Legal challenge 'a real issue' for health campus, warns mayor Dorothy Thornhill

Elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill.

Elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill.

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

A legal challenge to the health campus scheme is "a real issue" for the project and could have "consequences" for the town, Watford’s elected mayor has warned.

Dorothy Thornhill said if a second judicial review of the decision to allow the Farm Terrace Allotments to be used in the development scheme succeeded it would affect the hospital, taxpayers, and future residents.

The mayor said: "It is a real issue and I don’t think we have really made enough of the consequences (if the judicial review is successful).

"There will be consequences if that happens for the revenue to the public purse in the future and to the viability of the scheme. It would also restrict the flexibility of what the hospital can and can’t do and affect the density of the properties

"There are very clear consequences that people have not factored in. They see it as a David and Goliath but in fact I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate.

"They are putting all that at risk by making it less viable."

This is the second time allotment-holders have challenged approval given to Watford Borough Council by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr Pickles, to build on Farm Terrace.

Last year Mr Pickles reversed his initial permission to reconsider the decision after Farm Terrace Community Association took it to judicial review.

Watford Observer: Farm Terrace Allotments.

However in December he granted the council permission to build over the allotments for a second time, as part of the scheme which promises to regenerate the land behind Vicarage Road with new hospital facilities and around 700 new homes.

Earlier this month the group launched a judicial review of the second decision.

Solicitors working on behalf of the Farm Terrace Community Association are arguing the council "misled" the Government over how crucial the allotments were to the new hospital element of the scheme.

The group has pointed to a health campus masterplan, which they say shows most of the land being used for new homes and parking for Watford FC.

Watford Borough Council has since confirmed 40 per cent of the allotment land has been earmarked for hospital use.

Watford Observer: The latest health campus masterplan.

Mayor Thornhill rejected the basis of the new challenge as "completely wrong" and said the fact the Government was holding its ground this time round was an encouraging sign.

She added: "We have made a robust challenge. It think it is important as this time last time (there was a judicial review) the DCLG caved and they have not (this time). I take that as quite a strong signal."

The Farm Terrace Allotments had been protected in previous versions of the health campus scheme, which has been under discussion for more than decade.

However in 2012 Watford Borough Council’s ruling cabinet voted to include the land in a new version of the project saying it was needed to make the scheme viable for developers.

Comments (186)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:35pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TRT says...

"The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate."

Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one.
"The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate." Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one. TRT
  • Score: 31

6:08pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
"The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate."

Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one.
I think she is talking about the affordable homes which are part of the development of the Heath Campus.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: "The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate." Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one.[/p][/quote]I think she is talking about the affordable homes which are part of the development of the Heath Campus. ramage1996
  • Score: -16

6:09pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TRT says...

Come on, Dorothy. Please explain. What revenues will this "health campus" generate? I'd really like to know how firm a grip you have on the finances of the scheme.
Come on, Dorothy. Please explain. What revenues will this "health campus" generate? I'd really like to know how firm a grip you have on the finances of the scheme. TRT
  • Score: 22

6:10pm Mon 24 Mar 14

croxley46 says...

Never trust a politician, whether they be local or in central Govt.
They never tell the truth and there's always a hidden agenda, with back-handers galore.
Will there be a new "Health Campus" in Vicarage Rd? - I very much doubt it, more like houses and houses and houses.....
Never trust a politician, whether they be local or in central Govt. They never tell the truth and there's always a hidden agenda, with back-handers galore. Will there be a new "Health Campus" in Vicarage Rd? - I very much doubt it, more like houses and houses and houses..... croxley46
  • Score: 22

6:11pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TRT says...

@ramage1996. OK, so what revenue will they generate and to whom will that revenue go?
@ramage1996. OK, so what revenue will they generate and to whom will that revenue go? TRT
  • Score: 13

6:23pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I'm not a legal eagle, but out of interest I thought I would look up the definition of Fraud - thank you Wikipedia.

"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
I'm not a legal eagle, but out of interest I thought I would look up the definition of Fraud - thank you Wikipedia. "Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 6

6:24pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
@ramage1996. OK, so what revenue will they generate and to whom will that revenue go?
The revenues from the comapny building the hoes will go to the council as the company will pay the council for the privilege of building on land owned by the people of Watford.
They are not just giving free land to a home building company you know, now you are aware that we are not just giving land away and that the council will receive money from the company building the homes, hopefully you will support affordable homes being built in West Watford.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: @ramage1996. OK, so what revenue will they generate and to whom will that revenue go?[/p][/quote]The revenues from the comapny building the hoes will go to the council as the company will pay the council for the privilege of building on land owned by the people of Watford. They are not just giving free land to a home building company you know, now you are aware that we are not just giving land away and that the council will receive money from the company building the homes, hopefully you will support affordable homes being built in West Watford. ramage1996
  • Score: -17

6:27pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I'm not a legal eagle, but out of interest I thought I would look up the definition of Fraud - thank you Wikipedia.

"Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
Thanks Phil, thats a helpful comment.

Good luck with the Euro elections by the way, recnt polling puts UKIP in third place!

If you cant do well in the Euro elections you have no chance of winning a seat in the General election, will the Green party still have 100% more seats than UKIP come next years GE?
That would be a bit embarrassing :-)
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I'm not a legal eagle, but out of interest I thought I would look up the definition of Fraud - thank you Wikipedia. "Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."[/p][/quote]Thanks Phil, thats a helpful comment. Good luck with the Euro elections by the way, recnt polling puts UKIP in third place! If you cant do well in the Euro elections you have no chance of winning a seat in the General election, will the Green party still have 100% more seats than UKIP come next years GE? That would be a bit embarrassing :-) ramage1996
  • Score: -10

6:34pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TRT says...

@ramage. Do you know what revenue is?
@ramage. Do you know what revenue is? TRT
  • Score: 3

6:35pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

http://metapolls.net
/category/europe/eur
oelections-2014/unit
ed-kingdom-euroelect
ions-2014/


UKIP cant even win the Euro election, considering they are a two issue party, i.e. anti Europe and anti immigrants, it does not bode well in the general election.

Im sure Farage will keep his euro seat and pick up his massive wage and im sure that is all he cares about.
http://metapolls.net /category/europe/eur oelections-2014/unit ed-kingdom-euroelect ions-2014/ UKIP cant even win the Euro election, considering they are a two issue party, i.e. anti Europe and anti immigrants, it does not bode well in the general election. Im sure Farage will keep his euro seat and pick up his massive wage and im sure that is all he cares about. ramage1996
  • Score: -5

6:36pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I am in favour of making housing affordable.

I am not in favour of building on allotments.

I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one.

I am in favour of honesty and openness.


I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.
I am in favour of making housing affordable. I am not in favour of building on allotments. I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one. I am in favour of honesty and openness. I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 25

6:37pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
@ramage. Do you know what revenue is?
As you are a bit unsure here is a definition for you.

"The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income.

Revenue is calculated by multiplying the price at which goods or services are sold by the number of units or amount sold.

Revenue is also known as "REVs."
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: @ramage. Do you know what revenue is?[/p][/quote]As you are a bit unsure here is a definition for you. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income. Revenue is calculated by multiplying the price at which goods or services are sold by the number of units or amount sold. Revenue is also known as "REVs." ramage1996
  • Score: -12

6:42pm Mon 24 Mar 14

POVIEW says...

The thousands of little David's Dotty is on about include the rent paying allotment plot holders of farm terrace, who gave up land to kick start the fiasco known as the Health Campus years ago, the flats behind the football club! Remember Dot, in this fight YOU ARE GOLIATH. Be proud that you run a town were people are prepared to say NO THATS ENOUGH.
The thousands of little David's Dotty is on about include the rent paying allotment plot holders of farm terrace, who gave up land to kick start the fiasco known as the Health Campus years ago, the flats behind the football club! Remember Dot, in this fight YOU ARE GOLIATH. Be proud that you run a town were people are prepared to say NO THATS ENOUGH. POVIEW
  • Score: 24

6:46pm Mon 24 Mar 14

phil mitchel says...

'I think she is talking about the affordable homes'
Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home.
No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.
'I think she is talking about the affordable homes' Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home. No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster. phil mitchel
  • Score: 12

6:47pm Mon 24 Mar 14

phil mitchel says...

..
.. phil mitchel
  • Score: 4

6:51pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

phil mitchel wrote:
'I think she is talking about the affordable homes'
Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home.
No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.
With new build homes people only need a 5% deposit with the help to buy scheme:
https://www.google.c
o.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&
q=&esrc=s&source=web
&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8
&ved=0CE0QFjAA&url=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.help
tobuy.org.uk%2F&ei=E
34wU5aWEIa7ygP1hoHgC
g&usg=AFQjCNHpTH9Dg-
Q9p1QDt9Vf33OMgNcjMg
&bvm=bv.62922401,d.b
GQ

ALso on new builds such as the ones to be built in West Watford, public sector workers such as Police and Nurses can receive an interest free 10k loan:
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
69873/10-000-home-lo
an-public-sector-sta
ff.html

So yes these homes will be affordable homes through the Help to buy and the interest free loan scheme.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: 'I think she is talking about the affordable homes' Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home. No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.[/p][/quote]With new build homes people only need a 5% deposit with the help to buy scheme: https://www.google.c o.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& q=&esrc=s&source=web &cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8 &ved=0CE0QFjAA&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.help tobuy.org.uk%2F&ei=E 34wU5aWEIa7ygP1hoHgC g&usg=AFQjCNHpTH9Dg- Q9p1QDt9Vf33OMgNcjMg &bvm=bv.62922401,d.b GQ ALso on new builds such as the ones to be built in West Watford, public sector workers such as Police and Nurses can receive an interest free 10k loan: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 69873/10-000-home-lo an-public-sector-sta ff.html So yes these homes will be affordable homes through the Help to buy and the interest free loan scheme. ramage1996
  • Score: -5

6:52pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

When the council is wrong, the people should stand up to the Mayor and council. We should be proud that people are still prepared to do this.

The Mayor and council are wrong over this. There is no new hospital, it is just flats and houses and car parks.

Dotty has put her head on the block over this - Let's not disappoint her.

Vote Ukip in May and let's change Watford for the better!

It's time this town told the Mayor exactly what they think of her and what she's up to. It's time for change.
When the council is wrong, the people should stand up to the Mayor and council. We should be proud that people are still prepared to do this. The Mayor and council are wrong over this. There is no new hospital, it is just flats and houses and car parks. Dotty has put her head on the block over this - Let's not disappoint her. Vote Ukip in May and let's change Watford for the better! It's time this town told the Mayor exactly what they think of her and what she's up to. It's time for change. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

6:53pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

phil mitchel wrote:
'I think she is talking about the affordable homes'
Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home.
No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.
That's the thing. There is no new hospital.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: 'I think she is talking about the affordable homes' Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home. No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.[/p][/quote]That's the thing. There is no new hospital. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 12

6:55pm Mon 24 Mar 14

TRT says...

@ramage. Revenue is an ongoing thing - income. Things like ground rent, rental income, business tax, even council tax. It's not one-off payments made by developers, or freehold leases or even sales of leaseholds. The financial detail of this scheme hasn't been published, no doubt commercially sensitive...
@ramage. Revenue is an ongoing thing - income. Things like ground rent, rental income, business tax, even council tax. It's not one-off payments made by developers, or freehold leases or even sales of leaseholds. The financial detail of this scheme hasn't been published, no doubt commercially sensitive... TRT
  • Score: 1

7:03pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

TRT wrote:
"The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate."

Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one.
Or focusing on say Private provision.
Something like Laser eye surgery can be a big earner, as in Luton
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: "The future residents of those homes, the hospital and the taxpayers who will be grateful for the revenues it will generate." Not many people believe you anymore. A hospital that generates revenue? Pull the other one.[/p][/quote]Or focusing on say Private provision. Something like Laser eye surgery can be a big earner, as in Luton ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Mon 24 Mar 14

BCB69 says...

Me thinks Dotty is getting worried she might not get her way.
Me thinks Dotty is getting worried she might not get her way. BCB69
  • Score: 24

7:28pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
@ramage. Revenue is an ongoing thing - income. Things like ground rent, rental income, business tax, even council tax. It's not one-off payments made by developers, or freehold leases or even sales of leaseholds. The financial detail of this scheme hasn't been published, no doubt commercially sensitive...
wow thanks, I never knew what revenue was before you told me that.

I guess the 22 quid a year for a 5 pole allotment on the Farm Allotments while paying for the maintenance and a person to oversee and administer the site is what you mean by the current revenue?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: @ramage. Revenue is an ongoing thing - income. Things like ground rent, rental income, business tax, even council tax. It's not one-off payments made by developers, or freehold leases or even sales of leaseholds. The financial detail of this scheme hasn't been published, no doubt commercially sensitive...[/p][/quote]wow thanks, I never knew what revenue was before you told me that. I guess the 22 quid a year for a 5 pole allotment on the Farm Allotments while paying for the maintenance and a person to oversee and administer the site is what you mean by the current revenue? ramage1996
  • Score: -13

7:32pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

In an ideal world the council and the state would build the homes as council homes and give poor families homes instead of giving private landlords a an opportunity to pay off their mortgage with the state giving them money for poor people to live in their houses.

Thatcher has a alot to answer for in this regard by selling off the council homes and not letting the local authorities keep the money to invest in new homes.
In an ideal world the council and the state would build the homes as council homes and give poor families homes instead of giving private landlords a an opportunity to pay off their mortgage with the state giving them money for poor people to live in their houses. Thatcher has a alot to answer for in this regard by selling off the council homes and not letting the local authorities keep the money to invest in new homes. ramage1996
  • Score: -1

7:38pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

So the strategy is to to and pressure Save Farm Terrace into abandoning the case, with scare stories and misinformation, almost as low as a opportunistic Carpetbagger
Meanwhile Save Farm Terrace have successfully turned the campaign national, they have a good case and Dorothy knows it which is why she is resorting to this last minute scaremongering.
So the strategy is to to and pressure Save Farm Terrace into abandoning the case, with scare stories and misinformation, almost as low as a opportunistic Carpetbagger Meanwhile Save Farm Terrace have successfully turned the campaign national, they have a good case and Dorothy knows it which is why she is resorting to this last minute scaremongering. ancientandageing
  • Score: 11

8:10pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Harry Bee says...

So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings.
1. Where are the plans to show this?
2. What will these hospital buildings be used for?
3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings?
Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel!
Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not.
I no longer believe a word Dorothy says.
So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings. 1. Where are the plans to show this? 2. What will these hospital buildings be used for? 3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings? Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel! Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not. I no longer believe a word Dorothy says. Harry Bee
  • Score: 22

8:21pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Harry Bee wrote:
So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings.
1. Where are the plans to show this?
2. What will these hospital buildings be used for?
3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings?
Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel!
Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not.
I no longer believe a word Dorothy says.
No the Borough Council announced that 40% would be used, here you go Harry Bee..

http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/11
087173.Watford_Healt
h_Campus__most_of_al
lotment_will_be_used
_for_hospital_and_ho
mes/
[quote][p][bold]Harry Bee[/bold] wrote: So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings. 1. Where are the plans to show this? 2. What will these hospital buildings be used for? 3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings? Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel! Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not. I no longer believe a word Dorothy says.[/p][/quote]No the Borough Council announced that 40% would be used, here you go Harry Bee.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/11 087173.Watford_Healt h_Campus__most_of_al lotment_will_be_used _for_hospital_and_ho mes/ ramage1996
  • Score: -11

8:44pm Mon 24 Mar 14

smalon says...

Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford?
The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is.

People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments).
There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope.
There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital.
Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with.
It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them.
Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford? The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is. People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments). There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope. There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital. Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with. It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them. smalon
  • Score: 10

8:51pm Mon 24 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

smalon wrote:
Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford?
The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is.

People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments).
There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope.
There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital.
Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with.
It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them.
Good job you dont live in Ebbsfleet, imagine the reaction if they were building 15 thousand homes near you rather than a few hundred!


Get a grip
[quote][p][bold]smalon[/bold] wrote: Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford? The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is. People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments). There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope. There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital. Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with. It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them.[/p][/quote]Good job you dont live in Ebbsfleet, imagine the reaction if they were building 15 thousand homes near you rather than a few hundred! Get a grip ramage1996
  • Score: -9

10:02pm Mon 24 Mar 14

gusgreen says...

As I have said before "Wealth Campus"
As I have said before "Wealth Campus" gusgreen
  • Score: 10

10:05pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -13

10:31pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
Let's not forget we live in a democracy and let's not be patronising to those people who have an alternative view. Politicians are not necessarily blessed with wisdom or altruism especially as elections tend to limit their horizons.

Like the way you priortised wealth over health in the above.

Hasn't the health campus been 'decoupled' and there are no health campus plans in place for another 18 months timed for more empty election promises?

Will these millions of people in need of care travelling from far flung places eg St Albans, Hemel Hempstead be treated in a brand new state of the heart hospital and not an annexe?
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think[/p][/quote]Let's not forget we live in a democracy and let's not be patronising to those people who have an alternative view. Politicians are not necessarily blessed with wisdom or altruism especially as elections tend to limit their horizons. Like the way you priortised wealth over health in the above. Hasn't the health campus been 'decoupled' and there are no health campus plans in place for another 18 months timed for more empty election promises? Will these millions of people in need of care travelling from far flung places eg St Albans, Hemel Hempstead be treated in a brand new state of the heart hospital and not an annexe? Cuetip
  • Score: 8

10:34pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
The evidence suggests that the modernised hospital facilities are no closer than they've ever been.

700 families benefit from new homes? How beneficial will it seem when they can't get a GP or Dentist? When they, and existing families in the area can't get school places? How will they and existing residents feel about the snarled up traffic? Or the increased flooding?

What and where are these 1500 new jobs and how long will they last?

Meanwhile, 60 allotment holders you say are offered equivalent plots on other sites. Do you have any idea how much work and care goes into an allotment? How many years it takes to get it really producing at it's best? Anyone with a couple of house plants, a hanging basket, and a few herbs in pots, could tell you that these things take time and care. You simply can't just start again and immediately reach equivalence.

Tories they say, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I guess since the Lib dems sold out for a few ministerial cars and a better place at the trough, that's true of them too. Or probably always was true considering how Janus faced they have always been in their attempts to win power.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think[/p][/quote]The evidence suggests that the modernised hospital facilities are no closer than they've ever been. 700 families benefit from new homes? How beneficial will it seem when they can't get a GP or Dentist? When they, and existing families in the area can't get school places? How will they and existing residents feel about the snarled up traffic? Or the increased flooding? What and where are these 1500 new jobs and how long will they last? Meanwhile, 60 allotment holders you say are offered equivalent plots on other sites. Do you have any idea how much work and care goes into an allotment? How many years it takes to get it really producing at it's best? Anyone with a couple of house plants, a hanging basket, and a few herbs in pots, could tell you that these things take time and care. You simply can't just start again and immediately reach equivalence. Tories they say, know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I guess since the Lib dems sold out for a few ministerial cars and a better place at the trough, that's true of them too. Or probably always was true considering how Janus faced they have always been in their attempts to win power. Su Murray
  • Score: 7

10:41pm Mon 24 Mar 14

pstannard4 says...

Time for Dotty to go I think in May. Cant see her popularity rising from -10 I think. She really doesn't understand and care what green space (whats left of it) the Watford people think.. All she wants is the pay packet at the end of the day..

I really what the farm terrace people / lawyers to win this case and to see with the mayor to have egg on her face when this all back fires on her
Time for Dotty to go I think in May. Cant see her popularity rising from -10 I think. She really doesn't understand and care what green space (whats left of it) the Watford people think.. All she wants is the pay packet at the end of the day.. I really what the farm terrace people / lawyers to win this case and to see with the mayor to have egg on her face when this all back fires on her pstannard4
  • Score: 15

10:49pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority.
The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -13

10:52pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Cuetip wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
Let's not forget we live in a democracy and let's not be patronising to those people who have an alternative view. Politicians are not necessarily blessed with wisdom or altruism especially as elections tend to limit their horizons.

Like the way you priortised wealth over health in the above.

Hasn't the health campus been 'decoupled' and there are no health campus plans in place for another 18 months timed for more empty election promises?

Will these millions of people in need of care travelling from far flung places eg St Albans, Hemel Hempstead be treated in a brand new state of the heart hospital and not an annexe?
The worst of all worlds.

Same hospital, three towns using it instead of one.

Harrington and Thornhill are a dangerous double act.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think[/p][/quote]Let's not forget we live in a democracy and let's not be patronising to those people who have an alternative view. Politicians are not necessarily blessed with wisdom or altruism especially as elections tend to limit their horizons. Like the way you priortised wealth over health in the above. Hasn't the health campus been 'decoupled' and there are no health campus plans in place for another 18 months timed for more empty election promises? Will these millions of people in need of care travelling from far flung places eg St Albans, Hemel Hempstead be treated in a brand new state of the heart hospital and not an annexe?[/p][/quote]The worst of all worlds. Same hospital, three towns using it instead of one. Harrington and Thornhill are a dangerous double act. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 6

10:59pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority.
Instead of talking, why not listen for once?

There is not now nor has there ever been a need to lose the allotments.

The new hospital should come first, not the housing. Even if this means waiting for the NHS to come up with plans for a new hospital, let's save the site for them until they are ready and build some houses around it afterwards.

It's just common sense. It's a shame there is not enough of it at the top of the council!

Time for a change in the Mayors office. It really is time for Dotty to go and for her to take all her dotty ideas with her.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority.[/p][/quote]Instead of talking, why not listen for once? There is not now nor has there ever been a need to lose the allotments. The new hospital should come first, not the housing. Even if this means waiting for the NHS to come up with plans for a new hospital, let's save the site for them until they are ready and build some houses around it afterwards. It's just common sense. It's a shame there is not enough of it at the top of the council! Time for a change in the Mayors office. It really is time for Dotty to go and for her to take all her dotty ideas with her. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

BTW it should be re-iterated. The Farm Terrace allotment holders want to keep their allotments but if there was no other way they would sacrifice their allotments for a new hospital.

I think that is what would be expected of anyone who cares about Watford. Well done to SJT and the allotment holders for being so reasonable.

Where it gets murky is that Dotty first said she would keep the allotments, then she decided to build on them and said they were essential for the new hospital. The allotment holders took a lot of flak from the Dotty supporters who smeared them as being against having a new hospital.

