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!

The LibDem Manifesto --- According to Eric Pickles

Says it better than I could, taken from ConHome:

Nick Clegg swapped the photocopying room in Cowley Street for much more stylish surroundings of a news agency to launch his manifesto today, complete with blue backdrop and green parrot. After the cartoons of the Labour Party and our more serious tomes, they adopted a homage to a West Yorkshire 1970’s bus timetable. The old West Riding had a great affection for that post modernist look when it came to imparting vital transport information.
I had a much loved copy of the timetable, so it was with much excitement I started to turn the pages, to find to my disappointment that it didn't give me the quickest route from Heckmanwike to Todmorden, but contained some "fully worked out pledges". Within minutes this "fully costed manifesto" started to dissolve before my very eyes like the foresaid timetable left out too long in the rain.

I won’t bore you with all the detail but needless to say there is £11.6 billion black hole in their calculations. The one of the more bizarre overstatements is the amount of tax avoidance which they claim they will save £4.65 billion through ‘anti-avoidance measures’ on income tax, National Insurance Contributions (NIC), Corporation Tax and Stamp Duty. However, HMRC estimates ‘tax avoidance’ in income tax, National Insurance and Capital Gains Tax is only between £0.8 and £1.6 billion. Perhaps Lib Dems know more about tax avoidance than we had previously anticipated.

I expect you might have come across the odd example of Lib Dem’s varying their message for different audiences but how about this for a ‘u-turn’. For weeks, Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have come out in support of Labour’s anti-business jobs tax and attacked businesses supporting Conservative opposition to the jobs tax. They were unkind enough to call our refusal to implement Labour’s job tax as “school boy economics" and "voodoo economics.” Compare that with "the increase in National Insurance Contributions is a damaging tax on jobs and an unfair tax on employees, so when resources allow we would seek to reverse it.’ (Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010, April 2010, pg. 97).

It just reinforces my view that if you want to see Liberal values in a Government, if you want to see improvements in the environment or pull back on the way in which the state is oppressively intruding into personal freedom and liberty, the sensible thing to do is vote Conservative. That is why Liberal Democrat voters are going to switch this time to the Conservatives to remove, rather than prop up Mr Brown in Number 10. Interesting that one of the first telephone calls that I took was from a Liberal Democrat County Councillor in the South of England who has chosen today to leave the Liberal Democrats and join the Conservatives. More on that later but suffice to say, she is very welcome

Don't do it, Eric!

According to the DT's Andrew Pierce, reported all over the place, the Conservatives are going to pile in extra resources to target Labour's big hitters in seats that the party has a chance of winning. With the swing that the party achieved in Norwich North we could have a very good chance of removing John Denham in Southampton, Jack Straw in Blackburn and Ben Bradshaw in Exter. Also rather appealing is the thought of winning the Yorkshire seat of Balls and Darling's Edinburgh Berth.

I have to admit that I worry about having a so-called decapitation strategy. I warned against it when the LibDems tried it before the '05 election and - as predicted by this blog - it came across as being nasty, neative and malicious. I think for the same reasons we ought to avoid it too.

If these MPs fall as the Tory tidalwave crosses the country then so be it, but to pour in resources to try and defeat big hitters would come across as being arrogant and wrong. Don't do it Eric!

Totnes Matters

The "Open Primary" result at Totnes, which saw local GP Dr Sarah Wollaston selected as Conservative candidate, could yet be the most significant political event of the year. Have I gone mad - a rural seat in Devon, setting the pace for the country? Well, yes ...

This was all part of Cameron's localism agenda, about enpowering people and getting more citizens involved in the democractic process. Post-expensesgate a chance to really engage with voters. Finally, all those people who live in safe seats but who aren't in a political party (and that's the overwhelming majority) will get a say on who is their local MP, or at least the candidate. For what its worth, I think this helps sew up Totnes - a marginal seat with a strong LibDem challenge - for the Conservatives.

The nay-sayers are in full flow, however, but I say this. Forget the turnout arguement; 25% of the constituency is far more people engaged that the few hundred local members under the old system. Forget the cost arguement; democracy can be expensive and we have to live with that. Forget the opposition parties trying to rig it; they can't do it.

So how will this change politics?

Firsty imagine if just one party did this nationwide next time, including making sitting MPs open to challenge. Then think about the kind of candidate who will be selected. I think it will inherently favour local candidates - party members are usually selecting the person they want to be the next Foreign Secretary, voters may want somebody who really knows about the area. I think it could benefit non-politicians and also people in non-traditional jobs. Lawyers and management consultants will find it harder to be selected than GPs, teachers and radio presenters. Why, because in these jobs you have a profile in a community already. A teacher, say, in a large comprehensive will be known by thousands of families locally who have been through the system. Ditto a GP in a tight-knit community. All goof stuff you might say.

Now for the bit the whips won't like. In the USA, the Primary system ensures that candidates owe their political survial more to local people and less to the party machine. Primaries in Britain I think will lead to more mavericks or independent - minded MPs being selected. In a tight vote, will that MP in a safe seat think about pleasing their whip or pleasing the voters who are due to vote in their primary next month?

One more thought; if they want to keep up as a radical democractic party I cannot see the LibDems being able to not follow suit soon - every day they delay and every Tory contest that is decided this way makes Clegg look more and more establishment and Cameron more and more grassroots orientated. But for Labour; can they follow suit without upsetting the Unions (their paymasters)? An interesting thought.

Absolute full marks to Pickles and Cameron for this one. It needs really serious thinking about and could radically change the landscape of politics.