There’s a really good and thoughtful article below by Graham Chapman which appears in this week’s edition of Public Finance. It’s well worth a read as it raises some very important issues.

Why elected mayors won’t fix it

Elected mayors are being talked up as the future for local communities. But ahead of the May 3 referendums, it’s worth looking at some of the downsides

The impact of an elected mayoral system is totally unknowable and that is precisely the problem. It concentrates enormous authority and control in the hands of one individual and much depends on the quality and personality of that individual. Whoever elects one is buying a ‘pig in a poke’

To manage the complexity of a large council as a single individual you need someone with the wisdom of Solomon. Unfortunately those sort of people, by definition, do not tend to stand. The risk is, therefore, that the electorate will end up with someone with a very large ego, little sensitivity and insufficient patience and diplomacy to get things done. Those sort of people do tend to stand.

So there is an in-built problem from the beginning. The second endemic problem is that the balance of power within an authority is upset. Instead of a two-way relationship between the leader and the chief executive, there is a three-way relationship between elected mayor, the chief executive and the leader/chair of the ruling group – and without the checks and balances built into the current system. It is the difference between balancing a see saw with two points and a triangle with three: a far more difficult exercise.

The third built-in problem is the relationship with other elected councillors. Their role, already diminished under the scrutiny system which councils now subscribe to, is reduced further. There is an expectation by the public that the all-powerful mayor can ‘fix it’ what ever ’it’ is, Therefore the recourse is to the mayor and not the ward councillor, when often it is the ward councillor who has most knowledge and is better placed to take up the issue. This creates enormous resentment.

To compound the problem, if it all goes wrong, you can’t ‘get rid’ of it – simply because the mayor responds, not to the council, but to the electorate every four years.  So you have stand-offs between the rest of the council and the mayor, a bit like that which so often afflicts Congress and the presidency in the US. This applies particularly at budget times when the horse trading is especially acute.

Then there is the cost. The referendum in Nottingham will cost £300,000, the elections in  2013 and 2017 will cost around £683,000. The salary of the mayor could be anything up to £115,000, whilst the current leaders’ salary is £44,000; then there is the increase in staffing costs – and any mayor will certainly want increased self-publicity.

Finally, hard decisions; there is a tendency to avoid them. Responding to the electorate directly, mayors often become populist, promising things they can’t deliver, and not doing things that are unpopular. You could say that of many politicians, but the tendency is accentuated under this system.

The mayor of Doncaster, for example, promised to get rid of equal opportunities and road humps. The first was illegal, the second undoable. Boris Johnson knows that a third run-way is needed for London Airport, yet he comes up with the impractical Boris Island as a diversion. In Nottingham, when the first line of the tram was built, it was initially very unpopular. Now it is great success. It was pushed through by collective responsibility. I doubt it would ever have been supported by an elected mayor.

In short, the elected mayor arrangement risks destabilising systems, undermining democracy and costing substantially, not only in direct expenditure but in conflict, time wasted, energy spent on introspection and self-aggrandisement (mostly male), as opposed to achievement. Where the arrangement has avoided problems there is no evidence that elected mayors have added great value to their area. Some have been reasonable, even good, but there is no dramatic improvement which may not otherwise have happened had they been leaders.

On the other hand, here is much evidence to show, as in Torbay, North Tyneside, Stoke, Doncaster, Hartlepool and Tower Hamlets that the system has created conflict and confusion. Of the 14 places in which elected mayors have been established there are six at least where there have been serious problems and this is being generous. It is a high rate of attrition.

We have been told that elected mayors are the future. However given their abolition in Stoke, and the movement in Doncaster and possibly North Tyneside and Torbay to abolish them, perhaps their post-future demise would be a more accurate prediction.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=271

There’s a really good and thoughtful article below by Graham Chapman which appears in this week’s edition of Public Finance. It’s well worth a read as it raises some very important issues.

Why elected mayors won’t fix it

Elected mayors are being talked up as the future for local communities. But ahead of the May 3 referendums, it’s worth looking at some of the downsides

The impact of an elected mayoral system is totally unknowable and that is precisely the problem. It concentrates enormous authority and control in the hands of one individual and much depends on the quality and personality of that individual. Whoever elects one is buying a ‘pig in a poke’

To manage the complexity of a large council as a single individual you need someone with the wisdom of Solomon. Unfortunately those sort of people, by definition, do not tend to stand. The risk is, therefore, that the electorate will end up with someone with a very large ego, little sensitivity and insufficient patience and diplomacy to get things done. Those sort of people do tend to stand.

So there is an in-built problem from the beginning. The second endemic problem is that the balance of power within an authority is upset. Instead of a two-way relationship between the leader and the chief executive, there is a three-way relationship between elected mayor, the chief executive and the leader/chair of the ruling group – and without the checks and balances built into the current system. It is the difference between balancing a see saw with two points and a triangle with three: a far more difficult exercise.