Now the truth is out, there is no new hospital. There is not even a whiff of a new hospital in the future. Nothing at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip!

So now it is just a housing development and the greedy Mayor still wants the allotments!

The allotment holders are standing up for what is right. They are fighting this blatant and in all probability illegal land grab.

The Mayor and her LibDem party are trying to railroad through a development scheme that is ill-thought through and premature. It is greed and stupidity driving this development and Watford deserves better.

Dotty has to go. She does not deserve to have another term after this deception.

She has simply been there so long she has become arrogant and detached. Watford, as I said before, deserves better. Far better.
BTW it should be re-iterated. The Farm Terrace allotment holders want to keep their allotments but if there was no other way they would sacrifice their allotments for a new hospital. I think that is what would be expected of anyone who cares about Watford. Well done to SJT and the allotment holders for being so reasonable. Where it gets murky is that Dotty first said she would keep the allotments, then she decided to build on them and said they were essential for the new hospital. The allotment holders took a lot of flak from the Dotty supporters who smeared them as being against having a new hospital. Now the truth is out, there is no new hospital. There is not even a whiff of a new hospital in the future. Nothing at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip! So now it is just a housing development and the greedy Mayor still wants the allotments! The allotment holders are standing up for what is right. They are fighting this blatant and in all probability illegal land grab. The Mayor and her LibDem party are trying to railroad through a development scheme that is ill-thought through and premature. It is greed and stupidity driving this development and Watford deserves better. Dotty has to go. She does not deserve to have another term after this deception. She has simply been there so long she has become arrogant and detached. Watford, as I said before, deserves better. Far better. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

11:55pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

phil mitchel wrote:
'I think she is talking about the affordable homes'
Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home.
No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.
I think an affordable home is £600,000 if you're a middle aged couple and about £81,000 if you're a nurse, newly qualified teacher or if you rent about £14,000 a year. I am not sure why the Mayor would put out this press statement, unless she was attempting to stop the argument going to court, because she believes either delay to the scheme will result in it falling apart or her legal team have expressed doubts about the certainty of the outcome.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: 'I think she is talking about the affordable homes' Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home. No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.[/p][/quote]I think an affordable home is £600,000 if you're a middle aged couple and about £81,000 if you're a nurse, newly qualified teacher or if you rent about £14,000 a year. I am not sure why the Mayor would put out this press statement, unless she was attempting to stop the argument going to court, because she believes either delay to the scheme will result in it falling apart or her legal team have expressed doubts about the certainty of the outcome. Andrew1963
  • Score: 8

12:04am Tue 25 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Harry Bee wrote:
So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings.
1. Where are the plans to show this?
2. What will these hospital buildings be used for?
3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings?
Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel!
Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not.
I no longer believe a word Dorothy says.
No the Borough Council announced that 40% would be used, here you go Harry Bee..

http://www.watfordob

server.co.uk/news/11

087173.Watford_Healt

h_Campus__most_of_al

lotment_will_be_used

_for_hospital_and_ho

mes/
So 40% of the Farm Terrace allotments can stay until the hospital implements its building project following approval of its planning application.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry Bee[/bold] wrote: So all of a sudden, out of thin air, Dotty has announced that 40% of Farm Terrace is to be used for hospital buildings. 1. Where are the plans to show this? 2. What will these hospital buildings be used for? 3. Where is the money to pay for these buildings? Also, if the top terrace of the allotments is to be used for a car park for Watford FC, it seems to be that there's not a lot of Farm Terrace land left to fit 750 homes on! Not to forget the shops, offices and hotel! Nothing adds up. Plans keep changing. Finances are there and then they're not. I no longer believe a word Dorothy says.[/p][/quote]No the Borough Council announced that 40% would be used, here you go Harry Bee.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/11 087173.Watford_Healt h_Campus__most_of_al lotment_will_be_used _for_hospital_and_ho mes/[/p][/quote]So 40% of the Farm Terrace allotments can stay until the hospital implements its building project following approval of its planning application. Andrew1963
  • Score: 3

12:09am Tue 25 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
smalon wrote:
Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford?
The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is.

People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments).
There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope.
There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital.
Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with.
It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them.
Good job you dont live in Ebbsfleet, imagine the reaction if they were building 15 thousand homes near you rather than a few hundred!


Get a grip
The site at Ebbsfleet is a vast empty series of quarries, I go past it regularly on the HS1 train service. West Watford is a high density inner city style urban area, with housing densities far in excess of the planned Ebbsfleet Garden City which no doubt will not be designed to have retail boulevards, private gyms, 600 space multi storey car parks, etc built on its open spaces.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smalon[/bold] wrote: Just how many more homes are going to be crammed into West Watford? The infrastructure for the area is creaking under the strain as it is. People forget that all these new people moving in will need school places, GPs, parking spaces (which there are never enough provided with new housing developments). There will be even more traffic in a part of town that is already struggling to cope. There will be even more people using our under-staffed, over-stretched hospital. Even more crime and criminals for our police to deal with. It's alright saying that we need more houses but we need more amenities to go with them.[/p][/quote]Good job you dont live in Ebbsfleet, imagine the reaction if they were building 15 thousand homes near you rather than a few hundred! Get a grip[/p][/quote]The site at Ebbsfleet is a vast empty series of quarries, I go past it regularly on the HS1 train service. West Watford is a high density inner city style urban area, with housing densities far in excess of the planned Ebbsfleet Garden City which no doubt will not be designed to have retail boulevards, private gyms, 600 space multi storey car parks, etc built on its open spaces. Andrew1963
  • Score: 9

12:17am Tue 25 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
Kier share holders make substantial profits, 700 families have to access homes via Cardiff Road, 25% will face severe financial hardship if interest rates quadruple from 0.5 to 2.0% as mortgages become unaffordable. Hospital very unlikely to survive post 2015 cuts in its income, more likely to go bust than to build brand new hospital. Note the modernised health facilities is not the same as retaining a major acute hospital - Edgeware hospital is a modernised facility but it is diminished in terms of the range of care it offers.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think[/p][/quote]Kier share holders make substantial profits, 700 families have to access homes via Cardiff Road, 25% will face severe financial hardship if interest rates quadruple from 0.5 to 2.0% as mortgages become unaffordable. Hospital very unlikely to survive post 2015 cuts in its income, more likely to go bust than to build brand new hospital. Note the modernised health facilities is not the same as retaining a major acute hospital - Edgeware hospital is a modernised facility but it is diminished in terms of the range of care it offers. Andrew1963
  • Score: 11

12:20am Tue 25 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Number crunching:
Zero loss of allotments in Watford
60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites
700 families benefit from new homes
1500 people get new jobs
millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities.
Hmmm tough choice I don't think
Kier share holders make substantial profits, 700 families have to access homes via Cardiff Road, 25% will face severe financial hardship if interest rates quadruple from 0.5 to 2.0% as mortgages become unaffordable. Hospital very unlikely to survive post 2015 cuts in its income, more likely to go bust than to build brand new hospital. Note the modernised health facilities is not the same as retaining a major acute hospital - Edgeware hospital is a modernised facility but it is diminished in terms of the range of care it offers.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Number crunching: Zero loss of allotments in Watford 60 allotment holders offered equivalent plots on other sites 700 families benefit from new homes 1500 people get new jobs millions of residents in West Herts get much needed modernised hospital facilities. Hmmm tough choice I don't think[/p][/quote]Kier share holders make substantial profits, 700 families have to access homes via Cardiff Road, 25% will face severe financial hardship if interest rates quadruple from 0.5 to 2.0% as mortgages become unaffordable. Hospital very unlikely to survive post 2015 cuts in its income, more likely to go bust than to build brand new hospital. Note the modernised health facilities is not the same as retaining a major acute hospital - Edgeware hospital is a modernised facility but it is diminished in terms of the range of care it offers. Andrew1963
  • Score: 6

12:29am Tue 25 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority.
The facts are clear, the reckless top down reorganisation of the NHS and in real terms cuts in its budget has put Watford General Hospital in financial turmoil, it needs to spend money it does not have to meet minimum nursing standards. If we had not built homes on all the industrial sites in the town that have been redeveloped in the last 12 years we could have provided new business premises without building on open space. Minorities and majorities in parts of the town who do not vote liberal democrat are of no concern, but if you want to provide new homes on scarce building land in Oxhey, or replace an unused registry office with offices and homes in a marginal ward like central you are not allowed to.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The facts are clear. There is an urgent need for the hospital facilities to be modernised. There is a real shortage of homes for young people and families to buy in Watford. While unemployment in Watford is relatively low, this is a popular thriving town and there is plenty of demand for more local jobs. On the other hand there is no shortage of allotments in the town, in fact supply exceeds demand and no Farm Terrace allotment holders will end up without one so long as they are willing to move. My idea of fairness is doing the best you can with our limited resources for the benefit of the majority, not pandering to the dog in the manger behaviour of a small minority.[/p][/quote]The facts are clear, the reckless top down reorganisation of the NHS and in real terms cuts in its budget has put Watford General Hospital in financial turmoil, it needs to spend money it does not have to meet minimum nursing standards. If we had not built homes on all the industrial sites in the town that have been redeveloped in the last 12 years we could have provided new business premises without building on open space. Minorities and majorities in parts of the town who do not vote liberal democrat are of no concern, but if you want to provide new homes on scarce building land in Oxhey, or replace an unused registry office with offices and homes in a marginal ward like central you are not allowed to. Andrew1963
  • Score: 7

12:42am Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
BTW it should be re-iterated. The Farm Terrace allotment holders want to keep their allotments but if there was no other way they would sacrifice their allotments for a new hospital.

I think that is what would be expected of anyone who cares about Watford. Well done to SJT and the allotment holders for being so reasonable.

Where it gets murky is that Dotty first said she would keep the allotments, then she decided to build on them and said they were essential for the new hospital. The allotment holders took a lot of flak from the Dotty supporters who smeared them as being against having a new hospital.

Now the truth is out, there is no new hospital. There is not even a whiff of a new hospital in the future. Nothing at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip!

So now it is just a housing development and the greedy Mayor still wants the allotments!

The allotment holders are standing up for what is right. They are fighting this blatant and in all probability illegal land grab.

The Mayor and her LibDem party are trying to railroad through a development scheme that is ill-thought through and premature. It is greed and stupidity driving this development and Watford deserves better.

Dotty has to go. She does not deserve to have another term after this deception.

She has simply been there so long she has become arrogant and detached. Watford, as I said before, deserves better. Far better.
Looks like you are hedging your bets there a bit, looks like backtracking to me, It is not beyond the wisdom of the developers and planers to make a viable housing and commercial development without the allotment land, they could even improve the hospital and the like without the allotments, although they show little interest in this. A bit of scaremongering from Dorothy Thornhill and all of a sudden you start jllyfying.
I suggest you research the subject of political backbone you might need one if you aspire to be Mayor
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: BTW it should be re-iterated. The Farm Terrace allotment holders want to keep their allotments but if there was no other way they would sacrifice their allotments for a new hospital. I think that is what would be expected of anyone who cares about Watford. Well done to SJT and the allotment holders for being so reasonable. Where it gets murky is that Dotty first said she would keep the allotments, then she decided to build on them and said they were essential for the new hospital. The allotment holders took a lot of flak from the Dotty supporters who smeared them as being against having a new hospital. Now the truth is out, there is no new hospital. There is not even a whiff of a new hospital in the future. Nothing at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip! So now it is just a housing development and the greedy Mayor still wants the allotments! The allotment holders are standing up for what is right. They are fighting this blatant and in all probability illegal land grab. The Mayor and her LibDem party are trying to railroad through a development scheme that is ill-thought through and premature. It is greed and stupidity driving this development and Watford deserves better. Dotty has to go. She does not deserve to have another term after this deception. She has simply been there so long she has become arrogant and detached. Watford, as I said before, deserves better. Far better.[/p][/quote]Looks like you are hedging your bets there a bit, looks like backtracking to me, It is not beyond the wisdom of the developers and planers to make a viable housing and commercial development without the allotment land, they could even improve the hospital and the like without the allotments, although they show little interest in this. A bit of scaremongering from Dorothy Thornhill and all of a sudden you start jllyfying. I suggest you research the subject of political backbone you might need one if you aspire to be Mayor ancientandageing
  • Score: 5

12:51am Tue 25 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

Objectively speaking, there is an amount of undeveloped, principally brownfield, land in the area, which could possibly be developed to the overall benefit of Watford residents. This could be done without impacting either upon allotment holders or upon the future of the hospital.
People raise good questions about affordable homes and key social workers' access to them. I attended a development control committee meeting in Watford Town Hall where it was claimed that the developers of the Metro housing complex - next to Watford Met Station - had been unable to evince any interest from key social workers - such as fire, police and other emergency workers or teachers - in purchasing any of the units on offer at affordable prices. The committee therefore removed the requirement for socially affordable housing from the planning permission previously granted for the project, presumably meaning that the developer was able to charge much higher prices for the same units.
I am not trying to make a political point but I simply do not trust any developers - including Keir. To be fair, their goal is crystal clear: to maximize the return on any investment they make, regardless of the true cost - what economists refer to as negative externalities - to others.
The most recent estimate for this proposed housing development is 750 units. Is this strictly necessary? A lesser development will, of course, yield less returns for all the partners involved but it might result in a development which is broadly acceptable to everyone, leaving the allotmenteers free to continue tending their plots and allowing the hospital space to expand their operations whenever they are able to find the finances for it - which could some years in the future. It might even be possible to accommodate the need for a football club car park by exchanging some of the existing allotment land for land currently lying undeveloped in the area, subject to appropriate compensation to the former allotment holders in fresh plots and/or money payments.
Most importantly, building on and cementing over flood plain must strike everyone as plainly irresponsible and liable to cause acute problems for local homeowners in future. We came very close to massive flooding in the Watford area at the beginning of this year. Cementing and tarmacing over every square inch of remaining land in West Watford can only make that threat greater and just a matter of time before it turns Watford into a disaster zone along the lines of the Somerset Levels.
Objectively speaking, there is an amount of undeveloped, principally brownfield, land in the area, which could possibly be developed to the overall benefit of Watford residents. This could be done without impacting either upon allotment holders or upon the future of the hospital. People raise good questions about affordable homes and key social workers' access to them. I attended a development control committee meeting in Watford Town Hall where it was claimed that the developers of the Metro housing complex - next to Watford Met Station - had been unable to evince any interest from key social workers - such as fire, police and other emergency workers or teachers - in purchasing any of the units on offer at affordable prices. The committee therefore removed the requirement for socially affordable housing from the planning permission previously granted for the project, presumably meaning that the developer was able to charge much higher prices for the same units. I am not trying to make a political point but I simply do not trust any developers - including Keir. To be fair, their goal is crystal clear: to maximize the return on any investment they make, regardless of the true cost - what economists refer to as negative externalities - to others. The most recent estimate for this proposed housing development is 750 units. Is this strictly necessary? A lesser development will, of course, yield less returns for all the partners involved but it might result in a development which is broadly acceptable to everyone, leaving the allotmenteers free to continue tending their plots and allowing the hospital space to expand their operations whenever they are able to find the finances for it - which could some years in the future. It might even be possible to accommodate the need for a football club car park by exchanging some of the existing allotment land for land currently lying undeveloped in the area, subject to appropriate compensation to the former allotment holders in fresh plots and/or money payments. Most importantly, building on and cementing over flood plain must strike everyone as plainly irresponsible and liable to cause acute problems for local homeowners in future. We came very close to massive flooding in the Watford area at the beginning of this year. Cementing and tarmacing over every square inch of remaining land in West Watford can only make that threat greater and just a matter of time before it turns Watford into a disaster zone along the lines of the Somerset Levels. John Dowdle
  • Score: 15

6:14am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
phil mitchel wrote:
'I think she is talking about the affordable homes'
Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home.
No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.
I think an affordable home is £600,000 if you're a middle aged couple and about £81,000 if you're a nurse, newly qualified teacher or if you rent about £14,000 a year. I am not sure why the Mayor would put out this press statement, unless she was attempting to stop the argument going to court, because she believes either delay to the scheme will result in it falling apart or her legal team have expressed doubts about the certainty of the outcome.
Could it be she is worried about losing her job and not getting this stitched up before she is out on her ear?

I hope so.

Ukip have been very clear - we will put a stop to this development until the health aspect has been clarified - this will make sure there is room left for a new hospital that the people of Watford desperately want..
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: 'I think she is talking about the affordable homes' Affordable homes, that's an interesting term. What constitutes an affordable home? and to whom is it affordable? is it affordable to someone working on the minimum wage? and what of those that aren't affordable, are they by term and definition un-affordable? if so why build them? Affordable homes is a term used in this instance to kid the electorate into thinking they're doing everyone a good turn. What I really want to know is how much do you need to earn to be able to afford an affordable home. No doubt she's desperate to leave the new hospital as part of her legacy before she jumps ship and tries to get elected to Westminster.[/p][/quote]I think an affordable home is £600,000 if you're a middle aged couple and about £81,000 if you're a nurse, newly qualified teacher or if you rent about £14,000 a year. I am not sure why the Mayor would put out this press statement, unless she was attempting to stop the argument going to court, because she believes either delay to the scheme will result in it falling apart or her legal team have expressed doubts about the certainty of the outcome.[/p][/quote]Could it be she is worried about losing her job and not getting this stitched up before she is out on her ear? I hope so. Ukip have been very clear - we will put a stop to this development until the health aspect has been clarified - this will make sure there is room left for a new hospital that the people of Watford desperately want.. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

8:23am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
http://metapolls.net

/category/europe/eur

oelections-2014/unit

ed-kingdom-euroelect

ions-2014/


UKIP cant even win the Euro election, considering they are a two issue party, i.e. anti Europe and anti immigrants, it does not bode well in the general election.

Im sure Farage will keep his euro seat and pick up his massive wage and im sure that is all he cares about.
Off topic.

Ukip are pro-UK.

Ukip are not anti-Europe, we are anti-EU. That's an entirely different thing. We believe we are better placed to make our own laws and policies in the UK by UK politicians elected in the UK.

We believe the EU has no place in ruling the UK. The UK should become fully independent once again and trade with European countries and other countries of the world.

I have been in touch with the LibDem President Tim Farron. He as much as admitted that 3.5 million jobs are not at risk if we leave the EU. Basically the LibDems are lying over such claims and they not only know that, they are quite happy scaremongering to frighten people into not leaving the EU. It's dishonest. It's LibDem dirty tricks time. Again.

Ukip are not anti-immigration. We simply believe that immigration needs to be controlled.

We believe that immigration to the UK is out of control and is not sustainable. We believe in managing immigration. Every other civilised country outside the EU agrees with us. They all manage immigration and for good reason. Ukip would do the same as Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. It would have immigration but it would be managed, limited to manageable amounts and planned for.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: http://metapolls.net /category/europe/eur oelections-2014/unit ed-kingdom-euroelect ions-2014/ UKIP cant even win the Euro election, considering they are a two issue party, i.e. anti Europe and anti immigrants, it does not bode well in the general election. Im sure Farage will keep his euro seat and pick up his massive wage and im sure that is all he cares about.[/p][/quote]Off topic. Ukip are pro-UK. Ukip are not anti-Europe, we are anti-EU. That's an entirely different thing. We believe we are better placed to make our own laws and policies in the UK by UK politicians elected in the UK. We believe the EU has no place in ruling the UK. The UK should become fully independent once again and trade with European countries and other countries of the world. I have been in touch with the LibDem President Tim Farron. He as much as admitted that 3.5 million jobs are not at risk if we leave the EU. Basically the LibDems are lying over such claims and they not only know that, they are quite happy scaremongering to frighten people into not leaving the EU. It's dishonest. It's LibDem dirty tricks time. Again. Ukip are not anti-immigration. We simply believe that immigration needs to be controlled. We believe that immigration to the UK is out of control and is not sustainable. We believe in managing immigration. Every other civilised country outside the EU agrees with us. They all manage immigration and for good reason. Ukip would do the same as Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. It would have immigration but it would be managed, limited to manageable amounts and planned for. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

8:27am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

As for the Euro elections, a vote for Ukip is a vote to leave the EU.

A vote for any other party is a vote for more EU.

I still believe Ukip will win the elections. The choice is simple and everyone but the politicians of LibLabCon recognise the majority in this country are very concerned about the influence of the EU and the lies told by the LibDems and others to keep us in.

The UK would be so much better off out. In every way.
As for the Euro elections, a vote for Ukip is a vote to leave the EU. A vote for any other party is a vote for more EU. I still believe Ukip will win the elections. The choice is simple and everyone but the politicians of LibLabCon recognise the majority in this country are very concerned about the influence of the EU and the lies told by the LibDems and others to keep us in. The UK would be so much better off out. In every way. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -9

8:34am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated.

Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present.

We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP.

The best way to do that is to vote them out.
It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated. Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present. We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP. The best way to do that is to vote them out. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

8:37am Tue 25 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated.

Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present.

We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP.

The best way to do that is to vote them out.
Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up?

If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money?

Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument.

You really do come across as a political chancer.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated. Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present. We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP. The best way to do that is to vote them out.[/p][/quote]Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up? If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money? Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument. You really do come across as a political chancer. yellow hornet
  • Score: 3

8:48am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Chancer?

Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal?

There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take.

Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots.

A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves.

I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens.

The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget.

A Ukip council would operate within budget.

A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget.

It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor.

Watford deserves better.
Chancer? Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal? There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots. A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves. I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens. The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget. A Ukip council would operate within budget. A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget. It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor. Watford deserves better. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

8:52am Tue 25 Mar 14

MJ1 says...

Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject. MJ1
  • Score: 11

9:00am Tue 25 Mar 14

MJ1 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I am in favour of making housing affordable.

I am not in favour of building on allotments.

I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one.

I am in favour of honesty and openness.


I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.
Another opportunistic U-turn by UKIP. Last month UKIP announced that they were in favour of bulding a new hospital 'nearer Hemel and St. Albans' and closing Watford Hospital. Then UKIP back tracked and called for a 'Review' of the hospital location. Now the UKIP candidate says he is favour of a new hospital in Watfoprd. No doubt the UKIP candidate for Hemel is saying he (it will be a he) wants a new hospital in Hemel and likewise in St Albans.

