Earthquakes and predictions!

A tongue in cheek article on the Today programme yesterday, followed up with an article on the BBC website, that an amatuer seismologist, Raffaele Bendandi, who died in 1979, predicted an earthquake to hit Rome on 11 May 2011.  Lots of fun poked at Romans taking the day off just in case, and perhaps a bit of a slow news day for the BBC.

But no link seems to have appeared that he seems to have been right, well, at least by the date, as an earthquake hits not Rome, but Lorca in Spain.  I know tradgedy has ensued, but even so, not bad for a watch maker!

A map below shows how the Eurasian and African plates run near Lorca.

Patients turned away at Queen Mary's

The excellent Chislehurst News blog has picked up a story that Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup are turning away ambulances because they are unable to cope.  A quote that Chislehurst News has used from South London NHS says “emergency ambulances do not take patients to Queen Mary’s. The Urgent Care Centre is for patients who do not require an ambulance.”  The message obviously didn't get through to some crew, as I discovered whilst I attended Queen Mary's urgent care centre last week.  Whilst there, two ambulances came in, one with an elderly lady who had a fall and the other with a lad with a badly bleeding arm.  We can only assume then that either the hospital is turning away crews at certain times when they simply cannot cope with the amount of patients that have walked in, or that there is no set policy and somethimes they take patients from ambulances and other times they don't, which surely has produced confusion amongst staff.

I've never been happy about A Picture of Health, the programme that implemented the closure of the A&E and the maternity ward, and is about trying to get the best services at the best centres.  Yes, it was implemented under the Labour government, but that doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea!  The theory is sound; centres of excellence so that people can go not necessarily to their nearest hospital and recieve a mediocre service, but to attend a hospital that will specialise.  But why should that mean the local A&E closes, sending people to Queen Elizabeth's Woolwich, or Princess Royal, Farnborough, both hospitals that, although new, haven't increased the size of their A&E to take into account the extra pressure from the closure of Queen Mary's?

What angers me is the hypocracy of local Conservatives.  Eager to make high profile campaigns, they issued Save Our Services posters throughout the neighbourhood and held candlelit vigils outside the hospital.  Watch the Conservatives videos below:

I'm not the only one to be angry.  Check out Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital. Now that's anger. 

When in opposition, it was Labour's policies and Labour's decisions.  Bob Neill (MP for Bromley & Chislehurst), Derek Conway (then MP for Old Bexley & Sidcup), James Brokenshire (now MP for Old Bexley & Sidcup), David Evennett (MP for Bexleyheath & Crayford), Boris Johnson, along with a plethora of Tory councillors in Bexley poured scorn onto the proposals and pledged to fight the changes and overturn the decision once in power.

What happened when the Tories did get in?  Andrew Lansley, he who is soon not of this government if reports are to be believed, decided that he would honour the decisions made, and that the departments would close.  Suddenly the blame no longer fell onto the government, but the managers at South London NHS.  Bob Neill clearly lays the blame at managers, as does James Brokenshire.  How things shift when you're in power...

2011 elections and what it means for Ken

So the 2011 elections are behind us.  The country firmly rejected AV, Labour took a battering in Scotland with the SNP doing something that was never meant to happen - a party getting a majority in the Scottish Parliament, The Lib Dems were smashed throughout the country, and a mixed bag for the Tories.

First, AV.  I admit that I hammered my colours to the mast of first past the post.  I like it, and feel that it serves its purpose.  The result of 70% to keep the status quo should put the issue into touch for a generation, and I hope that the subject won't become part of Labour's manifesto again as it did in 2010.  However, there are many out there who are simply not accepting it.  They're talking about the amount of money the no campaign had, outrage at campaign adverts, the slandering of others.  There's just one thing.  Despite the overall enthusiasm for AV on Twitter, and the political blogs, the people, well, simply didn't want it.  That's it.

