Simon Wright : Not A Single Voter Switched Over Unitary Decision

I am having some time to catch up with the Local Government Bill going through the House of Commons which ends the defunct Norwich City Unitary plans. Indeed the ending of those plans gave me the time to watch it ... but never mind ... moving on!

During the debate, Norwich MP Simon Wright (whom to his credit along with Great Yarmouth's Brandon Lewis and Broadland's Keith Simpson turned up to the debate) was asked by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw if he thinks he would have won his seat had he admitted to being anti-Unitary before the election.

Simon Wright's great weakness if the widespread perception that he flip-flops. For something before the election (e.g. Unitary) and against afterwards. Or against something before the elections (increased fees, VAT rises, old folks facilities) and for them afterwards. So this was quite a tricky question when you are dealing with a 310 vote wafer thin majority.

No, he said, not a single vote switched as a result of unitary.

Rubbish, I say.

I met plenty of voters who moved to my campaign on the basis I was the only anti-Unitary candidate (including 2 of Mr Wright's near-neighbours who work for Norfolk County Council and had voted LibDem in the past). I didn't keep a count but the issue was raised time and again and I was always honest about where I stood (no point in doing otherwise - my views are easily googleable).

I don't know if 310 people or more switched to the LibDems on the basis of his then-held-views but I can say it was a campaign issue and it did cause people to alter their voting habits.

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.

Clarke, Unitary & Democracy

The call for a referendum in today's Evening News is absolutely spot on – for a process designed to make Norwich more democratic, the Unitary process has been deceivingly undemocratic in its nature and has sought to exclude the views of local people whenever and whenever it could.

When the process first started, we were pleased to note the proposals would need grassroots support but disappointed when this was watered down to just “stakeholders” (i.e. not individual residents – just groups). This was then further diluted when it was went from requiring “support” to “a broad cross section of support” and then down to “a measure of support”.

Charles Clarke declares in the House of Commons that the democracy will come at the General Election and asserts that he believes more people will vote for pro-unitary candidates than anti-unitary candidates. I do not believe this to be an accurate measure of support. Our votes at a general election are decided by a number of issues - the NHS, defence and crime, for example – and not just unitary. I know Labour voters who are set against unitary who would be shocked that their votes were being used to justify this scheme.

There is, of course, only one fair way to record local support or opposition to unitary. Conservatives have always believed that the final judge on these plans ought not to be Councillors or even stakeholders, but the ratepayers who pay the taxes that keep our councils going. When the Conservatives on the City Council put forward plans for a referendum, Labour and their allies voted us down.

It seems that for some people, democracy is only a useful tool when they think they will win and for the rest of the time it is an inconvenience.

Unitary Riddle II

Apparently we shouldn't judge Norwich City Council in its current form (because it isn't very good) on its suitability to be a unitary authority because the unitary would be a new council.

Except that we should judge Norfolk County Council in its current form and its current policies as a reason for unitary (i.e. the current administration at County Hall is doing things City Hall doesn't like) rather than examining the relationship between two tiers of government.

Unitary riddle or Labour hypocrisy?

Unitary Riddle

One of the big arguments in favour of Unitary is that it is wrong for representatives from areas miles away to vote on issues which impact on your area. So, for example, a Councillor from far-a-way Sprowston shouldn't vote on the closure (or not) of Westlegate.

Yet last night, in the House of Commons, Labour MPs were bussed in on a three-line whip to defeat a Tory motion about the shambles of the Norwich Unitary proposals and so MPs from areas miles away were voting on issues which impact on us here in Norwich. So, for example, Labour MPs from Glasgow, Liverpool and London were voting on Norwich Unitary.

Spot the contradiction?

Shouldn't Labour have left this vote only to MPs whose areas are affected - those in Suffolk, Devon & Norfolk? Oh, no ... that would have meant they would have lost the vote wouldn't it? After all, MPs from Norwich North, South Norfolk, North Norfolk, South West Norfolk, North West Norfolk & Mid Norfolk all opposed the Unitary with only 2 MPs (Norwich South and Yarmouth) voting in favour.

Unitary riddle or Labour hypocrisy?

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.

Normal Service to be resumed ...

After a short break from blogging, due to various factors, I am going to get back into it; with a by-election in Bowthorpe, the council budget and unitary delayed there will be plenty to talk about!

£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.

Unitary: Still more questions than answers

I am not going to go into automatic gloating mode; I don't think this decision is the end and a lot could change - oddly enough the same warning I gave Labour after the previous unitary announcement, so I'm going to take my own advice.