The third built-in problem is the relationship with other elected councillors. Their role, already diminished under the scrutiny system which councils now subscribe to, is reduced further. There is an expectation by the public that the all-powerful mayor can ‘fix it’ what ever ’it’ is, Therefore the recourse is to the mayor and not the ward councillor, when often it is the ward councillor who has most knowledge and is better placed to take up the issue. This creates enormous resentment.

To compound the problem, if it all goes wrong, you can’t ‘get rid’ of it – simply because the mayor responds, not to the council, but to the electorate every four years.  So you have stand-offs between the rest of the council and the mayor, a bit like that which so often afflicts Congress and the presidency in the US. This applies particularly at budget times when the horse trading is especially acute.

Then there is the cost. The referendum in Nottingham will cost £300,000, the elections in  2013 and 2017 will cost around £683,000. The salary of the mayor could be anything up to £115,000, whilst the current leaders’ salary is £44,000; then there is the increase in staffing costs – and any mayor will certainly want increased self-publicity.

Finally, hard decisions; there is a tendency to avoid them. Responding to the electorate directly, mayors often become populist, promising things they can’t deliver, and not doing things that are unpopular. You could say that of many politicians, but the tendency is accentuated under this system.

The mayor of Doncaster, for example, promised to get rid of equal opportunities and road humps. The first was illegal, the second undoable. Boris Johnson knows that a third run-way is needed for London Airport, yet he comes up with the impractical Boris Island as a diversion. In Nottingham, when the first line of the tram was built, it was initially very unpopular. Now it is great success. It was pushed through by collective responsibility. I doubt it would ever have been supported by an elected mayor.

In short, the elected mayor arrangement risks destabilising systems, undermining democracy and costing substantially, not only in direct expenditure but in conflict, time wasted, energy spent on introspection and self-aggrandisement (mostly male), as opposed to achievement. Where the arrangement has avoided problems there is no evidence that elected mayors have added great value to their area. Some have been reasonable, even good, but there is no dramatic improvement which may not otherwise have happened had they been leaders.

On the other hand, here is much evidence to show, as in Torbay, North Tyneside, Stoke, Doncaster, Hartlepool and Tower Hamlets that the system has created conflict and confusion. Of the 14 places in which elected mayors have been established there are six at least where there have been serious problems and this is being generous. It is a high rate of attrition.

We have been told that elected mayors are the future. However given their abolition in Stoke, and the movement in Doncaster and possibly North Tyneside and Torbay to abolish them, perhaps their post-future demise would be a more accurate prediction.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=271

Cllr Jeannie Packer

Some of you may have seen the article in today’s Post about Cllr Jeannie Packer’s decision to resign from the Labour Group. It’s obviously disappointing when any Councillor decides to leave the Group and I responded to questions from Delia Monk at the Nottingham Post about the issue yesterday.

While I’m confident Delia wanted to provide a fair and balanced article, the track record would suggest others at the Post might take a different view. Therefore I thought I’d put Delia’s questions and my full response below on record.

Delia’s Questions:

“Hi Jon,

We’re running a story about Jeannie Packer’s resignation from the Labour party in tomorrow’s paper and was hoping you could send me a statement by 4.30pm today, if possible.

She has told us she is “no longer comfortable” with the way the Labour group is run, which she has described as “top down and very dictatorial”. She said the group is instructed on which way to vote on most issues “without proper debate” and that more needs to be done to make the council more democratic and accountable. She has also described the council as “secretive”.

Mrs Packer has questioned the democratic process of the recent AGM held to select Labour members for the Fire Authority and licensing panels. She said that speeches were not permitted, vote counting for these positions took place behind closed doors – and candidates were not told how many votes they had received. Why was this done in this way? Is this normal practice? If so, why was it not done for the executive positions?

We have been told you were selected at this meeting to sit on the Fire Authority. Sources within the group have said you are intending to go for the chairman role – we have spoken with the Conservative spokesman in the county who said they will support you over Darren Pulk. Is this your intention?

Many thanks,
Delia”

My Reply to Delia

“Jamie has sent a statement that should cover the matter. A few extra points though.

Basically Jeannie is disgruntled by having stood for a couple of positions at the Group AGM and then not getting them. As it happens I voted for her but not enough other members did and that’s what happens in a democracy. I think she feels she should have been given a position or other councillors told to vote for her but that’s not how we do things on the Labour Group. Of course she would have been comfortable with the way the Labour Group is run and still been a member had she won rather than lost.

The AGM is run in the same way every year. Presumably she was happy in previous years when she won the positions (including civic office) she stood for. Votes were taken and counted in the same way as always and as always verified by non Group Members. We have speeches for the executive posts because they carry significant responsibilities and we have high expectations. Were we to have speeches for all the posts elected the AGM would last 24hrs rather than the 2 it generally takes.

Finally, the stuff on the Fire Authority is rubbish. I will be nominated for the Fire Authority but just because I’m going to be a member doesn’t mean I want to Chair it. I don’t, I don’t have time anyway and I think between leading the City Council and until November Chairing the Police Authority I’ve got enough to do.

I hope that’s helpful.

