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!

Chugging Rules In Place

I am extremely pleased that new regulations that I championed as a Councillor have now been put into force (details here) to combat issues that many members of the public feel about chugging (or "face to face fund raising").

There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.

Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.

I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.

Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.

Labour blames Tories for by-elections; so not the High Court or, oh, themselves then...

According to the Labour Party Website:
As a result of expensive legal action by the Tory-controlled County Council (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich.
Norwich Labour Party believes this money would have been better spent keeping day-care centres for the elderly open and keeping our street lights on after midnight

It might have been more accurate to say:

As a result of THE GENERAL ELECTION by A COUNTRY ANNOYED WITH GORDON BROWN (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich BY THE HIGH COURT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF LABOUR'S UNITARY BID.
Norwich CONSERVATIVE Party believes this money would have been better spent IMPROVING OUR ZERO STAR HOUSING SERVICE and ACTUALLY PROVIDING BASIC SERVICES SUCH AS CUTTING THE GRASS VERGES.

;-)

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.

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?

Unitary: How do Labour (and the LibDems) expect to get away with this?

Typical Labour Government - they can't even announce a decision without making a ham fist of it. Let me tell you the story of Unitary.

As regular readers will no doubt remember the story goes something like this.

Norwich Labour decide they want Unitary because they thought that those horrible Tories (you know, the ones who run the excellent four-star County Council) ignored Norwich and their out-of-touch cabinet members who know little about the City (you know, the ones who represent faraway places like Cringleford or live in Eaton) shouldn't be allowed to spread practice (you know, the acclaimed service provision) to Norwich (you know, the council with the zero-star Housing Department). So they applied for unitary status.

Unfortunately the then-Labour Secretary of State said that the plans were unaffordable, so they put in 2 bids (against the rules at the time I think) which contained plans for a small unitary based on existing boundaries and an enlarged unitary based upon taking in surrounding villages. Labour Ministers never killed this off...

Then people in South Norfolk and Broadland went bananas at the thought of this and protested against the plans. Still the then-Labour Secretary of State thought it was a bad idea.

Then the County Council launched their own bid for one large Unitary based upon the whole of Norfolk, which upset an awful lot of people including the district councils.

So given the County bid met the 5 criteria set down by the government but the City bid didn't, the then-Labour Secretary of State sent the decision off to the Independent Boundary Commission for a decision. Still Labour Ministers didn't kill this off...

The Independent Boundary Commission worked very hard and fought off various legal challenges and the whole thing dragged on-and-on whilst taxpayers continued to foot the bills.

Then the Independent Boundary Commission stunned everyone by saying only the Norfolk Unitary met all the criteria and that the Norwich bid was risky, unaffordable, poor value for money and the government should avoid it at all costs.

So the decision goes off to the Labour Secretary of State for a decision. Should he go with the County Unitary, scrap the whole thing (despite telling everyone status quo wasn't an option all along) or do something else?

You got it - do something else.

So a written statement was sent out and the Secretary of State avoided questions in the Commons because his decision was to implement the original City Council bid (you know, the one which the Independent Boundary Commission warned against as did two former Labour Secretaries of State).

And now - thanks to the Guardian for the story - it turns out the Civil Servants are so worried about the decision backfiring that they asked the Secretary of State to "order" them to do this and thus clearing them of responsibility.

And how does the Secretary of State justify this? By changing the goal posts and applying some very muddled thinking to this. So still Labour don't kill it ...

If you think I'm being partisan about this, think again - this decision sees me unable to stand for council and will have to give up my seat and does nothing to help the Tory position (an extended boundary unitary would have, for example). The position I have taken has always been in the best interest of the City (and taxpayers) of Norwich

If you think I'm being flippant, you're right, I am. Only because like a lot of people I want this whole thing sorted one way or another. And given the potential hold ups in the Commons and the Lords, and the Conservative pledge to overturn this in office, could the whole game be for nothing? This has dragged on too long and cost too much - for all councils and all council tax payers.

Unitary has been cursed since the day that Labour, and their LibDem / Green poodle allies, popped corks on the steps of City Hall. So where has this announcement leave us? Not much further forward I'd say; still in the air.

