Letters: November 15, 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Clinging on to power

IN OCTOBER I suggested that the next time Coun Renard, the leader of Swindon Council, has the temerity to talk about the process of consultation, listening to the people or democracy, I hoped Swindon residents would see his words for what they really are – those of a politician desperate to cling on to power.

For, make no mistake, the decision to ignore the views of the people and impose unwanted parishing on the town is as much to do with the retention of power as it is with economics.

Coun Renard knows he has no political mandate to make such a significant change to the political character of the borough.

Moreover, he very cleverly chose 2017 to implement his group’s proposals, knowing that there was no local election and therefore no opportunity for the electorate to register their views on his plan.

We all accept that Central Government, which has funds to do anything it likes, is short funding local government – that situation is not new.

Many of your readers will recall Coun Renard’s predecessor bleating the same story – it’s always someone else’s fault.

But Coun Renard has thrown away £480k on Digital City, £950k on UK Broadband and £700k, £1.2m on a temporary fix for the Mechanics’ Institute and £700k on the Averies clear up, in total a not unsubstantial sum.

At the same time he is championing a legacy project to bring a new museum and art gallery to the town to be sited within a short walk of his much vaunted £15m car park.

What Coun Renard and his Cabinet colleagues lack is the moral fibre to ‘do the right thing’– tell the electorate what amount of money they need to do a proper job for the town and ask the electorate by means of a referendum if they are prepared to sanction a council tax rise to raise the money.

The law allows the council to take this action, but such is the intrinsic fear of being rejected, Coun Renard and his friends would rather adopt a shabby system of introducing an extra layer of local government, not restricted in what it can raise by way of a precept and pretending this extends the democratic process.

Thankfully, people in Swindon can see through his ‘smoke and mirrors’ trickery.

But, sadly, he is able to use his small majority in the council to force through unpalatable measures knowing he will not be held to account.

DES MORGAN

Caraway Drive

Swindon

....

Preposterous plan

CONSERVATIVE-controlled Swindon Borough Council has developed a new nuance on the phrase “taking back control.”

Despite reports that no more than five per cent of people wanted new parish councils in the parts of the borough where none exist, it is going ahead with this preposterous plan.

At a time when the focus should be on public services doing just that – serving the public as opposed to perhaps continuing to line the pockets of the superannuated overpaid ‘managers’ and external consultants that infest much of the system – the council is moving into the more comfortable mindset of continuing to fleece the public.

Easily done when it’s a local monopoly and an environment in which many politicians continue to be out of touch with ordinary folk.

Swindon Conservatives’ meaning is “taking back control – whether you want it or not.”

Utter contempt for democracy bodes ill for much worse to come, by the look of it.

GERAINT DAY

Southampton Street, Swindon

....

Paying more for less

IMAGINE your broadband, phone and TV service supplier announced a significant price rise.

At the same time they dramatically reduced the number of TV channels, announced that broadband and phone services would only be available at restricted hours and that their customer services would no longer accept phone calls.

I’m sure that customers would be fuming and would desert the company in droves.

Swindon residents are facing the same situation with regards to their local government.

We will all pay more due to parishing and council tax increases and will receive far less for our money – fewer libraries, fewer children’s services, disruption to services such as street cleaning while it is handed over to hastily assembled parish councils, etc.

This is what we get from a Tory council being put into a desperate position by a Tory government.

To be fair to the Tories, they have been honest about their intentions.

It’s what the country voted for in 2015 when we allowed Cameron and Osborne to convince us that austerity was still necessary.

It’s what we voted for again in this year’s council elections.

Meanwhile, the Government has been pumping hundreds of billions into the banking system through quantitative easing with little in the way of reforms to address the problems that caused the crisis in the first place.

It’s frankly incredible that anyone would continue to support the Tory party after the terrible deal they have been given.

Why would anyone vote for a party that is openly raising taxes and reducing services?

NEIL MERCER

Maidstone Road

Swindon

....

Council is ignoring us

IT IS exactly as I had predicted, the council has ignored the people yet again.

But thank you to those councillors who stood up for their principles by listening to us and opposing this change.

But we shall remember you, come any forthcoming election, and ignore those who have proposed this scheme, enabling the council to wash their hands of their moral responsibility.

Instead of wasting more of our money with consultation after consultation, to demonstrate to Central Government that you are a listening council, do what you will with our libraries, and continue wasting our money.

But heed my warning, what goes around comes around, and come any forthcoming local election, my vote will hold to my principles.

NICK LE BOSQUET

Beatty Court

Old Town

Swindon

....

What is there to hide?

I CAME across this article recently and although three-years-old, I think it highly relevant today regarding prince Charles, who will eventually ascend the throne.

It reveals the deviousness, greed and arrogance of the man.Dr John Kirkhope is researching for a PhD.

Naturally because of the subject he is studying he has had to make a few Freedom of Information Requests.

In some he succeeded, in others he failed.

Being a resilient fellow, and a lawyer, he pursued the unsuccessful ones which were also essential to his thesis.

Subject: The Duchy of Cornwall.

This led him to a tribunal hearing. He knew his prospects of success were low, but wanted to see how the process worked.

Like most of us he had heard of the term ‘the establishment’ but had no hitherto personal experience of it. Until now.

Upon arrival in court it became crystal clear what the term really meant. Dr Kirkhope was accompanied by his barrister and a legal executive. He says he lost count of the numbers of lawyers employed by those opposing him.

They included a QC, a further two barristers and, over the days, umpteen solicitors, including regular attendance from the firm representing the Queen.

Also in attendance were a number of senior civil servants.

Witnesses summoned included three Knights of the Realm.

In total, matched against Dr Kirkhope were nineteen people.

The court was jam-packed with the opposition, and instead of the scheduled two days it was increased to three.

Remember, all he wanted was information on the Duchy itself via The Freedom of Information Act.

During the course of the case there was discussion, albeit theoretical, whether he was in breach of Parliamentary Privilege and could be imprisoned.

He has no idea of what the cost of the hearing was given the resources which the other side devoted to defending the case.

Indeed, his barrister was quietly warned to think carefully before taking on a similar case.

The Establishment is peopled by anonymous men in grey suits, it seems.

He learnt from his experience that if you take on the establishment, and especially the Duke of Cornwall, the establishment can and will deploy resources against you which an ordinary private citizen cannot hope to match.

He found the whole experience intimidating.

Suffice to say the Duke of Cornwall didn’t pay a penny for the barristers, solicitors, travel expenses, etc but the British taxpayer did.

It puts the future Charles III in a sinister light. In effect, it’s free legal aid for the multi-millionaire Duke of Cornwall.

Little wonder there’s an increasing number of citizens demanding the end of this undemocratic, parasitical institution.

JEFF ADAMS

Bloomsbury, Swindon