Why Tories are wrong on airport referendum

The Medway Tory Council opposition poster to an Estuary Airport... and you wonder why it has reached consultation stage!

It seems a number of the Medway Conservative cabinet are still in denial about the referendum which is receiving significant support, not only from the Campaign for Rural England, but Conservative voters across Kent & Medway.

Support from phone-ins and even the Chair of a Conservative Club in Chatham.

The idea of a referendum is not pie-in-the-sky. It is a considered and sensible position which took into account the move by government to fully consult upon the idea of an Estuary Airport - subsequently seen to be entirely correct after last weeks leak.

Referendums are common on matters of civic interest, be they for elected mayors, a change in local government or even on major infrastructure projects like we observed in Dover. Incidentally; many of local MPs are on record in calling for referendums and at no point over the last 18 months has any Conservative Councillor stood up to mention cost on the local tax payer. It would seem some referendums are ok, others are not.

It is sad that whilst Tories are calling for more direct mayoral elections today, and Scotland is setting out the agenda for its referendum, that our Conservative administration is on poor ground on direct democracy.

I do not support referendums for every issue; we had one on Europe in the 1970s and back Cameron on this. On matters of signficant civic interest however; they do have an important place.

Remember the reasons why a referendum is necessary. The problem is that the 'pie-in-the-sky' campaign (which Cllr O'Brien uses in his background) has failed. No one knows who Cllr Chambers and Jarrett are beyond our Authority borders which is why six MPs today have written to Cameron requiring an audience which got little attention on ConservativeHome and nothing in the major broadsheets. Our local Council leader is a non-entity which is why we still have not had a reply from Justine Greening MP to our enquiry for a meeting last week.

It always was a low octane campaign, which has allowed local Tories to laugh this airport off as a Boris gimmick; only sadly for them it never was a gimmick and the government are now about to spend thousands of pounds of tax payers money on a consultation exercise. Not such a pie-in-the-sky that lobbyists have been over George Osborne and that funding sources have been warmed up from China to the Middle East.

MPs refusing to listen to the public last year is the reason why we are in this position in the first place and that is the simple fact. They should have sought meetings in November as this blog and many others made very clear.

The issue of an airport on the Peninsula will keep coming back, and will continue to do so, until the government (and in this case Conservative Government) get it that we do not want it. A referendum will allow people to finally have an opportunity to say No (overwhelmingly I suspect) to the idea once and for all. An idea which if allowed to grow will pose an existential threat to our towns and civic fabric.

On an issue which has significant and tangible impacts on our towns it is wrong-headed to say that people are not responsible enough to have a say on a project which will have fundamental impact on our civic nature.

I am particularly interested to note the arguments positioned against the airport from Cllr O'Brien which I have to say are very weak indeed.

Firstly; He has picked out a cost of £250,000 - which is unsubstantiated - but then contradicts himself by saying it could be cheaper, but without a figure, if we were to use a November window. I would suggest he has picked the total cost for an election and has not mentioned, probably deliberately, the smaller cost for an additional ballot box on an existing election. A November election would be sensible for staffing and cost; the next election after this would be the Euro-elections in May 2013.

However, taking account of the £250,000 cost for a single election; Given this scheme would take ten years, cost £50-70 billion and result in the destruction of villages, and fundamentally alter our civic environment, I would perhaps suggest that it is a price worth paying.

The £250,000; could have come from the overspend on the Chatham Bus Station or countless other programmes this Tory Council has mismanaged. His party have zero fiscal credibility, as is about to be exposed on the supposed balanced budget which is anything but. This Tory Council has well documented overun spends on Aveling & Porter, Stoke Crossing, Brook Regeneration and in the Education department on botched school building projects.

Or we could accept that a Council with a multi-million pound turnover could afford and may feel obliged to consult people on an issue of this significance.

Secondly; the suggestion that our staff would have a ‘logistical’ difficulty in two ballot boxes, despite the fact we had two at the last local election.

The actual time taken to count the Yes and No votes is miniscule when counting multiple split votes as we see with candidate ballots. To suggest it could be overshadowed by the Police Commissioner election is like saying the local elections were overshadowed by the AV vote; and implies voters are stupid and do not have a clear understanding of what they are voting on. People would grasp the difference and it would add an hour, maybe two, to an existing election night.

Thirdly; He suggests that a referendum in November would sit at the ‘end’ of a consultation exercise, after he admits he does not actually know the start and end dates. He also incorrectly implies that none of the parties wont have pre-existing campaign positions as if the AV vote never happened and the Conservative Party sat quietly on it. The Council has a responsibility to frame a sensible question asked in an appropriate fashion; it does not mean the administration and parties cant have a stated position and pursue them as I am sure everyone would. It is true that Council resources may not be used for overt campaigning until the result is clear, but then the parties should accept responsibility for this. In addition, once a mandate is received, the Council can act with full knowledge of a mandated result.

The timeline he has suggest is also unfeasible; I suggest that the aviation review is likely to be longer then six months, and that any primary legislative process would take at least 12-18 months; this ignoring the likely judicial review that Medway Council would call if it were to be accepted by government. To imply, as Cllr O'Brien has, that this could all be rubber-stamped by the government before November is irresponsible, unsubstantiated and just finger in wind speculation.

Lastly; the people were not given a substantive decision on the airport in the local election. The local election is a chance to elect a local Councillor to represent you across Council services more generally. It is a vote on a collection of policies which at the time did not involve any major discourse on the airport, because the government had no plans to consult! Not only have the proposals become more detailed but I would suggest, as did many callers on BBC Radio Kent last week that Local elections and referendums are not the same.

All in all Tories are clutching at thin straws in rejecting the referendum. Straws which will get strained more over the weeks and months to come.