The elections.  Overall, Labour did well.  Not as well as I think we should have, certainly not as well as we ought to have in Scotland.  Some headline figures: 

In the local elections, Labour gained 800 new councillors, Tories 81 but the Lib Dems lost 695, and independent/others lost 199.  What does this mean? The Lib Dems were trounced, smashed, beaten.  Both Labour and the Tories benefited; and this is my niggle.  From my point of view, Labour need to be attacking and beating the Tories.  The Lib Dems suffered simply because the public wanted to make Nick Clegg suffer after the broken promises.

But the same is not said of the Tories.  Their support is holding out.  Next year is the London elections.  If Ken is to beat Boris a London wide strategy will need to be put into place that tackles this issue head on.  Highlighting the cuts is not enough.  Ken's team, in conjunction with London Labour, will need to make sure we give people REASONS to vote Labour, it won't be enough to say that the coalition is bad, its made up of Tories, Boris is a Tory, ergo Boris is bad.  Firm policies with a firm vision is what's needed.  I feel this is why Labour didn't do as well as it could have done in places such as Dartford and Medway.

Labour did well, but a lot more needs to be done.

Death of an evil man

I held off from commenting on Osama Bin Laden's murder that took place on Monday.  Knowing what was first reported in the early hours of Monday was never the full story proved to be right as the White House's report changed.

On Monday it was reported that after a fire fight, and with Bin Laden resisting, he was shot dead.  The event took place over 45 minutes and the whole thing was watched live by the President and his staff at the White House.  Photos of Obama and his team watching the events were released:

The story changed to there was no fire fight, Bin Laden wasn't armed, and the video of the attack went down for 20 minutes after a solder turned off the camera.  This has turned the mission, in the eyes of many, into the actions of a death squad.

All of this is a mistake of course.  If the White House simply stuck with a specific story from the beginning, perhaps even with the truth, than they will probably ride through any criticism that has come their way, criticism that has now intensified.  

What does his death mean?  It is too early to tell.  As we understand it, he has been more of a figurehead leader rather than an operational leader.  Al Qaeda's attacks themselves have waned, probably through a mixture of the fighting in Afghanistan, the targeting of the Taliban, and the heightening of internal national security in western countries.  Look below of the lists of atrocities done in the the name of Al Qaeda, and there's not much for the past six years.  Will there be reprisals?  Probably.  The one thing I can be assured of is that our security services have foiled many plots, a few that we get to hear about, and I'm many, many that we won't.  

In the meantime discussion has intensified over how Americans reacted to the news of Obama's death.  On Monday, videos of cheering crowds were shown on news networks across the world.  I neither condemn nor  condone the victory that US citizens felt.  Many thousands have lost loved ones in the 9/11 atrocity which started the war on terror, so I understand the levels of feeling that the news of Laden's death must have had.  Let's not also forget it's not just Americans who have suffered at the hands of Al Qaeda, but us here in Britain when 56 people died on 7 July 2005, the Bali bombings in October 2002 when over 200 people died, the train bombs in Madrid in March 2004 killing over 190 people, and countless others around the world.  

I have no qualms about calling Bin Laden an evil man.  He was head of an organisation that took religious text to the extremes, and such extremists I cannot abide, from whatever faith they are.  However, should he have died as he did?  The Americans at the end of World War Two insisted that the captured Nazis stood trial, despite Churchill and Stalin both complaining that the Nazis never showed compassion themselves.

But it is this very ability to rise above your enemies cruelty to show fairness, compassion and clemency, to stand by the things that democracies believe in, the very fabric of what makes nations such as the UK, the US, Spain and other such countries who we are.  The Americans understood this in 1945.  They should have understood this in 2011.

THE Wedding...

I love a wedding, and today was a special day.  Many of my fellow lefty colleagues will be busy doing other things; perhaps out doing a spot of canvassing for the elections that are due on 5 May, watching the snooker on BBC2, going to the cinema to see Thor, or simply watching the wedding to criticise it as often as possible on Twitter.

