November 30th, 2010 — Politics (general)
According to Ipswich Spy, who can always improve my view of them by mentioning me in a good light (I was told that Andrew Coates did something similar, although I’m fairly sure he doesn’t lose any sleep over my opinion) the cuts demonstration had about 350 people, not a bad turnout. But they’re not going to get anywhere with their current mantra “No ifs, no buts, no public sector cuts”.
“If I can get the service delivered for less money…”
“No ifs”
“But what if preserving union staff means cutting frontline delivery?”
“No buts”
“But people are hurting at the moment and will vote out anyone proposing a council tax hike and a rise in council rents just to save a couple of council middle managers from manning a call centre.”
“No public sector cuts.”
This chant works well when talking about “education cuts”. After all you can say that media studies courses are in the same class as primary schools, hospitals and foreign aid. Or you could say that teaching Tamara Art History is an investment in our future.
You can’t say this about the whole of the public sector. It’s moronic.
It is about the only strategy that Labour could follow in mid term that could set them back in council seats. In the 1980s and 1990s the only time and places where the Tories would win significantly on a local level would be when they proposed significantly lower local taxes than their rivals, even if that meant that the tax rate would be the same. I suppose Miliband could privately raise the money for a task force to take the Falklands in order to hand them back to Argentina, that would be less popular than the raising council tax to pay for street football co-ordinators, but only marginally.
The Conservatives on Suffolk County Council have set a trap for Labour locally, portray them as the party of irresponsibility and special privilege. Labour is walking into it as long as they are merely the political arm of the unions.
Would the Labour Party have fallen into this trap if Dame Bryony were leading either the Borough or the County group?
November 26th, 2010 — Uncategorized
I rather like Sandy Martin as there isn’t the air of old timer, permanently angry-man or pole climber that there is with too many other prominent and not so prominent Ipswich Labour councillors. But he really seems to have muffed what could have been the gift of the county reorganisation, the so-called “Suffolk-ation” (great if misleading phrase, by the way).
Of course as he’s a man of the left there will be some problems with what Suffolk county council are trying to do. That’s fine. The ideological attachment to the command and control model of council services is barmy, but it’s understandable, has some resonance and the subject for another post. The problem is that he’s allowed the opposition to be led by the unions, when there’s simply no sense in it.
The case from the Conservatives, which has the benefit of being accurate, is that there is going to be less money coming from central government, the council tax payers will not put up with massive and regressive tax rises at this time and that the only alternative is to cut the administration or the front line services.
So if the alternatives are cutting the administration or the front line services, the unions say don’t cut the administration. Which is their job. However it is not the job of the Labour Party to say cut the services to preserve the union members.
The public sector unions are like fox hunters are to the conservative party – a great source of activists and funds but an utterly dependent source. The fox hunters have no sizeable set of political friends outside the Conservative Party and the Conservatives and the fox hunters are quite aware of the damage that the fox hunting issue could do if the public actually voted on it. The Labour Party is going to learn this lesson about the public sector unions in a far more brutal way.
Labour in Suffolk can’t afford to let Jeremy Pembroke say that his way is the only way to preserve services.
So on to party donors, and why this demonstrates my point. A fascinating piece on Conservative Home shows the issue for Labour:
Total donations (cash and non-cash) received by the main parties between July and September were:
- Conservatives - £3,695,947
- Labour – £2,317,723*
- UKIP – £454,234
- Lib Dems – £350,645
* £1,903,949 of Labour’s funding came from trade unions, of which the bulk came from four unions:
Now on one level that doesn’t matter as Labour are coming a respectable second to the Tories in the brute fund raising. It’s an important number, but it shows Labour in a different light if the union donations are stripped out (I’m also stripping out the Tory donation from David Rowland):
- Conservatives - £2,629,980
- Labour – £413,774
- UKIP – £454,234
- Lib Dems – £350,645
That’s lower than UKIP (and Tories should watch UKIP closely, as they ain’t taking Labour votes and donors). That’s a worrying weakness. But it’s not my main point.
The main point is that the unions have been treated reasonably shabbily by Red Miliband since he came in with their votes. Not dreadfully but rather shabbily. And yet they still give money. As they did through the Blair years, when they were treated shabbily in the first two terms.
