Filton Airfield Developments.

Recently South Gloucestershire Council approved plans to build thousands of new homes over Filton Airfield, a decision that many locals & I find deeply disappointing and a decision that makes a mockery of the historic connections between Filton and aerospace.

During South Gloucestershire’s public consultation on the future of Filton Airfield I submitted a reply (South Glos FA Consultation). At the time it hadn’t come to light that BAE had made that profit by increasing landing fees but I still reject the premise that BAE did everything in its power to advertise the airfield & achieve profit.

Understandably there has been a degree of outrage from residents that it appears South Glos Council officials & BAE were actively colluding to close Filton Airfield, especially in regards to some within the council deliberately & undemocratically undermining Labour’s valid concerns about the possibility of redevelopment. The full document revealing the collusion can be seen on the South Glos Labour website (http://www.sglabour.org.uk/labour-fury-at-dodgy-dossier).

Given my own MPs (Jack Lopresti) strongly-pro Filton Airfield redevelopment stance I wondered how deep his involvement in the pro-development lobby had been & filed a series of Freedom of Information Requests, several of which I’m still awaiting reply on***. As some of you may be aware David MacLean attempted to pass an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act back in 2007 to protect MP’s correspondence from FOI Requests which ultimately failed to pass the Lords & somewhat muddied the waters on what you can request under the act & what you can’t.

After consulting several Parliamentary contacts who weren’t entirely certain where the line was I decided to FOI Jack Lopresti’s office & request correspondence between him & South Glos or BAE in relation to Filton Airfield. As it turns out (Since I’m presuming Jack did his research before replying) that is where the line lies, you cannot directly request an MP’s correspondence (Though I believe you can request correspondence from Government Departments between that department & specific MPs, which is an interesting loophole).

After contacting Jack this is the reply I received: Reply from Lopresti on FA

I replied: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/reply-to-jack-on-fa.png 

To which Jack Lopresti responded: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jl-reply-to-far.png

In a further development since I replied to Mr Lopresti the hundreds of jobs lined up for Filton are now confirmed to be headed overseas as widely suspected (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Jobs-earmarked-Bristol-going-overseas/story-14389794-detail/story.html) which is obviously a massive disappointment for the area. Both Government & industry must be prepared to make the case for British manufacturing & Filton’s aerospace industry but sadly both are increasingly failing to do so; The opening of a new Boeing office in Filton is a welcome opportunity but when taken with the bigger picture of the loss of Filton Airfield & a large job-creating contract there’s still work to be done in ensuring Filton’s aerospace industry has a long & prosperous future.

***My two initial FOI Requests have now been answered:

Answer from Department of Business, Innovation & Skills: BIS FA FOI

Answer from the Ministry of Defence: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screen-shot-2012-01-20-at-03-38-12.png

Statement Regarding Evening Post Story.

Much to my own bemusement the Bristol Evening Post picked up something I posted on my political Facebook Page a few days ago, the story can be found here: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Filton-MP-s-Facebook-constituency-page-disappears/story-12883979-detail/story.html. I would’ve been blissfully unaware they had done so until someone was kind enough to point it out to me; Contrary to some suggestions I don’t spend hours trawling the internet for comments about myself or Mr Lopresti, alas life does not spare me that sort of casual time-wasting.

I wanted to take a little time to rebuff and clarify some of the statements made in the comments section, something I don’t do often because it rather invites trouble, but since this blog and my Twitter have come under extraordinary scrutiny in the last 24 hours I will issue this statement and this statement only.

Firstly I will make one thing as clear as I can. My personal life is my personal life; I would not make wild accusations and libellous comments about anyone’s lives, especially not a person I know merely through a 20 second snapshot of something once said, once done or once suggested; I extend this courtesy to each and every person who steps onto the political playing field and I didn’t expect it to be such an ask for that same courtesy to be extended to me. Bear in mind as you say what you say that whilst I am used to such comments and accept them as a regrettable part of the public eye I have loved ones who are not and that your words have very human consequences.

Many of you that have commented know little of my political background. I grew up under Tony Blair and I was a Green and a Conservative supporter before I was a Labour member, blogger and candidate; This is not some new revelation, but very public knowledge. I do not believe in dogged partisanship more than is absolutely necessary, if I disagree with a member of my party, or even the leader of my party Ed Miliband, I will say so and I will explain why. I laid out why I disagreed with Ed Miliband’s stance on the strikes very clearly and very concisely on Twitter, Facebook (http://on.fb.me/iE8dUr) and in person numerous times. Politics is not some cult where you all hum the same tune in a monotonous drone but a place where you can speak freely about a multitude of issues. Sometimes it isn’t always Labour, or always Ed Miliband who offers the right solutions and the right ideas and I’m not ashamed of reaching across partisan lines or speaking out when it is appropriate to do so.

