"A pistachio is a green nut best with a pinch of salt"
My personal take on some of the things happening in and around the Council. The conditions of use on this website exclude overt political comment and campaign, but... well, it's a pilot scheme - so I feel I have a duty to test the system.
3rd May - Unitary Council Elections Results
Thanks to all those who voted for me in the Unitary Council election. Unfortunately not enough people voted for me - and those who did just didn't vote often enough.
As Exec Member for Improvement, however, I feel I have a particular responsibilty for winding the Borough Council up (no change there, some might say!). Seriously though - if we are going to try to make the transition as smooth as possible, and that includes both service delivery and re-orientation of partnerships etc - then as well as getting the new unitary authority up and running, we need to make sure the Borough Council is dismantled in an orderly fashion. So I'll just focus on that.
5th Jan 08 Latest on Local Government Reform
Just for clarification - the current situation (as I understand it) is:
There will be elections to a transitional unitary authority for Northumberland on May 1st this year. There will be 67 councillors elected on the existing County Council divisions - and the Council will have a conventional leader and cabinet from the majority party group or a coalition. There'll be no directly elected leader or cabinet as was suggested earlier.
The County Council will be abolished immediately - so the new transitional authority will take on the County Council powers immediately. In fact, it'll be hard to lose the impression that the county council will just turn into the unitary authority - though strictly speaking that isn't the case.
Then over the course of the coming year, the transitional authority will steadily take over the responsibilities of the district councils (including CMBC) - and in April 2009, the district councils will be abolished.
The transitional authority councillors will become unitary authority councillors without a further election - and will hold office till May 2013. The town and parish councils will remain in existence - but they won't hold elections till May 2013 either - so the Morpeth Town councillors you elected last May will serve a six year term!
Current proposals for the unitary authority is that it will subdivide into three 'characteristic communities' which will have their own Development Control, Licensing and Area Committees - drawn from the 20-25 councillors representing that area.
There'll also be 26 'belonging communities' - generally a cluster of 4-7 parishes, with a community forum including the 2-3 councillors representing that area, possibly representatives from the parish councils, and unelected 'community & voluntary sector' reps. These will mainly be advisory 'sounding boards' for the local councils - at least at first.
Sounds fun, huh? And all this because Government has been convinced that it will be more cost-effective than the present set-up - and the assumption has been made that the voters and council tax payers would prefer low taxes to accountability and transparency.
28th May Improving an Unholy Alliance
Well - emerging from the elections, we have an 'unholy alliance' of Tories & Labour, with the LibDems in opposition for the first time in over eight years.
And for what have I 'sold by soul' by signing up to the 'unholy alliance? Why - I've been made Executive Member for Improvement.
Improvement of what you may ask? Well (to quote James Dean) 'what have you got?'
The portfolio used to be called "Corporate Governance" and covers the backroom aspects of Council operation - Human Resources, ICT, Democratic Services etc. But this was considered too obscure and jargonistic..
The name was changed to "improving the Council" - as in 'Executive Member for Improving the Council'. But this was rapidly dropped because it sounded like too heavy a burden for one councillor - and besides, tending to give rise to public ribaldry...
So - Executive Member for Improvement. I'll let you know...
1st March A Tale of Two Unitary Proposals (contd)
Well - now that the submissions have been submitted (25th January) - the detailed proposals for both the County Council's Single Unitary and the District Councils' Two Unitaries have been published:
Information on the County Council’s plans (One Future, One Council) can be obtained from its website:
http://www2.northumberland.gov.uk/reports/ofoc/index.html
Information on the District Council’s proposals (One Northumberland, Two Councils, One vision) can be found at: www.northumberlanddirect.gov.uk
And - we can expect the Government (DCLG) decision on which if either we will be getting sometime this month. I gather they were expecting around eight applications for unitary status and have received nearer twenty-eight - so we might not be in the 'first tranche' of changes.
But - if all goes to the Government schedule - we get a 'ky stakeholder' (ie limited engagement) consultation on the single 'referred option'- which runs through to June - and the Government decides finally what we get in July.
