I wasn't up for election yesterday. If I had been, I may well not be a Councillor today, despite having done OK in the role. Such is the nature of local elections - local issues are not what decides them.
This election has brought into sharp focus the challenge for the Lib Dems. The charge that the party is a 'human-shield' for the Tories has been borne out - they have come out without a scratch, while the Lib Dems face their worst results for 30 years.
When the party went into coalition last year, most party members endorsed it. The party was, in reality, trapped - but armed with a strong agreement, felt able to go into confidently into Government. However, the cuts - and their consequences such as the need to ask students to pay for their own education - have been the ubiquitious theme of the last year and we, not the Tories, have taken all of the political heat for them. The party's opportunism around fees - and its rash promise not to raise them - is now a burning large as a trust issue. Furthermore, Clegg's early view that all Lib Dems should 'own' the Coalition, now looks naive and we are seen to have 'played along' with the Tories rather than playing a strong hand as distinctive voice within the Coalition, as has been the case quite recently on health, which could provide a model for the future.
A second big problem is the North. In large areas of Northern England, the Lib Dems, not the Tories, became the natural opposition after the near-wipeout of the Tories in the 80s and 90s. Now that has been reversed, with the Leader of Hull Council, Carl Minns, actually losing his seat. The typical Northern Lib Dem voter is anti-Tory and has pulled away from the party in reaction to the Coalition. Interestingly, while Lib Dem members OK'd the Coalition, its voters probably would have vetoed it, given the chance, something which is only now being fully appreciated.
So what next? While there are odd calls for Clegg to go by angry councillors, this won't happen. It's too early and it would destabilize the Government and, ultimately spell doom for the party. There needs to be unity. And while there are whispers of an SDP-type split, I also see this as highly unlikely. Such things are years in the making and, for now, Labour provides a reasonable alternative home to disillusioned Lib Dems.
However, neither can things go on as they are. The Lib Dems in Government need to carve out a distinctive voice and be able to present themselves to the British public as a brake on the Thatcherite tendency in the Conservative Party. They need to be credited, politically, with stopping the Tories from privatising public services willy-nilly. They need to find some stronger themes than social mobility to campaign upon. And they need to look like a party that is listening again. This may mean admitting a mistake on fees early - in order to lance that boil. Clegg has the skills to do all of this and he is still the right person to lead the party - until the end of the Coalition.
After that point, or even going into the next election, the party needs a new leader, probably one who can pick up the lost voters and who can credibly join forces with Labour in the ev
ent of a hung parliament. Labour needs to win only 50 more seats to become a credible governing force again - but will still be short of a majority. I can't see them working with Clegg - ever - but it is possible to see them partnering with Tim Farron or someone from the mainstream centre-left. The Orange Book is now all but finished-off, outside Parliament at least.
And for me? I have never made any secret of my centrist views. If anything, I am still, at heart, a Blairite, as many, from all parties, still are. I want a Government which improves public services by diversifying supply, creates a dynamic but compassionate society and is modern and progressive in outlook, rather than backward-looking or statist. I had hopes for Cameron but he has reverted to type. David Miliband would have been supportable as Labour leader. Clegg, for me, has it about right.
But that will count for nothing if he remains politically toxic in the run up to the next General Election.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Tories pull back from NSD?
Yesterday, in Suffolk, something small but important happened. The ruling Conservatives on Suffolk County Council elected a new leader. Not the person we all expected, but a backbencher, and Chair of Scrutiny, Cllr. Mark Bee, who has expressed reservations about the Council's much publicised New Strategic Direction or 'Virtual Council' strategy.
His first act as Leader has been to reprieve all of Suffolk's crossing patrols and to pledge that no public service will be divested until all options had been fully explored. You could smell the rubber on this particular U-turn. If this is a flavour of what is to come, it is quite possible that the New Strategic Direction could very quickly become the Old one.
So how has this come about? What has turned Suffolk from daring outsourcer to protector of crossing-patrols in 24 hours? Very simply, the power of the Backwoodsmen - shire-Tory Councillors who, for the last six months, have been getting in the neck at Parish Council meetings. This breed are often not deeply political. Many are One Nation types who don't like anything fancy, and prefer to see the Council out of the news. Others are big community players who like to be seen on the side of the people. For the Backwoodsmen, the New Strategic Direction has always been a challenge.