UKIP are just a rag bag of opportunists and populists. They will no doubt be campaigning for Britain out of Europe and Watford Hospital out of Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I am in favour of making housing affordable. I am not in favour of building on allotments. I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one. I am in favour of honesty and openness. I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.[/p][/quote]Another opportunistic U-turn by UKIP. Last month UKIP announced that they were in favour of bulding a new hospital 'nearer Hemel and St. Albans' and closing Watford Hospital. Then UKIP back tracked and called for a 'Review' of the hospital location. Now the UKIP candidate says he is favour of a new hospital in Watfoprd. No doubt the UKIP candidate for Hemel is saying he (it will be a he) wants a new hospital in Hemel and likewise in St Albans. UKIP are just a rag bag of opportunists and populists. They will no doubt be campaigning for Britain out of Europe and Watford Hospital out of Watford. MJ1
  • Score: 7

9:05am Tue 25 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Yes to me a "political" chancer is someone who spends most of his time commenting on here rather than producing what he promised-his manifesto.

Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

I believe your actions of commenting on every story on here and not producing a manifesto as promised is the action of a "political" chancer.
Yes to me a "political" chancer is someone who spends most of his time commenting on here rather than producing what he promised-his manifesto. Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. I believe your actions of commenting on every story on here and not producing a manifesto as promised is the action of a "political" chancer. yellow hornet
  • Score: 6

9:09am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Well said.

As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power.

It really is time for a change.

She has to go.
[quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]Well said. As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power. It really is time for a change. She has to go. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

9:18am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

MJ1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I am in favour of making housing affordable.

I am not in favour of building on allotments.

I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one.

I am in favour of honesty and openness.


I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.
Another opportunistic U-turn by UKIP. Last month UKIP announced that they were in favour of bulding a new hospital 'nearer Hemel and St. Albans' and closing Watford Hospital. Then UKIP back tracked and called for a 'Review' of the hospital location. Now the UKIP candidate says he is favour of a new hospital in Watfoprd. No doubt the UKIP candidate for Hemel is saying he (it will be a he) wants a new hospital in Hemel and likewise in St Albans.

UKIP are just a rag bag of opportunists and populists. They will no doubt be campaigning for Britain out of Europe and Watford Hospital out of Watford.
We have not changed our position at all. We have said all along that we are in favour of keeping the hospital in Watford and if possible building a new one on the land behind the current hospital.

There was a little confusion in the original WO article which was cleared up last week by a further article clarifying our position.

We also said however that this new hospital, if it ever happens, will be serving three towns instead of just one and so it is only common sense to investigate whether it is feasible to keep it in west watford. If it is, fine, we will keep it there.

If it is not feasible then we would have to consider other locations. It's not just Ukip, all parties would have to do the same.

My gut feeling is that a new hospital would go on the Health Campus land provided the LibDems have not built over the site first.

That has been our position since we first drafted our manifesto in December, it remains our position and will remain our position on the hospital redevelopment.

There has been and will be no U-turn on the hospital by Ukip.
[quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I am in favour of making housing affordable. I am not in favour of building on allotments. I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one. I am in favour of honesty and openness. I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.[/p][/quote]Another opportunistic U-turn by UKIP. Last month UKIP announced that they were in favour of bulding a new hospital 'nearer Hemel and St. Albans' and closing Watford Hospital. Then UKIP back tracked and called for a 'Review' of the hospital location. Now the UKIP candidate says he is favour of a new hospital in Watfoprd. No doubt the UKIP candidate for Hemel is saying he (it will be a he) wants a new hospital in Hemel and likewise in St Albans. UKIP are just a rag bag of opportunists and populists. They will no doubt be campaigning for Britain out of Europe and Watford Hospital out of Watford.[/p][/quote]We have not changed our position at all. We have said all along that we are in favour of keeping the hospital in Watford and if possible building a new one on the land behind the current hospital. There was a little confusion in the original WO article which was cleared up last week by a further article clarifying our position. We also said however that this new hospital, if it ever happens, will be serving three towns instead of just one and so it is only common sense to investigate whether it is feasible to keep it in west watford. If it is, fine, we will keep it there. If it is not feasible then we would have to consider other locations. It's not just Ukip, all parties would have to do the same. My gut feeling is that a new hospital would go on the Health Campus land provided the LibDems have not built over the site first. That has been our position since we first drafted our manifesto in December, it remains our position and will remain our position on the hospital redevelopment. There has been and will be no U-turn on the hospital by Ukip. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

9:28am Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
indeed

Don't Kid Yourself Nice mr phil cox is the solution
UKIP's flip floping on local issues, local media manipulation and local candidate Quoting Enoch Powell is not the best of answers.
[quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]indeed Don't Kid Yourself Nice mr phil cox is the solution UKIP's flip floping on local issues, local media manipulation and local candidate Quoting Enoch Powell is not the best of answers. ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

9:35am Tue 25 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated.

Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present.

We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP.

The best way to do that is to vote them out.
Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up?

If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money?

Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument.

You really do come across as a political chancer.
'You really do come across as a political chancer'.

What manifesto are you signed up to now?

You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person.

Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks?

What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc?

I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated. Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present. We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP. The best way to do that is to vote them out.[/p][/quote]Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up? If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money? Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument. You really do come across as a political chancer.[/p][/quote]'You really do come across as a political chancer'. What manifesto are you signed up to now? You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person. Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks? What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc? I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies. Cuetip
  • Score: -39

10:20am Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

My understanding is that there will be new health facilities on the Health Campus, and they will be advertised alongside the Adverts for St Hideous prep school in INTU, the rest of us can go in the third rate clinics they are about to set up in the old workhouse.
My understanding is that there will be new health facilities on the Health Campus, and they will be advertised alongside the Adverts for St Hideous prep school in INTU, the rest of us can go in the third rate clinics they are about to set up in the old workhouse. ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

10:33am Tue 25 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated.

Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present.

We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP.

The best way to do that is to vote them out.
Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up?

If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money?

Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument.

You really do come across as a political chancer.
'You really do come across as a political chancer'.

What manifesto are you signed up to now?

You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person.

Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks?

What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc?

I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies.
It seems pointless engaging with you because you seem to be against everything and everyone.

Instead of your constant negativity what is your answer to the questions you pose?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated. Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present. We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP. The best way to do that is to vote them out.[/p][/quote]Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up? If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money? Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument. You really do come across as a political chancer.[/p][/quote]'You really do come across as a political chancer'. What manifesto are you signed up to now? You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person. Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks? What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc? I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies.[/p][/quote]It seems pointless engaging with you because you seem to be against everything and everyone. Instead of your constant negativity what is your answer to the questions you pose? yellow hornet
  • Score: 11

11:00am Tue 25 Mar 14

lilliom says...

A allotment land should never be a surplus or an easy way out to produce cash flow or some private type of partnership, but valued for its benefits of growing produces.
A allotment land should never be a surplus or an easy way out to produce cash flow or some private type of partnership, but valued for its benefits of growing produces. lilliom
  • Score: 10

11:05am Tue 25 Mar 14

lilliom says...

p.s to the Mayor Dorothy, please stop degrading what we represent, we're plot holders, we work hard to tend our plots. It shows a clear lack of understanding of what a plot holder is. Digging it for the future!
p.s to the Mayor Dorothy, please stop degrading what we represent, we're plot holders, we work hard to tend our plots. It shows a clear lack of understanding of what a plot holder is. Digging it for the future! lilliom
  • Score: 11

11:23am Tue 25 Mar 14

Boosey says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Well said.

As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power.

It really is time for a change.

She has to go.
Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]Well said. As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power. It really is time for a change. She has to go.[/p][/quote]Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It! Boosey
  • Score: 8

11:31am Tue 25 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Chancer?

Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal?

There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take.

Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots.

A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves.

I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens.

The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget.

A Ukip council would operate within budget.

A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget.

It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor.

Watford deserves better.
Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Chancer? Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal? There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots. A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves. I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens. The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget. A Ukip council would operate within budget. A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget. It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor. Watford deserves better.[/p][/quote]Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 5

11:51am Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Boosey wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Well said.

As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power.

It really is time for a change.

She has to go.
Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It!
Boosey,

it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all.

For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford.

To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role.

The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that.

For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate.
The wage, as I have said before, seems about right.

The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up.

Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill.

A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor.

It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford.

Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you.
[quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]Well said. As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power. It really is time for a change. She has to go.[/p][/quote]Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It![/p][/quote]Boosey, it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all. For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford. To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role. The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that. For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate. The wage, as I have said before, seems about right. The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up. Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill. A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor. It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford. Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -9

12:01pm Tue 25 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

What I have yet to see with regard to this proposed development is any kind of environmental impact assessment, particularly with regard to the natural and built environment.
What will be the effect of this proposed development on local roads and traffic patterns throughout Western and Central Watford - and elsewhere?
What will the effect be on flooding impacts throughout not just Watford but also Bushey and Croxley?
Are Hertsmere and Three Rivers District Councils, as well as Hertfordshire County Council being consulted on this proposed development?
What mitigation effects have any of these other local bodies requested?
Does anyone have any idea on these points?
Let us all bear in mind that this proposed development is extremely substantial. As well as 750 residential units (for now), the site is scheduled to have a football club car park, an alleged extension for the hospital, a school, a health campus (details of which are sketchy, if not downright non-existent), and a number of other community and commercial developments.
I do not oppose sensible development of the site, as long as it meets the broad needs of a number of objectives, but I cannot help but feel that what is being proposed represents site-cramming and an attempted over-development of the site. I may be wrong about this and I will be happy to see more detailed plans and environmental impact assessments but - to date - I have seen very little of that detail so far. Why is this?
It is not good enough to work up "indicative" plans and then expects everyone to fall in line with whatever takes shape in the future.
As local residents, we will all have to live with the long-term consequences of this proposed development long after many of the elected representatives, council officers and developers have left town.
If they mess up, they do not end up living with long-term consequences of poorly planned developments but us remaining loyal local citizens.
One aspect that has occurred to me by way of a unique selling point (USP) is that the proximity of the hospital could be a major selling point if the accommodation being proposed for the area was for elderly people.
They would be less likely to own and want to operate cars (a car pooling scheme could perhaps be organised for them?) and they would have the hospital on their door step.
With an increasingly greying community in Watford and elsewhere, there is a definite need for smaller scale accommodation for older people, who would be able to down-size their existing homes - thus freeing them up for families - while providing them with smaller and more appropriate homes.
The overall development may end up with fewer residential units but they should - instead - be of much higher quality instead. Why not?
What I have yet to see with regard to this proposed development is any kind of environmental impact assessment, particularly with regard to the natural and built environment. What will be the effect of this proposed development on local roads and traffic patterns throughout Western and Central Watford - and elsewhere? What will the effect be on flooding impacts throughout not just Watford but also Bushey and Croxley? Are Hertsmere and Three Rivers District Councils, as well as Hertfordshire County Council being consulted on this proposed development? What mitigation effects have any of these other local bodies requested? Does anyone have any idea on these points? Let us all bear in mind that this proposed development is extremely substantial. As well as 750 residential units (for now), the site is scheduled to have a football club car park, an alleged extension for the hospital, a school, a health campus (details of which are sketchy, if not downright non-existent), and a number of other community and commercial developments. I do not oppose sensible development of the site, as long as it meets the broad needs of a number of objectives, but I cannot help but feel that what is being proposed represents site-cramming and an attempted over-development of the site. I may be wrong about this and I will be happy to see more detailed plans and environmental impact assessments but - to date - I have seen very little of that detail so far. Why is this? It is not good enough to work up "indicative" plans and then expects everyone to fall in line with whatever takes shape in the future. As local residents, we will all have to live with the long-term consequences of this proposed development long after many of the elected representatives, council officers and developers have left town. If they mess up, they do not end up living with long-term consequences of poorly planned developments but us remaining loyal local citizens. One aspect that has occurred to me by way of a unique selling point (USP) is that the proximity of the hospital could be a major selling point if the accommodation being proposed for the area was for elderly people. They would be less likely to own and want to operate cars (a car pooling scheme could perhaps be organised for them?) and they would have the hospital on their door step. With an increasingly greying community in Watford and elsewhere, there is a definite need for smaller scale accommodation for older people, who would be able to down-size their existing homes - thus freeing them up for families - while providing them with smaller and more appropriate homes. The overall development may end up with fewer residential units but they should - instead - be of much higher quality instead. Why not? John Dowdle
  • Score: 13

12:02pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Chancer?

Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal?

There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take.

Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots.

A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves.

I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens.

The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget.

A Ukip council would operate within budget.

A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget.

It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor.

Watford deserves better.
Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected.
People have seen what a LibDem council does with the Health Campus debacle.

The best thing I have heard anyone say about the LibDems when out canvassing is that they are better than Labour who preceded them. Some accolade. At least they're not as bad as someone else!

Some people think the LibDems are doing ok. Many others have had dealings with the LibDems and know how they treat people, the people that pay their wages. It is those people who are looking for a change and those people who will vote Ukip to remove her from power and put someone in who knows how to run a business efficiently with a real commitment to customer service - a concept the LibDems do not seem to understand at all.

The LibDems time in Watford is drawing to a close. Ukips time is coming.

That's why Ukip has the best chance of unseating Mayor Thornhill.

Vote Ukip, get a Ukip Mayor and we can stop the madness of this land grab and save SJT the cost of a court case.

We might even be able to reserve a site fit for a shiny new hospital if ever the government agrees to build one in Watford, which for all the huffing and puffing by Richard Harrington is not even on the horizon.

The Conservatives have failed Watford on the hospital, the LibDems have failed Watford on the hospital and the people of Watford should not let them forget it when it comes to election time.

Vote Ukip. We will not let you down.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Chancer? Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal? There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots. A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves. I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens. The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget. A Ukip council would operate within budget. A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget. It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor. Watford deserves better.[/p][/quote]Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected.[/p][/quote]People have seen what a LibDem council does with the Health Campus debacle. The best thing I have heard anyone say about the LibDems when out canvassing is that they are better than Labour who preceded them. Some accolade. At least they're not as bad as someone else! Some people think the LibDems are doing ok. Many others have had dealings with the LibDems and know how they treat people, the people that pay their wages. It is those people who are looking for a change and those people who will vote Ukip to remove her from power and put someone in who knows how to run a business efficiently with a real commitment to customer service - a concept the LibDems do not seem to understand at all. The LibDems time in Watford is drawing to a close. Ukips time is coming. That's why Ukip has the best chance of unseating Mayor Thornhill. Vote Ukip, get a Ukip Mayor and we can stop the madness of this land grab and save SJT the cost of a court case. We might even be able to reserve a site fit for a shiny new hospital if ever the government agrees to build one in Watford, which for all the huffing and puffing by Richard Harrington is not even on the horizon. The Conservatives have failed Watford on the hospital, the LibDems have failed Watford on the hospital and the people of Watford should not let them forget it when it comes to election time. Vote Ukip. We will not let you down. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -8

12:52pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Chancer?

Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal?

There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take.

Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots.

A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves.

I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens.

The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget.

A Ukip council would operate within budget.

A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget.

It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor.

Watford deserves better.
Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected.
People have seen what a LibDem council does with the Health Campus debacle.

The best thing I have heard anyone say about the LibDems when out canvassing is that they are better than Labour who preceded them. Some accolade. At least they're not as bad as someone else!

Some people think the LibDems are doing ok. Many others have had dealings with the LibDems and know how they treat people, the people that pay their wages. It is those people who are looking for a change and those people who will vote Ukip to remove her from power and put someone in who knows how to run a business efficiently with a real commitment to customer service - a concept the LibDems do not seem to understand at all.

The LibDems time in Watford is drawing to a close. Ukips time is coming.

That's why Ukip has the best chance of unseating Mayor Thornhill.

Vote Ukip, get a Ukip Mayor and we can stop the madness of this land grab and save SJT the cost of a court case.

We might even be able to reserve a site fit for a shiny new hospital if ever the government agrees to build one in Watford, which for all the huffing and puffing by Richard Harrington is not even on the horizon.

The Conservatives have failed Watford on the hospital, the LibDems have failed Watford on the hospital and the people of Watford should not let them forget it when it comes to election time.

Vote Ukip. We will not let you down.
You already have on the Manifesto haven't you!!!

Now Locally it is mathematically impossible for UKIP to get control of the council, they probably won't even get one cllr, as such a UKIP Mayor would just be a Eunoch riding the Gravy train.

The real alternatives are Libdem and Labour in the upcoming election, ALabour Mayour with say 10 or 11 cllrs would be really able to scrutinize things and look to getting a majority, no other paty is close. Alternatively it is a matter of building for the future with other party's.
As I said even with Labour this is probably the case, getting u pto 16 seats is probably out of their reach this year, but 2015 could see a change. The choice is yours.

Now as for scaremongering about Labour in the last century or what might happen if they don't build on the allotments do you see a pattern??

A word of caution thou with UKIP as well as not saying what they stand for away from the likable Farrage persona their candidates can be a bit odd, one of them, David Penn, Recently Quoted Enoch Powell on the irrelevant issue of motorcycle helmet exceptions for Sikhs, you may remember this as a cause the BNP and before them the NF championed. I think the term is Racist Dogwhistle.

Also it is worth noting that this was in the UKIP Daily a publication which advocates manipulating local media such as this in order to put the UKIP Message across.

Failure to deliver and dodgy policies thats UKIP
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Chancer? Surely by your definition that refers to a Mayor who has set her budget based on future planning gain that may not materialise because the scheme may be illegal? There is no lost money. You can't lose something you never had. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Relying on a future windfall to run the council is the budgeting strategy of idiots. A council must operate within its budget and may draw on or pay into reserves. I would like to see this council run efficiently and within budget. As Mayor I will make sure that happens. The town council should not rely on funds coming from selling off more and more of the town for development. It should simply learn to live within budget. A Ukip council would operate within budget. A Ukip council would not need to mislead the people to run within budget. It really is time to get rid of this tired council and tired Mayor. Watford deserves better.[/p][/quote]Cox isn't a 'chancer', he's a 'hasn't got a chancer'. UKIP's record in Watford elections is pitiful. It's easy to promise the world when you haven't a chance of having to live up to your promises. The odds on Cox taking over from Mayor Thornhill are infinitesimal, and if by some freak of chance he got in, the chance of his being able to deliver any of his promises is even smaller. Don't waste your precious vote on UKIP, find a party with policies you can believe in and a reasonable chance of delivering them when elected.[/p][/quote]People have seen what a LibDem council does with the Health Campus debacle. The best thing I have heard anyone say about the LibDems when out canvassing is that they are better than Labour who preceded them. Some accolade. At least they're not as bad as someone else! Some people think the LibDems are doing ok. Many others have had dealings with the LibDems and know how they treat people, the people that pay their wages. It is those people who are looking for a change and those people who will vote Ukip to remove her from power and put someone in who knows how to run a business efficiently with a real commitment to customer service - a concept the LibDems do not seem to understand at all. The LibDems time in Watford is drawing to a close. Ukips time is coming. That's why Ukip has the best chance of unseating Mayor Thornhill. Vote Ukip, get a Ukip Mayor and we can stop the madness of this land grab and save SJT the cost of a court case. We might even be able to reserve a site fit for a shiny new hospital if ever the government agrees to build one in Watford, which for all the huffing and puffing by Richard Harrington is not even on the horizon. The Conservatives have failed Watford on the hospital, the LibDems have failed Watford on the hospital and the people of Watford should not let them forget it when it comes to election time. Vote Ukip. We will not let you down.[/p][/quote]You already have on the Manifesto haven't you!!! Now Locally it is mathematically impossible for UKIP to get control of the council, they probably won't even get one cllr, as such a UKIP Mayor would just be a Eunoch riding the Gravy train. The real alternatives are Libdem and Labour in the upcoming election, ALabour Mayour with say 10 or 11 cllrs would be really able to scrutinize things and look to getting a majority, no other paty is close. Alternatively it is a matter of building for the future with other party's. As I said even with Labour this is probably the case, getting u pto 16 seats is probably out of their reach this year, but 2015 could see a change. The choice is yours. Now as for scaremongering about Labour in the last century or what might happen if they don't build on the allotments do you see a pattern?? A word of caution thou with UKIP as well as not saying what they stand for away from the likable Farrage persona their candidates can be a bit odd, one of them, David Penn, Recently Quoted Enoch Powell on the irrelevant issue of motorcycle helmet exceptions for Sikhs, you may remember this as a cause the BNP and before them the NF championed. I think the term is Racist Dogwhistle. Also it is worth noting that this was in the UKIP Daily a publication which advocates manipulating local media such as this in order to put the UKIP Message across. Failure to deliver and dodgy policies thats UKIP ancientandageing
  • Score: 10

12:58pm Tue 25 Mar 14

lilliom says...

By 2050 " all the necessities of food, feed, fiber, and fuel are going to be met by less than one-tenth of an acre per person, on average. And we already have seriously degraded a lot of the available land. So unless you can restore some of it you will just run out."
By 2050[...] "[...] all the necessities of food, feed, fiber, and fuel are going to be met by less than one-tenth of an acre per person, on average. And we already have seriously degraded a lot of the available land. So unless you can restore some of it you will just run out." lilliom
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

If Labour were going to win the Mayor they would have done it in 2010 or 2006. They didn't come even close. In fact they came third. They must recognise this fact.

And that was before Ukip stood in the competition taking votes from all parties. This year Ukip are standing for Mayor and in all council seats in Watford. The Conservatives on the other hand are struggling locally to appear as a credible force.

The key is in who gets the second votes.

If you want a new Mayor, vote Ukip to be sure. If you leave it to a second vote you may still end up with Mayor Thornhill on May 23rd.

A second Labour vote for anyone but Ukip will result in Thornhill being re-elected as Mayor. It's as simple as that.

A second Conservative vote for anyone but Ukip will result in Thornhill being re-elected.

If elected I will treat all parties and councillors fairly and act in an independent manner, bringing the best out of all parties in council and stopping the excesses that occur when you have a Mayor and council majority all from the same party.

Vote Ukip for a new Mayor. Vote any other party to keep Mayor Thornhill.

That's the logic of the situation and it's pretty solid.
If Labour were going to win the Mayor they would have done it in 2010 or 2006. They didn't come even close. In fact they came third. They must recognise this fact. And that was before Ukip stood in the competition taking votes from all parties. This year Ukip are standing for Mayor and in all council seats in Watford. The Conservatives on the other hand are struggling locally to appear as a credible force. The key is in who gets the second votes. If you want a new Mayor, vote Ukip to be sure. If you leave it to a second vote you may still end up with Mayor Thornhill on May 23rd. A second Labour vote for anyone but Ukip will result in Thornhill being re-elected as Mayor. It's as simple as that. A second Conservative vote for anyone but Ukip will result in Thornhill being re-elected. If elected I will treat all parties and councillors fairly and act in an independent manner, bringing the best out of all parties in council and stopping the excesses that occur when you have a Mayor and council majority all from the same party. Vote Ukip for a new Mayor. Vote any other party to keep Mayor Thornhill. That's the logic of the situation and it's pretty solid. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -15

1:52pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

@phil Cox what a crock

World of difference between fighting local elections against the background of an incumbent Gov, and opposition.

