We make no apology for that.  The blog is serious because its primary purpose was to expose the sexualisation of young underage boys by the now ex-Councillor Barry Phelps.  This blog would not be light hearted about such a serious issue.  Councillor Phelps might have thought his emails sexualising young boys frivolous and witty, and one of his recipients, a member of the Committee of the National Liberal Club and an ex-Parliamentary candidate, might also have thought these emails witty, but we do not.  We have discussed other issues on this blog, but we do not work to be light entertainment, but where it is appropriate, any satire or humour flows naturally from the topic under discussion and would not have to be worked at inorder to try to titillate our readers, who we believe are intelligent and sophisticated and would see through anything which was not just genuine journalism.

The Liberal Democrats are being wooed and screwed

In terms of a more serious argument put forward in this email, it was alleged by the Liberal Democrat that this blog has no understanding of the coalitions which have existed in local government between different parties for many years.  Of course, we know about these coalitions.  For example, when our writer was active in the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s, the SDP-Liberal Alliance as it was then known formed a coalition in one London borough with the Conservatives to keep out a left wing Labour Party from taking power.  However, in this case there was no SDP-Liberal Alliance coalition with the Conservatives in national government.  The SDP-Liberal Alliance was able to argue, convincingly, that it was supporting the Conservative group on the Council to avoid a radical left wing Labour administration, but there was no question of the SDP-Liberal Alliance providing more than just limited support for strictly local policies to help run the Council.  There was no question of an ideological meeting of minds and camaraderie on the scale witnessed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the Coalition government.  But of course there are many Councils which have been run by coalitions of different parties having to work together to form an administration.  What is different now is that the context for these local government coalitions has changed along with the national political landscape.  In areas where the Liberal Democrats are in control or in  coalition, they will not be free to ignore or challenge or alleviate the policies of their government as they affect the local authority where they are in power.  Party loyalty will now extend to loyalty to their government, and increasingly, loyalty to their coalition partners, the Conservatives.  It's just practical politics, and does not involve any political insight.  This blog could be accused of stating the obvious, but instead our Liberal Democrat has challenged this and states that this is nonsense.  While the Liberal Democrat might wish to preserve the fiction that the Liberal Democrats locally are free agents from the party nationally, we should consider that maybe we would argue the same if we were members of a party which has slumped in the opinion polls for its actions in joining in government with the Conservatives.  However much the Liberal Democrats might wish to run away from this new reality, for the rest of us the days of voting Liberal Democrat inorder to get the Tories out are over.

The changed political reality is that the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition with the Conservatives, they are the government and this government is bringing in spending cuts affecting many areas of local government services, including housing benefit and other important local services for vulnerable people. The Liberal Democrats will have to support what their government is doing in implementing these policies locally.  It is not like before when the Liberal Democrats were not in government and were more free and independent in their position to oppose cuts in services.  They have a bargain with the Conservatives to implement these very unpopular cuts inorder to get their referendum on the  Alternative Vote.  Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party know that when their party is in government, they pay the price for the political failures of their party in local elections.  The local situation is not hermetically sealed from what is happening to their party nationally.

The Liberal Democrat who wrote to our writer also accused the blog of supporting the Labour Party in the Earls Court by election.  Some clarification is needed here.  It is true that we recommended our readers to consider voting for the Labour candidate for a number of reasons.  One of these reasons was the appalling lack of choice between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat candidates and the prospect of no real change in how things are done at the Town Hall if either of them were elected.  The blog was saddened by the lack of choice for the voters of Earls Court from among the main parties.  The blog then did its best to inquire about whether there was a Labour candidate and to find out something about what his position was on some of the issues the blog has campaigned about.  The blog believes that the Labour Party candidate raised some important issues about cuts in housing benefits for poor residents which the Conservative and the Liberal Democrats were quite understandably unwilling to highlight in their campaigns, not least because both parties agree on these cuts.  The blog was open minded about which party to endorse at the beginning of the by election campaign, although it appeared unlikely that the Conservatives would be responsive to the issues that the blog was campaigning about.  Indeed there is no natural antipathy of the writers of this blog towards the Liberal Democrats as most of us here actually voted for the Liberal Democrats in the general election.  However, we all share a sense of betrayal by the Liberal Democrats by their conduct since the general election in joining a Coalition with the Conservatives and endorsing such a severe programme of cuts affecting the most vulnerable, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, in our society.  This disllusionment with the Liberal Democrats is shared by many other voters, as we observe the Mephisto like zeal for power at the expense of their manifesto promises, their historic values, and the suffering the vulnerable and poor in our society will have to endure as the cuts take effect.

