ElectionLeaflets.org

Dear Mr Todd,
You are much mistaken about the supermarket. I was sure of my facts before I put anything to the electorate and as an academic myself I also have an academic reputation to maintain. I also have a duty to the party I represent and I can assure that senior members of the team saw the evidence before I sent out my petition.
I am also surprised that you think a sophisticated electorate like Castle could be easily duped; it is a ward with 11 Cambridge Colleges and many international research stars. For example, in one half hour, I canvassed a the home of a nobel lauraute Sir Maurice Wilkes, and Prof Mary Beard. Anyone peddling misinformation would soon be found out.

Everything I warned the Castle electorate about was heard in public at an Inspector’s hearing on 9 June. I am surprised that you did not understand this from my website which explains clearly about the hearing. Castle residents heard from the University representatives themselves all about the supermarket retail plan. Residents afterwards thanked me for representing the residents so well. Many residents were there, including Cllr Hipkin to whom I spoke. I was glad to see him there and expressed a wish that we all work together now.

Your blog, I am saddened to say, with its immoderate language, and inaccurate hold on the facts is doing the politically minded public a disservice. I am shocked that you use the words ‘lies’ and I would be grateful if you email me with your land address so that we can discuss/take this further. I will be taking advice about this because action may be required.

I’ve been diligently posting leaflets up to this site from Norwich North, but looking through the blog it seems that the site is devoted more to attackign Lib Dems than to a genuine attempt to be unbiased.

Perhaps I am wrong, but as a Lib Dem with a folder full of dodgy leaflets from other parties over the years, I hope your site will devote some more of its energy in to examining leaflets from other parties in similar detail.

I don’t follow the logic of this: “The City Councillor in question was her main rival, John Hipkin, who had ‘done nothing’ because he believed the proposal was just a try-on by the University.”

This seems to me to be saying, (a) there was a proposal, (b) it was unlikely to succeed, (c) therefore there was no need to oppose it. That leap from (b) to (c) seems to me perfectly fair ground for someone to disagree – things that people don’t expect to happen actually often do, and in the case of planning decisions where, once permission has been given, the decision is usually irreversible and has to be lived with for a long, long time, that’s rather a gamble.

If those are the circumstances, campaigning early and loudly against the plans seems to me a perfectly reasonable response – and similar that it would be reasonable to criticism someone who is taking the gamble that it’s not going to happen even if they don’t campaign against it.

I rather hoped this website would be a completely neutral site, with election leaflets uploaded so everyone could have a gander. As it turns out, its completely biased, has a hilarious OTT anti lib dem vibe and is clearly ran by frustrated Green activists.

I’ll still keep reading though

Would you like to see the Tory leaflets from Cheadle which tried to allege via cutting headlines in a very misleading way that the Lib Dem candidate was a paedophile ?

There were several facets of the Castle Lib-Dems anti-supermarket campaign which were dishonest at worst and misleading at best. There never was ‘a plan to build a supermarket’ on the University Farm site. The University had mooted at a meeting with City Council planning officers the possibility of a supermarket and had commissioned a report to ascertain what the retail demand might be were 13000 new inhabitants to be brought to within a mile of the proposed site. These growth plans, may I say, were supported by the Lib-Dems, and principally by their Executive Councillor for Growth and Climate Change (yes, that is her title!) When the Lib-Dem story broke in one of their leaflets a senior city council planning officer issued a statement saying that no such plan was before them and that they would resist any proposal for a supermarket of the size mentioned in the leaflet (It was alleged to be as large as the largest hypermarket in the sub-region!). That denial did not deter the Lib-Dems who mounted a petition against the mythical supermarket. Not surprisingly many local residents were alarmed at the prospect and even more shocked to learn that, I supported it! That is where the lie came in. I never supported and would never support the siting of a hypermarket on the University NW development and I said so in a number of rebuttals but if a lie is repeated often enough some people, as Dr Goebbels famously pronounced, will believe it. A distortion of my views was also perpetrated when it was said that I had supported the extension of a supermarket elsewhere in the city (which I had) and that I was therefore in favour of large supermarkets! The reason I had supported the Sainsbury application to extend its retail space on Coldham’s Lane was because the bulk of the extension was to be internal and designed to offer a wider range of goods to their existing customer base. The planning case officer had recommended refusal of that application largely on the grounds that other supermarkets in the vicinity were undertrading and the Sainsbury extension would further damage them. I took the view that it was no business of the planning committee to regulate competition in the city between major retailers.

The supermarket story was wickedly clever and it lost me the election, I have no doubt. That it was based on lies, half-truths and distortions will not trouble the consciences of local Lib-Dems. After all they won the election and that is all that counts in their book.

Julian: one point I’m curious about, which is your choice of headline on this piece. Although you say about two-thirds of the way down the post and in your comment above that you don’t know enough about the case to have a firm view, the headline is pretty unequivocal: “How to make things up…”.

