The difference between Boris’ Mayoralty, and Ken’s, is that Boris has got on with it. Ken, much like New Labour in Government, had to have a headline a day. With Boris if someone done something wrong he forced them to resign. The media questioned his judgement in employing them in the first place, but at least he acted. Ken on the other hand kept hold of his cronies, and backed them to the hilt. Remember Lee Jasper, and the LDA grants?

The media, and Labour, tried to depict Boris as a disaster before the election, especially Diane Abbott. Yet there has been no disaster. The media keep going on about Boris gaffs, whilst forgetting the censures that Ken had. Remember the “nazi officer” jibe to the Jewish newspaper reporter? Exactly, selective memory and reporting. It is clear that the media will overly criticise Boris, because he is actually good at his job, much to their agenda ridden dislike.

So what have Labour come up with to oppose Boris in return? It’s a toss-up between crony loving Ken Livingstone, who thinks it’s his divine right to run London and no-one else’s, and failed MP Oona King, with lost her seat to the cat impersonator George Galloway. What a start studded line up that is!

I for one am glad that Boris is standing again. I was one of his critics, and he proved me wrong.

Click HERE to Back Boris.

This reader is a 62-year-old lady, who last month lost her elderly mother. She still works part-time, as well as being caring for her bed-ridden mother. When her mother died, one of the first concerns of this lady was how the council tax would be paid, as it was paid out of her mother’s savings account, as it was her house.

However, before she been able to sort out her mother’s bank, and just a day after she had registered the death at the town hall. The council wrote her, with her name now on the council tax notice. To top it off, the council then wrote to her a second time with an adjustment, for the single person’s discount, dating the adjustment to the day before her mother died.

All of this just a couple of days after the death was register, and before she had even had the opportunity to contact the council herself. To make matters worse, she hadn’t even sorted out a funeral date for her mother when this happened!

How heartless and callous is Greenwich council? I find this whole story sickening! I understand the need to collect council tax, but to do this to a pensioner, just days after they lost a loved one, when you have tax dodgers never being chased up quite simply stinks!

When Cllr Drury questioned the council about how many FPNs had been issued under their dog control orders, they stated:

“Whilst the council has had the power to authorise the issue of FPNs for Dog Control since October 2009 we have had to under go a period of training officers, issuing public information and erecting notices before formally warranting officers.  We have also trained and warranted officers from Parks and Housing so that they can issue FPNs.

No FPNs for Dog Control were issued prior to August 2010.  From August, a specific project aimed around dogs has begun and to date 3 FPNs have been issued.”

Now, call me old-fashioned, but that seems to me fairly categorical. As I said yesterday, it shows that the system is a complete waste of time and money, but nevertheless it is a direct answer.

But, when the press release was followed up, council officers seemed to have changed their tune a little bit. Now they are stating:

“12 FPNs have been issued, 3 in August and 9 before that.”

So which is it? 12 or 3?

Are we being deceived, or are we dealing with incompetence? As far as I can see it has to be one or the other.

Either the council have realised that they shouldn’t have admitted that nothing has, and has tried to deceive by changing the statistics. Or. The council was so incompetent that it couldn’t get its own statistics right.

I’ll leave you to make your own decisions to which you believe.

But first, it would be useful for me to mention that before the scheme was made borough-wide it was trialled in a small part of the borough.  The justification of extending the scheme was questioned by the Conservatives in 2009 as only three people were fined, although nobody seems to know if these were actually collected.

So, just how successful has the scheme been? Well this press release from the Greenwich conservatives would suggest, not very. I would go as far as saying “stuff all”. The press release reads:

Greenwich Conservatives today revealed the failure of the Labour Council’s dog control orders.

Labour decided in 2008 to implement ‘dog control orders’ in certain set areas across the borough, and a year later extended this to cover the whole  borough.  The plan was to fine owners for allowing their dogs to foul  Greenwich’s parks, woodland and commons without clearing it up. The extended plan banned dog owners from allowing their dogs:

• To foul green spaces across the borough.
• Off the lead in all pavements and some green spaces
• To walk more than four dogs in any place in Greenwich.

