Liberal Democrats campaign for free parking?

I saw on the Huntingdonshire Liberal Democrat website that has come to life the following:

Lib Dems call for free parking for Christmas

October 31, 2011 10:16 AM

Huntingdon Liberal Democrats are launching their THREE 4 FREE Campaign today. 

"We are calling on Huntingdon District Council to help local businesses and residents this Christmas by providing FREE PARKING at all District Council Car Parks for the three weekends leading up to the festive season," comments Cllr. Mike Shellens, "We want to give local people every chance to support local shops and local jobs." 

Lib Dem Parliamentary Spokes, Martin Land, adds "By providing free parking on the 3rd and 4th, 10th and 11th and 17th and 18th December, HDC could show their support for our market towns of St Ives, Huntingdon and St Neots in these difficult economic times. This move could encourage residents to shop locally and not on-line or in Bedford, Cambridge or Peterborough." 

Except parking is already free on Sundays except at Hinchingbrooke Country Park. Saturdays sounds good. With HDC finances in such a state then how much will be lost by this initiative? What will have to be cut in its place? Car Parks are revenue for HDC. The Liberal Democrats have not fleshed the costs out.

Maybe the reason why Martin Land feels having Sunday free is such a good idea when it is already free is that Martin doesn't drive!

If the danger is people will drive to Bedford, Peterborough and Cambridge they will do so anyway. The higher parking costs and the fuel costs associated going to these towns will mean people will go there for better shops and are willing to pay to go and park there. Cutting 50 pence off the cost for parking for an hour will make no difference.

Good idea. Badly thought out. In the end just a gimmick.


If the Liberal Democrats and HDC want to attract more shoppers to St Neots then they need to change the shopping experience with larger retail units. Cutting the marginal cost of parking just means the Council taxpayer picks up the bill for this elsewhere.

Independents can win

An 18 year old student has won a by-election in St Ives. Tom Bletsoe won a by-election held for St Ives Town Council.

The Result:

456 Tom Bletsoe (Independent)

382 Daniel Rigby (Conservative)

184 Barry Wills (Independent)

85 John Oliver (Liberal Democrat)

22.1 per cent turnout

The Independent candidates took over 57% of the vote. 

What happened to the Liberal Democrats in all this? Looking at their "Flock Together" website they ended up in Cornwall.

Martin Land does it again!

Plunging into the pool of despair

The Charity Commission has sent me a copy of the 2009 accounts (361 days late). This document can be found here.

The accounts show one large piece of expenditure for £9,776 for professional fees. Probably to do with the negotiations over the sale of the land to the developers of the site including Huntingdonshire Regional College before the plug was pulled by the previous Labour Government. Otherwise SNSPT had £68,677 in cash at the bank.

One aspect worries me and that over half the proceeds from the sale goes to HDC.

I looked up the previous set of accounts to find that this wasn't even mentioned in the 2008 accounts. There we have it. Martin Land and his announcement that the trust was going to get £1.75 million is wrong. The figure after HDC is paid off the £28,859 ad all the fees and legal bills will give the trust just over £800,000. Not much to build a pool with!


This must have been known before! So why wasn't this agreement in the previous accounts? The agreement was made in 1987.

Is £800,000 enough to build a swimming pool? Probably not. St Neots is going to be stuck with a Swimming Pool Charity with about £870,000 of cash but can't afford to build a swimming pool!

The Swimming Pool Trust is an unaccountable body which is taking decisions over a major project for the Town. Why aren't the public informed of the details? When I asked for a report to HDC Cabinet I eventually received a redacted report after appeal. I just have to wonder whether the redacted bit of the report contained the half goes to HDC. Secrecy and yet more secrecy.

Pool Plan Takes Shape?