But what tipped the balance? What caused them to elected a new Leader totally unassociated with the current direction of travel You could say that the media campaign against the CEO of Suffolk, Andrea Hill, has not helped. However, what really did it was very simple - crossing patrols. Last month, in order to save £180,000, Suffolk County Council decided to pass responsibility for its crossing patrols to unspecified others - Town Councils, Boroughs, communities, schools even.
This wasn't, of course, about saving money. It was a Big Statement, to say, this is what we are doing - and it's up to communities now to pick up where the state is leaving the stage. Many of us sensed that, regardless of the merits, this was Bad Politics - and a really daft way to get people signed up to major change. But the Administration pressed on, despite an outcry. Rather than pull back and say 'We're listening', they said ploughed on, leaving many on their own side, privately, very upset.
Which brings us back to politics. Good politics is, often, about the successful management of change. Getting people on board early. Giving people a chance to feel heard. Offering them influence over what is in their domain. Responding to emotion and being prepared to give a little in exchange for full backing. The reason why Suffolk's New Strategic Direction is now vulnerable isn't so much its content - much of which is laudable - but its political management. It has been presented in a confrontational fashion and politicians haven't done the necessary work both inside the Council and beyond to see the policy through to implementation.
What will happen next? Like many Councillors, I am pleased to see a clear commitment to listening. However, I also worry that moves to shift services into social enterprises and charities will stall. I worry that the cuts we need to make will come from procurement from large global corporates, and by closing services, rather than intelligent divestment. And I fear the effects of any profound change in direction in between elections. For those organisations seeking to partner with the Council, these cannot be easy times.
So, the Backwoodsmen have spoken. Who says backbench Councillors have no power?
His first act as Leader has been to reprieve all of Suffolk's crossing patrols and to pledge that no public service will be divested until all options had been fully explored. You could smell the rubber on this particular U-turn. If this is a flavour of what is to come, it is quite possible that the New Strategic Direction could very quickly become the Old one.
So how has this come about? What has turned Suffolk from daring outsourcer to protector of crossing-patrols in 24 hours? Very simply, the power of the Backwoodsmen - shire-Tory Councillors who, for the last six months, have been getting in the neck at Parish Council meetings. This breed are often not deeply political. Many are One Nation types who don't like anything fancy, and prefer to see the Council out of the news. Others are big community players who like to be seen on the side of the people. For the Backwoodsmen, the New Strategic Direction has always been a challenge.
But what tipped the balance? What caused them to elected a new Leader totally unassociated with the current direction of travel You could say that the media campaign against the CEO of Suffolk, Andrea Hill, has not helped. However, what really did it was very simple - crossing patrols. Last month, in order to save £180,000, Suffolk County Council decided to pass responsibility for its crossing patrols to unspecified others - Town Councils, Boroughs, communities, schools even.
This wasn't, of course, about saving money. It was a Big Statement, to say, this is what we are doing - and it's up to communities now to pick up where the state is leaving the stage. Many of us sensed that, regardless of the merits, this was Bad Politics - and a really daft way to get people signed up to major change. But the Administration pressed on, despite an outcry. Rather than pull back and say 'We're listening', they said ploughed on, leaving many on their own side, privately, very upset.
Which brings us back to politics. Good politics is, often, about the successful management of change. Getting people on board early. Giving people a chance to feel heard. Offering them influence over what is in their domain. Responding to emotion and being prepared to give a little in exchange for full backing. The reason why Suffolk's New Strategic Direction is now vulnerable isn't so much its content - much of which is laudable - but its political management. It has been presented in a confrontational fashion and politicians haven't done the necessary work both inside the Council and beyond to see the policy through to implementation.
What will happen next? Like many Councillors, I am pleased to see a clear commitment to listening. However, I also worry that moves to shift services into social enterprises and charities will stall. I worry that the cuts we need to make will come from procurement from large global corporates, and by closing services, rather than intelligent divestment. And I fear the effects of any profound change in direction in between elections. For those organisations seeking to partner with the Council, these cannot be easy times.
So, the Backwoodsmen have spoken. Who says backbench Councillors have no power?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Hardwick News 8.11.09
Our Street-Surgery programme has now seen teams of Lib Dem activists joining me to knock on doors to hear from local residents.
