News

MP Dr Phillip Lee grilled by Crowthorne constituents

By Jennie Slevin
November 29, 2012

Constituents quizzed the Bracknell Forest MP on a number of issues at a meeting in Crowthorne last Thursday.

Dr Phillip Lee, whose constituency includes Crowthorne and Finchampstead, spoke about housing plans for the area and the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections at the question and answer session at the Morgan Centre in Wellington Road.

The first question put to Dr Phillip Lee asked whether Bracknell Forest Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which aims to build 10,780 homes across the borough between 2006 and 2026, would be scrapped.

Some of the homes have already been built, but the SADPD includes plans for 1,000 homes on the former Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) site in Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, and 400 homes at Broadmoor Hospital also in Crowthorne.

Dr Lee assured his constituents the initial figures for the developments had been reduced, but made it clear new homes would be built.

He said: “We need cheaper homes because we benefit from having a cross section of ages in the area.

“There is a brownfield site that’s going to built on, it’s just a case of having the money. But we need to build sensitively, are the new builds going to be Bracknell homes or Crowthorne?

“If new homes are built in Crowthorne will there be enough GPs and schools? We don’t want to have people buying new houses, thinking they’re living in Crowthorne but sending their children to schools in Bracknell.”

He added that by having contradicting needs the borough would have to find a compromise, saying: “We all want big gardens and green land, but we also want houses and jobs for our children.”

Commenting on the PCC’s election, where just 13.1 per cent in Bracknell voted, Dr Lee defended the concept, suggesting it is important to have an individual responsible for policing.

But he added: “We all should feel concerned about the turnout.

“Next time around it will be in May with the local elections and people will be more aware of the role and what it involves.”

To watch a video of the session go to www.phillip-lee.com/video-gallery.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (9)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

Which leads me to explain the political manipulation of the electorate. Simply put, this politicising of the police comes from the same party who want to redraw the constituency boundaries to suit their own ends. Not because it's fair, but because they know it gifts them an electoral advantage. In the same way that the Republicans in the US attempted manipulation of the electorate by restricting early voting, introducing voter registration, overstating voter fraud as a case for punitive legislation.

All moves designed to harm the voting intent of the opposition demographic.

Oh, and did I mention that key Tory personnel were seconded to the Republican Party during the recent election?

This all sits within the wider Conservative narrative that overstates the spectre of immigration, Europe, benefit claimants, equality, and worker rights. All Daily Mail bogeymen, trotted out to alarm and manipulate. Rather than honestly inform with no agenda.

"How is it manipulation to offer the electorate the chance of electing someone to a role that had previously been appointed by local politicians?"

Last time I looked Anthony Stansfeld was a local politician - as were a raft of other candidates in the TVP area and across the UK. How does electing these people - who are local politicians - give the voters any greater involvement over a system that was previously conducted by local politicians?

Winstanley, Bracknell
04/12/2012 at 18:08

So, the internet, it's relevance to the topic in hand, and whether everyone has access:

"...the vast majority of the electors do"

Assumption number 1 - evidence please. I know many who have neither internet or mobile whether through geographic, location, cost, age or choice.

Assumption number 2 - you conflate the turnout for previous elections as a means to divine the projected turnout if the PCC election had been held on the same day as local polls.

Across the board this election has been discredited and shown to be something the public just did not want. Christ, even the Thames Valley PCC has attempted to justify his lack of mandate by proposing that those who didn't vote didn't vote against him! What a backwards and laughable attempt at spinning such a disastrous result.

Assumption number 3 - that the presence and election of a handful of independent candidates proves it wasn't a political manoeuvre by the government.

Utter rubbish. The election of independent PCC's is to the credit of the voters in those policing regions who showed they did not want politicians running their police service. It is in spite of central government that these independents succeeded.

If the government had been serious about the role they would have made a concerted effort to support the election with funding for promotion.

But as the Tories still see themselves as the law and order party - despite evidence to the contrary - they hoped that the majority of winning candidates would be Tory. But then we end up going round in circles again because allegedly these weren't political roles.

