Morphew quits as City Council Leader

I had known for some time that Steve Morphew - who, like him or loath him, has put his heart and soul into Norwich politics for a long time time now - was planning to step down. I like Steve a lot; he's a decent guy, easy to do business with and has the City stamped through his heart. We've clashed, a lot, in the council chamber and he is a great advocate for the Labour cause and for Norwich. Ultimately he is wrong (on nearly everything, naturally) but credit where it is due - he dragged the City back from the financial abyss left the LibDems and has run a hung council with remarkable stability. In the end, Morphew could have quit over a number of issues - the Connaught collapse, the million pound unitary fiasco, Greyhound Opening ... but in a funny way I am glad he has gone in his own way and in his own time. I always praise genuine public service, and Steve Morphew has been one of the City's fine public servants. Like Brian Watkins before him, public life in the City will be poorer when he has gone.

My gripe, if I am allowed one, is that Cllr Morphew will lead Labour into the 2011 City poll and then a new leader will be elected afterwards. This means that when people vote they will not know who will be the next Labour Leader or, potentially, the next City Council Leader. This seems unfair on local people and not very democratic. So I am urging Steve to step down earlier to allow Labour a leader by the time of the poll. I think local people deserve that.

So good luck Steve; enjoy life with the family and actually trying to earn a living. Being City Council Leader is a full time job on a part-time salary and we all appreciate the sacrifices you make in public office (none more so than those of us who have done it). Enjoy the (brief) retirement, and then - who knows ...?

Crushing embarrassment for Labour as C4's Factchecker says their Sure Start claims are "wrong"

As anybody who has been paying attention to the Labour gumpf in Norwich, the "Tory cuts" to Sure Start have headlined. This claim has caused real concern amomgst local people, particularly Mum's in areas like one I represent, who are worried that their support will be taken from them. This claim is taken from a Conservative idea to move funding to support outreach and Health Visitor work. I have for some time believed that the party ought to be more vigerous in defending the position - which is that there are no planned cuts - because Labour had repeated the fib so many times it was taking on an air of truth. Even the Labour Councillors at City Hall have bet their political reputation on this.

Oh dear. Now the C4 Factchecker has done the research (click here for more) and come up with ... Labour claims, coming from cuts to Sure Start, but from the health budget. So the inflammatory headline on Labour’s scare story is, strictly, wrong.

Will I get an apology from those Labour Councillors, including their Leader Steve Morphew and Childrens Spokesman Sue Sands, who were vigerous in their attack on this issue? I not holding my breath, but Mums and Dads across the City ought to take note of these independent findings.

Labour claims not true ...

The Next General Election in 30 Minutes

After a discussion about getting more people interested in the work of the council, we then had a debate which one member of the public who did turn up to watch the council meeting described as a "disgrace". It was interesting and I cannot deny I love the cut and thrust of what we do, especially when the council is being political-with-a-capital-P, but this person said the debate was "messy, generally thoughtless and the kind of thing that puts us [ the voter, I assume ] off." I think that was a bit far - after all the debate gave us a very clear insight into the next election.

The motion was one that highlighted positive statements about Sure Start from national politicans (even the Green Party) and suggested that we ought to back the service and refrain from unfair political attacks - such as those parties who might suggest another party wishes to scrap Sure Start because this worries people unncessarily. I don't think anyone expected what came next ...

Cllr Andrew Wiltshire moved a very good speech about the work that Sure Start did. I have to say that I was left bewildered by the response of Labour's Cllr Sue Sands who reeled off a list of clubs that her Sure Start ran citing this as the reason it ought to continue. Great idea; let's share good practice from around the City. Unfortunately Cllr Sands doesn't seem to appreciate the work of Health Visitors quite so much and doesn't see the next to expand their work or to have a multi-agency approach to what Sure Start does. Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, gave a good speech in favour of the motion - then LibDem Cllr Lubbock (and quite why she was chosen to respond was beyond me) descided to take the motion apart line by line. She didn't appreciate me correcting her every error - including when she criticised the stated aim of Sure Start (as taken from their website). A bizarre moment of my life that one. Lesson 101 of the Council; Whenever you want to oppose a motion but can't work out a decent reason you always say it is "badly written". I'd say her speech was badly written alright. Council Leader Cllr Steve Morphew wanted to know what the Conservatives would change about Sure Start and it was laid out some specifics about changing the role of the Health Visitors, the link to early years education and the role/direction of local services. Not good enough for Cllr Morphew who demands to know more. He is given more. He doesn't like the response so screams that he wasn't given an answer. He was given an answer, he just didn't like it or agree with it. So Cllr Morphew has the words of David Cameron stricken from the motion; quite why is beyond me but never mind. The motion is still passed - yes, the Conservatives still voted for it - and I assume Labour will continue to frighten some very young and very vulnerable voters with this come election time.

I remember letters written by Steve Morphew to the people of Bowthorpe saying that if they didn't vote Labour they wouldn't get new windows in their council homes. They didn't vote Labour but they still got new windows. Maybe we can't believe everything our Council Leader says?

So why do I say that this is a marker for the next General Election? Labour say everything is fine, keep spending chaps and smile for the cameras; the Conservatives want to change and reform our services so they better serve out communities; the LibDems look bewildered; and the Greens had very little indeed to say about the issue.

So could I convince the member of the public of this? No, but they thought none of us came out well. They were annoyed that what should have been a fairly bland political moment was hijacked by Labour. Get used to it, there's plenty of months before the election and I suspect all issues will be subject to this kind of game playing.

Let the political debate begin (we just might want to warn the public first!)

Labour Member: Morphew Must Go

I am not one to leap up and down demanding that heads roll and resignations must follow each bowt of bad news. However I did, with a lot of media coverage, demand that somebody within the ruling Labour adminsitration take responsibility for the dreadful 0-Star (yes, zero star) rating for Housing. Of course, the weak LibDem opposition are happy to allow Labour to bumble along constantly promising jam tomorrow because they know the state they left the City in was little better.

Interesting that despite Steve Morphew saying that resignations would achieve nothing, today a letter was published in the Evening News (sadly not on-line) from a staunch life-long Labour member in Norwich demanding that Morphew personally should resign to prevent meltdown at the elections and to restore confidence in the council.

When your political enemies slam you, that's the game, when your own members do it ...

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."

"That" debate in council

The last few days have been hectic so I haven't even had time to blog the full council meeting which happened last Tuesday; and with it, "that" debate on Norwich Airport.

I was worried that blogging about it a few days later I might be squeezed out of the post-debate analysis, but seen as the man of the moment hasn't blogged about it himself, I may have gotten away with it. The night started with a group of protestors outside City Hall and soon enough Leader of the Council Steve Morphew was batting away public questions about the subject. Why they had to ask public questions with a debate already lined up was beyond me, but seen as it is the usual Green Party crowd (and, yes, living with a Green Councillor does count as being part of the crowd) then at least they won't be able to ask another question for 6 months. Morphew certainly didn't hold back with his support for the airport and I think facing the green-mob made a strong line easier than otherwise it might have been.

When the debate finally came, I spoke at length about the challenges facing the aviation industry in general and Norwich Airport in particular. I challenged other parties to recognise 2 issues; firstly the economic impact of the airport on the City. Also the liberty issue; would we really want to start preaching to people about where, when and how they take their holidays? Both Labour and LibDem Leaders agreed with my interpretation of the issues and made sound speeches supporting the Airport.

Then the Greens stepped forward ... when I laid down the motion I knew that the Greens wouldn't be happy (they want fewer and fewer flights, leading one day to nil I'm sure) so unlike the A11 motion where their opposition took me by surprise (I thought Ramsay's political radar would have been better) I knew what was coming. Or did I?

