Why the Tories are wrong about everything, but especially the parking charges.

12.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 11th Apr 2008

1. They started it, but didn't know how to finish it.

2. They're looking after their own

3. They're looking after the rich and not caring for the poor

4. They risk destroying the main shopping centres for no benefit to the villages.

5. They don't really know what they're doing

6. They haven't a clue how much this is going to cost

7. They talk 'green' but, er, just act blue.

Let's take those one at a time. Firstly, it has to be remembered that the whole question of Special Parking Areas, and the implied agenda of tougher enforcement which has led to the imposition of on-street charges, was a local Conservative policy dating back to 1999. At the time they said that 'parking was in a state of anarchy'(you have to remember that they had been out of office for four years, so they were clearly pretty desperate…) so this was part of their strategy for the local elections of that year. Which they won. Six and a half years later, the delay marked largely by the failure of Tory-run Chiltern DC to agree anything with Tory-run Bucks CC, the Special Parking Area came into force. Under this plan, enforcement of parking regulations was handed from the police (whose activity was negligible) to parking attendants employed by CDC. In 2003 a report was commissioned, and agreed by CDC, which set out the costings for this scheme, including how much the wardens would cost, how much would come in from fines, and so on. Absolutely implicit in this scheme was the imposition of on-street charges. Otherwise the scheme would not break even which it's supposed to according to government regulations. Tories on the council at the time knew this (or should have done, Tories subsequently elected to CDC either could or should have known this too.

To confirm - the scheme was always going to include on-street charging, and the Tories knew it.

Why did so many of them vote for it in 2003, yet now in 2008 seem to think that it's a dreadful idea? Your guess is as good as mine, but ignorance is more likely than hypocrisy, although with the Tories the latter is never far from the surface.

In short, they went into the scheme knowing that on-street charging would be necessary, then when the public made a fuss they abandoned the courage of their convictions and went into a blue funk.

2. It is interesting to note that Conservative councillors on CDC seem to be blaming the Liberal Democrats for suggesting that the villages should have on-street charging just like the towns. One, that's not the case, we have opposed charging as much as anyone else. Two, again there's a kind of hypocrisy in thinking that it's OK for Great Missenden (say) councillors to speak up for Great Missenden people, but somehow Chesham councillors aren't allowed to speak up for Chesham people. Then again, with local Tories hypocrisy is never far fro the surface.

3. It has to be remembered that only a month or so ago, the Tories reduced the concessionary travel scheme for pensioners in the district. OK, so here's a test of your political outlook. You have the choice of supporting rich folk who drive expensive cars from large houses in the countryside, or poor pensioners who don't have cars but rely on public transport. Who are you going to help? Well, for Chiltern Tories that's an easy call! Sod the poor pensioners; look after the Tory voters in the shires.

4. The argument for not having on-street charging in the villages is that it will destroy the vitality of the places, and besides folk just need ten minutes to pop in and buy a paper or whatever. If that is true in Great Missenden or Chalfont St Giles, then it must be true also of Chesham and Amersham. Those places have pop-in shops just like the villages do. The suggestion that somehow the villages are different doesn't really stack up. Except of course that the villages vote Tory and the towns don't.

5. Back in 2003 the Tories had a clear policy. It may or not have been right, but it was clear to anyone who actually read the documents what was going to happen. At least one Lib Dem councillor actually said so at the time, pointing out that the on-street charging was due to follow after the Tories had been safely re-elected in May 2007. By 2008 they are careering from one disastrous idea to the next, simply saying whatever they think their public (*) and their backbenchers will let them get away with. If there is a clear strategy behind what is going on, then all we can say is that we are yet to hear it.

(* In Tory Buckinghamshire, the irony is that they would get away with anything. They can continue to foul up and then U-turn as they have done with: closing libraries; changing school catchment areas; imposing permits for using the council tips; extending the fortnightly rubbish collection; et cetera ad nauseam, and the unthinking electorate of Chiltern, both bourgeoisie and lumpenproleteriat at the same time, will just love them all the more. Indeed the entire local electoral strategy of the Tories seems to be: 1 here's a rotten idea, 2 OK then we'll change it, 3 aren't we wonderful? But I digress…)

6. The reason that the Liberal Democrats 'called-in' the decision was because there was no financial basis provided, nor any evidence that alternatives had been considered. In round numbers the SPA costs £200,000 a year to run. How much of that would have been got back by on-street charging everywhere? How much of it will be funded by what the Tories are now proposing. Or by half-an-hour-free? Or by any other proposal, sensible or otherwise. This is policy-making in a vacuum. Again, if there are figures available then they are not exactly in the public domain. CDC could take money from the off-street car parks income to offset the on-street deficit. But not here, because they use the money they make to keep council tax down, so they say.

7. Which leads to the final point? All political parties play greener-than-thou. The Liberal Democrats, to be candid, no exception. But where is the environmentally sustainable position in encouraging folk to drive their cars to their local shopping centres? There is none. Why should I pay for your car? No reason at all, it's your car, you want to drive it and park it, you pay for it! The whole principle of 'the polluter pays' is completely ignored if the general taxpayers are subsidising the car drivers, which is what the Tories are proposing. Where is the incentive to walk? To cycle? To take the (ok, non-existent) buses? Nowhere! Note that almost by definition the people that are going to pop-in to shops in 'the villages' are going to be those that live in those villages. Many of them don't need to drive. As always from the Tories when push comes to shove it's all hail the mighty motor car. It might also be fun to make the point that one of the reasons the folk in the villages have to use their cars is because the Tories have also taken away their travel tokens. Total hypocrisy, but then with the Tories that is never far from the surface.

"The Squire", April 2008