Nonetheless the blog gave the local Liberal Democrats a chance to see who their local candidate might be and if their campaign would be for real change locally.  With their choice of Linda Wade, and her response to the litmus test of whether she would call for the resignation of her friend Jennifer Ware from the Standards Committee, this blog became convinced that the Liberal Democrat rhetoric about change at the Town Hall would not be substantiated by action.  The Liberal Democrats appeared to be rather opportunistic in its condemnation of expenses at the Town Hall, but when it came to condemning Jennifer Ware for her conflict of interest, there was a reluctance to condemn her.  This gives rise to the understandable suspicion that Linda Wade will not condemn Jennifer Ware because she is her friend and a fellow Liberal Democrat.  We should remember that Jennfer Ware was on the Standards Committee which decided on the complaint made by Mr Donald Cameron against the then Councillor Phelps.  She did not declare publicly her friendship with Phelps.  This panel gave Phelps the lightest possible penalty of just making an apology to the Mayor for bringing the Council into disrepute.  It is the most disgraceful example of failing the community in Earls Court and the borough, that a so called independent member of the panel should be on friendly terms with the accused to the detriment of providing a fair and unbiased hearing of Mr Cameron's complaint.  Ordinary people do not have many means of holding their elected representatives to account, especially between elections, and when those elected representatives engage in misconduct towards an ordinary resident the Standards Committee is the main means by which to hold them accountable.  Yet it seems that Linda Wade is happy for her friend Jennifer Ware to continue sitting on the Standards Committee despite this deplorable conduct and the fact that this violates all priniciples of fairness and transparency in the handling of complaints from members of the public against elected local councillors.

Finally, as it is the belief of this blog that the Liberal Democrats will not be able to maintain a charade of being an alternative to the Conservatives for much longer, whether in local government or nationally, they would do well to consider how they are being wooed and screwed by David Cameron, the Conservative leader.  The love in at the moment is drawing the Liberal Democrats into a greater dependency on the Conservatives, until eventually the Liberal Democrats will be absorbed by the Conservatives, after having split with their more radical and social democratic wing of the party.  It seems like there will be another chapter to include in George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England.

Coming Soon: Liberal Democrat Throws A Hissy Fit At The Blog

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-liberal-democrat-throws-a-hissy-f

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/plus-ca-change-plus-cest-la-meme-chose

Linda Wade, the Liberal Democrat candidate, has won the Earls Court by election.  This blog acknowledges that this will be a good result for her and the Liberal Democrats, who invested much time and energy in their campaign.  It also means that all those trees were not cut down in vain to provide their deluge of leaflets.  The Liberal Democrats were highly motivated in this election and although the results show a major improvement on their vote in the May elections, it should also be borne in mind that the turnout in the by election fell to 24 per cent from 41.8 per cent in the borough elections in May.

