Eric Pickles has done what Eric Pickles does best today.
He has put information in the public domain that has 2 points to it - most importantly he is opening up the books of local government and shwoing tax payers exactly what they are (or aren't) getting for their money. But this has the added bonus side-effect of humiliating some councils (generally Labour run, but Tory ones too) who aren't doing their job properly.
Imagine this scenario. You are a large Labour-run authority interested not in the best for your local people but in your own re-election locally and in damaging the national coalition as much as possible. Along come those dastardly cuts (you know, the ones that take us way-way-back to 2007 levels) and you see an opportunity. Cut massively, slash services, impact as much as you can. Then blame the government and sit back as the votes roll in for Labour at the next local election and, hopefully, the next General Election. This is exactly what is happening up and down the land.
The trouble is that these councils have other choices before they start making deep cuts in local services. And today Eric Pickles shines the light on the assets those council have and urge them to think about using them before cutting. If I lived in one of those large Labour-run authorities I would be rightly angry that they were cutting, say, rubbish collection whilst owning an airport/football club/cinemas/golf courses (delete as appropriate).
Now I totally accept that many of these assets will actually be investments; we can't sell off the family-silver if, in fact, the family silver is generating income for the council (especially above that which could be obtained via other methods like banks, and a lot safer!). Councils locally, such as Breckland, I understand draw a decent income from their asset-investment and use this money to hold down council tax. Mr Pickles would approve I am sure. But frankly any asset which has been consistently either breaking even or making a loss needs to go.
And there is one last question - should councils own this stuff in the first place? If the asset doesn't produce an income (like a golf course can) and isn't in the community interest (as some football clubs can be), then why own it? And if possible could the poitn of the asset be achieved in some other way?
This is a complex issue which needs to be taken case-by-case. But the brilliance of the Communities Secretary (I am a self-confessed Pickles fan) is that in one sweep he has destroyed the arguement in the public eye about the need for deep and painful cuts at local level in certain places.
In the same way I don't believe Norwich City Council should cut one iota of service before "political assistants" (council employees paid to work for party political councillors) are removed or the salaries of top staff is cut, I wouldn't accept any cut whilst a council asset portfolio hasn't been publicly examined.
Take a look at any message board today - the standard comment is "I can't believe my council have cut X whilst they own a Y!!!". Another round to Mr Pickles, me thinks.
I urge everyone to get online, see what their council owns and start asking questions about it!
Showing posts with label Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council. Show all posts
Friday, August 05, 2011
Monday, July 05, 2010
Former Councillor
Following the decision of the High Court to quash the orders to create a Unitary Council for Norwich, 13 City Councillors who had their terms of office extended have been removed from office but with no date set for the mass of by-elections.
I am amongst those - so too are Claire Stephenson (Green Leader & Chair of Scrutiny), Brian Watkins (LibDem Leader), Sue Sands (Lab Exec Childrens Services), Bert Bremner (Lab Exec Community Safety), Linda Blakeway (Lab Exec Neighbourhood Dev), Brian Morrey (Lab Deputy Leader of the Council & Exec Sustainable Development).
This is a typical mess at the end of a dogs dinner of a process. The Courts have not given the council or the people of Norwich the certainty we need. As the council faces the biggest cuts we have ever made, we shall be doing so with only half of Labour's Executive in place and with all 3 opposition leaders not in place. And all of this with no idea when new elections can be held. It is a disgrace.
I am, of course, not against standing for election (!) but leaving us high and dry with only 2/3rds of a council, a swathe of senior politicans out and no date for the election when we face this economin crisis in unacceptable.
I am amongst those - so too are Claire Stephenson (Green Leader & Chair of Scrutiny), Brian Watkins (LibDem Leader), Sue Sands (Lab Exec Childrens Services), Bert Bremner (Lab Exec Community Safety), Linda Blakeway (Lab Exec Neighbourhood Dev), Brian Morrey (Lab Deputy Leader of the Council & Exec Sustainable Development).
This is a typical mess at the end of a dogs dinner of a process. The Courts have not given the council or the people of Norwich the certainty we need. As the council faces the biggest cuts we have ever made, we shall be doing so with only half of Labour's Executive in place and with all 3 opposition leaders not in place. And all of this with no idea when new elections can be held. It is a disgrace.
I am, of course, not against standing for election (!) but leaving us high and dry with only 2/3rds of a council, a swathe of senior politicans out and no date for the election when we face this economin crisis in unacceptable.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Big Shake Up in Norwich
I will summarise the results below (I'm really too tired to even think at the moment) but some clear themes emerged from the night that I think the media may miss.
Theme 1: Positive campaigning won - Conservatives and Greens stayed positive throughout and both made net gains. Some of the Labour literature was shocking during the campaign and the stories we have heard of LibDem canvassing were next-to-vile.
