A tale of two polls

Lavenham, where the Neighbourhood Plan Referendum took place on Thursday.

Last week we had news of how two very different sorts of community engagement turned out, and the contrast is interesting.

On Thursday we heard that Lavenham’s community referendum had approved the village’s Neighbourhood Plan.  91.6% of those who voted were in favour of the proposals.  The turnout was 36%, above the average for such referenda, which to date has been 32%.

Earlier in the week we received some initial numbers from the community engagement exercise on the Norfolk/Suffolk Devolution plans.  The number of responses received was a little over 10,000.  Since the population of Suffolk and Norfolk amounts to roughly 1.6m souls, even allowing for the fact that some of these are children, this is a pretty paltry response, amounting to well under 1%.  This is a very small sample by any reckoning.

Moreover a deeper look at the numbers show that of this small group of people  around 50% had any knowledge of devolution within England, with just over 8% claiming to know ‘a good deal’.  In contrast, given the length of time that it has taken for the Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan to evolve, those who voted in Lavenham were well informed about the issues involved. Unlike the Devo proposals which were handed down from on high, the Neighbourhood Plan was built from the bottom up; an example of local democracy in action.

It is not too late to have your say on the Devolution question.  However, if you are going to do so, do take time to look at the actual proposals and don’t just read the superficially attractive headlines.

You should the ask yourself:

• Is this really devolution or is it just another layer of Government?

• Is this really democratic?  Do smaller parties, for example, get their say?

• Is the money on offer particularly significant in the overall scheme of things?

We will be voting at the County Council on these proposals on Wednesday 2^nd November.  I am happy to discuss the issues with anyone who contacts me.

A response to the devolution consultation

My husband, Nick, yesterday attempted to respond to the questions being posed by the Government with regard to the public's opinion of the proposed devolution deal for Norfolk and Suffolk.

He found that he was unable to respond sensibly to the questions as framed due to the fact that no answer that he could have given to them would have adequately expressed his views.  This is due to the fact that the questions are heavily, and carefully, loaded.

I can do no better than to post here his full response which he made by e mail. (You are invited to respond to the consultation in this way if you prefer.)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Devolution means transfer of powers down from central government to local government but that is not what is on offer. What is on offer is the creation of an additional tier of government, at the regional level, with very limited additional powers of taxation, a trivially small annual increase in central funding, and significantly lower levels of accountability than currently apply to District or County Councils. The concentration of power on a single person, the mayor, and the proposed electoral structure whereby each authority has one vote on a new assembly, would reduce or eliminate the ability of minority parties to hold the party of power, whichever it might be, to account.

The European Union operates through the prism of regional administration, but as we are now leaving it that should no longer weigh as a factor in deciding whether or how to restructure local government in England.

What is proposed is not devolution. It is local government reform of a centralising and anti-democratic nature, and it should be rejected.

Incidentally, I feel that your questionnaire cannot elicit appropriate responses. Questions like ‘Do you approve of the devolution of more power to local authorities and a mayor?’ have two problems. The first is that devolution of more powers to local government is not what is on offer. The second is that it confuses two questions – devolution and concentration of powers on a mayor. So the whole consultation process is hopelessly flawed.

Yours faithfully,

Nicholas Antill (resident of Babergh District Council in Suffolk)

Have your say on Devolution

The public consultation on the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution deal is now open for comment.

You can participate by clicking HERE.

I expressed my views about all this on this site back in June, and you can read my comments HERE.

Nothing that I heard in the debate at the County Council on 30th June has altered my opinion.

Local Government reorganisation (with a small amount of funding attached ...around £1bn over 30 years on a present value basis) may be a good thing for Suffolk, but I would be more positive towards the idea if it were presented honestly and not dressed up as some sort of devolution of power.

Anyway, now you can read the documentation, make up your own mind, and have your say!

Devolution, a deal emerges

Yesterday the shape of the so called 'Eastern Powerhouse' devolution deal emerged.

It seems that differences with Cambridgeshire (who thought that an alliance with the backwoodsmen of Suffolk and Norfolk would 'hold them back') have not been resolved.  So what is now proposed are two separate devolved areas, once including Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and one for Norfolk and Suffolk.  Each area will enjoy the privilege of their own elected mayor and each will see the creation of a new 'combined authority'.  In the case of Norfolk and Suffolk, a representative from each of the 23 local councils will sit on this body.