The Liberal Democrats were also helped by the Conservatives by means of their poor choice of candidate and their complacency.  The choice of Malcolm Spalding as their candidate was a disaster for the Conservatives.  He had stood in May as an Independent, and joined the Conservative Party two days before being selected as its candidate in the by election.  This candidate lacked credibility.  It also seems that there were a few Conservatives who were unhappy about Phelps' resignation, wrongly ascribing this to some conspiracy by senior Conservatives,  and how much this affected the Conservative vote it is difficult to say.  But either through staying at home or voting for Arbuthnot, some of these discontented Conservatives might have helped hand victory to the Liberal Democrats.  But this blog believes that by far the main reason for the Conservative loss of the by election was their complacency in not putting up a sustained fight for the seat.  There were some leaflets distributed to households, but they were few in comparison to the regularity of the leaflets put out almost daily by the Liberal Democrats.  We noticed some Conservatives in the summer were engaged in canvassing on one evening, but this seemed to not be sustained.  The Liberal Democrats on the other hand were canvassing on an annoyingly regular basis.  Either the Conservatives were complacent in thinking that they would hold the seat given their previous majorities over the Liberal Democrats, or they did not have the manpower.  Having said this, the Conservatives lost the seat by a not too large a number of votes, and are in a position to win it back at the next Council elections.  This will be easier as the Liberal Democrats will not have the resources to concentrate in Earls Court, and they will not have the benefit of bussing in activists and having high profile politicans visit such as Simon Hughes, MP.

The Labour vote collapsed but there is not much evidence of tactical voting for the Liberal Democrats.  This blog believes that the collapse in the Labour vote was more due to Labour voters staying at home.  The Labour Party was invisible in Earls Court, with, to our knowledge, no leaflets or canvassing, and yet still managed to get 151 votes!  The Labour Party vote would have been better if the party had conducted a campaign so that people would at least have known there was a candidate!

Sir Merrick Cockell, the Leader of the Council, can take comfort from the by election results.  The Conservatives held Cremorne, even though only just.  They lost Earls Court, but in Linda Wade there will be no threat to his regime, and she can become a happy appendage to it alongside the other Liberal Democrat councillors.  Linda Wade's friend, Jennifer Ware, is secure on the Standards Committee, just as it would have been if Spalding had won.  Ware has done nothing to challenge the Cockell regime, indeed she is just a part of it.

The issue of a Liberal Democrat split is still important, although their victory in Earls Court gives a good result among a rash of failures to win in other by elections and a collapse in their support nationally.  It is the view of this blog that as the tensions within the Liberal Democrats increase as the Coalition policies become more unpopular with the voters, there will be a split in this party.  It is difficult to say how large the split will be, but there is already a loss of members and some councillors nationally, as well as a massive decline in support for the party.  The ideological tensions within the Liberal Democrats between the social democrats and the free market liberals will become increasingly apparent as the Coalition proceeds with its policies which threaten to cause massive social upheaval as the welfare state and National Health Service are dismantled in the name of cuts to public expenditure.

In this context, we have a Liberal Democrat councillor who will be joining her Conservative colleagues in the voting lobbies at the Town Hall to implement those policies of their government as they affect the people of Earls Court and the borough.  The fact that Earls Court has a Liberal Democrat instead of a Conservative makes no difference.  In virtually every respect, Linda Wade will be no different to her Conservative colleagues.  There may be a change of party but there will be no change in how things are done at the Town Hall.

By Election Results for Earls Court and Cremorne Wards

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/by-election-results-for-earls-court-and-cremo#

EARLS COURT
Little,  Anthony - UKIP (18)
Enright,  Michael John - Green Party (26)
Bovill, Jack - Independent (29)
Arbuthnot, Elizabeth - Independent (49)
Bishop, Joel - Labour  (151)
Spalding, Malcolm - Conservative (594)
Wade, Linda -  Lib Dem (703)
Turnout:  24 %

CREMORNE
Coburn, David - UKIP (46)
Stephenson, Julia - Green Party (51)
Kosta, Peter - Lib Dem (180)
Mckeown, Mabel - Labour (583)
Hargreaves, Gerard - Conservative (602)
Turnout:  24.9%

Blog Reaches Over 25,000 Site Views

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/blog-reaches-over-25000-hits#

This blog [http://barryphelps.posterous.com] would like to share with our readers the great news that we have reached over 25,000 site views since we started in July.  The number of visitors to this site has also increased dramatically over the past week, reaching levels of several hundred site views per day.  Most visitors to the site are from the UK but we have visitors from a range of countries including France, the United States of America, Spain, Morocco, Panama, Australia, and many others around the world.  We would like to thank all our visitors to this site for their interest. We shall do our best to provide as much interesting comment and news stories as possible as we move into a new phase after the by election results are in, when we will look at personalities and developments at the Town Hall and the borough.