UPDATE: LibDems are pretty much at war over this now - Norman Lamb was uncompromising in his attack on the plans in the EDP today and tonight Brian Watkins, City LibDem Leader, told me he still passionately backed the bid. Words from LibDem circles is that of daggers drawn.

Why aren't we talking about allowances?

The City Tory Group have been moving for months to get a debate on Councillors allowances and - in our view - cut them overall whilst rewarding those members who do take on extra workload. Anything which reduces the burden on taxpayers during this time of recession and cuts is vital for helping to restore public trust. I say - we are not in this for the money nor the glory (what glory?!?) so let's show this to the public.

So in the same way that I feel that Labour, the LibDems and Greens have blocked this debate at City Hall, now the Tories are doing the same at County Hall (click here for more) over the issue of allowances for Twin-hatters; those people who serve, and claim allowances, on 2 different councils. In Norwich this includes Labour's Bert Bremner and the Green Stephen Little. There are various Conservatives in the same position in the County too.

I understand the point about recieving the allowances for the work you do - double the work meaning double the allowances. In fact a LibDem Councillor wrote recently to the EDP to make this very point. However I also understand the anger that being a Councillor is the equivalent to a part-time job and that some people are building up massive allowance claims to live on because being a Councillor is their sole income. I understand some people believe that to be wrong and that Councillors need outside experience and aren't rounded people if politics is all they have. I also understand that people know that they are voting for a twin-hatter and do it with that knowledge. I also understand that having synergy between councils through twin-hatters can be a good thing. I understand that some people don't want taxpayers money to be used as an income for aspiring young politicans who just want the time to devote to a political career. It is - as you can tell - very complicated.

But the answer to these questions won't come from closing down debate. Let's talk about them, not as party animals, but as elected representatives looking to do the best for people. Shutting down debate looks shifty and as if we are happy with the status quo because some people do well out of it. And this isn't a party issue - don't believe those who tell you otherwise - because Councillors in all parties on at leats one council has voted not to talk about allowances.

The only way to address this perception and restore public trust is to have the debate; fully, honestly and in the open.

No matter which party you are in, refusing to talk about the issue won't make it go away. It just makes all politicans look that little bit more aloof than we did before.

New Year's Day

Well, the firsy day back to school was exciting but largely uneventful - just a reminder about the amount of work we need to do before the kids even hit the classrooms! Bishop Michael Evans celebrated a wonderful Mass with us this morning, wishing the teaching staff a "Happy New Year". We were joined by a visiting priest from Cambodia and a stark descriptions of the differences between the teaching professions in our two nations. A very sobering start to the year, really.

The best bit about the first day back to school is all the "catch up chats" you get with colleagues and friends, many of whom have the luxury of spending most the break abroad. It was pleasing to see how many people have had my latest campaign leaflet and remembered it - the photos worked well and people certainly liked my "Honesty Promise".

Childcare means I couldn't go to the leaving party for John Jones at the Council - a real shame as John has been a dependable and methodical Head for the Legal & Democratic Services at City Hall (spelling errors aside!! Sorry John, had to be said!!) and we will be very sorry to see him go. His replacement has, meterphorically, big shoes to fill.

Forgotten "Three Score"?

Site visits are one of the best things about being a Councillor because you can point to an issue and say to a council officer: "there you go, what do you think of that!" and they will see it rather than just note a name of an area from an email.

This morning I spent a few hours doing the rounds in Three Score, a new development in my ward, with 2 highly experienced council officers looking at the situation. What we saw was rubbish, weeds, broken glass, fly tipping, over grown bushes, hacked back bushes and a real sense that the footpaths in particular had no care in them.

One resident said to me it felt like a "forgotten" area - except, he added, when they needed his tax money.

There's a lot that needs to be done - the residents here pay full council tax and demand full services. Next week I am showing the City Council CEO around the area too in a bid to raise its profile and get the action it needs.

Norwich Station, Bus Station, Council Meeting, Teaching, Liam Fox MP, Leaflets, Blogging & Home

I have tried to describe the entire day in a single blog title; and thought I did rather well.