Thus, as I have been warning for some time, devolution = an additional layer of government.

Quite detailed information about the deal can be found HERE.

In preparation for a meeting tomorrow at which the new deal will be discussed I have been looking at this, and my preliminary conclusions are as follows:-

1. This is less about devolution (which to me involves tax raising powers as well as devolved decision making) than local government reorganisation (again).  The amounts of money being devolved from central government directly are tiny and any local taxation will come from levies on business rates.  It is questionable however whether business can actually cope with much higher rates.  Also, reading the small print, central government is retaining a strong level of supervision over the activities of the new combined authorities.

2.  Any talk of increased localism is eyewash.  The people making the decisions will be sitting in a new combined authority which is no nearer to a parish council for example than the Government is now.

3.  The new combined authorities have the potential to become quite expensive, representing as they do a new layer of government with various attached committees and boards. (I have counted about nine of these while going through the relevant information).  In theory the funding of the combined authorities is supposed to come from 'existing resources' .  I have my doubts about this concept for a number of reasons.

4.   Potentially the County Councils are likely to be diminished in power and influence at the expense of the Districts, who will be relatively unaffected.

I hope that some of these doubts will be allayed by the proponents of this so called 'devolution' in the days to come.  A vote on the matter will take place at full council at the end of the month.

Devo sucks?

This week almost 80 percent of voters in Bath and North East Somerset, when asked in a referendum whether they wanted an elected mayor, said no.

Today we hear that the new ‘Eastern Powerhouse’, the latest and most ambitious iteration of the devolution plans for the East is to be headed by, yes you guessed it, an elected Mayor.  As far as I can remember however no resident of Suffolk, Norfolk or Cambridgeshire has been asked their opinion on the subject.   I suspect if they were the answer would not be much different from that of the good people of Bath and North East Somerset.

The Government are clearly not in the mood to be contradicted in this matter.  ‘I will not impose this model on anyone. But nor will I settle for less’ was George Osborne’s comment when asked about elected mayors.  So that’s clear then!

Moreover, it appears that not every council in the East is that enthusiastic about the ‘Powerhouse’.  The Leader of Cambridge City Council poured cold water on the idea on Look East today and it has been no secret that Cambridgeshire as a whole was less than enthusiastic when belatedly instructed to join the process very recently.

I really do wonder whether central Government has a clue what it is doing with regard to devolution.  What was an ill thought through seat of the pants promise made to the English regions during the Scottish Referendum has developed into the most chaotic process imaginable.  At one stage it seemed that the Government genuinely wanted ideas to come from the bottom up.  Suffolk Leaders accordingly submitted their ideas for devolved powers, but these were quickly sent back so that Norfolk might be included in the mix. Weeks later cold water was poured on this second attempt because the Government now wanted to see Cambridgeshire (and possibly parts of North Essex) to be included.

This seems to me to be policy making as conducted in a madhouse.  I can do no better than quote a ‘local government source who has been involved in the East Anglian devolution discussion’ speaking to the MJ (formerly the Municipal Journal) of Thursday 3^rd March.

‘The Government is desperate to get some bids in so they can announce them in the Budget.  There’s a real pressure to get something agreed.

Its neither bottom up nor top down.  The Government only knows what it doesn’t want when it sees it, so everyone’s second guessing.

With the Government moving the goalposts every five minutes the devolution process feels really random, a bit panicky and rushed.’

Oh and then there’s the small matter of asking residents, and also most councillors, for their views….. Don’t even think about it!  Like the people of Bath and North Somerset they might give the wrong answers.

Please say yes to the merger with Mid Suffolk

I can't believe that I still seem to be on the campaign trail!

Nick and I spent the morning with colleagues from Babergh delivering leaflets in Long Melford in support of a yes vote in the Local Poll on Babergh's plans to merge with Mid Suffolk District Council, details of which should hit your doormat very shortly.

As many people know the two councils are already combining as many of their business activities as possible in order to save money and protect services.  However in order to reduce the number of councillors and complete a full merger of the councils we need a mandate from the public.

