I am something of an anomaly in the Lib Dems. I don't support the coalition and I am no fan of the EU. So David Cameron's capitulation to the Eurocrats today came as a ruther disappointment o me.
Apparently, according to David Cameron, he "succeeded spectacularly" when he managed to negotiate an increase in UK payments to the EU of £450m a year. It does make me wonder what else he might describe in such terms.
Presumably England "succeeded spectacularly" when getting hammered by the Germans 4-1 in the World Cup.
I would love to read your suggestions as to what else David Cameron use the term "succeeded spectacularly" to describe.
10/27/2010
Where is the Lib Dem influence when it comes to DLA ?
We have read much in the last few days about how the benefits system, is about to undergo a radical overhaul. What we are just starting to hear about though is the poor way in which this overhaul will be delivered.
The last government (yes Labour people, that is you) started to look at disability living allowance (DLA) and made the system, "tougher" on people. This toughness though was done on the cheap, with non medically trained people doing one hour assessments on people on DLA to ascertain whether they were entitled to continue claiming DLA. Quite how a non medically trained individual can make an assessment on someone's mental health by following a tick box approach to checking claims it beyond me.
On Radio 5 this morning they were discussing this issue, and focussing in heavily on Burnley, an area that will be targeted by the government to see how many people can be got off benefits and back in to work.
The fact that Burnley is something of a unemployment blackspot and is hardly fertile ground for a jobseeker at the moment is by the by for the government. So focusing in on Burnley they reported that of those people being denied DLA and other similar benefits after a one hour interview, hundreds were appealing their decisions, with 85% of people winning their appeals. Apparently there is a backlog of over 300 people awaiting their appeal to be heard.
According to Radio 5, the appeals involve seeing a proper doctor, with a full and appropriate examination, followed by proper questioning and a removal of the tick box approach to checking the claimant. One caller said the initial one hour interview had seen her score just three points, well short of the fifteen required to claim the allowance she was one. When she went to an appeal, she scored nineteen points !
My question is, surely we have a Social Security Minister who can do something about this issue ? How on earth can we have a system where 85% of people who appeal have been wrongly labelled as fit for work when they are clearly not. How can we have a system where non medically trained people are making medical judgements on the health of individuals ? In short, where is the Lib Dem influence that Nick Clegg and other lovers of the coalition keep going on about, because if this is happening and we are supporting it, then nobody should be proud of the coalition.
The last government (yes Labour people, that is you) started to look at disability living allowance (DLA) and made the system, "tougher" on people. This toughness though was done on the cheap, with non medically trained people doing one hour assessments on people on DLA to ascertain whether they were entitled to continue claiming DLA. Quite how a non medically trained individual can make an assessment on someone's mental health by following a tick box approach to checking claims it beyond me.
On Radio 5 this morning they were discussing this issue, and focussing in heavily on Burnley, an area that will be targeted by the government to see how many people can be got off benefits and back in to work.
The fact that Burnley is something of a unemployment blackspot and is hardly fertile ground for a jobseeker at the moment is by the by for the government. So focusing in on Burnley they reported that of those people being denied DLA and other similar benefits after a one hour interview, hundreds were appealing their decisions, with 85% of people winning their appeals. Apparently there is a backlog of over 300 people awaiting their appeal to be heard.
According to Radio 5, the appeals involve seeing a proper doctor, with a full and appropriate examination, followed by proper questioning and a removal of the tick box approach to checking the claimant. One caller said the initial one hour interview had seen her score just three points, well short of the fifteen required to claim the allowance she was one. When she went to an appeal, she scored nineteen points !
My question is, surely we have a Social Security Minister who can do something about this issue ? How on earth can we have a system where 85% of people who appeal have been wrongly labelled as fit for work when they are clearly not. How can we have a system where non medically trained people are making medical judgements on the health of individuals ? In short, where is the Lib Dem influence that Nick Clegg and other lovers of the coalition keep going on about, because if this is happening and we are supporting it, then nobody should be proud of the coalition.
10/24/2010
No road improvements for Taverham this year - More potholes on the way ?
The planned road improvements and resurfacing that Taverham was promised a few short months ago by Norfolk County Council has, sadly, been delayed until the next financial year at the earliest, because of an "overspend" on other projects.
Parts of Taverham and Thorpe Marriott have not had their roads repaired or resurfaced for since they were built (twenty years ago) and the roads are literally disintegrating across the whole of my council ward. One more bad winter and the costs will be even higher for the repairs.