Personally, I'm cool with that.  The joy of living in the UK means that people have the right to be arch monarchists or arch republicans.  Only a few months ago I was at a meeting where it was voted and agreed that the people should pursue a republic.  I voted against.  

You see, I fall into neither camps.  The monarchy maybe a throw back to a feudal past, but when you watch such an amazing spectacle as we did today, we see something that makes the majority of the country proud and united.  It also makes me proud, and when I see the fact that so many other people also feel proud, how and why should I want to do away with the monarchy?

Well, not quite yet, anyway...

Olympic tickets and the great public body allocation

Olympic tickets all applied for last night - all a bit last minute, but it would seem I was with thousands of others.  So many people did the same, or, probably as with me, simply forgot all about it, that the Olympic ticket website collapsed under the strain.  As I was on twitter, I saw many tweets of panic and agony of wanting to book but not able to get on.  At least they acknowledged this problem and extended the closure by an hour.

I opted for all the cheapest, child discounted tickets, which means we won't get to see any medals being dished out, but the first round of heats.  That's if we get them of course.  Seb Coe (watch the video) emphasised yesterday that there will be many, many people disappointed, particularly if you go for the more popular sports.  

There are 6.6 million tickets for sale, but half of them will be for VIP and corporate hospitality.  This I find astonishing.  Surely the public would snap up all the tickets?  I except the need for some tickets to be used for schmoosing, but half?  More importantly, who gets these tickets?  What organisations and businesses would be be deemed important enough to be allocated tickets?  Do they apply, or is it a system of patronage, groups that are known and that automatically get them?  Some are definitely worth it, such as the 120,000 tickets that will be allocated to school children aged 10-18 in London.

However, one thing I discovered at the last Mayor of London's People's Question Time on 15 March is that the Mayor of London and the London boroughs get ticket allocations.  Dee Doocey, Lib Dem London Assembly member and current chair of the Assembly told the packed Battersea Arts Centre that the government has been allocated a staggering 14,000 tickets, Boris has been allocated a mind boggling 2000 tickets, and each London borough gets 100 tickets.  These are not private companies, not third sector organisations, not volunteers being rewarded, but elected representatives and officials who will get these and use them as they feel fit.  

So who will get these tickets?  It seems it's a question that has troubled assembly members as well, hence Dee Doocy mentioning it.  One positive thing is that these tickets are not free.  The aim of the Games is to be profit making, so the London Olympic committee doesn't want to simply give away thousands of tickets and come out on a loss.  But in these days of austerity, the Assembly's Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism committee have issued a report that asks the government, the Mayor, and the London boroughs to publish a register stating which tickets have been purchased, who will get access to them, why it is justified, and how they will be paid for.  You can see the letters sent here.  

It's a shame the committee has no more teeth than that.  Of course, all three bodies can simply ignore these letters and go about buying tickets for whoever.  I for one really hope they do publish this information.  I see no reason why Ministers, officials, and their families should effectively queue jump the whole system that I and millions of others are being put through and get prime seats, free to them, but at a cost to us.  I wholeheartedly hope that the London boroughs such as Bexley won't simply take their 100 tickets and divvy them out to their senior managers and cabinet member councillors and their guests.  

The letters sent out have asked for a response by the 6 April.  Did they get a response?  I don't know.  I'll drop Dee an email to see.  Either way, let's hope there is transparency at these Games.

The alternative vote - should we have it?

On the 5 May the country will vote in its second ever referendum, and it would seem the majority of people may not even bother to vote.  Despite that, a referendum we will have, and it will decide whether the UK should get rid of it's current election system of first past the post (FPTP) for parliamentary elections, and adopt the alternative vote (AV) system.

Does it matter?  Diehard vote no-ers will argue that FPTP has done us well in the past, there's no reason for change, it produces strong government and so on.  However, FPTP has actually been chipped away as the number one system, and has been replaced by many others, perhaps without much thought from the public.

