Examiner Letters on Kirklees Leadership

Mr R J Bray of Shelley is a regular contributor to the Huddersfield Examiner Letters column and invariably supportive of the Conservatives. Obviously the Tories abstaining at the Annual Council meeting on the Leadership and allowing Labour to run the Council presented him with a bit of a dilemma. Here's how he dealt with/rationalised it and my response below that.
 

“Local people gave the Labour Party an increased number of councillors showing we’re in tune with residents,” were the resounding words of Clr Mehboob Khan after his re-election as leader of our council.
I and others were unhappy that the Conservative councillors decided to abstain from the vote.
This is to a degree understandable when all they would face would be derision at failing to oust Clr Khan from his secure seat.
If the Conservatives had voted against Clr Khan it would have made no difference whatsoever. He is leader by the constitution for four years even though he puts himself up for re-election each year it’s a case of the winner of this year’s one horse race is. The Labour Group has 32 members and the Conservatives have but 18.
If, however, Conservative Clr Robert Light had put up for council leader not one of the other groups would have supported him.
The Greens would not have voted for an alternative. It was the votes of the four greens three years ago which lost the Conservatives control of the council. The Lib Dems would not support the Conservatives nor would the Independents.
The four independents – three of whom are now in with the Green group – voted against and the other independent voted for Clr Khan.
This year was the first time the Greens voted against Clr Khan and the main reason being they did not get the chair of Scrutiny Panel or any chairs of major committees which they wanted.
They therefore voted as a matter of pique rather than policy.
Labour is the largest party and so by the constitution has to form the administration. All other minor groups would not support the Conservatives running the council.
Perhaps Clr Andrew Cooper and Clr Kath Pinnock would care to explain why they would not support the Conservatives in running the administration as the major opposition party thus trying to break the cycle of negativity from the clueless Labour party.

R J Bray
Shelley

 And my response


R J Bray says in his letter (Examiner, May 28) “Perhaps Clr Andrew Cooper and Clr Kath Pinnock would care to explain why they would not support the Conservatives in running the administration’’.
The fact of the matter is that they never sought support and never made a ‘pitch’ to other groups.
I tried to get the non Labour groups round the table on a number of occasions to discuss how to address the leadership of the council and to put pressure on the Labour Party on issues of mutual concern, such as the libraries, but to no avail.
There simply wasn’t the will for joint discussions from the Conservatives.
Personally I have no particular enthusiasm for either Labour or the Conservatives running the council but my prime concern, in a hung council, would be about the policies they were seeking to pursue and their willingness to involve other groups in decision making.
The Greens have supported (and opposed) all the other political groups on the council at different times on different issues on the basis of the policies and their impact on local people.
Another statement by Mr Bray in his letter was “the Greens voted against Clr Khan and the main reason being they did not get the chair of the Scrutiny Panel or any of the chairs of major committees that they wanted”.
This maybe what he believes but it simply isn’t true.
Clr Khan threatened to remove the Green Party from chairing the Resources Scrutiny Panel if we didn’t support him as Leader before we made our decision.
It would be true however to say that these threats did inform our view of his character as a potential leader of the council.
In the end we didn’t support him because we couldn’t get a firm commitment on policy issues, including the libraries.
As a consequence of our decision at the annual council meeting Labour voted in favour of the Conservatives taking the Chair of the Resources Scrutiny Panel from the Green Party and Valley Independent Group as punishment to us and as a reward to the Conservatives, for abstaining on the vote on the leadership, thus allowing Mehboob Khan to become Leader of the Council.

Councillor Andrew Cooper
Co-Leader of the Green Party and Valley Independent Group

Strange Bedfellows - Kirklees Councils Annual Meeting

Ming the Merciless - a 'Strong Leader'

Given the outcome of the Annual Meeting ' Strange Bedfellows' was my immediate thought as a title for this blogpost. The outcome of the May Election left Labour without a majority, though with more seats, and so the opportunity to get some leverage on them in the run up to the Annual Meeting and election of a 'Strong Leader' was a limited one. The term 'Strong Leader' is one dreamt up by the last Labour Government as part of their alternatives to an elected Mayor (an even stronger leader!)

A common thread among non Labour Parties in the run up to the election was around retaining staffed provision in village libraries. The direction of travel indicated, in the consultation, is for more volunteer run and assisted libraries. So this was the main area where we could get some joint action if we could agree a common approach to the Labour Party. I talked to all the other Party Leaders in the run up to the Annual Meeting but to get the Conservatives to sit down for 3 Group talks with ourselves and the Lib Dems proved very difficult and I didn't detect a lot of enthusiasm from them in any case. Labour were quite keen to talk to all the groups seperately to get the best deal they could or 'divide and rule' if you prefer. Given we weren't getting anywhere with the Conservatives both ourselves and the Lib Dems declared publicly on Monday that we would vote against Labour on the Libraries issue to try to get the Tories to declare their intentions. On Sunday Eveening Mehboob Khan indicated that if we were to vote against them leading the Council they would remove us from Chairing the Resources Scrutiny Panel this along with the fact that they had told the Lib Dems we had already made a deal with us convinced me, if it were necessary, of the character of the Labour leadership.

On Wednesday I went into the Annual Council Meeting not knowing which way the Conservatives were going to vote on the Leadership of the Council. In the end they abstained. If they had voted against Mehboob Khan he wouldn't have been Leader and we may then have been able to exercise some leverage on the libraries issue at the very least. So I guess the big question is why the Tories did what they did? There is the 'foaming mouth' wing of the Tories who won't talk to the Greens in a civilised way at the best of times so I can imagine Robert Light had his work cut out with those characters in any case. Then of course if Labour weren't  going to vote for the Green Party and Valley Independent Group to have any Committee Chairs who were they going to support? The Tories of course. Instead of our Cllr Terry Lyons chairing the Planning and Highways Committee you have the delightful Conservative Cllr Christine Smith instead of Green Cllr Julie Stewart-Turner chairing the Resources Scrutiny Panel you have Tory Cllr Donald Firth. Loyalty to the 'strong leader' obviously brings its rewards (and punishments to those who defy him).

 So where does this leave the new 'Strong Leader' of Kirklees, 'Mehboob the Merciless'. A bit embarrassed I think. It doesn't do his dubious 'left credentials' much good having to do a deal with the Tories who are as we know the 'bad guys'. We had quite an amusing exchange of tweets where he rather illogically accused me of wanting the Tories to run Kirklees instead of him. The only question put to us was "do you want Mehboob Khan to be leader of the Council?" there wasn't a mutiple choice question. If there was "None of the above" would probably have been my answer.

Silent Running - Twitter and Local Elections

You may think social media and elections were made for each other and conventional wisdom is that it is. We hear about Facebook campaigns which helped propel Obama to the Whitehouse and you’d be forgiven for thinking Kirklees politicians, myself included have learnt very little from this but as with many things there’s a lot more to it than that.

 As local election campaigns were beginning to take off in Kirklees I noticed the Labour Candidate for Newsome had set up a Twitter account. I was naturally going to follow her. She had a few initial followers already including prominent Labour Cllrs. Very soon I discovered I’d been blocked as a follower and after a few initial tweets from her all went very quiet. Twitter is a good way of letting everybody know what you are doing and thinking and during an election campaign. If you are targeting a seat you don’t particularly want your opponent to know what you’re up to and what streets you’ve been on . Fortunately for me the oldest form of social media ‘the community jungle drums' pretty much kept me abreast of what’s was going on, who was on the streets, where they were and what they were saying on the doorstep – ‘Street Twitter’. ‘ Electronic Twitter’ went into ‘silent running’ mode like submarines keeping a strict silence lest they be discovered by the enemy above.

My own twitter traffic during the election lost a bit of spontaneity. Things I wanted to say about the election would have been unwise to say. I started making ‘Non Election News’ Tweets such as “I extracted 2 pints of worm wee from my wormery this morning. Useful as a liquid fertiliser. Back out on the stomp!” I was definitely ‘extracting the urine’ with that tweet! Another tweet was “my sweetcorn, leek and tomato seedlings are coming through. Rain makes canvassing tough but the patch gets watered!” Now I know twitter is supposed to express your trivial musings in less than 140 characters but didn’t I realise there was an election on?! I certainly did but even saying where I’d canvassed and what response I’d received could be giving information to an opponent who didn’t have my best interests at heart in the slightest.  I thought the best thing I could do was let them know how my allotment was progressing!

I did break this rule on one occasion. When I was reliably informed by locals that a prominent Conservative Cllr had been spotted canvassing in Newsome I wanted the world to know that I knew what was going on and that she’d been spotted. She then had the option of carrying on canvassing in Newsome and be accused of abandoning her own backyard or go back campaigning in her own patch. By my reckoning and given her particular style of canvassing I couldn’t lose either way but the quandary over what to do was not mine, it was hers and I’d got more than enough to deal with at the time.


Here’s a couple of songs by Joan Baez 'Rejoice in the Sun' and 'Silent Running' from Silent Running starring Bruce Dern in the 70’s Sci Fi masterpiece and ecological thinkpiece. In order to protect the last earth trees Bruce's character takes his forest carrying spaceship 'offline' and goes 'silent running'. It doesn't get much more 'hippy sci-fi' than this!

2012 Local Elections Coverage - BBC & Election Tales

BBC Look North feature on 2012 Kirklees Local Elections. 3 Labour Cllrs including Cllr Khan can be seen tromping up Newsome Road. I feature towards the end with our new Cllr Robert Barraclough



At the count giving an interview for the Kirklees Election tales team.

Kirklees Elections 2012 report

Optical illusion - Actually it's the Green Party that is on top here!

Lots to be said about the Kirklees Elections of 2012 but the headlines for the Green Party were winning our fifth seat on Kirklees and our second seat in the Kirkburton Ward by 23 votes as Robert Barraclough joined our ranks. Robert will be an excellent local councillor. He is a farmer, businessman, Parish Councillor and former Chairman of Kirkburton Parish Council who is refreshingly straightforward and considered in his approach to decisions. He'll be an asset to the Green Party but also to Kirklees Council as a whole. This just leaves Cllr Christine Smith as the remaining Conservative in the ward. We'll be gentle with her!

It was the wettest election I can remember. Thousands of leaflets were delivered in heavy rain. One morning 6 of us delivered the whole of Shelley in wet weather gear through a relentless downpour, Special campaign honours to those people.