I know we are in difficult financial times, but it will not save money to delay the road repairs until next year, it will, I am certain, cost more due to the rate at which the roads are deteriorating.
When out campaigning with one of my key helpers, Carole Ward, the other day, she commented as someone who runs their own business, that if the County Council were a business it would go out of business due to its overspending and wrong priorities when it comes to spending money. I couldn't help but agree with her.
Parts of Taverham and Thorpe Marriott have not had their roads repaired or resurfaced for since they were built (twenty years ago) and the roads are literally disintegrating across the whole of my council ward. One more bad winter and the costs will be even higher for the repairs.
I know we are in difficult financial times, but it will not save money to delay the road repairs until next year, it will, I am certain, cost more due to the rate at which the roads are deteriorating.
When out campaigning with one of my key helpers, Carole Ward, the other day, she commented as someone who runs their own business, that if the County Council were a business it would go out of business due to its overspending and wrong priorities when it comes to spending money. I couldn't help but agree with her.
10/22/2010
I wasn't go to vote in the Lib Dem Presidential elections until ...
I wasn't going to vote in the Lib Dem presidential elections until I saw the Tim Farron video linked to below on Paul Walter's blog.
I have voted now and I have voted for Tim. I urge you to watch the video too.
I have voted now and I have voted for Tim. I urge you to watch the video too.
Wrong priorities for a councillor ?
There are a few occasions as a councillor when you are torn between doing your council work or doing your job. There are times too when family issues take precedence. However, there are other drains on our time which really ought to come second, on each and every occasion, to doing your council business.
So I was bemused to hear about a councillor in Norwich who put party politics before council business recently.
When Norwich City Council were meeting to discuss the mess left after Connaught collapsed, leaving 320 employees in Norwich out of work and a big question mark over local services in the City, one senior Labour councillor was apparently at the party conference, not in the council chamber defending Labour's actions over awarding the contract to Connaught.
I guess if you are desperately trying to get selected as a parliamentary candidate, attending party conference means you tick the right boxes with your political masters. But it should raise a few eyebrows amongst the electorate who don't hold politicians in high regard at the best of times.
So I was bemused to hear about a councillor in Norwich who put party politics before council business recently.
When Norwich City Council were meeting to discuss the mess left after Connaught collapsed, leaving 320 employees in Norwich out of work and a big question mark over local services in the City, one senior Labour councillor was apparently at the party conference, not in the council chamber defending Labour's actions over awarding the contract to Connaught.
I guess if you are desperately trying to get selected as a parliamentary candidate, attending party conference means you tick the right boxes with your political masters. But it should raise a few eyebrows amongst the electorate who don't hold politicians in high regard at the best of times.
10/19/2010
Having their cake and eating it over the BBC
The Tories have got their way and emasculated the BBC by forcing through what will be a 16% fall in funding over the next six years whilst ensuring that the cost of minority channels like S4C are now paid for by License fee payers across the country, not just Wales.
So where will the BBC gets it money from in order not to become a second class broadcaster ?
There is a simple answer to this. BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial make a very good profit each year, helping subsidise the BBC. But whilst the BBC makes money from BBC worldwide, those very MPs who so want to see the license fee cut are at the same time calling for BBC worldwide to be sold off.
Ridiculous.
So where will the BBC gets it money from in order not to become a second class broadcaster ?
There is a simple answer to this. BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial make a very good profit each year, helping subsidise the BBC. But whilst the BBC makes money from BBC worldwide, those very MPs who so want to see the license fee cut are at the same time calling for BBC worldwide to be sold off.
Ridiculous.
10/18/2010
Schoolboy error in spooks
Can you spot the schoolboy error in Spooks tonight ?
Where on earth is Stanstead ?
Where on earth is Stanstead ?
Do governments and councils ever realise the market value for their assets ?
On a report on the BBC East "Inside Out" programme tonight they featured the number of councils locally who own high value number plates, some estimated to be worth several hundred thousand pounds. The presumption of the article was that in these difficult times, councils ought to be selling these private plates, in order to cover the deficits councils are now facing.
I am no lover of council frivolities, and would certainly back the idea of councils selling off high value number plates. However, the "Inside Out" story also highlighted the poor value for money that council's sometimes get when the fail to understand the market in to which they are selling.
