Friday, 13 March 2009

LAURA SANDYS - HER DIRTY ELECTION CAMPAIGN?

As regular readers will know Laura Sandys is unable to answer letters on policy areas.

Laura hides from difficult decisions. That is not acceptable for a person who wants to be a MP.

Dear Laura,

Having become interested in Thanet issues you will be aware of the widespread concerns about Cllr. Sandy Ezekiel’s misconduct. Please have a read of what the Standards Board for England said about his conduct here.
You will note the finding that:
"The ethical standards officer concluded, based to a significant extent on Councillor Ezekiel’s own evidence, that Councillor Ezekiel had been offensive and discourteous towards the retiring mayor and another councillor."

You should also have a read of this report here, (slow download) which is going to be heard at the Thanet Council Standards Committee on 16th March 2009. I hope you will ensure that you attend this meeting as it is important.

As you will see from the report there is considerable independent evidence about your supporters’ misconduct. Why have you not disowned them? Why do you work and campaign closely with them? Is this the standard of conduct Thanet people can expect from you?

Over the next few weeks there will be considerable bad publicity for Thanet because of your Conservative supporters’ actions. You recently claimed you wanted to promote Thanet’s image. I do not believe that you were sincere when you said this. You could publicly denounce Cllr. Ezekiel’s conduct and call for him to stand down as Leader of Thanet Council. That would improve Thanet’s image. Why do you not do this? Why do you tolerate anti-social behaviour?

The damage to Thanet’s reputation will cost local people tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. Ask any marketing professional how damaging this is and how long it will take to repair. You have the chance to act swiftly, decisively and to show moral leadership.

Please could you make a public statement indicating whether you support Cllr. Ezekiel and his conduct or not?

While you continue to avoid this issue, the public will know that you intend to fight an election campaign supported by people who have behaved anti-socially. I trust you do not want to fight a dirty election campaign.
That is wrong and you should address it and be clear about the standards of conduct thanet people can expect from you and your supporters.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Mark Nottingham
I predict Laura will make no public comment on Cllr. Ezekiel. Perhaps as Mrs. Thatcher would say, she is "frit" of somebody?

6 comments:

  1. Perhaps she is concerned that if she speaks out the local party won't support her when the election rolls round. Once all Lord Ashcroft's money has been spent on glossy, out-of-date leaflets then she'll be thrown on her own resources and all of a sudden we'll see less of her.

    Speaking out against Cllr. Ezekiel would require some independent thought that sadly, seems lacking amongst most local Tories with the exception of the outcast five.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They've all been bamboozled and are totally wet and useless - as for Roger Gale he should have sorted them out ages ago and he is reported by Latchford as asking him to stand as a councillor in the first place he should have publicly distanced himself from him. They deserve each other - i know i speak for many disillioned conservatives now voting locally for labour for the same reason, the labour councillors behave with far more dignity and do far more than their ward than many of the conservatives who operate a little cartel, the new members of the party had a little ineffective coup last summer and have towed the leader's line ever since, keep speaking up Mark!
    Theother item that you have picked up and needs repeating because it is disgraceful is that the lazy cabinet councillors keep the same allowances for only doing half the work and the helpers - other cons. councillors who do the leg work are getting more allowances.(those that make up the 19) It all stinks and Laura should realise what a bad reputation these councillors are giving the conservatives and the sooner she distances herself from them the better!She isnt so desperate for helpers that she has to rely on her councillors there are others who would help, many of them are keeping away because they don't want to go near any of the councillors in power.
    Can i go back to my Parker knoll now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. During the local election campaign in 2007 I spotted Ms. Sandys out canvassing in my area with very senior local Tories. It was clear then she was in charge of them, directing their every movement. I wonder if she's so keen these days to be seen with them?

    Can she afford to distance herself from her local core supporters and hope to have any chance of taking the seat?

    Incidentally, I nearly fell off my chair when I read Cllr. Latchford's comment in the Gazette that his leader 'is a very polite man'. Not if you ask any local Tory or Labour councillor who has fallen foul of him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is typical inter party mischeif making the sooner all the political groups in Thanet work together the better for all of us!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 21.32it is the opposite of what you suggest. It is up to decent Conservatives to remove Cllr Ezekiel as Leader, their failure (and yours too) means that we are asked to work for people whose conduct and standards disrace Thanet. Laura's silence is worse. She could support Cllr. Ezekiel but she refuses to do so. She could call on him to go. She does neither why?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps 21.32 might like to ask why a senior TDC employee who wasn't even at the Edinburgh Woollen Mill is allowed to comment. Local government employees commenting on the behaviour of their employer? We have too many occasions where TDC senior officers make public statements when their job is to serve whoever is their political master and keep their peace. I recall Brian White making a supportive statement in the Gazette regarding the China Gateway development before it had gone before full council. This is unacceptable and should have been stamped on long ago.

    ReplyDelete