Although there is widespread recognition that Ellesmere has been a good opposition leader there is a worry that his talents are as limited as his looks.  With the departure of Andrew Cann he could be the only thing that keeps a Tory Liberal coalition going if there is a repeat of his poor performance last year where the Labour Party essentially sacrificed the Parliamentary seat to win wards in North Ipswich but still fell short on the council.  It’s fair enough to fight the Liberal Democrats hard in the election, the Tories do that in St Margarets, but not treating them as human beings in peace time has been a big mistake which has given Ipswich at least one and, arguably, two more years of Conservative leadership than it would have otherwise had. 

The rather prominent football hooligan element within the Labour group still love Ellesmere and there’s a lot of, out bound, support for him even from the sort of Labour councillor who have never felt the urge to issue drunken death threats (they do exist).  However these things can change remarkably fast, as Jeremy Pembroke could attest (the fact that Ellesmere would never talk to the Suffolk leadership may also be a mark against him, but rather oddly it’s not a complaint I’ve heard.)

I have had wind of a bigger story but frustratingly can not find any corroboration on it.  If I do, it will run.

It is that the rhetoric is all wrong.  It’s a fact that the majority of the country accept that you can’t borrow three out of every four pounds that you spend.  Labour went into the election agreeing to that and still agree to it.  Yes they want to raise a few more taxes and cut the deficit more slowly but it’s in the same confines as the other two main parties and the British public.  The coalition will at the end of its term still leave us with a bigger debt than when we started it (although hopefully a more sustainable one).  These are the simple facts. 

Many Labour councils may be playing a very dangerous game of cutting frontline services to protect the middle managers, but although this is scandalous and probably not worth the risk it is not a great diversion from the accepted terms of the debate.

The rhetoric does not accept this.  The rhetoric talks about it being the end of the world, and how “there will be a riot” (the NUS’s slogan, not the TUC).  The hard left fastens on to this rhetoric as unlike the leadership of the Labour Party (or most of the TUC leaders) they actually believe that nonsense.  We have Norwich’s very own John Cook twittering about challenging Nick Clegg to a fight which Cook would neither want nor could win.  We have the leader of the NUT in Suffolk saying, and then sort of unsaying, that the riots may be better than democratically mandated cuts.  We have Bridge Ward’s treasure Bryony Rudkin calling those remarks “unhelpful”, a mealy mouthed non-condemnation that suggests that it was the fact that it was written down rather than the intentions behind it that was wrong.  Is there any realistic chance that Dame Bryony thinks that her leadership is wrong in the need for cuts?  Is there any chance that she thinks that Labour should be on the wrong side of the public on this?  Why is she engaging in such shameful and self abasing toadying to a senior figure in a union which could decide whether she gets the Labour nomination for Ipswich?

In short the left has rediscovered the heady joys of consequence free rhetoric, and it’s like a drug.  The problem with drugs is that you never really know when your recreational habit becomes an addiction and you may not be able to convincingly clean up before you present yourself on election day.

I wonder if this is a relation to the Bryony Rudkin who poured scorn on the film theatre in the letter pages of that same newspaper a few months ago when Ben Gummer praised the enterprise? 

Flip flopping faster than a Ukrainian gymnast is a desirable quality in Ed Miliband’s Labour Party.

But according to Ipswich Spy it really wasn’t an issue to her, and she made no effort to try to keep it open.  Obviously winning the Ipswich Labour nomination is more important to her.

I have no doubt that the Labour councillors mean well, but the reason why they are so ineffective in representing us is because they have their eye on different issues.  As a ward we’re necesarry for their career, but we’re hardly sufficient.

That’s why, regardless of party this ward needs a local person who is going to take pride in upsetting the applecart rather than simply talking about north Ipswich bus routes or Evening Star columns.

I wonder if David Ellesmere is feeling like he missed a trick? 

Although as one Tory said to me on Friday, I should be in clover at the start of every week.