We also had a more aggressive Labour Party Campaign in Newsome than usual that needed addressing and handling. It was a bit of a 'surprise attack'  and soon we were seeing Labour Councillors from all over Huddersfield canvassing in Newsome. We also had our Labour MP Barry Sheerman and a Coronation Street Actress pressing the flesh for Labour in Newsome. We closely followed the literature being produced by Labour and there was a lot of it, some personalised letters and several full colour glossy leaflets. I bumped into Cllr Mehboob Khan leafleting in Lockwood who insisted to me that Labour were not targeting Newsome but the evidence and information that had come my way seemed to indicate the opposite. I was getting calls from constituents from all over the Newsome Ward telling me what this or that Labour Councillor had said to them on the doorstep in pursuit of their votes.  Apparently I spent all my time running Kirkburton Parish Council and was neglecting the Newsome Ward which I didn't even live in! Actually I attend about 2 Parish Council meetings a month and there are plenty of other Kirkburton Parish Cllrs to do the important stuff without me interfering. As for not living in the ward I've never tried to make a secret of this and have put my home address prominently on several leaflets over the years. It was strange to get this sort of attack from the Labour and Conservative Candidates who also didn't live in the ward themselves but of course they didn't put this particular fact on their leaflets. There were 2 full colour leaflets that went out in the last couple of days as well as a full colour Polling Day reminder card. There's plenty more I could say on the Labour campaign but it can wait for another day. Interestingly the Tories put a bit more effort than usual into Newsome but the messaging was all about not voting Green rather than reasons to vote Conservative. It almost seemed like a two pronged attack from 2 Parties working together to unseat me. When Kirkburton Cllr Christine Smith was sighted canvassing in Newsome trying out her own particular brand of invective with the locals I knew the knives were out. The feeling and support on the doorstep towards the Green Party remained good throughout which was comforting.

The outcome of all this was an increase in the Green Party share of the vote from just over 51% to just under 53%. Anyway here's a clip from Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan. Khan has just carried out a surprise attack on the USS Enterprise and believes he has the upper hand.

A Cut too Far? by Cllr Graham Simpson

Today's Guest Post by Cllr Graham Simpson

Many people do not realize the scale of the reforms that the Tory – Lib Dem government are making.

Cuts to local authority funding mean that every family in Kirklees will see essential services cut, or become more expensive. From school transport, library services, dog wardens, home care, road maintenance and a whole range of other services provided by local authorities government funding is being reduced.

Cuts to the police service already mean that there are 5,000 fewer police officers available to answer 999 calls than when this government came to power, with more cuts to follow.

Changes proposed for the legal aid system mean that no help will be available for medical negligence or domestic violence claims. Or to fight the withdrawal of benefits or refusal of invalidity claims (which currently have an appeal success rate of 70%)

 

Many people wrongly believe that the sweeping changes to the welfare benefit system in place already or shortly to become law, will only affect the unemployed.

While the cuts will affect those seeking work, they will also affect people with severe medical conditions who will find it harder to qualify for invalidity benefit. It will also affect those on low incomes that receive help with their rents, as well as those receiving council tax discounts and exemptions.  

·         From April 2013, national council tax benefits will be abolished and replaced with a raft of local schemes.

·         The age at which single people will only be allowed housing benefit for shared accommodation is to be raised from 25 to 35.

·         Working tax credit will now only be available for people working a minimum of 24 hours a week rather than 16.

·         Under occupancy rules mean that Housing Benefit will not be paid towards bedrooms deemed to be unneeded. (A son or daughter at University will be classed as living there, rather than at their parents address, and same sex children of any age will be expected to share a bedroom.

·         Housing Benefit for rented accommodation will be capped at the bottom 30% of the market rate and any extra will have to be found by the claimant.  

It is unlikely that any resident will be immune from the cuts, either personally or through the experiences of family or friends. If you require help or advice please contact Kirklees Benefit Advice Service on 01484 223950.

Poster perils

Running for office?

 The Conservatives in Kirkburton have the misfortune of having some not very waterproof posters. They've got at least some of them up early and after a few days they're not looking too good following a little bit of rainy weather. I of course sympathise. A few years ago our wall paper paste wasn't thick enough and Green Party posters were soon flapping off boards and the Tories gleefully wrote 'Green Campaign comes unstuck' on their campaign literature along with a photo of a flapping poster.

'Huddersfield Conservative' attacks the Green Party

Syringa . The flower which gives it's name to the street where I used live with 'Huddersfield Conservative'  Bernard McGuin

Here's a string of letters from Bernard McGuin (Huddersfield Conservative) and responses from me in The Examiner. Funnily enough I used to live next door but one to him about twenty odd years ago in Syringa Street, Marsh. Since then he's found politics and  stood for the Conservatives in Newsome in 2010 and was their campaign organiser in 2011. The usual target for Mr McGuin was the Labour Councillors for where he lives in Marsh and Mehboob Khan in particular. More recently he's taken a dislike to the Green Party and he tends to write fairly ill informed letters in the Huddersfield Examiner which tend to demonstrate his prejudices rather than any real knowledge about the issues he raises. It's a pity really that he does this but  it does give me an opportunity to put the record straight. Here for your entertainment is the latest string of letters.


Cost of ‘green’ policies


THE true cost of renewable means of producing power are now being exposed.

As I have said in the past, the power companies pay four times the value of any electricity produced by wind and solar means. The cost is passed on to the consumer in hidden subsidies. It is effectively an extra tax on already heavily burdened ordinary hard working individuals.