The merger has benefits over and above the purely financial, although the savings of at least £400,000 per year that would be achieved is around 10 percent of Babergh's share of council tax, and cannot be dismissed as insignificant.

There has been a good deal of nonsense talked about what would happen to us all in the event of a merger, and also about the relative financial strength of both councils. I do not propose to address these here and now.  However if anyone has any questions when they have received their voting packs I will be very happy to answer them either by phone, by e mail,  or here on the blog.

A daft claim from Hadleigh Liberal Democrats

If we were not in the middle of an election campaign, I would find the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats quite extraordinary.   Since however the election is looming on Thursday, I suppose they feel that anything goes at this stage.

On their election material Hadleigh Liberal Democrat candidates are making a totally unfounded claim in order to oppose full merger with Mid Suffolk District Council. As regular readers of this site will know,  this is a proposal for which the majority of Liberal Democrat councillors voted in favour only a few months ago.

Included in a Liberal Democrat election leaflet we find the following slogan:

‘If you want to keep parking free in Hadleigh vote no to the merger with Mid Suffolk’.

In reality there is absolutely no reason at all to believe that voting no to the merger would keep short term car parking free. 

In fact a slogan closer to the truth would be

‘ If you want to guarantee that short term parking charges will be introduced across Babergh then vote no to the merger.' 

This is because full constitutional merger is the only way to ensure that maximum savings are made so that other services and grants can be preserved!Without it we will be forced to make some unpalatable decisions.

It seems the Lib Dems  are happy to bend the facts, and turn their backs on this opportunity to save your money, so that they can not only try to win this election, but also hang onto their seats in the longer term.  This attitude must seem somewhat selfish to those many public servants whose jobs have already gone, or will disappear in the future.

Golden goodbyes

I did wonder how long it would take for the newspapers to catch up with the fact that Babergh is, like every other employer in the country, obliged to pay redundancy to those it makes redundant.

Additionally, in common with every Government body, we are contractually committed to pay a lump sum to into the pension funds of those who take early retirement when they are 55 or more.

So yes, it is true, that we are paying our outgoing Chief Executive Officer, Pat Rockall, what she is entitled to as far as redundancy goes, and we are also paying a lump sum into her pension. This amounts in all to around £260,000, roughly two thirds of which relates to her pension.

We have no choice in this matter, and it is part of the not inconsiderable investment that we will have to make in order to achieve savings in the medium term. I would like to make it clear however that the savings are such that full payback will be made in two years; a good return by any measure,

It should be added that there is no question of paying more than we need! No additional golden goodbyes.

We have made no secret of the fact that these payments will have to be made, every councillor at Babergh is well aware of them, and most have voted through publicly available papers on several occasions in which they have been a clearly spelt out component of the business plan.

Now, you can say that it is wicked and wrong that public servants are entitled to this generous treatment, and indeed the Hutton Report seems to imply that the current system is far from perfect. Until the law changes however, and there is little sign of this happening in the short term, we have to play by the current rules.

Another scoop for the blog..Babergh's new chief.

Since it is hot off the press, I believe that I can claim to be the first to display to the world a picture of our very exciting and capable new Chief Executive Officer Charlie Adan.

Prior to coming to Suffolk to act as joint CEO for Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council, Charlie was deputy Chief Executive in Hereford. She is a lawyer by training, and has considerable experience in change management. I was lucky enough to be on one of the panels responsible for the selection and am confident that she is the right person for the job.

She has family ties to Suffolk too, which is a bonus.

I am not at liberty to disclose her salary but I can tell you that, due to the fact that she is a 'shared resource', she will cost us less than half than Babergh's last CEO.

Lib Dems' action threatens local poll on Council merger

‘I for one do not want to see one community grant reduced, or one service for residents cut, just to pay for a plethora of surplus to requirement District Councillors desperately hanging on to office and confusing the issue, while money is squandered, and Babergh and Mid Suffolk staff take the pain of job losses and redundancy.’

I suppose that it was too much to hope that yesterday’s extra Council Meeting would all be over by coffee time. I was rather hoping it would since I have developed a nasty cold and wanted to go and sit by the fire.

There were only two papers on the agenda. The second was a ‘Part 2’ item and therefore confidential so I can’t say a word about that. Suffice it to say that mercifully it didn’t take too long and I did get home for a late lunch.