Theme 2: Labour's been robbed of a frontbench. They've lost Housing Executive Member Julie Westmacott - to be fair, one of the few members with a real grasp of complex Housing issues - and also Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Culture Brenda Ferris. I know Steve Moprhew wants to reshape his top team but I cannot see where the talent is coming from.
Theme 3: The true scale of the LibDem collapse. Yes, they lost Mancroft, Town Close, Mile Cross and Thorpe Hamlet. But the true scale of their loss comes in the study of the results in detail. They came FOURTH in Bowthorpe, Catton Grove and Crome. They lost the seat and plunged to FOURTH in Unviersity, Mancroft and Wensum. They went from first to third in Mile Cross; they also went into third in Nelson. In Sewell Ward they came FIFTH. The Conservatives came second in Mile Cross and Crome and came third and above in all but one seat.
Bowthorpe: Con GAIN from Labour, removing Labour Deputy Brenda Ferris on an 8% swing and with a big majority.
Catton Grove: Con GAIN from Labour, with roughly the same majority as last year
Crome: Lab HOLD but with a much reduced majority
Eaton: LibDem HOLD with a good majority but a much increased Tory vote
Lakenham: LibDem HOLD, a surprise result but caused by a collapse in the Labour vote
Mancroft: Green GAIN from LibDem with a big majority
Mile Cross: Lab GAIN from LibDem, with a sizeable majority
Nelson: Green HOLD, even with losing a thousand votes this was safe Green territory
Sewell: Lab HOLD with a much, much reduced majority over the Greens
Thorpe Hamlet: Green GAIN from LibDem, with the irony of turning a 1 vote LibDem majority into a 501 Green majority
Town Close: Green GAIN from LibDem, easy result with big majority
University: Lab GAIN from LibDem, but with the Greens in a keen second place
Wensum: Green HOLD, easily.
Theme 1: Positive campaigning won - Conservatives and Greens stayed positive throughout and both made net gains. Some of the Labour literature was shocking during the campaign and the stories we have heard of LibDem canvassing were next-to-vile.
Theme 2: Labour's been robbed of a frontbench. They've lost Housing Executive Member Julie Westmacott - to be fair, one of the few members with a real grasp of complex Housing issues - and also Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Culture Brenda Ferris. I know Steve Moprhew wants to reshape his top team but I cannot see where the talent is coming from.
Theme 3: The true scale of the LibDem collapse. Yes, they lost Mancroft, Town Close, Mile Cross and Thorpe Hamlet. But the true scale of their loss comes in the study of the results in detail. They came FOURTH in Bowthorpe, Catton Grove and Crome. They lost the seat and plunged to FOURTH in Unviersity, Mancroft and Wensum. They went from first to third in Mile Cross; they also went into third in Nelson. In Sewell Ward they came FIFTH. The Conservatives came second in Mile Cross and Crome and came third and above in all but one seat.
Bowthorpe: Con GAIN from Labour, removing Labour Deputy Brenda Ferris on an 8% swing and with a big majority.
Catton Grove: Con GAIN from Labour, with roughly the same majority as last year
Crome: Lab HOLD but with a much reduced majority
Eaton: LibDem HOLD with a good majority but a much increased Tory vote
Lakenham: LibDem HOLD, a surprise result but caused by a collapse in the Labour vote
Mancroft: Green GAIN from LibDem with a big majority
Mile Cross: Lab GAIN from LibDem, with a sizeable majority
Nelson: Green HOLD, even with losing a thousand votes this was safe Green territory
Sewell: Lab HOLD with a much, much reduced majority over the Greens
Thorpe Hamlet: Green GAIN from LibDem, with the irony of turning a 1 vote LibDem majority into a 501 Green majority
Town Close: Green GAIN from LibDem, easy result with big majority
University: Lab GAIN from LibDem, but with the Greens in a keen second place
Wensum: Green HOLD, easily.
Labels:
City Council,
conservatives,
Council,
council elections,
green party,
labour,
LibDems,
results
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Councillors Allowances
The press has been all over the hikes in Councillors Allowances and Council Leader Cllr Steve Morphew has a piece in the paper today defending the decision (at least, I think it was a defence...)
I have raised this issue before. Councillors get paid a pittance for the amount of work we actually do. If we continue to pay so little then I am not surprised that people are unwilling to shelve the rest of the their lives and take time off work to do it. I know that the vast majority of councillors do it for their communities, but we need to make sure that nobody is out of pocket by being a Councillor.
However ... allowances are one of those difficult issues to square with the public. How can the council even think about paying ourselves more when cuts are being made across the board and budgets are being squeezed? How can we accept more cash and then tell taxpayers there is no money for them?