If you have strong views on aspects of this business that will be covered in the consultation - do let me know, and I'll try to get them into whatever responses I can get access to.
12th January
The unitary local government debate – what’s going on? And will the public get a real say?
Of course – as a member if CMBC Executive I’m committed to the two unitary option – but I think it’s worth spelling out what is going on with a broader perspective.
There was an outside chance that the ‘two tier’ County & District Council arrangements could have been retained in some form under the Local Government White Paper – but there’s a ratchet built into the system so that when someone starts talking about a unitary system, you can’t go back. So when NCC put out a press release saying they’d be going for a single unitary – that was it. The two unitary model ‘One Northumberland Two Councils’ was just about the only alternative option available to the six District councils.
Timetables:
- NCC put out a press release declaring their intention of going for a single unitary on the day the White Paper was published, based on existing policy adopted at the time of the Regional Government Referendum (Nov 03). This was endorsed by the NCC Cabinet in early December – but isn’t going to a Full Council vote until Monday 15th January.
- Meanwhile the six District Councils all got Full Council endorsement for preparing a two unitary submission in late November, and are looking to get their final submission endorsed by all six Councils week beginning 15th January.
- The submissions have to be in to Government on 25th January. Government will then decide which option they want to pursue. Could be single unitary, two unitaries – or they could say ‘there’s no consensus – go away and think again’ – and this of course is the hope of some political groupings who don’t really want any change.
- There’s to be a consultation period March-June but only on the detail of the government’s preferred option – and possibly only involving ‘key stakeholders’ and not the public at all. So – not only will there be no choice put to the public and no sort of referendum or binding consultation – there might not be any opportunity for direct comment at all. So – do contact me, your other councillors and your MPs about this!
- Assuming government gets the necessary legislation through on schedule – and the opposition parties in Parliament will be doing their best to delay things – the decision will be taken in July ’07 – with elections to a shadow Council in May ’08 which will take power in April ’09.
- And of course – we’ve got the District Council elections this May – slap bang in the middle of the consultation period. So far – there’s no suggestion that these might be postponed or cancelled which to some might seem the sensible option.
So what’s on offer?
Actually the basics of the two proposals are very similar – they are claiming similar levels of savings both with transition payback well with the government’s five year target; partnership working across the county and beyond to get cost-effective service delivery in some areas and devolution of service delivery in others. The single unitary model proposes three ‘area’ bodies within the county while the two unitary model envisages some county-wide ‘trusts’ to handle certain services. Both models propose local ‘community’ organisations based on the County Community Strategy ‘belonging communities’ model responsible for locally devolved service delivery. The two unitary model emphasises the role of parish councils at least in Rural Northumberland.
Differences:
The single (county-wide) unitary proposes 67 councillors elected on the existing county council divisions – with a directly elected cabinet in addition to this. It’s envisaged that each party would put up a slate which would be elected en bloc. It’s claimed that a single unitary would be better resourced and would also provide a coherent voice for the county within the region.
The two unitaries proposed are:
SE Northumberland Council (Blyth Valley & Wansbeck) – with 60 councillors and a directly elected Leader who will appoint an 8-member cabinet from the 60 councillors.
Rural Northumberland Council (Alnwick, Berwick, Castle Morpeth & Tynedale) – with 37 councillors and a directly elected Leader who will appoint an 8-member cabinet from the 37 councillors.
SE Northumberland apparently needs 60 councillors because they are not proposing to set up parish councils – though I think a Cramlington Town Council or Ashington Town Council could be very powerful – maybe that’s why they don’t want one.
That only leaves 37 councillors for Rural Northumberland – which in my opinion is too few – unless the parish councils are upgraded and better resourced. Certainly the proposal is to have parish councillors and community organisation reps on the 14 Community Boards.
The big selling point of the two unitary model is that the issues facing SE Northumberland and Rural Northumberland are significantly different and require totally different political solutions. While this is certainly true – I think some parish councils in Castle Morpeth would do well to concentrate on lobbying for boundary changes so that they are included in SE Northumberland Council if the two unitary model goes ahead.
