Still no sign that Rogerstone Community Council are repentant about their threatening letter to Mrs Edith Avery. To give a little extra pressure the following early Day Motion will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
Rogerstone Community Council and allotments
That this House is appalled by the crass insensitivity of Conservative controlled Rogerstone Community Council’s threat to ‘clear’ the allotment of war heroine Mrs. Edith Avery because she is cultivating too many flowers, notes that Mrs. Avery is in her 90th year and has, for 30 years, tended the allotment which is situated a few feet from the back door of her cottage; congratulates Mrs. Avery on the exemplary appearance on her allotment and understands her difficulty in growing vegetables at her advanced age, condemns the council’s failure to answer letters from Mrs. Avery’s relative and her local MP that urged the exercise of a little humanity and common sense; calls on the Conservative Party to condemn the petty heartless jobsworth stupidity of the Conservative Council and their leader who answered Mrs. Avery complaint of their ‘dictatorial’ attitude with the comment ‘Rules are Rules’ .
Because I wanted to avoid hordes of camera crews trampling Mrs Avery's gardens, I have tried to limit the disruption to her life. I talked freely to the Press Association. They were understandably desperate for a picture which was essential to the story. The local paper refused to release their picture so I told them they could use mine or take video wipes. This is the best way to have maximum attention at minimum fuss.
Edith Avery's flower-filled allotment. Photograph: Paul Flynn MP/PA
On the Guardian site my pictures were given my and PA copyright. On the Daily Mail site only the PA copyright logo was used. This is annoying because it might inhibit others from using the picture. My intention was to make it freely available for all.
I have no wish to make money out of the photographs but their widespread use will increase the chances of a sensible outcome tomorrow.
One interesting and revealing part of the vast publicity this blog story has generated is that the Mail version somehow omitted to mention that Rogerstone is a Tory Council.
Double Jobs
It's irritating that broadcasters put up John Hemming MP against me in interviews on the new transparency of MPs moonlighting. They did it again this morning on Radio Wales.
He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union. At that small time commitment he has enough time left to be full-time MP.
He is not the target. The one in three Tory MPs who are for hire by Mega-greed PLC who spend a great deal of time on serving Mammon not the public good are in our sights. The former ministers who hawked their influence around to the highest bidder are another target.
Transparency on MPs for hire will help to rebuild the lost trust between MPs and the public.
Charge of Helmand Brigade
Speaker Bercow called me at topical questions yesterday. In the belief that persistence worked I raised a familiar theme.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): The deployment of British troops in Helmand province in 2006 was once described as being as futile as the charge of the Light Brigade. At that time seven soldiers had died; now the figure is 169—far more than died in the charge of the Light Brigade. What has happened in that impossible war to justify the loss of 169 brave British lives?
David Miliband: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the bravery, intelligence and skill of our servicemen and women in Helmand. They have made a huge difference in that province, which was previously ungoverned space. As I said earlier, there is still a long way to go, but the help that people are getting, the security forces that have been established, and the role that Governor Mangal has played in political leadership for that province would not exist without the efforts of our troops and their supporters. The further intensive activity as a result of American efforts in neighbouring provinces means that the next few months will be important in Helmand, as well as in the rest of Afghanistan. Voter registration has happened for 85 per cent. of the population of Helmand, which would have been impossible before 2006.
"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."
Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.
Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:
“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”
Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?
Posted by: Kay Tie | July 01, 2009 at 02:47 PM
"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."
Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.
Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:
“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”
Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?
Posted by: Kay Tie | July 01, 2009 at 02:47 PM
"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."
Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.
Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:
“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”
Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?
Posted by: Kay Tie | July 01, 2009 at 02:47 PM
"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."
Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.
Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:
“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”
Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?
Posted by: Kay Tie | July 01, 2009 at 02:47 PM
I have just read through the allotment agreement from Rogerstone and the only thing I can see they may claim she is in breach of is section 1(b): To use the Allotment garden as an Allotment garden and for no other purpose.
Now, under the Town and Country planning act an allotment is the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture which includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing . . . the . . . keeping of live stock . . .
(source: http://www.nsalg.org.uk/uploads/article547/Allotments%20-%20The%20Basics.pdf)
Later they do exclude live stock but don't mention flowers. I cannot see the rule she is breaking.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer just a thicko IT guy
Posted by: Paul W | July 01, 2009 at 03:13 PM
That is fascinating Paul W. This ssems toi be the csae. It will interesting to see which Rules are Rules.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 01, 2009 at 06:53 PM