After his woeful ranting performance last month, Cllr Read didn't lead off for the Greens. Despite being Transport Spokesman that job was left to Cllr Gledhill - perhaps Ramsay thougth better of letting Read loose on the public again? Well, Gledhill surprised us all by being absolutely attrocious. Now I like Gledhill and think he is passionate about his issues; but my fear he may do a hatchett job was short lived. His speech was dull, badly scripted and hardly structured at all - talking from behind a list of stats rarely works. Monotone and without any real themes; I'm afraid it was a very poor job. But then they started to swop notes and let a new Councillor take over for another 3 minutes of the same. Cllrs Jeraj, Makof and Bearman all did the same (although Janet's story about her holiday did lift the gloom somewhat). And then stepped up dear Cllr Read ... I think more annoyed about the pisspoor efforts of his own party.

However, Morphew has taken away his legs before he had got up - by quoting back at Read something he said a few years back saying it was none of his concern if the airport closed. So Read had to start off by justifying his own position. Ramsay even tried coming in to say he was confused by the motion, before being rebutted by others who said the only confusion was the Green position.

Of course we won the vote but the debate was rather bitty and lacked the spark which some has predicted. The three major parties all stayed their ground and instead of letting the Greens assault our walls, we went out and met them on their ground. The Green response was not good and despite using around half their group to speak their dependence on stats and "evidence" let them down. They didn't have an alternative to sell (they couldn't, for example, say what capacity they thought the airport should have) and didn't speak with the passion which you might imagine. No matetr what other councillors said, they got their heads down and stuck to the script. No bouncing off their opposition, too rigid and too badly prepared.

So a good motion passed by a Council now determined to see the Airport work, but the debate lacked spark.

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.

Morph does it again

A friend draws my attention to serial election-denier Steve Morphew.

Last year he said that Bowthorpe was robbed of a Labour Councillor (it elected a hard working Conservative instead) because of some obscure unitary leaflet.

Now apparently he writes in the Evening News that the people of Bowthorpe and Catton Grove must have woken up to wonder what they did by dumping failed Labour (and electing hard working Conservatives instead).

Elections are tough stuff; why can't we just accept the verdict of the electorate without claiming they had got it wrong or didn't know what they were doing?

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.

Fixing an Evening News poll - can you get any more politically desperate?

Eagled eyed readers of the Evening News website are regularly amused by their opinion polls. Always with one eye on the big news, this week readers are being asked if they agree with council leader Steve Morphew in rejecting the proposed congestion charge for Norwich. Of course, needless to say, it should be asking if they agree with me as I was the first party leader to oppose it and it has taken Labour over 12 months to end up agreeing with me. Anyway...

When checked at around 4pm yesterday afternoon the results showed about 85% agreed with our Great Leader and 15% didn't - not a shock as the congestion charge is about as popular as cold vomit.

However, check back at 7pm and in just a couple of hours had changed to 45% agreeing with Morph and 55% disagreeing. A truly remarkable political switch by the good people of Norwich. Or so it might seem...

This is such a big movement that I cannot get it out of my head that it has fallen foul of a concerted effort here - either voting on multiple computers or messing about with the cookies on a computer to allow multiple voting. If this is genuine then the good people of Norwich might be collectivly losing their marbles. Short of that, I wonder if foul play is afoot?

Who would benefit from seeming public support for this? Ah, our Green colleagues - the last party still clinging to a pro-charge stance (yes, even Cllr Cooke's dullard LibDems have managed to spot the electoral problem with this). Maybe this policy isn't down well on the doorsteps of the intelligencia and a nice fair opinion poll is required to help the pill go down?

Labour say vote for the candidate who lives closest to Bowthorpe

During our walkabout this morning I was passed a copy of the latest Labour leaflet by a resident. In it, the following classic line appears:

"In the end she [ Chrissie Rumsby, the former Labour Councillor ] lost her seat to a Tory who lives miles away by just 9 votes."