Indeed, if I was to be mean I’d suggest that if there was a political leaflet with a headline that said one thing and then a caveat two-thirds of the way down the story, you might well complain about it being a misleading headline

Nich Starling – yes please! The Tories and/or Labour and/or local press did that to a Lib Dem candidate in Lambeth a few years back, my guess is it goes on quite a lot but doesn’t get documented.

Nich – yes please, upload the leaflets and/or send us an email team [at] thestraightchoice.org

Fact 1: That the land would be built on was not contentious. Since sitting on a college estates committee as a grad student I had known for at least 15 years that the Univ. farm would be built on and vets in the vet school (to which the farm is linked) have known for much longer. What was contentious was the new proposal about the supermarket and any information we gave to residents about the supermarket proposal was deadly accurate to every square metre of net retail space.
Fact 2: Mr Hipkin is a City Councillor and thus had every chance prior to the election to find out the facts – more perhaps than me as he would have received council material before I received it. I rightly perceived the supermarket as the threat it was proven to be at the Inspector’s Hearing on 9 June. The University representatives were extremely determined and even wanted the development plan of the area amended to allow for a large supermarket.
Fact 3: Many retired physicists DO spend their time on the Council website and attending planning committees. I was astonished and impressed by how many retired residents and academics (and writers and artists) knew exactly how every councillor, including Mr Hipkin, had voted and which contentious votes they missed.
Fact 4: There was ample opportunity during the election for people to clarify their understanding on this position and others (the A14, the one-way system etc.,). A public debate was held on 28 May between Mr Hipkin and me (the other candidates didn’t turn up…). The debate was widely publicised. Some of the undecided voters later told me they made their minds up in that packed hall.
Fact 5: I wanted Julian’s address to prove this case over a cup of tea showing my files, not SLAPP anyone (no matter how HAPPY that would make me). I would then be hoping for an apology, and for the blog to be amended – including the title. That is the action of which I was thinking (although I would obviously reserve the right etc.,….)
Following that there is still a question over how the the site is run because you may find you have more credibility if you alert candidates about whom such, serious and in this case spurious, allegations are made and allow them the immediate right of reply; had it not been for a shocked supporter I would not have known about it. Or you may consider moderation until you have checked the facts with an objective source. For example, my site which explains about the Inspector’s Hearing could have been checked, or I could have been contacted electronically or by phone, or any of the City Council officers related to planning who could have sent the documents on the retail proposal.
I would like to see this site improved so that it performs a useful sociopolitical function and does not just become a repository for the post-election disappointees to vent their spleens inaccurately.
Fact 5: The election was won on many things besides this issue. None of us will know exactly what won it until the marked registers are out later in the year but it was canvassed massively and then targetted tightly; not as sexy a story as ‘Secrets and Lies’ but a reality. And I am happy to discuss canvassing and targetting with anyone who wants to listen in Bournemouth.
Fact 6: “Others apart sat on a hill retir’d, In thoughts more elevate, and reason’d high, Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate, Fix’d fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute, And found no end, in wand’ring mazes lost, Of good and evil much they argu’d then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame: Vain wisdom all and false philosophy!” Mr Hipkin is still a councillor so there is no need for any such Miltonic brooding. He can still serve and help the community and I hope we can work together to sort out the other threats facing this ward.

PS: I have narrowed down who the initial email may have come from. I wonder if it is the person who said: “I can’t vote for your because I canvass for John Hipkin but I won’t be desolate if you get in because you look like you get things done” It made me chuckle on the night, I loved canvassing, I really liked the people I met, and I know I can work with anyone if they are prepared to work together for the common good. This is where energy should be spent. In the meantime, I am owed a cup of tea by Julian (or Francis in his absence).
Belinda

Belinda Brooks-Gordon seems to live in a world I can’t recognise. She may, she says in her PS, have ‘narrowed down’ the author of the original email. There was never any secret about this: I gave my name and also gave explicit permission for it to be used. No doubt I am the person she will now threaten with ‘action’. (What a way to do politics!)
She goes on to ascribe to the author (me, presumably) a view, in quotation marks, that radically distorts what I said. As in the case of the original supermarket, there is a small grain of truth there. I did say, to be nice at the end of a long and sometimes heated disagreement, ‘I shan’t be desolate if you get elected’ , meaning I supposed it could be worse. Although I saw John Hipkin as the much better candidate in the County Council election, I voted Lib Dem for Europe. There was no need, I thought then, to quarrel with a fellow Lib Dem.
The rest of her ‘quotation’ is fiction. It would turn the speaker into a closet supporter of Belinda Brooks-Gordon and that, like most of the supermarket story, is a clear case of wishful thinking.

It’s good to see debate about this! Despite its problems, I think this is a great blog post – it is showing the kind of fundamental dispute election leaflets can cause.

