National coverage of RA councillors?

Simon Heffer wrote in the Telegraph last Monday:

Despite it being led by a monomaniacal sociopath with
all the charm of a septic tank and the communication skills of a stoat, and despite having engaged in the worst acts of economic mismanagement in 80 years...

Many Telegraph readers in Epsom & Ewell will have assumed that Mr. Heffer was referring to our own Residents' Association council and its leader, Cllr. Robert Leach. Further reading however revealed that the author's focus was Gordon Brown and the Labour Party.

Come to think of it, the similarities are startling.

RAs abolish free parking for the disabled

Free parking for blue badge holders was abolished by Residents' Association councillors at last week's full council meeting. RA councillors had previously backed this move as part of a package of cuts hitting the most vulnerable in the borough at the council's last budget. Last week saw the RA group force through the Traffic Order required to impose fees by a vote of 16 to 14.

I described the cuts as a "fundamentally pernicious decision" during the debate and Conservative councillors voted against them. I also decided to tackle directly the erroneous and sometimes outrageous arguments being put forward by RA councillors.

Cllr Jean Smith stated that there is no correlation between disability and poverty. A statement so blatantly unsupported by evidence one had to wonder what the real motivation was of her making it.

Cllr Pamela Bradley said the move was necessary in the current financial climate, but then failed to explain why the council was making cuts that hit the vulnerable whilst not making cuts to councillors allowances or abolishing the council's propaganda magazine or the Mayor's chauffeur driven car.

Robert Leach, leader of the RA group of councillors, saved the best until last. He claimed that the consultation the council conducted (which took place after the decision had been made to impose charges) showed that over half of blue badge holders supported charging. This was deliberately misleading. I pointed out in debate that the question "do you support the introduction of fees?" Instead, without being asked, over 40% of those replying stated they were opposed to charging in principle. This blatant dishonesty was later described by Geoff Jelly, a local disabled rights campaigner, as "disgusting and low".

I will examine various aspects of this decision in future posts. One thing is certain. The RA group has lost touch with the residents of our Borough. Whilst squandering money elsewhere they have taken money from the most vulnerable. Have no doubt that they will be back for more by the time of the next council budget in February.

676 safe under Conservatives

I have written to every household in Langley Vale to cofirm that the 676 bus service is safe under the Conservatives at Surrey County Council. What a stark contrast to our Residents' Association Borough council that continues to slash services for the most vulnerable in our community. The letter is copied below:


We are pleased to confirm that the 676 bus service from Walton on the Hill to Therfield School will continue to run for the benefit of Langley Vale residents.

The County Council is obliged to review all spending given current financial pressures. A review of bus services has been conducted so as to ensure that we as taxpayers are receiving value for money. That review has sensibly cancelled bus routes that were serving schools outside of the county of Surrey and services that were significantly underused.

Therefore the 676 service was never under threat as it is both heavily used and runs within the county. When we heard that villagers were concerned that the 676 might be at risk we immediately spoke with our Conservative colleagues at Surrey County Council and received the assurance that the 676 would keep on running and it was always intended that it would keep on running. Moreover, after the arguments we made, the 676 is being deemed an “essential” service by the County Council which we hope means its future is safeguarded well into the future.

We understand that Residents’ Association councillors have suggested the 676 was under threat when a simple phone call to the relevant County Councillor would have confirmed this wasn’t the case. We know that sometimes local politics is tough, but we hope from now on that local politicians will not suggest that a service which isn’t under threat is under threat just so that they can pretend they have saved it. We very much appreciate that residents of Langley Vale face different needs to those who live in the rest of the Borough. We’re therefore pleased to have played our part in confirming the future of this important service for the local community.

Yours sincerely


Councillor Sean Sullivan Tina Mountain

RA councillors beware!

Many Auriol residents want to have to opportunity to kick out unpopular RA councillor Robert Leach - but will he even get on the ballot to allow them to do so?

How to save £45,000 of taxpayers' money - call in a Conservative

Last Tuesday evening brought the delights of the council's Strategy & Resources committee. One item on the agenda proposed that the council employ a part-time climate change officer over two years at a cost of £45,000.