The Labour Party can take the unions for granted, the unions can – and from a political point should – be treated like dirt in the next few years. And they will learn to be grateful, as they’ve got no where else to go. The fact that Sandy Martin is treating the unions as masters and not servants is a catastrophic lack of judgement. And one that will mean that Labour could still have a minority from the Ipswich delegation at the next County Council.
November 21st, 2010 — travel
From the Waterfront Action Group:
Following an investigation into a package of rights of way claims around the Docks area submitted by Suffolk Rights of way Ltd, a detailed report was presented to the Rights of Way Committee in March 2009. The Committee resolved to make 5 orders which were made on 14 July 2009 and several objections subsequently received.
Following submission of the orders and objections to the Planning Inspectorate a 6 day public inquiry has been arranged, commencing on Tuesday 7 December and running until Friday 10 December, reconvening on Wed 15 December and again on Tues 21 December if necessary.
Suffolk County Council (SCC) will be supporting the 5 orders it has made (3 restricted byways and two double cul-de-sac footpaths). There are seven formal objectors, including Associated British Ports, Neptune Marina, Anglo Nordern and Suffolk Rights of Way Ltd (the original claimants).
The Inquiry will be held at the Conference Room, IP City Centre, Bath Street, Ipswich and SCC’s external advocate is Gordon Nardell QC.
The Inspector conducting the Inquiry is Barney Grimshaw. The purpose of the Inquiry is to enable Mr Grimshaw to hear and consider all of the evidence for and against the published orders. He will subsequently issue a decision letter advising whether he has confirmed them as made, confirm them with modifications or declined to confirm them. It is important to note that the legislation does not allow for any other evidence, such as desirability or environmental grounds, to be considered at the Inquiry, which will deal exclusively with the documentary and user evidence in support and against the routes being added to the Ipswich Definitive Map as public rights of way.
Anyone who wishes to give evidence at the PI will have to comply with some fairly rigid timescales. Anyone who has made an objection or representation or who wishes to give evidence must submit a Statement of Case to the Planning Inspectorate by 1 October. The Inspectorate will circulate that. Those wishing to give evidence must then ensure that their proofs of evidence are with the Inspectorate by 9 November. The purpose of this timescale (which is in accordance with the relevant Statutory Instrument) is to ensure that there are no surprises, that everyone knows what is being asserted, and that things run as efficiently as possible. An individual member of the public who is called to give evidence (eg evidence of use) does not have to notify the Inspectorate; it is for the person calling the witness to do that. It is up to the Inspector to decide whether to allow people who turn up on the day and wish to give evidence to be able do so, where they have not given due notice.
The contact details are: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 4/05, Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN; tel 0117 372 6353 (Jean McEntee); email jean.mcentee@pins.gsi.gov.uk. Their reference is FPS/V3500/7/303. It would probably be a good idea for any prospective participant to contact the Inspectorate informally as soon as possible and to clarify whether he wants to give evidence on proposed RBs 36, 37 or 38, or proposed FPs 39 or 40.
November 18th, 2010 — Route 66, Wherstead Road
… well not literally.
This is from a written question tabled by Ben Gummer:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to assist competing bus companies to reach cooperative agreements to provide regular services on (a) Wherstead Road in Ipswich constituency and (b) other routes with an identified need.
And here’s the answer from Norman Baker, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Regional and Local Transport:
The regulatory framework for buses permits co-operative agreements between bus operators as long as certain conditions are met. We have seen good results in places where local authorities and operators work effectively in partnership to improve bus services-such as in Brighton, York and Cambridge.
While it is the role of Government to set this framework and encourage more of this type of activity for the benefit of bus passengers in Ipswich and elsewhere it is up to local authorities and communities to make it happen. This might be a local authority making a statutory quality bus partnership scheme, as in Nottingham, or instead endorsing a qualifying agreement between two operators, as in Oxford.
Ultimately, however, it is for commercial operators to decide whether to run services such as the route 66 bus in Ipswich, and at what frequency. If a service is not considered commercially viable, a local authority can decide it wishes to tender for and support a replacement service, or discuss with the local community alternative forms of transport provision.
Of course it is for commercial operators to decide what routes they should operate, and the irony here is that First actually created a demand where it had previously been limited. However if the current services were better spaced out (which would involve some collusion) then there would be a more reliable service, without the need for a subsidy. European anti-competitive rules are really hampering us here.
Come on Suffolk, get your act together!
