Fringe Box



Letter: Coalition Parties Need to Get Their Act Together on the Local Plan Or Risk Electoral Losses

Published on: 15 Jul, 2022
Updated on: 15 Jul, 2022

From: David Roberts

In response to: Those Who Dislike the Local Plan Should Not Turn on Each Other

I agree that Cllr Rigg and Mr Cranwell are fundamentally on the same side. But Mr Cranwell (and GGG) have been far clearer about what they want a review of the Local Plan to achieve.

R4GV appear to be so lost in “process” that they cannot formulate what it is they actually want. Banging on about evidence and theoretical risks won’t help. Politicians must state plainly what outcome they want to see happen and articulate what steps they will take to meet it.

Cllr Rigg seems to have a clear enough vision for the town centre, but this leaves Guildford’s villages and green belt at the mercy of current over-development without any known policy that the public can vote either for or against.

To put it another way, despite all their hand-wringing, R4GV’s position is indistinguishable from unqualified support for the existing Plan.

This can only be because R4GV, cobbled together from a diverse bunch of independents and ex-Tories, cannot unite around a clear objective. Their Lib Dem coalition partners are no better, using R4GV as human shields to deflect their even worse record.

Unless both parties get a grip on the biggest issue facing the borough, the risk of being electorally outflanked by a resurgent Tory party is obvious.

Share This Post

Responses to Letter: Coalition Parties Need to Get Their Act Together on the Local Plan Or Risk Electoral Losses

  1. Valerie Thompson Reply

    July 16, 2022 at 9:52 am

    R4GV were, to a large extent, voted in, squeezing out the Conservatives in a big way, mainly because they promised to review the appalling Local Plan.

    They have reneged on this promise. Do they really think they will be voted in again?

    • John Phelps Reply

      July 17, 2022 at 7:16 am

      I wonder who Valerie Thompson thinks we should vote for then? Are GGG fielding 48 candidates next year? Or should we vote Tory or Lib Dem?

      The Independents aren’t the true enemy here.

      • Daniel Hill Reply

        July 17, 2022 at 2:13 pm

        If 48 GGG borough council candidates are needed to save our green belt then let’s hope more passionate people can be found to join the party.

        We can’t just give up and vote R4GV.

        • John Phelps Reply

          July 21, 2022 at 1:10 pm

          Can I assume Mr Hill will be standing as one of the 48 for GGG?

          • Daniel Hill

            July 23, 2022 at 11:06 am

            I agree with many of GGG policies and I think Cllr Nagaty, Cllr Young and Cllr Parker have done an amazing job. For those who want a better Local Plan, this is the party they need to vote for. 

            I would be honoured if GGG asked me to stand. However, some of my views, like my support for Gypsies and Travellers rights are controversial. After my local campaigning over the last few years.

            Many residents know I am intending to stand as an Independent for the Guildford seat at the next general election. So for these reasons I won’t be standing as one of the 48 for GGG.

      • Ben Paton Reply

        July 25, 2022 at 9:11 am

        The whole point of R4GV, I thought, was to offer Guildford residents a local party that would prioritise local issues and not replicate on the local stage the national politics Punch and Judy show.

        But R4GV has dropped the ball. Its policies are indistinguishable from those of its Lib Dem partners, with whom it is complicit in selling local issues down the river in favour of going along with the housing lobby’s build, build, build propaganda.

        The “Independents” are not proving to be independent. They may not be the “true enemy here”. They have certainly proven themselves to be false friends.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *