And Bob Farrer is looking to go Independent

According to the Black Cat Radio, Bob Farrer (County Councillor, District Councillor and Town Councillor) is considering going independent. The article says:

Eaton Socon Councillor Bob Farrer has told Black Cat Radio that he's considering standing as an Independent in the upcoming local elections. A number of disagreements in current council policies are thought to be behind the move.

How likely is this to happen? Bob has form on "considering going Independent". But he remains a Conservative. If Bob does stand as an Independent he will not be able belong to a Conservative Group either at County or Town. He would therefore lose his Chairmanship of the (useless) Town Council Planning Committee.

What are Bobs chances if he goes Independent? Lets take a look at the electoral history for Eaton Ford.

2011 District Elections

2008 District Elections

2007 District Elections

The Conservatives have gotten over 1100 votes and scored 1549 votes in 2011. The 2011 vote may have something to do with the AV referendum on the same day. Looking at the Town Council elections, on the same day in 2011, Farrer and Harty

This gives a personal vote of roughly 270. Even if Bob Farrer goes Independent he will need to take a far higher vote than 270. Like all candidates Bob needed to start his campaign many months ago. Currently Bob is a Conservative. Even though Bob has a number of policy disputes with the Conservatives if he wants to become an Independent and carry on being a councillor Bob needs to put in a load of work.

If Bob goes Independent he will need to bring with him a large number of Conservative voters with him. I don't feel he will and therefore will lose if he stands as an Independent at this late stage.

If I were the Conservatives I would be very annoyed at Bob Farrer if he announces he was going Independent just before the elections. 

So who are THEY?

In an article in this weeks Hunts Post, Cllr Bob Farrer (County Councillor, District Councillor and Town Councillor) said the following about reduced hours at the library service in St Neots.

The Library should be the hub for the Town. I hope Cllr Farrer follows through by getting the Town Council to deposit the documents it produces there.

Cllr Farrer also goes onto say: "Last year THEY refurbished it". So who is THEY?. Well Cllr Farrer is a County Councillor and it is the County Council, of which he is a Councillor, who are THEY who refurbished St Neots Library. Cllr Farrer goes on: "Why should THEY want to spend that money and start shutting it? If County Councillor Bob Farrer can't answer why the County Council  is doing this then maybe he could turn to his fellow District Councillor, who is also a Town Councillor and the County Councillor in charge of libraries - Cllr David Harty.

This is just a blame game by Cllr Farrer who can't blame himself so goes off blaming "THEY". And "THEY"are his Conservative colleagues.

Just on last point. Cllr Farrer says: "I would much prefer the Town Council put a bit of money in it."

So the rot starts. A little bit here and a little bit there and boom here comes the rise in Council Tax. Between Mad Baz and Spendmore Bob the Town Council will go to ruin. And it is the residents that will have to stump up the extra Council Tax.

Threatened to resign?

St Neots News and Crier - 22/07/2010

Interesting piece in here about Councillor Colin Hyams. This Cabinet member says he "...had threaten to resign from Cabinet over the toilet closures."

There is a big difference between threatening to resign and actually resigning. Locally, Cllr Farrer gave the same sort of threat over the Riverside Car Park. Threatening is one thing. In both cases their bluffs have been called. Cllr Hyams and Farrer threatened to resign. The policies they were protesting went through. And neither resigned!

Even more on Car Parking!

Even more is dribbling out about the decision over the charging for car parks. Now I'm informed the minutes of the meeting of 16th December 2009 which were "private" have subsequently been published. Funny that. So what do the minutes of the "private" meeting say (google docs version here)?

The minutes tell me the that Cllr Farrer went to this secret meeting about the Car Parking charges. Cllr Farrer knew about this on 16th December 2009. This doesn't explain why he says in the News and Crier 11th February 2010 that "Cllr Farrer complained that he and his fellow local ward member Cllr David Harty were not consulted on the issue of charging". 

In the end the St Neots Conservative Councillors aren't telling us the truth. The truth is they knew these charges were going ahead way before the public campaign. They went to meetings or could have gone to meetings and made their voices heard. Two did. Cllr Thomas was on the secret working party and Cllr Farrer turned up. The rest couldn't be bothered.

All this Conservative "activity" is just a pantomime to cover up their inability to do anything!

The St Neots Conservative Councillors are squealing about these charges. They were consulted. Some were even part of the process. But in the end the one overriding problem is the £6.1 million deficit not one of the SNCCG wants to talk about.

Have your say on car park charges!

St Neots News and Crier - 25/03/2010 digital edition

From this article I see Bob Farrer hasn't done what he said he would do and resign the Conservative whip. Cllr Farrer goes on to question how the 38 free spaces are going to be policed. A lot easier than the all free for 3 hours compromise put forward!

Julia Hayward "the charges will drive people away to other towns". If people aren't willing to pay 20 pence an hour why are they willing to pay more for car park charges in other towns?

For me John Bridge, Chief Executive of Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce, doesn't do his organisation any good. He wants all car parks made free. But who is going to pay for the "free" car parks? The Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce? I don't think so. It is the Council taxpayer who would shoulder this burden through more cuts in services. 