Here is where we have called so far:
In Westgate part of Division
Scarlin Rd, Wigston Rd, Gedge Close, Godolphin Close, Bedell Close, Covell Close, Blagge Close, Hasted Close, Gardiner Close, Abbotsbury Rd, Kirstead rd, Sherborne Rd
In Southgate part of Division
Home Farm Lane, Hardwick Park Gardens, Mayfield Rd, Nowton Rd, Hickling Drive, Townlane Rd, Broadland Rd, Woodside Close, Ridgeway Close, Copse Close, Links Close, Runnymede Green, Canterbury Green, Lincoln Green , Salisbury Green.
It is our aim to call at every household in the Division between now and the anniversary of my election on 4th June - and then to do it all again every year.
This is how we as Lib Dem Councillors do things. The Street Surgery has already generated scores of individual pieces of casework, dealt with either by myself or my Borough Council colleagues.
Here is where we have called so far:
In Westgate part of Division
Scarlin Rd, Wigston Rd, Gedge Close, Godolphin Close, Bedell Close, Covell Close, Blagge Close, Hasted Close, Gardiner Close, Abbotsbury Rd, Kirstead rd, Sherborne Rd
In Southgate part of Division
Home Farm Lane, Hardwick Park Gardens, Mayfield Rd, Nowton Rd, Hickling Drive, Townlane Rd, Broadland Rd, Woodside Close, Ridgeway Close, Copse Close, Links Close, Runnymede Green, Canterbury Green, Lincoln Green , Salisbury Green.
It is our aim to call at every household in the Division between now and the anniversary of my election on 4th June - and then to do it all again every year.
This is how we as Lib Dem Councillors do things. The Street Surgery has already generated scores of individual pieces of casework, dealt with either by myself or my Borough Council colleagues.
Copy of my Letter of Cllr Graham Newman, Porfolio Holder for Children and Young People's Services
As the County Councillor of the children who we were planning to move to Risby I wanted to get in touch following this week’s news in the EADT.
I am aware of Councillor Ereira’s communication on the day the story broke. I share his concerns, as I believe do all Councillors. As `corporate parents’, we risked acting in a way not consistent with the trust placed in us by the law, which is, of course, deeply regrettable.
However, my view, as someone who runs an organisation himself, is that things do occasionally go wrong - in all organisations. I also know for a fact that the most successful organisations are those with the capacity to review serious incidents and deal with them in a calm, rational and open way. Such organisations recognize that while human-error often has a role to play, serious incidents are mostly attributable, at root cause level, to bad information systems, unstable processes, weak internal management or an operating culture in which there is insufficient built-in challenge. Or, often, a combination of all of the above.
What is the right response? Well, a fevered, panicked atmosphere of recrimination simply succeeds in diverting energy away from problem-solving and encourages back-covering. Blaming a particular person normally fails to lead to any long-term reduction in risk of repeat.
Far more preferable, I would argue, is a calm, deliberative and transparent review of the chain of events in the context of the whole system which led to this situation. The quid-pro-quo here is that the Council needs to be open with the Opposition, CYP Scrutiny and the wider public about exactly what happened and work together, with all Members and external appointees, particularly from the various relevant Scrutiny Committees, to avoid a repeat.
As those children’s Councillor, I do not, personally, want to see heads roll. That, I believe, will solve very little. Rather, I want to be confident that we, as a Council, have the built-in ability to learn. This is the best way to contribute to children’s well-being . Therefore, I would plead that we, as a Council, go about dealing with the fall out from this issue in the right way: Collaboratively. Calmly. Openly. And, perhaps most important of all, inclusively.
I am aware of Councillor Ereira’s communication on the day the story broke. I share his concerns, as I believe do all Councillors. As `corporate parents’, we risked acting in a way not consistent with the trust placed in us by the law, which is, of course, deeply regrettable.
However, my view, as someone who runs an organisation himself, is that things do occasionally go wrong - in all organisations. I also know for a fact that the most successful organisations are those with the capacity to review serious incidents and deal with them in a calm, rational and open way. Such organisations recognize that while human-error often has a role to play, serious incidents are mostly attributable, at root cause level, to bad information systems, unstable processes, weak internal management or an operating culture in which there is insufficient built-in challenge. Or, often, a combination of all of the above.
What is the right response? Well, a fevered, panicked atmosphere of recrimination simply succeeds in diverting energy away from problem-solving and encourages back-covering. Blaming a particular person normally fails to lead to any long-term reduction in risk of repeat.
