Camden is facing yet another by-election following the resignation of Belsize councillor Chris Basson. The Lib Dem member, elected in 2006, announced his decision in a frank statement to the Ham and High newspaper after being made aware of an investigation into his elements of his private life by the paper.
I have no idea what the issues relating to Mr Basson's private life were and, as long as they relate only to his private life, see no reason why I or anyone else should know. I am particularly sympathetic as Mr Basson suffers from bi-polar disorder, otherwise known as manic depression and, according to his statement in the Ham &High, had been hospitalised several times following a series of nervous breakdowns over the last 3 years.
It is unclear whether it was the investigation or the councillor's persistent mental health problems that led him to conclude that he could not longer carry on in his position. I agree that serving as an elected representative while suffering from an illness serious enough to warrant frequent hospitilisation is untenable. However, if it transpires that the stress caused by Ham & High's investigation into his private life was the straw that broke the camel's back, then they will have far more to answer for than Mr Basson.
The only question that remains is whether or not councillor Basson, having been diagnosed way back in 1996, should have told his constituents about his illness when running for election 10 years later. I believe that a politician's private life only stops being private when it begins to clearly and directly affect their performance or conduct as a public official. I very much doubt that Mr Basson would have run for election if he even had an inkling that his illness would force him to resign just three years in. So, if the sufferer himself had no idea what effect his condition would have on his performance as councillor, how could his constituents have been reasonably expected to make such a judgement?
I think the councillor has done the right thing by his constituents as while it would have far more convenient for each of the rival political parties if he simply announced that he would not stand again next year, he decided that if his constituents were to be effectively represented in the town hall, he would need to be replaced now. I just hope that the residents of Belsize remember that when they go to the polls. I also hope they remember that the policies and ideals that earned councillor Basson their vote in the first place will only again be found in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the impending by-election.
Wednesday 18 February 2009
Street lights petition success
I am delighted to announce that the petition to improve street lighting on Goldhurst Terrace and Aberdare Gardens has been successful and that we will have new and improved lights by May this year.
The council's community safety team responded recently after viewing the petition at a recent Safer Neighbourhoods meeting and emailed me to confirm the decision.
The petition will still be formally submitted at the next full council meeting in March in order to secure a public confirmation and to address several outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed.
May I just say a heart-felt thank you to all those who supported the petition and made it possible including local residents' association CRASH and the Hampstead and Kilburn Liberal Democrats in particular.
My biggest thanks though go out to all the residents who took the time to talk to me on their doorsteps and sign the petition. My faith in community activism has very much been reinforced by their crucial support.
It is only a shame that the petition could not gain support from both major parties in Camden with the local Conservative councillors refusing to add their support to the petition which they deemed an "inefficient" use of their resources.
Thank you all.
The council's community safety team responded recently after viewing the petition at a recent Safer Neighbourhoods meeting and emailed me to confirm the decision.
The petition will still be formally submitted at the next full council meeting in March in order to secure a public confirmation and to address several outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed.
May I just say a heart-felt thank you to all those who supported the petition and made it possible including local residents' association CRASH and the Hampstead and Kilburn Liberal Democrats in particular.
My biggest thanks though go out to all the residents who took the time to talk to me on their doorsteps and sign the petition. My faith in community activism has very much been reinforced by their crucial support.
It is only a shame that the petition could not gain support from both major parties in Camden with the local Conservative councillors refusing to add their support to the petition which they deemed an "inefficient" use of their resources.
Thank you all.
Sunday 8 February 2009
What Turkish PM really meant at Davos
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been hailed as a hero in his home country after he exploded at Shimon Peres during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos over the number of Palestinian casualties following the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza. Before storming off stage in protest at not being given enough time to talk by the moderator, he said to the Israeli President: "When it comes to killing - you know killing very well. I know how you hit, kill children on the beaches."
While many people across the world naturally disagree over whether the Israeli offensive was justified or not, what I find hardest to believe is that Erdogan in any way shape or form meant what he said. Even more surprisingly perhaps though is that Shimon Peres later appeared to forgive the Turkish PM for his very public onslaught, insisting that relations between Turkey and Israel had not been affected, despite never even receiving an apology.
Why do I find it so difficult to believe Erdogan meant what he said? Predominantly because his outburst ran contrary to the role Turkey seems to be carving for itself as the neutral moderator of all Middle East conflicts, but also because he has not one leg to stand on when it comes to illegal occupations and the killing of innocent civillians.
How can Prime Minister Erdogan come out with such a tirade against Israel and then invite the leader of Sudan round for tea while he is being investigated by the UN for genocide in Darfur? How can he castigate President Peres for his country's reliance on the use of force while launching incursions into Iraq to take out Kurdish separatists? And how can he condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and simulataneously defend his own country's illegal occupation of Cyprus - the closest international parallel there is to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The answer is that far from being a loose cannon, Mr Erdogan is in fact a masterful strategist, calculating his tone, his target and his timing perfectly. In short, by launching into a full blown attack on Shimon Peres, he managed to take advantage of the crisis in Gaza to align his country's strategic priorities with those of his electorate.