This would have been an entirely new position and I was somewhat surprised. These are tough financial times - Residents' Association councillors have forced through deeply unpopular cuts like closing public toilets and abolishing free parking for Blue Badge holders. Moreover the RAs have had to freeze council staff pay. So, however important the issue of climate change may be, why would we want to be creating new positions at this particular point in time?

RA councillors had not bothered to check where this money had come from and with what conditions. I discovered that it came from a grant which was not ring fenced. It therefore could be used to fund work the council already does thereby saving the taxpayer £45,000 instead of saying us absolutely nothing.

When I pointed this out the RA Chairman of the committee, Eber Kington, quickly realised the error of his ways, but miserably couldn't persuade his own group to make such an obvious saving. It really is amazing that with tough decisions to be made the RAs aren't bothering to check whether every vacancy needs to be filled and whether any proposed new role is necessary. More than that though when us Conservatives show them the light they struggle to find their way to the right decision. Not very inspiring behaviour from the ruling group on the council, simply adding to the terrible repututation they have in relation to the Borough's finances.

Toilet trouble for RA councillors

On Saturday afternoon I was pleased to join over 100 local residents in a demonstration against the decision of Residents' Association councillors to close the public toilets in Stoneleigh. Ironically the campaign is being led by the Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association (SARA).

One has to wonder how the residents of Epsom & Ewell are meant to place any confidence in their RA councillors when the largest residents' association in the borough is openly contemptuous of and angry with their representatives?

You only have to look at the SARA web site to see the extent of the betrayal felt by once loyal RA activists. The secretary of SARA, Mike Sampson, has described Robert Leach, RA councillor for Auriol and Chairman of the RA group of councillors, as being "inaccurate and misleading" in relation to comments made about the toilets.

Bill Slaughter, Chairman of SARA, has come out in the local press and stated "the RA councillors who control Epsom & Ewell Borough Council are refusing to listen to and act in accordance with the wishes of residents." One hell of a statement from the most influential RA chairman in the Borough. If I was Robert Leach I wouldn't be betting on being able to run as an RA candidate in the 2011 local elections.

Let's remember that the closure of all three public conveniences in the Borough (the other two are on the Upper High Street in Epsom and in Ewell Village) was part of sweeping budget cuts pushed through by RA councillors this year. These included the closure of Cox Lane day centre for the elderly and, quite dsigracefully, scrapping free parking for Blue Badge holders. In the budget debate I put forward how money could be saved without attacking services for the most vulnerable in our community, but us Conservatives were voted down.

It must be galling for residents of Stoneleigh and Auriol that they lose their public toilet (which only cost £7,000 per year), but the RA Mayor of the Borough still gets driven around in a chauffeur driven car, RA councillors have refused to reduce their allowances which they increased by 14% after the last election and the council continues to produce a glossy propaganda magazine for every household a number of times a year. What, they must be asking themselves, is the point of electing an RA council?

SARA appear to have made a financial offer to the RA group of councillors to assist in keeping the loos open. It was stated on Saturday that this was rejected and one councillor described it as a bribe! It makes me wonder whether the RA group has lost all sense. They state they are here to represent the best interests of their residents through the Residents' Association movement, yet when their own local residents' association points out where they have gone wrong they stick two fingers up at them.

If Stoneleigh & Auriol RA councillors will not stand up for their own residents then us Conservative councillors will have to instead. I can promise the residents of Stoneleigh & Auriol that we will fight to reopen their loos.

Congratulations Chris Grayling MP

The general election in Epsom & Ewell saw Chris Grayling returned for a third term as our Member of Parliament. Chris polled 30,868 votes which was an increase of 3,722 on his 2005 tally. He gained a spectacular 56.2% of the total vote, an increase of 1.8% on the last election. In doing so Chris secured the best result for the Conservatives in the constituency since 1992.

It's no suprise that after nine years as our hard working member of parliament that Chris gained such a thumping endorsement from his constituents. I wish him all the best in his new role as Minister of State within the Department of Work and Pensions.