Mind you UKIP only know about not winning in Watford so might have an excuse, the situation today is that there is No Conservative cllrs and a sizable about Minority, now what position would a Tory Mayor be in if he/she had no cllrs?
What position would you be in with no Cllrs or at the very best 1 or 2?
Your party peaked last year and the electorate is increasingly seeing the real UKIP with its nasty tricks , Media manipulation, racist dogwhistles dodgy mates in Europe and Lazy MEPs with stupid ideas like getting Muslims to sign a special register of undertakings, utterly barking.
@phil Cox what a crock World of difference between fighting local elections against the background of an incumbent Gov, and opposition. Mind you UKIP only know about not winning in Watford so might have an excuse, the situation today is that there is No Conservative cllrs and a sizable about Minority, now what position would a Tory Mayor be in if he/she had no cllrs? What position would you be in with no Cllrs or at the very best 1 or 2? Your party peaked last year and the electorate is increasingly seeing the real UKIP with its nasty tricks , Media manipulation, racist dogwhistles dodgy mates in Europe and Lazy MEPs with stupid ideas like getting Muslims to sign a special register of undertakings, utterly barking. ancientandageing
  • Score: 6

2:00pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Boosey wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Well said.

As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power.

It really is time for a change.

She has to go.
Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It!
Boosey,

it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all.

For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford.

To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role.

The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that.

For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate.
The wage, as I have said before, seems about right.

The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up.

Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill.

A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor.

It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford.

Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you.
lol yeeeeea course you are not just a chancer trying to get a big salary and doing no work, a bit like Farage with his cushy EU job even though he is against the job he is elected too and doesnt ever turn up but picks up the wages and the 'expenses'.

So are you going to act like the UKIP leader or are you so very different?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]Well said. As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power. It really is time for a change. She has to go.[/p][/quote]Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It![/p][/quote]Boosey, it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all. For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford. To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role. The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that. For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate. The wage, as I have said before, seems about right. The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up. Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill. A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor. It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford. Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you.[/p][/quote]lol yeeeeea course you are not just a chancer trying to get a big salary and doing no work, a bit like Farage with his cushy EU job even though he is against the job he is elected too and doesnt ever turn up but picks up the wages and the 'expenses'. So are you going to act like the UKIP leader or are you so very different? ramage1996
  • Score: 6

2:16pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
@phil Cox what a crock

World of difference between fighting local elections against the background of an incumbent Gov, and opposition.

Mind you UKIP only know about not winning in Watford so might have an excuse, the situation today is that there is No Conservative cllrs and a sizable about Minority, now what position would a Tory Mayor be in if he/she had no cllrs?
What position would you be in with no Cllrs or at the very best 1 or 2?
Your party peaked last year and the electorate is increasingly seeing the real UKIP with its nasty tricks , Media manipulation, racist dogwhistles dodgy mates in Europe and Lazy MEPs with stupid ideas like getting Muslims to sign a special register of undertakings, utterly barking.
I don't agree with getting anyone to sign anything. For me all people are equal and all people are free. People are just people and all deserve equal respect.

We have not peaked though. Have you not seen the polls? Ukip should get a greater share of the vote in 2014 than ever before. This will be the best year yet for Ukip.

As Mayor I will be in a fantastic position to run the council efficiently and effectively. I will bring my skills to bear to get all parties working together in the interests of Watford and produce a council the whole town can be proud of.

Ukip will not have a majority so we will need to get all the parties and councillors on board a council that has only the people and town of Watford as its focus.

Imagine that - no more party politics trying to rub other peoples noses in anything, just good sound common sense that appeals to everyones better nature. Even yours.

A Ukip Mayor would be great for Watford. The alternative is more Thornhill, unless of course that's what you are campaigning for.

Ukip is the only viable alternative to the LibDems for Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox what a crock World of difference between fighting local elections against the background of an incumbent Gov, and opposition. Mind you UKIP only know about not winning in Watford so might have an excuse, the situation today is that there is No Conservative cllrs and a sizable about Minority, now what position would a Tory Mayor be in if he/she had no cllrs? What position would you be in with no Cllrs or at the very best 1 or 2? Your party peaked last year and the electorate is increasingly seeing the real UKIP with its nasty tricks , Media manipulation, racist dogwhistles dodgy mates in Europe and Lazy MEPs with stupid ideas like getting Muslims to sign a special register of undertakings, utterly barking.[/p][/quote]I don't agree with getting anyone to sign anything. For me all people are equal and all people are free. People are just people and all deserve equal respect. We have not peaked though. Have you not seen the polls? Ukip should get a greater share of the vote in 2014 than ever before. This will be the best year yet for Ukip. As Mayor I will be in a fantastic position to run the council efficiently and effectively. I will bring my skills to bear to get all parties working together in the interests of Watford and produce a council the whole town can be proud of. Ukip will not have a majority so we will need to get all the parties and councillors on board a council that has only the people and town of Watford as its focus. Imagine that - no more party politics trying to rub other peoples noses in anything, just good sound common sense that appeals to everyones better nature. Even yours. A Ukip Mayor would be great for Watford. The alternative is more Thornhill, unless of course that's what you are campaigning for. Ukip is the only viable alternative to the LibDems for Mayor. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

2:19pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Boosey wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
MJ1 wrote:
Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.
Well said.

As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power.

It really is time for a change.

She has to go.
Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It!
Boosey,

it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all.

For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford.

To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role.

The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that.

For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate.
The wage, as I have said before, seems about right.

The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up.

Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill.

A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor.

It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford.

Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you.
lol yeeeeea course you are not just a chancer trying to get a big salary and doing no work, a bit like Farage with his cushy EU job even though he is against the job he is elected too and doesnt ever turn up but picks up the wages and the 'expenses'.

So are you going to act like the UKIP leader or are you so very different?
Running a council as Mayor and being an MEP are two very different jobs.

I will be a good Mayor and will work hard, working only in the interests of the town and its people.

I will do a good job, I have the skills and determination required to turn this council into something special.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boosey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJ1[/bold] wrote: Dorothy Thornhill is scaremongering. Her arguments are fragile - since when was she elected to represent future residents of Watford rather than those of us who already live here? "I am speaking up for thousands of little Davids: The future residents of those homes". The simple fact is that she can go ahead and redevelop th Cardiff Road industrial area for housing without grabbing the allotments. Now that we know that the hospital redevelopment is years away, this is no longer a 'health campus'. It has no health element - just housing. If Keir dont want to build on old industrial land, then I am sure there will be a queue of developers that wil partner the Council to build housing on the former industrial area. The financial model (Local Asset Backed Vehicle) is designed for urgan regeneration ; it has never been used to rebuild a hospital. Building on the allotments is ONLY about increasing profits for the developer and the Council. The Lib Dems 'green credentials' are as shallow as their thinking on thgis subject.[/p][/quote]Well said. As always with this administration they only think about money and keeping themselves in power. It really is time for a change. She has to go.[/p][/quote]Would you still be interested in the mayor's position if it only paid the national minimum wage? Doubt It![/p][/quote]Boosey, it seems to me you think I am trying to be Mayor for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is not a driver at all. For some candidates skill set that wage might be too high, for others too low. Unfortunately you don't get to interview for Mayor and set a salary according to the candidates abilities. Whoever wins gets the same wage, whether they know what they are doing or not. You just have to hope you get someone worth the money who can do a good job for Watford. To get a good Mayor, one with the skills to make a success of the role and do good things for Watford then you should expect to pay a wage that reflects that role. The minimum wage would not reflect the responsibilities of the position and I think everyone accepts that. For £65,000 per year you may be able to attract the right sort of candidate. The wage, as I have said before, seems about right. The wrong sort of candidate is the one who would do it for the money it brings in. I am not that sort of candidate. I will manage financially very well thank you without that role, but I would like to do it as I believe Mayor Thornhill is no longer doing a good job. Her distortions of the facts, her arrogance and her bullying manner are now exposed for all to see. Her time is up. Watford deserves better than Mayor Thornhill. A businessman who is known to his customers for providing a good service, for getting the job done at a good price, one known for seeking out value for money should be just the ticket. That's why I am standing for Mayor. It's up to you if you vote for me, first or second vote - preferably first, but if you don't then it is very likely you are going to wake up on May 23rd with Dorothy Thornhill still your Mayor. Ukip is the major challenger to the LibDems in Watford. Vote Ukip, get a new Mayor. It's up to you.[/p][/quote]lol yeeeeea course you are not just a chancer trying to get a big salary and doing no work, a bit like Farage with his cushy EU job even though he is against the job he is elected too and doesnt ever turn up but picks up the wages and the 'expenses'. So are you going to act like the UKIP leader or are you so very different?[/p][/quote]Running a council as Mayor and being an MEP are two very different jobs. I will be a good Mayor and will work hard, working only in the interests of the town and its people. I will do a good job, I have the skills and determination required to turn this council into something special. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

2:23pm Tue 25 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

Can commenters please restrict their remarks to the subject of the article, i.e. the legal challenge to the proposed development?
The unnecessary petty party political comments add nothing to any form of understanding or intelligent analysis relating to the principal issue at hand.
Can commenters please restrict their remarks to the subject of the article, i.e. the legal challenge to the proposed development? The unnecessary petty party political comments add nothing to any form of understanding or intelligent analysis relating to the principal issue at hand. John Dowdle
  • Score: 15

3:07pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Fair comment John.

Let's stay on track.

Mayor Thornhill, backed by an unbeatable majority in council allows this sort of abuse of power.

I hope these elections result in her not only losing her job but also to the council being under no overall control.
Fair comment John. Let's stay on track. Mayor Thornhill, backed by an unbeatable majority in council allows this sort of abuse of power. I hope these elections result in her not only losing her job but also to the council being under no overall control. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

3:24pm Tue 25 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

Phil: please give it a rest.
There are only 5 weeks between now and election day, yet every day I see multiple postings by you on the Watford Observer web site. This will not get you elected. In my part of central Watford, I have not seen anything from you or UKIP for months.
If you and UKIP want to be effective politically, you need to be getting out and talking to people at their homes and on their doorsteps, as well as delivering political literature.
If you are serious about supporting the Allotment Farms Terrace Group, then let us know what you and UKIP are doing locally to support them.
Are you and UKIP Watford organising fund-raising events to help them meet the legal costs of their court actions? If not, why not?
Talk is cheap; action costs - and so does fund-raising. Get on with it.
According to the most recent BBC Poll Tracker data, UKIP is nationally on around 13 per cent support - slightly above the Lib Dems. If you think solely relying upon this slender difference will get you and other UKIP candidates elected - think again. Labour and the Conservatives nationally stand at around 35 per cent support each.
Do you really think posting comments all and every day will overcome this?
You have to be out and actively campaigning before people take you and your UKIP colleagues seriously enough to want to vote for you and them.
Please stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your pointless party political postings - they are really becoming most irritating to others.
Phil: please give it a rest. There are only 5 weeks between now and election day, yet every day I see multiple postings by you on the Watford Observer web site. This will not get you elected. In my part of central Watford, I have not seen anything from you or UKIP for months. If you and UKIP want to be effective politically, you need to be getting out and talking to people at their homes and on their doorsteps, as well as delivering political literature. If you are serious about supporting the Allotment Farms Terrace Group, then let us know what you and UKIP are doing locally to support them. Are you and UKIP Watford organising fund-raising events to help them meet the legal costs of their court actions? If not, why not? Talk is cheap; action costs - and so does fund-raising. Get on with it. According to the most recent BBC Poll Tracker data, UKIP is nationally on around 13 per cent support - slightly above the Lib Dems. If you think solely relying upon this slender difference will get you and other UKIP candidates elected - think again. Labour and the Conservatives nationally stand at around 35 per cent support each. Do you really think posting comments all and every day will overcome this? You have to be out and actively campaigning before people take you and your UKIP colleagues seriously enough to want to vote for you and them. Please stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your pointless party political postings - they are really becoming most irritating to others. John Dowdle
  • Score: 47

3:41pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected.

I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond.

Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor.

It's all to play for.
Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected. I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond. Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor. It's all to play for. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -27

4:24pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected.

I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond.

Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor.

It's all to play for.
I take it that if you are elected and the majority LIBDEM council then pushes through the development on the Farm Terrace allotment you will resign.

for your information the latest Euro polling I saw was Survation and it put UKIP behind the Tories
that is Lab 32, tory 28 ukip 23

The one thing that is certain is this is being decided in the courts, the only party that could possably stop it at the ballot box being Labour
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected. I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond. Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor. It's all to play for.[/p][/quote]I take it that if you are elected and the majority LIBDEM council then pushes through the development on the Farm Terrace allotment you will resign. for your information the latest Euro polling I saw was Survation and it put UKIP behind the Tories that is Lab 32, tory 28 ukip 23 The one thing that is certain is this is being decided in the courts, the only party that could possably stop it at the ballot box being Labour ancientandageing
  • Score: 6

5:43pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox reminds me of a Laurence Bassini type..


Bit of a chancer that promises the earth to everyone in the hope of picking up a nice wedge.

Well Phil, Baz got his cumupence today.........



Vote UKIP get Phil/a Baz chancer
Phil Cox reminds me of a Laurence Bassini type.. Bit of a chancer that promises the earth to everyone in the hope of picking up a nice wedge. Well Phil, Baz got his cumupence today......... Vote UKIP get Phil/a Baz chancer ramage1996
  • Score: 7

5:46pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected.

I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond.

Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor.

It's all to play for.
I take it that if you are elected and the majority LIBDEM council then pushes through the development on the Farm Terrace allotment you will resign.

for your information the latest Euro polling I saw was Survation and it put UKIP behind the Tories
that is Lab 32, tory 28 ukip 23

The one thing that is certain is this is being decided in the courts, the only party that could possably stop it at the ballot box being Labour
So UKIP are n third place n the Euro elections, thats not good considering they are a one issue anti Euro party...


Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected. I will try to ignore the posts of our knockers on these pages to which I do sometimes too readily respond. Just to answer your point, there are different polls measuring different issues. Across the country you are correct, however for the Euro elections Ukip were in the lead on the last poll I read a few days ago and as the local elections are on the same day I would hope some of that good fortune may rub off on the local elections. If we polled locally what we will poll nationally then we would beat the Labour and Tories and challenge the LibDems for Mayor. It's all to play for.[/p][/quote]I take it that if you are elected and the majority LIBDEM council then pushes through the development on the Farm Terrace allotment you will resign. for your information the latest Euro polling I saw was Survation and it put UKIP behind the Tories that is Lab 32, tory 28 ukip 23 The one thing that is certain is this is being decided in the courts, the only party that could possably stop it at the ballot box being Labour[/p][/quote]So UKIP are n third place n the Euro elections, thats not good considering they are a one issue anti Euro party... Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer. ramage1996
  • Score: 7

5:56pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Phil: please give it a rest.
There are only 5 weeks between now and election day, yet every day I see multiple postings by you on the Watford Observer web site. This will not get you elected. In my part of central Watford, I have not seen anything from you or UKIP for months.
If you and UKIP want to be effective politically, you need to be getting out and talking to people at their homes and on their doorsteps, as well as delivering political literature.
If you are serious about supporting the Allotment Farms Terrace Group, then let us know what you and UKIP are doing locally to support them.
Are you and UKIP Watford organising fund-raising events to help them meet the legal costs of their court actions? If not, why not?
Talk is cheap; action costs - and so does fund-raising. Get on with it.
According to the most recent BBC Poll Tracker data, UKIP is nationally on around 13 per cent support - slightly above the Lib Dems. If you think solely relying upon this slender difference will get you and other UKIP candidates elected - think again. Labour and the Conservatives nationally stand at around 35 per cent support each.
Do you really think posting comments all and every day will overcome this?
You have to be out and actively campaigning before people take you and your UKIP colleagues seriously enough to want to vote for you and them.
Please stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your pointless party political postings - they are really becoming most irritating to others.
Wheres his manifesto? Bit strange considering he promised it months ago and the election is so soon......

So Phil Cox wants to get elected without publishing a manifesto, seems a bit shady and dodgy to me.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Phil: please give it a rest. There are only 5 weeks between now and election day, yet every day I see multiple postings by you on the Watford Observer web site. This will not get you elected. In my part of central Watford, I have not seen anything from you or UKIP for months. If you and UKIP want to be effective politically, you need to be getting out and talking to people at their homes and on their doorsteps, as well as delivering political literature. If you are serious about supporting the Allotment Farms Terrace Group, then let us know what you and UKIP are doing locally to support them. Are you and UKIP Watford organising fund-raising events to help them meet the legal costs of their court actions? If not, why not? Talk is cheap; action costs - and so does fund-raising. Get on with it. According to the most recent BBC Poll Tracker data, UKIP is nationally on around 13 per cent support - slightly above the Lib Dems. If you think solely relying upon this slender difference will get you and other UKIP candidates elected - think again. Labour and the Conservatives nationally stand at around 35 per cent support each. Do you really think posting comments all and every day will overcome this? You have to be out and actively campaigning before people take you and your UKIP colleagues seriously enough to want to vote for you and them. Please stop wasting your and everyone else's time with your pointless party political postings - they are really becoming most irritating to others.[/p][/quote]Wheres his manifesto? Bit strange considering he promised it months ago and the election is so soon...... So Phil Cox wants to get elected without publishing a manifesto, seems a bit shady and dodgy to me. ramage1996
  • Score: 12

6:04pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox reminds me of a Laurence Bassini type..


Bit of a chancer that promises the earth to everyone in the hope of picking up a nice wedge.

Well Phil, Baz got his cumupence today.........



Vote UKIP get Phil/a Baz chancer
I have it on good authority that if the council ignore him he "SHOULD" resign
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox reminds me of a Laurence Bassini type.. Bit of a chancer that promises the earth to everyone in the hope of picking up a nice wedge. Well Phil, Baz got his cumupence today......... Vote UKIP get Phil/a Baz chancer[/p][/quote]I have it on good authority that if the council ignore him he "SHOULD" resign ancientandageing
  • Score: 6

6:04pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

"Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected".

That isn't true Phil. As I said on a previous article, Jagtar has said he would stop Farm Terrace being concreted over. Furthermore, Jagtar and Mo have been supporting the Farm Terrace group and Labour have helped with fund raising. If you feel so strongly about this, why haven't you even turned up for any of the fund raising events?
"Fair point John but Ukip is relevant to this story as we are the only party to have formally pledged to save Farm Terrace if elected". That isn't true Phil. As I said on a previous article, Jagtar has said he would stop Farm Terrace being concreted over. Furthermore, Jagtar and Mo have been supporting the Farm Terrace group and Labour have helped with fund raising. If you feel so strongly about this, why haven't you even turned up for any of the fund raising events? Su Murray
  • Score: 10

6:04pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Cuetip wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated.

Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present.

We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP.

The best way to do that is to vote them out.
Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up?

If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money?

Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument.

You really do come across as a political chancer.
'You really do come across as a political chancer'.

What manifesto are you signed up to now?

You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person.

Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks?

What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc?

I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies.
Come on Yellow hornet -30
is that all you have got for an answer on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low' . How sad indeed.

I'm truly disappointed with you if that's all you can muster. Put some real effort and give me more publicity and if possible engage brain and answer the question below which you claim you know. Stop eating sweets as its bad for your health and weight and move my score to 100. Get working as you know little about the so called HEALTH campus which is really about hundreds of homes.

Come on your answers have a degree of impotency and little relevance.

By the way what pathetic manifesto do you read now?

Waiting for you old boy.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a shame the Conservative party locally is owned by a property developer otherwise it might join the other parties opposed to building on these protected allotments and that would leave the LibDems completely isolated. Harrington knows as well as anybody there is no new hospital going to be built here. There isn't the money nor the political will at present. We need to send a message to the Mayor and to our MP. The best way to do that is to vote them out.[/p][/quote]Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. Until you produce your promised manifesto that is 2 weeks late and counting how can we judge if your comments on a new hospital stack up? If the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low how will you find the lost money? Have you spoken to the Council finance person so he\she can explain in detail to one of the Mayoral candidates why the Council are doing this? Or do you prefer to post in ignorance of the situation? I hope your manifesto will be well researched having gained all the relevant information from both sides of the argument. You really do come across as a political chancer.[/p][/quote]'You really do come across as a political chancer'. What manifesto are you signed up to now? You really love plunging to the Bottom with ridicule which is where you live.One of these days you will come badly unstuck with the wrong person. Just wondering if you have the exact figures on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low'? And have you exact figures on how much extra council tax has been raised with all the high rise blocks? What price do you put on the increasing pressures as many residents in certain areas are being asked to live like sardines in a can eg deterioration in parking, the extra congestion, the squeeze on school places, doctors' surgeries, HMOs, etc? I'm waiting for your usual juvenile, degenerative one line comment with no facts or policies.[/p][/quote]Come on Yellow hornet -30 is that all you have got for an answer on 'the Council are factoring in profits from the development to keep Council tax low' . How sad indeed. I'm truly disappointed with you if that's all you can muster. Put some real effort and give me more publicity and if possible engage brain and answer the question below which you claim you know. Stop eating sweets as its bad for your health and weight and move my score to 100. Get working as you know little about the so called HEALTH campus which is really about hundreds of homes. Come on your answers have a degree of impotency and little relevance. By the way what pathetic manifesto do you read now? Waiting for you old boy. Cuetip
  • Score: -16

6:22pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

No Cox UKIP manifesto despite it being promised months ago..

UKIP getting whole articles removed from the WO due to it being exposed that Cox and his 'election agent' are big Enoch Powell fans.

UKIP now polling third and ten points behind Labour in the Euro election polls, not good for a one issue anti Euro party..


Cox and his election agent are getting desperate..

Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k plus expenses
No Cox UKIP manifesto despite it being promised months ago.. UKIP getting whole articles removed from the WO due to it being exposed that Cox and his 'election agent' are big Enoch Powell fans. UKIP now polling third and ten points behind Labour in the Euro election polls, not good for a one issue anti Euro party.. Cox and his election agent are getting desperate.. Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k plus expenses ramage1996
  • Score: 11

8:45pm Tue 25 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

Mayor Dorothy and I will be doing a live Radio Interview on BBC 3 Counties at 7.45 am tomorrow. (95.5fm, 103.8fm,104.5fm) I realise you will not all be able to listen to it but I will put up the I player link afterwards. It should be a lively debate!!
Mayor Dorothy and I will be doing a live Radio Interview on BBC 3 Counties at 7.45 am tomorrow. (95.5fm, 103.8fm,104.5fm) I realise you will not all be able to listen to it but I will put up the I player link afterwards. It should be a lively debate!! sjtrebar
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

sjtrebar wrote:
Mayor Dorothy and I will be doing a live Radio Interview on BBC 3 Counties at 7.45 am tomorrow. (95.5fm, 103.8fm,104.5fm) I realise you will not all be able to listen to it but I will put up the I player link afterwards. It should be a lively debate!!
*ding*

Seconds away - round 3

May the force be with you!
[quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: Mayor Dorothy and I will be doing a live Radio Interview on BBC 3 Counties at 7.45 am tomorrow. (95.5fm, 103.8fm,104.5fm) I realise you will not all be able to listen to it but I will put up the I player link afterwards. It should be a lively debate!![/p][/quote]*ding* Seconds away - round 3 May the force be with you! Su Murray
  • Score: 5

7:08am Wed 26 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

Don't understand why the legal challenge is a 'real issue' for the 'Wealth Campus'. The hospital development has had to be uncoupled from the housing because the ConDem Government is squeezing the life out of the NHS. Perhaps because of this Watford Gen has gone from a successful institution to struggling. Now with Clause 119 Hospital Closure Bill Jeremy Hunt can close a failing Hospital with no input from those affected. Being a FibDem herself I presume Mayor Dorothy agrees with all this. The whole Government intention to privatise the NHS has put Mayor Dorothy in a very difficult position. In addition Mayore Dorothy is a ConDem fav for finding 'creative' ways of funding local government such as the selling offf of public assets. Can't have it both ways Dot.
Don't understand why the legal challenge is a 'real issue' for the 'Wealth Campus'. The hospital development has had to be uncoupled from the housing because the ConDem Government is squeezing the life out of the NHS. Perhaps because of this Watford Gen has gone from a successful institution to struggling. Now with Clause 119 Hospital Closure Bill Jeremy Hunt can close a failing Hospital with no input from those affected. Being a FibDem herself I presume Mayor Dorothy agrees with all this. The whole Government intention to privatise the NHS has put Mayor Dorothy in a very difficult position. In addition Mayore Dorothy is a ConDem fav for finding 'creative' ways of funding local government such as the selling offf of public assets. Can't have it both ways Dot. #UKMum
  • Score: -5

8:43am Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

9:05am Wed 26 Mar 14

vickyt34 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford. vickyt34
  • Score: 2

9:38am Wed 26 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

vickyt34 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital.
It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site.
How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space?
An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change.
Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment.
Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out.
As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do?
It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.
[quote][p][bold]vickyt34[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.[/p][/quote]Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital. It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site. How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space? An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change. Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment. Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do? It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought. John Dowdle
  • Score: 6

9:45am Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

vickyt34 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
Surly thou it is not a case of "either or", the allotments are not the whole of the area and could/Should be maintained as part of the redevelopment, indeed that is what the court may effectively decide for the second time!

As to the Sad spectacle of UKIP shamelessly trying to hijack this issue well it didn't take long to pop up again.

Noticeably the local cllrs have been campaigning to keep the allotments, in a less self promotional way, I think is the right and proper way to deal with it. That is to say the issue is the issue not the Mayoral candidate.
[quote][p][bold]vickyt34[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.[/p][/quote]Surly thou it is not a case of "either or", the allotments are not the whole of the area and could/Should be maintained as part of the redevelopment, indeed that is what the court may effectively decide for the second time! As to the Sad spectacle of UKIP shamelessly trying to hijack this issue well it didn't take long to pop up again. Noticeably the local cllrs have been campaigning to keep the allotments, in a less self promotional way, I think is the right and proper way to deal with it. That is to say the issue is the issue not the Mayoral candidate. ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

9:53am Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

John Dowdle wrote:
vickyt34 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital.
It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site.
How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space?
An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change.
Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment.
Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out.
As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do?
It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.
On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vickyt34[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.[/p][/quote]Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital. It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site. How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space? An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change. Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment. Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do? It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.[/p][/quote]On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream. ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

10:02am Wed 26 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

ancientandageing wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
vickyt34 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital.
It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site.
How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space?
An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change.
Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment.
Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out.
As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do?
It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.
On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream.
I agree. With the predictions now coming out of the UK Met Office of warmer and wetter winters in future, I believe it is necessary to establish a local working group, with representatives from - at least - Watford, Hertsmere and Three Rivers, as well as involvement from Herts County Council, emergency services and the Environment Agency.
The flooding seen earlier on this year is a clear warning of things to come.
There must - at a minimum - be work carried out to raise the levels of all the river banks for the River Colne between Bushey and Croxley.
This situation needs leadership, grip and vision NOW if we are all to avoid seeing the kind of scenes we saw on our TV sets in places like Wraysbury, along the Thames and in the Somerset Levels coming to the Watford area.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vickyt34[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.[/p][/quote]Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital. It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site. How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space? An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change. Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment. Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do? It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.[/p][/quote]On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream.[/p][/quote]I agree. With the predictions now coming out of the UK Met Office of warmer and wetter winters in future, I believe it is necessary to establish a local working group, with representatives from - at least - Watford, Hertsmere and Three Rivers, as well as involvement from Herts County Council, emergency services and the Environment Agency. The flooding seen earlier on this year is a clear warning of things to come. There must - at a minimum - be work carried out to raise the levels of all the river banks for the River Colne between Bushey and Croxley. This situation needs leadership, grip and vision NOW if we are all to avoid seeing the kind of scenes we saw on our TV sets in places like Wraysbury, along the Thames and in the Somerset Levels coming to the Watford area. John Dowdle
  • Score: 3

10:09am Wed 26 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 14

10:27am Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

John Dowdle wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
John Dowdle wrote:
vickyt34 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives.

Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger.

I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished.

Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means.

It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.
I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.
Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital.
It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site.
How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space?
An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change.
Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment.
Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out.
As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do?
It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.
On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream.
I agree. With the predictions now coming out of the UK Met Office of warmer and wetter winters in future, I believe it is necessary to establish a local working group, with representatives from - at least - Watford, Hertsmere and Three Rivers, as well as involvement from Herts County Council, emergency services and the Environment Agency.
The flooding seen earlier on this year is a clear warning of things to come.
There must - at a minimum - be work carried out to raise the levels of all the river banks for the River Colne between Bushey and Croxley.
This situation needs leadership, grip and vision NOW if we are all to avoid seeing the kind of scenes we saw on our TV sets in places like Wraysbury, along the Thames and in the Somerset Levels coming to the Watford area.
My point is that we get localized flooding from the Tributaries to the Thames 2-3 days before Wraysbery on the Thames, now if we build on the flood plain they get more flooding, if we put in Measures to hold water they benefit along with us, so why not some sort of central gov grant to not develop or to create a reservoir, hospital, some housing and open space, the land under such things as roads, carparks and open space can also be used as a sponge to hold water if designed and engineered that way.
I know it is a dirty word but the fact is we are in an environmental pickle and we are going to have to engineer our way out so yes we have to use technology to protect ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vickyt34[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I seriously doubt anyone is not in favour of a new hospital or of keeping the hospital in Watford. That goes for all parties including the LibDems and Conservatives. Where the difference lies is that the LibDems and Tories have fed us lies over there being a new hospital when there will not be one and they have used this as a smokescreen to sell off protected allotment land and create this massive housing development that grows ever bigger. I hope SJT defeats the council. If there is any wrongdoing I hope the individuals (Mayor, councillors) who voted for this blatant and possibly illegal land grab are suitably punished. Selling off assetts is not the way to run a council. The way to run a council is to manage your budget and keep within it. We in the real world call it living within our means. It might mean Watford ends up with fewer bridges across ponds and other silly expensive ideas but hey, we can live with that.[/p][/quote]I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. I personally think regenerating that part of Watford is a good thing. I look forward to the new lake and more open space. We desperately need new housing, so just get on with it and regenerate West Watford.[/p][/quote]Vicky: everyone favours appropriate re-development of the brownfield areas of the site. However, the hospital trust is in no position to be able to apply for foundation trust status, meaning they cannot obtain the necessary funding for the hospital to be upgraded. Additionally, the state of the hospital finances are now such that they are seriously in the red and will not be allowed to incur any indebtedness in order to upgrade the hospital. It might be the case that the government may change the rules and allow hospital redevelopment at some stage in the future but for the present there is absolutely no likelihood of a new hospital on the existing site. How can you have more open space if you build over existing open space? An additional - and major - problem is that of building on the local flood plain, which is part of the scheme. Not only will this threaten flooding in new parts of West Watford but it will also significantly increase the risk of added flooding to parts of central Watford, as well as to parts of Bushey and Three Rivers, due to increased runoff of rainwater and heightened river levels in future. The UK Meteorological Office just yesterday predicted warmer and wetter winters in future due to global climate change. Watford Council - if it is at all responsible - should not just rush into this development in a frenzy of speculation but should be taking a cool, long hard look at this proposed development, bearing in mind potential future climatic changes, as well as the environmental impact it will have on the built environment and the natural environment. Thus far, no sensible environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. As I am sure you know, there is an old saying: "Act in haste, repent at leisure" Is that what you want Watford Council to do? It will not be them that will have to bear the consequences of any ill-thought-out actions but unfortunate local residents who are negatively impacted by any shortcomings in council officers' and councillors' lack of forethought.[/p][/quote]On the environmental side I really think you ave to consider a whole river approach and funding, for a start 2 days after it floods in Watford it floods in Wraysbury, of the top of my head and out of the box maybe Watford could get a grant not to build and create a holding lake in order to lesson flooding downstream.[/p][/quote]I agree. With the predictions now coming out of the UK Met Office of warmer and wetter winters in future, I believe it is necessary to establish a local working group, with representatives from - at least - Watford, Hertsmere and Three Rivers, as well as involvement from Herts County Council, emergency services and the Environment Agency. The flooding seen earlier on this year is a clear warning of things to come. There must - at a minimum - be work carried out to raise the levels of all the river banks for the River Colne between Bushey and Croxley. This situation needs leadership, grip and vision NOW if we are all to avoid seeing the kind of scenes we saw on our TV sets in places like Wraysbury, along the Thames and in the Somerset Levels coming to the Watford area.[/p][/quote]My point is that we get localized flooding from the Tributaries to the Thames 2-3 days before Wraysbery on the Thames, now if we build on the flood plain they get more flooding, if we put in Measures to hold water they benefit along with us, so why not some sort of central gov grant to not develop or to create a reservoir, hospital, some housing and open space, the land under such things as roads, carparks and open space can also be used as a sponge to hold water if designed and engineered that way. I know it is a dirty word but the fact is we are in an environmental pickle and we are going to have to engineer our way out so yes we have to use technology to protect ourselves. ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

10:34am Wed 26 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

It could be said that the ponds upriver (next to the A4008 M1 link road), the Lairage Land and the existing West Watford flood plain already fulfil the function - to some extent - of providing runoff and storage for excess water.
The proposed development on the flood plain will ruin the local balance which, while not perfect by any means, has reduced the local incidence of flooding over the last few years in the central Watford area.
Cementing and tarmacking over the flood plain can clearly only increase the risk of localised flooding in times to come.
This project needs a deep refreshing bout of re-thinking.
The developers - Kier - do not care about problems which will arise in the future but our local councillors really ought to take responsibility for the welfare of local residents and their homes in the relatively near future.
It could be said that the ponds upriver (next to the A4008 M1 link road), the Lairage Land and the existing West Watford flood plain already fulfil the function - to some extent - of providing runoff and storage for excess water. The proposed development on the flood plain will ruin the local balance which, while not perfect by any means, has reduced the local incidence of flooding over the last few years in the central Watford area. Cementing and tarmacking over the flood plain can clearly only increase the risk of localised flooding in times to come. This project needs a deep refreshing bout of re-thinking. The developers - Kier - do not care about problems which will arise in the future but our local councillors really ought to take responsibility for the welfare of local residents and their homes in the relatively near future. John Dowdle
  • Score: 4

10:49am Wed 26 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

On Mr Harringtons website he states;

Firstly, Watford General Hospital is staying put, and will remain the main Hospital in South West Hertfordshire. I know there has been some scepticism about this since the UKIP Mayoral Candidate outlined his key pledges last month, and said that if elected he would look at moving the Hospital to a location more central to St Albans and Hemel Hempstead. However I will not let this happen and it has been confirmed by the NHS Trust who are responsible for delivering our health services that key services will ‘undoubtedly’ stay at Watford and this includes maternity care and our A&E.



In terms of funding and support for Watford General, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Government are fully behind our Hospital. This was echoed by the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt MP, when I bought him to visit the Hospital last year and meet with staff. In fact in the last twelve months alone we have seen a number of commitments to Watford including;



• One of the largest grants in the Country was given to Watford last year from the Government to enable the new birthing centre / maternity suite which is now open

• A further £16.2 million worth of Government funding was allocated to our NHS Trust

• We will see a major upgrade of wards, improvements to the outside of buildings, improved safety and better ventilation, and the replacement of pipes and windows. The Hospital’s electrical infrastructure will be upgraded and operating theatres will be refurbished amongst other improvements

• A new ambulatory care unit has been opened at Watford

• The additional Government funding is on top of the £8 million a year (approx) which is spent upgrading hospital sites and buying new equipment by West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust

• The Trust spent £3.9 million recruiting an additional 160 nurses

• The legal and financial paperwork for the Health Campus was signed, signalling several millions of pounds worth of investment in the coming years

• Planning was approved for a new Hospital Link Road, which the Government has funded to the tune of £7 million. This will ensure faster ambulance response times, and will also ensure that Watford is more accessible and remains the heart of healthcare delivery in West Herts





As well as the Government committing to Watford with new funding and improvement works, some of which are outlined above, we are also looking to the future and ensuring that proper long term plans are made for the provision of local services.



A key part of the long term plan is the Clinical Strategy which is currently being compiled. Essentially the Trust have gone out to nurses, doctors, midwives, patient representatives and others, and have asked for their opinion on how healthcare should be delivered locally, and what they would like to see. Once these views are received the Trust will formulate a rough picture of what the clinical staff would like taking into account different views and priorities. Once this has been refined, which will no doubt be with further input from staff at Watford, the Clinical Strategy will be put forward as a proposal. The Health Secretary confirmed when he visited Watford General that he is ready and waiting for this to happen.



Importantly the Clinical Strategy will include provision for the Health Campus development, which will lead to the regeneration of West Watford. The plans for the Health Campus have been outlined and will include not just new healthcare facilities but also more green space, new homes, new services including shops and community facilities, and more jobs. This teamed with the new train station which I have secured for Vicarage Road as part of the Government’s investment into Croxley Rail Link, will mean a much brighter future for West Watford.



Once the Trust report with their Clinical Strategy we will know more about the long term investment and new facilities which will happen at Watford General. But, in the meantime, work and investment is continuing, and the Government continue to invest in Watford General and we will see more improvements over the next 12 months. During this time I will continue to work closely with Samantha Jones, the Chief Executive of our NHS Trust, who is doing an excellent job so far.

Do we believe him?
On Mr Harringtons website he states; Firstly, Watford General Hospital is staying put, and will remain the main Hospital in South West Hertfordshire. I know there has been some scepticism about this since the UKIP Mayoral Candidate outlined his key pledges last month, and said that if elected he would look at moving the Hospital to a location more central to St Albans and Hemel Hempstead. However I will not let this happen and it has been confirmed by the NHS Trust who are responsible for delivering our health services that key services will ‘undoubtedly’ stay at Watford and this includes maternity care and our A&E. In terms of funding and support for Watford General, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Government are fully behind our Hospital. This was echoed by the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt MP, when I bought him to visit the Hospital last year and meet with staff. In fact in the last twelve months alone we have seen a number of commitments to Watford including; • One of the largest grants in the Country was given to Watford last year from the Government to enable the new birthing centre / maternity suite which is now open • A further £16.2 million worth of Government funding was allocated to our NHS Trust • We will see a major upgrade of wards, improvements to the outside of buildings, improved safety and better ventilation, and the replacement of pipes and windows. The Hospital’s electrical infrastructure will be upgraded and operating theatres will be refurbished amongst other improvements • A new ambulatory care unit has been opened at Watford • The additional Government funding is on top of the £8 million a year (approx) which is spent upgrading hospital sites and buying new equipment by West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust • The Trust spent £3.9 million recruiting an additional 160 nurses • The legal and financial paperwork for the Health Campus was signed, signalling several millions of pounds worth of investment in the coming years • Planning was approved for a new Hospital Link Road, which the Government has funded to the tune of £7 million. This will ensure faster ambulance response times, and will also ensure that Watford is more accessible and remains the heart of healthcare delivery in West Herts As well as the Government committing to Watford with new funding and improvement works, some of which are outlined above, we are also looking to the future and ensuring that proper long term plans are made for the provision of local services. A key part of the long term plan is the Clinical Strategy which is currently being compiled. Essentially the Trust have gone out to nurses, doctors, midwives, patient representatives and others, and have asked for their opinion on how healthcare should be delivered locally, and what they would like to see. Once these views are received the Trust will formulate a rough picture of what the clinical staff would like taking into account different views and priorities. Once this has been refined, which will no doubt be with further input from staff at Watford, the Clinical Strategy will be put forward as a proposal. The Health Secretary confirmed when he visited Watford General that he is ready and waiting for this to happen. Importantly the Clinical Strategy will include provision for the Health Campus development, which will lead to the regeneration of West Watford. The plans for the Health Campus have been outlined and will include not just new healthcare facilities but also more green space, new homes, new services including shops and community facilities, and more jobs. This teamed with the new train station which I have secured for Vicarage Road as part of the Government’s investment into Croxley Rail Link, will mean a much brighter future for West Watford. Once the Trust report with their Clinical Strategy we will know more about the long term investment and new facilities which will happen at Watford General. But, in the meantime, work and investment is continuing, and the Government continue to invest in Watford General and we will see more improvements over the next 12 months. During this time I will continue to work closely with Samantha Jones, the Chief Executive of our NHS Trust, who is doing an excellent job so far. Do we believe him? Sarahjones1
  • Score: 5

11:04am Wed 26 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

Sarah: it is not a matter of belief but a matter of timing.
Who knows what the outcome of the 2015 general election will be?
It could result in a new local MP and a new government; in which case, will existing plans be adhered to or will new ones be drawn up?
It seems to me that there is too much current uncertainty and while it is widely acknowledged that these current plans have been in the making for several years, it is important to get them right for the long-term.
I believe we need to see the finalised version of the hospital's clinical strategy in order to make any real sense as to how to progress this project.
Rushing in now may end up excluding possible alternatives which might be far superior to what is currently being considered.
A little more considered thought on this matter could end up with a win-win situation for all involved, while rushing helter skelter into throwing up permanent but inappropriate structures could cause a blight on the area for decades - or more - to come.
The best time to re-evaluate this whole scheme is in June 2015, by which time we will all have a much clearer idea as to who our local MP is, who or what the central government is, and what the hospital's clinical strategy is.
After that, good clear plans become possible, based upon real facts, rather than on speculative guesswork as to future intentions.
Sarah: it is not a matter of belief but a matter of timing. Who knows what the outcome of the 2015 general election will be? It could result in a new local MP and a new government; in which case, will existing plans be adhered to or will new ones be drawn up? It seems to me that there is too much current uncertainty and while it is widely acknowledged that these current plans have been in the making for several years, it is important to get them right for the long-term. I believe we need to see the finalised version of the hospital's clinical strategy in order to make any real sense as to how to progress this project. Rushing in now may end up excluding possible alternatives which might be far superior to what is currently being considered. A little more considered thought on this matter could end up with a win-win situation for all involved, while rushing helter skelter into throwing up permanent but inappropriate structures could cause a blight on the area for decades - or more - to come. The best time to re-evaluate this whole scheme is in June 2015, by which time we will all have a much clearer idea as to who our local MP is, who or what the central government is, and what the hospital's clinical strategy is. After that, good clear plans become possible, based upon real facts, rather than on speculative guesswork as to future intentions. John Dowdle
  • Score: 5

1:59pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
Well said. About time this was made public.

He stays out of the firing line and prefers washing his hands just like Pontious Pilate.

Ask vickyt34 for an opinion as she stands close to him.She seems to have missed the whole debate - as usual - about the allotments.

Voters need politicians - certainly not YOYO vickyt34 - who stand up for those who are bullied and against injustice and the MP thought it rather clever to bomb the already decimated Syria. The allotments holders in this whole debate are the David fighting Goliath and Vicky Pollard and the MP are interested in doing what is right eg protecting a key piece of Watford's history.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.[/p][/quote]Well said. About time this was made public. He stays out of the firing line and prefers washing his hands just like Pontious Pilate. Ask vickyt34 for an opinion as she stands close to him.She seems to have missed the whole debate - as usual - about the allotments. Voters need politicians - certainly not YOYO vickyt34 - who stand up for those who are bullied and against injustice and the MP thought it rather clever to bomb the already decimated Syria. The allotments holders in this whole debate are the David fighting Goliath and Vicky Pollard and the MP are interested in doing what is right eg protecting a key piece of Watford's history. Cuetip
  • Score: 7

3:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I am in favour of making housing affordable.

I am not in favour of building on allotments.

I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one.

I am in favour of honesty and openness.