The Hunts Post St Neots - 22/12/2010

So SNSPT may get £1.75 million for the sale of the old swimming pool site. I say may because until it is in the bank the money isn't there. With a build cost of £1.25 million and £500,000 for investment to help pay for the running of the pool. Unfortunately, I feel the £500,000 won't be enough to keep the pool running. A pool will need public subsidy to keep open.

It is obvious that Martin Land is jumping the gun by announcing the amount the preferred bidder has made. This should come from the Town Council/Town Councillors not the paid help. Whilst this is welcome news, the money isn't in the bank.

Another look at the Huntingdon General Election result

Party	Candidate	2010 Vote	Notional 2005 Vote	+/-	2010 %	Notional 2005 %	+/-
Conservative	Jonathan Djanogly	26516	26646	-130	48.9	50.8	-1.9
Liberal Democrat	Martin Land	15697	13799	+1898	28.9	26.3	+2.6
Labour	Anthea Cox	5982	9821	-3839	11.0	18.7	-7.7
UKIP	Ian Curtis	3258	2152	+1106	6.0	4.1	+1.9
Green	John Clare	652	0	+652		0	+1.2
APP	Carrie Holliman	181	0	+181		0	+0.3
Independent	Jonathan Salt	1432	0	+1432		0	+2.6
OMRLP	Lord Toby Jug	548	0	+548		0	+1.0
Turnout		54266	52418		65.1	62.5
Majority		10819	12847	-2028		24.5

I thought I would take another look at the final result of the General Election. I'll go through each of the top three parties.
The Conservatives: The Djanogly vote held up extremely well. Far better than I expected. His percentage dropped slightly by 1.9%. In comparison to other seats surrounding Huntingdon the Conservative increases are:North West Cambridgeshire: +4.8% North East Cambridgeshire: +4.6%South Cambridgeshire: +2.7%North East Bedfordshire: +5.9%Djanogly's -1.9% is not good, but not a killer. Having been returned this represents an end to his expenses' problems.
The Liberal Democrats: Martin Land made some progress but not that much. All the hype over the leadership debates didn't materialise. The 2.6% increase doesn't seem much. In comparison:North West Cambridgeshire: -1.8% North East Cambridgeshire: +3.0%South Cambridgeshire: +4.7%North East Bedfordshire: +0.9%
The Martin Land campaign was mainly aimed at attracting Labour supporters. Obviously, from the result, this is what he achieved. Adding 2.6% to this total is minor and is mid-range of what was achieved from surrounding constituencies. 
Throughout this campaign I though Martin Land was aiming at the wrong people if he wanted to win! Martin Land had a go at me. He said:
"I’m told that somebody who knows far more about politics than me thinks that my being Agent for some of my colleagues and for our Disttrict Candidates compromises my ability to stand for Parliament. But, you see, it’s my job. And like most (though not all) candidates in this election, I have to earn my keep. Actually, when you have 37 years of campaigning behind you, these tasks are relatively routine and don’t prevent me from doing a very serious job as a parliamentary candidate as a some people will perhaps be surprised to see on May 7th."
At 2.6% this wasn't a very good job. The anti-conservative theme is something Martin Land has longed believed. In a blog Martin said:
"that the Tories remain a coalition between the blatantly self-interested, closet racists, and homophobes.."

I know Eynesbury was a local election campaign but Steve van de Kerkhove ran a pretty much non attack campaign which didn't call for Labour support. He did very well with an 8.7% increase.

Whilst bombarded with literature, the Liberal Democrats ran a lack lustre campaign and may very well have been campaigning elsewhere. 

Labour: This was always going to be a bad campaign for Labour. Anthea did quite well by only allowing the vote to drop by 7.7% instead of 11%. Not good, but could have been worse. 

More dodgy statistics from Martin Land!

I'm always wary of political statistics. So I thought I was gobsmacked by the following claim:

From this part of his leaflet you would assume the Labour share at the Fenstanton by-election sank to 5%. Look at the table below:

The Labour vote didn't sink. In fact the Labour vote stayed stable at 5%. The Liberal Democrats devalue themselves by using statistics in a dodgy way.