Of course if we had an Extra Mayor there wouldn’t be anything as inconvenient as an AGM or as democratic as votes for positions either in any Political Group or the Council. The Extra Mayor would just appoint anyone who she/he want to take every position. “

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=268

There’s a new opinion poll out by ComRes on elected mayors and the result is pretty  clear – by 3 to 1 people seem to agree it’s all a waste of time and money.

Here’s the result.

City mayors create an unnecessary and expensive layer of local government

Agree:              56%

Disagree:          18%

Don’t know:      26%

Interestingly, the figure for the Midlands  was even higher coming in at 59% of people agreeing.

ComRes points out that “The high level of agreement does not bode well for the 10 mayoral referendums across the country on 3 May”.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=266

The long-awaited Warwick Commission on Elected Mayors report has finally arrived and it has slated the proposals on offer in next month’s referendums which have been forced on 10 cities including Nottingham.

The report says that “There is no point in electing a mayor whose remit does not cover the necessarily boundary-spanning regions that could foster economic growth”

So what will people be asked to vote on in Nottingham’s referendum? You guessed it- a mayor whose remit does not cover the necessarily boundary-spanning regions that could foster economic growth!

The Warwick commissioners also criticise the government  for not specifying  what extra powers might be handed down to elected mayors from Westminster. So people are being asked to make judgement without even knowing what an elected mayor will be able to offer.

The report does take a little more positive stance on so-called Metro-mayors with powers which are not constrained by city boundaries. But the Government has ruled these out as it would take years of legislation and potentially create new regional authorities, which could face local opposition.

So there you have it. An authoritative report from Warwick University based on firm academic research concedes that the whole plan is pointless.

People will be asking if there aren’t better things to be spending so much time on.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=262

I read this good article in today’s Guardian by John Harris against a elected mayors and thought people might be interested:

Elected city mayors: the delusions and dangers of power freak politics

A comfy consensus has been reached on the merits of elected mayors, despite an absence of any real debate on the issue

John Harris

The north-south divide, the tyranny of the City, the decline of mainstream politics, and more: to listen to a range of voices that have now settled into comfy consensus, no end of British problems can be solved by the introduction of elected mayors.

Strange that such a unanimous chorus should be going up just as Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are again proving that the first casualty of mayoral elections may be serious politics. But anyway, 3 May will see referendums on the adoption of directly elected mayors in another 11 cities, including Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield, imposed by central government and apparently supported by the entire political establishment.

What powers might they possess? From the mixnister in charge, the assuredly modernised Greg Clark, there have been only vague half-ideas. Even the idea’s supporters admit than in most places, real debate has failed to materialise. Liverpool, though, has decided to jump straight in, and nominations closed last week. By way of heralding a fresh start, all 12 candidates are white men, the frontrunner is the current leader of the city’s Labour council, and as if to decisively push things into the 21st century, the field also includes Tony Mulhearn, whose had his last turn on the national stage when he and Derek Hatton were pioneering municipal Trotksyism. How any of this is meant to get Liverpool going is anyone’s guess.
It also fits with the dreary, monocultural history of the elected mayors we’ve had so far. Maybe it’s down to the way that, to quote one of the Liverpudlian candidates, “big personality politics appeals to testosterone-charged male egos”. For all the claims that mayoral contests can weaken the grip of party bureaucracies, it’s probably also traceable to the fact the usual machines remain very powerful. Whatever, the figures are remarkable: of the 14 people currently serving as elected mayors in England, two are women and only one is from an ethnic minority. Much the same picture applies in Salford, where a referendum in January saw a “yes” vote on an 18% turnout, leading to an election this May. Out of a field of 10, only two candidates are women, and all are white.

Meanwhile, up in Doncaster, they are looking forward to a vote on whether to keep their mayoral system, introduced in 2001 in the wake of the infamous “Donnygate” council corruption scandal. The present incumbent is Peter Davies, of the English Democrats, who won the job in 2009, with 22% of first preferences on a 36% turnout (that is, 8% of the total electorate). Following on from the amazingly troubled tenure of his predecessor, he then commenced three years of misrule: among his greatest hits are the claim that there is “no such thing as child poverty” and the suggestion that Britain could learn about something about family values from the Taliban.

In 2010, the audit commission declared that Davies lacked “the political skills to build and maintain consensus” and acknowledged that his public statements had served “to worry sections of the community who are already vulnerable”. Eric Pickles duly sent a team of commissioners to South Yorkshire to “support, challenge and monitor” the running of the town and report back to Whitehall – an arrangement that remains in place.

This is what happens when two very dangerous factors collide: low and unrepresentative turnouts and powers that can be exercised with surprisingly little scrutiny, let alone checks and balances (both Davies and Doncaster’s previous mayor have ignored votes of no confidence). Note also that contrary to all those claims that elected mayors are ideally positioned to lead local economic revivals, there is no evidence to this effect, nor any proof that mayors’ arrival on the political scene increases political engagement – indeed, if the narcissistic tedium that currently grips the London contest is anything to go by, sooner or later you may well get the opposite.