It was an early start because a team of us, including myself and newly-election Bowthorpe County Councillor Paul Wells, were helping with the Conservative transport survey. With the threat of nationalisation on the Norwich line and continued concerns over the buses it was aptly timed. We were with Chloe Smith, our by-election candidate, and also Angela Browning MP. Commuters were certainly keen to give their views on what should be done with a fair mix of opinions. From the train station it was off to the bus station; where things were much busier indeed!

By 8.30am I was at the Council Group Leader's meeting - the contents are confidential. However I do wish people who think that all politicans do is argue and bicker could see these meetings where we get a great deal of consenus about moving the City forward.

Some A Level teaching and a massive pile of references to write for my Year 11 leavers next, and then onto the City Centre again to meet with Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox MP to see the War Memorial. The War Memorial is not only the biggest disgrace in Norwich politics but lucily it stands as amassive eyesore to remind everyone of why we ought to get a move on and deliver a tribute to our veterans that is truly fitting. Dr Fox was pretty shocked at it, as are all visiting politicans when they see it. There was also an amusing aside when a couple recognised Liam and stopped for a chat - they were from Gordon Brown's Scottish constituency!

Back to school (avoiding the rain) and more work - then home to find box upon box of our new leaflets which focuses on thanking residents for their support in the local elections and reporting on the recent Cameron Direct event. Bundling leaflets whilst watching Andy Murray - well, more watching Murray than bundling to be honest! A team sort them out for deliverers and then we start shuttling them around. This is a job I like doing because it gives me a chance to meet and thank our hard working delivery team. We have dozens of people in each ward who do this job; not glamerous but vital and I like to make sure they know how appreciated they are. Friends and members keen to help always makes me feel better.

Finally home to do a mass blog (see below) about my week; I'd aimed to do them each night but that hasn't worked out so far! A big sleep needed tonight because we're off to help in the Norwich North by-election tomorrow!

Best Comment of the Day

Actually from Friday's canvassing:

"I voted Lib Dem last year but these are serious election this year aren't they? I'm going to vote Conservative."

So ... County elections = serious. What does that make City elections? Oh dear!

Statement regarding "Times" report on Norwich City Council Housing Department

Joint statement on behalf of Cllr Steve Morphew, Leader of the Council and Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Brian Watkins, Leader of the LibDem Group and Cllr Antony Little, Leader of the Conservative Group:

"Senior officers are carrying out a rigorous investigation. Leaders of all political groups on the council have been briefed and have passed on the position to councillors in their groups. All councillors already know there is an investigation taking place and so to call for something they know is happening is deliberately misleading. We will not allow the investigation to be compromised."

"We have a responsibility to the council and the people. Making irresponsible comments about an investigation they already know to be thorough and rigorous smacks of councillors playing politics when the city expects and deserves more. If there is an investigation into allegations about the standards of behaviour then councillors should be setting an example by letting that happen rather than making it more difficult."

City Council do it again!

So, the City Council has warned hairdressers not to give away mulled wine and has said they face fines and imprisonment if they do - more here. Don't we ever learn? Does nobody at City Hall have an antenae for thie kind of issue?

Once again Norwich City Council is nationally ridiculed (here) and most people will wonder how on earth these things happen.

Is it not beyond the wit of man for some compromise that ensures that festive traditions such as this can carry on without the bureaucracy dragging it down? Threatening letters from the council are totally over the top. Let's sit down with businesses and see what we can do.

I hope that the scroog attitude of City Hall gives way to some festive cheer and things like this are consigned to Christmas Past.

A bad weekend for Norwich Labour

At the same time that a report declares that the only finacially viable Unitary solution is that of the whole county unitary and that the City model has huge financial risks, it has been revealed that there is a £19m hole in the pensions pot. The first of these comes as no surprise to anybody who has been following the unitary saga but the second both surprised and deeply worried me. In the DA report there are dozens of failings in City accounting and we are now at the point where the Labour executive cannot point the finger at past administrations and will have to take responsibility. There is an Audit Committee meeting next Friday; it looks set to be explosive.