The example of Essex County Council selling their "F1" number plate was shown as a massive undervaluation of the number plate. Just two years ago Essex County Council got around £400,000 for the plate. The owner of this number plate has, in just two years, seen the value of this plate go up by more than 1000% with him reportedly turning down a bid of £5 million.
You would have assumed that it might be realised that an "F1" plate not only attracts interest from people who's names start with "F", not only people who want a plate with "1" in it, but also people who have any interest in Formula One racing. Whilst I am sure Essex County Council did everything by the book, did they achieve best value for council tax payers ? It appears not.
But it is not just councils who show a total lack of understanding of the value of an asset. The sale of Qinetiq, the defence and IT contractor, sold off for tens of millions of pounds less than its true value by the Labour government is a classic example of government failing to know the market value of an important public asset. Whilst almost every privatisation handled by the Thatcher government saw a small fortune thrown away meaning taxpayers missed out so that speculators could main a quick buck.
I'm all in favour of review of what council's do and own, and feel that councils need to become much better at their core services and worry less about peripheral activities and owning expensive assets and artwork which give no benefit to taxpayers. But lets see councils and government getting full value for assets, and if it means holding on to some assets in the short come so as not sell at a low point in the market, then I would support that. But council must show more common sense in their actions, and so must the government.
I am no lover of council frivolities, and would certainly back the idea of councils selling off high value number plates. However, the "Inside Out" story also highlighted the poor value for money that council's sometimes get when the fail to understand the market in to which they are selling.
The example of Essex County Council selling their "F1" number plate was shown as a massive undervaluation of the number plate. Just two years ago Essex County Council got around £400,000 for the plate. The owner of this number plate has, in just two years, seen the value of this plate go up by more than 1000% with him reportedly turning down a bid of £5 million.
You would have assumed that it might be realised that an "F1" plate not only attracts interest from people who's names start with "F", not only people who want a plate with "1" in it, but also people who have any interest in Formula One racing. Whilst I am sure Essex County Council did everything by the book, did they achieve best value for council tax payers ? It appears not.
But it is not just councils who show a total lack of understanding of the value of an asset. The sale of Qinetiq, the defence and IT contractor, sold off for tens of millions of pounds less than its true value by the Labour government is a classic example of government failing to know the market value of an important public asset. Whilst almost every privatisation handled by the Thatcher government saw a small fortune thrown away meaning taxpayers missed out so that speculators could main a quick buck.
I'm all in favour of review of what council's do and own, and feel that councils need to become much better at their core services and worry less about peripheral activities and owning expensive assets and artwork which give no benefit to taxpayers. But lets see councils and government getting full value for assets, and if it means holding on to some assets in the short come so as not sell at a low point in the market, then I would support that. But council must show more common sense in their actions, and so must the government.
10/17/2010
What is the point in becoming credible if you lose your credibility by breaking promises ?
Those who support the coalition argue that perhaps the greatest thing about it from a Lib Dem point of view it makes the party relevant, shows that we can be a party of government, and that voting Lib Dem puts Lib Dem policies on the statute book.
These points are all well and good if you then use your power responsibly. However, there is a real danger that by voting and supporting tuition fee increases, the party may destroy this credibility in one fell swoop.
The party cannot argue "A vote for us is a vote for our policies" , when in truth, when we get in to government we actually legislate to introduce policies we pledged to oppose.
If I lived in a Lib Dem held seat, I'd find it very difficult to vote for any Lib Dem, even if they were my MP, if they voted to break a pledge made before the election. Many Lib Dems will not forgive the party for the line it is taking, the voters too will rightly question what out party stands for. The only people that can save the party from the abyss is the 30 or so back bench Lib Dems who can keep their promise and vote against Vince Cable's suicidal plan.
We can all argue that "the country is in a financial mess left by Labour", and this is the excuse constantly given by Lib Dems in the government. But when it comes to student fees, we knew the score, and an assumption must have been made back before May this year that this policy was a line in the sand, an issue the party would defend at all costs.
Quite how the party got to the position that a large number of our MPs are supporting raised tuition fees is ridiculous. But what is absolutely incredible is that those negotiating with the Tories allowed a Lib Dem, in the person of Vince Cable, to be the minister introducing this policy.
