Castle Point Or Passport To Pimlico?

IN THE FIRST cross-party discussion to be held in the comments section of this blog, Neville Watson, Canvey Island Independent Party (CIIP) councillor for the island’s Winter Gardens ward, appeared to suggest that his main objective, and that of the CIIP, is to obtain the island’s complete political separation from the mainland.

Asked: ‘Is this the pact you have with Spink? Is this the purpose of the ISOGBP? to infiltrate the borough council and align itself with the CIIP to pass a separation resolution?’ Neville did not reply; but, if true, residents would at last be able to understand the motive behind the CIIP’s radical opposition to the majority on the Borough Council and the reason why Spink is not fielding any ISOGBP candidates, in the local May 6th elections, on the island.

Neville’s statement also raises the question why the CIIP purposely chose the less controversial term ‘Independent’ in its title, rather than adopting the ‘Canvey Island Independence Party’ as its political brand. Had they done so, islanders would have been able to easily recognise their political strategy as no more than a cynical power ploy to establish safe seats from which they could not be deposed by their then recently rejected Labour Party.

Under the present system, voters for the main political parties have some control over their representatives by being able to complain to their local association. But the CIIP offers no such facility for the electorate to have an errant candidate replaced.

Dave Blackwell, local garden centre manager and leader of the CIIP, has this as his welcome message to that party’s Website:-

Welcome to the Canvey Island Independent Party’s website. The Canvey Island Independent Party was formed in 2004 because I felt Canvey Island was being neglected by the main political parties. I have lived on Canvey Island all of my life and my family have lived on the Island since 1936. My auntie and uncle were both past members of the old Canvey Urban District Council.

During the 1950’s and 1960’s Canvey Island was a lovely place to live; clean and safe.

Where has all of that gone?

Well it seemed to have started when we joined the main land. I still find Canvey Island a nice place to live and I love it and that is exactly why I am so passionate about giving Canvey what it rightfully deserves. A cleaner, safer and greener place to live with a group of dedicated councillors to help shape Canvey Island into the way you, the residents, want it to be.

I am certain we can achieve this goal if we all work together. Canvey for Canvey my friends!

All the best

Dave Blackwell
Party Leader

Carefully phrased, like Spink’s recent Yellow Advertiser advert, few islanders would perceive any threat from such a party. But Watson’s remarks, on this blog, now put that sentence referencing the mainland into an entirely different light.

Now reading between the lines, it is evident that Blackwell and his party is actually pursuing political separation. But they do not have the honesty to say so. They continue to promote the lie that they are ‘Independent.’ The fact now emerging is that CIIP councillors are pursuing a common strategy – and that strategy has both public and clandestine components.

One does not expect anti-democratic extremism to be present on a small, peaceful, English island in the Thames estuary. But that is exactly what we have here. Not some political terrorist group infiltrating the political establishment to wage a war from within; but, nonetheless, an attack on British Democracy using the very same tactics employed by the far-left, which once riddled the Labour Party, and which seeks not to represent residents; but to spin public opinion and use its power-base to influence voters towards goals that are not made public.

So what would separation mean?..

Let us take the constitutional issue first.

In the thread, Julian explains that separating Canvey from the mainland would not give rise to a further parliamentary seat. The Electoral Commission sets a baseline of around 72,000 voters to form a constituency (and the total population of Canvey Island is just some 40,000 – well below that required).

But what it would do is carve-up the Borough on historical political lines. A Tory mainland and a Labour island. Mainland Labour voters would likely be unable to elect a true representative of their views to act for them locally; and Tory voters, on Canvey, would be in a similar predicament.

The strategy is one of social engineering, designed to create two geographic areas where the political landscape is purposely weighted to ensure candidates are routinely returned to office. And it is one in which, by influencing a free press, opposition will never be reported – because it will be the ruling politicians whom control what is said.

It is already evident, in this Borough, that the local press is unduly influenced by our MP – and that all investigative journalism is absent.

So what is in it for Spink?

Bob has been planning this strategy for some time. Since being thrown-out of the Conservative party, Spink has tried to undermine the local Tory majority on every occasion. He has purposely spread dissent against the ruling group, both on the mainland and the island.