Vote Conservative and get more 5 years of Djanogly!

This is the choice presented by Jonathan Djanogly and the Conservatives. But this is not an argument that I believe doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Whether the Conservatives win in Huntingdon or not will not really effect the formation of a Cameron administration. What could effect a Cameron majority is what goes on up North, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

One less seat for Cameron will still mean Cameron will still be able to form a Government. Returning Djanogly will allow Djanogly to throw away his troubles over his expenses. 

I believe that we in the Huntingdon constituency should sent a message to Parliament and the politicians that their conduct is not acceptable. I'm not persuaded by the anti-Conservative rhetoric of Martin Land (Liberal Democrat). Therefore I've voted for the Independent candidate - Jonathan Salt.

Martin Land gets round to writing the 'contract'

In a previous blog I said Martin Land was missing the contract with his potential constituents that he stated was on his website. That was on 22nd April 2010. I see that a few days later, 25th April 2010, he has finally issued his contract. Not much of a contract anyway. A couple of parts to his contract need further examination.

"I’m pledged to work closely with and attend as many meetings as possible of the District and County Councils."

Why do you need attend all these meetings? Most of the time Martin Land wouldn't be able to attend the vast majority of these meetings.

"I’m pledged to hold an annual ‘Parish Parliament’ where the hundreds of local parish councillors will be able to raise their particular problems directly with me."

I feel this is mixed up thinking. A Parliament is a legislative body. This meeting will have no powers. I have to question whether Martin would see himself as a delegate or a representative.

I see at least two problems with this "contract". Firstly, what about his constituents. How are we able to hold Martin to account? He is very happy to start a body for Parish Councillors but not for constituents. Secondly, what happens if he breaches his "contract". There is nothing about Martin resigning if he breaches his "contract".

This "contract" isn't worth the website it is written on. 

A leaflet from Martin Land delivered by the Royal Mail

At the same time I received the Djanogly leaflet, I received a leaflet from Martin Land delivered by The Royal Mail. This is an addressed leaflet which means I'm unlikely to get another using The Royal Mail.

This is a well set out leaflet which puts across Land's anti-Conservative message across to the electorate. I believe this is the basic flaw in the Martin Land campaign. Martin should be out there attracting Conservative supporters having got most of the Labour supporters on an anti-Conservative front. This isn't a winning campaign.

Where is Martin Land's Contract with the constituency?

I received a leaflet, today, delivered by the Royal Mail. In it, there was a piece entitled "My contract with you". There is a link to see the full version of my contract at my website www.martinland.org.uk

So I went to the his website and looked for the contract. I even searched for the word "contract". The result came back zero.

So I went to his website and looked for the "contract". I even searched for the word "contract". The result came back zero. So Martin Land is not telling the truth when he refers to being able to see the "full version" on his website. There is no "contract". 

Martin Land is just petty!

There is a reason I don't have a go at bad spelling and grammar and that is because I'm not that good myself. So, if I point out mistakes in other people work this then gives them the opportunity to take apart my work. I therefore refrain from pointing out the obvious. Until now. 

Martin Land has a go at Jonathan Salt for not spelling Independent correctly.

But only two entries below Martin Land cannot spell Cambridgeshire!

So where is the 'B' in Cambridgeshire, Martin?

Recording of an Election Debate

BBC iPlayer - Andie Harper's Mid-Morning: 15/04/2010

Found this Election Debate from BBC Radio Cambridgeshire on the web. Missed the original. This is a debate between Jonathan Djanogly, Martin Land and Anthea Cox with a small bit of additional material from Jonathan Salt. Your need BBC iPlayer to listen to this.

The debate starts at the 1 hour 04 minutes in and continues with breaks to 1 hour 57 minutes.

Result not in doubt?