The fact that energy prices themselves are screaming ahead of inflation means that effectively we are putting a brake on economic growth and ultimately economic recovery.#

To all those people who voted Green in the last local elections, the message should be, do you really support policies that harm the British economy?

To the coalition government I would ask – do we really have to follow every edict from Europe on cutting carbon emissions and do you think all our competitors put so-called climate change policies ahead of economic growth?


Bernard McGuin

Huddersfield Conservative


Blaming the wrong folk

A RATHER bizarre letter from Conservative Bernard McGuin blames the Green Party for taxes on energy bills.Last time I checked it was the Conservatives who were running the country with their Lib Dem helpers, not the Green Party.

He says these taxes support renewable energy. Yes they do – but nuclear energy is very heavily subsidised too.

It is also worth noting that half of the £20m budget for Kirklees Warm Zones free insulation scheme came from these sources, which is saving energy and money for Kirklees householders to the tune of about £4m each year.Mr McGuin would be quite correct in blaming the Green Party for the free insulation scheme which was the result of an amendment we made to the Kirklees Budget in 2007.

Clr Andrew Cooper

Leader, Green Party, Kirklees Council

Energy subsidies

IN REPLY to the Clr Andrew Cooper, (Mailbag, June 17) who thinks I wrote a bizarre letter regarding renewable forms of energy, may I just remind him that on his website that he acknowledged that the Feed In Tariffs, that rewards producers of such energy with a 41p per unit payment as opposed to the market price of 11p per unit, is a form of indirect taxation?

I was careful in my letter to say that it was a subsidy which was being paid by us in our electricity bills.
On average we are each paying £200 plus a year to pay for this and other forms of  ‘green taxes’ in our annual expenditure on energy.

The coalition has been saddled with the last government’s zeal to expand wind and solar power.
Those that can afford the cost of solar panelling, the comparatively rich, will make a good return on their investment, around 10-12%. Paid by us poor folk who can’t afford it.

If you want to rent out your roof for solar panels, beware! You must have room for 16 panels and those in terraced housing, most of us in Huddersfield, won’t qualify.

Although insulating one’s house is a good thing, the cost is again taken by the taxpayer.The warming Kirklees scheme was undertaken by a Conservative administration. I have heard all four political groups take credit for this scheme. Of course it is possible the three green councillors outvoted the other 66.

The main thrust of my letter was to ask whether the ‘taxing’ of energy would put a brake on economic growth. It is only that which will get us out of the debt that the country faces. In the General Election 2010, there was a move towards a rejection of tax and spend policies. Do the people who voted for Green councillors in Newsome and Kirkburton want a return to that?

Bernard McGuin

Huddersfield Conservative

Response to Bernard McGuin

Conservative Bernard McGuin states the impact on energy bills of policies to tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions (or ‘green taxes’ as he puts it) is £200. The figure he gives is one from a right wing newspaper parroting a dubious report from a right wing policy group. The actual figure given by the Department of Energy Climate Change on behalf of the right wing Conservative Government is £42 per year. I can direct Mr McGuin to the appropriate part of his government’s website if he wants.

He says the coalition has been ‘saddled with the last government’s zeal to expand wind and solar power’. Actually there was consensus among the Westminister parties about the need for a feed in tariff for renewable energy before the General Election. If he can show me anything at all which contradicts my view I’d be interested to see it.

Mr McGuin also attempts to take credit away from the Greens for gaining free insulation for households in Kirklees through the Warm Zone scheme. The Green Party amendment to the 2007 Council budget which made the scheme free is a matter of public record. The emails I have between myself and the then Conservative leader and the official notes of discussions of meetings on the budget further confirm free insulation as a Green Party initiative. I’m more than happy to show Mr McGuin the evidence.

He asks whether the  taxing of energy would ‘put a brake on economic growth’. As much of the money goes towards schemes that help reduce peoples fuel bills and projects which create employment and economic activity that is highly unlikely.

It is easy for Mr McGuin to  write letters to the paper repeating misinformation he may have read in the national tabloids but he would do better to direct his concerns regarding fuel prices to the government which is lead by the Conservative Party, which for reasons best known to himself, he supports.

Councillor Andrew Cooper

Leader of the Green Party group

The politics of posterboards

Nailed!

We've been putting posterboards on lamp posts for a number of years now since Kirklees approved us being allowed to do so. Early on we had a few problems. Not making our wall paper paste thick enough was one irritating early problem. When our posters start flapping off their boards in Kirkburton one year the Tories put out a pre-poll leaflet with an article entitled 'Green campaign comes unstuck'. You've got to hand that one to them! The other occasional problem was making sure they're the right way up. Just because they're the right way up on one side of the lamp post doesn't always mean they are on the other side!


There are of course rules that Kirklees make which are often ignored by certain parties such as don't put them on lamp posts with other signs attached which they could obscure if they slip. Another is that they should not be nailed into trees or telegraph poles. All these rules were ignored by the Conservatives in the Kirkburton Campaign. Another irritating thing was that we were given permission to put up our boards on land around Farnley Tyas by the landowner and so were the Conservatives. One morning our boards had disappeared and were replaced with Conservatives ones. Now I'm not implying anything, well maybe I am.

There are benefits to getting your posterboards up first but the downside is that the opposition can come by afterwards and turn your boards sideways while they're putting there's above yours. We've always prided ourselves on getting ours down early and usually Derek Hardcastle is getting them down in Kirkburton the next morning. One year we were a bit slow at getting them down and found some of ours pushed higher up the lamp posts presumably by the oppostion while taking there's down. Nice!