Far more preferable, I would argue, is a calm, deliberative and transparent review of the chain of events in the context of the whole system which led to this situation. The quid-pro-quo here is that the Council needs to be open with the Opposition, CYP Scrutiny and the wider public about exactly what happened and work together, with all Members and external appointees, particularly from the various relevant Scrutiny Committees, to avoid a repeat.
As those children’s Councillor, I do not, personally, want to see heads roll. That, I believe, will solve very little. Rather, I want to be confident that we, as a Council, have the built-in ability to learn. This is the best way to contribute to children’s well-being . Therefore, I would plead that we, as a Council, go about dealing with the fall out from this issue in the right way: Collaboratively. Calmly. Openly. And, perhaps most important of all, inclusively.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Fighting the Last War - The Schools Organisation Review in Suffolk
Following the defeat of the motion put forward by the two other non-Tory Bury County Councillors, Suffolk County Council re-iterated its commitment to moving Bury's "poorly performing schools" (their words not mine) to two tier, regardless of whether or not that funding appears.
Quite how that will be achieved is anyone's guess. Two-tier education is, I would presume, best delivered, in a context where buildings and teachers can be organised into two systems - primary and secondary. In Bury this will be difficult without running split sites. Not unusual I know but not ideal either.
Perhaps more importantly, moving to two-tier now, at great cost, is an example of the Conservative County Council fighting the last war - rather than the one ahead. The coming crisis in public spending is going to be very tough for schools. Big reorganisations will be difficult to fund.
And more fundamentally the direction of policy from an incoming Tory Government (the most likely outcome I believe of next year's General Election) will be a new policy for schools which essentially gives power to local communities to have the schools they choose. And if not to open one themselves using state funding - regardless of what the local authority says.
This is revolutionary stuff. For years, Councils have dictated what kinds of schools our kids will attend. The move from three to two tier is one such diktat. Soon it will not be the business of Councils to say how schools should look. Parents will more likely choose. And in Bury this would mean the retention of a much-loved middle school system.
I can never understand the Suffolk Tories on the need for all our schools to follow a particular model. This isn't the case in the independent sector (as many of them will know). Diversity flourishes (3-18, 5-18, 8-18) all these models flourish in Suffolk in the independent sector. The changes proposed by the Tories will cut across the one-size-fit-all of the move to two-tier.
There is hope yet I believe for local self-determination - from the most unlikely of sources!
Quite how that will be achieved is anyone's guess. Two-tier education is, I would presume, best delivered, in a context where buildings and teachers can be organised into two systems - primary and secondary. In Bury this will be difficult without running split sites. Not unusual I know but not ideal either.
Perhaps more importantly, moving to two-tier now, at great cost, is an example of the Conservative County Council fighting the last war - rather than the one ahead. The coming crisis in public spending is going to be very tough for schools. Big reorganisations will be difficult to fund.
And more fundamentally the direction of policy from an incoming Tory Government (the most likely outcome I believe of next year's General Election) will be a new policy for schools which essentially gives power to local communities to have the schools they choose. And if not to open one themselves using state funding - regardless of what the local authority says.
This is revolutionary stuff. For years, Councils have dictated what kinds of schools our kids will attend. The move from three to two tier is one such diktat. Soon it will not be the business of Councils to say how schools should look. Parents will more likely choose. And in Bury this would mean the retention of a much-loved middle school system.
I can never understand the Suffolk Tories on the need for all our schools to follow a particular model. This isn't the case in the independent sector (as many of them will know). Diversity flourishes (3-18, 5-18, 8-18) all these models flourish in Suffolk in the independent sector. The changes proposed by the Tories will cut across the one-size-fit-all of the move to two-tier.
There is hope yet I believe for local self-determination - from the most unlikely of sources!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Getting Out There
I am always taken aback by how pleasantly surprised people are to see their Councillor. I am, it seems, the only one they have ever met. Outside election time that is - and even then they seldom call.
The good thing about getting out there is that you quickly find out what's happening in an area. People tend to raise similar things. Also, you get to find out about the difficulties people might be having, especially those who depend on the Council for vital care or support services.
Today, we knocked on all doors in Scarlin Road and the closes off of there. We met a lot of people and I now have three or four bits of casework to do. My plan is to cover every street in the Division at least once each year of my four year term.