Together with the Echo’s complicity and his adverts in the Yellow Advertiser; Spink has done everything he can to manipulate public opinion. And he has seen the strategy to be a success. His Canvey Island Independent Party romped home in the last Borough Council elections by simply attacking the Cabinet. Residents did not ask the question ‘What are we voting for?’ – they were purposely conditioned by the local press and the opposition, whom they trusted,  to simply ‘vote against.’

Since then they have continued to be conditioned. Democracy has effectively been replaced by engineered public protest. Engineered, because all the island protests could have been avoided had the CIIP been doing its job of representing its electorate. And no mainland protest would have been needed had Spink done his job of mediating with councillors on his constituents’ behalf. Instead he used taxpayer funds to fuel the protests further, whilst, on the island, CIIP councillors purposely led the Tory’s to trip-over their political feet by presenting nothing but meaningless opposition to any proposals, and forcing the majority to impose a political whip in order to get anything done.

As soon as that happened, Spink and the opposition won. It was a political gift that the Tories must deeply regret.

Spink’s next move could have been predicted by any military person: ‘divide and conquer.’ It was the obvious move to make after that of ‘instil confusion in the enemy’.

After attacking the Tory council, Spink could not afford to allow the public to come together under one independent banner (except his own). Had he allowed the CIIP to expand to the mainland, and their campaign be successful, he would no longer have any political control over it. Blackwell would have had the power to remove his party’s localwide support for Spink and achieve his goal of  Canvey independence on his own. Hence Spink’s need to separate disaffected Conservative and Labour voters by presenting a new, ‘independent’ party with which mainlanders could protest against the Cabinet: the Independent Save Our Green Belt Party (ISOGBP).

Once again, the word ‘independent’ is at the fore.

Spink’s aim is to create another local landslide in his new party’s favour on the mainland – presenting his new troops as independent thinking individuals whose election would put a stop to Tory ‘mismanagement’ and public dissent.

It is the same strategy used by the CIIP to win Borough Council seats in the last elections. And the same strategy that the party will adopt this year to retain them.

By not fielding new party candidates against CIIP members, Spink is able to keep CIIP support – promising to repay them when the time comes.

If sufficient ISOGBP candidates are elected, they and the CIIP councillors will combine to force a separation resolution through council – with Spink, this time, wielding an ISOGBP whip.

In this election, Spink will be all over the local press. And he has effectively ‘bribed’ some residents into doing his promotion work for him. Along with their blank manifestos and no pledges, both the CIIP and the ISOGBP will be asking residents to express their anger at the local Tory cabinet by voting for themselves and Spink.

They will offer no policies; but, like the CIIP in the last local elections, will promise strong opposition.

It is Spink who has organised, trained and indoctrinated these candidates. And it is Spink who is providing them with the opportunity of becoming local councillors; masterminding their campaign; and providing them with finance.

Honest people, unfortunately, often see that same honesty reflected in others. And honest people are often extremely loyal. They are the last people to believe that they are being manipulated.

Spink’s smoke grenade, in this election, will be the local press to keep residents’ eyes off of the local elections while he carefully constructs an atmosphere conducive to his ‘indpendent’ party campaigns. We are unlikely to see any local coverage of CIIP or ISOGBP campaigning – simply because they have no policies or pledges to report.

If he loses this year, Spink will not be down-hearted. Provided he obtains local ‘independent’ representation from which he can continue to attack any possible Labour or Tory majority: he can continue to use precisely the same disruptive tactics to engineer his return in four year’s time.

Locally, he will continue to pull press and political opposition strings – and his shade will continue to darken this Borough for many years to come.

If you value Democracy, you will reject Spink, the Canvey Island Independent Party, and the Independent Save Our Green Belt Party when you visit the polls.

This has not been a good time for politics, and many residents will be wishing to abstain this year. But that is precisely what Spink and his cohorts are specifically hoping for.

A low turnout will favour Spink and his two parties.

A vote for either of those two parties will be a vote for separation.

Separation will deny you the opportunity of electing local candidates whom reflect the spectrum of main party politics. It will produce political ghettos on the mainland, and on the island, from which there will be no democratic return.

Please do not let that happen.

Please use your vote wisely this year…