The Hunts Post St Neots - 14/04/2010

I disagree with Ian MacKellar's analysis of the General Election. He misses the point. The Conservatives have majorities which need to be looked after rather than going after other parties supporters.

In previous elections the Conservative supporters had only one place to go to PROTEST. Normally this would be the Liberal Democrats. The rise of UKIP at the Euro elections was due mainly to them being used as a protest vote by Conservative supporters. Not that the Liberal Democrats faired much better.

What has also got to be looked at is Martin Land (Liberal Democrat) and his "Tories are closet homophobes and racists" outburst. This shows such disdain for Conservative voters he is unlikely to get them. As Agent to many other candidates I do wonder whether this colours his judgement over their campaigns. The Liberal Democrats need to encourage Conservative supporters to vote for them. They are simply not doing this. 

Is Peter Griffin standing in Huntingdon?

I was watching "Family Guy" the other night and I thought Martin Land was on. Or is it Peter Griffin is standing in the Huntingdon constituency. I think we should be told if they have been swapped!

Hunts Liberal Democrats website update.

St Neots (Huntingdonshire Liberal Democrats)

I see the St Neots Liberal Democrats have finally gotten around to updating their webpage. Gone is the 2008 picture and text. In comes a page of announcing the candidates for the local elections. No pictures. No Biography. No political messages. This is bad campaigning. Something Martin Land with 37 years of campaigning experience should be on top of. He isn't!

On the front page we have a couple of articles on the Digital Economy Act and about the overnight count versus a next day count. 

Martin Land has a go at me - I think!

Martin Land | Campaigning for Huntingdon, St Ives, St Neots and our villages

In a recent entry on his blog, Martin Land says:

"I’m told that somebody who knows far more about politics than me thinks that my being Agent for some of my colleagues and for our Disttrict Candidates compromises my ability to stand for Parliament. But, you see, it’s my job. And like most (though not all) candidates in this election, I have to earn my keep. Actually, when you have 37 years of campaigning behind you, these tasks are relatively routine and don’t prevent me from doing a very serious job as a parliamentary candidate as a some people will perhaps be surprised to see on May 7th."

Martin, you are in charge of 17 local election campaigns in Huntingdonshire. You are also in charge of both the Cambridgeshire North East and the Cambridgeshire South General Election campaigns. One constituency is not for the faint hearted. Two is a lot of work. Anyway, doing a full time job of being the serious candidate should be the only job. Not one of many.

I compare Conservative MP Grant Shapps with Djanogly and found Djanogly lacking. I've found Shapps canvassing list via Twitter. Shapps is a serious candidate. Are you matching his work rate in Huntingdonshire, Martin Land? I doubt it!

Being a candidate at an election is a bit of a gamble. The more likely you are to win, the more likely you are to put more effort in the more likely you see yourself as winning. Keeping the day job means you are seriously hedging your bet and feel you are unlikely to win! What Huntingdon has is a part-time Liberal Democrat candidate who has seriously attacked Conservative supporters. The very people you need to vote for you to win!

Another leaflet from Martin Land

A new leaflet from Martin Land landed on my doormat. (Copy here). With the economic situation there is little to promise. Much to criticise about Labour and the Conservatives. The problem I have is Martin Land doesn't like the Conservatives and he needs Conservative supporters to win. This makes him damaged goods.

There are some pledges Martin Land has made about expenses. Martin has pledged to:

I will publish my full tax return every year detailing ALL income, including (though I have none!) any income from outside directorships, partnerships, etc.

I will publish each and every week on my website FULL details of any and all expenses claimed.

I will not have a second home but will commute to London along with thousands of local residents but not in 1st Class!

I will publish an audited annual list of all and any shares or assets that I own and their present value.

All these pledges sound good. These are just "pledges". If Martin was to guarantee that if he didn't carry out what he has pledged he would resign would have more force.

Lets look at individual pledges.

The first, publishing his tax return is good propaganda but has little value. Outside Directorships have to be declared anyway so no real change there.

