Liz Walke, Eastbourne hero with guts and determination, has put her neck on the line (well, her house actually) to ensure this review can be financially underwritten.

So just to be clear - an individual mum is prepared to risk losing her house to try every possible avenue to ensure Eastbourne retains full maternity. Amazing!

But it's the council's responsibility to defend our town against threats to our economy. They're saying they can't support this as it's not part of their remit – and the district auditor doesn't like the idea. Effectively they're saying they're not 'allowed' to do it. Utter tosh!

And I'll tell you why it's tosh.

Firstly, it's up to the councillors how they spend our money. Obviously first call goes to the statutory commitments – the stuff they have to do – and then there's the rest, which should be broadly in line with their manifesto commitments.

Secondly, they said they would support the campaign by all means possible – and they know that the vast majority of people in town want them to do just that (proven by massive marches through the town, huge petitions etc)

Thirdly the risk (or exposure) is actually not as severe as it might seem at first. The review would only happen if there was a realistic chance of winning it – not guaranteed of course, but it should at least be in our favour. Also, there is to be a massive fundraising campaign launched, which will offset much of the risk (hopefully all of it).

But lastly, and most importantly, it is, in my humble opinion, quite clearly an appropriate use of the council's money – The argument from the district auditor just doesn't stack up.

As MP Nigel Waterson, who started the campaign, pointed out in his column in the Herald on Friday, Local Government legislation is perfectly consistent with developing the economy of a town – in fact that's its very purpose.

When I stood for election last year (unsuccessfully, obviously), our manifesto was based on building communities, and developing the economic prosperity of our town. That means investing in areas that would develop our economy, and defending our position against threats to it.

Now I would never comment on the medical implications of the DGH being downgraded, that's for the doctors and others to do – but while I was a councillor I spoke up long and loud about the economic impact of a downgrading. It could potentially be disastrous – and it certainly would be if it led to further downgrading of other services.

There's every reason to believe that the town will be worse off without a full maternity unit, and possible other services at the DGH.

That is exactly the point upon which the council should be defending our position, and it gives them the legitimacy to underwrite this review – it's a scandal that they're not taking that responsibility properly and leaving it to Liz.

As Bill Clinton once said… 'It's the economy, stupid!'

Happy Easter!


Ian writes his own blog at www.iloveeastbourne.co.uk