Oh, so it's a competition to see who lives nearer to the ward is it then? We won't go into the fact that both remaining Labour councillors live miles from the ward themselves, but that this really is a stupid-bordering-on-hypocritical stance to take.

When I lived in the ward and stood against dear old Ron Borrett who lived "miles away" in New Costessey and then again when he lived "miles away" in Eaton, Labour urged people to vote for the long-distance councillor Ron Borrett.

And next year, when Dereham Road resident Niki George (who lives a minutes walk from the ward) stands against City Centre resident Brenda Ferris (who lives "miles away") I wonder whom they'll want people to vote for then?

I notice that the great Leader Steve Morphew has taken over as agent ... not a great start then Steve!

Questions & Answers

As I didn't blog about the recent full council meeting I thought I would update you on the question and answers given to give you some idea about the subjects that councillors are raising.

New elected Councillor John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) asked how much the council was owed in rent arrears. Labour's Executive Member for Housing, Julie Westmacott, said that the council had failed to collect £1.6m this year and this was only forcast to fall to £1.4m next year. Cllr Wyatt accused the council of being cavalier with taxpayers money and lacking ambition in wanting to tackle the problem. Council Leader Cllr Morphew said that the Tory response was predictable and that the council was getting to grips with the issues.

I then asked if the council has a "zero-tolerance" approach to anti-social behaviour from council tenants, a subject that was raised time and again at the Clover Hill residents meeting. Cllr Westmacott launched a snotty answer which accused the Conservatives of suggesting that all council tenants were engaged in ASB. In bad tempered exchanges, I then asked if they would come to a CHARM meeting and explain to hard working decent tenants why they are out of order raising this problem, as they seemed I was in putting the question. Labour's Cllr Bremner, in replying gave a list of things the council was doing to cut ASB.

Cross-party harmony then broke out as Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) congratulated the council on looking at brownfield infilling to solve the housing crisis and asked when the council survey on the use of garages was going to be published. Cllr Morphew replied that it would be released as soon as it was done.

Cllr Hooke (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), fresh from his 1 vote victory over the Greens, asked what the cost of the concessionary bus fares was going to be. Executive Member Brian Morrey replied that it was estimated at £1.35m but that this figure could change.

Due to the recent arson attack on her home, Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) wasn't there to hear the answer to her question about parking around St. Andrew's Plain. Cllr Morrey gave another stroppy answer - Lubbock faces a regular stream of these - in which he suggested that she already knew the answer. However Labour then promised a blitz on illegal parkers in the area, which I think was the point of Cllr Lubbock's question in the first place.

The Norman Centre has long been the central campaigning issue for all parties in the North of the City, and Cllr Carl Mayhew (LibDem, Mile Cross) is making a great play of this in the run up to his re-election campaign next year. However, once again, he walked into a bit of an elephant trap asking why it didn't open at weekends. Labour's Culture Member Brenda Ferris suggested he asked his LibDem colleagues - who cut the centre opening hours during their term in office in 2003. Cllr Mayhew had a rough meeting all-in-all suggestion later that councillor's shouldn't be given allowances. Oh dear. Desperate Carl then had the weight of all parties on his back...

Councillor Little (Green, Town Close) asked what consultation the City Council had done regarding the wi-fi system given the health risks. Cllr Morrey said it wasn't a city council function but that the county council thought that there were no risks. He suggested that Cllr Little write to the relevant government department.

Cllrs Watkins (LibDem, Eaton) and Dylan (Green, Mancroft) both asked about the council position on the Innes' project for the re-development of City Hall. Cllr Waters, in his usual fashion, said that members should control their enthusiasm for such schemes until the review of council property - including taking police opinions into account - were complete. He outlined the process, including a series of meetings.