In his 2nd pledge Martin says he is going to publish every claim every week. This is a bit onerous and there is no real reason for publishing every week. What Martin should pledge is he will answer questions on his expenses from the electors.

For this 3rd pledge Martin says he will not have a second home. This is very stupid because if he became MP he may have to work late. Depending on his workload he could have to book into hotels. The cost of this could be higher than renting a flat! Not going First Class is good. But that is happening anyway. I feel Martin should have made the pledge that he would have his primary home in the constituency.

The 4th pledge is again a nice piece of propaganda. But that is all.

The pledges I feel Martin should have made are the following:

I will have my primary home in St Neots.
I will publish and be held accountable for all expenses.
I will publish all office costs and employee names and salaries.
I will publish all financial/non-financial relationships between myself and the Liberal Democrats.
If I break any of these pledges I will resign immediately!


Martin is a politician. He is a Liberal Democrat politician. He needs to be watched. One of the first announcements was the appointment of Julia Hayward as his Agent. When it comes to reading the small print on SVDK's recent leaflet I find Martin Land is his Agent.

And the General Election passes Huntingdon constituency by!

Thought I would take a look at the political party websites. First off the incumbent.

Jonathan Djanogly and The Conservatives. www.jonathandjanogly.com has a piece on the Djanogly's relief at campaign start. Huntingdon Conservatives have no change. The St Neots Conservatives are still stuck in 2009, though it has been said it should be 1909.


Moving onto the main contender to Djanogly, the Liberal Democrats. Looking at Martin Land's website there is no change. The Huntingdonshire Liberal Democrats are stuck admiring Vince Cable. The Liberal Democrats St Neots page is stuck in 2008.

Onto the next contender UKIP. Again you would be pushed to find a general election going on here.

Of the other contenders, The Green Party is still stuck in 2009. The governing party, Labour, can't be bothered to change their local website. Lord Toby Jug hasn't got a website. The Independent candidate - Jonathan Salt has a fine website, which most of the local parties would be proud.

The General Election starts!

I see the General Election in Huntingdon is off to a flying start. Well NOT really. Whilst other areas have already started campaigning, like Grant Shapps,

here in Huntingdon the General Election is sedate. Djanogly is congratulating St Ives on 900 years.

So how the main contender doing?

The Liberal Democrats

No change here then!

April Fool's Day: The Answer

The Answer:

snrednek is running for District Council in the Eynesbury ward

I'm not standing for Council. Nor will I. I want to hold the elected to account. There are reasons why I wouldn't stand. Some of these are:

1. I would not be bound by the SECRECY so I would publish everything.

2. I'm out most nights and would rarely turn up to council/committee meetings.

3. I'm not interested in what the public thinks.

April Fool's Day

One this day a whole load of jokes will be played on the public by the news media. I have to say I'm no different. So here are some stories and you have to guess which is one is the lie.

Djanogly lives in a 5 storey semi detached house in Little Venice. The property doesn't have a garage nor does it have much garden. The garden is provided by a large open space open to all residents backing on the housing estate. The value of the house is currently badly estimated at: £4,097,419.

Locals pay more tax to cut tax for others. The happy residents annexed from Love's Farm and Eynesbury Manor/Parklands are paying higher taxes to cut the rest of the Council Tax of the St Neots residents.

snrednek is running for District Council in the Eynesbury ward. He is standing for the newly formed Popular Front for St Neots. In announcing his candidature snrednek said: I've had enough of these Councillors running this Town Council so I have now set up a blog called Pravda or Truth. I will be running under the banner of no more muck ups from these people. Up the revolution comrades!

Huntingdonshire District Council spent £573,000 on upgrading the public conveniences only to decide to close them. They tried to get the Town Councils to take over these facilities. SNTC took 2. St Ives 1.

Martin Land said the "Tories remain a coalition between the blatantly self-interested, closet racists, and homophobes.."