Can we at last recognise the risks and delusions of Superman politics, whether national or local? In Birmingham, the current “No” campaign is titled “Vote No to a Power Freak”, and local nerves are being jangled by the momentum behind two of the Labour contenders: Liam Byrne, who has some claim to being New Labour circa 2001 incarnate; and Siôn Simon, last seen establishing his credentials for high office with his miserable online spoof of David Cameron’s “webcameron” wheeze. Neither looks like the kind of figure who might single-handedly lead a city to unheard-of heights of renown and success.

By contrast, look at Manchester, whose spectacular regeneration has been accomplished with the leadership of a boring old traditional city council, and where plenty of local opinion is completely bamboozled by the imposition of a mayoral referendum. “Structural change rarely does anything other than take time and energy away from more important things,” reckons its eminently successful leader, Richard Leese. “What is on offer at the moment does not – in any way, shape or form – help us with what we want to do.”

Quite so. What the great mayoral delusion really highlights is the modern establishment’s talent for messing with things for the sake of it, with no sense of history, experience, or even clarity about what exactly they want. All that, and dangers that have barely even been talked about.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=259

Given the problems with the whole idea of elected Mayors, I’m not surprised to see the “No” campaigns taking shape in cities across the country.

Take Newcastle for example.

They are of course of one of ten cities – including ourselves here in Nottingham – who have been told by the Government to hold a referendum on an elected Mayor on 3rd May.

It’s interesting to see that a number of the concerns in Nottingham about this whole elected Mayors issue are echoed by the “No” campaign in Newcastle.

It’s summed up quite nicely on their website where they say:

“We don’t think that an elected mayor is the best approach for Newcastle –  it concentrates too much power in the hands of one person, it costs a lot more to pay for a mayor with all the trappings and for extra elections – and there’s just no evidence that it works better.”

Their website’s here: www.nonewcastlemayor.org.uk 

Why not take a look?

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=253

I thought Id just bring this weblog to your attention its been written by Mark Bowyer, a Partnership Manager in a project that had Future Jobs Fund placements.

http://volunteersonboard.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/pieces-of-eight/

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=250

Over the weekend some may have seen articles in the Mail and Telegraph about Councils, such as Kensington Chelsea, refusing to disclose details of staff earning over 58,200 a year. The paper misquoted Nottingham in order to link back to our refusal to declare expenditure over 500.

I think its important the Councils position is clarified and Im concerned that papers felt it appropriate to spin Nottingham into a story about something we already do. All based on the Councils response to a consultation, not on a policy statement. Councils must feel confident Government wont use their responses in consultations for political point scoring, exactly what Eric Pickles department has done here.

Nottingham City Council already publishes in the Statement of Accounts the number of employees earning more than 50,000; job title, name and pay of those earning more that 150,000 and job title and pay of those earning between 50,000 and 150,000. This openness about pay compares very favourably to private sector practice.

We do however believe its not wise to provide the name of the individual earning between 50,000 and 150,000. We think its reasonable to keep that private in order to protect staff from potential safety issues. Lets not forget only a small number of staff are paid at this level. Out of Nottingham City Councils 12,000 employees, only 130 are paid at this level (93 schools and 37 non-schools) which represents just under 2% of schools staff and 0.5% of non-schools staff.

The paper however used the story as a chance to recycle old stories about our refusal to publish all expenditure over 500. Our position remains unchanged, we will do so only when it becomes mandatory. The council currently publishes all expenditure over 25,000 and will soon lower this to include expenditure over 10,000. It also publishes all its FOI responses online. Publishing of data over 500 is a waste of money, is actually detrimental to transparency due to the sheer volume of such data making it harder to find useful information and is not in the spirit of localism.

The Audit Commission recently reported on the impact of fraud against Councils based on the information they had disclosed for amounts over 500. We think our focus must be on making the 20m worth of savings this year forced on us unfairly by national Government. Grant Shapps would do well not to spin detailed consultation responses to fit his anti-Nottingham agenda.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=239

Councillor Grocock cleared over housing scandal

Following on from the recent post about my clearance of any wrong doing by Standards for England regarding Harold Tinworths time advising City Councillors, still not reported in any local media, I thought Id let you about Councillor Brian Grocock who was found not guilty by the Standards Committee of a breach of the Code of Conduct over a constituents application for a Council House.

Councillor Brian Grocock referred himself to the Councils standards committee in order to prove his innocence.

After many years of investigation and numerous stories in the local press Cllr Grocock was found not guilty.

Speaking at a hearing on January 13, the sub-committees independent chairman Brian Wells said: The committee found that Councillor Grococks action, while unwise, does not contravene the members code of conduct.

Cllr Grocock has always accepted he was not wise in saying this constituent was like a grandson but did not breached the code of conduct. Cllr Grocock only said he was like a grandson to declare his interest, rather than ask for favours.

Im glad this issue can be put to bed now and that Cllr Grocock has been found innocent. Hopefully we can move on years of unfounded accusations and focus on the issues which matter to local people.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=242

Nottingham Council Leader pays tribute to Nigel Doughty

Nottingham City Council Leader, Jon Collins has paid tribute to Nigel Doughty following news that the owner of Nottingham Forest had passed away at his home today.

