Council tax income spent in Norfolk in order to fight something the Tories could have killed off in Parliament

Local councils across Norfolk are still up in arms, quite justifiably so, over the government's decision to grant unitary status to Norwich. During the whole process a small fortune has been spent on legal fees and propaganda by councils in Norfolk on both sides of the debate. However, it is the actions of the Tories this week that has come in for much criticism, particularly form the local press in Norfolk in the form of the Eastern Daily Press (EDP) who in a complete about turn for them seem suddenly to hav woken up to the fact that Cameron's Tories are strong on rhetoric, but totally lacking in the courage of their convictions when it comes to making real decisions.

As the EDP headline makes clear, the Tories could have taken action in the House of Lords to deal with the ridiculous decision to grant Norwich Unitary Status, but instead they sat on their hands and put forward a motion with no teeth, no power, and essentially, broke their pledges to "fight the Norwich Unitary bid".

Meanwhile, back in Norfolk, Norfolk County Council are still taking legal action (and no doubt spending a lot of council tax in come as a result) against the Norwich Unitary decision. Now I don't blame Norfolk County Council for doing this, but doesn't it tell us a lot about the Tories nationally that they could have acted in parlaiment to kill this off, but instead they did nothing and let people in Norfolk shell out on legal action thus putting greater pressure on the council tax payer ?

Broadland saved, but Norwich to go Unitary

After a leak last week giving away the government's position on the proposals for unitary councils in Norfolk, the government today officially announced that Norwich City Council is to be turned in to a unitary authority, with no change for the rest of Norfolk. Whilst this is in many ways a good thing, particularly as we retain our local councils and will not be swallowed up by some "super council" as was first proposed, there are some consequenes for all of us, even those living outside of Norwich.

In giving Norwich Unitary status, and its schools becoming separate from Norfolk Schools, there will now need to be some duplication of resources, and many of the economies of scale which Norfolk Education Authority has will be gone as 20% of the schools budget was spent in Norwich. Teacher training centres, managers, and a whole host of other expenses will now be split amongst the remaining 80% of the county. inevitably this will put up costs for all of us.

Then there are the issues to do with children in Broadland going to Norwich schools. Many children in Broadland go to schools in Norwich like The Open Academy, Sewell Park College, Hewett, and others, and these schools will now be in a different education authority. This will cause all sorts of problems too in social services, bit this is all stuff the government know and chose to ignore.

The ironic thing is about the whole process is that the re-organisation of local government was supposed to cut costs, not increase them. According to the government's own rules, Norwich going unitary could not pass the threshold for making savings and it therefore should have been turned down. So the Labour government have managed to botch one of their final ever decisions. No change there then , they've botched up a lot since 1997 !

Why do the Tories and Labour think that cities should elect presidents ?

Instantly I expect people to assume I have my facts wrong when I use the word "president" instead of mayor, but let's be clear, the proposal that the Tories have pushed whereby large cities in England would have directly elected mayors with presidential powers which allow them to make councillors almost totally redundant is the last thing that local democracy needs.

It is hard to name an area where having a directly elected mayor has lowered costs or led to a resurgence of interest in local democracy. Do the people of Hartlepool feel better off for having a directly elected mayor ? Is turnout any higher in Doncaster because they have a directly elected mayor ? Are people any happier in Newham because they have a directly elected mayor ? Of course, everyone knows the answer is no. In fact, the election of a mayor, where your vote makes less difference due to the whole constituency nature of the voting, renders your vote less worthy and makes the council more remote. Knowing that your local councillor essentially becomes someone who just lobbies on your behalf but has no real power is hardly strengthening local democracy.

What Cameron needs to do if he really want to roll back the centralisation that started under Thatcher and was continued and accelerated by Major and Blair is to return real power to council and allow councils to raise their own taxes through a local income tax or some other form of local taxation. Only when councils are really accountable for their spending and their own decisions will people take proper notice and interest in what local councils do.

Sadly Dave's plans to further remover powers from councillors and hand them to one person is not what most of us would call democracy.

The government created uncertainty that stops people spending

The government wants us to spend money to get the economy moving, but do the government's own actions encourage people to do this ? In my opinion no.

Take for example, local government reorganisation in Norfolk and Suffolk and the effect this is having on thousands of families across those counties. A state of limbo exists where various ludicrous plans for the re-drawing of local boundaries and abolishing of councils are on the drawing board. Aside from the fact that the solutions offered are not wanted by anyone, workers and their families are waiting to make purchases when they know what is going to happen and if they can be sure they will get a job in one of the new councils. The problem is when someone asks the question "When will we know ?", you may as well ask "How long is a piece of string ?"

And whilst all the uncertainty remains, so thousands of families tighten their belts "just in case" they are without a job next year.

Yes, local government reorganisation in Norfolk is unwanted, unwarranted and without support and at the same time it is dragging down the local economy. Another bloody stupid idea from Gordon Brown.

Cameron's plan for referendums on council tax increases is another tax on local people

David Cameron proves again that sound bites are more important than substance when he announced that under the Tories, local tax payers will have the right to have a referendum on council tax increases each year. What utter twaddle.

Anyone who knows anything about local elections knows that they actually impose a great cost on the council. Imagine holding a referendum each year and how much that would cost. I'll give you a simple figure. If the cost of a referendum for a council was just £120,000, then this equates, for an average sized district council to 2.5% of their annual council tax take. So get this. David Cameron proposes that councils spend 2.5% of their budget each year in order for local residents to decide if council tax should be cut by 1%.

Essentially Cameron's plans are another tax on local people. Where is the logic in that ?

