Ks are champions! Who would have
believed it? It’s an amazing achievement:
praise must go to management, players and
supporters, who strove so hard, for so long.
Kingstonians’ triumphs in the FA Trophy Cup
and in the Conference League are remarkable, but
fortunately they are only part of the good news
we have to celebrate in the sports and arts life
of the Borough.
Politicians and papers normally focus on
negatives: crime, cutbacks and criticisms. And we
seem loathe to talk about positive things that
happen. I’m as guilty as the rest, of
pointing out where things are going wrong and
where we could do better, so for once I want to
write about success – and in Kingston’s
sports and arts life, there’s actually quite
a lot.
In arts and culture, there’s the theatre
development linked to Charter Quay. Coupled with
the town’s new "café society"
springing up round the Apple Market and the
Market House, this has the potential to entrench
one of the oldest part of Kingston as the most
vibrant, pleasant town centre in the country. |
Recent improvements at our Museum, and
fantastic new exhibits like "The
Chessington Hoard" of gold Iron Age
coins, can help modern Kingston grow hand-in-hand
with a respect for past achievements.
There’s so much more. The controversial
"Rotunda" plans for a multiplex cinema
on the old bus station site could, if handled
with care, transform that side of town. The
Surbiton Assembly Rooms are now re-opening to the
community. And you’re probably aware of many
other successes too.
So, while there is less welcome news like more
police cuts, we do have things to celebrate. Yes,
success brings challenges. Perhaps the key
challenge is the traffic that successful football
clubs, theatres and cinemas all generate.
But we can meet those challenges. We need, for
example, to be more ambitious about park and ride
schemes. We need the Council and Government to
reject developments that not only bring extra
cars but also damage our environmental heritage,
like the awful idea of blocks of flats on the old
Filter Beds on the banks of the Thames in
Surbiton.
If we can get the balance right, we can reach for
the Holy Grail of sustainable development –
towns that prosper whilst improving the quality
of life for local people. |
| |
|
In
the Borough we have a challenge: to improve
services for the elderly without destroying the
good parts of services we have already. That
debate has become focused on the Alfriston day
centre in Berrylands.
I have complete faith that all
involved are committed to better care for our
elderly – be they councillors, council
officers, Age Concern or the Alfriston committee.
But the upshot of a great deal of hard work
– mostly by volunteers – is
disagreement and confusion. Very able, dedicated
people have not, in my view, yet produced a
satisfactory solution – either for the
immediate future of Alfriston or for enhanced day
centre facilities in the south of the Borough.
This can partly be explained by a lack of money:
there’s only so much cash available, only so
much we can ask the council taxpayer for.
But if we’re honest, more significant
reasons have been a lack of council leadership
and a lack of ambition and imagination –
itself partly caused by years of grinding budget
cuts.
But how can we resolve this?
First, I think we should all stand back. Just
look at what this vigorous debate about the
future of Kingston’s elderly services has
achieved! |
Open
debate has revealed two things: that the
Borough’s provision of day care centres must
be improved, especially in Chessington; and that
we need new elderly services, such as more home
visiting for the most vulnerable and fragile, who
can’t easily get to day care centres.
That seems to be Age Concern’s vision –
and it’s one we should be working for.
Once that is acknowledged perhaps everyone can
come together, and work out new alternatives, not
just for this year, but for the longer term. I
know it means yet more work, but surely we owe it
to our senior citizens to have another go –
with a new group, formed from all the
people involved so far.
Why can’t Kaleidoscope manage Alfriston, at
least in the short term?
Why can’t we then look at developing future
services for Surbiton’s elderly at Newent
House? And at providing a brand new day care
centre for Chessington’s elderly, perhaps as
part of the proposed new medical centre on the
old Computer site on the Leatherhead Road?
I hope all involved can rise to this challenge. |
| |
|
MPs are expected to have opinions on
everything. But I’ve a confession. I’m
still forming some of mine. In 20 months as an MP
I’ve had to think and learn about issues
I’d never really considered before.
The subject I’ve found most challenging and
had to learn most about is mental health. One in
three people suffer from mental illness at
sometime. In our community, there are more
mentally-ill people than perhaps you’d
imagine.
In my constituency work on this issue, three
things have struck me. First, the variety of
mental health problems. Second, the relatively
low priority given to mental illness. Third, the
degree of ignorance, my own included, which leads
to the prejudiced attitudes we see, for example,
in the press.
So forget scare stories and focus on facts and
the changes in recent decades. In general, the
mentally-ill are now more free to play a more
active, positive role in our community
than probably ever before. And they do. As for
"tabloid" headlines, the numbers
injured or killed by people suffering from mental
illness are a fraction of what they were.
Yet the tiny numbers of mentally-ill people who are
dangerous dominate debate. |
Last Monday, the Government published
proposals for dealing with people suffering from
severe personality disorders – the so-called
"psycopaths" with
"untreatable" conditions. The central
idea is that the state could imprison such people
if they are considered a serious public threat,
even if they have not committed a crime.
This is difficult. With mental health experts
divided on many issues, who decides who is locked
up? Is someone "untreatable" if the NHS
hasn’t got the facilities or staff to treat
them? How often will individual cases be
reviewed?
The Government’s consultation does address
such questions, with some skill. It tries to
strike a balance between the right to freedom and
the need to protect the public. But in giving the
proposals guarded support, I want to stress
again: they apply to only a tiny minority.
Indeed, my concern now would be for greater
freedom for the vast majority of the mentally
ill. That requires us to look again at our
prejudices. Let’s remind ourselves of a risk
to our own personal well-being which no law can
diminish or tabloid over-hype: mental illness,
which can strike us or our families at any time. |
| |
|
"Do
we need more police?" sounds like a stupid
question. It’s obvious to me that Kingston
at least does need more officers. But Parliament
last week was told police numbers were not a key
indicator for effective policing.
During Thursday’s debate on police funding,
the Home Office Minister, Paul Boateng, said:
"We must move away from sterile and
simplistic arguments about police numbers.
Rather, we must move towards the efficient and
well targeted use of resources, and the
imaginative use of technology."
That’s Westminster-speak for police cuts.
Ministers want to argue that the 781 police
officers lost in England and Wales since the
election can somehow be compensated for by CCTV
cameras and the like.
To make matters worse, the Minister quoted
approvingly the previous Conservative Home
Secretary, Michael Howard, telling the Commons in
1994 that: "In future, the number of
constables in a force will be a matter for local
decision…It is not a matter for me."
Thus, the new Government shares its
predecessor’s view that it has no
responsibility for police numbers, even though
Ministers set the police budget. |
By
magic, there is now no correlation between
budgets and police strength, even though wage
costs make up 60% plus of the budget!
Perhaps you think I am being unfair. Police
numbers should not be the only measure of a
Government’s commitment to tackling crime.
Crime is reduced by many things, from crime
prevention to sentencing policy, from reducing
unemployment to high visibility policing.
Using the latest "intelligent policing"
techniques, Kingston police have reduced
burglaries faster than any other division in
London, despite heavy cuts in their numbers. We
should be proud of them, and grateful to them.
But success in reducing crime should not be an
excuse for cuts. What sort of incentive is it for
police forces, if the more a division cuts crime,
the heavier its officer corps is cut back? CCTV
cameras and computers should not come at the
expense of beat officers.
If we believe in community policing, with the
police being seen and being known in their areas,
then we will need more officers. |
| Articles in The Informer |
Home | How to contact me | Advice sessions | Parliament | Constituency | Liberal Democrats
|
