Area Committees are not the answer

Rye Labour Party (letter 21 January) blasts in where others fear to tread.

Mr Warren has made some strong points about the partisan nature of Cllr Bantick’s regular meditations in the Observer.

Granville ponders about the changing seasons, flood defences and the political scene - local and national: and I have long presumed that readers know perfectly well that he is a canny operator as a LibDem councillor and lieutenant of Dr Taylor in the so-called Campaign for a Democratic Rye. He is also a prolific correspondent and is quick to identify trouble but less keen to suggest solutions. The CDR believes that the resolution of problems comes through structures; and they are wrong. Trust people.

As Mr Warren points out, the CDR claims the high ground away from the murky world of Party battles: but the man-power is largely LibDem. They press us, at every opportunity, to adopt a system of Area Committees for the governance of Rye. The model for this revolution? Look no further than Eastleigh, the parliamentary seat of Chris Huhne. No further examples are offered nor is any evidence presented. Rother’s Scrutiny Committee considered the pros and cons of Area Committees in great detail on 28 November 2005; believed the argument to be, in some respects, finely balanced - and awaited more hard facts, rather than assertions, from the protagonists.

Mr Warren could not resist a swipe at the Coalition (“.. the Conservatives .. being happy to allow Cllr Bantick to represent their joint interest”). My guess is that the national deal will break up after about four years of this Parliament in order to allow the Parties to develop their individual policies and fight to form the next government. Locally, we contend entirely separately in the build-up (and it looks likely to be a long one) to the District and Town Council elections and the alternative vote referendum on the 5 May.

Cllr David Russell

Rye Conservatives, Rye Hill