Puddles occupied the mind of Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) this month complaining loudly (well, as loud as she gets) about puddles in the council's underground cycle store. How Cllr Waters kept a straight face answering this was beyond me - but he said that after work on the car park was complete then this would be a priority. Cllr Bearman complained that she waded through inches of water and this discouraged cycling. Cllr Waters couldn't agree more!

Cllr Hume (LibDem, University) clarified the rules of bulky collection for the elderly. Cllr Cooker, Lib Dem Leader and Lakenham Member, then asked how other group leaders would input into the renegotiation of the CityCare contract. Cllr Morphew said he had no idea but would raise it at group leaders meetings.

Housing was raised again - this time by Cllr Lowe (LibDem, Mancroft) - who asked why the length of time required to bring a house back into use had risen under Labour. Cllr Westmacott replied that the department has worked hard to address this and the time was now falling again.

Finally, the only Labour member to ask a question Cllr Cannell (Lab, Lakenham) asked what support the council gave to live music. Cllr Ferris replied "lots" and then gave an answer that I think was more planned for the media than for councillors interests. Too cynical perhaps?

And that was that for another few weeks...

Is the Council's Communication Department now directly supporting the campaigning work of Labour Councillors?

Councillor's were surprised yesterday to recieve two copies of the same Norwich City Council press release regarding the environmental standards of new homes in Three Score, Bowthorpe.

The first was the standard press release copy sent to the media, councillors, senior council officers and others.

The second was a carbon copy of the first, with the exception of one thing ... the addition of this line:

Further to the below email, Bowthorpe councillor Brenda Ferris is available for comment on XXXXX XXX XXX. Thanks

This is a bizarre move - normally all the material the council wishes to give is in the press release and no further comment is made. On Norfolk County Council Press Releases the contact details for all 4 party spokesman are given in order to be fair. Normally Norwich give contact details of nobody to be fair.

Yet on this important story regarding Bowthorpe, a decision was made to encourage the press to contact a specific councillor for more comment - and it just happens that this specific councillor is the sole Labour member for the area. The majority Conservative Councillors were ignored. Neither Cllr Wyatt nor I were contacted.

Was it because of Cllr Ferris being Deputy Leader of the Council? Nope. Look at the wording - it's very clear. Not Deputy Leader Councillor Brenda Ferris, but Bowthorpe Councillor Brenda Ferris.

John and I have now had to ask why this was the case and also for assurances that the Communications Department at City Hall were not "leaned on" over this story. We need to know that press officer were not asked to put in the line in order to get publicity for a Labour councillor in a marginal seat up for election next May. We also want to know how many press releases are followed up with Labour Councillor contact details.

This unfortunately looks very suspicious. The extra e-mail, the inclusion of the local member details and the fact it was only Cllr Ferris should make us think again. We need assurances on this - and fast. Our Communications Department must be, and must be seen to be, pushing the message of the authority not of a political party. The impartiality of local government depends on it.

Of course, the irony is that the EDP who followed the story up today took the quotes from the press release from Cllr Morphew and also those from my own press release which I did off my own back and without the aid of a local government bureaucracy.

Political Scrutiny

Scrutiny Committee is one of the most powerful tools in the checks and balances on the executive in councils. It gives a wide range of councillors the chance to inspect policy at close detail, to question key officers and to analyse and probe the workings of the authority. I have been very impressed by the work of the scrutiny committee (on which I serve) and think it has a big role especially in a hung council. Scrutiny matters and, thus, the Chair of Scrutiny matters.

Last year it was held by now-former Councillor Ian Couzens who took on the role as he was then Leader of the Opposition. (It, in my view, really needs to be an opposition councillor doing the job because as Chair of Scrutiny you set the agenda and if the Chair was the same colour as the administration they may not be as vigerous in keeping tabs on their work). Even after the new leadership of Hereward Cooke took over, Ian kept his position and did a good job.

So you might image that this year Hereward would step into the role as Leader of the Opposition. Not so. Apparently the Opposition Leader has no right to the job.

