Can't a "third way" on elected police commissioners be found?

The EDP has a rather understated story that Norfolk County Council will oppose government moves to introduce an elected police commissioner for the county. I say understated, because at first I couldn't believe they missed the chance to plaster "Tory splits" or "Coalition Collision Course" all over the front page, but then I realised that the council were merely backing the EDP stance on the issue and they might not want to frighten their new found buddies.

Anyway, the usually very sound Cllr Ian Mackie - a good man who will one day make an excellent County Council Leader - uses the chance to sound off about his own party's plans. Unfortunately though, I believe my old friend has it wrong on three counts.

Firstly he says that we have a "high profile" Chair of the Police Authority in Stephen Bett. I am sure he is high profile - in the council chamber. But on the streets of Norwich, or rural Norfolk for that matter, outside in our communities I suspect very very few people know who he is. I am involved in politics and even I had to google him to make sure I got the right name. When the EDP did us all a service by publishing the pictures of the members of the police authority, I could name just 2 of them - my old ward colleague Paul Wells and Green Councillor Phil Hardy - and I suspect I was 2 names ahead of 99% of the county. I urge our elected County Councillors to understand that to them these people may be "high profile" but to the rest of us they are not. The members of that police authority collect handsome allowances for their positions and the county council enjoys, as they would, the status and responsibility that brings to them. Good news for the people of Bowthorpe or Thorpe Hamlet - where Wells and Hardy represent - but how should I hold the police accountable? Difficult to say. And who gave those 2 no doubt superb public servants that role in the first place? Or any of them for that matter? People doing their shopping today in Norwich Market I doubt could tell me, either.

Then Cllr Mackie urges the government to let Norfolk decide who we wish our police to be run. Quite right. But nobody asked us about the current settup either. I didn't get to choose how my police are run, nor did I get to vote for my County Council reps on the Police Authority. So why are there no plans for referenda asking the people of Norfolk which system we wish to use? We could combine it with another poll to keep costs down, perhaps, but I do object to people using as an arguement against change that localism is vital (which it is) without asking local people if they want change.

And lastly there is the wonderful news that Norfolk is the safest county in England - good news that is I am sure in no small part down to the work of people like Cllrs Wells, Hardy and Mackie. But it shouldn't be the case that just because we are a low-crime area that I as a taxpayer - or to be more precise a police precept payer - have no control over how that money is spent or what the policing priorities are. The police do a vital job but they spend public money. Schools and hospitals have boards where the public have their directly elected members, why not the police? Actually, just because something is working doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to hold that something to account.

You may read this and think I am madly in favour of police commissioners. I am not. I am in favour of democracy, accountability and open public services. I believe that like schools, the police authority should be much more open in its work. I don't want to vote for a County Councillor who then votes for another County Councillor to sit on this body. Nobody then feeds back to me, not my County Councillor or even the ones on the body itself.

Come on Norfolk, we can do better. Don't oppose this because you like the cosy relationship between the police authority and the County Council. Why not have accountability? Why not attack government plans using a plan of your own to improve the relationship between the police authority and the people of Norfolk rather than just clinging to the EDP's statist status quo ideals?

As I say, I am not wildly up for elected commissioners but they are, in my view, a darn site better than what we have at the moment. But I am surprised nobody can think of a better solution than both of them, to what is a very real democractic deficit at the heart of our public services.

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.

Why I oppose the challenge to the Essex & Silver Rooms

City Conservatives have today joined the growing chorus of opposition to the government's shift to personal budgets which could see valuable local services, such as the Essex and Silver Rooms, closing. I thought I would say, in more detail, why this is.

The decision to close the Essex and Silver Rooms comes as an unfortunate move for Norfolk County Council, forced in part by the Westminster government telling our local government to move to a “personal budget” model which represents a dramatic change from the former block-contracts system. Though the “personal budget” for social care offers people greater freedom, it doesn’t readily allow for day centres because they cannot guarantee the income they previously received, effectively forcing their closure.

No centre can move ahead without knowing it will be funded properly. Under “personal budgets” the centres may survive but if a number of people move their funding away from them, then they will have to shut. If these services close, where will people who depend upon that specific centre then go for care? It seems to me that this shows one of the potential weaknesses of the new system. I am strongly urging Norfolk County Council to recognise the needs for these important centres to stay open, especially given the shortage of day centre places and the waiting list to attend many of them.