£100 council tax cut under Norfolk Unitary plans

No wonder the public get confused by the Unitary debate - because today's shadow boxing between County and City Halls has left me bewildered. County Hall has released figures, apparently early to snatch media attention, showing how their Unitary County proposals will see bills in the City tumbling by £100 a year (see here for more).

I have read the rather limited detail coming our way and the figures do seem to stack up, assuming all savings are passed onto the tax payers (not a bad assuption to make I suppose). Then the Labour rebuttle came that left me equally confused.

Labour's Executive Member for Unitary, Cllr Alan Waters, says that:

A single county unitary would deliver a reduction in council tax – but it would have to make £5 million worth of cuts in services to achieve that. Under the ‘doughnut’ option, council tax would also be reduced but the new councils would still offer service improvements

Nice and simple - so instead of passing on all the savings, a new doughtnut council would hand some back in tax cuts and invest the rest. OK, still with you. Then Cllr Waters says:

The difference in the net savings which would be produced by the two options is marginal, with the single county unitary producing an estimated £24.6 million, compared to the £21.7 million delivered by the two-unitary solution

So the doughnut will produce fewer savings then? So County will have £2.9m more to play with (either as tax cuts or as service investment).

I know that both sides will cling to whatever boosts their case but this arguement is about the application of unitary. Whatever happens to the savings is a matter for the newly elected councils. Cllr Waters can't say, and neither can County, that investment would be made here or tax cut there - because the people who will make those decisions haven't been elected.

So after all this, where am I? Well, as far as I can see there is only one figure we can rely on - the total cost of providing the council; you save more under the County model than the Doughnut model (both sides admit this). So whatever happens to that money, County is cheaper. I suppose other people will have to decide if County Hall or City Hall have a better record in the delivery of services.

Funnily enough, Cllr Waters also argues that, "It is also important to remember the cheapest option is not always the best". I bet he wouldn't be saying that if the figures were reversed! Cost is just one aspect of this whole issue, of course, and it will be interesting to see how the democratic structures match up.

Conservative harden position against unitary

When City Hall originally bid for unitary status, a lot of Conservatives out there in the yonder didn't take the threat seriously - generally because it was, and still is, simply ridiculous that the areas worst performing council should apply more more powers. A lot of such Tories thus stuck their heads in the sand and hoped that the treasury / boundary commission / government would do their jobs for them and kill the unitary bird stone dead. I have to say that I believe the stalled start for the anti-unitary campaigners is one of the reasons why this has got as far as it has. Anyway ...

Today I read in the local press that David Cameron has declared that if unitary has not passed before a general election then the party will scrap it altogether. (Read here, and note that the comments are attributed to Shadow Local Government Minister Bob Neill rather than Cameron himself, but hey-ho). This is significant because it is the first time that the party has come out specifically against the plans in this way. At heart I'm sure a lot of Tories are pro-unitary, but most of us don't want to pay £100m for the priviledge.

This move by Cameron / Neill will worry Labour - they know their only chance of stopping the "One County" bid is via flame-haired Communities Secretary Hazel Blears blocking it, but many Tories now know the only chance to block unitary full stop is by winning that general election.

I hope that all these anti-unitary Tory Councillors sitting on their big fat majorities remember this and get campaigning in key Norfolk marginals to ensure we win those seats then - wouldn't it be ironic if they won by a country mile in their own seats only for us not to win the key seats and for Labour's bonkers plans to progress.

So given all this, the continued spending of taxpayers cash makes my blood boil. Too much has been wasted by all sides on this now; Labour will be praying for this to move quickly, the Tories will try and block and then pray for that election. All this time, we all know who the biggest losers are.

Council tax payers.

Labour source: "Vindictive" Lakenham campaign run by UKIP

Although I am fairly sure that both Keith Driver and Mary Cannell are pretty zen about the latest batch of "Spotlight" leaflets doing the rounds in Lakenham slamming the performace of the Labour council and government (see my post below), it seems that Labour high command are less satisfied with them and it seems an all-out witch-hunt is now underway to find the culprits. As the leaflets are anonymous and carry no imprint, they may struggle.