Councillor Collins said:

I was shocked and upset to hear the news. Nigel was a good and decent man and his early death at such a relatively young age is a tragedy for his family and everyone who knew him. I want to pass on my deepest condolences and sympathies to Nigels family and friends on behalf of the City of Nottingham.

Nigel Doughty was a working class boy from a Newark housing estate who rose to the top through sheer hard work and intellect and he never forgot his roots and where he came from.

Most people in Nottingham will of course remember Nigel for his passion and dedication to Nottingham Forest both as a fan from an early age and later as its owner and the huge personal contribution he made to sustaining the Club through good times and bad. He stepped in to provide security for the Club at at time it was in turmoil. He brought financial stability even though the results havent necessarily repaid the passion and the huge financial contribution he brought to the Club. He and the supporters perhaps deserved a better return.

More widely, Nigel will be remembered as one of our most outstanding local business leaders who started from the bottom to become the leader of a Company with a global reputation. He was, quite simply, the credible face of business. For many years he has also been an influential figure within the Labour Party and has provided vast experience and insight to the development of policy at the highest levels of the organisation.

Nigel also made an enormous contribution to charitable causes through his charitable foundation and through donations to organisations like ChildLine and the NSPCC.

I always found Nigel to be tremendous company and someone with great drive, intelligence and a real sense of social responsibility for people less fortunate than himself. Anyone who had the privilege of meeting him will know that he was truly a decent, caring family man. His passing is a great loss to Nottingham. He will be greatly missed.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=235

You might remember the Evening Post allegations about Harold Tinworth, total rubbish say the Standards Board for England. Funny how Charlie hasnt written about that, with a quote from Tony Sutton.

What do you think? See the Standards Boards Case Summary below:

Case Summary Nottingham City Council

Allegation: That Councillor Collins used council resources improperly for party political purposes

Standards Board outcome: The ethical standards officer found that there had been no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct

Case Summary

A member of the public alleged that Councillor Jon Collins, leader of Nottingham City Council, had misused council resources by using a council-funded consultant to provide advice on the local Labour Party manifesto and campaign in the lead up to the May 2011 local elections.

In August 2010 the consultant was offered a contract by the council, following a tendering process, to provide strategic planning and performance support to executive councillors to help them achieve excellence in the face of immediate and ongoing public sector spending cuts. His 2010 contract expressly excluded any work of a party-political nature. The complainant argued that the consultants tender submission included a proposal to carry out work of a party political nature, and that there was evidence that Councillor Collins then used the consultant for this purpose.

The complainant referred to an email that the consultant sent to Councillor Collins on 6 September 2010. The complainant alleged that the email was evidence that Councillor Collins and the consultant were discussing party political issues in preparation for a Cabinet Away Day on 23 September 2010 and showed that the consultant was giving party political advice to Councillor Collins in the email and at the Away Day itself.

Councillor Collins denied that he had asked for or received any party political advice or support from the consultant. He said that he asked the consultant to send him the email as an aide memoire of a brief telephone conversation when Councillor Collins had not been able to take his own notes.

Councillor Collins said that he wanted an item about a draft Labour Manifesto on the Away Day agenda so that cabinet members could discuss it. At the Away Day no discussion on a future Labour manifesto took place until relevant council officers and the consultant had left the room. Only cabinet members and the political officer remained.

The consultant confirmed Councillor Collins evidence as to the meaning of the 6 September email. The consultant confirmed that he attended the Away Day on 23 September and took part in discussions on the councils budget, budget communications, and a review of the councils delivery of council policy adopted from previous manifesto pledges. He left the Away Day meeting before the cabinet discussed the possible content of a future Labour Party manifesto. The consultant said he had not been asked for or given advice on the 2011 Labour Party manifesto or local election campaign at any time by Councillor Collins or anyone else.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered the documentary evidence, including the consultants tender submission and contract, the contents of the 6 September email and other correspondence in preparation for the Away Day. She took account of the minutes of the Away Day and the evidence of members and officers who attended it. She was satisfied that the consultant had not taken part in any discussion of the Labour Party manifesto or campaign at the Away Day On balance she accepted the evidence of the consultant and of Councillor Collins as to the meaning of the consultants email. In the light of all the evidence the Ethical Standards Officer was satisfied that the email of 6 September showed the consultant was providing non-party political support and advice of the kind that a senior policy advisor may properly give to the leader and executive of a council.

The Ethical Standards Officer did not consider that Councillor Collins use of the consultants advice and support in preparation for the Away Day in September 2010 was capable of amounting to an improper use of council resources for party political purposes. She considered that there had been no failure to comply with the code of conduct.

Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct
Relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct 6(b)(ii)

21 December 2011

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=232

Below is a press statement Ive put out in response to the Joseph Rowntree report into the poorest councils being hit hardest by Pickles cuts.

