Leadership vs Management of Assistive Agendas

With the maze of changes happening in politics, it is interesting to take a look at who is going to succeed and who is going to make it through the labyrinth. Every Borough, County, and Unitary Authority is in for a pretty rough ride. Literally dozens of things we have done for the last 4 or 5 decades are just flat outside the statutory requirements of of all these governmental entities. All good and honourable things, but all outside statutory obligation. And in some “N” number of days (we don’t know what number N is…), we just aren’t going to be able to do them any more. And what will we do? Most probably search out who we can blame and heap it on… Matters not if they are culpable, just blameable… Anticipate and fix them? Not much evidence of that so far.. So what do you get with 4 or 5 decades of gravy train? For the most part that breeds out almost every shred of leadership and breeds into existence managers of assistive agendas.

People get into politics for all sorts of reasons, all of which could safely be called agendas. Because of the varying agendas, almost all politics has become a quid-pro-quo, or in simple terms: you do this for me, I’ll do that for you…  Or, if you “support” me on this I will “support” you for that…  So most of our supposed leaders have just become brokers of the assistive relationships of all these agendas, and wouldn’t know what leadership was if it but them in the butt.

“Leadership” is a multi-billion pound industry, massively over complicated by a lot of profiteers. But political leadership is really pretty simple: figuring out what needs to be done and getting it done with an ever changing cast of characters. Figuring out how to accommodate agendas? Not hardly…  So what do you need to figure out? Pretty simple, take a look at everything we have to do, and “figure out” what to do with the rest…

Off to the Races…

Well, the race has now started, do we stay or do we go? Our MP, Michael Gove is at the head of this parade, will be very interesting to see what happens between now and the referendum in June…

The one thing that I think is important, is that when you are faced with some very difficult choices like should we? Or shouldn’t we? We need to remember that if we leave, they would have us back in a shot if we ever wanted to come back. And that would be a very big if…

Commercially, when you are buying something, your greatest leverage is to walk away. They overwhelmingly need us more than we need them. Our little tiny economy of 60M people creates more jobs than all of them added up together. And we should be pushed around by the Prime Minsters of a bunch of little jerk-water countries that create fewer jobs than Surrey?

Why deal with these morons and only get 10% of what we really want when, from the outside we can get 100% of what we want at a later date…  We have a formula that is going to go from strength to strength, having nothing to do with being in the EU. Watch this space…

How I voted on 10th Feb. Planning Meeting

Unfortunately I have been too busy to get this up, but here is how I voted on the measures at planning on the 10th February, keep in mind that these are entirely my opinions and do not represent the opinions of the party I stand for and with:

Development 15/0884, Land North of Beldham Bridge Road
• Planners Recommendations: Grant
• Issues of Contention: residents just don’t want more homes in their back yard, some technical issues with the visibility of the access. Speakers addressed all the issues about why they don’t want more houses in their back yards, but did almost nothing to make the case about visibility
• How I voted: against, approved by 8-5
• Why: informatives added, and nothing can be started until suitable solutions are agreed on, but I did not accept that the visibility was sufficient

Development: 158/1047 Castle Grove Inn, Scott’s Grove Road, Chobham
• Planners Recommendations: Grant
• Issues of Contention: conversion of a dis-used pub to house, visibility at the junction, condition based on fences that would need separate approval
• How I voted: for approval, matter approved by unanimous vote
• Why: no reason not to, there was no compelling reason not to do this

Development: 15/0868 Hook Meadow, Philpot Lane; Chobham
• Planners Recommendations: refuse
• Issues of Contention: extensive planning and enforcement history, highly contentious on all sides, very special circumstances?
• How I voted: Against refusal, matter carried 13-2
• Why: issue of compassion, this is something that we could have approved, the monitoring officer instructed us that, because of an enforcement order from previous proceedings on this application that we had to turn this down, but I did not accept that this was true.  We have approved similar  applications and not far physically away from this property.  Councillors Brooks and Dougan are to be congratulated for trying to find a way to grant this on compassionate grounds, but to no avail. Particularly disconcerting was the proposal made by a councillor from Bisley who stated that although he did it with a “heavy heart”, the committee had to go with the planners recommendation. That same councillor said the exact opposite when the matter of the new houses on the site of the Old Bisley Office Products came before us several months back. In fact he dragged me out on a Saturday to see how stupid it was, and I voted with him on that matter. What is right one day is apparently not right on another…