All directly elected mayors, such as the Mayor of London, are voted in using the supplimantary vote.  During the Mayoral elections, we also vote for the London Assembly, but we don't use the supplimentary vote, nor are we tradtional and use FPTP, or the brightly shining AV system.  No, we use the additonal member system, which is a combination of FPTP and closed list proportional representation.

During the Euro elections, we use the closed list propertional representation.  Except if you live in Northern Ireland, where you would use the single transferable vote system.

Of course, in local council elections, we're still tradional and use first past the post.  Except in Northern Ireland again, where single transferable vote (STV) is used (in fact, in ALL elections for whatever election, STV is used), oh, STV is also used in local elections in Scotland, but not in Wales, where FPTP is still used.

The Scottish parliament and Welsh national assembly elections uses additional member system, the same as London Assembly elections.

In fact feel sorry for our Scottish cousins on the 5 May, for they will have the referendum operated as FPTP, council elections under STV, and Scottish Parliamentry elections under the additonal member system.  Three elections, three different electoral systems.  Good job the Euro elections weren't taking place as well!  I'd be keen to see whether there would be any academic work done to see whether there was any confusion over the different systems, and how many spoilt papers, if any, were produced. 

So in the UK, there are as many as five different electoral systems in use, and if AV is selected in the referendum, that will go up to six.  Do they cause confusion?  I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other, but that's not to say there isn't any.  Certainly anecdotally they do, as a number of people I know have had great confusion when they came to voting in different elections in the past.

Therefore, if there are so many systems already in place, does it matter if we change to AV?  I would argue that it does matter.  Although we have all these different electoral systems, I don't necessarily think they are the best systems.  The fact that we had a BNP London assembly member was down to the electoral system.  Under FPTP he wouldn't have been there.  If we get AV, it won't end there.  This referendum, if successful, will be a means to an end, not the end itself.  Full proportional representation, whatever kind of system that maybe, will be next on the cards, and this country should not go down that road. 

For me, I will be voting no.  Many supporters of the yes to AV see this as a stepping stone to full proportional representation.  I see that as a stepping to stone to weak and changable government, where a party we support or vote for will be a shadow of themselves in government due to coalitions having to be formed.  I'd much rather a party that I don't support get in but will be able to govern with strength compared to a coaltion of many parties where deals are done, often behind closed doors and where manifestos are thrown aside.

Back again

For various reasons I've not blogged for around a year, well, not properly.  I've tweeted, which has been a little bit of a substitute, but not much.  However, I feel it's time to rectify this.  A lot has been happening globally, nationally, and locally, and there have been many good opportunities lost for me to add my thoughts.

This will change.  Please stop by as and when.  Hopefully you'll see something you'll like.

Banksy does the Simpsons

First time I've got a graffiti artist on my blog, but had to share.  Banksy adds his own flavour and political message to the opening credits of the Simpsons.

Recession? We don't know the meaning of it yet

Throughout the Tory conference, we will slowly hear the clues of the horror that will come upon us on the 20 October at the comprehensive spending review.

Currently, the vast majority of residents in the the UK know about the recession, and think we're in hard times.  This, my friends, is not hard times.  If the recession is a dinner party, we're currently handing our coats over and nibbling on the crisps and peanuts.  We haven't even got to the hor d'oeuvres, let alone the main meal.

In the years building up the crash, the government had a permanent gap between the money it was raising in tax and the money it was spending, called the structural debt.  This was going to have get sorted at some point, it was just a shame that world events got in the way.  Ideally, the government should have stopped dipping into the growth so that public spending which slowly and without pain shrink thereby lessening the gap. 

When the world wide credit crunch occurred, it meant the UK economy contracted steeply.  The government couldn't take any more money through tax, and welfare spending shot up.

Now, I know some of my dear Tory friends will be jumping up and down pointing and shouting "It's all your fault!".  I think there is an element of truth in that.  The Labour government at the time should have put the brakes on but didn't do it in time.  However, let's not forget that the biggest driver was the world credit crunch.  Without it, we would be fine.  Even if the government had put the brakes on, we'd still be in the mess, maybe just not as deep.