The report is at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/serving-deprived-communities-recession

Report confirms poorest being hit hardest

A report released by the Joseph Rowntree foundation, an influential independent organisation, has confirmed that the poorest Councils, and therefore the poorest people, are being hit hardest by Government cuts to Local Authorities.

The report says: There is strong evidence that local government has indeed been subjected to a particularly severe real terms cut.

It goes on to say: the most deprived authorities will be hardest hit. These authorities systematically lost the most spending power, especially in the first year, while some affluent areas have faced only mild cuts.

Cllr Jon Collins said: This confirms what weve been saying in Nottingham ever since the first cuts in our grant. Cities like Nottingham are being unfairly targeted for Government cuts. We found out that Nottingham has face 141 of cuts per person since 2010 while Tory Wokingham, Berkshire has only faced 65p and E Dorset has seen a 95p increase. This isnt fair on Cities like Nottingham.

The report outlines that pro-rich services such as Museums and Arts are being hit hardest by Councils nationally looking to protect services for the poorest however Cllr Collins said this cant go on forever.

Cllr Collins said: Were trying to protect vital areas such as investment in jobs, front line services, street cleaning and the fight against crime, like many Councils, but being only two years into at least five years of cuts there is only so much we can do. If the Government doesnt change course and start treating Councils fairly well have to make savings in the services people really care about.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=225

While the Nottingham Post seeks conspiracy in everything Nottingham Labour does. Papers in Bristol says how much better out City is under Labour compared to Lib Dem controlled Bristol.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=218

Today Nottingham City Council unveiled our draft budget for 2012/13. We face unprecedented challenges but were seeking to protect vital services. Below is a press release from Cllr Chapman which I hope youll read.

A Council Budget protecting our priorities despite 189 per person cuts

At Tuesdays meeting of Nottingham City Councils Executive Board Councillors will launch the consultation over the Councils budget for 2012/2013.

Nottingham City Council is facing a funding gap of 20m next year, on top of a real terms cut of 60m last year. There will be a further 12m next year and 12m the year after.

Nottingham City Council has had to cut 189 per citizen in the last two years. Compared to just 1 per person for Tory Wokingham, Berkshire. Deputy Leader, Cllr Graham Chapman said: Last year we found out Dorset got an increase, now we find rich rural Tory Councils have to cut just 1 per person, compared to our 189. The top 10% most deprived areas will lose four times as much in spending power as the least deprived 10%. Its just another example of a Government hitting the poorest hardest.

Despite the cuts the City Council is trying to protect:

Jobs,

Vulnerable children and adults,

Front-line services,

Tackling crime and

Anti Social Behaviour and keeping Nottinghams position as Englands cleanest big city.

Cllr Graham Chapman, said: The Government are cutting too far and too fast. With local government taking a heavy hit. Nottingham has also been carrying an unfair burden of the cuts. Weve had to cut 189 per citizen, compared to Wokinghams 1. Thats not fair on Nottingham.

However, were trying to protect what matters to the people of Nottingham. With Government cuts stagnating the economy were protecting investment in jobs programmes such as our Nottingham Jobs Plan and our investment on lines two and three of the Tram and the station.

Despite unprecedented demand weve refused this year to reduce the level of service in adult care, making Nottingham one of the few places in England still offering services to high moderate citizens and were doing all we can to protect children.

We are also squeezing every penny out of our back office costs in order to protect front-line services. We have saved over 2.5m by swapping interest rates on loans or taking out low cost borrowing. The East Midlands Shared Services programme is another example. We are working together with other Councils to protect the services which matter to local people.

And of course were looking to protect our greatest achievements. Crime is down by 50% in Nottingham over the past few years. The Tories, with the Lib Dems, are cutting the Police budget by 20% but were going to spend every penny we can to tackle crime and Anti-Social Behaviour. Nottingham was also proud to be named Englands cleanest big city last year and were protecting that spending and our commitment to make peoples neighbourhoods as clean as our City Centre.

We have done all we can to cut the back office and are still having to take difficult front line decisions. Just some of the difficult decisions are:

The transfer of Portland Leisure Centre to the third sector,

Increasing Adults Fees Charges,

Ending the pilot of specialised Food Waste Collection,

Reducing Brewhouse Yard Museum to a group or school visitor attraction, like Newstead Abbey,

Cuts to Connexions services

Increasing Council Tax by 3.49%

One of those difficult decisions is to increase Council Tax by 3.49%. It is a choice however we must make. Eric Pickles has offered us a Payday loan of 2.5m, but its simply a trap. Next year if we take Mr. Pickles money well have to raise Council Tax by 5% to just keep up or make another 2.5m worth of cuts, on top of the 12m gap we already face. Thatll be 2.5m lost forever. Nottingham isnt the only Council set to increase Council Tax. Leicester and Tory run Peterborough are just a couple.

Not only that but the Government is set to devolve Council Tax benefits to Councils based on next years Council Tax collection rates, with a 10% top slice. Not increasing Council Tax by 3.49% will cost the City 1.1m a year, forever.

