EXCLUSIVE: Top GLA Tory in protestor "Threats" Gaffe

In general, where we have protests we have two sides. On one side we have "The Money". These are the people who stand to make serious money. They can afford teams of experts, lawyers, scientists, media personalities, in short whoever will take the thirty pieces of silver to help the schemes come to pass.

On the other side we have "the people". Generally they don't stand to make anything from their protests. They just care about whatever cause they are protesting about. They can't afford teams of lawyers, etc who know the process and how to get around it. They can't afford experts to pick holes in the other sides evidence. They can't afford "tame" media personalities to plug their case. Often they fail, just because they don't really understand the process. As a result they feel angry and disenfranchised. "The Money"knows all the tricks in the book, often they employ the person who writes the book.

Now a wise and compassionate politician will recognise all of this. They will see that protestors usually haven't gone to the finest colleges and studied the subject law for years. They will see that they are often suffering stress, potential financial loss and aggrevation. They will understand that, unlike the smooth teams of lawyers, they have a personal interest long after the lawyers for "The money" have gone. In short, a politician should make allowances for "the people". They should treat them even handedly, even when they disagree.

Roger Evans is the leader of the Conservatives on the GLA. Generally Roger is quite a sensible chap and someone who I thought had a bit of common sense. From comments he's made to day on his blog, I am starting to wonder whether I got him wrong. In a comment on his blog today he says :-

Weggis, if anyone from the protest group had approached me with a logical argument to support their views your suggestion might hold water. Unfortunately there has never been the slightest attempt on their part to engage positively. My experience has been of threats, disrupting meetings and reporting me to anyone they think might shut me up.

Now I read this comment and thought to myself that Roger had been subject to a campaign along the lines of those mounted by the ALF against lab workers. I'm a pacifict and despise the concept of people threatenig people to gain their support. I felt extremely sorry for him and was disgusted that a group should target him in this way. My feelings changed completely when I read a follow up comment from Roger :-

I should also clarify my use of the word 'threats' in my last comment. Of course campaigners have not been threatening me with anything illegal, but their approach has been consistantly one of 'if you don't support us you will be voted out', which looks like a threat from where I'm standing.

So it appears that telling the leader of the GLA Tories that if he doesn't change his mind he'll lose the next election is a threat? I must say that this is the most stupid comment I've ever read by a serious p0litician. I cannot possibly understand why Roger Evans should say such a stupid thing.

My advice to Roger Evans. I'd sit yourself down and have a long hard look at yourself and ask yourself this. Have you considered why the protestors don't engage you in the way that the suits from "The Money" do? Have you ever considered why they get so angry? Have you ever considered how it feels to thwarted at every turn, just because you don't understand the rules, whilst the other side wrote them.

Roger also says :-

Anonymous, I was willing to compromise back in March but the protestors demanded a ruling and now they will have to live with it.

They will also have to live with my active support for LCA from now on, even though I was neutral on the subject until recently - such has been the effect of their brilliant strategy...

You clearly state that because a few people have upset you, the LCA now have your active support. The implication is that support for the LCA is "payback" to the 6 supporters who reported you, or the few who shouted at meetings or even those who had the audacity to tell you they wouldn't vote for you. Roger, I ask you this - Do you make every important decision concerning the future of London based on whether or not you like the more vociferous supporters of the proposal, regardless of its merits.

Let me just mention one thing for clarity. I really don't have an opinion as to whether the Airport should be enlarged or not. I can see both sides and haven't made up my mind (like Roger says he was before he got upset). Unlike Roger, I'll make up my mind based on the evidence, not on whether one side is better than the other at schmoozing me.