47 UK Candidates Endorsed By Martin Bell’s Independent Network

SOME RESIDENTS wishing to cast their votes for an independent parliamentary candidate in this year’s elections may still be under the illusion that Bob Spink is a valid independent candidate. However, the fact is he has not been endorsed by the Independent Network, an organisation set-up by Martin Bell to vet all independent candidates on the public’s behalf.

Endorsement applications closed on Tuesday, 13th April, and a full list of the independent candidates standing in this year’s parliamentary elections are now available on the organisation’s Website.

Advertisements

The Spink Advert You Will Not See

And in this advert: all the quotes are true, from real people - and none have been taken out of context

Just To Coincide With The Pool Protesters’ Flyer In My Letter-Box…

Today's Yellow Advertiser advert: Spink is an independent again (and heading the Canvey Concord pool protest in the picture)

… (26/04/2010) – The Spink Advert You Will Not See

Lies From Spink; Lies From The CIIP – And Now Lies From Canvey’s ‘Save Our Pool Campaign Group’

THE LEAFLET SAIDPrinted At Below Cost By DESIGN 4 PRINT’ – and it immediately had my attention. After all, that is the local firm that prints the vast majority of Spink’s campaign literature (as revealed in his expenses claims). But the leaflet did not purport to be from Spink or either of his parties. The rhetoric was consistent, the phraseology the same; but it would appear that the person behind this is Tom Jea, producer of the Concord pool protesters’ Website. (The leaflet does not actually provide that linked address; rather it just mentions the site’s homepage – in order to ramp-up the hits).

‘How strange that I should find this in my letterbox now,’ I thought – as I removed it from the batch of political flyers with which it had been folded. And how strange that a group that professes to be non-political and ‘not for or against any party’ should not protest against the Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, Dave Blackwell, for agreeing with the Cabinet’s decision, on safety grounds, to close the Concord pool.

But then this issue is not, as it should be, about public safety or the Council’s liability for any accident that may occur to an unsupervised child. It is all about taking a current local issue and trying to turn it into the type of mass protest once seen on the island over Calor Gas’ plans. And residents should also remember that the only reason this issue is ‘current’ is because the Canvey Island Independence Party, in the shape of the Town Council, have consistently been unable to attend meetings with Borough councillors to solve it.

Spink and his parties are unable to present one idea for this borough – and their only recourse is to create a local political issue that might enable them to harvest some protest votes.

So perhaps Spink really did need that £16,000 for ‘his’ election campaign. As Julian Ware-Lane pointed-out, on his blog, Spink would be breaking the rules if he spent that amount of money. But perhaps Bob did not need it all for his own campaign…

Oh yes; what lie?..

The lie that: ‘Just 8 people had the power to decide this [the closure of the Concord pool].’ That was the number of Cabinet members; but what about the power invested in members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), chaired by Blackwell (but too busy to attend the meeting) whom called the cabinet’s decision in?..

On this blog, Neville Watson said that the OSC had no powers, because the Conservatives have a majority on the committee. (Well, what do you know: maybe that is because the Council has a Tory majority).

Spink and his parties would have you believe that the opposition is impotent because the Conservatives employ a 24hour whip; but the truth of the matter is: the opposition is incompetent – unable to muster a logical argument against any Conservative proposals – and, when they have the opportunity to defeat them, they simply sit back and let the proposal through (to give themselves something to campaign about).

They have been adopting the same tired tactics, for the past six years – because they have seen that it provides them seats. And they will be adopting exactly the same tactics in this campaign; because it is the only way they will achieve any votes.

The borough’s Green Campaigners have been quick to distance themselves from Spink and his cohorts, highlighting, on the Echo’s Website, how they have been used.

It is about time that the Concord pool protesters did the same…

… (26/04/2010) – Is It Your Intention To Continue Misleading The Public, Tom?

No, Bob Is Not An Independent Candidate

PPC for the Independent Save Our Green Belt Party

THIS YEAR, Bob Spink will be standing (as his nomination form shows) as the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Independent Save Our Green Belt Party – whose manifesto for government (or even local politics for that matter) has yet to be published.

At last, Spink has revealed his intention to attempt a political coup of the mainland – and also position himself for becoming Castle Point’s first elected mayor.

As first revealed on this blog, and now further confirmed by Dave Blackwell’s support for Spink on the latter’s nomination form, the two leaders are intent on carving-up the borough between themselves. Their purpose? To ensure lucrative government posts for themselves from which they cannot be easily deposed.

Do not expect to hear much of the issues facing the country, or this borough, from either of the independence parties. And do not expect to see much coverage of this campaign’s real issues in the local press.

The Echo has already indicated its intention to pursue ‘its’ Save Our Pool Campaign as a means of bolstering both camps’ support (despite the Borough and Town councils being in private talks) – and we can probably be sure that, in the coming weeks, Bob’s picture will again be adorning their pages.

However, how that paper will be able to justify so much Spink coverage, now that he has adopted the clothes of an unknown political force, remains to be seen. There are strict rules governing the amount of press coverage that can be devoted to individual parties in an election campaign – and Spink may have cut his own political throat.

Had he maintained his independent status, he could have pointed to his support as a Conservative candidate and argued the case for the largest slice of the political coverage pie; but, under his new circumstances, candidates for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party would be entitled to more. (And they at least have a manifesto for government).

As If There Were Ever Any Doubt…

Dave Blackwell fully supports Bob Spink

Why The Borough’s Relay Elections Will Ensure Spink’s Influence Continues On This Island For Years To Come

UNFORTUNATELY this year’s local elections will not remove Spink’s Canvey Island Independence Party (CIIP) from its power bases on the island – even if the Conservatives, as predicted, obtain a clean-sweep.

Because Castle Point Borough Council elects a third of its councillors every year (with no election taking place on the fourth) it will take islanders at least another two years to rid themselves of their presence.

The Council decision to move to elections by thirds was instigated by the Leader of the Council (Labour’s David Wells) on 16th March 2000, during  the Labour administration of 1995 to 2003. It effectively removed the ability, from 2004 onwards, for the electorate to be able to replace any majority in a single election every four years (as had always been the case previously). Together with their ED9 policy, Labour’s militants had laid the foundations for retaking the council surreptitiously in the face of an election they knew they could not win.

In 2004, the militants rebranded themselves as the Canvey Island Independent Party and set about the task of regaining power. They would no longer have to fight a local election on a manifesto or vision for the borough: relay elections would enable them to fight individual seats on a ward-by-ward basis and, by fuelling public protests, allow them to conduct a long-term campaign against the borough’s Conservative majority. The militants would no longer be able to be dismissed as easily as they were in 2003.

During the last six years, their clandestine campaign has been very successful.

This year, Peter May (Canvey Island Central); Nick Harvey (Canvey Island North); Joan Liddiard (Canvey Island South); and Peter Grieg (Canvey Island Winter Gardens) are all up for re-election on May 6th; but we will still be stuck with the likes of Dave Blackwell and Anne Wood for some time yet.

Dave Blackwell (Canvey Island Central) comes up for re-election next year – along with Lee Barrett (Canvey Island East); Grace Watson (Canvey Island North); and Neville Watson (Canvey Island Winter Gardens). But residents will have to wait until the year after to reject Anne Wood (Canvey Island East) – along with her compatriots John Anderson (Canvey Island Central); Martin Tucker (Canvey Island North); Brian Wood (Canvey Island South); Janice Payne (Canvey Island South); and Barry Dixie (Canvey Island Winter Gardens).

Among those, Brian Wood was elected on a CIIP ticket; but is now an independent.

So the bad news is that the CIIP, under Spink’s direction, will continue to disrupt local politics in the borough for some time to come. And we can probably expect Colin Letchford to vigorously continue his petition for an elected mayor as another avenue for Spink and Blackwell to exploit.

The fight to regain Democracy on this island, and rid it of those whom adopt aliases to misrepresent themselves as members of the public and control our views, will not be over on May 6th…