In September 2009 Leader of Greenwich Conservatives Spencer Drury queried whether the expansion across the borough was fully justified as there was little evidence that the existing orders had been effective.

This summer, councillors quizzed the Cabinet member in charge about how many Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) had been issued since the scheme was expanded. They were assured that penalty notices had happened and the figures to prove this would be circulated.

After several reminders from Cllr Drury a set of figures were provided, but these did not show how many FPNs had been issued for breach of dog control orders.

After more stalling, finally this week, the council confirmed that three had been issued in August (since Cllr Drury has been asking for the figures) and NONE had been issued before then.

Cllr Drury says:  “Despite my clear warnings that this whole system was pointless if it was not going to be properly enforced, the Labour Cabinet seem to have treated the whole thing as a publicity stunt as not a single fine was issued before I started asking questions about this.

“These Fixed Penalty Notices have been in place, borough-wide, since last autumn and in those seven months Labour did not issue a single fine.  Yet since I started asking questions, they have suddenly issued three (possible to put me off the scent).  This is typical of the council.  It will be interesting to see if I were to stop bothering them on this, whether no more notices would be issued.  Meanwhile, the serious point is, that our parks and open spaces are still being blighted by Dog Faeces’.

“This council seems to love concreting over green spaces but has not the first clue how to care for our woodlands and open spaces.  Labour are not dealing with the real problem of Dog fouling which  really bothers people, including other responsible dog owners like myself.

Eltham resident and dog owner, Mike Dawes said “I haven’t seen any enforcement of these by-laws.  I don’t see anyone walking round enforcing them and so there is a blatant disregard for the rules about clearing up after dogs or limits on dog walkers.  I saw one man with 10 dogs in Oxleas Woods last weeks – it is simply a joke.”

So to recap. Limited trial: three fines, with no knowledge of them being collected. Borough-wide dog control orders: No fines issued until the Conservatives questioned the cabinet member responsible for them, and then only three issued in the last month.

What a resounding success! NOT!

As usual Greenwich’s secretive ruling Labour group, have wasted my council tax money on a scheme that has not properly been run, and wasted more of my council tax money on their Greenwich Time rag to spread their propaganda about how successful it would be.

But it is a passage at the bottom of the newsletter that is quite telling about their views on the coalition with the Tories. It reads:

Labour bosses turned down the chance to work with the Lib Dems.

They preferred to go into opposition and let the Tories run things.

Local Lib Dem campaigner Steven Toole said, “It’s really sad that Labour chose to desert people that voted for them. They wanted opposition rather than trying to take Britain forward.”

Now it should be noted that the Lib Dems were wiped off Greenwich council on May 6th. But this statement by a former opponent of mine (in 2006 council elections), shows just how much that Greenwich’s Lib Dems wanted to work with Labour nationally. Plus there is the suggestion that ONLY Labour could take Britain forward. Well if that was the case why did your leadership agree to the coalition? Labour were taking this country backwards, back to the 70′s economically.

Is it any wonder that Labour voters took the Lib Dem’s final seats, in Greenwich as these activists obvious would prefer to be Labour.

I have a lot of respect for Guido, and am a long-term fan, but on this occasion I think has made a whoppingly bad call. He seemed to start out with attacking William Hague for employing a young advisor. The charge that he wasn’t qualified for the job, as he only had a degree in History? Now, why does that matter some of my colleagues have degrees in a variety of subjects none of which revolve around public transport. So does that mean they shouldn’t be managers of a transport network? Of course. The subject of your degree does not appear to matter in a large number of roles. One example was Iain Dale, who when advertising for applicants as his Executive Assistant, required the applicant to be educated to degree standard. It did not state that the person had to have that degree in politics or even the media! In theory he could employ someone who has a degree in David Beckham studies. Doubtful, but entirely possible.

So why does the subject of Christopher Myers matter? As far as I can see it doesn’t.

