Full Council 17/05/12

The first full council after the elections (excluding Mayor making) is usually dull affair.  Who is sitting on what committee is normally decided prior to the meeting as are who'll chair and vice chair.  We tend to go through this rather pointless electing of chairs and vice chairs, which as the Conservatives have a majority seems rather pointless.  It would be perfectly reasonable to allow opposition councillors chair (or at least vice chair and step into the chair on scrutiny matters) but the Conservatives have never allowed this before and there was no reason to believe this would change.

I would simply ask that in future years the leader of the majority party stand up publicly and say "Members of this group will be supporting a candidate from this party and we have no intention of offering seats to or supporting candidates from another party", it would save the best part of an hour!

The meeting also saw Cllr Cubbitt (? - Basing) take her seat on the opposition benches.  Cllr Cubitt has had a run-ins with the Tory group (HERE) before and has now decided to sit as an Independent.  From what I understand she is still a member of the Conservative party and fully behind the local Tory MP, but won't be part of the Conservative group.  How this works in the next elections is something of a mystery and whether a member of the Conservative party is 'Independent' is only an issue for the Independant Forum who have, so far, accepted her.

(Another question I won't bother asking is, when a councillor was elected as an Independent and later defected to the Lib Dems, the Indy forum was furious and demanded a by-election and referral to the Standards Board. A Conservative has become an Independent and the same Indy forum says nothing.  As I say it doesn't bother me, it reduces the Conservative grip on the Council, but you may wonder about the consistency)


Finally no Council meeting would be complete without mentioning Manydown.  The Council had to respond to the Court Order (HERE).  The main groups all submitted motions that were similar  - the Conservatives accepted the need to do something, the Lib Dems wanted to go faster, the Labour group wanted to go harder.


I don't think anyone had an issue with the Conservative one, but after the High Court judgement and several years of playing silly games, I think opposition Councillors were a little suspicious that the whole thing was a trap and some clever wording had been used.


The Lib Dem one, which was basically -get on with i,t was defeated.  The argument against was that trying to rush things could leave the Council open to another legal challenge (I don't agree we've - well the Tories - just been through a patient and labored process and got it horribly wrong.  It is making defensible decisions not slow ones that makes the difference. I am guessing we're another year away from submitting a core strategy, a year in which any site could come forward.  The future of the borough is in the hands of appeal inspectors, something I find a bit dangerous.


The Labour motion had much I could agree with but included elements that were something of a pointless 'witch hunt'.  It felt like their priority was to get the former portfolio holder who oversaw the mess locked up for 15 years or at least publicly flogged through the streets of Basingstoke and that no time or expense should be a barrier to getting all the evidence needed.  


Cllr Golding was not alone in getting it wrong.  He had the support of their colleagues throughout and it could be argued that the unavailability of Manydown was a landowner decision, although the Council is the landowner, the Planning portfolio holder is not allowed to involve himself in that.  Anyway they've all said 'sorry', councillors can still carry out internal investigation as much as they like, the important priority is to get the future of the borough right and not be distracted by the past decisions of a councillor.  Lets face it the High Court judge found the decsisions of the cabinet to be unlawful and irrational, I'm not yet convinced we need another load of consultants to tells what they think he meant!

Full Council - 10th May

Non contraversial ceremonial meeting to formally adopt the Mayor for 2012/13 and thank the 2011/12 mayor for their contribution to the borough over the 12 months.

Out going was cllr David Leeks (Con -Tadley South). Unlike his predecessors, David became Mayor with out a year as Deputy, due the the Phil Heath/Conservative bust up, I have the upmost respect for David and his wife for having a year of considerable demands handed to them without the customary year of preparation.

This year, Martin Bierman (Ind-Chineham) becomes Mayor after serving 18 years. You can find out all about Martin HERE.  One of the nicest and most honest people you'll meet in politics and a great ambassador for Basingstoke.

And the 2012 Dishonest leaflet of the year goes to....

North West Hampshire Conservative Association.  As mentioned in the previous post, the lies are not as offensive as the ones Labour use,  but you get the impression these were written by someone who has possibly never been to Basingstoke and Deane.