Coming Soon: Earls Court By Election Results Analysis

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-earls-court-by-election-results-a

This blog will be providing an analysis of the results in the Earls Court by election when they are available.  Of interest, will be of course, if the Conservatives hold the seat, and by how many votes, whether their vote has slumped, and whether the Liberal Democrat challenge was just a lot of hot air and needless felling of trees to provide their deluge of leaflets.  It will also be interesting to see if Labour come in second or third place, and whether the Labour vote has increased, suggesting Lib Dem defections to Labour, or decreased, suggesting that there might have been some tactical voting by Labour supporters, or maybe that Labour voters just stayed at home.  In a council by election, turn out would be expected to be low.  But in the special circumstances of the by election in Earls Court, with the resignation of the pervert Phelps and the strong campaign mounted by the Lib Dems, it would not be surprising if the turn out will be slightly higher than expected.  This by election is also a miniature test of popularity for the Lib Dems, whose support has slumped nationally since joining the Conservatives in the government.  A disappointing result for the Lib Dems would add to the increasing bad news for Lib Dems across the country who are doing poorly in by elections.  It would also increase tensions within the party.  One of the writers on our team at this blog has had considerable past experience of involvement in the Social Democratic Party, which broke away from the Labour Party in 1981 and subsequently merged with the Liberals to form the Lib Dems.  Although no longer politically active, this writer can provide some insight into the tensions within the Lib Dems arising from that social democratic element which still retains Labour party values and will find Coalition with the Conservatives increasingly intolerable.  So in a wider context, a poor result for the Lib Dems will feed into these increasing tensions within the party.

Election Day Blues

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/election-day-blues

The polls open today, Thursday, 16 September, for the by elections in the Earls Court and Cremorne wards.  As this blog has played an important role in exposing the disgusting emails sent by the pervert ex-Councillor Phelps which led to his subsequent resignation, it is important to reflect at this time on what is sadly a missed opportunity for change.  This blog has focussed on the Earls Court by election, as Phelps was one of the ward councillors and his impact and public profile locally, has been enormous.  The issue of Phelps and the sleaze that he represented was therefore a relevant issue particularly in this ward, and it was hoped that any by election campaign would open up opportunities for real change at the Town Hall.  However, having provided coverage of the by election for readers of this blog, it will come as no surprise that we have been underwhelmed and very disappointed at the offerings of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  The Labour Party has been invisible in this campaign and is disappointing for a different reason, that their campaign highlighting important issues that will affect many vulnerable and poor people in Earls Court were not discussed or publicised enough.

This blog has felt very disappointed with the Liberal Democrats, who began with much promise of change, but then selected Linda Wade as their candidate, who was part of the problem and was compromised by her friendship with Jennifer Ware.  So it was no surprise that when asked if she would call for Jennifer Ware's resignation from the Standards Committee, she fudged the issue and could not give a straight answer.  This was a litmus test of Linda Wade's commitment to bringing about change at the Town Hall, and she failed it, and it provided no encouragement to think that her rhetoric of change would be matched by action.  But moving in the same narrow pool of the Earls Court Society as Malcolm Spalding, and being a friend and a political colleague of Jennifer Ware, Linda Wade has too many ties to the ancien regime to make her truly independent to challenge the way things are done at the Town Hall.  The Lib Dems might have wanted, tactically, to capitalise on any anti-Phelps feeling there might be in the ward, and may also find it useful to attack financial sleaze at the Town Hall, but this blog doubts this is more than just campaign rhetoric.  The Lib Dems at the Town Hall are not known for campaigning on these issues.  Jennifer Ware, herself a Lib Dem, enjoyed a friendship with Phelps and has publicly defended him despite those disgusting emails.  It is difficult to see how Jennifer Ware, especially in the light of her disgraceful failure to declare publicly an interest at the Standards hearing earlier this year, has been anything other than a very useful tool for the Cockell leadership through her role on the Standards Committee.  Yet Linda Wade is happy, it seems, not to call for Ware's resignation.