But on the face of it, thinks look very bad for Morphew and his Green / LibDem allies on this, as the Boundary Commission says its preferred option is a full county unitary (including Lowestoft) that effectivly abolishes Norwich City Council.

City Hall have invested a lot of time and money into this; often in the face of strong opposition from us Tories, the wider public, parish councils and fellow authorities. If it all falls by the wayside - or worse, produces a result that is the opposite to the original unitary theory of an urban focus - then heads will roll at the council and rightly so. Already tonight what is clear is that Councillors from all parties are at each other's throats - again. But whilst the Tory split on the issue has been clear for some time, the vicious manner in which Labour and the LibDems have turned on each other has surprised even me.

The media have also taken a hit; the EDP has been running a pretty consistent anti-unitary line (it sells well in the county) but the Evening News will have to choose its editorial line pretty carefully tomorrow to avoid looking rather outdated and simplistic. It has been running an almost minute-by-minute response today and the EEN should be congratulated for their depth of coverage.

Also the question being asked is if City Hall can stop the leakage of support; Cllr Ramsay pointed out tonight that the Chamber of Commerce have backed away from supporting a greater Norwich and now believes that "bigger is better" and we ought to have a "Norfolk wide lobby". Many groups will back the winning side; City Hall have I think just days to stop this leakage.

We had a Councillor briefing tonight and the feelings amongst my colleagues in other parties was still utter surprise; I think that the searching for a reason "why" will start tomorrow. One source said to me that they don't know how Norwich managed to throw it away from this position; I think that when we re-read the BC report in the light of tomorrow morning, we may once again be left with more questions than answers.

How could a Minister be so stupid?

Margaret Hodge, a Culture Minister, has found herself in the middle of a most bizarre row over free entry into Norwich museums. The MP was drafted into the City in order to support Labour's re-election bid and they used the chance to announce a headline-grabbing pledge to make entry into museums free. However, there is always a catch ...

... The pledge is only if Norwich gets unitary. And even then, only if Labour gets control (increasingly unlikely - the Council will be Tory is the boundaries are wide enough). So, Norwich Labour are now writing the budget and service plans for a council that doesn't yet exist. And poor Cllr Ferris says that the unitary council won't need the funding from the museums. How on earth does she know this?

And despite these rather obvious flaws in the plans - obvious enough for most people - the Minister insisted on welcoming the ideas, despite knowing they can't fulfill the pledge.

Typical Labour, but it says a lot about one Labour Councillor who'll do anything to be re-elected and one Labour Minister who'll say anything she's told.

Norwich Tories 0% council tax rise bid

Norwich Conservatives will today launch our alternative budget ahead of Tuesday’s crunch council meeting. The budget will see more investment into key areas such as recycling but will trim the unitary spending of the council to deliver an overall freeze on council tax.

Taxpayers in Norwich have been hammered by Labour year after year. Once again we are looking again at inflation busting rises that will see senior citizens and low income families suffer.

That’s why, as Conservatives, we believe in keeping council tax low. Conservative run South Norfolk Council has led the way in setting a freeze on council tax and now we hope to do the same in Norwich.

Clearly much of the spending is good, but unitary stands alone as being Labour’s great white elephant in the City. We’re picking up the bill for Labour’s political vanity.

It is ridiculous that when services are in need of extra investment and people across Norwich are being told there is no money available, we are planning to spend £800,000 of taxpayers money on Unitary. This brings the bill for Unitary well into the millions for the people of Norwich.

Clearly the council needs to do some preparation work so we are suggesting a compromise – that £300,000 be taken out of the unitary budget and be used to cut tax for thousands of hard working people across the City.

However, we would go further than that – trimming another £250,000 off Labour’s unitary bill and putting that money directly into future community projects, making the lives of people around our City better.

The unitary debacle has gone on long enough and cost more than enough. It’s time people knew that at least one party is willing to put them, their families and their services first in all this. The Conservatives are willing to take tough decisions and say that tax is too high and must now come down.

Residents can also use the elections this May to send Labour and the LibDems a message – if you want to pay less tax, spend more on services and less on political bureaucracy you have to vote Conservative.

The non-issue?

Yesterday morning I was out in Eaton with local candidate Niall Baxter to help knock on doors. Interestingly the unitary issue was way down the list of concerns - it was beaten by the state of the roads, council tax levels, AWC, the fate of the ex-England manager and the driving test not being tough enough.