Greenbelt letters

Also available in pork!

Following the Lib Dem Manifesto Launch I wrote to the Examiner pointing to the contradiction between Coalition Policy on development and the professed desire of Lib Dems and Conservatives to want to protect the Green belt. Here's the trail of letters to date with a response from Conservative Councillor Christine Smith who seeks to foam at the mouth at the mention of the Green Party or me in particular.

Green view of Lib Dems - Examiner - 26/4/11


I SEE the Lib Dems’ claim to aim to protect the green belt in their manifesto.

This at odds with Lib Dem and Conservative Policy in government where brownfield quotas for building land are being abolished, putting more pressure on the green belt.

They also claim to want to protect services for the vulnerable, having voted with the Conservatives for huge cuts to these services in Kirklees.

People are not stupid and the Lib Dems and Conservatives should not only be careful in their public statements, but should also aim to be credible in their stated policies and not try to mislead people. Otherwise the view many people have of them following the tuition fees fiasco will be reinforced and politics as a whole will be further devalued in the minds of the general public.

Clr Andrew Cooper

Leader, Green Party Kirklees Council


We protect green belt - Examiner - 27/4 /11 


I SEE that Clr Andrew Cooper is once again castigating the Lib Dems and Conservatives over green belt policies (Examiner Mailbag, Tuesday April 26).

One of the most effective ways of protecting the green belt is by sitting on Huddersfield Planning Committee or the Heavy Woollen Planning Sub-Committee where decisions about green belt and brownfield sites are made. Yet no Green Party councillor will sit on any planning committee.

So, when Clr Cooper talks about responsibilities, policies and green belt, he needs to look to his own party first, particularly here in Kirklees.

Perhaps the electorate, whom he purports to represent, should start to ask questions as to why the Greens will not sit on any planning committees where decisions concerning green belt are made.

Clr Christine Smith

Chair of Planning and Highways Committee, Kirklees Council


And my response...............

Councillor Christine Smith , Conservative , criticises the Green Party for not having a Councillor on Planning Committee. As she well knows despite not being a member of Planning Committee I have been a regular attender of it, referring applications for decision and representing views of constituents. I was the only Councillor who was not a member of Planning Committee to make representations regarding the Tesco’s Development and the proposed replacement Hotel on Castle Hill. The real scandal here is that the larger parties rarely send anyone to Planning Committee to represent the views of constituents. As Cllr Christine Smith also knows being a member of Planning Committee restricts the ability of its members to represent local people effectively as they are bound by planning protocols. Ironically you can be a much more effective at protecting your local green spaces by not being a member of the Planning Committee and she knows this as someone who has voted for development on Lindley Moor.

I do notice however that in her criticism of me and the Green Party she does not contradict my view, and the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England’s view, that the latest Coalition Planning Policy statement made during the budget is a significant threat to our green belt and greenfield sites. I would be really interested in her role as Chair of the Planning Committee how she responds to CPRE’s and my concerns.

Councillor Andrew Cooper

Green Party Leader – Kirklees Council

Threat to green field sites from Conservatives

There will be more people standing in front of bulldozers under the Coalition

The Green Party today highlighted new threats to our greenbelt and greenfield land announced in the Budget

We have significant threats to the green spaces around our villages due to housing targets being proposed by Kirklees Local Development Framework.  Kirklees Planners have made clear that Greenbelt and Greenfield land could be designated for development but recent announcements by the Government have made this situation much worse.

Kirklees Green Party Leader Councillor Andrew Cooper said,

“The targets that have been indicated by Kirklees Planning are already proving to be unachievable due to the downturn in the housing market. The market may pick up again but it is more helpful to developers and communities if there is certainty over a priority being given for development on previously developed brownfield land. The Government has now removed quotas for building on brownfield land."

The announcement in the budget from the Government has made matters much worse. In the recent budget the Conservatives announced a liberalisation of the Planning System to make it easier for developers to get around the planning process. CPRE – the Campaign to Protect Rural England said of the Conservatives Governments proposals, “The triple whammy of scrapping national brownfield targets, introducing a default yes to development, and pursuing half-baked proposals for land auctions could be devastating to treasured countryside”

 Neil Sinden CPRE’s Director of Policy said,

"The planning measures present a potentially devastating threat to the countryside and are unlikely to boost long-term economic growth. To suggest, as successive Governments have done, that planning is a key impediment to growth is just wrong.  It is disappointing that George Osborne is repeating the mistaken assertions made by Gordon Brown". 
“The planning system exists to prevent unsustainable, unwanted and environmentally damaging development.  Today’s Budget is likely to undermine its ability to do this.”

Councillor Andrew Cooper, " How can the Conservatives locally speak with any legitimacy about wanting to preserve green space from development when their government is doing everything it can to do the opposite of that."

CPRE PRESS RELEASE

http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/736

Thank Goodness it's not too bad in Surrey!

Today the Government revealed the impact of it's cuts on Local Government across the Country. As you can imagine I've been concerned about how leafy Tory Surrey might fare under a leafy Tory Government. I needn't have worried just a 0.3% decrease. Naturally I also was wondering what might happen to Dorset fortunately the Government saw sense and actually raised their funding by 0.25%. The good news just kept coming with Hampshire, West Sussex, Buckingham and Richmond Upon Thames all escaping the worst of the cuts.