This was Friday afternoon. The day ended on a positive note. Upon arriving at Glastonbury Ct play area I found that it had been repainted - in part anyway. The rest to follow. This was following some case-work with local residents.
Elsewhere it is all action. Schools are the big issue at the moment. The ruling Tories have suspended the Schools Organisational Review until new funding is clearer. That won't happen so the review is up in the air. Which means a lot of uncertainty for parents, children and their teachers. I met one such teacher on Friday and she told me the effect this was having on morale.
My hope is that the Council will give Middle Schools another ten years. My fear however is that the impending cuts in schools budgets will force two-tier on us anyway, with split sites being introduced alongside a `federal' system - where a single head covers a number of schools.
Of course, the freeing of schools from Council control would mean that we could choose the kind of school system we wanted both as a community in Bury and as individual parents. But that is something a long way away for now.
The good thing about getting out there is that you quickly find out what's happening in an area. People tend to raise similar things. Also, you get to find out about the difficulties people might be having, especially those who depend on the Council for vital care or support services.
Today, we knocked on all doors in Scarlin Road and the closes off of there. We met a lot of people and I now have three or four bits of casework to do. My plan is to cover every street in the Division at least once each year of my four year term.
This was Friday afternoon. The day ended on a positive note. Upon arriving at Glastonbury Ct play area I found that it had been repainted - in part anyway. The rest to follow. This was following some case-work with local residents.
Elsewhere it is all action. Schools are the big issue at the moment. The ruling Tories have suspended the Schools Organisational Review until new funding is clearer. That won't happen so the review is up in the air. Which means a lot of uncertainty for parents, children and their teachers. I met one such teacher on Friday and she told me the effect this was having on morale.
My hope is that the Council will give Middle Schools another ten years. My fear however is that the impending cuts in schools budgets will force two-tier on us anyway, with split sites being introduced alongside a `federal' system - where a single head covers a number of schools.
Of course, the freeing of schools from Council control would mean that we could choose the kind of school system we wanted both as a community in Bury and as individual parents. But that is something a long way away for now.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Middle Schools - A Reprieve
This week saw a victory for common sense. And for the people of Bury who, against the trend county-wide, elected three County Councillors who publicly opposed to the closure of our Middle Schools. As you will read in this week's BFP, Suffolk County Council has just pulled-back its proposed Schools Organisation Review (SOR) for Bury and Stowmarket.
Quite late in the day, the penny seems to have dropped that that millions of pounds in `Building Schools for the Future’ money will probably no longer be available from central government. This money was key to the whole SOR which, if you remember, sought to do away with our Middle Schools in 2013 (creating a hotchpotch of temporary split-site secondary schools) and open a range of brand-new school buildings in the second half of the next decade .
A policy which now, like the public finances, looks pretty ruined. While we congratulate Suffolk County Council on their good sense at kicking the ball into touch for now, we believe that they need to actually go further - and boot it publicly and permanently it into the long grass. Because even Suffolk’s ruling Conservatives know in their hearts that the Building Schools for the Future money isn’t coming. Not next year or any other year.
To pretend this policy is still intact, as the Council is doing, prevents the discussion moving on on how we actually improve what we have already working well in Bury – as evidenced by excellent exam results last month.
So come on Suffolk County Council, call a spade-a-spade, and declare this ailing SOR policy dead.
Quite late in the day, the penny seems to have dropped that that millions of pounds in `Building Schools for the Future’ money will probably no longer be available from central government. This money was key to the whole SOR which, if you remember, sought to do away with our Middle Schools in 2013 (creating a hotchpotch of temporary split-site secondary schools) and open a range of brand-new school buildings in the second half of the next decade .
A policy which now, like the public finances, looks pretty ruined. While we congratulate Suffolk County Council on their good sense at kicking the ball into touch for now, we believe that they need to actually go further - and boot it publicly and permanently it into the long grass. Because even Suffolk’s ruling Conservatives know in their hearts that the Building Schools for the Future money isn’t coming. Not next year or any other year.
To pretend this policy is still intact, as the Council is doing, prevents the discussion moving on on how we actually improve what we have already working well in Bury – as evidenced by excellent exam results last month.
So come on Suffolk County Council, call a spade-a-spade, and declare this ailing SOR policy dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