Cllr Chapman warned caution on future years: While were doing our best to protect these valuable services we have to make difficult cuts. Savings we dont want to make and cuts which we believe will further take demand out of the economy and harm Nottingham. This year weve been able to protect jobs, vulnerable adults and children, front-line services, the fight against crime and Anti Social Behaviour and clean streets but if the Government doesnt change course we cannot promise we wont have to make even more difficult decisions next year. The net effect will be to force British local government into an American system of minimal provision. Weve gone through the flesh now and we are beginning to get to the bone.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=213

Ive also got a second opinion piece, written by Councillor Chapman, for your info.

Come on Eric, give Greg Clark something useful to do

11 November, 2011 | By Graham Chapman

The appointment of Greg Clark as Minister for cities back in the summer was not just another idea Eric Pickles dreamed up in the bath but a decision loaded with significance.

First, it was a recognition by a party steeped in rural and suburban tradition and interest that cities were the key motor for growth in theUK.

Second, even more significantly, it was a recognition that there needed to be some genuflection towards a policy for growth at a time when the economy was flattening in a way the government had not predicted.

The problem is that the new minister was dealt a fairly poor hand.

Much damage had already been inflicted on cities and their prospects for growth in the form of local government cuts and cuts in regional budgets in which the poorer the city was, the more it lost.

There was no Plan B for growth to support Mr Clark. And for some months at least, he was Plan B.

Most of the instruments necessary to deliver growth the Regional Development Agencies in particular had been abolished and replaced with a loose and enfeebled system of Local Enterprise Partnerships.

The economy has continued to deteriorate and Mr Clark has no money, which has forced him into spending time not on growth but on process such as additional freedoms to make economic decisions. To give him credit, he has done it quite well but it is all jam tomorrow.

If cities are to be the motors of future growth then the minister and his government have got to get over a number of their hang-ups.

First, the problem for cities is not supply but demand, yet the response of government is mainly supply side. Credit easing is probably a good thing but it will take a long time to get going and there will be few takers if demand continues to dry up. Quantitative easing, on the other hand, is simply an efficient way of misallocating huge sums of money most of which are likely to bypass the productive economy in which cities are involved.

Second, you cant keep blaming everything on the Euro crisis. The problem of demand isnt just to do with exports, which are doing relatively well. Its to do with the collapse of the construction industry and languid demand in retail. We have an indigenous problem and the government should admit it.

Third, the public sector is not some parasitic leach living off the body private. Those cities which succeed do so where productive public sector investment underpins private sector growth.

The irony is that, despite declaring there is no Plan B, the government is gradually accepting the need for an alternative strategy. However, whether its called Plan B or Plan A+, because of government reticence, it is creeping out form undergrowth in an apologetic way which leaves it looking uncoordinated, contradictory and constantly behind the curve.

The Regional Growth Fund is supposed to be a major element but it is a third of what was being invested in key sectors by the RDAs and little of the 470m allocated to date has been spent. LEPs have no funding of their own to allocate and have only recently received a token amount to provide administrative support so, despite oozing lots of goodwill, they are not an effective tool. They have had some success in the recent RGF but they have no capacity to help deliver schemes.

The emphasis on cities is looking fairly contradictory in that the government is about to take yet another disproportionate slice of demand out of them in the form of cuts to local government and further benefit cuts in 2012-13. The government is also sending out mixed messages to foreign investors, having told the world after the summer disturbances that Britainis broken, and by implication that cities are the most broken part, it is now belatedly trying to reinstil confidence by talking theUKup.

Finally the grim and distorted budget message, that we are potentially in a as bad a positionGreeceunless government spending and by implication spending in cities, is substantially reduced, does not inspire confidence in anyone hoping to invest.

If we need to create more liquidity in the economy then we should be targeting key sectors and key physical sites in order to revive demand and, at the same, time lay foundations for future growth.

The plethora of enterprise zones could be the first blocks in an alternative strategy. Currently they have been designated but there has been little indication of what pump priming they will receive other than some vague promise of superfast broadband. The recent allocation of RGF funding missed out a number of enterprise zones leaving their future very much in the air. Yet they will not take off without infrastructure cost being borne mainly by the public sector.

As for key sectors, these are almost self selecting creative industries especially those linked to digital technology; science, particularly those aspects which can create employment; green energy where there is enormous capacity for reviving the construction industry; transport infrastructure for the same reasons; high-speed broadband; land preparation; and most of all skills training, using the opportunity of unemployment to retrain workers in order to fill the national skills gap.

The trebling of the RGF and involving the LEPs is a prerequisite, as is a substantial increase in the transport investment and support for manufacturing by substantially increasing capital allowances. All this is geared not just at restoring demand but also improving the competiveness and reinvigorating building sector with rapid multiplier effect on the rest of the economy.

If extra liquidity is directed towards investment in productive sectors the government will no longer have the excuse that the markets would react negatively to government spending.

Indeed, investment of this ilk with payback in the form of productive growth should reassure rather than scare the markets.

It might also mean that the minister for cities would finally have something to get his teeth into.