Allowances are difficult to juggle and I would be interested in views on what to do about them. How about this - they are set and paid for by an Independent Body, using central government funding, and outside of the control of the council whilst not impacting on local services?
I have raised this issue before. Councillors get paid a pittance for the amount of work we actually do. If we continue to pay so little then I am not surprised that people are unwilling to shelve the rest of the their lives and take time off work to do it. I know that the vast majority of councillors do it for their communities, but we need to make sure that nobody is out of pocket by being a Councillor.
However ... allowances are one of those difficult issues to square with the public. How can the council even think about paying ourselves more when cuts are being made across the board and budgets are being squeezed? How can we accept more cash and then tell taxpayers there is no money for them?
Allowances are difficult to juggle and I would be interested in views on what to do about them. How about this - they are set and paid for by an Independent Body, using central government funding, and outside of the control of the council whilst not impacting on local services?
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Steve Morphew accused of being bias in favour of Mile Cross
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76234/7623401bb8ae35810b753598c6152fab8cfba988" alt=""
It started when a member of the public, one Brenda Lock, said that the council didn't care about Heathgate Community Centre because it wasn't in Mile Cross and that's where all the money went. A startled reaction from Councillors and the public. Although Steve strongly denied this, it led to some further exchanges later in the evening. Green Leader Adrian Ramsay concurred that a lot of money was spent in Mile Cross, because it was a tough Lib-Lab battleground seat, and LibDem Councillor for Mile Cross Carl Mayhew was also stirring the pot.
At the end of it I feel Steve looked a bit startled by all of this - more from the public than Councillor.
I wonder if it is true - a breakdown of total spending ward by ward would be interesting. Another member of the public told me afterwards that ift felt like all the money went to Eaton. An interesting perspective also.
It is natural to want the best for your ward. We all do it - fighting hard for our communities, sometimes knowing that other areas may suffer as a result. Although I believe Steve hasn't abused his position as Leader of the Council in favour of his ward, I think this line of attack may well come back time and time again.
Who's got the best reycling record in Norfolk? (Clue: It sure ain't a certain City...)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a789e/a789e30c9990fd953d3d708f048c2fc712133351" alt=""
In 2002 Norwich City came 4th out of 7 districts - beating Broadland, Breckland and Great Yarmouth. Since then, all three Tory authorities have since jumped ahead of the Labour / LibDem run City Council, leaving Norwich trailing in last place - almost exactly where we were three years previously.
Tory run Broadland comes a clear first, followed by LibDem North Norfolk.
David Cameron has clearly grabbed the green agenda and these figures show why - time and time again it is Conservative Councils that are leading the way in such fields, whilst councils dominated by the left (as Norwich still is) do very badly. The Norwich Conservatives take this subject seriously, so why won't Labour and the LibDems?
They are all talk and no action - and on doorsteps, actions speak louder than words.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Capital Programme in Bowthorpe
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fb194/fb194b5c7a1114b39476b7953580b16f813ad16f" alt=""
1. Lighting scheme for Smeat Street, Clover Hill
2. Park Improvements for Atkinson Close, Chapel Break
3. New Park Equipment for Clover Hill (tba)
4. 5 a side football goals for Fourways (Earlham)
5. Rejuvenating Clover Hill Community Centre
6. Toad Crossings on Chapel Break Road
7. Road surfacing on Dereham Road (between Wendene and Gurney Road)
8. Cycling Scheme from West Earlham to City Centre
9. Pavement improvements on Rockingham Road
10. Play equipment via 106 money for Chapel Break and Three Score
Views on this welcome
Labels:
Bowthorpe,
Capital Budget,
Council,
Earlham,
Improvements,
Question
Sunday, November 19, 2006
What should I ask at the next Full Council meeting?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a49f4/a49f49f3faaae9b810dcb24fbef508b49a58c163" alt=""
Every month each Councillor gets the chance to pose a single question which the Executive Member or Committee Chair responsible must answer. To this point each month I have had an obvious question to ask because of various issues that have arisen around the ward. The question could be about a specific issue which the council had so far not answered (e.g. parking on Bishey Barnabee Way) or about general strategic council wide issues (e.g. time spent to improve run down council housing stock).
I believe in avoiding nasty political point scoring (unlike some Labour and LibDem Councillors) and as this really is the "nuclear option" for finding out information I also think the question should be something you couldn't find out easily any other way.
So, with the deadline looming on Wednesday I'd like to know what you would like answered from the City Council. I can't guarantee I'll choose a question from this blog, but it would be good to ask something suggested by a blog reader.
You can, of course, ask your own question at council by e-mailing it to andy.emms@norwich.gov.uk - you'll even get a supplementary question too! You need to be a resident of Norwich to do so and you'll have to turn up at the Council Meeting on the last Tuesday of the month to ask it. It is however your way of getting an answer straight from the horse's mouth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)