And what of council's with very mixed populations covering a wider area. take for example North Norfolk. Not all of North Norfolk is on the coast, indeed, most of the population of North Norfolk District Council lives inland. So what about North Norfolk spending money on the regeneration of Cromer and seat defences there ? What about sea defences at Happisburgh ? Can you imagine voters in an inland town like North Walsham seeing this as a priority ? The whole point is that a council takes a pragmatic view based on all the facts and evidence and makes decisions that are sometimes unpopular, but are for the greater good. David Cameron's ideas would ensure that only the populist decisions are made, not the difficult and important ones.

Cameron's ideas are an absolute joke and speak volumes about the Tories willingness to devolve power to locally elected councillors. just like the 1980's, this is another attempt to control councils by stealth. The Tories, it appears, never change, and given that the Tories control the majority of councils in the country, it does not seem David Cameron trusts his own party's councillors !

Unitary vision for Norfolk is revealed

I have it on good authority that only two options are now being considered when it comes to the revised unitary status for Norfolk.

It has been revealed to councils that there will be either a single unitary Norfolk County or a three authority option with Norwich, Broadland and South Norfolk being merged to form one authority, North Norfolk and Great Yarmouth another and Breckland and Kings Lynn the third.

This will of course lead to some really unwieldy authorities with no natural centre or sense of community. Quite what Wells Next the Sea has to do with Hopton On Sea (they must be 50 miles apart by road), I don't know, but they will both be in the new North Norfolk/Great Yarmouth Unitary Authority, whilst Foulsham, right on the border of North Norfolk, will be lumped on with places like Diss, right on the Suffolk Border. Absolutely crazy !

Of course the easiste solution would be to scrap the existing boprders of all the authorities and reconstitute borders to they make sense. Also, the authorities should ignore County Boundaries. After all, if they are scrapping County council's what is their obsession with keeping county bounaries ? Great Yarmouth has much in common with Lowestoft and Waveney, but because this authority is in Suffolk and Great Yarmouth in Norfolk they cannot be merged. Another amazingly daft situation.

It is a shame, when there is no desire or public outcry for a local government re-organisation that this is happening at all, but it is perhaps a sign of this government's obsession with tinkering with what is not important rather than actually dealing with the big issues of the day.

Brown to unveil powers for local council referenda

The Guardian is running with a story on Gordon Brown's plans to encourage councils to hold a referendum on how money should be spent in local council areas.

I'm all for devolving power, but I don't like government by referendum, particularly when it comes to single issues which involve spending money. Council spending has to be looked at in its entirity. If you ask people in an area dominated by elderly people if the council should fund play schemes for children, the answer would be no. If you ask people in an area with low numbers of pensioners of spending on social services for the elderly should be increased, the likely answer again would be no. Councillors are elected to make decisions and because of their position they have access to knowledge, information and expertise that we as ordinary members of the public are not able to access or even to understand.

I prefer to elect people to make decisions and not second guess them the whole time.

Mr Brown would be better off giving councils more power to make decisions, devolving power and responsibility to them so that electors can hold them responsible rather than electing people and then subverting their rights to make decisions. If we don't like what councillors do, we have the right to vote against them or stand against them. That's democracy.

Apathy about local elections isn't helped by apathetic or even pathetic reporting

I am grateful to a poster to my site called Peter or pointing me in the direction of the BBC Politics Show's Eastern Region report which highlights apathy towards local elections.

However, the big question for me is would apathy be less if the BBC actually chose not to be so apathetic in its reporting of local elections ?

For starters, the site I was referred too has a list of councils holding elections in the East but a quick look through the list highlights three councils alone in Norfolk that are holding elections but are not on the list. What would a voter in Broadland, North Norfolk or South Norfolk think as they have elections but are not on the list ?

The other question for the BBC ought to be about the overall reporting of local government, Apart from scandals, reporting of things that local councils are doing is scant and barely ever makes even the regional news.

Shouldn't the BBC's local news centres be making more of an effort to find out what is going on inside council chambers ? Why are local elections only important to the BBC for two days each year ?

In the meantime, I am pleased the BBC are paying at least some interest this year, but they shouldn't try and explain apathy to us when their reporting about local elections is at best apathetic and at worst, truly pathetic.

LGA Commission on Council grants a good idea

The BBC reports that the LGA are asking the government to set up an independent commission to allocate cental government grants, taking this potential political weapon out of the hands of politicians. Read the story HERE.

To my mind, it is completely wrong that central government grants are in the hands of politicians to the extent that a council does not know what it is going to get until it receives it's letter from Minister Phil Woolas. I cannot comment on Mr Woollas' honesty, but in his parliamentary seat, his main opposition are the Lib Dems. If he was feeling particularly bitter, he could, if he wanted, give out lower grants to Lib Dem council's just out of spite under the current system. I am not suggesting he has done this, but, a minister in his situation coudl, if he wanted. This can't be right ?

The flow of funds form the South to the North of England under Labour could easily be described as political. An independent commission could mean that nobody could accuse the government, and future governments, of this again.

Equal pay - Something else the government won't fund for local councils

Council tax could rise to cover the costs of bringing women's pay up to the levels men earn, according to the LGE (local government employers) and reported on the BBC today.

No doubt people will seek to blame their local councils when council tax goes up, but this is another example of central government making a decision which affects local government, but then local government foots the bill.

Don't get me wrong, I support equal pay (I have to say that, my wife works in local government and she would kill me if I didn't say it !), however, with local government expected to making efficiency saving under the Gershon rules, this is going to result in more cuts to front line services as the government has again threatened to cap councils who go over 5%.

Isn't it about time government stopped letting local councils take the rap for their decisions ?