So ... what now?
I will be working with my colleagues on Norwich City Council – from all parties – to see what we can do to help the campaign. I know some people believe all is lost, but I feel positive we can change this decision if we all work together. If we can prove that this is a genuine cross-party campaign with the strong backing of local people then we have a chance.

Norfolk County Council have options - for a start opposing what is being forced upon us by the national government. I hope they are in a listening mood.

£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.

Who has most to worry about from the 09 County elections?

A prolific reader of my blog, Comrade, left a short but interesting comment on my last post. He, once a Labour councillor left to join the LibDems, urged us to "bring on" the county elections. It made me think about who had most to gain, or lose, from that poll.

First thing to note is that it is not likely to be on the same day as a General Election and thus a much lower turnout may hit some majorities that were previously very high. And also being on the same day as the Euro elections may bring the right-wing vote out in much greater force. However, the statistics show some worries for all the parties.

In terms of marginal seats (those with a majority of less than 5%), the Tories hold 8 (out of 46), Labour have 5 (out of 22) and the LibDems have 6 (out of 14) - hence nearly half of the LibDem county group are vulnerable on quite small swings. Melton Constable has a LibDem majority of 0.02% (yes, a single vote) and the Tories in North Norfolk will be gunning for electoral revenge there. Kings Lynn South is held by the LibDems by 0.3% and East Depwade by 0.4% - both in areas with big swings back to the Tories in recent years. Clavering had a LibDem majority of 3% but the Tories won that back in a by-election last year so it may be difficult to hold. I would imagine at this stage that all four seats would be very difficult for them to hold. The LibDems also have a 0.6% majority in Aylsham (but a much better majority at the recent by-election) and a 2% lead in Cromer and both would be vulnerable to a Cameron surge. If the Tories do very well on polling day then Reepham (LibDem maj 7%) could also be at risk. Other LibDem seats should fare better - despite a fairly low 9% majority in Fakenham, the party are odds on to hold it. Their 22% majority in Eaton will look more vulnerable given the strides made by the Tories at City level, and a similar 22% majority in Thorpe Hamlet - their second safest seat - is under threat from the rampant Norwich Green Party who took the identical ward by 501 votes at City level.

Labour's urban outposts in Norfolk will face the test of a resurgant Tory Party next year as well. Great Yarmouth will see some pretty close fights - the semi-rural Lothingland Division has a Labour majority of just 0.5% for example. Thetford East (Labour maj 0.7%), Dereham South (Labour maj 3%), Caister (Labour maj 5%) and Gaywood North & Central (Labour maj 3%) would all become Tory seats based upon district results, let alone the opinion polls. And the news becomes worse for Labour - their 6% majority in Sprowston and 8% lead in Gaywood South (Kings Lynn) would currently both be wiped out. Breydon in Great Yarmouth had a Labour lead of 15% in 2005 and will certainly be top of the Great Yarmouth Tories hitlist, especially if Brandon Lewis is to be their next MP. It may even get worse than that, because a lot of very, very safe Labour seats in Norwich will also come into play on a low turnout. A 25% lead in Bowthorpe and a 22% lead in Catton Grove may also disappear if recent City elections are repeated and gains could be made by the Tories. Labour also hold seats in Lakenham, Mancroft and Wensum where the LibDems and Greens have since made City gains. Labour's county group could easily be reduced from 22 to 15 on a small swing back to the Tories and down to 10 if things go badly in Norwich.

The Greens, of course, start from a low base and should gain seats from Labour this time around. Town Close, despite the by-election win, won't be a guaranteed hold but Nelson should be pretty safe territory for them.

The Tories have most at risk, having most seats and an overall majority on the council - it would take just the loss of 4 seats for our overall majority to go. The LibDems will be looking no doubt at Long Stratton (Con maj 2%) and Diss (Con maj 4%) but given the massive Tory strides in South Norfolk, neither look vulnerable at the moment. They may rather fancy their chances in North Norfolk wheer the Tories currently lead by 4% in both Wells and Mundesley. On the outside, the LibDems may also choose to mount a strong challenge in Hellesdon (Con maj 8%) and Hoveton (Con maj 7%) but at the moment both look beyond their reach. Labour really have very few opportunities to make gains from the Tories - even a 0.7% Tory majority in the Broadland seat of Woodside looks a bit far fetched. Gorleston (Con maj 3%), Acle (Con maj 10%) and Old Catton (Con maj 7%) may all get Labour going but I don't think they stand a chance in those wards either.