County Councillor Bryony Rudkin works for the Local Government Association which, er, survives on subscriptions from Stonewall.  If Suffolk and Ipswich cut that subscription then it would save far more front line services.

There were two company secretaries appointed Newgate Street Secretaries Limited, a City outfit and Philip Richard Willis, who although he has an address in Wickham Market I can find no other trace of him.  The directors include Stuart Gemmil, a Mid Suffolk District councillor (but not Suffolk County Council) and Michael More, the then chief executive of Suffolk County Council.

There are four other names, Peter Carruthers, Stephen Crabbe, Andrew Peach and Michael Reynolds.  They all have addresses that are out of the county, but to make sure I’ve looked for them on Google, checked their names with two County councils and checked their name against the 2001 County Council election results and I can’t find a single County Councillor there.

So it seems that in the first crucial year there was not a single County Councillor on the board of Customer Services Direct.

I’ve gone to the current appointments and both Jeremy Pembroke and Andrea Hill are listed as directors.  Jeremy Pembroke joined the board on 15th September 2005.  Mid Suffolk are still represented, this time by the council leader Tim Passmore.

So what on earth is going on?  Why did the electorate of Mid Suffolk have a voice on the board of Suffolk County Council’s biggest public-private partnership and Suffolk County Council did not?

There clearly was not a problem later.  Did Bryony Rudkin’s prejudicial interest in the matter mean that there was no one to speak out for the council tax payers?  If so, why couldn’t she delegate the task to another elected member?

PS.  I’ve got another Freedom of Information request to ensure that I’m not missing anything out.

As Mid Suffolk was involved then it clearly was designed to get the other councils on board.  But to date Mid Suffolk is the only district council on board.  Was the design of the system predicated on the majority of district councils coming on board, and the councillors in charge too proud or too inflexible to change the structure of the deal when it was clear that they could not come on board?

There may have been a suspicion of the Labour run Suffolk council in this, but Mid Suffolk was a Tory council, Ipswich had a Liberal presence in the administration and Suffolk became Tory a year and a bit later – so the district councils could have got on board then.

I’ve a report from St Edmundsbury borough council (2006, so two years after) which say that CSD wasn’t customer focussed enough and that the promised savings were “aspirational” (a polite way of saying piffle). I’ve also got some minutes from Suffolk Coastal where it’s quite clear that both they and Waveney did not think CSD was up to the job, although it’s not clear why.  I’ve put in a freedom of information request for the reasons from Ipswich, and hopefully this will beef up some of the things I’ve been hearing off the record.

If it was predicated on economies of scale, this does not seem to be clear from any of the public documents that I’ve seen so far – understandably- although it stretches credulity that CSD was only expected to run with Mid Suffolk.

This dog really seems like she was born without enough legs to run.

UPDATE:  Looking for something else, I came across this “When the joint venture company is up and running, the partners expect more organisations to become involved as the project develops to meet the needs of the county”

It’s not only the Conservatives.  Labour thinks that the Customer Services Direct contract has absolutely nothing to do with them, as shown by the purple prose apologia from a Labour supporting writer in Ipswich Spy.

Naturally the tin foil hat brigade lapped it up with Ken Bates and Alasdair Ross retweeting the Labour defence.

The current administration have serious questions to answer on the conduct of this, and at least in Jeremy Pembroke’s case there is also the question of what role did he play during the contract negotiations and whether this blunted the opposition scrutiny that this deal clearly needed.  But this does not mean that the Liberal-Labour administration should be beyond scrutiny.

There is also a genuine concern about the general role that BT seems to play in local politics, in 2004 both the Labour leader of Suffolk Council and the MP very well disposed towards them due to personal links (not helped by an uncritical attitude from Jeremy Pembroke and supine Liberal Democrats).  This soft cross-party corporatism is never going to turn out well.  Why are Labour supporting websites such as Ipswich Spy so keen to shout down such concerns by alluding to a “right wing blogosphere”?