So – that’s a brief overview. Do get in touch to let me know what you think – especially as you may well not have a direct voice in any consultation.
Meanwhile – I still think the immediate issue for Morpeth is that the Borough Council should devolve certain community assets, local community services and ceremonial functions before they are automatically evolved up to a larger unitary of any description. Mistakes were made in the 1974 local government re-organisation which should not be repeated.
24th November '06
Well the sides are drawn up. The Borough Council voted to prepare a submission towards a two unitary authority structure on 21st - as expected.
I only hope that the political fallout is not going to damage co-operation between County and Borough Councils too much - it shouldn't be about structures, it should be about service delivery and accountability. We'll see....
I hope too that the work towards two unitaries will be of some use in proposing modifications to a single unitary (if that's what the Government opt for) - and perhaps more importantly, contribute to a future city-region governance debate. That's shaping up badly for us - we're part of Tyne & Wear City-Region functionally (housing markets, retail catchment, journey to work) but we are not being considered in any governance arrangements I've heard about.
Anyway - back to unitaries: if the Government keep to their timetable (and legislation pressures, opposition and the sheer scale of the re-organisation suggest that they won't!) - the submissionshave to be in by 25th Jan - the Government will decide which model they like by March - and there'll be a consultation March-June, with a final Government decision in July '07. Lots more to come on this.....
14th November
A first take on the White Paper on Local Government "Stronger and More Prosperous Communities" (see http://www.communities.gov.uk/ to download a copy)
So - do people want locally accountable councillors and an accessible council or do they want cost-effective, efficient service delivery? The White Paper seems to be saying that you can only get value-for-money through economies of scale and centralisations - whilst you only get local accountability if decisionmaking is very local. And then it gets muddled because it can't do both.
Certainly - our parish councils would need to be greatly strengthened and better resourced - if they are going to take on any of the powers the White Paper suggests. Only two or three in the Borough (including Morpeth Town Council) are anything like up to it.
Unfortunately - most of the content of the White Paper seems likely to be sidelined in Northumberland - submerged in a contest over unitary authority structures. The Borough Council is going to have a Full Council debate on 21st Nov and decide how to proceed on that - and I'll post more after then. For now - my position is that the prime criterion for making decisions on any changes to the structure of local government is how local people are affected. I would hope that service delivery, accountability and accessibility all remain as they are or improve - and that any projects etc are transferred seamlessly.
I'm also concerned that if we do move to any form of unitary structure - then the various 'community assets and traditions' that the Borough Council has inherited remain in local ownership rather than being evolved to a wider-ranging local authority. And - we may need to move quickly on this because if changes are confirmed - and that could be as little as eight or nine months away - there'll be a 'moratorium' on disposal of assets.
24th May '06
Full Council re-elected me as the 7th (additional) member of the Executive Board, with a substantial (but not unanimous) vote. So - I continue as 'Secretary to the Executive' - or as I prefer it 'Executive Member with Responsibility' for another year. And it'll be an interesting year leading up to the local elections next May (unless Government reform of local government postpones those elections). I've said all along that a measure of the success of the all-party coalition will be if the different parties seek either to take credit for the achievements of the Council or try to distance themselves. The way things are shaping up - it looks like the former. Perhaps we should run a poll on which Executive members are most readily recognisable to the public?
31st January '06
Well the all-party Exec is still together (despite a couple of scares) - and IMO we're doing quite well. We're getting a lot of 7-0 votes in Exec Committee - though there a slight gaps appearing between the Exec and backbench members of all political groups. Scrutiny have taken on rather more than they can cope with (IMO) - and haven't really left themselves resource or capacity to respond to what the Exec is doing, which may be a mistake.
Hope this is coming out neutral and positive - I've been asked to write a piece for IDeA magazine and I'm practicing.