So who are the likely winners and losers from this? The Tories look pretty secure and have plenty of chances to gains seats from both Labour and the LibDems. Few Tory Councillors will even be challenged by Labour, although a coupel of seats may have strong LibDem campaigns. I suspect we'll talking about the size of the Tory majority rather than if there will be one! The Labour Party pretty much face meltdown and their urban bases look set to fall; facing a Tory onslaught in GY, KL and Norwich (plus the Greens in Norwich too) they could be squeezed from all sides and could fall to third. The party with the biggest risk is the LibDems; on a good day they could hold seats and make a few gains, but they haven't had many good days recently. With the Greens stealing their clothes in Norwich and the rampant Tories in the county they could as easily be fighting the Greens for third place on county and they could fighting Labour for second. At the moment, I wouldn't want to be a LibDem strategist - over-stretch could cost them seats.

So that's it as I see it at the moment; things could change (and do) in politics) but I have tried to be honest. I'll let you guess the seats, but currently I think we'll see 54 Conservatives, 14 LibDems, 11 Labour and 5 Greens - an overall majority of 24 for the Tories.

The Tories have this election to win, Labour have it to lose ... but its the LibDems who should most fear the ballot box at the moment!

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!

County Council listens to Puppet Theatre fans ...

You can read more about the decision of the Conservatives on the County Council to offer an emergency grant to the Puppet Theatre here, but it is worht noting that part of the political reasoning for unitary was that the county council never paid any attention to the City.

It is rather pleasing to see good ol' Morph and co. posing for the cameras with their support, but then failing to actually help, and then see a Tory-run council step in with practical measures to help. I'm sure this example won't make any pro-unitary leaflets from the City but it does rather blow yet another hole in their arguement.

Residents matter more than targets, says new County Leader

I am very pleased that our new County Council Leader Daniel Cox wrote a comment on this blog a few days ago and, as a Conservative, I am very impressed with what he had to say. I thought it deserved a wider audience so re-print it in full here. If this is the route we are going down, then the '09 poll can't come soon enough for us...

I am honoured to be leading Norfolk County Council at such an exciting time in local government. Whether or not Brown takes over from Blair, or Cameron takes over from either of them, I believe that the pendulum is firmly swinging away from central government’s command and control.

I will be looking to build upon the work of my predecessor, Shaun Murphy who, ably assisted by the cabinet and officers, has taken Norfolk County Council to be recognised as a 4 star, excellent authority, achieving Beacon status for our services and delivering improved value for money. Our services must continue to improve.

Not just to shoot for the Audit Commission’s stars or to tick the right boxes for the DCLG, but because our residents deserve the best. We do face many challenges. Not least the Comprehensive Spending Review this year, we are likely to have an estimated funding deficit of £25million and although our efficiency project continues to make good progress, we will all be faced with difficult decisions and choices.

Is it me, or are Tory Leaders getting younger these days?

With the news that Norfolk Conservatives have chosen 36 year-old Daniel Cox as their new Leader, it seems that Tory chiefs are getting younger.

After all, the member for Wymondham joins David Cameron (who was 39 when elected) and, of course, the youthful Tory Leader of Norwich City Conservatives (who was 27 when voted in)!!!

Seriously, congratulations Daniel - I hope you get a hold of the reigns at County Hall and show us what a decent Conservative Council can achieve! Well Done - we all have high hopes for you!

Congratulations!

It's going to be a busytime to be a Labour Councillor, or rather a boozy one perhaps, with the news that two of their number are to marry soon. Hot on the heels of former Lord Mayor Mick Banham, Sewell Councillor, announcing he is to marry I hear news that Bowthorpe's County Councillor Gail Loveday is also to wed. Hurrah! Both marriages are quite political - Cllr Banham's bride is the widow of Harry Watson and the new Mr Cllr Loveday is Phil Harris, Labour's former candidate in North Norfolk.

Congrats to all - new hats all round!

Who's got the best reycling record in Norfolk? (Clue: It sure ain't a certain City...)

Fascinating statistics released from Norfolk County Council and pass to me via a recycling campaign have led to some red faces around City Hall, I understand. Using the Audit Commission reports from 2002-2005 it plots all of the district council performances in collecting recycling.

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.