You can imagine what would have happened if these Councils had received the same level of funding cut as Kirklees or Leeds or Bradford with all the job losses, cuts in services and closed libraries and facilities that these Councils are likely to face. Fortunately for us Northern types there is an answer for the jobless provided by David Shakespeare Conservative Leader of the Local Government Association. David suggests we could all come down south and pick fruit on their farms. This would have the added benefit of taking jobs away from Romanians. Smart eh! David is also the Leader of Buckinghamshire County Council with a very reasonable 0.6% cut so naturally he's fairly pleased and feeling generous enough to let us help out on their farms.

So are the Conservatives and their Lib Dem 'pets' out of touch? Well we are 'all in it together' but in the North we are up to our necks in it while in the south it barely reaches beyond the soles of their green wellies.

December Full Council report

Yesterdays Full Council was I think the first 'full on' Tweet Council with myself, Kath Pinnock from the Lib Dems and Leader of the council Mehboob Khan all participating on Twitter (plus 'LibDemKitty' I think I've worked out who that is!). Was there a value in it? Yes I think so. You could certainly get an insight into  our meetings you wouldn't have had otherwise. Take for instance the Lib Dem amendment on opposing the cuts to  provision for  Schools Sports Partnerships. The Greens supported their amendment. When I tweeted to this effect the twitterfeed from Kath Pinnock rather churlishly said 'Shame that 50% Green Group absent from Council'. For those of you who don't know there are only 4 us. One of our 4, Cllr Julie Stewart-Turner had to leave the meeting as she was a Governor for Newsome High School, a Specialist Sports College and had an interest in the motion, and Cllr Graham Simpson was late because he was attending a Tenants Association meeting. So a rather unpleasant attack on the Greens who were actually supporting a Lib Dem Amendment. I thought they could do with all the support they could get at present.

Another Lib Dem Amendment we supported was one on Planning Protocols. The amendment insisted that Cllrs on the Planning Committee attend training on Planning (what else). The Conservaties were opposed to this as many of them hadn't gone to training and were quite happy to spout away in an uninformed fashion at Planning meetings potentially leaving the Council open to challenge during an appeal process. My contribution to the debate was to point out that decisions backed up by knowledge should be more important than simple opinion on planning matters. This provoked a rather unpleasant verbal barrage on me by Conservative Councillor Mrs Christine Smith which I found fairly amusing to be honest. I'm not on her Christmas Card list!

During questions I asked the Labour Cabinet Member Councillor Mr Ken Smith what his opinion was of the impact of the rise in Tuition fees on young people in Kirklees. He gave his view that it was potentially disastrous and agreed to my request to write to the Government to express this view. This provoked much comment from Lib Dem Cllrs who defended the tuition fees policy. This directly contradicted the expressed opinions of Lib Dem Candidates during the General Election which I pointed out (and they ignored). I also asked Cllr Peter O Neill what his views were on 'The Big Society'. He gave me a very full response. So much so that I was unable to get my supplementary question in before time was up unfortunately.

Over 600 people watched the Council meeting on the Web but according to Kath Pinnock webcasting of Council meetings 'doesn't work'. Yes there have been some technical issues that some people have encountered but generally it has gone pretty well. I think the problem for Kath is that it was a Green Party proposal and that gives her a rather jaundiced view on the subject. Cest la vie.

After the meeting I collected a large sealed envelope with the papers for the 'Star Chamber' meeting on Friday and Monday to discuss the Kirklees Budget for the next year. In the envelope are the officers views of how we will acheive the Lib Dem/Con Governments spending cuts. This will not make pleasant reading.



Supermarket Sweep?

Dale Winton of Supermarket Sweep fame.

The Con Dems (Greenest Government Ever?) have made a good decision regarding their developing Green Deal. This Coalition Government programme will be delivering energy efficiency measures to householders commencing in Autumn 2012. According to the DECC Minister Greg Barker Local Authorities will have a strategic role in the delivery of the Green Deal in their areas they will also be able to bid to become Green Deal Providers in their own areas and deliver their programmes on a street by street basis. Previously Barker had repeatedly referred to Supermarkets as the deliverers of choice despite their lack of experience in delivering these programmes and some fairly lacklustre attempts to deliver insulation to householders. There now seems to have been a bit of a change in tack. As always the devil is in the detail and there remains the issue of whether or not the Green Deal will actually be a compelling offer to householders.

We need to understand how 'the Golden Rule' will work, which says that any savings made will greater than the cost for paying back the measures. With so many different house types, with different usage patterns, different heating requirements this is going to be a tall order and if the golden rule isn't convincing for all householders whatever their circumstances then confidence in the Green Deal will be severely shaken. The other good news is that Private Landlords could be fined if they don't improve the energy efficiency of  their dwellings, with Local Councils being able to penalise them up to £5000 for non compliance.

This is all good stuff and credit where its due. I don't however believe that Greg's yet given up on his supermarkets as a major deliverer. Lets hope its not a clean (supermarket) sweep when it comes to who actually does the Green Deal and Local Authorities that demonstrate the capability to deliver also get the opportunity.

Feed In Frenzy?