Although I’m involved in the Straight Choice (answering the phone to talk to journalists, and doing some server administration), I’m like Julian going on holiday, and I don’t actually have a log in to the blog to make any corrections if I wanted to. It’s a pain this has all happened just as Julian was going away.

There are two things I’d like:

- There’s clearly a proper dispute about this. I’d like Richard and/or Julian to either investigate it more, and come to a proper view of what happened (hard, as Julian points out, due to way info about planning is made available!), or change the headline and possibly the paragraph with the word “lies” in to make it a bit clearer (as Mark Pack says above) that the Straight Choice doesn’t have a view either way on this debate.

- As far as I can tell, we don’t actually have any of Belinda’s leaflets that make possibly false claims about the supermarket, or possibly false claims about John’s view of it. Does anyone have any, and if so could they load them up? It would make the debate much more interesting and relevant to the site.

Meanwhile, I’m pleased to see so many people reading this blog. Please do post up interesting or controversial election leaflets that you find or know about.

Francis,
At 11am I sent you the page from the council planning officers’ briefing from March 2009 that all councillors (including Mr Hipkin) were sent.

Page 1 para 2 reads:
“The University have advised that it envisages a supermarket in the order of 4,000-5,000 sqm gross. This gives a range of 2,600-3,250sqm net retail floorspace and is a significant size. By way of comparison for the convenience element of each store, the Tesco store in Newmarket Road is 2,996sqm, Sainsbury’s on Coldham’s Lane is 2,986 sqm, Waitrose is 2,678sqm and the Tesco extra store at Bar Hill is 4,696sqm (all net)”. A later page (which I didn’t have time to send but will for those interested) “The University confirmed that they instructed consultants GVA Grimley to consider their retail proposals in more detail. They have also instructed Peter Brett Associates to look at traffic modelling.”

I acted upon it and Mr Hipkin didn’t. Mr Hipkin is quite wrong to allege that I or our documents said the supermarket was the largest in the sub-region. I speak plain English not developer-speak. We said the supermarket proposal was larger than anything in the City and it is fairly obvious that the City region stops before the A14 (where Tesco extra is) and that the proposed supermarket is larger than either Tesco, Waitrose, or Sainsbury’s Coldham’s Lane.

I also sent you the Inspector’s Discussion Note considered at the Inspector’s hearing on 9 June 2009.

The two documents I sent show that the supermarket threat was real and the Inspector’s hearing on 9 June was ample evidence that the threat still exists. As to the latter, under the sub-heading ‘Supermarket, Q.7 What precisely is the University proposing?’ there was a debate between me (I had official participation at the hearing having objected on behalf of residents who signed the petition) and the University pushing for to build a large supermarket. Mr Hipkin was present at this hearing.

At 12.10 today I texted you stating I had emailed these documents. Despite this the site has not been changed nor have the documents been uploaded to the site so that people can see the evidence for themselves. I would be grateful if you could do this for the sake of transparency.

If Belinda had sent you his Briefing Note in its entirety (it’s only three pages!), you would have been able to see that the Chief Planning Officer’s reaction to the University’s proposal for a supermarket was very negative, as were the minutes of the meeting of the Cambridge District Council on 10 March. As I made clear at the beginning of my email to Julian, there was never any doubt about the University’s proposal. What remains in contention is how seriously we were to take the threat.
Belinda’s post leaves out the Chief Planning Officer’s very large ‘However ….’ He lists a range of reasons for not agreeing to the large supermarket, demonstrates in detail that this has no place in the existing, detailed and well advanced plans for the development, and concludes, ‘It therefore follows that at present the initial retail proposals from the University are not consistent with the main recommendations for convenience shopping in the Retail Study.’
This was in March. In May Belinda presented the huge supermarket in her campaign as a ‘plan’, arousing widespread but unfounded anxiety. We were to elect her to prevent what was far from likely in the first place.
The University got the Chief Planning Officer’s message. The discussions on 9 June concerned keeping the options open for a much small outlet to serve up to 3000 new houses.

Catherine, just to set your mind at rest, the entire briefing note was sent. I sent the first page so it could be focused upon and then the whole thing so full context could be seen after. Your understanding of the hearing on 9 June differs from other residents I have spoken to who were there and my own. The threat is real, how seriously each individual take takes it is subjective.

I understand your disappointment that your favoured candidate was not elected (although I am glad you were able to vote Lib Dem for Europe and help get Andrew Duff, a fantastic MEP, re-elected). It does not matter to me now whether people voted for me or not now, I am here to serve the residents and that includes you. I have no wish to argue with you.

My view of planning threats from the University seems to differ from Mr Hipkin’s. The fact that I act quickly in the face of planning threats by the University can be to the benefit of residents. The residents now have both of us to act for them – this was actually the central plank of my campaign. An example of this benefit working in action happened recently.