Then what about the innuendo? Well, during the election campaign William Hague shared a hotel room with Mr Myers. And!? So bloody what. During the election nearly every candidate from all parties were trying to save as much money as possible. So, to save on room fees they shared a room. Big flipping deal. During the upcoming conferences there will be a large number of MPs, and party members from all parties sharing rooms to keep costs down. Does that mean that there is anything untoward going on in every single room. Of course not.

So Guido’s story is that William Hague hired a young man with a degree to be his advisor, and then shared a hotel room whilst out on the road during the  election campaign, to keep down costs. I’m struggling to see a story here.

I would have down the same. In fact, I am this weekend. I’m going camping (no pun intended) with two fellow leaders, and to keep down the amount of kit we need to take we are all sharing a tent, plus one of those leaders I recruited to be my assistant!

What the difference between the two scenarios? Stuff all! Exactly the same as the amount of story in Guido’s “revelation”.

Yesterday’s announcement that NHS Direct was to be scrapped has caused rather a false furore in Labour’s ranks. As usual they scream and shout that “lives will be put at risk”, but quite frankly that is a rubbish argument because of that first question I asked. My experiences, and of some of my family, of NHS Direct has been the following advice: Go and see your GP, Go to hospital, or take some painkillers and see your GP if it doesn’t improve. How on earth is replacing and expensive system, with a much cheaper version, going to put lives at risk when it is giving out exactly the same information as before? It isn’t.

The things is, NHS Direct was a gross waste of resources. Why have nurses answering phone calls, when they should be on the wards physically treating the patients, instead of being in a call centre telling people to go to hospital only to be told to wait as there aren’t enough nurses to treat them!

It’s clear that Labour aren’t going to conduct themselves as a responsible opposition, but just as an opposition that will oppose everything. They simply cannot see that NHS Direct was a waste of money. Plus, if the replacement is going to put lives at risk, as Labour suggest, then why did they announce the “111 urgent care line” back in December 2009, with the longer term aim of replacing NHS Direct? It is just opposing for the sake of opposing.

NHS Direct will not be missed, as I can give myself the advice they did.

For me, and the family, it has been a busy summer. After the enforced disappearing act from them I had to do during the election, this was make up time. So here’s a few touristy tips. We visited the Opening of the State Rooms at Buckingham Palace, the verdict was bloody expensive but thoroughly worth the money. The Romney, Hythe, and Dymchurch minature railway is brilliant for kids (and big kids). Finally Canterbury Cathedral, again well worth the money.

But, despite a lot with the wife and kids this summer was tinged with sadness as my beloved Nan passed away.

Nan played a gigantic part of my life. Always there, sometimes more as a friend, ready to provide sage advice when it was needed. The last few years though have been a struggle as dementia took its hold, and the memory went, which made seeing the decline of someone who was so active throughout her life, so much harder. She was 97.

So as you can imagine, my heart and mind hasn’t exactly in to politics for the last couple of weeks, but now I’m back and blogging service is restored.

We all know drastic cuts are on their way. Every government department has been told “look at everything!”,  “leave no stone unturned”, to come up with a list of cuts. Now, if they had any sense (the way I would do it), is categorise the cuts in an order of: efficiency savings, cuts, severe cuts, savage cuts, and Doomsday options. The cutting of the free milk scheme is one that, as requested, has to be looked at and reviewed. It has and, if they had any sense, park that one in the Doomsday option category. You know, the cuts you will only make if absolutely forced too.

Now, what I now think has happened is that someone has seen this and done one of two things, either leak this info to cause a stir, or was asked “what’s your worst case scenario cut?”.  Either way it shouldn’t have happened, and the PM needs to have a word with whoever cause this mountain out of a mole hill to develop. Downing street were in the end forced to step in to say the scheme wouldn’t be scrapped, but this should never have come about.

For Christ’s sake! It’s silly season the journos have got nothing to write about, and will pick every tiny morsel of info up if they can think of it as a story.

As for me, I personally think that I would have been far better if Downing street had said “we have no intention of scrapping the free milk scheme, but that fact we have even had to review it shows how serious the financial legacy is left to us by Labour”. They didn’t, and yes I think that the government have been caught off guard, and walked into a storm that should have never have started.

Twits!