On Tory run authorities in Norfolk they are changing the rules so that Conservatives Chair scrutiny and sideline our opponents - so in Broadland an Independent Councillor will do it instead of the LibDems. I will be honest and say that I do not favour this as I don't think it aids democracy and accountability very well.

Anyway, here in Norwich the LibDems have lost the Chairmanship of Scrutiny and it has been given to the Greens, whom Steve Morphew described in today's EDP as being "more honest".

Now the LibDems can't seem to walk anywhere in Norwich without getting a smack in the mouth by a garden rake. A few years back they gained control with a massive swing and controlled the council with a big majority and a lot of goodwill. They seemed odds-on to oust Clarke and seemed to be motoring.

Now they are reduced to a rump of councillors, with many of them predicted to lose their seats next time around. They are split from top to bottom over their Council Leadership as well as their controversial choice of PPC for Norwich South. Their campaigning has gone into meltdown and they seem to pose no threat to anyone at the moment. So losing the Chair of Scrutiny must seem like being slapped with a wet fish, whilst you're down.

Instead, bright eyed Green Councillor Claire Stephenson steps in the ring - apparently saying that Scrutiny will look at things through Green eyes now. I do hope that isn't the start of the party politics on Scrutiny. We have enough of that on council without it dripping into committee too. Claire is intelligent, hard working and popular - I'm sure she'll do a good job and the mark of that is keeping her own side under control too! So watch out, Cllr Ramsay.

Now Labour justify this decision by saying that the LibDems are two-faced, lied in their election material (when don't they???) and cannot be trusted to Chair such an important committee.

According to the EDP battle lines are now drawn between Labour and the LibDems. My advice would be thus. To Cooke, the LibDems squaring up to Labour is like a 4 year old taking on a nightclub bouncer at the moment. Don't bother, bide your time. To Ramsay, make sure your party is being politically plundered by Labour ... sometimes power isn't worth selling yourself out for. To Morphew, let's keep a good natured co-operation good for a while longer.

NOC is going to be even more interesting this year...

The minutes will never really show this moment of absolute LibDem stupidity

The keen eyed amongst you will have spotted a moment of absolute political stupidity amongst the pomp and ceremony of last Tuesday's "Mayoral Making" at City Hall.

In amongst the hats, tights, men in wigs and newly elected Tory Councillors (a-hem!) there is a nasty bit of politics during which the council votes for a new Leader of the Council and then his (or her) Executive.

Who wasn't paying attention at a key moment, then? For just as Cllr Morph is up for a second year in the tob job, the Labour Councillors all duly vote the right way. The Greens and Tories sit firmly on their hands and then suddenly ... up pops the hand of one Cllr Hereward Cooke, the LibDem Leader.

The councillors suddenly double-take - was Cooke voting for Morphew to be Council Leader? In either a daze or too embarrassed to rectify the mistake, Cooke keeps his hand up and a handful of his backbenchers (who either aren't paying attention or resemble sheep) also vote for Morph. There were at least 5 - and maybe more.

Are the LibDems split over the future Council Leadership or did their Leader take his eye off the ball at what can be considered one of the more important moments of the civic year?

At best this will be remembered fondly as an error of judgement, but at worst every time his criticises Labour at a Council meeting I am sure some kindly soul will remind Cllr Cooke that he put Morph into power.

Moments after this incident, the LibDems then en masse abstained over the executive. Or maybe Cllr Cooke wanted Morph but not the rest of the Labour crew!

The mumblings over Cooke's leadership continue and this will not have helped. One LibDem Councillor fumed after the meeting that Norwich now had its very own Sir Ming Campbell.

Oh dear.

The Real Face of Unitary: Cuts, Layoffs and Fewer Services

Norfolk County Council has apparently gone over the Norwich City Council Business Case for the Unitary bid. They say that the figures do add up - but only if social services jobs are cut, library hours will be slashed and certain services will not survive after the reorganisation.