The current government (as would Labour if it was in power) has to cut spending to close this structural debt.  The philosophical question is how and by how much.

Cuts are needed, and are needed now.  We can't hide from that, and it's no point in saying that there shouldn't be any cuts at all.  The cost of administering the welfare state is very costly, and let's face it, we're getting older.  When William Beveridge bought about the state pension for men to retire at 65, the male life expectancy was 64.  Beveridge actually set the retirement age above the average life expectancy.  This meant in reality people only had a few years of retirement before they popped it, if at all.  Today, life expectancy for a man is 77, and that's increasing (perhaps an argument to up the age of retirement to 75...).

The coalition government is looking at biblical cuts.  It announced cuts of  25% across all departments (except health and overseas aid) with a worst case level of 40% cuts.  These are huge. Deep. Life threatening.  In Ireland, where they are in front of the UK with their cuts, all public sector employees took a 20% pay cut.

But this is where my belief in Keynesian economics kicks in.  Such cuts will only produce severely high unemployment across both the public and private sectors, and may cause a double dip; where businesses went through the mangle and shed jobs, and are only now starting to come through the other side, may well end up going to the wall.  The coalition government are in danger of concentrating so much on cuts, that there won't be any stimulus.  John Lanchester points out that in June the G20 made a commitment that they they will all halve their deficits by 2012 and to stabilise debt by 2016.  If this is the case, who will be buying?  Where will the growth come from?  The whole world will be belt tightening!  the aim is for it to be a production-led recovery, not like the consumer-led boom we've been through, but there won't be any country buying the products.

Rather than death by a thousands cuts, how about a bit of Keynesism, where we stimulate our economy ourselves?  What do we have to lose except growth?

This post is heavily borrowed from an article in the Guardian Weekend magazine 2 October 2010.

The Virgin London Marathon

I got a big parcel through yesterday.  Clear plastic, the kind most magazines and other kids of mail come in now.  On one side there was a letter, on the other there was a pristine white trackie top.  Now, I do like to do a little clothes shopping on the net, but trackies are not my usual apparel.  This was not something I've deliberately bought.

Then I saw it.  On that beautiful white top was a splash of red.  A red ribbon.  A red ribbon in the shape of a heart.  In the centre of this heart said the immortal words...

Virgin London Marathon

The words swirled around my mind clogging up the thought processes.  Fear and excitement filled my body.  Months of training to run 26 miles.  Do I have the mental and physical stamina?  Will my dodgy knee hold up?  Will my body give up even before I get to Greenwich Park?  Will I get around the course?

I flipped the package over and tore at the plastic.  My kids came out wondering what was going on as they saw Dad in tormented joy.  I started to read the letter.  Then it really hit me.

"Dear Runner..."

Yes, yes...

"We regret that we have to advise you that your application to run in the 2011 Virgin London Marathon has been unsuccessful..."  The grey mist swirled again.  Bugger.  I didn't get in.  There's always next year...

Is Ed a Leader?

It's been a few days now since Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party and officially Leader of the Opposition.  Will he lead Labour back to power after a short stint in opposition, or will he be Labour's Ian Duncan Smith?

For many, Ed is an unknown quantity.  Despite him being in the Cabinet as Environment Secretary, he was only elected in 2005, and hasn't quite made the mark for a lot of members, even more so for the public, where many just haven't heard of him.

The so called brotherly fight has been interesting from a media point of view, with Ed beating older brother David, and how David has held himself graciously in public (and private it would seem) but this is a side show, and not really is the issue.  For me, what will Ed be like as leader? Is he soft and cuddly or does he have more balls than Balls? Above all, what ideas is he going to bring to the Party's party?

He won.  Let's not get caught up on how he won; the electoral college that Labour uses, the way the union's galvanised their member's votes, or the fact that one member's vote can be worth more than someone else's vote.  That's another debate and another blog.