Only a bunch of fools could possibly have arranged for the Lib Dems to get a cabinet position we wanted to abolish (Scottish Secretary), the Minister for Nuclear Power (Chris Huhne), Ministry for Cuts (Chief Secretary) and Minister for Tuition Fees (Vince).
All hail our negotiating team. Next election, if we have any MPs left, we'll get the Teletubbies to negotiate on the party's behalf !
These points are all well and good if you then use your power responsibly. However, there is a real danger that by voting and supporting tuition fee increases, the party may destroy this credibility in one fell swoop.
The party cannot argue "A vote for us is a vote for our policies" , when in truth, when we get in to government we actually legislate to introduce policies we pledged to oppose.
If I lived in a Lib Dem held seat, I'd find it very difficult to vote for any Lib Dem, even if they were my MP, if they voted to break a pledge made before the election. Many Lib Dems will not forgive the party for the line it is taking, the voters too will rightly question what out party stands for. The only people that can save the party from the abyss is the 30 or so back bench Lib Dems who can keep their promise and vote against Vince Cable's suicidal plan.
We can all argue that "the country is in a financial mess left by Labour", and this is the excuse constantly given by Lib Dems in the government. But when it comes to student fees, we knew the score, and an assumption must have been made back before May this year that this policy was a line in the sand, an issue the party would defend at all costs.
Quite how the party got to the position that a large number of our MPs are supporting raised tuition fees is ridiculous. But what is absolutely incredible is that those negotiating with the Tories allowed a Lib Dem, in the person of Vince Cable, to be the minister introducing this policy.
Only a bunch of fools could possibly have arranged for the Lib Dems to get a cabinet position we wanted to abolish (Scottish Secretary), the Minister for Nuclear Power (Chris Huhne), Ministry for Cuts (Chief Secretary) and Minister for Tuition Fees (Vince).
All hail our negotiating team. Next election, if we have any MPs left, we'll get the Teletubbies to negotiate on the party's behalf !
10/10/2010
Reason for starvation in Korea is clear - Someone ate all the pies !
After a meeting of the leadership of North Korea, it was officially announced that Kim Jong-Un was responsible for the food shortages in Korea, and it was him who ate all the pies.
Why Lib Dem MPs MUST use power to show their pledges mean something
Over 500 Lib Dem candidates at the General Election signed a pledge to the NUS to vote against any increase in fees for students. Now, in power, surely the Lib Dems will have no greater opportunity to show that having Lib Dems in power really means something.
It is easy for the Nick Clegg to argue that those of us who oppose the coalition deal with the Tories to claim we are oppositionalists, scared of power, but the reverse argument is true also. It can be argued that there is little point in holding power if you vote against your own pledges made in opposition.
How many students voted Lib Dem because they felt they could trust us ? How many of them will abandon us if we abandon our pledge to them ? Remember what Nick Clegg said to the NUS about increased student fees.
If it is the case that the coalition agreement does not allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges, then it is a very poor negotiated agreement. If the agreement does allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges to students, then now is the time for out MPs to show that we do not make shallow promises to the electorate that we have no intention of keeping.
It is easy for the Nick Clegg to argue that those of us who oppose the coalition deal with the Tories to claim we are oppositionalists, scared of power, but the reverse argument is true also. It can be argued that there is little point in holding power if you vote against your own pledges made in opposition.
How many students voted Lib Dem because they felt they could trust us ? How many of them will abandon us if we abandon our pledge to them ? Remember what Nick Clegg said to the NUS about increased student fees.
“We will resist, vote against, campaign against, a rise in tuition fees."That's pretty unequivocal and cannot be misconstrued.
If it is the case that the coalition agreement does not allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges, then it is a very poor negotiated agreement. If the agreement does allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges to students, then now is the time for out MPs to show that we do not make shallow promises to the electorate that we have no intention of keeping.
10/04/2010
New sign "blocked" by Parish Council
I am extremely unhappy tonight, so much so that my emotions took over and I stormed out from a Parish Council meeting before I bust a gasket !
In my area, Taverham North, around 85% of the houses fall in to the area known far and wide as Thorpe Marriott. This area, which features on road signs, is not a separate Parish, but is known by taxi companies, local radio, and delivery firms far and wide as Thorpe Marriott, even if it falls within the Parish of Taverham.
The Thorpe Marriott sign, which was placed by a consortium of developers more than 20 years ago, is in a state of disrepair, and urgently needs some work. But try as I might to get a council interested in repairing or replacing the sign, nobody has been prepared to take responsibility for it.