Interetingly enough, Labour Leader Steve Morphew says staff would not be sacked but would go through natural wasteage.

Hang on - he doesn't deny that the Unitary Council would need less staff and would need to scale down services. He just says we'd wait for people to quit or retire rather than being sacked.

Unitary status will mean job losses and fewer services - be assured of it.

Handbags at Dawn

I am saddened by Steve Morphew’s bad tempered reaction to his party’s defeat at the hands of the Conservatives.

He thinks this is a due to a leaflet put out by Norfolk County Council regarding Unitary status – I am sorry to disappoint Cllr Morphew but Unitary was barely mentioned on the doorstep at all.

However, if he is wondering how Labour has managed to lose what was their safest council seat to the Conservatives two years running, let me offer him the words of a former Labour voter from Bowthorpe who left this comment on this blog:

“Labour did not put any leaflets through doors, so voters didn't really know what the detailed manifesto was. The Conservative leaflet came through most doors setting out the bread and butter issues, unitary was not mentioned.Bowthorpe and Earlham is still riddled by litter, vandalism and graffiti. Labour hasn't done much on the ground to clear this before the election.Bowthorpe and Earlham have been ignored with funding compared to NELM areas.The Labour Candidate hadn't done the groundwork and was relying on the central Labour spin machine. John Wyatt came across as the better candidate who could put the time in, and connected with voters with green issues and being down to earth as an allotment holder.Council Tax was increased by 4.7% by City Labour. Big issue. Too much for pensioners like myself, and double inflation rates. We are not even getting the basic good services like prompt litter cleanups. It takes ages and doesn't always get properly reported by City Halls centralised contact numbers. We are not getting value for money under City Labour, at the moment.I can't see where Steve Morphew wants to go with this, and there is a risk it might backfire on City Labour as a sour grapes party, who sat on their laurels in Bowthorpe, like last year. I think it will further alienate City Labour.”

Perhaps Cllr Morphew should be looking at the performance of his council and his candidates before blaming everyone else for his party’s defeats.

People in Bowthorpe voted for a better candidate who was offering solutions to the problems faced in our community.

He may be happy to spend the next few weeks locked in rooms with lawyers and spin doctors – myself and John Wyatt will on the streets making Bowthorpe a better place to live and work.

UPDATE: I have just recieved a message from Steve saying he wasn't aiming fire at me, or persumably John, personally. Nice to know and I thought I would make that clear - although I feel the advice offered from the former Labour voter above is still valid.

Parish Councils slaughter Unitary

Tonight I attended a very well attended consultation meeting between the Clerks and Chairs of the parish councils which could be swallowed up by the Norwich Unitary bid. It was well organised and Council Leader Steve Morphew gave a very professional report on the current bid.

However, the assembled masses (who currently reside in Broadland or South Norfolk District) certainly didn't hold back in their vehment criticism of the plans. We were told - on more than one occasion - that not a single member of their council backs these plans. There were worries about the lack of consultation, the shabby state of the polls, the concerns on council tax, the current level of services offered by City Hall and the political direction of unitary. Cllr Morphew and his team of officers did well on some of these points - normally falling back on a catch-all excuse of "ignore the failings of the current Norwich City Council, this will be a NEW council"! Even at one point the meeting was told not to worry because any new council would have lots more conservatives on it and we normally sort most things out. That was nice.

It was a good meeting but I cannot express the strong feelings against this plan - particularly from places like Taverham, Trowse, Drayton, Horsford and Old Catton. These people are happy with the current settup and don't see a reason to change. A lot of the flimsy reasons for unitary were torn to shreds and Steve Morphew did have a bit of a rough time tonight (apparently a similar meeting yesterday went better).

Unitary doesn't need to have unamimous support but it does need to have broad ranging support. The MORI poll won't hide the fact that outside of the City itself, support for Unitary is very, very low. The government will see that and if they go on with the unitary idea still, it will certainly be a political decision being taken where we were promised an economic one.