A solar farm under construction

The Feed In Tariff for renewable electricity is working and working well. So well, that the Con Dems are already contemplating cutting back on it. When the scheme comes up for review in 2012 they are planning on ‘reducing projected costs by £40 million by 2014-15’. You have to wonder why though. Government does not pay for the Feed In Tariff through taxation, we all do through our energy bills so why is government so concerned? They would have been right to be concerned about ensuring that lower income customers benefit from the FIT through solar installations on their properties but fairrness doesn’t seem to be a priority for this government. 

Though 2014-15 sounds a long way off DECC Minister Greg Barker has said that,

“in the event of deployment running ahead of published projections would we bring forward that review. But, to reassure the industry further, we will announce the trigger for such an early review shortly”.

So there we have it if the policy is working too well the FIT will be cut and soon we will know the limit of the government’s ambition for FIT funded renewables.

Another aspect for concern is the Government’s desire to limit large scale ‘solar PV farms’. This statement by Greg Barker in the House of Commons last week sent shivers through the solar industry,

“we inherited a system that simply failed to anticipate industrial-scale, stand-alone, greenfield solar, and, although we will not act retrospectively, large field-based developments should not be allowed to distort the available funding for roof-based PV, other PV and other types of renewables.”

This is clearly nonsense. The Conservatives supported the Feed In Tariff in opposition and were fully aware of the 5MW limit on installations. What is described by Greg Barker as ‘greenfield’ developments could equally be large installations on derelict, brownfield land with little agricultural or amenity value. Far from distorting the market for microgeneration these large PV developments could help drive down the costs of renewables for householders by growing the solar industry and creating large economies of scale.

The Government, and particularly the Lib Dems, have made great play of the fact that they will now allow Councils to keep the revenue they make from renewables through the FIT. A prime example is Cornwall Council which is soon to install a 5MW array and this will be a real money spinner for the Council at a difficult time.  One of the greatest opportunities for Councils to make back some of the money taken from jobs and vital services in the cuts could be from large scale PV arrays on land that otherwise would have no value to them or to the communities they serve. It now appears that the Government are effectively removing that solar silver lining from their cloud of cuts.

Who is going to clean your house George?



A blue feather duster



George Osborne's announcement that there is to be a new cap placed on Housing Benefit for people in areas with higher rents is going to make it less likely that we have mixed communities with a range of incomes.

Far from being workless many households on very low incomes have family members carrying out low paid jobs such as cleaning streets, homes and offices. Of course many can, and do, contribute to the rents to the tenant of the property, usually the parents. The tenant could be retired or unable to work due to illness or disability. All this new cut will mean to the tenants or occupants of these homes is a reduction in their income and possibly further pricing them out of the communities that they may have lived in for many years.

This is actually part of a confused theme running through this government of moving  people on low incomes around the country. It was only a few months ago that we had Iain Duncan- Smith telling us that he wanted families in council houses in deprived areas to move to council houses in affluent areas so they could get work - see link. There were many echoes of Norman Tebbit's 'On yer bike' speech from the 80s. Of course as we know it was a non policy as there are huge waiting lists for limited numbers of council houses,(Conservative /Labour 'Right to Buy' policies) and this is more pronounced in more affluent areas. So where would these job seekers go if they want to clean George Osbourne's floor? That's right, to the private rented sector but haven't we capped the benefits making it more difficult for them to live near George. Yes we have. Of course the real answer is to put a cap on the rents not on the benefits but that would put a cap on the earnings of private landlords which may not go down too well with some Conservatives who may have interests in this area of the economy. The only crumb of comfort is the unlikely vision of George Osborne having to clean his own house.

The pickled politics behind local government budget cuts

Jabba the Hut - Intergalactic Gangster

The annual Kirklees Council budget setting process has begun and early. It is usually another couple of months before everything kicks off from a Councillor point of view, but what with the governments cuts agenda it pays to start early I guess. Last Saturday we had a meeting at the Deighton Centre to kick the process off. The meeting was not an official Council meeting, no decisions are made there and the idea is to inform Councillors and to explore ideas for handling the truly terrible economic situation the government(s) have put us in. The meeting is held under budget protocols meaning that Cllrs are free to express ideas without them being reported wider so as not to 'send hares running' on things that may or may not happen. So what can I tell you? All Parties on the Council were represented, around 18 Councillors present, the Chief Exec and around 4 other Senior Council officers. The background to much of what was discussed is known with anywhere between 25% and 40% cuts in budgets. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this will mean some very difficult choices going forward and a lot of pain. You can imagine how I felt reading an article in'First' magazine by Eric Pickles MP, the Communities and Local Government Minister entitled, 'A new golden age'. It was all about localism or as Eric puts it,

"Instead of demanding that councils report back to me on everything they do, it means expecting that they become much more accountable to local residents instead"

So lets get this right, the Coalition Government cuts funding to local authorities and then Councillors have to be accountable for the 'choices' they make. Of course there's very little choice in reality. This week has been redundancy/retirement week at Kirklees Council. The numbers of staff leaving the Council is huge,  around 500 are gone with around another 1000 to go over the next few months but even this will not be enough services will have to be cut further to satisfy government demands or as Eric puts it,

"For the first time, councils will have real power and a real say over how money gets spent. "

another particularly irritating quote,

"We've cut the apron strings which have tied (Councils) to Whitehall for too long, giving them freedom to act on behalf of their residents,"

This is just utter tosh and a degree of spin that would make Mandelson blush (OK maybe not). People are being 'freed' of local facilities, services and income. He makes a virtue of getting rid of reporting such as that needed for the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and more reporting to citizens on how ther money is spent. OK but we do need to report on the impact on public services, the jobs lost, the impact on the wider economy, the health and social impact of cuts, the loss of public facilities. The Conservatives and their Lib Dem henchmen should not be allowed off the hook for their actions.