November 6th, 2010 — Politics (general)
Even the most loyal Labour scribe (also known as Paul Geater) admits that there is an 11% cut in the nominal income for Suffolk County Council, and in a time or rising prices this is a far larger real cut. Suffolk County Council have a plan that they think will save the most services by drastically squeezing efficiencies and using the private sector.
You would think that this would put the Labour group in a quandry. After all if Unison get their way, and the plans are shelved this will mean that the cuts will have to be deeper than they are currently planned to cover for the administrative roles that Unison wants to save. That’s basic arithmetic. In Bridge and other Labour held wards the council services are far more used than they are in richer wards. So supporting Unison will mean hurting Labour constituents in return for rewarding Labour donors.
But Unison members are vastly over represented in both Labour Party membership and in Labour party funds.
So who do Sandy Martin and Dame Bryony represent, their donors or their voters?
Unison is the Countryside Alliance of the Labour Party, they may have money and activists – but you don’t really want to show them to the public. By all means let them help – but treat them like the junior partner that they are and don’t let them dictate policy as they have been doing locally. Unison need Labour in a way that Labour simply does not need Unison.
By not realising this Sandy Martin has proved that although he may be a good local representative he’s just not ready for the big time. Not ready in the slightest.
November 4th, 2010 — Dates for your diary
From the Waterfront action email:
Suffolk County Council are holding a 6 day public inquiry starting on Tuesday 7th December around Rights of Ways around the Waterfront/Docks area. Often the public aren’t always aware of consultations which are happening so we are letting you know about this. Please feel free to pass this information on freely to others so as many people are aware of this as possible.
Follow the link below to find out more information….and we will continue to post information as we know about it.
http://www.waterfrontaction.co.uk/Ipswich_Waterfront_Ipswich_Docks_News.html
October 31st, 2010 — Politics (general)
- How not to get the protest votes. Image via Wikipedia
A couple of interesting posts surfaced today. One is from political betting which shows that a small majority of Labour voters support the housing benefit cuts and another is from Peter Black which points out that the cap on housing benefits was actually in the election manifesto. For Labour. (Guido Fawkes points out that Conservative Central office missed a trick on this, and it’s hard to disagree).
The opposition smacks of a party that has a lot of middle aged public sector middle managers and senior professionals who’ve flocked to property investing in the last decade. Let’s be honest, these will be the ones who really feel the pain of housing benefit cuts as they find that they have no choice but to cut the rents.
Of course you can sustain a political party’s membership on that narrow sociological base, but you can’t win a general election. So bringing us to the hiving off of services.
There is a lot to worry about from a left wing point of view, but the idea that it is bad because Unison say so will not really cut it with the electorate. Sooner or later the Tories, even the Suffolk Conservative group, will manage to work out that it’s possible to win votes by saying that Labour cares more about Unison members than it does about the people who receive or pay for the services. There’s no credible Labour plan and if they were to get in the whole place would collapse.
To be really brutal about it, Unison will have to take whatever crumbs Labour gives it. Where else can they go? Labour should be opposing selectively, while accepting the need for deep cost cuts. The fact that Labour have subcontracted their thinking about the direction of Suffolk County council to a group that in reality depends entirely on them for any influence at all is pathetic and shows that Sandy Martin really is not up for the job of Labour Group leader.
If you’re going to be pushed around by Unison, how are you going to stand up to people who don’t need you – like the government?
February 26th, 2010 — Route 66, Wherstead Road
Dame Bryony Rudkin (it’s a matter of time, mark my words, so we better start using the title now) has been blessing us with her representative skills at the council and asked about the Wherstead Road route.
On a serious note we should not simply be asking why the route shut down, Suffolk will say it’s revenue and First said on Monday – I was there - that it was revenue AND punctuality. The latter makes it harder to entice them back as they are getting crucified on punctuality at the moment.
Most people are quite aware that as long as the country is effectively bankrupt we won’t get any subsidy for the route. What we need is collaboration to evenly space out the routes, which will mean that the residents of Wherstead Road will have a reasonably spaced bus service and the companies will have profitable routes. Sadly the European Commission has (surprise, surprise) totally inappropriate competition rules – and so this will need Suffolk County Council to act as an honest broker to see if we can get a simlar result as Oxford had. This is the issue
When I was looking for a new house I looked at some on Wherstead Road. I would not have a bus from the station for two hours during the evening rush hour.
European Competition policy on the buses is another round of bus regulation. It would be uncontroversial to deregulate this on the Wherstead Road.