Winstanley, Bracknell
04/12/2012 at 18:07

“Sungei you make a hell of a lot of assumptions about what the country does or doesn't do or think.”

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out where I have made these assumptions. The only assumption that I can see I have made relates to the fact that the turnout for the PCC election would have been higher if the election had been held the same time as the local elections. In May of this year for the local elections in England the turnout was 31.3%. In elections in the past where there have been two ballot papers on different topics at the same election, virtually the same number of votes have been cast for both ballots. I think that you will therefore agree that my only assumption is evidence based.

It is certainly true that many candidates fought under a political party banner. However, in most areas there were Independent candidates and the electorate had the opportunity of electing those if they did not like party labels. In fact eleven PCCs independent of a party label were elected; that was the electorate’s choice.

I can’t see the relevance of your comment relating to internet access; internet access is available throughout Philip Lee's constituency he is campaigning to get faster broadband access in certain black spot areas. Even in the worst areas (Eversley exchange) the speed is adequate to look up static web pages.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by “it was designed solely as another means for the Tories to manipulate the electorate across the country”. How is it manipulation to offer the electorate the chance of electing someone to a role that had previously been appointed by local politicians?

Sungei Patani
04/12/2012 at 16:38

watchout R - renowned Tory and Lee apologist Sungei is back!

Sungei you make a hell of a lot of assumptions about what the country does or doesn't do or think.

There are clear indications that the country as a whole rejected the idea of an elected police commissioner precisely because - contrary to Tory propaganda - it introduces a political element into policing.

The police must remain independent from politics - or else you end up with the kind of scandal that led to Leveson. This fact has entirely bypassed Cameron and every other Tory MP with their nose fimly planted up HQ's backside.

The fact that candidates stood as political party candidates tells us that these are political roles - whether they are Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, UKIP.

As for broadband access - if the vast majority of the electorate have internet access why is Phillip 'Two Jobs' Lee seeking internet access for his constituents.

If the role of PCC was so important there should have been a concerted effort by central government to inform and educate the voters on it's importance. There should have been significant support to make the elections a success, and there should only have been independent candidates standing for the police service areas they claim to represent - not just the core voting bloc of whichever party.

The fact that it was a debacle and a failure shows us that Cameron and May had no faith or conviction in PCC's and it was designed solely as another means for the Tories to manipulate the electorate across the country.

Winstanley, Bracknell
04/12/2012 at 11:39

Whilst I accept that not everyone has access to the Internet the vast majority of the electors do. A simple Google search on "PCC Candidates" would suffice.

Had the elections been held at the same time as the local elections the turnout would have exceeded the recent Manchester Central bye election which only managed 18%. Was that a farce?

Sungei Patani
03/12/2012 at 15:49

Where was this readily available information ?(Sungei Patani). Not everyone has access and no information at all on where it may be found. The whole election was a farce, and would not be improved having it at the same time as local elections. Reason no one would still have knowledge of the candidates.

R Smith
02/12/2012 at 18:14

"Tory democracy in action" (R Smith) actually provided the electorate with the opportunity to decide who should have the ultimate responsibility for policing in each police area; contrary to the appointed head of the police authority as before. Information on each candidate was readily available on the internet.

To improve the turnout the election should have certainly have been held at the same time as the local elections but this was blocked by the Liberal Democrats.

Sungei Patani
02/12/2012 at 12:26

It would be helpful to his constituents if Dr Do-Little raised the problems being cause by his Parties in-ability to abolish the South East Plan which have the very reall risk of INCREASING the amount of Houses in Bracknell by over 2000 - but then that would mean he actually knew what was really going on his Constituency rather than waiting for HQ to tell him what words to say ...

Tom Edwards, Bracknell
02/12/2012 at 10:57

Is Mr Lee a parrot, spouting his parties words on the poor PCC election turnout. What I want to hear is his take on the fact the poor turnout may have been related to the fact that very few people even knew who if any the candidates were. Tory democracy in action!