The Tory claims are in blue and numbered as they appear on the leaflet, reality is in black

1. Conservatives froze Council Tax, Labour and Lib Dems voted against this

What a nonsense.  The Lib Dems voted against the Conservative budget for lots of reasons, one of the main ones what the lack of investment in renewable energy that would have funded a reduction in Council tax in the future.  I understand that no Lib Dem run council in the country has increased Council tax this year. 

2. Tories aim to build decent affordable homes

Only a Tory knows what they aim to do, but their actions are not very consistent with this statement.  At one stage they did commit to building 300 affordable homes a year in the borough, then they said they were only going to build 400 homes a year in total, of which 40% would be affordable (which is 160).  So far the housing needs register has been growing and the number of affordable homes being completed in the borough is falling.  I would suggest replacing the word 'aim' with 'fail'

3. Conservatives have reduced the number of houses to be built in the borough from 1000 (Demanded by labour and Lib Dems) to 594.  Meaning 5000 fewer houses on greenfield sites over the next 15 years.

Oh dear oh dear, where do you start with this one.  Firstly I am not aware of anyone 'demanding' 1000 homes a year it's a blatant lie based on no fact whatsoever.  The only time more that 1000 dwellings were build was a few years ago when the council was run by the Conservatives.

The Labour government imposed a target of 945, that's the closest I've heard to 1000.

The Lib Dems have generally said 722 is more appropriate - if you don't believe me, you can see the Conservative group leader say it himself and the P&I meeting in June last year!

Even if you accept the Tory claim of 594 (and I wouldn't), over 15 years the difference between the Lib Dem numbers and Conservative numbers is (15x128) 1920, so the figure of 5000 difference is again a blatant lie.

Then we get to the fact that the Conservatives can only really claim to have reduced the home building targets once it's been agreed by a planning inspector, they're not even close to that stage having had their first attempt quashed by a high cout judge as 'unlawful'.   So at the moment we're pretty much left with the old Labour target of 945.  So rather then Tories building 5000 less as they claim, it could be 3345 more on greenfields than the Lib Dems!

It may seem petty, but the Tories talk about houses, technically another lie as most recent builds have been flats. 

4.  The Conservatives promised to keep the weekly bin collection whilst reducing it's cost - labour and the Lib Dems said it couldn't be done

The first bit is not technically a lie, though I think all three parties promised to keep the weekly bins - the Lib Dems have always supported keeping them in this borough.  On that basis the second sentence is again a 'big ole lie', far from saying it couldn't be done - we actually supported it!

5.  Conservatives have worked hard to reduce cost, cutting out waste while protecting frontline services - All opposed by the Liberal Democrats and Labour

As mentioned above the Council face a huge legal bill after making unlawful decisions, they could have avoided that wasteful cost if they'd listened to to the Lib Dems (or Labour to be fair).  Over £1m wasted and nothing to show for it.

Then their was the money wasted on the electronic voting system, and the aborted attempt to close the reception they'd just installed a new queue system and re-open the one they'd just gone through the expense of closing.  God knows how much was spent on consultants for that, and we seem to be in need of consultants more often because of the management cull.

And when are we going to see that final overspend figure for the Malls redevelopment?

 

I can't remember either the Lib Dems or Labour ever opposing the protection of a frontline service, so that's a lie as well.

 

It says a lot for our local Conservative administration when their 'Top 5' achievements have not been achieved.

In a final bit of dishonesty, the Conservatives insist on calling a leaflet that demonstrates they have no clue what is going on - Intouch, giving them a bonus lie point.

Well the name and shame bit, I won't blame the candidate as he already had two jobs before standing for election and would no doubt be clueless on local issues, however the agent was Tracy Kirk who, in my view, was either lying  tothe good people of Whitchurch or needs to research a bit more.

You'll remember last years winner was This effort from Labour, so if nothing else the Tories can announce they've gained something from Labour this year.

Basingstoke and Deane Most dishonest leaflet 2012

This years most dishonest local election leaflet

will be announced later this week.  In fairness it may not be the most dishonest but it features some original 'made-up- ness' rather than the rather predictable stuff from Labour - none of it local, none of it under local authority control, and none of it true either. 

Firstly Labour say "The Lib Dems have sold out to the Tories", a myth dispelled quite nicely by the Daily Mail

Then we get the 'Grannie Tax' which of course does not exist.  It is simply freezing a tax threshold well beyond those on a basic state pension, nobody is going to take an extra £322 a year off a pensioner.  Quite why our local Labour party (Paul Harvey produced the leaflet, but i guess his candidatres agreed to it) like to frighten old people with this nonsense is something I find rather sick and disturbing.