Conservative Car Parking Campaign IS a pantomime!

I read in an online News and Crier article that Cllr Farrer said:

“We have got ourselves into a position where we could lose no end of seats over this, (my bold)” he said. “Yes, we know we have got money trouble, how do we know this is going to get us out of trouble?”

Er.....Is this the real reason behind the Conservative campaign? A desire to save Conservative seats. Nothing to do with St Neots businesses or leisure. These reasons have been dropped. If the Conservative run HDC cabinet changes its decision it will be for Conservative electoral advantage.

The St Neots Conservative Councillors Group have got themselves into this mess because they haven't been campaigning. Not one leaflet from the Conservative since June 2009. Djanogly's Taxpayer funded Winter edition leaflet didn't even make my letterbox. The SNCCG website is still stuck in June 2009.

The SNCCG seem to think a couple of articles in the local newspapers makes a campaign. It doesn't. If the Conservatives lose seats it is their own fault. Farrer and the rest of the SNCCG seem to want to blame the HDC cabinet. In reality they have only got themselves to blame.

Is Cllr Farrer resigning from the Conservatives?

In the News and Crier on 18th February 2010, Cllr Farrer said the following:
"...he would consider going Independent if the 3 hours scheme did not go through.".

So the 3 hours scheme hasn't gone through. So Cllr Farrer, the question for you is: Are you going independent?


Some how I don't think Cllr Farrer will go "Independent" as he would have to lose his committee seats on District and County. He would be an outcast. On the otherhand if he doesn't go Independent then Farrer will have made a threat of resignation without backing up his threat.

A blow to the St Neots Conservatives! or the end of a pantomime?

As the 11 members of the St Neots Conservative Councillors Group (SNCCG) lick their wounds from the little battle over free 3 hours at the Riverside Car Park. The cabinet has decided to go with the free 38 spaces and 20 pence an hour with Sunday free all day instead.

I see Cllr Churchill and Cllr Hansard voted for their fellow members of the SNCCG who wanted the free 3 hours option.

To me this whole Conservative effort is pure spin. The Conservatives are doing something unpopular (nothing wrong in that) and the local Conservative Councillors don't want the blame. So we go through the pantomime of the decision being called in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee before being sent back to Cabinet who just say no change. Now we are going to get the crocodile tears as the big bad cabinet hasn't changed the decision.

If this is such a bad decision the only option open is to resign from the Conservative Group in protest. So far none have gone. I'll be very surprised is anyone does. This is a pantomime and no one resigns in a pantomime.

More Community Centres!

So Cllrs Bob Farrer, David Harty and Barry Chapman have joined together to bring forward a plan to build a community centre in Love's Farm. Good for them if they are going to build and run a community centre themselves.

On the other hand if they are going down the route of building this themselves and then expecting the Town Council to own, run and pay for the facility then they are wrong.

There is a whole load more development due to the east of St Neots. So why is there a need for a community centre on this site? At this rate the new developments could have three separate community centres. More than the rest of St Neots put together!

There is roughly £350,000 and a piece of land for a community centre to be built on. £350,000 won't go that far. The Conservatives need more money to make a fist of this. But don't get too carried away with all this hype. Cllrs Chapman and Harty were on the Committee and/or Working Party building the Eatons Community Centre. At least they have the experience of how it can all go so wrong.

This isn't how Town Councils should work. The whole reason for having officers and professional support is they do the work. With Councillors seemingly going off at tangents I have gained the impression there is a power vacuum in the Town Council. This is not the staffs fault and must be laid at those Councillors currently in charge and mainly at those who were in charge (Cllr Giles and Thorpe).

Concession offered in parking row.

So rash statements have been made in a piece on page 16 of this weeks News and Crier. This article is about the Riverside Car Park row.

The first rash statement is by Cllr Gordon Thorpe who says: "...my concern is the falling footfall in the Town Centre.".  John Davies of the Town Centre Initiative calls this into question on page 30 by saying the loss of footfall could be because the survey was taken when major roadworks caused traffic problems.

The second rash statement is by Cllr Farrer who said: "...he would consider going Independent if the 3 hours scheme did not go through.". Another loss to the Conservative numbers majority. He can't just go Independent at District level and stay with the Conservatives at County level. he would have to resign both whips. The likelihood is he wouldn't have a voice at Council as not being a member of a group will not allow Cllr Farrer to sit on Committees.

So lets look at the 3 hours free compromise proposal. At the moment the car park is free and therefore needs little supervision. The introduction of charges throughout the car park will mean much more supervision paid from income from charges. The introduction of 38 free spaces for 2 hour will need much more supervision to stop any dodging of charges. The 3 hour free for all the car park would mean much more supervision as the whole car park will need to be monitored. All this supervision costs and doesn't provide an income.

snrednek says: Either charge or don't charge. The trouble is the compromise could very well end up costing the Council Taxpayer more or means cuts elsewhere. The real problem behind all this is the inability of the Conservative run administration to set out a strategy to the residents and council taxpayers on the reduction plans needed to address the £6 million deficit.

Letters in The Hunts Post St Neots - 17/02/2010 digital edition

My comments on some of the letters in this weeks Hunts Post.

