IT IS A WEEK NOW since this Blog published its Dave Blackwell: A Changed Man? piece, responding to Blackwell’s voluntary comment in the readers’ forum in which he stated: ‘[sic:] i have always tried to work with the ruling group for the benifit of the residents of canvey.’ But it seems that Blackwell has no intention of participating in a public interview, or responding to the legitimate concerns of voters. Instead he would rather hide behind an online alias or instigate the likes of Letchford to change the subject while the piece disappears from public view and hence from readers’ minds.
Residents will remember that this is exactly the same tactic employed by Spink to deny constituents the right to an explanation regarding his fraudulent expenses.
Small wonder then that this Blog now has another ‘Page That Will Not Go Away.’
Dave Blackwell and his Canvey Island Independent Party (CIIP) launched its Blog on March 8th this year. Its inaugural post was written by Neville Watson, ending with an appeal to residents to ‘watch this space.’ But were residents made any the wiser about CIIP policies and how they were to pay for them?
Sadly the answer is no.
Here is a list of CIIP posts and position statements upon which islanders voted:-
- The year so far, 08/03/2010: The CIIP is against over development and the closure of Canvey’s seaside pool.
- Silly season is here, 18/03/2010: The CIIP is against over development and the closure of Canvey’s seaside pool.
- Youth facility at the paddocks, 21/03/2010: A youth facility at the Paddocks would be a good idea (but we have no idea how we would pay for it).
- Fantastic projects, 22/03/2010: Who knows? The post provided no details.
- Kismet Park, 26/03/2010: The CIIP is against the Adizone.
- The Point, 27/03/2010: The CIIP says there are plans to build more houses on the Point and that they are against the plans.
- Website issues, 30/03/2010: The CIIP site was not targeted by hackers, their host’s server was.
- Full Council 30/03/2010, 31/03/2010: A spun report of the Full Council meeting in which the un-costed Paddocks youth facility and the Adizone motions put forward by the CIIP were defeated by the majority.
- What would Canvey Island be without opposition?, 04/04/2010: The CIIP is against the closure of Canvey’s seaside pool and over development.
- A little bit of info, 11/04/2010: The CIIP lists its candidates for the election; but does not say what they are standing for.
- Don’t trust the Tories!, 14/04/2010: The CIIP’s ‘first and foremost policy’ is to work for Canvey Island and its residents. (Other parties regard that as an obligation from their oath of office).
- Polling Stations – Important, 19/04/2010: It is David Marchant’s fault, here are the correct polling times.
- Do they think Islanders are fools?, 19/04/2010: Don’t trust the Tories.
- What a Day! 20/04/2010: The CIIP is not politically motivated (and yet they are standing for election?).
- Protecting our seafront, 29/04/2010: The Tories are incompetent.
- Fact NOT Fiction, 05/05/2010: The Tories are liars.
- Thank You Canvey, 07/05/2010: The CIIP wishes to thank all its supporters.
Interesting is it not? Two whole months of posts and residents still have no idea what policies or spending plans the CIIP have. Their campaign was fought purely from a position of being against over development (the same position as the other main parties) and against the closure of Canvey’s tidal pool (the same position as Labour and local Conservative candidates). But, whereas the main parties were keen to discuss their approach to necessary spending cuts; a third road for Canvey; island congestion and the need for additional homes – the CIIP were not.
That is because discussing local issues would force them into taking a position – and hence alienate some voters. The CIIP’s tactic continues to be that it is better to say nothing – and have voters think what they will.
The CIIP’s form of politics is both arrogant and dishonest; but it has appealed to a slim majority of islanders because the party puts claim to representing Canvey. Just as the BNP wraps itself in the union flag to attract nationalist support, the CIIP’s support is mainly from those who love this island and believe CIIP propaganda that the borough’s majority is unrepresentative of their views
The CIIP would never admit that the leading force behind the millions of pounds that have been invested in this island over the past few years – and many of those before it – is one Ray Howard, whom just happens to be a Conservative councillor.
The CIIP have not, and never will, attract a single penny of external investment in the island – because no investor will provide funds where councillors have no policies or plans.
Historically, of course, prior to the CIIP’s claims to represent islanders, the Labour Party dominated Canvey Island. Why that party is no longer held in high esteem probably has to do with the chaos ensuing from the borough’s Labour administration prior to 2003 – in which Blackwell was deputy leader. But, over the past six years, Blackwell’s CIIP have usurped Labour’s vote and replaced it with a party that can never hope to regain control of the Borough council. (The CIIP only fields candidates in 17 island seats and there are 24 on the mainland).
So why do a slim majority of islanders waste their vote upon a party that is arrogant, dishonest, and can never hope to take control of council?..
Like many other islanders, I am bemused.
Would anyone care to enlighten us?..
Filed under: Editorial, Island focus, Politics | Tagged: Canvey Island, Canvey Island Independent Party, Dave Blackwell |
The Canvey Beat 
Islanders are v ictims of Blackwell’s divisive brand of politics Ted. A brand that, as you say, states no ingredients on its tin. The only reason people buy it is because of its Canvey Island label.
And dont forget that whereas the national press test and examine every policy put forward by the main parties, the local press have never once put the CIIP under its microscope. Just as they have never mentioned that the mainland ISOGBP has not a single policy.
Give them a protest though and they are quick to devote hundreds of column inches. Remember the latest attempt to inflame islanders against the proposed ‘wind-farm’ at Morrisons? Straight to press before the application had even been considered. And what happend? The Tory council rejected it in line with their stated objectives.
Of course the CIIP were quick to point-out that they were against the proposals. But who, in fact, gave a damn? Certainly not Morrisons who knew they had no powers to prevent it.
The fact is that the CIIP is simply a home for those who would like to protest against something that the majority propose – like spending cuts and job losses that are inevitable following the financial crisis.
And they chose not to vote Labour incase mainlanders followed their example and let that party in via the back door.
Islanders think they are safe voting CIIP. They know they can never form a majority and present no threat to the Tories but they can also register a protest vote and congratulate themselves for having not actually voted against.
Precisely what Spink and Blackwell want them to think.
I’m particularly interested in those two early straw-polls, Cynical. Having readers vote on their preferred MP correctly predicted the result; but the local election was way out.
Perhaps this Blog has more mainland than island readers? That would serve to explain the poll’s results.
Or your island readers interpreted its results as it being safe to vote CIIP and send a message to the two main parties.
Pity you didn’t do another local poll close to the election like you did with MP intentions. Perhaps it would have given islanders pause for thought.