I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.
I like kittens but I hate rapists.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I am in favour of making housing affordable. I am not in favour of building on allotments. I am in favour of a new hospital in Watford - we really need one. I am in favour of honesty and openness. I am not in favour of a Mayor of Watford lying to or misleading the people of Watford.[/p][/quote]I like kittens but I hate rapists. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 26 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
Can commenters please restrict their remarks to the subject of the article, i.e. the legal challenge to the proposed development?
The unnecessary petty party political comments add nothing to any form of understanding or intelligent analysis relating to the principal issue at hand.
Are you for real....you manage to conflate Israli oppression in Palestine with some fishing wire in Bushey....Anything to push you Anti Semtic dog whistle views.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: Can commenters please restrict their remarks to the subject of the article, i.e. the legal challenge to the proposed development? The unnecessary petty party political comments add nothing to any form of understanding or intelligent analysis relating to the principal issue at hand.[/p][/quote]Are you for real....you manage to conflate Israli oppression in Palestine with some fishing wire in Bushey....Anything to push you Anti Semtic dog whistle views. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

For me Harrington is a bigger scoundrel in this saga than the Mayor. At least she has been up front with her views but with Harrington it feels that only in the last resort will he share his views on any given subject.

I contacted him about the Gay marriage vote in parliament. His reply was along the lines that he would support Cameron but privately he had reservations it was the right thing to do.

With the Syria crisis he voted with the Government but again had reservations it was the right thing to do.

What we need is an MP who will stand up for his electorate rather than someone who has ambitions to climb higher than the current position of Vice Chairman of the Conservative party he currently holds.

Perhaps next year we will be treated to Phil Cox for MP.
For me Harrington is a bigger scoundrel in this saga than the Mayor. At least she has been up front with her views but with Harrington it feels that only in the last resort will he share his views on any given subject. I contacted him about the Gay marriage vote in parliament. His reply was along the lines that he would support Cameron but privately he had reservations it was the right thing to do. With the Syria crisis he voted with the Government but again had reservations it was the right thing to do. What we need is an MP who will stand up for his electorate rather than someone who has ambitions to climb higher than the current position of Vice Chairman of the Conservative party he currently holds. Perhaps next year we will be treated to Phil Cox for MP. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 6

5:15pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
Well said. About time this was made public.

He stays out of the firing line and prefers washing his hands just like Pontious Pilate.

Ask vickyt34 for an opinion as she stands close to him.She seems to have missed the whole debate - as usual - about the allotments.

Voters need politicians - certainly not YOYO vickyt34 - who stand up for those who are bullied and against injustice and the MP thought it rather clever to bomb the already decimated Syria. The allotments holders in this whole debate are the David fighting Goliath and Vicky Pollard and the MP are interested in doing what is right eg protecting a key piece of Watford's history.
What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.[/p][/quote]Well said. About time this was made public. He stays out of the firing line and prefers washing his hands just like Pontious Pilate. Ask vickyt34 for an opinion as she stands close to him.She seems to have missed the whole debate - as usual - about the allotments. Voters need politicians - certainly not YOYO vickyt34 - who stand up for those who are bullied and against injustice and the MP thought it rather clever to bomb the already decimated Syria. The allotments holders in this whole debate are the David fighting Goliath and Vicky Pollard and the MP are interested in doing what is right eg protecting a key piece of Watford's history.[/p][/quote]What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Sarahjones1
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini ramage1996
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I have just been listening to Mayor Dorothy and SJT on 3 Counties from this morning.

Make your own mind up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/programmes/p01sz3lr


Move the program forward to 1:47:28 into the program and it's on for about 10 minutes.

Dodgy Dotty strikes again. She just kept going on with a prepared reply and largely avoided the questions coming her way from the presenter and SJT.

If anyone can listen to that and think DT still deserves to be Mayor then I despair.
I have just been listening to Mayor Dorothy and SJT on 3 Counties from this morning. Make your own mind up. http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/p01sz3lr Move the program forward to 1:47:28 into the program and it's on for about 10 minutes. Dodgy Dotty strikes again. She just kept going on with a prepared reply and largely avoided the questions coming her way from the presenter and SJT. If anyone can listen to that and think DT still deserves to be Mayor then I despair. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

7:05pm Wed 26 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

Re 3 Counties Radio Program today - Listeners who contributed to the allotment debate afterwards were good value - especially the song titles bit. A couple of Watford residents took the trouble to phone the program. Most contributers were in favour of allotments which hasn't done Dorothy's case any good.
Re 3 Counties Radio Program today - Listeners who contributed to the allotment debate afterwards were good value - especially the song titles bit. A couple of Watford residents took the trouble to phone the program. Most contributers were in favour of allotments which hasn't done Dorothy's case any good. #UKMum
  • Score: 2

7:20pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments.

Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in?

I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track.

Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali[/p][/quote]I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments. Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in? I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track. Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

7:40pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Tony Noeu says...

What's the problem here ?

I would prefer a hospital that would save my life then some grass and vegetables !
What's the problem here ? I would prefer a hospital that would save my life then some grass and vegetables ! Tony Noeu
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments.

Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in?

I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track.

Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.
"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments."


mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford.

You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses.
Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali[/p][/quote]I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments. Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in? I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track. Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.[/p][/quote]"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments." mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford. You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses. Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox. ramage1996
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Tony Noeu says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments.

Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in?

I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track.

Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.
"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments."


mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford.

You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses.
Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.
lol
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali[/p][/quote]I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments. Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in? I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track. Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.[/p][/quote]"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments." mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford. You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses. Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.[/p][/quote]lol Tony Noeu
  • Score: 2

8:16pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

@phil Cox
You just seem to latch onto this for your own purposes with no conviction.
@Rammage is in favor which might put into question your assumption he is Labour (its not only Lab peeps that view your party as racist)
@ Tony noue seems to be pro which puts into question me assmption about him being UKIP
@phil Cox You just seem to latch onto this for your own purposes with no conviction. @Rammage is in favor which might put into question your assumption he is Labour (its not only Lab peeps that view your party as racist) @ Tony noue seems to be pro which puts into question me assmption about him being UKIP ancientandageing
  • Score: -1

8:52pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case. Cuetip
  • Score: 1

9:33pm Wed 26 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

'I would prefer a hospital that would save my life than some grass and vegetables !'
You can have both - if you can get Rich Harrington to get on 'the blower' to Jeremy Hunt. You see Rich told us that the cheque was 'in the post' some time back but Hunt has been hunting for his pen and so the cheque remains unsigned..
'I would prefer a hospital that would save my life than some grass and vegetables !' You can have both - if you can get Rich Harrington to get on 'the blower' to Jeremy Hunt. You see Rich told us that the cheque was 'in the post' some time back but Hunt has been hunting for his pen and so the cheque remains unsigned.. #UKMum
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate.

Not a good night for the kippers
Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate. Not a good night for the kippers ramage1996
  • Score: 2

10:14pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Tony Noeu wrote:
What's the problem here ?

I would prefer a hospital that would save my life then some grass and vegetables !
Given the choice Tony everyone would agree with you. But that's not the choice facing you. THERE IS NO NEW HOSPITAL.

The choice is between a housing estate or a slightly smaller housing estate while keeping the allotments.

Given that choice, I would choose the slightly smaller housing estate and keep the allotments which are a good thing to have in this part of town.

The allotments have no bearing on the hospital side of things. It's an attempt to hoodwink everyone into allowing them to build on the allotments to maximise their planning gain. Basically, it's just greed.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Noeu[/bold] wrote: What's the problem here ? I would prefer a hospital that would save my life then some grass and vegetables ![/p][/quote]Given the choice Tony everyone would agree with you. But that's not the choice facing you. THERE IS NO NEW HOSPITAL. The choice is between a housing estate or a slightly smaller housing estate while keeping the allotments. Given that choice, I would choose the slightly smaller housing estate and keep the allotments which are a good thing to have in this part of town. The allotments have no bearing on the hospital side of things. It's an attempt to hoodwink everyone into allowing them to build on the allotments to maximise their planning gain. Basically, it's just greed. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments.

Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in?

I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track.

Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.
"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments."


mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford.

You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses.
Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.
Some people have principles. Get over it.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali[/p][/quote]I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments. Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in? I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track. Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.[/p][/quote]"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments." mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford. You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses. Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.[/p][/quote]Some people have principles. Get over it. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

10:18pm Wed 26 Mar 14

oldgreybird says...

There is a fifty year event flooding projection on the "campus" (?) planning site, but no image of the 100 year event the plans say they address. I asked the EA if they planned to update the projections in light of recent wet winters but apparently there are no plans to do so. I asked if there would be any redress for local people if these were not updated and building based on them caused flooding over and above what was projected. They also replied in the negative (I think. It was all a bit MP speak).

And on another tack, why put office and shops into the plan when there are so many empty all over Watford? Is adding a bit of railway line expected to create an economic miracle?Is Dotty so desperate for voters in this part of Watford she is creating a gentrified enclave? And you can bet anything described as affordable housing will be built on the bit expected to flood...
There is a fifty year event flooding projection on the "campus" (?) planning site, but no image of the 100 year event the plans say they address. I asked the EA if they planned to update the projections in light of recent wet winters but apparently there are no plans to do so. I asked if there would be any redress for local people if these were not updated and building based on them caused flooding over and above what was projected. They also replied in the negative (I think. It was all a bit MP speak). And on another tack, why put office and shops into the plan when there are so many empty all over Watford? Is adding a bit of railway line expected to create an economic miracle?Is Dotty so desperate for voters in this part of Watford she is creating a gentrified enclave? And you can bet anything described as affordable housing will be built on the bit expected to flood... oldgreybird
  • Score: 3

10:23pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
@phil Cox
You just seem to latch onto this for your own purposes with no conviction.
@Rammage is in favor which might put into question your assumption he is Labour (its not only Lab peeps that view your party as racist)
@ Tony noue seems to be pro which puts into question me assmption about him being UKIP
It's a matter of principle for me DKYN. Always has been.

I agree with you though. It would seem that Rammage is more likely to be a LibDem and Tony is very unlikely to be Ukip.

The tories and LibDems seem to be the only ones actively pushing this development so the odds are that they are either LibDem or Tories.

Labour and Ukip are united in wanting to do the right thing here in saving the allotments. That's a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox You just seem to latch onto this for your own purposes with no conviction. @Rammage is in favor which might put into question your assumption he is Labour (its not only Lab peeps that view your party as racist) @ Tony noue seems to be pro which puts into question me assmption about him being UKIP[/p][/quote]It's a matter of principle for me DKYN. Always has been. I agree with you though. It would seem that Rammage is more likely to be a LibDem and Tony is very unlikely to be Ukip. The tories and LibDems seem to be the only ones actively pushing this development so the odds are that they are either LibDem or Tories. Labour and Ukip are united in wanting to do the right thing here in saving the allotments. That's a good thing. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

10:25pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off.



Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini
Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox

the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali
I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments.

Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in?

I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track.

Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.
"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments."


mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford.

You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses.
Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.
Some people have principles. Get over it.
"Some people have principles. Get over it."



Blimey Phil, from now on im going to put you up there with Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee as my new political hero.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Cox get a Bassini type chancer after his 65k and mugging the people of Watford off. Phill Cox = Laurence Bassini[/p][/quote]Bankrupt Baz and Crumbling Cox the dynamic duo, seriously Phil stop trying to be Sara Jane's Svengali[/p][/quote]I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments. Is party political point scoring really all you are interested in? I've refrained from responding to your provocations to try to keep stories on track. Once again, well done SJT. You have the support of Ukip. If we are elected we will do all in our power to save the allotments. That said, you're doing a pretty good job of saving them yourself and you clearly have the Mayor on the run. Her performance was woeful.[/p][/quote]"I thought we were both trying to help SJT save the allotments." mmmmm no I think I would prefer the new hospital, health campus, 700 affordable homes and 1600 jobs in the most deprived part of Watford. You Phil just want to get elected as Mayor and pick up the 65k plus expenses. Vote Ukip get a Bassini like like in Cox.[/p][/quote]Some people have principles. Get over it.[/p][/quote]"Some people have principles. Get over it." Blimey Phil, from now on im going to put you up there with Nye Bevan and Clement Attlee as my new political hero. ramage1996
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story? Sarahjones1
  • Score: 2

10:30pm Wed 26 Mar 14

oldgreybird says...

And the whole thing seems very cart before horse. The bits on the plan that say possible hospital buildings are bound to get chewed up and spat out as something else long before the Hospital is in any position to make decisions, by virtue of everything always costing more than expected and needing more cash to be generated. The con of the endless consultations further down the line will be sufficient to guarantee that alone. Mrs Thornhill is infatuated with the hubris of legacy along with others of her ilk, and desperate to get something concrete that screams her name before she does a bunk. She may be stuck with just the bridge/peeing platform over our pond at this rate.
And the whole thing seems very cart before horse. The bits on the plan that say possible hospital buildings are bound to get chewed up and spat out as something else long before the Hospital is in any position to make decisions, by virtue of everything always costing more than expected and needing more cash to be generated. The con of the endless consultations further down the line will be sufficient to guarantee that alone. Mrs Thornhill is infatuated with the hubris of legacy along with others of her ilk, and desperate to get something concrete that screams her name before she does a bunk. She may be stuck with just the bridge/peeing platform over our pond at this rate. oldgreybird
  • Score: 5

10:34pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

So Phil you are not racist yet Ukip belong to this far right racist group in the European parliament, you think being associated and in coalition wih the Northern League of Italy tallies to your assertion that you are not racist?

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2014
/mar/10/ukip-faces-q
uestions-far-right-e
urope-for-freedom-an
d-democracy
So Phil you are not racist yet Ukip belong to this far right racist group in the European parliament, you think being associated and in coalition wih the Northern League of Italy tallies to your assertion that you are not racist? http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2014 /mar/10/ukip-faces-q uestions-far-right-e urope-for-freedom-an d-democracy ramage1996
  • Score: 2

10:58pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Ukip would not be members of any grouping that is racist. There may be some uncomfortable bed-fellows in the grouping we are in but that does not make the group racist. Rather like having racists in the LibDems does not make it a racist party, like the one in the article below.

http://www.yourlocal
guardian.co.uk/news/
11098156.Disgraced_r
acist_assault_counci
llor_to_be_stripped_
of_official_duties/

By way of example for you

Churchill fought alongside Russia against the Nazis.

I'm not sure anyone has so far been malicious or stupid enough to claim Churchill was a communist.

Maybe you will be the first, you certainly have the talent required.
Ukip would not be members of any grouping that is racist. There may be some uncomfortable bed-fellows in the grouping we are in but that does not make the group racist. Rather like having racists in the LibDems does not make it a racist party, like the one in the article below. http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11098156.Disgraced_r acist_assault_counci llor_to_be_stripped_ of_official_duties/ By way of example for you Churchill fought alongside Russia against the Nazis. I'm not sure anyone has so far been malicious or stupid enough to claim Churchill was a communist. Maybe you will be the first, you certainly have the talent required. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

11:16pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Ukip would not be members of any grouping that is racist. There may be some uncomfortable bed-fellows in the grouping we are in but that does not make the group racist. Rather like having racists in the LibDems does not make it a racist party, like the one in the article below.

http://www.yourlocal

guardian.co.uk/news/

11098156.Disgraced_r

acist_assault_counci

llor_to_be_stripped_

of_official_duties/

By way of example for you

Churchill fought alongside Russia against the Nazis.

I'm not sure anyone has so far been malicious or stupid enough to claim Churchill was a communist.

Maybe you will be the first, you certainly have the talent required.
Well with that argument Phil you have convinced me, you are obviously an intellectual heavyweight that deserves to attain the office of Mayor.


Vote Ukip get Phil
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Ukip would not be members of any grouping that is racist. There may be some uncomfortable bed-fellows in the grouping we are in but that does not make the group racist. Rather like having racists in the LibDems does not make it a racist party, like the one in the article below. http://www.yourlocal guardian.co.uk/news/ 11098156.Disgraced_r acist_assault_counci llor_to_be_stripped_ of_official_duties/ By way of example for you Churchill fought alongside Russia against the Nazis. I'm not sure anyone has so far been malicious or stupid enough to claim Churchill was a communist. Maybe you will be the first, you certainly have the talent required.[/p][/quote]Well with that argument Phil you have convinced me, you are obviously an intellectual heavyweight that deserves to attain the office of Mayor. Vote Ukip get Phil ramage1996
  • Score: 2

11:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

so Phil Cox are you an admirer of Churchill then, it looks like it but then again from reading the Article David Penn wrote I would have said he was an admirer of Enoch Powell
so Phil Cox are you an admirer of Churchill then, it looks like it but then again from reading the Article David Penn wrote I would have said he was an admirer of Enoch Powell ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

7:51am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time). Sarahjones1
  • Score: 7

7:54am Thu 27 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

@phil Cox

I do not know if you are racist or not
I do however know that there are partys in your group that are Europe, and have expressed support for Bravick, that one of your UKIP MEPS had to resign becouse she was opposed.
In fairness Farrage threatened to leave the group after praise from one of its members for Bravick however when the member came back with twice as much support for Bravick he did nothing, or as you might say nothing, zip , zilch.

So yes your party is in a racist group.
Now as for David Penn I hold his post on UKIP daily to be a racist Wolf Whistle, why are you allowing him to stand???
@phil Cox I do not know if you are racist or not I do however know that there are partys in your group that are Europe, and have expressed support for Bravick, that one of your UKIP MEPS had to resign becouse she was opposed. In fairness Farrage threatened to leave the group after praise from one of its members for Bravick however when the member came back with twice as much support for Bravick he did nothing, or as you might say nothing, zip , zilch. So yes your party is in a racist group. Now as for David Penn I hold his post on UKIP daily to be a racist Wolf Whistle, why are you allowing him to stand??? ancientandageing
  • Score: -1

8:04am Thu 27 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/poo
r-families-council-e
states-told-3289909
and I believe Watford has a Food Bank yet Dorothy Thornhill wants to remove allotment land from the 'common people.'
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EKFTtYx2O
Hc
http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/poo r-families-council-e states-told-3289909 and I believe Watford has a Food Bank yet Dorothy Thornhill wants to remove allotment land from the 'common people.' http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EKFTtYx2O Hc #UKMum
  • Score: 0

8:08am Thu 27 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on? ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

8:10am Thu 27 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

ancientandageing wrote:
@phil Cox

I do not know if you are racist or not
I do however know that there are partys in your group that are Europe, and have expressed support for Bravick, that one of your UKIP MEPS had to resign becouse she was opposed.
In fairness Farrage threatened to leave the group after praise from one of its members for Bravick however when the member came back with twice as much support for Bravick he did nothing, or as you might say nothing, zip , zilch.

So yes your party is in a racist group.
Now as for David Penn I hold his post on UKIP daily to be a racist Wolf Whistle, why are you allowing him to stand???
racist dog whistle that is
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox I do not know if you are racist or not I do however know that there are partys in your group that are Europe, and have expressed support for Bravick, that one of your UKIP MEPS had to resign becouse she was opposed. In fairness Farrage threatened to leave the group after praise from one of its members for Bravick however when the member came back with twice as much support for Bravick he did nothing, or as you might say nothing, zip , zilch. So yes your party is in a racist group. Now as for David Penn I hold his post on UKIP daily to be a racist Wolf Whistle, why are you allowing him to stand???[/p][/quote]racist dog whistle that is ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

8:23am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
Thanks Phil for reading between the lines ie to try to understand what is meant by something that is not written explicitly or openly.

vickyt34 is all about self promotion and doesn’t give a hoot about the congestion issues or the loss of the historical, cultural, health, contributions surrounding this valuable piece of allotment land. Altruism is anathema to Vicky who likes to side with the Goliath in this dispute .

After examining what she said, if you read between the lines, you can begin to see what she really means. Don't literally believe every thing you read on positions taken by a posting.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]Thanks Phil for reading between the lines ie to try to understand what is meant by something that is not written explicitly or openly. vickyt34 is all about self promotion and doesn’t give a hoot about the congestion issues or the loss of the historical, cultural, health, contributions surrounding this valuable piece of allotment land. Altruism is anathema to Vicky who likes to side with the Goliath in this dispute . After examining what she said, if you read between the lines, you can begin to see what she really means. Don't literally believe every thing you read on positions taken by a posting. Cuetip
  • Score: -3

8:40am Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?
I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah.

I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before.

You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?[/p][/quote]I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah. I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before. You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

8:51am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her.

I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate.

I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents.

He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her. I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate. I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents. He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 8

8:54am Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate.

Not a good night for the kippers
Another off-topic comment from LibDem Ramage.

Ramage obviously in his own little LibDem world as all the polls disagree with his assessment. How out of touch do you need to be as a LibDem before you stop posting such rubbish?

Well done Nigel. 57% to 36%. Seems a pretty convincing win to me although in truth Farage should have done much better. These results almost make Nick Clegg seem credible, at least to some people. He's not.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate. Not a good night for the kippers[/p][/quote]Another off-topic comment from LibDem Ramage. Ramage obviously in his own little LibDem world as all the polls disagree with his assessment. How out of touch do you need to be as a LibDem before you stop posting such rubbish? Well done Nigel. 57% to 36%. Seems a pretty convincing win to me although in truth Farage should have done much better. These results almost make Nick Clegg seem credible, at least to some people. He's not. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

9:05am Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her.

I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate.

I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents.

He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.
I didn't see my post as an attack on anyone, I was merely trying to explain what I think Cuetip is on about - which is what you asked about.

VickyT announced on this site that the tories had selected Linda Topping to be their Mayoral candidate. Does she know what she is talking about? Who knows? Unless people post under their real names there is no way of knowing if anything they say is true when it comes to things like this.

Now, let's try to keep this thread on track. It's the Mayor who is in the wrong, let's not distract from this fact.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her. I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate. I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents. He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.[/p][/quote]I didn't see my post as an attack on anyone, I was merely trying to explain what I think Cuetip is on about - which is what you asked about. VickyT announced on this site that the tories had selected Linda Topping to be their Mayoral candidate. Does she know what she is talking about? Who knows? Unless people post under their real names there is no way of knowing if anything they say is true when it comes to things like this. Now, let's try to keep this thread on track. It's the Mayor who is in the wrong, let's not distract from this fact. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

9:18am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her.

I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate.

I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents.

He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.
I didn't see my post as an attack on anyone, I was merely trying to explain what I think Cuetip is on about - which is what you asked about.

VickyT announced on this site that the tories had selected Linda Topping to be their Mayoral candidate. Does she know what she is talking about? Who knows? Unless people post under their real names there is no way of knowing if anything they say is true when it comes to things like this.

Now, let's try to keep this thread on track. It's the Mayor who is in the wrong, let's not distract from this fact.
Sorry Phil my remarks were aimed at Cuetip whose posts I find nonsensical and creepy.