Then of course the "Don't forget what the Lib Dems have done to the NHS".  Of course the reforms advocated by the Tories and much amended by LibDems are hardly in force yet.  And I find it a bit bizarre coming from a Labour Party who had all these things in their 2010 manifesto:

We will press ahead with bold NHS reforms 

to safeguard the NHS in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform

 - so reforms are not the issue then

We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS

We will continue to Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law,to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs

Wow Labour are clearly far more relaxed about the privaate sector in the NHS than most Lib Dems I know!

And of course Labours pledge - 

"and over the next four years, we will deliver up to £20 billion of efficiencies in the frontline NHS"

In summary Labour were going to reform the NHS and continue to increase the involvement of the private sector and cut NHS funding.  The Tories are implementing the first one, the Lib Dems are curbing the second and together they are preventing the third.

As I say hardly original stuff and probably produced in Labour HQ, I really do wish local agents and candidates took a little bit of time to 'fact check' stuff before they print it. 

Manydown - clearing out that box of old leaflets

After  a High Court judge describing the Council's Conservative cabinet as irrational and their policies unlawful, followed by the suggestion from the Council leader that somehow this was not the cabinet's fault, I happened to stumble accross some old leaflets.

They rather help in terms of working out whether the decision to exlude Manydown was based on the advice of Officers or a political one.

The quotes stars Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure and features Conservative the group leader as well. 

WARNING; For those who feel they have spent far to many FOI Requests, time effort and energy on trying to get straight answers from the administration, have a friend restrain you before reading the last quote or we'll have bits of smashed up computers all over the place.


In 2007, after describing himself as a ‘member of save Manydown’ Rob Golding went on to confirm his open evidenced based approach with the pledge:

"I oppose the development of Manydown"

In the Winklebury ‘intouch’ in spring 2007, the front page carries the banner

"Rob will keep fighting to save Manydown"

And is quoted "I will vote to save Manydown".

And here's a bit of bad news for those Conservatives in the Loddon Valley from the same year;

"Rob Golding has joined the rest of the Conservative team

to oppose a Major Development Area on the Manydown land"

Ahh, so they had the full backing of the Loddon Valley Tories, did they know that?

And by 2010, Conservative group leader Cllr Donnell is quoted

"Conservatives under my leadership will be opposed

to major development areas such as Manydown or any other"

hmm, the Tories had proposed more homes in the Loddon Valley than were planned for Manydown, so less than two years after putting his foot down, the Tory group leader has voted against himself.  Wow, can he suspend himself from the party? it's what he'd normally do, remember?

And finally, just for fun, after all the various cover up tactics described by a high Court Judge as unlawful and irrational it is right that I publish this from under the ‘saving our Green fields ‘section;

"All the evidence will be discussed in public - I have committed to that"

Robert Golding 'Councillor in charge of planning' Intouch Winklebury 2010. 

Well it sort of has been discussed in public now, he never mentioned High Courts in his election leaflets though.

Eastrop - first glass collection tomorrow

What ever peoples views on whether kerbside collection was the most environment friendly way to spend a £1m a year, the contract is signed, the lorries are coming, we must use the service.  The first collection is tomorrow morning.

Charity Tax - I really don't get the fuss

I have no say how my taxes are spent. I know I get to vote every few years and they indicate in manifesto's which department they'll 'ring fence', 'invest in' or whatever. But even then, how many voters look into the gritty detail on how each and every department or sub-department will use the money? - if it is stated at all.

Whether we agree or trust the governments intentions, we accept they're elected and we have a duty to pay up.

Imagine if we could individually pick and choose whether to fund bits of government spending. Of course until the budget, a small section of our society could do exactly that. If you were in the very tiny 'super rich' group, you could opt out. Simply forward the money to a charity of your choice and avoid paying your share of tax. 

As a wealyhy person if you felt the NHS, state eduation and Benefits didn't deserve your money, you could give to a variety of theatres, museums or any other charity instead. 

What was even better for the super wealthy, especially celebrities, by doing charities rather than tax, you'd have lovely things written and said about you - positive publicity at no extra cost. 