Therefore, whoever wins in the Earls Court by election, whether it is Malcolm Spalding or Linda Wade, this blog is sadly confident that there will be no change in how matters are done at the Town Hall.  Those who have put their confidence in Linda Wade will be disappointed.  But there is one other observation that can be made from this by election.  That is the ridiculous situation of having two parties that are in a Coalition in government, pretending to be fighting each other at local level when in fact both parties are committed to supporting their government's policies, including those policies which will have a direct impact in the borough.  It was just a contest between two personalities, with different brands and packaging.  Anyone walking past Earls Court Tube station on Wednesday evening would have seen the surreal sight of former Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer and a cohort of Lib Dems handing out leaflets alongside Spalding's supporters.  You have the impression of the good old days, where Lib Dems fought the Tories, but the reality now is different and this blog believes that the Lib Dems have not yet really accepted that they are now colleagues with the Conservatives and are now in government with them.  It is important for the Labour voters in Earls Court to realise this changed reality too, as the days of tactical voting for the Lib Dems to get the Tories out are now gone.

Joel Bishop Attacks Lib Dems Over "Social Cleansing" Of The Poor From The Borough

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/joel-bishop-attacks-lib-dems-over-housing-ben#

As this blog has continually sought to point out to Labour voters in Earls Court, a tactical vote for Linda Wade inorder to get the Tories out would result only in electing a Lib Dem committed to supporting the same policies as the Conservatives on most issues Labour voters care about.  Linda Wade needs a collapse in the Labour vote, with many of those votes going to her, if she has a chance of winning.  That's why the Lib Dem propaganda machine has always tried to give the impression that it is a two horse race, when in fact in May, Linda Wade received fewer votes than Joel Bishop!   See the blog article "Liberal Democrat Misinformation In The Earls Court By Election":  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/liberal-democrat-misinformation-in-the-earls  It's all about creating impressions and manufacturing a momentum, by trying to make such arrogant statements in their deluge of election literature become a reality by inculcation.

Readers of this blog might be interested in what Joel Bishop has to say about how the Lib Dems are fully signed up to supporting the Coalition government's cuts in housing benefit.  The Kensington Labour Party blog highlights this important issue, by stating, "In their frantic attempts to win votes in the Earl’s Court by-election, the Lib Dems are trying to dissociate themselves from the coalition government’s plans to cut housing benefit.  Kensington & Chelsea council has admitted that the cuts will drive up to 3,000 families out of the borough."  Joel Bishop rightly states that, "People have a right to stay in their homes. I do not want Earl’s Court or any part of Kensington & Chelsea to become an area where only the rich can live".  For more information see the Kensington Labour Party website here http://kensingtonlabour.com/2010/09/14/lib-dems-running-scared/

Shireen Ritchie: Dog Breath?

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/shireen-ritchie-dog-breath

This blog reported in August that Barry Phelps had sent out a mass mailing to former councillor colleagues in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/is-phelps-back-to-his-old-tricks (19 August 2010).  Of notable interest were those colleagues who weren't included on the mail out, but also those who were.  One of the recipients of the hairy at the heel, ex-councillor's email, was the recently enobled Baroness Shireen Ritchie.  For those unfamiliar with Shireen Ritchie, she is the former step-mother-in-law of the pop singer Madonna, step-mother to Guy Ritchie, and was a Cabinet Member for Family and Children's Services at RBKC. She is also on London Councils' Children and Young People Forum.