I think we have to look at the MP's role as well as the Mayors.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her. I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate. I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents. He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.[/p][/quote]I didn't see my post as an attack on anyone, I was merely trying to explain what I think Cuetip is on about - which is what you asked about. VickyT announced on this site that the tories had selected Linda Topping to be their Mayoral candidate. Does she know what she is talking about? Who knows? Unless people post under their real names there is no way of knowing if anything they say is true when it comes to things like this. Now, let's try to keep this thread on track. It's the Mayor who is in the wrong, let's not distract from this fact.[/p][/quote]Sorry Phil my remarks were aimed at Cuetip whose posts I find nonsensical and creepy. I think we have to look at the MP's role as well as the Mayors. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 9

9:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her.

I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate.

I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents.

He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.
Phew that's a hell of a political spin especially in view of the changing demographics of this very marginal seat. It's almost as bizarre like the many paper candidates in election leaflets suddenly appearing staring at potholes, expressing concern about planning, parking etc.

Returning to the 'Health' Campus, does the emergence of super hospitals and the closure of local hospitals eg Hemel, lead to a better health service? Just think of the location, access and well known parking issues which are real stumbling blocks for those living miles away.

Added to that, there is a lowering of the qualifications bar for staff in schools, the police service, and the health service. The NHS was built on serving the needs of all the people. But recent years have seen private healthcare firms experiencing an increase in business Does this amount to the creation of a two tier service?

Your point on Richard is interesting as some see him as the Captain who is abandoning the decimated local ship and Pontious Pilate was a Roman who knew all about decimation.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her. I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate. I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents. He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.[/p][/quote]Phew that's a hell of a political spin especially in view of the changing demographics of this very marginal seat. It's almost as bizarre like the many paper candidates in election leaflets suddenly appearing staring at potholes, expressing concern about planning, parking etc. Returning to the 'Health' Campus, does the emergence of super hospitals and the closure of local hospitals eg Hemel, lead to a better health service? Just think of the location, access and well known parking issues which are real stumbling blocks for those living miles away. Added to that, there is a lowering of the qualifications bar for staff in schools, the police service, and the health service. The NHS was built on serving the needs of all the people. But recent years have seen private healthcare firms experiencing an increase in business Does this amount to the creation of a two tier service? Your point on Richard is interesting as some see him as the Captain who is abandoning the decimated local ship and Pontious Pilate was a Roman who knew all about decimation. Cuetip
  • Score: -2

9:41am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

I voted for Mr Harrington at the last election. I feel totally let down by the way he has gone about his business totally absorbed in self-promotion.

Why hasn’t he been able to push for money to develop the hospital in parliament? It has to go down as a failing on his part.

I would imagine the vast number of posters are invested in a new hospital for Watford as we live here. The local hospital for our MP is the Royal Free in London so why should he care? He knows lose the next election and he will end up in the Lords.

Not many votes in West Watford for either of them.
I voted for Mr Harrington at the last election. I feel totally let down by the way he has gone about his business totally absorbed in self-promotion. Why hasn’t he been able to push for money to develop the hospital in parliament? It has to go down as a failing on his part. I would imagine the vast number of posters are invested in a new hospital for Watford as we live here. The local hospital for our MP is the Royal Free in London so why should he care? He knows lose the next election and he will end up in the Lords. Not many votes in West Watford for either of them. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 13

9:46am Thu 27 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?
I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah.

I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before.

You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.
if you don't know if its true why say it???

Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?[/p][/quote]I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah. I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before. You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.[/p][/quote]if you don't know if its true why say it??? Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent. ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

10:01am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her.

I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate.

I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents.

He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.
Phew that's a hell of a political spin especially in view of the changing demographics of this very marginal seat. It's almost as bizarre like the many paper candidates in election leaflets suddenly appearing staring at potholes, expressing concern about planning, parking etc.

Returning to the 'Health' Campus, does the emergence of super hospitals and the closure of local hospitals eg Hemel, lead to a better health service? Just think of the location, access and well known parking issues which are real stumbling blocks for those living miles away.

Added to that, there is a lowering of the qualifications bar for staff in schools, the police service, and the health service. The NHS was built on serving the needs of all the people. But recent years have seen private healthcare firms experiencing an increase in business Does this amount to the creation of a two tier service?

Your point on Richard is interesting as some see him as the Captain who is abandoning the decimated local ship and Pontious Pilate was a Roman who knew all about decimation.
Nonsensical and creepy.

Please don't bother to respond to my posts.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]To be fair to this lady shouldn’t you be sure if they are her posts before attacking her. I haven’t seen anything about the Tories even announcing a Mayoral candidate. I thought the Tories locally were in melt down and totally irrelevant with a MP hiding any trace he is a Tory. Just read any of his leaflets and see if he mentions which party he represents. He wants to promote the Harrington brand not the local or national party.[/p][/quote]Phew that's a hell of a political spin especially in view of the changing demographics of this very marginal seat. It's almost as bizarre like the many paper candidates in election leaflets suddenly appearing staring at potholes, expressing concern about planning, parking etc. Returning to the 'Health' Campus, does the emergence of super hospitals and the closure of local hospitals eg Hemel, lead to a better health service? Just think of the location, access and well known parking issues which are real stumbling blocks for those living miles away. Added to that, there is a lowering of the qualifications bar for staff in schools, the police service, and the health service. The NHS was built on serving the needs of all the people. But recent years have seen private healthcare firms experiencing an increase in business Does this amount to the creation of a two tier service? Your point on Richard is interesting as some see him as the Captain who is abandoning the decimated local ship and Pontious Pilate was a Roman who knew all about decimation.[/p][/quote]Nonsensical and creepy. Please don't bother to respond to my posts. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 3

10:05am Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?
I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah.

I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before.

You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.
if you don't know if its true why say it???

Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent.
Ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?[/p][/quote]I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah. I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before. You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.[/p][/quote]if you don't know if its true why say it??? Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

10:41am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts.

Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness.

However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus.

Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views.
Over to you
Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts. Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness. However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus. Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views. Over to you Cuetip
  • Score: 0

10:54am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts.

Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness.

However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus.

Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views.
Over to you
Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts. Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness. However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus. Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views. Over to you[/p][/quote]Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 1

11:12am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts.

Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness.

However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus.

Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views.
Over to you
Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts.
You are truly amusing and you of all people should know lots about stalking.

I'm not Ian Oakley your ex agent and Tory polical candidate who was much lauded and patted on the back at his trial for a vicious campaign against the Liberals with no apology.

Come on at least try and make a pertinent comment on the NHS or the Trust.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts. Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness. However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus. Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views. Over to you[/p][/quote]Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts.[/p][/quote]You are truly amusing and you of all people should know lots about stalking. I'm not Ian Oakley your ex agent and Tory polical candidate who was much lauded and patted on the back at his trial for a vicious campaign against the Liberals with no apology. Come on at least try and make a pertinent comment on the NHS or the Trust. Cuetip
  • Score: -7

11:24am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts.

Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness.

However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus.

Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views.
Over to you
Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts.
You are truly amusing and you of all people should know lots about stalking.

I'm not Ian Oakley your ex agent and Tory polical candidate who was much lauded and patted on the back at his trial for a vicious campaign against the Liberals with no apology.

Come on at least try and make a pertinent comment on the NHS or the Trust.
Very nonsensical and creepy. Please leave me alone.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says.. Please don't bother to respond to my posts. Your heavy strident comments on the local MP show some awareness. However I obviously didn’t allow for a more under / obtuse estimation as you prefer to live under a rock in isolation with limited knowledge of the bigger issues surrounding Farm Terrace and the Health Campus. Now don't get nasty which is your natural inclination. Only trying to help you be balanced and less prejudiced in your views. Over to you[/p][/quote]Please don't stalk me I have asked nicely for you not to respond to my posts.[/p][/quote]You are truly amusing and you of all people should know lots about stalking. I'm not Ian Oakley your ex agent and Tory polical candidate who was much lauded and patted on the back at his trial for a vicious campaign against the Liberals with no apology. Come on at least try and make a pertinent comment on the NHS or the Trust.[/p][/quote]Very nonsensical and creepy. Please leave me alone. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 6

11:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
So pleased to see you are back.

By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason.

Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote.

A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank?
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.[/p][/quote]So pleased to see you are back. By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason. Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote. A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank? Cuetip
  • Score: -6

11:37am Thu 27 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
So pleased to see you are back.

By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason.

Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote.

A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank?
Your posts are totally inappropriate. Stop stalking me.
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.[/p][/quote]So pleased to see you are back. By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason. Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote. A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank?[/p][/quote]Your posts are totally inappropriate. Stop stalking me. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 8

11:50am Thu 27 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate.

His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner.

I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story.

I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.
So pleased to see you are back.

By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason.

Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote.

A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank?
Your posts are totally inappropriate. Stop stalking me.
I can't stop you continuously replying or trying to bully me into silence on the any questions above eg I'm a supporter of the allotment holders, I'm worried about the NHS finances for a new super hospital, 750 homes is not a Health Campus.

Doctor says -take a chill pill, walk the dog, and come back feel refreshed.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: What I don't understand is how our local MP who emails me and other residents once a fortnight in the most neutral terms has been allowed to stay on the fringes of this debate. His whole strategy seems to be don't upset anyone, only take a position on an issue if you are forced into a corner. I noticed on his website that last week he came out with a statement that the hospital must stay in Watford that the Observer picked up on. I doubt he was pleased that his statement on his website was made into a news story. I suppose what I am saying is the last thing Watford needs is an MP more concerned in not upsetting the voters than someone with a clear vision that isn't afraid of upsetting the electorate on occasion.[/p][/quote]So pleased to see you are back. By the way just asking what exactly is your position on Farm Terrace apart from being a disaffected Tory who it appears Richard has upset for some unknown reason. Reading bewween lines it seems connected to a lack of support on some personal issue and you are being ever so polite to Phil Cox? Perhaps he might have your vote. A bit of humour for you - Are you the thoughtful fat controller as in Thomas the Tank?[/p][/quote]Your posts are totally inappropriate. Stop stalking me.[/p][/quote]I can't stop you continuously replying or trying to bully me into silence on the any questions above eg I'm a supporter of the allotment holders, I'm worried about the NHS finances for a new super hospital, 750 homes is not a Health Campus. Doctor says -take a chill pill, walk the dog, and come back feel refreshed. Cuetip
  • Score: -9

3:40pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate.

Not a good night for the kippers
Another off-topic comment from LibDem Ramage.

Ramage obviously in his own little LibDem world as all the polls disagree with his assessment. How out of touch do you need to be as a LibDem before you stop posting such rubbish?

Well done Nigel. 57% to 36%. Seems a pretty convincing win to me although in truth Farage should have done much better. These results almost make Nick Clegg seem credible, at least to some people. He's not.
Well you are half right Phil, yes I will be voting Lib Dem for the mayoral election in Watford, it will be my first time voting Lib Dem but Thornhill seems a much better candidate than you, I will vote Labour as always in the GE though.
I think Thornhill has the best chance of keeping Ukip out, I want Ukip kept out as for one you come across as a chancer and two the racist parties that Ukip are affiliated too in the European parliament like the Northern League in Italy.

You and your election agent D_Penn are coming across as more and more desperate on these articles you post on daily on this website.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Farage got destroyed by Clegg on the Euro debate this evening on LBC, Farage got all angry and sweaty, reminded me of when Nixon lost his debate. Not a good night for the kippers[/p][/quote]Another off-topic comment from LibDem Ramage. Ramage obviously in his own little LibDem world as all the polls disagree with his assessment. How out of touch do you need to be as a LibDem before you stop posting such rubbish? Well done Nigel. 57% to 36%. Seems a pretty convincing win to me although in truth Farage should have done much better. These results almost make Nick Clegg seem credible, at least to some people. He's not.[/p][/quote]Well you are half right Phil, yes I will be voting Lib Dem for the mayoral election in Watford, it will be my first time voting Lib Dem but Thornhill seems a much better candidate than you, I will vote Labour as always in the GE though. I think Thornhill has the best chance of keeping Ukip out, I want Ukip kept out as for one you come across as a chancer and two the racist parties that Ukip are affiliated too in the European parliament like the Northern League in Italy. You and your election agent D_Penn are coming across as more and more desperate on these articles you post on daily on this website. ramage1996
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Thu 27 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty!
As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

6:04pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty!
Not according to the Allotments Act.

Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty![/p][/quote]Not according to the Allotments Act. Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

6:20pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed.

I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough.

Watford deserves better. Far better.
The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed. I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough. Watford deserves better. Far better. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

6:52pm Thu 27 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty!
Not according to the Allotments Act.

Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.
"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty![/p][/quote]Not according to the Allotments Act. Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.[/p][/quote]"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan? LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

6:58pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed.

I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough.

Watford deserves better. Far better.
And you Phil are the best alternative?



Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected?

You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed. I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough. Watford deserves better. Far better.[/p][/quote]And you Phil are the best alternative? Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected? You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this. ramage1996
  • Score: -1

7:06pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty!
Not according to the Allotments Act.

Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.
"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan?
My missus has an allotment, there have been several fellow allotment holders that have had theirs taken off them as they do not maintain them, the council have every right to do so and after all the council own the land.

The allotment holders on the Farm allotments have been offered an alternative site to grow their carrots, Watford needs a new hospital, new jobs (1500) and new affordable homes.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty![/p][/quote]Not according to the Allotments Act. Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.[/p][/quote]"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan?[/p][/quote]My missus has an allotment, there have been several fellow allotment holders that have had theirs taken off them as they do not maintain them, the council have every right to do so and after all the council own the land. The allotment holders on the Farm allotments have been offered an alternative site to grow their carrots, Watford needs a new hospital, new jobs (1500) and new affordable homes. ramage1996
  • Score: -2

7:14pm Thu 27 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed.

I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough.

Watford deserves better. Far better.
And you Phil are the best alternative?



Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected?

You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this.
Oh dear! you're like a little terrier dog, just wont let go! Any manifesto whoever puts it forwards is going to be exactly the same is the current issues, isn't it? There's only so much is this relatively quite trouble free town than can be put forward. This isn't London and Phil isn't Boris. What are YOU expecting, it would be interesting to hear what YOU a resident/tenant would like to see changed or improved in Watford. Lets hear it!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed. I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough. Watford deserves better. Far better.[/p][/quote]And you Phil are the best alternative? Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected? You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this.[/p][/quote]Oh dear! you're like a little terrier dog, just wont let go! Any manifesto whoever puts it forwards is going to be exactly the same is the current issues, isn't it? There's only so much is this relatively quite trouble free town than can be put forward. This isn't London and Phil isn't Boris. What are YOU expecting, it would be interesting to hear what YOU a resident/tenant would like to see changed or improved in Watford. Lets hear it!!!!! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

7:27pm Thu 27 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

I know people who have lost allotments wrongly on the grounds of lack of maintenance, which suggests that this tactic of depriving allotment holders of their plots of land has now became a standard policy of Watford Council.
When the current Lib Dem administration took control of Watford Council, one of their first acts was to sell off parcels of land which had been strategically acquired by Watford Council for - among other objectives - keeping land available for a widening of Rickmansworth Road.
They sold the land off at auction for around £1 million, though just how much that presented in terms of real value for money, I have no idea.
They later sold off Watford Council's entire stock of council housing to the Watford Community Housing Trust, receiving millions of pounds in receipts.
I do not know what they ended up doing with all that money.
Now that they have sold off so many former Council assets, it looks like they are scraping the barrel by deliberately engineering the selling-off of all Council-owned allotments, even though they are supposed to be holding the land in perpetuity as stewards on behalf of all the generations of Watford: past, present and (most importantly) future.
There is a biblical line about someone selling their birthright for a mess of potage. It seems to me that the current administration is selling-off everyone else's birthright for a mess of potage. Though why, I do not know.
I have also heard Linda Topping is the Conservative candidate for Mayor.
I know people who have lost allotments wrongly on the grounds of lack of maintenance, which suggests that this tactic of depriving allotment holders of their plots of land has now became a standard policy of Watford Council. When the current Lib Dem administration took control of Watford Council, one of their first acts was to sell off parcels of land which had been strategically acquired by Watford Council for - among other objectives - keeping land available for a widening of Rickmansworth Road. They sold the land off at auction for around £1 million, though just how much that presented in terms of real value for money, I have no idea. They later sold off Watford Council's entire stock of council housing to the Watford Community Housing Trust, receiving millions of pounds in receipts. I do not know what they ended up doing with all that money. Now that they have sold off so many former Council assets, it looks like they are scraping the barrel by deliberately engineering the selling-off of all Council-owned allotments, even though they are supposed to be holding the land in perpetuity as stewards on behalf of all the generations of Watford: past, present and (most importantly) future. There is a biblical line about someone selling their birthright for a mess of potage. It seems to me that the current administration is selling-off everyone else's birthright for a mess of potage. Though why, I do not know. I have also heard Linda Topping is the Conservative candidate for Mayor. John Dowdle
  • Score: 3

7:31pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed.

I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough.

Watford deserves better. Far better.
And you Phil are the best alternative?



Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected?

You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this.
Oh dear! you're like a little terrier dog, just wont let go! Any manifesto whoever puts it forwards is going to be exactly the same is the current issues, isn't it? There's only so much is this relatively quite trouble free town than can be put forward. This isn't London and Phil isn't Boris. What are YOU expecting, it would be interesting to hear what YOU a resident/tenant would like to see changed or improved in Watford. Lets hear it!!!!!
As someone who arranges and reviews the care for the most vulnerable i.e. the elderly and disabled..
My first thing would be to ensure that the local council provide provision that is council owned rather than private profit run businesses that offer very poor care to our war heroes and disabled.

I would make sure Watford has a new hospital, a first class health campus, the 1500 new jobs would also be a welcome boost.

I would build what you kippers call 'windmills' and look at making all council services carbon neutral.

I would build council housing, increase provision refuges for those suffering domestic violence which is currently being cut.

I would ban any zero hours contracts in local government or jobs associated through third parties that are local government..



There ya go, whats Phil going to do?
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: The allotments do not have to go. You can do anything that is required and leave the allotments exactly where they are, which is exactly where they are needed. I agree with the comment "Not good enough Dotty". In fact, nowhere near good enough. Watford deserves better. Far better.[/p][/quote]And you Phil are the best alternative? Maybe you could furnish the electorate of Watford with the manifesto on which you are to elected? You promised this months ago but you seem to have forgotten this.[/p][/quote]Oh dear! you're like a little terrier dog, just wont let go! Any manifesto whoever puts it forwards is going to be exactly the same is the current issues, isn't it? There's only so much is this relatively quite trouble free town than can be put forward. This isn't London and Phil isn't Boris. What are YOU expecting, it would be interesting to hear what YOU a resident/tenant would like to see changed or improved in Watford. Lets hear it!!!!![/p][/quote]As someone who arranges and reviews the care for the most vulnerable i.e. the elderly and disabled.. My first thing would be to ensure that the local council provide provision that is council owned rather than private profit run businesses that offer very poor care to our war heroes and disabled. I would make sure Watford has a new hospital, a first class health campus, the 1500 new jobs would also be a welcome boost. I would build what you kippers call 'windmills' and look at making all council services carbon neutral. I would build council housing, increase provision refuges for those suffering domestic violence which is currently being cut. I would ban any zero hours contracts in local government or jobs associated through third parties that are local government.. There ya go, whats Phil going to do? ramage1996
  • Score: -1

8:41pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

ramage1996 wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty!
Not according to the Allotments Act.

Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.
"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan?
My missus has an allotment, there have been several fellow allotment holders that have had theirs taken off them as they do not maintain them, the council have every right to do so and after all the council own the land.

The allotment holders on the Farm allotments have been offered an alternative site to grow their carrots, Watford needs a new hospital, new jobs (1500) and new affordable homes.
The allotment act(s) aren't out of date. They are the basis on which all allotment agreements are made. The 30 days aspect is if a tenant doesn't keep up their side of the tenancy.

I think everyone agrees a new or improved hospital is desirable. Most of us doubt it's going to happen in the foreseeable future regardless of the outcome of the Judicial review. Though at the consultations, we were assured by everyone that the plan would go ahead no matter what. That being the case, why not leave the allotment holders where they are?

Personally I feel 750 new homes in an already overly dense area, on a flood plain, is asking for problems. As to the 1,500 new jobs, not sure how this figure is arrived at but in any case, wouldn't a lot of them be taken up by the residents of the 750 new homes? Then of course there is the problem of school places, dentists, doctors and so on.

Did you only grow carrots on your allotment? You must have excellent night time vision.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: As much as I feel for the allotment holders, they know as I did when I had my allotment that there is a 30 day notice to quit, even if you have tended your 5 or 10 poles for 20 years. Tough I know, but it's a condition that I was always was aware of. If the Farm Terrace Allotments have to go. I would like to see a guarantee from Dotty that we will get our new "Watford General", not just 700 homes and a health campus with a "Well maybe a hospital in the future" Not good enough Dotty![/p][/quote]Not according to the Allotments Act. Dorothy isn't in a position to guarantee the Health Campus. In fact, I think she is aware that a new hospital is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future - hence she is positioning to try and blame the allotment holders.[/p][/quote]"Not according to the Allotments Act" Well which one 1922, 1950? and so on!. I had my allotment many years ago and I signed a tenancy agreement with WBC, that was what I expected to stand by, not dig up some old out of date act to stand my ground (excuse the pun) to retain my allotment. But I stand by what I said regarding the 700 homes (there is I believe a dispute as to how many must be affordable) and the campus. No hospital, No nothing!.... Could make a good slogan?[/p][/quote]My missus has an allotment, there have been several fellow allotment holders that have had theirs taken off them as they do not maintain them, the council have every right to do so and after all the council own the land. The allotment holders on the Farm allotments have been offered an alternative site to grow their carrots, Watford needs a new hospital, new jobs (1500) and new affordable homes.[/p][/quote]The allotment act(s) aren't out of date. They are the basis on which all allotment agreements are made. The 30 days aspect is if a tenant doesn't keep up their side of the tenancy. I think everyone agrees a new or improved hospital is desirable. Most of us doubt it's going to happen in the foreseeable future regardless of the outcome of the Judicial review. Though at the consultations, we were assured by everyone that the plan would go ahead no matter what. That being the case, why not leave the allotment holders where they are? Personally I feel 750 new homes in an already overly dense area, on a flood plain, is asking for problems. As to the 1,500 new jobs, not sure how this figure is arrived at but in any case, wouldn't a lot of them be taken up by the residents of the 750 new homes? Then of course there is the problem of school places, dentists, doctors and so on. Did you only grow carrots on your allotment? You must have excellent night time vision. Su Murray
  • Score: 3

8:48pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
@ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Thu 27 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views! LocalBoy1
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not.

Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care.

Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill.

The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees.

Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often.

If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views![/p][/quote]PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not. Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care. Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill. The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees. Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often. If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym? Su Murray
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
I arrange long term and emergency care in residential and nursing homes where because we have sold off all the council provision are paying nursing homes on average 750 quid a week, sometimes up to 1200 a week and in some cases beyond that.

For residential care for an elderly person we are paying 500 to 600 quid a week to a private company.

All the care companies we use for care at home are private and the care they provide is shocking, truly shocking mate so you call it PC all you want but privatising everything because that is your political agenda may one day come back to haunt you if you are in need of care.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views![/p][/quote]I arrange long term and emergency care in residential and nursing homes where because we have sold off all the council provision are paying nursing homes on average 750 quid a week, sometimes up to 1200 a week and in some cases beyond that. For residential care for an elderly person we are paying 500 to 600 quid a week to a private company. All the care companies we use for care at home are private and the care they provide is shocking, truly shocking mate so you call it PC all you want but privatising everything because that is your political agenda may one day come back to haunt you if you are in need of care. ramage1996
  • Score: 1

9:28pm Thu 27 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not.

Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care.

Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill.

The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees.

Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often.

If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?
Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though...
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views![/p][/quote]PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not. Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care. Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill. The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees. Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often. If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?[/p][/quote]Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though... LocalBoy1
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not.

Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care.

Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill.

The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees.

Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often.

If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?
Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though...
I wonder what ideas Phil Cox has to improve the lives of the people of Watford.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views![/p][/quote]PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not. Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care. Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill. The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees. Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often. If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?[/p][/quote]Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though...[/p][/quote]I wonder what ideas Phil Cox has to improve the lives of the people of Watford. ramage1996
  • Score: 1

9:35pm Thu 27 Mar 14

watfordrick says...

Anyone who votes for Thornhill as mayor needs their head examined !
Anyone who votes for Thornhill as mayor needs their head examined ! watfordrick
  • Score: 4

9:42pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

And while we are on this subject, visiting someone who has fought for this country in WW2 against facism and kept this country free, to see them struggling to pay the massive fuel bills that have increased so much due to the cartel in the private energy industry makes me sad for this country if you consider the **** state pension they receive.

This isnt an issue for the Watford mayor it is an issue for the state government but still it makes me sad when I visit these heroes that are being mugged off and are in fuel poverty, maybe we should take an element of state control on prices.
And while we are on this subject, visiting someone who has fought for this country in WW2 against facism and kept this country free, to see them struggling to pay the massive fuel bills that have increased so much due to the cartel in the private energy industry makes me sad for this country if you consider the **** state pension they receive. This isnt an issue for the Watford mayor it is an issue for the state government but still it makes me sad when I visit these heroes that are being mugged off and are in fuel poverty, maybe we should take an element of state control on prices. ramage1996
  • Score: 2

9:45pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ ramage1966

Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.
You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views!
PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not.

Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care.

Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill.

The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees.

Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often.

If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?
Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though...
No I'm not a 'youngster'. Things like 'btw' are just another version of speed writing which has been around for many a long year. No different really to you using 'PC'.

Yes I am 'Green'. I think you probably know that though as I've never disguised it. However, I don't just live in a 'dream bubble, I am quite pragmatic. We look at things too much in terms of left and right. In reality, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, there are still more similarities than differences between us all. Not that many people would admit it. I note you don't address the substance of my comments.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ ramage1966 Other than your take on the allotments, I would happily vote for your manifesto.[/p][/quote]You must be totally mad, never seen such lefty PC correct views![/p][/quote]PC correct? Granted windmills in Watford might be tricky but the general principle of renewable energy - why not? Oil and gas will run out whether we want to acknowledge that or not. Council run care for the vulnerable - I consider that infinitely preferable to share holders making a profit at the expense of good quality care. Additional council housing would ease the shortage of housing, and reduce the housing benefit bill. The banning of zero hours contracts would increase employment stability, and again, reduce the benefits bill. Not to mention reduce stress and worry for the employees. Would you rather the victims of domestic violence continue to be stuck in an abusive situation? For me, it's a natural instinct to try and help, but even from a financial perspective it makes sense. Save the NHS having to deal with the inevitable injuries, or the state having to raise the children when one parent has murdered the other. And yes, that may sound dramatic but it happens. Far, far, far, too often. If that's what you mean by PC correct then I hold my hand (and my head) up. Btw, you do realise that the C in PC stands for correct don't you? Unless of course you are using 'PC' as some other acronym?[/p][/quote]Btw? That puts me off sensible debate, it infers that I am dealing with a text talking youngster? You are so far left you must be a Green Party advocate... I will leave you in your dream bubble, nice if it could be realistically done though...[/p][/quote]No I'm not a 'youngster'. Things like 'btw' are just another version of speed writing which has been around for many a long year. No different really to you using 'PC'. Yes I am 'Green'. I think you probably know that though as I've never disguised it. However, I don't just live in a 'dream bubble, I am quite pragmatic. We look at things too much in terms of left and right. In reality, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, there are still more similarities than differences between us all. Not that many people would admit it. I note you don't address the substance of my comments. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

10:04pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

@ramage1996

This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?
@ramage1996 This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP? Su Murray
  • Score: 1

10:09pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
And while we are on this subject, visiting someone who has fought for this country in WW2 against facism and kept this country free, to see them struggling to pay the massive fuel bills that have increased so much due to the cartel in the private energy industry makes me sad for this country if you consider the **** state pension they receive.

This isnt an issue for the Watford mayor it is an issue for the state government but still it makes me sad when I visit these heroes that are being mugged off and are in fuel poverty, maybe we should take an element of state control on prices.
There are many people who fought to keep this country free and independent and who now struggle with fuel bills. They need our help.

Ukip stands up for those people by trying to regain our independence from the EU and by reducing energy bills by getting rid of the ridiculous green taxes that cause real but unneccesary hardship to so many people.

Who is mugging the people over fuel bills? No-one more so than the government backed by the green lobby.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: And while we are on this subject, visiting someone who has fought for this country in WW2 against facism and kept this country free, to see them struggling to pay the massive fuel bills that have increased so much due to the cartel in the private energy industry makes me sad for this country if you consider the **** state pension they receive. This isnt an issue for the Watford mayor it is an issue for the state government but still it makes me sad when I visit these heroes that are being mugged off and are in fuel poverty, maybe we should take an element of state control on prices.[/p][/quote]There are many people who fought to keep this country free and independent and who now struggle with fuel bills. They need our help. Ukip stands up for those people by trying to regain our independence from the EU and by reducing energy bills by getting rid of the ridiculous green taxes that cause real but unneccesary hardship to so many people. Who is mugging the people over fuel bills? No-one more so than the government backed by the green lobby. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

10:12pm Thu 27 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Su Murray wrote:
@ramage1996

This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?
I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford.

Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ramage1996 This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?[/p][/quote]I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford. Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically. ramage1996
  • Score: 1

10:36pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ramage1996

This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?
I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford.

Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.
Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system?

If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem.

As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ramage1996 This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?[/p][/quote]I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford. Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.[/p][/quote]Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system? If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem. As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

8:10am Fri 28 Mar 14

Sarahjones1 says...

Su Murray wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ramage1996

This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?
I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford.

Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.
Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system?

If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem.

As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE.
Su with so much uncertainty over the Health Campus I wonder if a local organisation could organise a debate between politicians the Health Trust and Farm Terrace campaigners?

I for one would like to hear all the arguments from every side.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ramage1996 This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?[/p][/quote]I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford. Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.[/p][/quote]Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system? If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem. As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE.[/p][/quote]Su with so much uncertainty over the Health Campus I wonder if a local organisation could organise a debate between politicians the Health Trust and Farm Terrace campaigners? I for one would like to hear all the arguments from every side. Sarahjones1
  • Score: 2

9:44am Fri 28 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Sarahjones1 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@ramage1996

This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?
I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford.

Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.
Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system?

If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem.

As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE.
Su with so much uncertainty over the Health Campus I wonder if a local organisation could organise a debate between politicians the Health Trust and Farm Terrace campaigners?

I for one would like to hear all the arguments from every side.
I think that's a good idea Sarah. Furthermore, Sara Jane would be happy to attend and debate publicly.
[quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @ramage1996 This is purely curiosity on my part. You said earlier that you are a Labour voter, but you will be voting for Dorothy in the Mayoral election in order to keep UKIP out? Firstly, what makes you think UKIP have much chance in the election anyway, and secondly, why wouldn't you give your first vote to Jagtar, and your second to Dorothy? Or is that what you meant by you'd give your vote to Dorothy rather than UKIP?[/p][/quote]I dont really see the Mayoral election as the same as the GE, I would not vote Lib Dem in the GE but I would be mortified to see a far right party that affiliates with the likes of the Northern League in Italy having a mayor get in power in Watford. Im voting Thornhill, id suggest that people think tactically.[/p][/quote]Yeah I get what you are saying. In Watford we're used to voting tactically anyway. But I'm just wondering why you'd give your first vote to Dorothy, rather than the Labour candidate given the Mayor is elected under the STV system? If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote Jagtar as my first choice. Then I'd evaluate the risk of UKIP and whether it would be better to vote for Dorothy rather than risk letting UKIP in. I might of course run screaming from the voting booth on the basis that was like voting between two eunuchs fighting over a condom! Which is not to disparage Watford so much as the choice between UKIP and Lib dem. As it is, I'll be making similar choices at both the Mayoral election, and the GE.[/p][/quote]Su with so much uncertainty over the Health Campus I wonder if a local organisation could organise a debate between politicians the Health Trust and Farm Terrace campaigners? I for one would like to hear all the arguments from every side.[/p][/quote]I think that's a good idea Sarah. Furthermore, Sara Jane would be happy to attend and debate publicly. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

11:15am Fri 28 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

@Su Murray and @ramage1996. Well having read both of your views of what is good for Watford, I wish you both luck with your fantasy Socialist/Green dreams. With your ideals put into place Watford is destined to be a very large kibbutz.... No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, shopping/entertainme
nt development bringing much needed income and jobs to the town. We live in a capitalists world. Get used to it.
@Su Murray and @ramage1996. Well having read both of your views of what is good for Watford, I wish you both luck with your fantasy Socialist/Green dreams. With your ideals put into place Watford is destined to be a very large kibbutz.... No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, shopping/entertainme nt development bringing much needed income and jobs to the town. We live in a capitalists world. Get used to it. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

4:31pm Fri 28 Mar 14

butler123 says...

The allotments are roughly 10% of the area to be developed, it is not where 750 homes are being built, last I heard it was 60-70. So without them there are still over 650 new homes, which is more than the scheme had planned this time last year, before the figure was increased for the second or third time.

The map created for the consultation purpose is meaningless: on the allotments, it shows potential hospital buildings, a car park and 10 houses. The hospital has no plans to build these, the car park was not mentioned when the council resubmitted the plans after the Sec of state refused permission last time, and no one has suggested there are only 10 houses being built there, as a man at the consultation said, it's all just indicative.

The council should make a real map of their development plans without putting potential/possible buildings on it and then ask for public reaction.
This map needs to be exactly what is going to be built including a clear indication of road access.

If the public could see 2 options, 1 with 650 new homes and the allotments saved, and 1 with those extra houses meaning the allotments are taken, I do not think there would be much support for the council. Many local people think even 650 is too many, and there won't be any new hospital buildings on the map.

If in future the hospital has the need for allotment land, that should be a separate application. The council has said 40% of the allotments will be left to give the hospital for future plans. That 40% should not be included in the councils application for the new houses. The houses have nothing to do with the hospital.

If the council and kier want the scheme to be a health campus including a hospital development, they will have to wait for the hospital to be ready to make it's plans. Otherwise this a housing and commercial unit application. From what I've read the hospital will not be ready to make any plans till after the general election and even then there is no funding on the horizon, and btw why when the hospital built that huge blue temporary building did they not spend a bit more and make an 8-10 storey concrete building on that same footprint. I would have thought that would have solved their problems.
The allotments are roughly 10% of the area to be developed, it is not where 750 homes are being built, last I heard it was 60-70. So without them there are still over 650 new homes, which is more than the scheme had planned this time last year, before the figure was increased for the second or third time. The map created for the consultation purpose is meaningless: on the allotments, it shows potential hospital buildings, a car park and 10 houses. The hospital has no plans to build these, the car park was not mentioned when the council resubmitted the plans after the Sec of state refused permission last time, and no one has suggested there are only 10 houses being built there, as a man at the consultation said, it's all just indicative. The council should make a real map of their development plans without putting potential/possible buildings on it and then ask for public reaction. This map needs to be exactly what is going to be built including a clear indication of road access. If the public could see 2 options, 1 with 650 new homes and the allotments saved, and 1 with those extra houses meaning the allotments are taken, I do not think there would be much support for the council. Many local people think even 650 is too many, and there won't be any new hospital buildings on the map. If in future the hospital has the need for allotment land, that should be a separate application. The council has said 40% of the allotments will be left to give the hospital for future plans. That 40% should not be included in the councils application for the new houses. The houses have nothing to do with the hospital. If the council and kier want the scheme to be a health campus including a hospital development, they will have to wait for the hospital to be ready to make it's plans. Otherwise this a housing and commercial unit application. From what I've read the hospital will not be ready to make any plans till after the general election and even then there is no funding on the horizon, and btw why when the hospital built that huge blue temporary building did they not spend a bit more and make an 8-10 storey concrete building on that same footprint. I would have thought that would have solved their problems. butler123
  • Score: 7

5:04pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

butler123 wrote:
The allotments are roughly 10% of the area to be developed, it is not where 750 homes are being built, last I heard it was 60-70. So without them there are still over 650 new homes, which is more than the scheme had planned this time last year, before the figure was increased for the second or third time.

The map created for the consultation purpose is meaningless: on the allotments, it shows potential hospital buildings, a car park and 10 houses. The hospital has no plans to build these, the car park was not mentioned when the council resubmitted the plans after the Sec of state refused permission last time, and no one has suggested there are only 10 houses being built there, as a man at the consultation said, it's all just indicative.

The council should make a real map of their development plans without putting potential/possible buildings on it and then ask for public reaction.
This map needs to be exactly what is going to be built including a clear indication of road access.

If the public could see 2 options, 1 with 650 new homes and the allotments saved, and 1 with those extra houses meaning the allotments are taken, I do not think there would be much support for the council. Many local people think even 650 is too many, and there won't be any new hospital buildings on the map.

If in future the hospital has the need for allotment land, that should be a separate application. The council has said 40% of the allotments will be left to give the hospital for future plans. That 40% should not be included in the councils application for the new houses. The houses have nothing to do with the hospital.

If the council and kier want the scheme to be a health campus including a hospital development, they will have to wait for the hospital to be ready to make it's plans. Otherwise this a housing and commercial unit application. From what I've read the hospital will not be ready to make any plans till after the general election and even then there is no funding on the horizon, and btw why when the hospital built that huge blue temporary building did they not spend a bit more and make an 8-10 storey concrete building on that same footprint. I would have thought that would have solved their problems.
So nice to see a thoughtful and sensible post on this story again.

I completely agree with your points.
[quote][p][bold]butler123[/bold] wrote: The allotments are roughly 10% of the area to be developed, it is not where 750 homes are being built, last I heard it was 60-70. So without them there are still over 650 new homes, which is more than the scheme had planned this time last year, before the figure was increased for the second or third time. The map created for the consultation purpose is meaningless: on the allotments, it shows potential hospital buildings, a car park and 10 houses. The hospital has no plans to build these, the car park was not mentioned when the council resubmitted the plans after the Sec of state refused permission last time, and no one has suggested there are only 10 houses being built there, as a man at the consultation said, it's all just indicative. The council should make a real map of their development plans without putting potential/possible buildings on it and then ask for public reaction. This map needs to be exactly what is going to be built including a clear indication of road access. If the public could see 2 options, 1 with 650 new homes and the allotments saved, and 1 with those extra houses meaning the allotments are taken, I do not think there would be much support for the council. Many local people think even 650 is too many, and there won't be any new hospital buildings on the map. If in future the hospital has the need for allotment land, that should be a separate application. The council has said 40% of the allotments will be left to give the hospital for future plans. That 40% should not be included in the councils application for the new houses. The houses have nothing to do with the hospital. If the council and kier want the scheme to be a health campus including a hospital development, they will have to wait for the hospital to be ready to make it's plans. Otherwise this a housing and commercial unit application. From what I've read the hospital will not be ready to make any plans till after the general election and even then there is no funding on the horizon, and btw why when the hospital built that huge blue temporary building did they not spend a bit more and make an 8-10 storey concrete building on that same footprint. I would have thought that would have solved their problems.[/p][/quote]So nice to see a thoughtful and sensible post on this story again. I completely agree with your points. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -8

9:34am Sat 29 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

"No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, "
Since when does a housing development and a car park comprise "Commercial Investment"? Are we talking an influx of IT startups, high tech medical research groups, the latest in mobility engineering?
"No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, " Since when does a housing development and a car park comprise "Commercial Investment"? Are we talking an influx of IT startups, high tech medical research groups, the latest in mobility engineering? #UKMum
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Sun 30 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sarahjones1 wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject?
Good question.

vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings.

Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.
Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?
Sarah,

to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic.

I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker.

There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.
Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).
that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?
I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah.

I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before.

You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.
if you don't know if its true why say it???

Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent.
Ridiculous.
really you did it before didn't you, if you want to say X is Y then simply say it or be a coward!!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sarahjones1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: Sarahjones1 says...What significance has vicky34 to the subject? Good question. vickyt34 wrote: I thought new hospital buildings were guaranteed. The delay is over the clinical review that is taking place. The Hospital Trust have to decide what services to put into the buildings. Vicky Pollard above is rumoured to be Richard’s right hand person and wanted him to be a minister. She somehow believes the new hospital is a done deal. That’s a naïve view given that even the mayor recognises that it is far from the case.[/p][/quote]Please don't talk in riddles who is she and what relevance does she have to the story?[/p][/quote]Sarah, to put you out of your misery I will explain, even though it is off topic. I am sure I have read earlier on another story someone claiming Vicky is none other than Linda Topping, local tory mover and shaker. There is also a rumour, given by Vicky herself, that Linda will be, or is, the Tory candidate for Mayor this year.[/p][/quote]Thank you Phil for answering my question. I had no idea what Cuetip was on about (not for the first time).[/p][/quote]that would be using an unverified rumor to bash a poster and political oponent with, now that's a new development, what page of the UKIP dark arts of media manipulation is that on?[/p][/quote]I answered a question that was puzzling Sarah. I didn't say it was true or not for I simply do not know, just that this was what was likely to being alluded to. It's been on these forums before. You know better than most that elected councillors and key political figures in Watford post under false names to keep their identities secret.[/p][/quote]if you don't know if its true why say it??? Its a dirty trick because you are a mayoral candidate and udeing it to smear a perceived opponent.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous.[/p][/quote]really you did it before didn't you, if you want to say X is Y then simply say it or be a coward!! ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Sun 30 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

#UKMum wrote:
"No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, "
Since when does a housing development and a car park comprise "Commercial Investment"? Are we talking an influx of IT startups, high tech medical research groups, the latest in mobility engineering?
Try looking at the comment as a whole and the relevant preceding comments. You have plucked out one piece of quite an extensive debate between myself and others. Then added a sprinkling of sarcasm, not really very constructive is it?
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: "No mention of what Watford thrives on? Commercial investment, business investment, Industrial investment, " Since when does a housing development and a car park comprise "Commercial Investment"? Are we talking an influx of IT startups, high tech medical research groups, the latest in mobility engineering?[/p][/quote]Try looking at the comment as a whole and the relevant preceding comments. You have plucked out one piece of quite an extensive debate between myself and others. Then added a sprinkling of sarcasm, not really very constructive is it? LocalBoy1
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Mon 31 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

Local Boy

I think it would be great if you could actually tell me how Watford would gain from building a car park and some houses on Farm Terrace Allotments. UCL recently very successfully rebuilt within its own footprint.and Watford General could do similar. There are numerous empty business units in Watford already. If there was such a demand for them why are so many languishing at the moment? Could it be that potential business people are not prepared to pay for the space or can't afford to pay for the space?
Local Boy I think it would be great if you could actually tell me how Watford would gain from building a car park and some houses on Farm Terrace Allotments. UCL recently very successfully rebuilt within its own footprint.and Watford General could do similar. There are numerous empty business units in Watford already. If there was such a demand for them why are so many languishing at the moment? Could it be that potential business people are not prepared to pay for the space or can't afford to pay for the space? #UKMum
  • Score: 2

6:38pm Mon 31 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

I think #UKMum raises a serious question which ought to be answered.
Normally, whenever a development is announced, an accompanying announcement details the names of enterprises which will be linked in with the development, together with details of the kinds of activities they are involved in and the numbers of jobs that will be created.
Have we heard any of these announcements in connection with the proposed "health campus"? No - we have not. Why not?
Is it because the linkage of the development with the concept of a health campus is simply spurious? In which case, the development partners should drop the spurious linkage between a housing development and any other concepts to do with health - or hospitals too, for that matter.
In view of today's announcements from the UN on climate change, why is more information on flood relief proposals associated with the proposed development not being made? Does this represent an attempt to get the building on flood plain pushed through quickly, leaving the problems of flooding to be dealt with by future council administrations? If so, this is grossly irresponsible behaviour on the part of all the partners.
I think #UKMum raises a serious question which ought to be answered. Normally, whenever a development is announced, an accompanying announcement details the names of enterprises which will be linked in with the development, together with details of the kinds of activities they are involved in and the numbers of jobs that will be created. Have we heard any of these announcements in connection with the proposed "health campus"? No - we have not. Why not? Is it because the linkage of the development with the concept of a health campus is simply spurious? In which case, the development partners should drop the spurious linkage between a housing development and any other concepts to do with health - or hospitals too, for that matter. In view of today's announcements from the UN on climate change, why is more information on flood relief proposals associated with the proposed development not being made? Does this represent an attempt to get the building on flood plain pushed through quickly, leaving the problems of flooding to be dealt with by future council administrations? If so, this is grossly irresponsible behaviour on the part of all the partners. John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree