Now, I have no intention on commenting on the specifics of Councillor Metcalf’s suspension from attending Conservative Group meetings, which has been accurately reported in the press as lasting until 1^st January 2010.

This was an internal issue for the Broxbourne Conservative Group.

However, I am interested in the reporting (and the apparent interpretation by some people) of this issue.

In this weeks edition of the East Herts Herald the front page article by Lisa Moorhouse contains the phrase:

“Councillor Metcalf, who represents the Wormley and Turnford ward on Broxbourne Council, had the Tory whip withdrawn…..”

Now, I’m sorry but this is a misrepresentation and is an inaccurate description of Councillor Metcalf’s status.

The phrase “Withdrawal of the Whip” actually means that a member of a political group / party has been expelled from that group (or at very best been suspended for an indefinite period).

Councillor Metcalf remains a member of the Broxbourne Conservative Group and remains a member of the Conservative Party.

He is currently suspended from attending internal Conservative Group meetings (as distinct from Council meetings) until a defined point in time.

I guess that it would be charitable to give The Herald the benefit of the doubt and accept that the journalist simply didn’t know what the correct definition was.

An alternative view is that the phrase was deliberately misused in order to either make the story more “punchy”.

However this week’s letter contains a phrase that just has to be challenged – again in the interests of accuracy.

“………Jim Metcalf who dared to question the closure of our pools and was dropped as a councillor………..”

As before, this is misleading – Jim Metcalf hasn’t been “dropped” as a Councillor

He remains a Councillor representing his ward until his scheduled re-election in 2012 and he will remain so unless he resigns or perhaps triggers section 85 of the 1972 Local Government Act. (Not a very likely event given how conscientious Jim is).

I don’t know if Mr Farmer’s letter has been edited by The Herald – if not Mr Farmer has, unfortunately, got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

A similar view is expressed in a letter from Anne Cane in The Mercury which uses the phrase:

“The suspension of a democratically elected Councillor for representing the views of his constituents is a matter of concern for all of us”

I would agree with this if Jim had been suspended from attending Council Committee meetings or from attending the full council but let us be clear here – Jim Metcalf will continue to represent the people who elected him at all Broxbourne Council meetings that he chooses to attend.

I’m sorry to labour the point but he is suspended from internal Conservative Group meetings only. I really don’t see how this internal matter infringes the democratic process.

Finally I will comment briefly on the Vice Chairmanship of the Scrutiny Committee.

It seems clear that there is considerable and understandable public disquiet at Jim Metcalf’s removal from this post and if it impacts on the nature of democracy in our Borough.

I am not sure that some of the more hysterical comments about this matter – such as this weeks editorial leader in The Mercury – are really justified or especially helpful.

We cannot not move people, so this month we have conducted a great deal of administrative movement by road.

James Burdett’s comments on the possibility of Whitehall saving money by tinkering with election procedures reminded me of the Save General Election Night Campaign.

Briefly, a number of councils may try to save money by deferring the traditional overnight election count to the following day.

I am very much a traditionalist on this issue so I was delighted to see the following report in the recent Broxbourne Council Policy & Resources Committee papers.

“Timing of the Parliamentary Election Count

There has been recent national press coverage on the timing of counts for the forthcoming parliamentary election which must be held before June 2010.

I really don't like this time of the year – I find the last week of October / first week of November a pretty miserable period for several reasons.

(3) The yearly annoyance of “Trick or Treat”

(4) Fireworks are on sale and for the next few weeks every evening sounds like a re-creation of The Somme

I am probably being a miserable so and so where the 2 latter points are concerned but please bear with me whilst I explain why I feel this way.

Trick or Treat

Is, in my humble opinion an unwelcome, unpleasant foreign import (from the USA) which has high-jacked the traditional Halloween festival.

I am sure that many people dread the outbreak of vandalism that always happens on 31^st October.

Fireworks

OK, I'll put my hands up – I hate the bl***y things.

I could just about tolerate them if they were restricted for use at organised / licenced displays during a defined period of time a few days either side of 5^th November.

However it doesn't happen like that does it?

For the next couple of months we will be plagued by loud explosions at all times of the day and night and there will be the inevitable sad stories of injury caused by mishandled fireworks.

I think it's kind of strange that the tradition of Bonfire Night has endured for so long – after all we are commemorating a fairly sectarian event that happened over 400 years ago.

Until 1859 it was apparently compulsory to celebrate Bonfire Night which I guess helps explain its longevity.

I didn't realise that Bonfire Night was widely “celebrated” in our former colonies.

However it has effectively died out in Australia since the private sales of fireworks was banned in most states in the 1970's and it is in terminal decline in New Zealand as firework sales are severely restricted now.