From the evidence that this blog has seen, it is, therefore, surprising that Baroness Ritchie received at her private MSN email address mail from the depraved Barry Phelps, he with unclean hands who takes sexual pleasure from the images of young boys.  If this mail was unsolicited, why has she not blocked him or asked him to desist?  It is this blog's position, that if she is still involved with Barry Phelps, at whatever level, this could be interpreted as condoning his depraved sexualisation of children, and this compromises her credibility on matters of child protection issues.  As the saying goes, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

If Baroness Ritchie would like to comment on Barry Phelps' actions, including the sending of images sexualising children, on this blog, we would welcome and publish any statement she would like to make.

Residents Groups in Earls Court Back Barry Phelps

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/residents-groups-in-earls-court-back-pervert


An extraordinary leaflet was posted through the letterboxes of residents in Earls Court last week.  It was entitled "PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL CONCERNED EARLS COURT RESIDENTS Concerning the Removal of Popular, Hardworking Councillor Barry Phelps from Friends and Supporters of Barry Phelps".  Just who these friends and supporters are, the leaflet did not specify.  The leaflet only states at the bottom of the page that "This letter has been produced by Local Residents Groups, Conservative Party Members and

Which Candidate to Vote For?

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/which-candidate-to-vote-for

What an unenviable choice for the voters of Earls Court on Thursday.  Let's look at the candidates.  The Conservative, Malcolm Spalding, who stood in May as an Independent, had a Damascus like conversion to the Conservative cause and joined the party two days before he was selected as its candidate.  We are not talking student politics here.  We are talking about a grown, late middle aged man, who seems to have arrived at his new political position very late in years after a position of being an Independent only months earlier. 

Barry Phelps on Youtube

The following video was originally posted on Youtube on 8 July 2010, and was headlined on http://barryphelps.posterous.com/barry-phelps-on-youtube

The video is reproduced here for the convenience of readers of this blog.

Coming soon ... Residents Groups In Earls Court Back Pervert Phelps

Originally posted at:  http://barryphelps.posterous.com/coming-soon-residents-groups-in-earls-court-b


Residents groups in Earls Court, the area which the pervert boasted he had cleaned up, have produced a leaflet supporting the sexual deviant.  This is the hypocrite who obtains a perverted sexual pleasure out of pictures of young underage boys.  This blog will be providing our readers with the full astonishing story of this extraordinary development in the Earls Court by election.  An illiterate leaflet has been posted through letter boxes in Earls Court supporting the pervert Phelps, citing some conspiracy theory that Phelps was pushed out

Cyril Smith: Another Pervert Bites the Dust

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/another-pervert-bites-the-dust

Former Liberal Democrat MP, Sir Cyril Smith died today aged 82 (28 June 1928 – 3 September 2010). Cyril Smith was also known to others as "Spanker Smith", a name slapped on him following accusations against him of sexual abuse against vulnerable boys. For further information, please see: http://rochdaleraw.blogspot.com/2009/02/cyril-smith-gangster-and-pervert-peer.html and http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/02/rochdale-lib-dem-meltdown-like-porn.html

The Labour Party Candidate, Joel Bishop, Responds

Originally Posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/the-labour-party-candidate-joel-bishop-respon

The Labour Party Candidate In The Earls Court By Election Responds To The Blog's Questions Posed To Candidates

The blog is delighted to inform our readers that we have received a response to the questions sent to all the candidates of the main parties in the Earls Court by election, from the Labour Party candidate, Joel Bishop. We are very grateful to Joel Bishop for taking the time to respond to the these important questions. With nearly 22,000 hits since this blog appeared on the eve of the Phelps and Daley resignations, these issues are also of considerable interest to our readers, many of whom reside in

Linda Wade's Response

Originally posted at: http://barryphelps.posterous.com/linda-wades-response

Linda Wade's Response To The Questions Posed By This Blog To All The Candidates in the Earls Court By Election

As the by election in Earls Court on 16 September draws nearer, the blog is providing its readers with the Liberal Democrat candidate, Linda Wade's, responses to the questions posed to all candidates in the Earls Court by election. We are grateful to Linda Wade for taking the time to respond to these questions, and the blog welcomes her unambiguous condemnation of Barry Phelps' disgraceful conduct. However, readers of this blog will be aware (see the article entitled "More Of The Same"