28th May '05 All Party Coalition
Well - the Council did nominate me as a seventh 'politically unbalanced' member to the six-person Executive Committee last week. So - for the next year - I'm 'Secretary to the Executive' co-ordinating, facilitating and communicating while my Executive colleagues hold specific portfolios. It's going to be interesting....
8th May 05 All Party Coalition
As councillor not aligned to any of the ‘political groups’ on the Council, I don’t get counted into ‘political balance’ calculations for working out how many Members each political group has on each committee. (In fact the term ‘politically unbalanced’ has been applied to me on more than one occasion.) Anyway – I am dependent on the whole Council choosing to nominate me as an extranumerary to any committee they see fit.
Then - for the past couple of years, I’ve held the ‘balance of power’ between the notional Lab-LibDem and Ind-Con ‘blocs’, so I was given the Chair of the Policy Committee when I joined the Lab-LibDem administration this time last year.
Well – when the ‘rainbow’ all-party coalition comes into being this month (May), my little bit of ‘political clout’ disappears.
We’re also getting a committee restructuring:
There’ll be one Executive Committee of six Members (two Labour, two Conservative, one Ind and one LibDem),
two Scrutiny Committees (chaired by LibDem and Ind Members)
as well as the Development Services (Planning) and Licensing Committees (chaired by Conservative and Labour Members).
So where does that leave me? Well – possibly on the basis that my colleagues would prefer me ‘inside the tent’ rather than ‘outside’ – it looks as though I’ll be nominated as a ‘supernumary seventh’ member of the Executive Committee, with a sort of co-ordinating, facilitating role. Won’t know for certain until the Council votes at the Annual Meeting Part II on 23rd May though – and some of my colleagues were a bit miffed at my political maneouvering last year, so I’m not counting any chickens. Watch this space…..
29th Nov: Chantry Feasibility Studies
Under pressure - the Council is going to run feasibility studies into the Craft Centre being run as an independent commercial concern and/or running the Chantry as a Trust. But, the easy option is still to let the building off to the private sector - and the press release reads something like an estate agent's blurb.
Unless people come forward and commit to running a Chantry Trust or a Craft Centre co-operative or some such - and start preparing an outline business plan now - they won't happen.
I think its called community politics or participatory democracy.
end November
After reflection - I'm angry that the Regional Referendum (and for that matter the US Presidential Election and the Euro-Elections back in June) was contested (on both sides) in an atmosphere of misinformation and ignorance. People did and do not know what regional bodies already exist or what powers they exercise, and no one seemed willing or able to put out an impartial description of what was really on offer from the government.
Perhaps I should be working harder at that?
Misinformation, ignorance, distrust of politicians and indifference to politics are all marks of a pre-fascist state. We'll be hearing calls of 'What we need is a strong leader to get us out of this mess!' soon.
[Am I being political here - will this posting be OK?]
5 Nov '04
A massive 78% No vote in the regional government referendum - which means that we'll cntinue to have strategic decisions on housing, planning, economy, transport, culture etc taken at regional level by the 137 unaccountable QUANGOs - notably the existing appointed North East Assembly.
For the Council - we need to start thinking and planning longer term, for the past two or three years at least we've been unconsciously preparing an 'exit strategy' for the Council against it being absorbed nto a Unitary Authority. Now we have to rethink - Castle Morpeth Borough Council will be around for longer than expected.
Oct '04
Time to test the system! I'm getting increasingly frustrated at the misinformation (on both sides) being put out in the Regional Assembly referendum campaign. So - I'll see whether I can get away with posting factual information presented in a partial manner for the eight days until polling closes. What price community leadership?
May '04
How to put this without being political? As of May '04 - I have switched from opposition to join the Labour/LibDem Administration which is currently providing the Executive for the Council - creating what I like to think of as a 'traffic light coalition' (Green for go?) - which will have 17 out of 33 council seats.
I have been offered the Chair of the Policy Committee - which is where the Council agrees all its policy and strategy decisions. It is also has a responsibility to receive recommendations and policy development reviews carried out by Scrutiny - so I am hoping that my experience on Scrutiny for the last two years will stand me in good stead.