Odd that in the UK someone can chose to take a stack load of money off the NHS and schools the nation depends on, give to a theatre that hardly anyone uses and everyone says "well done, how would you like to be a Lord?"

Does that sound very fair? Hard working families have to pay money to the elected government to spend, whilst the very wealthiest can pick and choose the causes they would like to back. In my view the old system was very unfair it allowed the wealthy to donate, in effect, the Governments money.

Of course the changes will have no impact for most of us - we tend to donate money after paying tax anyway.

And there is no limit to how much those rich enough to donate hundreds of thousands can give. All that changes is they can only put a limited amount on their tax return.
To suggest that this change in rules will have an impact on many charities suggests that the these very generous donors were not really that generous and only donating for tax reasons. That can't be true can it?

Judge rules Basingstoke and Deane Tories irrational!

A High Court judge has ruled that Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council acted unlawfully when it decided that land at Manydown, west of Basingstoke, was not available for housing development in the next fifteen years. 

The Council has been ordered by the Court to review this decision before completing its Core Strategy which says where house should be built between 2012 and 2027. The delay could allow owners of unsuitable sites to get permission for building  (like this one) while there is no Local Plan for the Borough.

Mr Justice Lindblom quashed decisions made by the Council last December (last motion here) and ruled the decision to exclude Manydown from the Core Strategy was unlawful.

It was inevitable this was going to happen (remember this).  The Judge described the decision making by local Conservatives as 'irrational', something members of the public and opposition councillors have been saying for the past few years.

Although this is good news for all those who want the best for who can now consider all sites rather than those the Tories allow us to, sadly it has taken a Court to get us here and Courts are not cheep.

It was not long ago in a budget speech, I said the "Tory administration had a 'reserve account' for everything apart from a legal reserve for judicial reviews" - so I had sort of warned them! (here if you don't believe me)

In addition all the expense of the recent public consultation and site selection meetings were a complete waste of time and we'll have to do it all over again.

Police and Crime - The Commissioners panel

Firstly I'm not a fan of the idea of a Police and Crime commissioner as it blurs the lines between politics and the police.

At the moment we have our laws made by the politicians. If the Police, working independently, feel one of those laws is broken, they can take the matter to Court. The Court will, independently, decide whether the law has been broken. In other words -You can't lose your liberty (the greatest thing we have) without the agreement of the Law, Police and Courts.

However it is a strange and frankly poorly thoughtout display of localism and democracy, the Government has imposed an elected commissioner on us without any consultation.

This Police and Crime Commissioner will have to be scuitinised and supported by a panel made up from representatives from the local authorities.  The picture below shows how it won't work in Hampshire!

Full Council 29/3

A short meeting with only two issues.

One, a Labour motion on how this wealthy borough is housing children in 'bed and Breakfast's' in Slough for weeks at a time due to a shortage of social and affordable housing.  Although the motion offered no solution and will now drift through a failing committee sytem to get probably nowhere, it was good to publicly air the forgotten housing topic, so often drowned out by the understandable noise of those trying to save there immediate surroundings from development.  I supported the motion.

The other vote was one of those pointless ones where you're asked to approve of the only option you have.

It was regarding the Police and Crime Commissioners panel.  It upsets me so I will give it an entry of its own later.
 

If you've ever missed a copy of the Eastrop Focus.........

After several attempts, I may have managed to get the Eastrop Focus to be viewable online (without spending any money).  I will try to add some back dated copies when I get some time. 

For now just the one appears on the top left of the screen.

and here

Basingstoke live. Is it just about to die? Football update

A quick reminder of the process.  The football club need a number of things to happen.


Firstly, they need the land owner (in this case the council) to agree, in principle, that they would be prepared to lease the land to the club. (this is what thisaweeks meetings were about)


Secondly, they will need to apply to the planning authority (in this case that's the same council) for permission. This is the harder stage for the club.  (they'll also need planning permission to transform the Camrose into a retail park - that could be harder still)


Last week the football club cleared the first hurdle, largly thanks to clueless Tories. A number of residents attended the meeting, where I spoke against the proposals.  I was hoping the Council may realise that the Old Common is essential as a parking area if they want to host major events in the town centre. 

If the football club is granted permission to relocate and take 2/3rds of the Old Common it is unlikely that events such as the fireworks, Basingstoke live and Worlds party in the park will be able to continue.