So after many months of trying, I thought I should lead by example. I decided to negotiate a deal with a local signwriter to get the sign replaced, and I would pay for it myself.
You'd imagine the local Parish Council would be delighted wouldn't you ? But no.
At tonight's Parish Council meeting, the Parish voted to ask the householder (whose wall it sits on) to remove the existing sign, and voted to "stop", even though the have no jurisdiction over me, a new sign being placed. I was prevented from speaking despite the fact that I was the only person present who had spoken to the owner of the house whose wall it is fixed to, and despite the fact that I had further information that would have clarified a number of "what if ..." questions that were put against my offer, at no point was I allowed to address these points.
It seems ridiculous to those of use who get elected to get things done that when you want to do something positive you are prevented in doing so.
In my area, Taverham North, around 85% of the houses fall in to the area known far and wide as Thorpe Marriott. This area, which features on road signs, is not a separate Parish, but is known by taxi companies, local radio, and delivery firms far and wide as Thorpe Marriott, even if it falls within the Parish of Taverham.
The Thorpe Marriott sign, which was placed by a consortium of developers more than 20 years ago, is in a state of disrepair, and urgently needs some work. But try as I might to get a council interested in repairing or replacing the sign, nobody has been prepared to take responsibility for it.
So after many months of trying, I thought I should lead by example. I decided to negotiate a deal with a local signwriter to get the sign replaced, and I would pay for it myself.
You'd imagine the local Parish Council would be delighted wouldn't you ? But no.
At tonight's Parish Council meeting, the Parish voted to ask the householder (whose wall it sits on) to remove the existing sign, and voted to "stop", even though the have no jurisdiction over me, a new sign being placed. I was prevented from speaking despite the fact that I was the only person present who had spoken to the owner of the house whose wall it is fixed to, and despite the fact that I had further information that would have clarified a number of "what if ..." questions that were put against my offer, at no point was I allowed to address these points.
It seems ridiculous to those of use who get elected to get things done that when you want to do something positive you are prevented in doing so.
What are the Tories doing about high pay for Chief Executives Mr Pickles ?
Eric Pickles spoke at Tory Party conference today about the fact that council chief executives should take a pay cut in the current financial climate, to ensure that they can look their workers straight in the face and share their pain. This would be a good message were it not for the fact the the Tories seem more willing than any other party to lavish large pay rises on to chief executives of Tory councils.
The leaders of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils, all Tory run, each earn more than £200,000 a year. The leader of Suffolk County Council, Andrea Hill earns £220,000 a year – more than the Prime Minister. Her salary is 18 per cent higher than two years ago.
But looking below the level of Chief Executives, Tory councils seem quite happy to splash taxpayers cash on large remuneration packages. Take the £182,000 for a council "head of communications", or Spin Doctor, as the Tory supporting Daily Mail described her role.
Perhaps though Mr Pickles own Tories in Brentwood and on Essex County Council could answer the question why their Chief Executive, who shares the roles of overseeing both these councils, is the fourth highest paid chief exec in the country ?
The answer given by the Tories when pressed on matters regarding high pay for officers in Tory run councils is that "you have to pay that rate because they save the council money through the efficiencies they make". The question is for Mr Pickles, is he calling these Tories liars when they make such statements ? For if it is, isn't it a false economy ?
Personally I cannot see why any chief exec should earn more than the Prime Minister.
The leaders of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils, all Tory run, each earn more than £200,000 a year. The leader of Suffolk County Council, Andrea Hill earns £220,000 a year – more than the Prime Minister. Her salary is 18 per cent higher than two years ago.
But looking below the level of Chief Executives, Tory councils seem quite happy to splash taxpayers cash on large remuneration packages. Take the £182,000 for a council "head of communications", or Spin Doctor, as the Tory supporting Daily Mail described her role.
Perhaps though Mr Pickles own Tories in Brentwood and on Essex County Council could answer the question why their Chief Executive, who shares the roles of overseeing both these councils, is the fourth highest paid chief exec in the country ?
The answer given by the Tories when pressed on matters regarding high pay for officers in Tory run councils is that "you have to pay that rate because they save the council money through the efficiencies they make". The question is for Mr Pickles, is he calling these Tories liars when they make such statements ? For if it is, isn't it a false economy ?
Personally I cannot see why any chief exec should earn more than the Prime Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