Losing Faith - Doug McIlwain is correct to point out the deficiency in the Prime Minister's proposal for a referendum on the Alternative Vote electoral system. The main problem is we have a top down democracy rather than a bottom up democracy. Time for a change.

Parking and Toilets - This is the same letter as appeared in the News and Crier last week. Now the Conservatives run HDC are closing the public conveniences with this budget will Cllr Farrer be voting for or against this budget?

A fine would be sufficient sentence - I'm not one to be overly cyclist friendly. I do cycle myself and I have spent much of my life driving for a living. When I read D Cole-Wilkin's letter I get a bit irate. Cyclists are road users too. They have every right to use the road as do other road users. Cyclists aren't the problem, the motorists have to alert to other road users.

The A1 is a fast road. The speed limit for car/motorcycles/cycles is 70mph. The term speed limit means the maximum speed you can do on a road. There is no minimum. Road/traffic condition will dictate a slower safer speed when necessary. Each road user has a duty of care to all other road users.

I disagree with D Cole-Wilkin. Just a fine for killing someone is wrong. Prison is the only sentence appropriate for killing someone. The actual sentence to determined by the Judge. Just a fine sends out the wrong message. 


The Hunts Post St Neots - 17/02/2010 digital edition

Letter in the News and Crier 4/2/10

I'm commenting on letters in this weeks edition of the News and Crier. The letters are on Page 7.

No to car park charges - Cllr Bob Farrer has come out against the car parking charges at Riverside Car Park, St Neots. Conservative Cllr Farrer is saying that his colleagues have reneged on a previous decision to keep this Car Park free. Cllr Farrer also has a dig at the Conservatives colleagues on the set up of the Working Party. He feels the fact that a two members were married this is totally undemocratic?! This is somewhat at odds with a report which says: 3.1 The Working Party debated the proposals made and also received input from local Ward Members who attended the meeting. 

Cllr Farrer goes onto write: "Be assured, I, along with other local councillors, will not except (accept) that charges should be introduced to this car park."

The problem is how far is Councillor Farrer and his Conservative colleagues are willing to go. The question I have is if they are so against this are they going to vote against the budget at cabinet and/or Council.

In the second part of the letter Cllr Farrer goes on to attack the Liberal Democrats Town Council for not taking on the Public Conveniences. The Conservative controlled HDC tried to dump this service on the Town Council after reneging on a decision to keep this service. Cllr Farrer should be having another go at his Conservative colleagues about stopping this service rather than blaming the Liberal Democrats.

Don't stop church parking - Linda Walton writes: "I would like to say I have never used the library, the fire service, the police helicopter - I could go on - but I am paying tax too!"

None of which are services paid for by the Town Council. These services are there for the benefit of the whole community provided by public authorities as all public services are. The Church is not a public service. The church wants this car park and wants the taxpayer to fund this. Whilst I have seen many emotional reasons for the Council Taxpayer pouring money into a new car park, I don't see a case being made for taxpayer cash to prop up this church.

Biggest ward, smallest share - This letter is about the politics of envy which always costs the taxpayer loads of money. Rather than being between the envy of St Neots and Huntingdon we have the envy between The Eatons and Eynesbury. One further thought on Eynesbury Hardwicke. They paid little or zero council tax to their Parish Council. The question should not be aimed at SNTC but to the annexed residents as to why they didn't build these facilities under their old regime.

Getting a raw deal?

The by-election which James Clark refers to in his letter in the Hunts Post was the non-election which got me onto the St Neots Community Forum. The reason I started was this was a by-election and I wanted to know about the issues before voting.
I received a leaflet from Stevie-v but nothing from the Conservative candidate James Clark. I even e-mailed the Conservative Office as I had received a letter regarding my postal vote. I wrote:
"I have just received your letter regarding my postal ballot at the forthcoming by election. In your letter you state that "You should now have received my first election leaflet.....". Well, I haven't and I'm not voting for you until I actually get a leaflet."


I did receive a reply and this said:
"I am forwarding your email on to James Clark who is standing for the Conservatives at the By-election of 18 December.  Please accept out apologies for our error in not sending you the leaflet. Kind regards. Ann Wilson HCCA."


To this date I have yet to receive anything from James Clark. In the end I didn't vote for him. If this was an example of how James Clark's campaign treated his potential voters then no wonder he lost!

The letter to the paper also makes a claim about Stevie-v using being elected to the Town Council as being a stepping to the District Council. So what? It is not as though some Conservative Councillors haven't got two or even three Councillor jobs. These are:

Cllr Ursell: St Neots Town Council, Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council and Hunts DC. Also stood for CCC in 2005.
Cllr Harty: St Neots Town Council, Hunts DC and Cambs CC.
Cllr Farrer: Hunts DC and Cambs CC.
Cllr Catherine Hutton: Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council, Cambs CC

County Councillor Catherine Hutton was co-opted onto Eynesbury Hardwicke Parish Council and then stood for Cambridgeshire County Council. Isn't that what James Clark is accusing Stevie-v of doing. Seems to me James Clark has one rule for his Conservative mates and another rule for the Liberal Democrats.