I did highlight this to the cabinet, who appeared to totally disregard it.  When they summed up their thoughts they simply ignored what I said! 

I also addressed the Economic Committee on the subject prior to cabinet.  In another huge shock, I was pretty much ignored there as wel (the portfolio holder didn't even attend the meeting and my comments were not in the minutes)

If you want to see what I said at committee stage, well what I planned to say, i may not have delivered it word for word due to time limits

Who's afraid of the big bad....well I'm not sure what?

Politics, sometimes we agree, but don't mention it as we'd much rather concentrate on areas we disagree.  Why?  The odds are if we all agree, we're either right about it or perhaps not worked out a better idea.


If we disagree, then it all kicks off.  Tories will get lord Ashcroft to commission some polling and recruit former News International Hack to convert their argument into an easy to read headline.  Labour will get a Union to fund a 'focus group before making sure an MP is posted to every TV and radio station to read out the official line'.  And the Lib Dems, after a quick raffle to raise a few quid, we'll roll up our leaflets and surveys and start pounding the streets (bigger Local Lib Dem parties may start a t-shirt campaign).


The thing is - love us, hate us, you know who we are.  


Last week I was wandering around the gazette website and found several comments from UKIP.  Amongst them were "we will be open and honest with people". Sounds reasonable enough, until you see they call themselves 'BattleofBasing' and 'UKIPBasingstoke'. 


UKIP are so honest and open they can't even use their real names!  Even a check on their blog - no name, top secret, very odd.


They also suggested that 'the other parties are scared of them'.  I haven't checked, but as you UKIP are too scared reveal themselves, I doubt it!

A short history of the 50p rate

Much rumour surrounds what the chancellor may do with the 50p in the £1 top  rate of tax paid by a small number of people with incomes over £150k. 


I admit I have always supported the rate, however like many I will wait with interest when the chancellor announces how much it actually raises.  It has been suggested it actually raises little for the treasury and in that case, the argument to keep it is weakened (I still think it is morally right for the wealthy to pay higher taxes, but want the tax to be effective)

If the chancellor does decide to change the rate downwards, even if he replaces it with a better way of collecting tax from those who could afford to pay more, he will probably face a generous serving of abuse from Labour supporters with short memories.  For their benefit I've put together this very short history of the 'Highest rate of Income Tax' 

The top rate was reduced to 40% in 1988 by Nigel Lawson serving as Chancellor to Margaret Thatcher.  I shown the changes since then to see what various governments have done. 

Year                PM                Chancellor         Government        Rate 
1988-90        Thatcher           Major                   Conservative         40% - no change 
1990-92        Major                Lamont               Conservative          40% - no change 
1992-97        Major                Clarke                 Conservative         40% - no change 
1997-01        Blair                Brown                Labour                40% - no change 
2001-05        Blair                Brown                Labour                40% - no change 
2005-07        Blair                Brown                Labour                40% - no change 
2007-10        Brown             Darling               Labour                40% - no change  In 2008 Darling announced a rise to 45% from 2011.  He then revised it 2009 to 50% from 2010) 
2010-            Cameron          Osborne              Con/Lib Dem       50% - +10% 

So before you accept any 'moral outrages' from Labour supporters, it is worth reminding them they supported the 40% top rate for 13 years in government.  Even when they finally did increase the top rate of tax, it was delayed until they are a safe distance away

Olympic Torch - Date for your diary

The route for the Olympic torch has been announced.  On Wednesday 11/07/2012 it is scheduled to arrive in Basingstoke at 12.30.  It will then travel up New Road, into London Street, along Winchester Road and A30.  It will only spend about 20 minutes being run through Basingstoke, before being transported to Kings Worthy (it's due there at 1.14) and Winchester on its scenic route to the games.


If you want to see the torch, book the day off, well lunch at least.  If not be prepared for some traffic and road changes for a few hours that day.

Brookvale Community Association beats the Council

Brookvale Village Hall, which is owned by the Brookvale Community Association, off Lower Brook Street,  installed 40, 10kW electricity generating (PV) solar panels.

The £21,000 scheme was funded through the Basingstoke Community Energy Co-op, a not-for-profit scheme that lets communities across the borough invest in large-scale solar projects, and claim back money generated.