My issue with Mr Lopresti isn’t a partisan one. My issue with Mr Lopresti is a stream of broken promises and a lack of availability to serve the people who elected him. One of the main legs he was elected on was his determination to save a local hospital, only to then vote in favour of the NHS Bill that would’ve removed the Government’s legal obligation to provide care to all. The Police Helicopters based at Filton Airfield, an enormously important asset to fighting crime in the Filton and Bradley Stoke Constituency, are to be moved to an airbase a considerable distance away lengthening response time, Mr Lopresti belatedly tried to flex muscle and save them only to be casually swatted away by the Conservative front-bench. On Tuition Fees, Mr Lopresti voted in favour of tripling them but failed to prior consult any of the thousands of students in his constituency. Mr Lopresti has contributed disappointment after disappointment to his constituents and the democracy we all live in allows me to express such opinions and allows for you to agree or disagree with me similarly.

My issue with Mr Lopresti deleting his Facebook Group which allowed constituents to discuss with each other and to contact Mr Lopresti is a simple one: He is increasingly unreachable to constituents. Before the group was deleted there were 3 complaints of Mr Lopresti not replying to attempts to contact him; I find it convenient that the group should vanish shortly after criticism started to build. No explanation to the 500+ members of the group, many of whom relied on the group to be updated with Mr Lopresti’s activities, but just a swift pulling of the plug which penalised all those who did rely on that group. Contacting Mr Lopresti is already difficult, making it harder to do so was the last thing the constituents of Filton and Bradley Stoke needed or deserved.

There have been a large variety of my tweets misrepresented or deliberately misinterpreted, though particularly this one – “With some half-hearted reluctance, with some concerns over elitism and parachuting, I finally emailed off my Future Candidates Form”. My concerns over elitism and parachuting were with the process itself, the statement was not about me. I object to parachuting candidates and I object to the elitist nature of the Labour Party Selection Process, again both of these statements are a matter of longstanding public record. Those who wish to know why I decided to throw my hat into the process are welcome to read an equally lengthy post here: http://ddom2006.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/politics-and-me/.

As for my loss of the Northville Ward Council Seat last year in the by-election, It was somewhat expected and certainly not a surprise to me. I delivered hundreds of leaflets personally and spoke to tens of constituents during the campaign; What was made repeatedly clear to me is that locally a lot of faith had been lost in the Labour Party because of the regrettable internal issues that became very public and very well documented in 2010 and that there was a hesitance to elect anyone, but mostly a Labour Party candidate. This was reflected in the turnout of just 18.8%. Labour also lost the other by-election on the same date in Conygre where Andy Chubb was the Labour Candidate.

Labour and the Filton branch have moved on considerably since 2010 and progress has been made to getting the branch back on the right track. Regrettably I have been absent from many of the recent meetings due to a prolonged illness. In this year’s local elections this recovery was backed up by a strong set of results in both Filton Town Council and South Gloucestershire Council. Thousands of leaflets have been delivered already in 2011 and it is, to say the least, improbable that anyone has managed to miss every single leaflet, but should they have done so they are welcome to contact anyone from Filton and Bradley Stoke Labour and a leaflet will happily be delivered.

Ian Boulton is an excellent Councillor for Staple Hill and indeed was an excellent candidate for Filton and Bradley Stoke in 2010 and chooses to proudly continue serving the local area. Ian has my full support and I am, as we should all be, grateful for his service to Staple Hill, to Filton and Bradley Stoke and to the Labour Party.

This is the one and only time I’ll be commenting on this particular news story; If you have further questions you’re more than welcome to come and share your comments on Facebook (http://on.fb.me/r4D7BT) or Twitter (@ddom2006) or in person with me. I hope this statement clarifies many of the things said in the last 24 hours.

My best to all,

Dominyk Tiller.

Closure of Winterbourne View Hospital

I contacted Jack Lopresti MP today in response to the closure of Winterbourne View Hospital, something Mr Lopresti lobbied hard to achieve. BBC Link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-13848877.

Dear Jack,

I openly confessed to being concerned by your call to close Winterbourne View Hospital, Seems likely the problem is much more systemic than one specific hospital; this is hardly the first time a major news broadcaster has caught a private provider of care falling short on standards.

But since your call to close the hospital was successful I’m consequently more interested in what measures you took to ensure that call was the right one.

The most pressing issue is the availability of care, something the closure of Winterbourne View Hospital is only going to hinder, I was wondering what research you have done to ensure that the closure of WVH doesn’t have significant knock on effects to care availability locally?

Interested also in your personal opinion on the provision of care by the private sector. Does your call for the closure of WVH mean that you’ve lost trust in the private sector to provide a good and consistent quality of care to some of the most vulnerable in society?