Desperate to confer further public legitimacy on his premiership, and see off the secular elements of the Turkish political and military establishment who fear and suspect the Islamic credentials of him and his party, Erdogan knows how important the upcoming local elections are. A poll taken of Turkish public opinion for a global survey in July last year on Israeli-Palestinian relations showed Turkey to be one of only three countries, out of the 18 surveyed across the West and the Middle East, who heavily favoured the Palestinians. Once the invasion of Gaza began to dominate the headlines, he doubtless saw an opportunity to score big points with the voters.
Taking a closer look at Turkey's relationship with its neighbours, it also became clear that Erdogan had nothing to lose in taking a swipe at Israel, once its stalwart ally against the surrounding Arab countries, hence President Peres's subsequent insistence that there were no hard feelings between the two countries. Since Iran, with its nuclear weapons programme, re-emerged as the biggest threat in the Middle East, Turkey has exploited its cordial relationship with both Iran and the United States to establish itself as the peacemaker of the region upon whom eveyone, including Israel, is now pinning their hopes on peacefully resolving the brewing cold war with Iran.
Turkey has made itself invaluable to the United States and Iran, desperate to avoid a war, invaluable to its Arab neighbours desperate to avoid the regional instability that another war in the Middle East would cause, and also invaluable to Israel who are vulnerable to Iranian funded rocket and terrorist attacks, yet powerless (in spite of their posturing) to do anything about it. Thus Erdogan has been freed to open his arms to the Palestinians as so many of his people demand, even offering Hamas a state reception following their election victory in 2006.
In other words, that's what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan really meant at Davos.
While many people across the world naturally disagree over whether the Israeli offensive was justified or not, what I find hardest to believe is that Erdogan in any way shape or form meant what he said. Even more surprisingly perhaps though is that Shimon Peres later appeared to forgive the Turkish PM for his very public onslaught, insisting that relations between Turkey and Israel had not been affected, despite never even receiving an apology.
Why do I find it so difficult to believe Erdogan meant what he said? Predominantly because his outburst ran contrary to the role Turkey seems to be carving for itself as the neutral moderator of all Middle East conflicts, but also because he has not one leg to stand on when it comes to illegal occupations and the killing of innocent civillians.
How can Prime Minister Erdogan come out with such a tirade against Israel and then invite the leader of Sudan round for tea while he is being investigated by the UN for genocide in Darfur? How can he castigate President Peres for his country's reliance on the use of force while launching incursions into Iraq to take out Kurdish separatists? And how can he condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and simulataneously defend his own country's illegal occupation of Cyprus - the closest international parallel there is to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The answer is that far from being a loose cannon, Mr Erdogan is in fact a masterful strategist, calculating his tone, his target and his timing perfectly. In short, by launching into a full blown attack on Shimon Peres, he managed to take advantage of the crisis in Gaza to align his country's strategic priorities with those of his electorate.
Desperate to confer further public legitimacy on his premiership, and see off the secular elements of the Turkish political and military establishment who fear and suspect the Islamic credentials of him and his party, Erdogan knows how important the upcoming local elections are. A poll taken of Turkish public opinion for a global survey in July last year on Israeli-Palestinian relations showed Turkey to be one of only three countries, out of the 18 surveyed across the West and the Middle East, who heavily favoured the Palestinians. Once the invasion of Gaza began to dominate the headlines, he doubtless saw an opportunity to score big points with the voters.
Taking a closer look at Turkey's relationship with its neighbours, it also became clear that Erdogan had nothing to lose in taking a swipe at Israel, once its stalwart ally against the surrounding Arab countries, hence President Peres's subsequent insistence that there were no hard feelings between the two countries. Since Iran, with its nuclear weapons programme, re-emerged as the biggest threat in the Middle East, Turkey has exploited its cordial relationship with both Iran and the United States to establish itself as the peacemaker of the region upon whom eveyone, including Israel, is now pinning their hopes on peacefully resolving the brewing cold war with Iran.
Turkey has made itself invaluable to the United States and Iran, desperate to avoid a war, invaluable to its Arab neighbours desperate to avoid the regional instability that another war in the Middle East would cause, and also invaluable to Israel who are vulnerable to Iranian funded rocket and terrorist attacks, yet powerless (in spite of their posturing) to do anything about it. Thus Erdogan has been freed to open his arms to the Palestinians as so many of his people demand, even offering Hamas a state reception following their election victory in 2006.
In other words, that's what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan really meant at Davos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