Graham Chapman (Lab) is deputy leader of Nottingham City Council

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=203

Dear All,

The BBC Trust is currently consulting on the future of local radio stations such as BBC Radio Nottingham, the consultation period closes on Wednesday and Im hoping youll get involved and protect local radio.

With 12% cuts to local radio proposed there is a potential dilution and loss of quality of key local radio news programmes. Stations will have to pool their mid-afternoon slot with those in their approximate vicinity. Between 10pm and 1am stations will broken down into five super-regions, while from 7pm to 10pm a BBC England service will air the same, centrally-produced show.

Additionally both morning and drive time are likely to end up merely churning out of second- hand under-researched and under-prepared programmed. As a consequence a number of things will happen:

1 - The BBCs reputation for quality will be undermined
2 - The news coverage will be unable to fulfil its function of both informing the public accurately but also holding local decision makers to account. I write as someone often held to account on the radio. Democracy will suffer.
3 - Poorer, more generalised reporting will help sever the links with the local community. RadioNottingham has increased its listenership by around 29,000 since 2003 to over 200,000. Many of the audience listen only to Radio Nottingham and that is because of the quality of the local content.

The consultation closes on Wednesday 21^st December, so you only have 48 hours to respond, and can be found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/local_radio.shtml

Please get involved and help protect local radio.
P.S. Patrick Fosters article in Mondays Media Guardian which refers to some of the stuff which BBC Nottingham including the Big Night Out which was so important after the summer disturbances http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/11/bbc-local-radio-cuts?INTCMP=SRCH

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=207

I thought youd be interested in a news story that covers Greg Clarks praise for Core Cities Localism Bill amendment and the response of our Deputy Leader, Councillor Chapman, to the Growing Cities Fund.

City calls for Clark to embrace role

11 November, 2011 | By Jim Dunton

The deputy leader of one of the Core Cities councils has questioned the power Greg Clark has to enact his newly created minister for cities role.

In an online-only opinion piece for LGC, Nottingham City Councils deputy leader Graham Chapman (Lab) argues that communities secretary Eric Pickles needs to put more substance and significantly more cash behind the new ministerial brief.

His words come as Mr Clark praised Core Cities for its contribution towards a significant breakthrough in opening up a route to greater devolution.

Mr Clark told fellow MPs in the House of Commons this week that the groups amendment to the Localism Bill, developed in partnership with crossbench MPs, would provide an important new power.

It will allow us to enact, without the need for primary legislation, agreed transfers of power between local authorities and central government, he said.

I should like to put on record my gratitude to the leaders and officers of the Core Cities group for their help.

The amendment opens the door to greater local control over investment to drive growth in housing and planning, economic development, or pooling resources and effort across functioning economic areas.

It means cities can be more joined-up about local investment, moving on from case by case funding applications, saving time and money.

Earlier in the week, Cllr Chapman warned that the governments promise of 17.4m for Nottinghamthrough the Growing Places Fund was just a drop in the ocean for the city, and called for serious steps towards Tax Increment Financing.

It sounds like a lot but it isnt, he said.

It would, for example, pay for one school to be developed, thats great but we need 164m to develop the A453, stopped by the government.

90m is needed to develop a number of schools, stopped when this government axed the Building Schools for the Future programme.

You start to see that while 17m is very nice, its a drop in the ocean of whats needed to get Nottinghams economy really kick started.

A serious level of investment in serious infrastructure will pay its way in the form of tax returns stimulated by growth.

He added that there were fears the fund was so complex that bureaucracy to support it would impinge on cash available for investment.

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=197

Thought you may be interested in this press statement put out by our Deputy Leader, Cllr Graham Chapman, on the governments announcement of 17m Growing Places Fund for Nottingham.

17m Growing Places Fund a welcome drop in the ocean

The Deputy Leader of Nottingham City Council, Cllr Graham Chapman, has welcomed the Governments promise of 17.4m for Nottingham but warned it is just a drop in the ocean.

Weve been arguing for capital investment in the City, in order to stimulate growth and get people working, but while the Government appears to be changing course but its nowhere near meets the need for infrastructure. Cllr Chapman said.

Cllr Chapman said: 17m sounds a lot but it isnt. It would, for example, pay for one school to be developed, thats great but we need 164m to develop the A453, stopped by the Government. Boots wanted 230m to develop their site, it was a bit of an optimistic bid but showed the nature of the problem. 90m is needed to develop a number of schools, stopped when this Government axed the Building Schools for the Future Programme. You start to see that while 17m is very nice, its a drop in the ocean of whats needed to get Nottinghams economy really kick started. A serious level of investment in serious infrastructure will pay its way in the form of tax returns stimulated by growth.

Im also worried the Growing Places Fund is so complex the bureaucracy needed to extract money will drill down on the available cash to invest. While well be thankful for every penny we can spend on gettingNottinghampeople into work and stimulating growth; the Government needs to take investment seriously. Concluded Cllr Chapman

Article source: http://www.cllrjoncollins.co.uk/?p=192