The first looked innocuous enough, so I felt I was safe in expecting to be home by noon.

No such luck.

The proposals asked members to approve (or reapprove) the business case for both the merger of officer structures of Babergh and Mid Suffolk and also the potential constitutional merger which would form one council out of two. This sounds a bit dull, but stay with me reader, for you will learn much about the nature of political goings on at Babergh District Council if you do.

In their wisdom the Liberal Democrats had asked that this business case be verified by an outside auditor some time ago. Although I had faith in the scheme as prepared by our officers, since much of the scope for cost cutting is very transparent, I had no real issue with having a third party take a closer look.

This verification has now been done. The excellent work that was prepared by officers from the finance departments of both councils has been unequivocally endorsed by representatives from CIPRA. This body has been very active in recent years examining plans for corporate activity between local authorities in the UK and are generally considered to be the number one experts in the field. ‘Robust’,’ sound’, ‘conservative’, ‘accurate’, were some of the adjectives used by the man from CIPRA who came specially to the Council chamber to present his findings to us. Even if the costs of implementation of the scheme increased by 100%, he said, the business case was a sound one which would meet the Boundary Commission’s ‘Value for Money’ parameters.

This means that from a financial standpoint what we are doing, and what we are planning to do, is A VERY GOOD THING.

It seems however that the Liberal Democrats, despite the ringing endorsement of the scheme from people who, I would have to say, know rather more about the issue than they do, have now decided that they have lost their enthusiasm for a full merger. This is despite the fact that just five months ago all but two of their number voted, in principle to go ahead subject to the business case being verified. (See blog for Tuesday September 28^th 2010 which describes the debate).

It was hard to grasp what was troubling them now that didn’t trouble them five months or so ago, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that with an election some weeks away , and with their own party doing even worse than the Conservatives in the opinion polls, they have been panicked into an attempt to create some political difference between themselves and the Conservative Group.

In the debate I urged Babergh members to consider the financial benefits to their constituents of a full merger (additional savings of at least £800,000 per annum for the new council), to put politics behind them, and to ‘do the right thing’. I for one do not want to see one community grant reduced, or one service for residents cut, just to pay for a plethora of surplus to requirement District Councillors desperately hanging on to office and confusing the issue, while money is squandered, and Babergh and Mid Suffolk staff take the pain of job losses and redundancy.

I don’t know if my words made any difference but the outcome was, in the end, just about satisfactory, as the motion to approve the business plan was carried by 19 votes to 15 with one abstention. The names of who voted which way have been recorded*

What is really frightening about the Liberal Democrat’s flip flop on this issue is that they risked bringing the whole discussion of a full merger to a full stop. If they had prevailed that would have been it, finished, the end. The residents of Babergh and Mid Suffolk would have been denied the right to vote on the question in the planned local poll that is due to take place immediately after the Local Government elections in May.

Not much liberal about that....or much democratic either.

*Three Independents voted for the motion, and three against, with one abstention. Our one Labour member voted against, but to give him his due, he has been entirely consistent in his opposition to the scheme, preferring to support a more fundamental unitary solution. Were this to be an option at present I would agree with him.

A new council takes shape

Papers released this week on the Babergh website enable anyone interested to obtain an insight into how a merged council with Mid Suffolk District Council might begin to take shape.

What the paper, due to be discussed by the Strategy Committee on Thursday, provides is a summary of the main issues involved in achieving a merger, plus some tentatively suggested solutions. The lack of certainty is in part due to the fact that the Government is currently changing the rules with regard to the constitutional arrangments for local government. Thus it is impossible at present to say with certainty whether the new council will have a Cabinet and Leader, or be run on the basis of committees as Babergh and Mid Suffolk are now.

Questions also remain with regard to the shape of more organised locality arrangements. These are necessary to fill the so called 'democratic deficit' that results when a two councils of over 80 members falls to one council with 55 or so members.

And of course none of this can happen without evidence of public support. It now looks likely that any poll with regard to this will not happen until after the elections on May 5th.

To read the paper go to the Babergh website, click on Council and Democracy/council papers/Strategy and find the link on the agenda for Thursday February 10th.