They are accountable too!


,

"We're all in it together" - if you use Public Transport

Huddersfield's Free Town bus

I was contacted this week for comment by 'The Examiner' on the cuts to bus services by the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority - Metro. There are proposed cuts to the Free Town Bus Services in town centres around West Yorkshire, including Huddersfield, reductions in early morning and rural services. Interestingly one of the comments on the Examiner Website article says,

"Cllr Andrew Cooper is playing party politics as it is not the government that is choosing to cut this service. The decision is a local one!"

 

You have to ask yourself what cuts passed down by national government could the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authortity make that aren't to public transport! It is what they do after all. If the government gets off the hook as easily with the chap who said this they can cut us to oblivion with impunity.

Of course the people who rely on these bus services are often people who don't have access to a car and in many cases that is because they simply can't afford it. Huddersfield Town Centre is built on a slope. From St Patricks Catholic Centre down Westgate to the Beast Market you are walking down hill. If you go shopping at theKingsgate Centre and are getting the bus home then its a long way uphill especially if you have mobility problems or are getting on a bit. For these people the Free Town Bus Service is a godsend. Ultimately this is down to Government spending cuts and cutting the budget deficit. Of course politics is about choices so lowering the upper tax threshold to incomes over £100k? No. A Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions? No. Tougher action on banks and bankers bonuses? No. Cutting bus services? Yes!

Then of course there are the environmental implications of a diminished public transport sector but then this is "the Greenest Government ever".

There's the no such thing as (the BIG) society



Newsome's 'Big Society' Clean Up Gang. 



Margaret Thatcher famously informed us that that there was no such thing as 'Society' now her latest Conservative successor David Cameron not only believes Society exists but he wants it to be 'big' as well. This comes as surprise to many of us who were sure David Cameron believed in society but only 'High Society'. OK that's got the Posh Tory jibes out of my system and onto the subject of  the 'Big Society'.

  
A central belief of 'The Big Society' is that services are better delivered by individuals, community groups and charities rather than public bodies and a belief that we need to 'turn government completely on it's head'. There is also a belief that somehow people's natural desire to improve their communities is being stifled by local or central government and that barriers need to be removed to enable the Big Society to flourish. As David Cameron said in July "stop us from stopping you do things for your area".

What comes to mind is a conversation the Newsome Green Party Team had in a pub in the late 90s where we believed we were no longer just community activists but the providers of services. In fact as I remember it we went as far as to say we had become not merely Councillors but an alternative to Council Services. We started to list all the things we did or did with volunteers in the area. When buses were removed from service over the Christmas holiday period we brought in a free volunteer bus service, when areas got heavily littered we organised skips and clean up teams to clear rubbish, when no recycling services existed Councillor Graham Simpson did a waste paper collection round to many households around the Newsome area. I even stretched the point to the limit and suggested that at its height our casework gathering in Council estates was estate management. Like all conversations after a few beers the case may have been overstressed but there was a still a lot of truth there. While believing in voluntarism there was still a strong element of campaigning (and shaming) of the public sector to pick up the slack of inadequate provision in the Newsome area. So the waste paper collections played their part in encouraging Kirklees to put more effort into household recycling, the Christmas Buses pushed Metro into provision of services on Boxing Day at least. So if anything much as we believed in the power of people doing things for themselves we also believed that the public sector could do more than it was doing not less..

The role of the 'Big Society' should not be to replace the management  and provision of publicly funded services but to enhance them to provide additionality to what is provided already. The classic example in Newsome is 'Growing Newsome'. Volunteers working together on local food projects doing the level of detailed work that would never be provided by the Council nor should it be. This is individuals coming together with passion and commitment on a project which should be more fun than worthy. If the Big Society is not about additionality it is by definition about changing the management of local services from the public sector  to charities or community groups. There may be some limited value in this. For instance I can imagine a strong role for the Fuel Poverty Charity, National Energy Action in taking on the role of managing and monitoring progress on action to improve energy efficiency taking powers away from DECC and possibly local authorities. I just wonder whether taking powers from central government is what Dave actually meant. It would be interesting to test this.

Capacity and enthusiasm are the keys to successful volunteer action. A lot of people are simply not interested. Why support local food projects when there's so much quality Reality TV to watch. Those who are interested may have lots of different commitments limiting their capacity and eventually people will get bored of growing marrows for the community (or whatever) and want to move onto something else. This is one reason why we need to think very carefully before core services are moved from the Public Sector for the sake of those people who rely on them.

A classic example of the 'Big Society' gone bad is the concept of 'Free Schools' where parents or charities can get together to run and manage a local school. This will undoubtably unfairly skew financial provision from publicly funded schools to once run by religious organisations or discontented parents who can't justify a school in their area under normal circumstances. Again this would not be additional provision it would be a dubious way of creating yet more inequality in our stupid 'choice' based education system. (Don't get me started!)

A real test of the Government's commitment to the Big Society would be to actually public fund it rather than doing a one off trawl of dormant bank accounts. If it really believes it will deliver better more efficient and cost effective services it would be worth it, wouldn't it?