In fact the only person who mentioned it without prompting was a LibDem voter is massively opposed to the plans - and, yes, she will be switching to the Tories next year.

Not a single person in favour of Unitary, just one person against. Why isn't this more of an issue? Or is it just us and the EDP that care?

Norwich Unitary Status given a parliamentary savaging ... a debate worth watching

For those who believe that parliament is all about the punch 'n' judy of PMQs, please watch this film about the debates in Wesminster Hall. 90 minutes through the film you get to see an excellent section on the unitary debate in Norfolk.

Led by Mid Norfolk's Tory MP Keith Simpson, it engages Charles Clarke (Norwich S), Norman Lamb (N Norfolk), Henry Bellingham (NW Norfolk), Richard Bacon (S Norfolk) and also the Minister, John Healy, and Shadow Minister, Alastair Burt.

Overall unitary is given a good thrashing by the LibDems and Tories, but the real winner here is the quality of parliamentary debate.

Click HERE.

First Tory Councillor quits over Unitary

I have read today in the Evening News (not online) that the first district councillor has quit over the possible unitary future for the county. One of the Conservatives on Great Yarmouth District Council says that the whole issue has been a Labour stitch-up and Unitary would be a disaster.

Now I'm not quite sure how resigning helps this situation but I do feel, cynic that I am, that somewhere in a Westminster bunker some Labour strategist is smuggly grinning to himself because this unitary move might be seen as a way of destroying the strong Conservative activist base in Norfolk. One down, how many more to go? Why, by quitting, are we allowing Labour to get away with this? We as a party must stick together and fight this all the way.

Tory fury at undemocratic City Hall

There were furious scenes at tonight’s council meeting in Norwich after Labour and LibDem Councillors voted down plans for a democratic referendum on the controversial unitary issue – and then proceeded to stop Conservative councillors and rebels from their own ranks taking part in the debate.

After just 4 speeches on the motion, Labour Councillor Alan Waters moved a motion to vote on the issue straight away – backed by Labour and the LibDems – which blocked two Conservative Councillors and breakaway Green and LibDems from speaking.

This is clearly a “double attack on democracy” and it was an attempt to suppress anti-unitary feeling in the council chamber and in their own parties. Catton Grove Conservative Councillor Eve Collishaw and Lib Dem Mile Cross Councillor Carl Mayhew both attempted to log that their efforts to speak had been denied in the minutes but were refused by council chiefs.

This is an unbelievable attack on democracy. The people of Bowthorpe, Catton Grove and Mile Cross should all know that their voices were silenced by an oppressive Labour and LibDem majority on the council.

First they say that government, not the people, should decide on the future of our local government, and now they say that anti-unitary councillors shouldn’t be able to speak in the debate.

We know that Labour treat Norwich like their own fiefdom and don’t want Conservatives to raise the issue of the amount of money they are wasting on this issue or the idea that people should vote on the future on the council but we are democratically elected and will continue to speak up for our constituents.

Councillors are, quite rightly, fuming about this tonight. What is the point of being elected if Labour and the LibDems won’t let free speech rule?

LibDem Councillor Carl Mayhew stormed out of the meeting just seconds after being denied the right to speak on the issue. We all know how Carl Mayhew felt on this issue, but we stayed to oppose more wasteful spending by the LibDems in the next motion. The question now remains – do Norwich City Council believe in democracy at all?

This issue won't go away now ... its open season in City Hall.

Does Gibson support a referendum on Unitary?

In trying to explain away the confusion over his stance on the Norwich Unitary bid in the Evening News, Dr Gibson concludes by saying that “I await to see if a referendum is called.”

As it was the Conservatives who first put down a motion to call a public vote on Unitary, opposed by Labour and the LibDems, I welcome his tacit support for a referendum. However, I might have thought that one of our City MPs might be a bit more up to date because the government has specifically ruled out a vote on the issue. In the same way that Gordon Brown refuses the people of the UK a vote on the proposed EU Constitution, his government refuses us a vote on how we should be governed locally.

The refusal of the Labour Government to allow local people a say before their local Council is considered for abolition is a denial of democracy. On the 5th July, the Conservatives in the House of Lords put down an amendment to require a binding referendum before any new Unitary Councils are created. The Government said, “where a democratically elected Council takes a decision it should be validated in the normal way through a local election, the most significant referendum of all. In our representative democracy, it is surely up to a democratically elected Council to make a decision that the electorate can always contradict at the ballot box."

So local people are to be denied a voice again by Dr Gibson’s government, although I am sure that they will take the government’s advice and take the opportunity at any future general election to elect an MP who has consistently opposed Unitary for Norwich.