According to Basingstoke Transition (a non political co-operative group) the scheme could generate £4,000.  When compared with  the Council's  financial investments this is close to ten times the level of return.

You can see the article Here.

The Council may be, very slowly, making limited progress, It's not like I haven't mentioned it to the Council before see here.  

As they play catch up, may be the rest of us should get on with it find out more here

Labour's plans; not even Harriet Harman can explain them!

I guess few watch the Daily Politics show, something Labour will be counting on after this performance from Labour's most experienced front-bencher.  You can see the full version HERE which is even better but I have not worked out how to embed BBC videos (even though technically, as a licence payer, I own them) 

Do you think judges get it right?

For many people, tv drama's and Judge Judy to one side, most never get to see a court room and see justice in action. I am often surprised when I hear conversations over a copy of the Daily Mail (or a real newspaper) about judges or Magistrates being too soft. Unlike the sentencer who may have sat gathering information and advice from a number of different sources, the public can only base their judgement on a 'snippit' of information, a headline and a paragraph often skewed to suit the agenda of the newspaper's editor. We rarely get the whole picture.

I admit that "judge hands out sensible and proportionate punishment", as a headline, is hardly going to boost circulation!

Fortunately,we don't need the Daily Mail (or a newspaper) to tell us what to think, we can do it ourselves thanks to this site.  It shows real cases, portrayed by actors, it gives you the chance to decide the sentence you felt was right and compare it with the actual sentence imposed.  If you have not tried 'you be the judge' yet give it a go, each case takes about 5 minutes.

Feel free to put your 'sentences' in the comments box

Eastrop can show some glass

The Council have announced that recycling rates have gone up 1% in the past 3 months.  It means we're still sitting bottom of the local authority recycling league.  If it seems along time ago that the Conservatives campaigned in local elections that they would boost recycling rates, it's because it was along time ago, 6 years ago.  Apart from adding aerosols, apparently spending tens of thousands on publicity campaigns and throwing in the threat that some mythical body was going to stop weekly collections, they've managed a pretty miserable 1% and that, they claim, is by banning 'grey bin' side waste.  All this against a backdrop of considerable backing in the Basingstoke Gazette. 


To be fair, we (the bin filling public) have only added 1%.   The Tories regularly state that if we recycled all we could we'd hit 50%, I'm not sure how they arrived at this figure, but I wouldn't dispute it.  The reality is no matter what the administration does, the recycling rates are, to a large extent, in the hands of those who could recycle more.  Not even I would expect the Portfolio holder to come round on a weekly basis and sort through our rubbish! 


That's why I am backing the glass collection service due to launch in Eastrop in April, you just put your 'bottle box' (coming soon) out on the same time as your green bin.   


I admit to having some reservations about it.  After all most of us drive to the supermarket every week, right past the bottle banks.  It seems greener to take your empties in those 'bags for life' to the recycling banks on your way to do your weekly shop, bringing the bags home full of shopping.   


That said, statistically, Eastrop residents are least likely to own a car and therefore more likely to benefit from a glass collection service.  The drawback is about 1 in 3 homes in this ward are in apartments or flats and, last I heard, no collection solution has been established for you yet.  (If you have any ideas let me know via comments below or email) 


The kerbside glass collection service is costing the borough around £1m a year and it has been suggested, for that sort on money, a free green garden waste collection service may have been more effective.  Though, once again, statistically Eastrop residents are less likely to have a garden than any other ward - so that may not have helped much either! 


The fact is kerbside glass collection is here.  Glass is one of most recyclable products as it can be used again and again with no loss of quality.  The energy used turning old glass into new glass is much lower than making it from scratch.  Join me in the bottle and jar revolution and if recycling rates go up I will try to make sure you get the credit! 


Spin watch - When recycling doesn't go up, it is residents fault for not doing it.  When it goes up it is because of the Tories actions.  They can't have it both ways! 
Labour in a spin? - 3 years ago Basingstoke Labour called for every household to be given a separate box for paper, plastic, tins etc, which I didn't rate as an idea, it would have been very expensive and god knows where we would keep all those boxes - see here.  They're now opposing the glass collection because..........erm, it's too expensive.  Only Basingstoke Labour have this amazing ability to be on both sides of their own argument and still losing. 

Not sure on the headline, Grand Theft Auto?