First, is he a gutsy guy?  Look at it like this.  When your older brother has been publicly spoken about as the next leader of the Labour Party, when he was the one who would have spoken about it, dreamed about it, and was the first to put his hat into the ring, and then you come along and say "you know what, I want a bit of this", that shows a streak of determinism, and an element of ruthlessness.  This is backed up by Miliband asking Nick Brown to withdraw from the election as Chief Whip, an opportunity to show steeliness at a very early opportunity.  Don't get me wrong.  I don't think Ed stabbed David in the back, but I do think you need to be gutsy to make the stand.

Secondly, what's he going to be like as a leader?  For me, it's very early days.  However, his first speech as Leader to the Labour Conference shows the outline of where Labour is going.  As Nicholas Watt in The Guardian points out, Ed slowly demolishes the misleading misnomers that have built around him in the past few weeks; him being in the pockets of the unions, the acknowledgement that Labour did badly in the election and that it's time to tell a few home truths.  The move away from the past and New Labour is ironically the most New Labour thing he's done.  Do the Tories fear him? Some say Ed is a light weight in comparison to his brother, so perhaps the jury is out.  For the moment.  I know one thing, Ed's going to have to really work on this, and he knows it.  For that very fact, he will show his strength and won't be Labour's Ian Duncan Smith.

Lastly, if you've got a spare hour, watch Ed's first speech as Leader to the Conference.  See what you think.

Dr Fox raises hell!

I don't want to hear one more Tory to bring up the subject of not enough helicopters for the army if Dr Liam Fox's concerns aren't addressed.  Take a read of The Telegraph's article here, and don't forget to read the letter in full.

Crossrail Go Ahead

I know, I know... If you don't keep a blog up you lose your readership.

Anyway, I saw this in the Newshopper about confirmation that Crossrail has been given the go ahead to come to Abbey Wood and Woolwich.

There was fear that due to cut backs, the line would end further into London and thereby have south east London miss out again on a vital transport link.  However, common sense has prevailed, meaning local residents will be able to get a train straight through London for the first time.

Now, all I want is for the underground to come...

Wyclef Jean's ad campaign

Every Presidential candidate needs an advertising campaign.  Will Candidate Wyclef Jean use this one?

A bitter sweet few days

Fighting elections produces a mixture of feelings as well as various situations.  Exhilaration, despair, belief of an election being in the bag, belief that an election is lost, abusive people, supportive people and everything in between.

Unfortunately I wasn't elected to represent Lesnes Abbey ward in Bexley.  However, I would like to thank the 2083 people who did vote for me.  It was a good campaign, and all candidates in the ward fought it with fairness and honour.  I want to thank my two team mates, John Browning and John Husband who were fantastic to be with, and special condolences to JB who lost out by only six votes.

Labour gained three more seats in Bexley, bringing the group up to 11.  However, the Tories still have 52 seats, a huge majority.  Although they did well in Bexley, across London as a whole Labour had gains in 29 councils, and took back councils such as Lewisham, Ealing and Southwark amongst others.

The interesting thing to watch is, of course, nationally.  As I write, the Tories and Lib Dems are meeting to see if they can form a ConDem alliance and govern together.  Many on the Progressive Left are fearful of a deal and want a LibLab pact.  Personally, I'm fine with the thought of the Tories and the Lib Dems going into some sort of partnership.  The reason?  They are polls apart on many policy areas such as PR, foreign policy and economics which will produce turmoil and infighting, with another General Election called between six to 18 months time.  We've already heard that the Tories are having a huge scrap between themselves, and this will only get worse.

Once a deal is done, Gordon Brown will have no choice but to then resign as Prime Minister and then Leader of the Labour Party, leaving the way for a leadership battle without Government being a distraction as it was previously.  Labour will then be able to enter the election with a new leader and policies that will, hopefully, win over the people.

Let's see how things develop.