Conservatives ready to fight for Norfolk

I was at the well publicised meeting of senior Norfolk Conservatives yesterday discussing a response to the failed City Council unitary bid. The government has let it be known that they now favour a series of unitary councils across Norfolk and an enlarged Norwich unitary would solve the twin problems of value-for-money and affordability in the original bid. Such obvious politicing makes rational debate very difficult but we have been assured that Ministers haven't made up their minds and that the Treasury is still very worried about the Norwich bid, even when enlarged. Now the Greens have gone against an enlarged unitary and I understand the LibDems are a bit limp too (no change there then!)

The meeting was totally united behind fighting for the status quo which has given us a 4* county council and some superb Conservative controlled districts. I still feel that Norwich should start by putitng its own house in order before trying this power grab.

Not only are there still the financial concerns - with a Unitary you pay more and get less - but now we understand that Labour's own advisor has said that unitary's never pay form themselves. Plus this 3 unitary solution does seem a rather naive plan to undermine the county of Norfolk. We are stronger together than we are apart.

I am from Norwich and I live in Norwich City Council. I am from Norfolk and I live in Norfolk County Council. Each council offers me the services appropriate to its size and functions. Easy. I am not part of some unitary blob that may or may not run from Taverham to Trowse or even Horsford to Long Stratton. How do these random coloured lines on a map compare to our historic counties? No wonder some people are calling this a campaign to Save Norfolk.

The Conservatives are now clear and united on this - unlike Labour and the LibDems. We must harness the people power in Norfolk to stop this plan to split our county.

Given the unitary fight is now between the Labour and LibDems politicos at City Hall versus the people of Norfolk, I know who'd I would put money on.

This bid isn't inevitable or a fait accompli. It's far from that - the people will make sure of it.

Was the Lila Cooper story a decade old political deception?

The Evening News ran an intersting story on Saturday regarding the so-called switch of the Conservative position on Unitary from being pro-home rule in 1993 to anti-unitary now. It included quotes from former Councillor Lila Cooper, then Tory group leader, advocating unitary. I liked the media coverage because, apart from producing another mug shot of myself in the press even when out of the country, it gave us another chance to state that:

"The Conservative County Council gives us a 4-star service, whilst the Labour-LibDem City Council is inadequate"

For those that know and care about this, that line has been the narrative at the heart of the Conservative response to Unitary. This story allowed us to put that point again, without the rebuttle of Morph, Cooke or Ramsay. Thank you, Evening News!

Trouble is, behind the headline, the story isn't quite true. I recieved a phone call this morning completely out-of-the-blue from a very long standing member who attended a Conservative Policy meeting in 1993 at which the Unuaty issue was discussed and voted upon. He claims to have evidence that, in fact, the position of the two-woman Conservative Group at the time was anti-Unitary - although the minutes do not state by what majority it was defeated. Cllr Cooper's group member was absolutely against Unitary and remains against it to this day. So on what authority did Cllr Cooper pen her words for "Citizen" magazine? Because it certainly didn't have the backing of the Norwich Conservatives.

So something is amiss here. I am not sure what the truth is, but it certainly isn't as cut and dried as first presented. We'll never know!

It's a done deal

The EDP reports this morning that a senior source in Whitehall says that the Greater Norwich bid is now a done deal. Nothing we, or the public, can say will stop this now. Apparently everything from Taverham in the North to Long Stratton in the South is about to come under City Hall control. A few points, randomly and in no particular order, spring to mind:

This is the most undemocratic and political move ever by a British government towards a faction of local government, outstripping even the 1974 reorganisaion. I think a lot of people who oppose this move will punish Labour at the polls.

If they do that the irony is, as suggested by the EDP, that the Tories could just form a majority administration in the City. I'm sure that will thrill Morph, Read, Ramsay, Cooke and all the other unitary cheerleaders who did this to get away from Conservative control!

It will mean massive ward boundary changes. I think wards ought to get smaller and that we should have 2 member divisions with bi-annual elections, but anything could now happen.

Broadland and South Norfolk become untennable as districts. What do they do now?

And one final thought - do the Leaders of Norfolk, South Norfolk and Broadland now accept the fait accompi and work towards getting a good deal in the breakup of the councils or do they die in a ditch for their residents and risk letting Labour set the post-unitary agenda? I personally don't think that the residents would accept anything short of death-in-action over this. We must oppose this to the bitter end - and then win the unitary poll.