Pickles 1 - Shameless Labour Councils 0

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!

Why are my cuts different to those of the Government?

The ongoing announcement of government cuts, designed to pay back Labour's massive national debt, have been getting the left hot under the collar. Partly this is because of disasterous PR decision to announce the cuts one-by-one and day-by-day which allows the left to harangue each decision. (Which, of course, does give the people of this country a chance to analyse each cut and hold their MPs accountable - take, for example, the differing reaction of teachers to the GTC cut versus the BSF cut - it wouldn't have been right to roll this all up together). But more so, they are concerned because most cuts will hit associated industries and employment.

The Tories often argue that government spending is like household spending, however, and today I have had to prove this correct. Today we've gone through our spending and made some decisions to cut back in certain areas because - I've, for example, cancelled a magazine subscription and also my beloved wine club has bitten the dust. Should I have continued to pay these in order to keep the printers in business or the winemakers in profit? I doubt it, so why should the government be any different?

Free Swimming Axed

The Coalition Government has spent today detailing the projects and scheme that are being cut, shelved or adapted to try and plug the enormous debt legacy left by Labour.

I think one thing that may be overlooked amongst all the massive announcements today is this one - click here for the BBC story - to abolish free swimming for over 60s and under 16s, which is a scheme that is in operation in Norwich. According to the research this scheme hasn't been value for money and around 80% of those people who took advantage of the scheme would have paid to gone swimming anyway. I remember welcoming the scheme when Norwich got funding, but this is a very real reminder of the touch choices ahead - thanks to Labour management we just can't afford this anymore. No doubt Labour Councillors and candidate will leap up and down about this, and I agree it is very sad, but I hope they realise the government they wanted to keep in office led directly to this.

Today in class I was talking with pupils about government spending; the question was asked what constituted "essential spending" by the government.

What should we do? If we are having to cut to the bone then we should start with essential spending and work out what extra we can afford - families, businesses and councils do it all the time, called "base budgeting". What do readers believe is "essential spending" in the modern context?

The Cuts Arrive

Well, now we know - the City Council's budget is sliced by £355,000, which by my rough back-of-an-envelope calauclations would be the equivalent of a 5% rise in council tax. That's a lot of money indeed but the challenge for councillors is taking that money out without people feeling the pain on the frontline.

The national government is running a consultation exercise asking the public where they would like to see cuts; I wonder if the City Council went to its residents and asked where we could spend less money, what they'd say?