On Saturday 20 June I received a hard copy of an email sent to the three City councillors Mr Hipkin, Mr Kightely, Mrs Zmura. It was from distressed residents after Murray Edwards (aka New Hall) had taken down 3 trees with tree preservation orders on them. The College was going to demolish Grove Lodge the following Monday. Grove Lodge as the name suggests is the lodge to the The Grove – the house in which Emma Darwin lived after Charles Darwin died when she came to Cambridge to be near her sons. It is a quirky house on Huntingdon Road outside the College. The residents were holding a meeting at 4pm that day. I was there, Mr Hipkin was not. It matters not why not but I was able to be there and support them, Following the meeting I immediately let some other residents on Huntingdon Road know what was going on.

Since then there have been three further meetings (2 with Murray Edwards College). I was at every one. Mr Hipkin was at the last these 4 meetings. My point here is that in an area facing so many threats from the Colleges individually and the University as a whole the residents are better served by more councillors not less. With the best will in the world, it is hard for one person to be in two places at once and Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County Council are both big jobs.

It is not alarmist to state that the College is still intent on pulling down this historic building to make way for a car park and fire escape. Because the fire escape can easily be fitted in with room around the building it is hoped that the College will review its plans. You may wish to respond to this threat by the College, or you may not. You may not like the building, or old buildings in general, you may think Darwin was an apostate and should be erased from history, you may think that he was a hero and Emma Darwin’s history irrelevant, or you may like car parks. These are all subjective. The threat however at this stage is real.

There is a stay of execution on the building until the end of July. I am merely telling you of a real threat. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. Those who wish to prevent the demolition of the Lodge should write to Dr Jennifer Barnes, the President at Murray Edwards and send a copy to residents at the houses opposite the Lodge – the ones with the posters in the garden. I can send you their emails if you wish.

David Roberts, Head of Policy and Projects at Cambridge City Council posted this briefing to councillors on May 20th 2009. I interpreted it as saying that the University had mooted the possibility of a supermarket on the NW site but had been given short shrift by the City Council. There was no plan before the City Council in the sense that that word is normally used i.e. a planning application. The Lib-Dems repeatedly asserted that the University had a plan to build a supermarket even though no planning application nor architectural plan nor any other kind of ‘plan’ existed. Semantically let me put it like this: if I propose changing the shape of my garden can it be said that I have a plan to do so? Doesn’t that come later and doesn’t it contain quite definite specifications for translating the proposal into a plan?
Let me also add that, as everyone knows, what is said on the doorstep as part of a deliberate campaign of misinformation may quite different from what appears in print.

Dear Councillor,

You may have heard coverage in the media this morning about the proposal from Cambridge University for a supermarket on their site between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road. As this will be a matter of interest to your residents I attach a briefing note for your information on this issue. Key points to note are as follows:

1. The University have not submitted a planning application for a supermarket, they may do in the future but only after the completion of various studies they have underway.

2. The evidence that we have at this time does not support such a proposal, but if an application is made it would have to be considered. It is likely that we would need additional studies into the need and impacts of such a proposal to help us with this consideration.

3. The supermarket proposal is not a measure included in the public consultation on the NW Area Action Plan that is currently underway (the AAP allows for a local shopping centre but not for a large supermarket). That consultation is only about the bigger site footprint that the Government Inspectors who are examining the plan have asked be considered as an alternative to the one included in the AAP itself. I emphasise this point as there may be a tendency for the public to confuse the two and comment on the supermarket rather than the footprint.

Regards,

John: The above point was answered in the logic of comment 3 above. In any case a briefing on 20 May by David Roberts’ (which is undermined by the fact that it is a fringe development involving 3 councils) was superseded by the University position pushing for a large supermarket on 9 June at the Inspector’s hearing.
Julian: I do hope you will address the remaininng ‘make things up’ point in comment 9, the title still implies a position.

This has got a bit like those kids at school who wrote in my little autograph book ‘By hook or by crook I’ll be last in this book…’ and the writing got smaller and smaller.

Belinda, Julian is on holiday at the moment and as i think he may have said he does not have access to the full information and probably won’t comment further until he could review all the data. I think he does admire your defence of the position you have taken. Also suggest that John wont ever concede his ground on this but that is politics. Anyone who reads this long conversation will probably come to the conclusion that the current planing process is not clear cut black and white. In my view you have the better argument and having chatted with my wife who knows something of this type of thing she agrees with you but then John might argue we are biased and in this he would be right.

Epilogue – The Inspector’s Report on the NW Site has been produced and is available at: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/North%20west%20Cambridge%20inspectors%20report.pdf

The Inspectors allowed for a ’small supermarket’ and not the large supermarket the University of Cambridge requested. The triumph is that our campaign against a large supermarket worked.