Do you not agree that Andy Burnham’s call for a National Care Service last year is something that all parties should once again look at and build upon in a bipartisan manner? We provide free at the point of access universal healthcare through the NHS, but we do not provide that same universal protection to some of the most vulnerable in society.

I look forwards to your response,

Warm Regards

Dominyk Tiller

Negative Campaigning.

I confess that Jessica Asato’s recent blog on negative campaigning (http://bit.ly/9uaTg7) has put me in two minds, as did Simone Webb’s response (http://bit.ly/9j4MjI).

Back in 2008, I used Facebook, I used Twitter to spin as hard as I possibly could for Barack Obama in his race for the White House and yes, I felt the negative attack ads were more effective in debunking the opposition than the positive ads. Jessica uses an example of an Obama attack ad; it was one of my favourites in 2008.

However, American politics and British politics are vastly different places. America is ridden with lobbyists, individuals and groups with special interests, a lack of regulation in party donations; America is a very different style of politics to ours. We should not encourage the Americanisation of our political system, for so many reasons.

As many of you reading this know, I was recently a Labour candidate, one of the youngest Labour candidates ever selected as far as I’m aware, in a local by-election for Northville, Filton (http://bit.ly/a6IzkC). One of the things I said from day one and stuck to vigorously throughout the election was a refusal to engage in negative campaigning, regardless of what my opponent put out. Why? Because I believe in my own personal morals and the belief that the Labour Party is above dirty smear tactics; that we can win on our own agenda, our own progressive agenda. Sure, we lost by 139 votes in the end on an 18.8% turnout – I was disappointed, but do I believe negative campaigning would’ve got me anywhere different? No.

Now by all means, I have no ethical problem with attacking opposition policies, but I really deplore the personal mocking nature towards the Liberal Democrats in the Kentish Town election (http://bit.ly/bTrpQA). There shouldn’t be a place in politics for personal attacks. I also deplore deliberate deception of voters, like in this leaflet (http://bit.ly/c7TnaY) – Don’t tell me whilst this was being designed the Labour logo was left off accidentally, or that that particularly shade of blue was used accidentally.

I deplore these types of leaflets for a variety of reasons; most vigorously because – Politics shouldn’t be personal, the moment that starts happening we are playing right into the press’ jaws. People cannot complain about invasions of personal life by the press and then play up personal issues for the press.

Secondly because it smears the Labour brand, it makes Labour candidates look ashamed to be Labour, people’s excuse was that if it was labelled Labour, voters wouldn’t read it – What about those Labour voters, since you printed it in blue without a logo, are you sure Labour voters read the leaflet when you posted it through their doors?

Thirdly, these particularly leaflets completely disrespect the electorate. Simone is completely right to say that it makes us look like we don’t trust the electorate to do the right thing. It’s a deceitful and disrespectful tactic, and one we as a Labour Party shouldn’t be warmly embracing.

Lastly, the excuse so often is, and Jessica hints at a similar one – That if other political parties are using this type of literature, why shouldn’t we? This last one concerns me more than everything else listed above, that’s the route we take if we want to end up playing playground politics. The kind of politics where we dig up rotten earth to find out the dirtiest little personal detail about our opponent and whoever has the dirtiest secret at the end wins. This is exactly how American politics ended up as the mess it is today, so question… Do we want to embrace that route? I certainly don’t.

I’ll cover a part of my political affiliation history; I was a Green initially for a time, then I shuffled over to the Conservatives for a year and a half, a year and a half I’ll add which I do not hide, which I am not ashamed of. I have been involved with Labour for around a year now, and am currently a Labour Party member – I love the Labour Party, I love that we stand for protecting the many instead of the few. I deeply empathise with many of our values and policies over the last 13 years in government, though I did not and do not approve of the way Tony Blair took the Labour Party nor the mass of New Labour spin under Mandelson and Campbell.

It may be a naïve dream, but I believe in an honest Labour Party, and I will fight for an honest Labour Party. Once again I agree with Simone that when we embrace this deception of voters we start the road down a very slippery slope.

The Labour Party lost the trust of voters over the last 13 years, and that culminated in an election loss this May at the General Election. There’s no hiding from the fact the electorate rejected another Labour Government. We have to put our values back at the core of Labour, and if this means fighting harder to win elections that we might have taken for granted before – I’ll be the first one up in the morning ready for doorstepping and leafleting.

We have to listen to the electorate again, instead of to ourselves, or the political spin doctors, or the press – but to the electorate who left us gradually over the last 13 years, we have to listen to them. We will not regain that trust if we drive into the ditch and engage in those muddy politics ourselves, nor will we deserve to.

I agree with Simone, if we are to win voters trust back, if we are to win in 5 years time, playground politics, personal attacks and deceit are not the way forwards and we shouldn’t be engaging in them.