But I am now told by a very senior Labour source that they now strongly believe it to be the work of UKIP; or at least individuals within UKIP anyway with or without party permission. Let's be clear; I'm not aware they've done anything illegal but Labour are clearly spooked by this method of campaigning.

The answer may lie in a conversation I was having with a fellow (non-Tory) Councillor this week. If the county elections go ahead as planned next year, then Lakenham will be one of a number of crucial seats for Labour in Norwich. If the county elections follow the pattern of city elections, the Labour group at county could be heading for wipeout and third place on the council. Don't forget Labour currently hold the county divisions of Wensum (now solidly Green at City level), Mancroft (ditto), Bowthorpe (all 3 City seats are now Tory held) and Catton Grove (where the Conservatives hold 2 of the 3 City seats). So, what's special about Lakenham? Firstly it is the seat of their County Leader Sue Whittaker but secondly it was won by the LibDems last May with a half decent majority. Whittaker may look rather nervously at all this - UKIP may be no electoral threat, but their anti-Labour campaigning could tilt the electoral wind against her. So for the health of the Labour Party in Norfolk, the "vindictive" leaflet is keeping some at Labour HQ awake at night.

UPDATE: Of course! A friend reminds me ... whenever Labout elect a leader at county hall there is the usual debate about which urban area the leader comes from - Norwich, KL or Yarmouth. Norwich Labour are very determined that they should provide, as the county capital, the leadership and the City were thrilled when Whittaker got the job from Kings Lynn North & Central Councillor Irene MacDonald a while back. If Whittaker loses her seat, Norwich Labour are concerned that the top job would revert to a non-Norwich Labour Councillor within just a few years of them having obtained it. The obvious successor to Sue Whittaker is Bowthorpe's Gail Harris ... but given the drubbing Brenda Ferris got in Bowthorpe in '08 you wouldn't bet on Harris holding on either. So Norwich Labour are fighting for Whittaker to hold on for more than just party pride - they are doing it for city pride too. Mind you, the Labour Group at County post-2009 may not be worth leading!

Something Achieved

By 8.30 this morning I was at the Norwich City Council Group Leader's Meeting - I wish I could say more, but the issues involved are largely confidential - but it is a method by which all the players on a hung council can work together constructively and honestly; it usually works. This morning was a long one and we seemed to go round and round a bit followed by deciding on a volley of reports.

By this afternoon I was at a Norfolk Conservatives Meeting; a forum by which senior representatives of the party can get together and work together constructively and honestly; it usually works. This meeting was, too, a long one.

If you spend a long time in politics, sometimes you leave meetings and wonder what you did when you were then and what was actually achieved. No, come on, we've all been in them.

In between these two meetings I did achieve something; a very tricky housing problem that took a great deal of time and a visit to the Customer Service Centre at City Hall. It took a while, but we got a result - a decision that will make a great difference to the life of one family. I thought little of it at the time but as I sit back blogging tonight, and wonder what I did today it was this act that stood out.

I got back home to spend a few hours in the sunshine with the girls ...

A 4 party solution for Norwich?

For those out of the loop the current situation on Norwich City Council is:
Labour 15 (n/c)
Green 13 (+3)
LibDem 6 (-5)
Cons 5 (+2)

Hence nobody has anywhere near a majority and with a coalition not functioning, the Green Party has finally spoken about the elephant in the room - who will now run the council - saying they want an executive "of all the talents" with a 4 party administration. This idea has been shot down in flames - certainly by 2 of the parties involved - amongst a big debate about the future of the council now.

Does Labour have the strenght amongst their 15 strong group to support a talented 8 man Exec plus fill 3 key committee chairmanships? How far will the opposition Councillors fill jobs within the political system? I don't know (for once!) but I do think it's odd that we're almost a week after the poll and we haven't yet really thrashed this through.

Norwich people have voted for a patchwork quilt of political parties in the City, we now have to make it work. How we do that is vitally important and we ought to get down to working out how sooner rather than later.

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.