Many visitors will have seen that I haven't written on my blog since January.  There are a few reasons for this, but one of them is simply that since running for Lesnes Abbey ward in the local elections, I've been VERY busy!

However, one thing I'd like to say to ALL visitors.  You have a vote on Thursday 6th May.  Make sure you use it.  Every vote WILL make a difference, and YOU must play a part in how this country is shaped.

A normal service will resume once the election is over.

I love this satellite image that has been taken in the past day or two of the UK completely covered in snow.  I find it awesome, in the true meaning of the word.  Take a moment and contemplate what you're seeing.  It's always good to take time out to really have a moment to think.

Amazing, isn't it?

Bexley quietly withdraws cash from services

For those keeping an eye on local services, some people may not be too fully aware of the cuts that Bexley Tories have made within the borough. One cut that will slowly become evident is the withdrawal from the Green Flag Award scheme.

The flag to the left is the borough flag, which has quietly replaced the prestigious Green Flag that has flown at the flag pole that was specially erected at Lesnes Abbey park after Bexley was awarded it a few years ago.

For the uninnitiated, the scheme is run by Keep Britain Tidy organisation, and was launched in 1996 to promote the best individual parks and open spaces around the country. It's a great scheme, because local authorities LOVE to enter awards (self promotion is important to councils. They want to show value for money and tell people that a service they provide is greeeatttt) and for them to get the award it helps raise standards. It's a win-win situation. The council provides a better service, and the public receive a better service.

In the Green Flag Scheme, parks must be freely accessable to the public and perform well against eight criteria:
A welcoming place
Healthy, safe and secure
Clean and well maintained
Sustainability
Conservation and heritage
Community involvement
Marketing
Management

There's also a cost to enter: a site 300 hectares and over is £345, 20-299.99 hectares is £258.75, and 0-19.99 hectares is £201.25, not much, and is really for administration purposes. To retain the flag, a park has to be entered every year, thereby keeping standards high.

In Bexley, when the Labour group were in charge (2002-2006) we were proud that five of our key parks, our prestigious parks, became Green Flag holders: Hall Place Gardens, Lesnes Abbey, Danson Park, East Wickham Open Space and Foots Cray Meadows. I love all these parks, and visit them all regularly with the dog and the kids. So much to do, and such parks to be proud of.

Which brings me to the Tories withdrawing so much funding from their parks budget that four our of five parks have now lost their Green Flag status. This, I think, is truly awful. At what stage does funding become so scarce that Bexley couldn't fulfil what criteria?

I realise that for some people this would seem necessary, a belief that it's better to make cuts here then in core areas. But it isn't the case. Bexley Tories are slashing budgets, and I highlight parks simply because it's visually obvious to anyone who will visit.

It's a thin end of a potentially large wedge, and I personally believe that we can't go on like this.

Name change for Greenwich!

I want to congratulate Greenwich on the announcement that it will no longer be called the London Borough of Greenwich, but the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Yes, it has had royal patronage thrust upon it.

In honour of the Queen's diamond jubilee due on 2012, Peter Mandelson announced a two day bank holiday (well, moving the May bank holiday to June, and adding another one) so it's a long weekend, and due to Greenwich's long historical ties with the monarchy, the borough will have the royal status added.

I'm not too clear why it's such an honour, but apparently it is - there's only three other boroughs with such status: Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston, and Windsor & Maidenhead. I suppose there is some sort of kudos, and perhaps property prices may increase slightly. I know that it will cost with all that logo and name changes that will need to go on, but I digress!

I'm still not too sure WHY it's happened. I don't know what qualifications a borough needs to become a royal borough. Perhaps it's simply a connection with royalty - all four of the boroughs have or have had accomodation, or in Kingston's case had Saxon kings enthroned there. But what about Edinburgh? Richmond with Hampton Court? Westminster with Buckingham Palace? Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can shed some light.

Either way I hope Greenwich subjects will enjoy their new-found status and bask in royal glory!