Cornwall's LEP bid - a bit of a curate's egg

Cornwall Council has today published its bid for a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) based on Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Whilst the document has the support some of the great and the good, I think it is deeply flawed in a number of key respects - particularly over who will lead it and who will be part of the decision making structure.

First the good news. It's a coherent bid for an LEP that distinguishes Cornwall from Devon and 'the South West'. It has also attracted the support of the Council of the Isles of Scilly who clearly want to be part of a joint programme with Cornwall.

But...

- Private sector leadership

Despite the warning on page 30 that:

"if it is to succeed the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Enterprise Partnership must represent a straightforward partnership between the public and private sector. It must have clear lines of accountability, a strong remit, and the power to deliver,"

those clear lines of accountability are pretty vague. The document states (p10):

"We expect the private sector to chair and lead our LEP"

Indeed the 'key principles' (p10) state:

"• Business will be at the heart of the governance and delivery structures. • Decisions on economic priorities and investment will be made locally. • The governance arrangements will be strategic and focussed on a narrow range of economic outcomes and sustainable growth. • The delivery of our economic strategy will be undertaken through the use of both the private sector and the Cornwall Development Company (CDC), itself private sector led, with a private sector chair and a majority of private sector directors."

So despite the fact that the vast majority of the money that will be spent by the LEP will be public money, it will be a private sector quango that will be making the decisions. Yes, it will be a local quango, but it seems that the key ingredients of democratic accountability and transparency are missing.

Whilst membership of the LEP will be based on "ability, influence and a commitment to make a difference" (p22), these are pretty vague concepts and need proper explanation.

For all that the Council carried out a detailed public survey before they wrote the bid, this was one crucial aspect that they failed to address.

- Voluntary sector involvement.

Despite the endorsement of the chairman of the Voluntary Sector Forum, the bid document has little to say about the third sector. There's no mention in the 'Wider collaboration' section (p11) or in the chapter on 'Key Principles' and, although there is reference in the section discussing past successes (p15), there is only a fleeting reference to"

"using the best abilities of the private, public and third sector"

in any reference to the future. The current CEF has third sector involvement. One of the keys to the new LEP will be to ensure that it retains this aspect.

- Big ambitions?

For all the talk of localism:

"We strongly support the Government’s policy of decentralisation and localism" (p17),

it seems that those behind the LEP might have wider ambitions. The sentence:

"If successful, we see no reason why we couldn’t in future be in a position to tender for work outside our LEP boundaries." (p23)

gives the game away. Despite all the problems that Cornwall faced as a small cog in the South West Regional Development Agency, the authors of this bid appear keen to repeat the experiment by extending the reach of Cornwall's LEP across the Tamar. Presumably, they think that this doesn't matter, so long as Cornwall is in charge. But the whole point of the Cornwall and IoS LEP bid is that it should be free to concentrate solely on the best interests of the two council areas. As soon as the LEP quango stretches its tentacles, that guarantee disappears.

And so, for all the opportunities given to us by the Government in abolishing the RDA and creating the LEP structure, it seems to me that Cornwall's Conservative leadership have blown their chance in key respects.

We are told that the LEP process has been extended and the submission is a 'work in progress'. That's fine, but I think that the Council has jumped and come down on the wrong side of several key questions.

Tony Blair's book - I can't get past the cover

Every time I see the front cover of Tony Blair's book I cringe. What on earth possessed them to use that photo? I'm afraid that I don't know who the photographer is. (I haven't yet got close enough to actually pick up the tome and open it to find out). But the pic just gives me the shudders.

I suppose that part of the cringe factor comes from who the subject of the photo is. But even setting that aside, I still hate it for three reasons:

- it's off centre and I can't fathom why. Ok, it's not a cardinal rule that the subject of a portrait should be in the middle of the frame. In fact, the most interesting images are deliberately off centre. There is a technique called the rule of thirds where you place the point of interest one third (or two thirds) in from the left or down from the top. But Blair is annoyingly just off centre and the additional white space on the left is just plain irritating.

- the eyes. The piercing blue eyes could be seen as refreshingly honest, staring straight out at the reader. But they just look too blue.

- the mouth. Is he meant to be smiling? About to bark an order out to a minion? Irritated?

New parliamentary boundaries - why MPs across the UK should give a damn

Tomorrow sees the second reading debate on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010. This is the legislation which will allow the referendum on changing the voting system and which could lead to the creation of a cross-border Devonwall seat.

Much of the focus for those of us in Cornwall has been on the latter issue - that we may, for the first time, have an MP whose constituency includes parts of Devon and Cornwall.

This is because the Bill proposes a very strict limit on the number of electors in a constituency. Every seat (except two - and that's an issue in itself) must have an equal number of electors to within a tolerance of 5%. Cornwall, on the basis of the current electorate, is entitled to 5.48 MPs. Dividing Cornwall into either 5 or 6 seats doesn't work as they fall well outside the 5% threshold limits.

Whilst this is a huge issue in Cornwall - and the Keep Cornwall Whole group is leading on the campaign - it should also be a big issue for MPs across the UK - particularly in middle England.

The Bill proposes that there would be boundary reviews every 5 years. When combined with the move to fixed term parliaments, that means new boundaries for every election. Small changes in one part of the UK - particularly if they are in St Ives or Dover, will inevitably lead to ripple effects to their neighbours, their neighbours neighbours and across the country, such that there could be significant changes to the boundaries of some seats at every election. For MPs who seek to build name recognition among their electorates, this will be a disaster.

There is another reason why the overly strict 'numbers are everything' rule will have a damaging effect on constituencies. That is because it will limit the ability to build constituencies out of individual local government wards - even though that is the stated aim. Here is Cornwall that will be less of a problem because our divisions are single member and therefore comparatively small at about 3,300 each. But in larger cities where the wards average 12,000 (and which elect three councillors each), this is much more of a concern. As the excellent 'Drawing a New Constituency Map for the UK' report states, the city of Sheffield is entitled to 5.05 MPs - and therefore allocating 5 is well within the threshold. But it has 28 wards averaging 13,700 electors each. It is impossible to build 5 constituencies out of these wards. The only options are to split the wards (contrary to the stated aim and causing confusion for electors) or to combine whole wards from Sheffield with wards from surrounding districts (thus destroying any notion of community cohesiveness).

So what do I hope happens with this Bill?

Tomorrow's debate is strictly about the principle of the Bill - having a referendum on changing the voting system and making constituency boundaries more equal. Both of these aims are entirely laudable and so I believe that the Bill should be allowed to pass tomorrow. In any case it cannot be amended at this stage. Only one amendment is debated at second reading and that is put by the opposition effectively opposing the Bill.

Once it gets to committee, the details can be debated. At this stage I hope that an exemption is given to Cornwall so that Boundary Commissions have to treat the Duchy as a separate unit as they do Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, I also think that the principles of community and continuity need to be given more weight within the Bill before it becomes law. I believe that boundary reviews every five years are unnecessarily disruptive. Whilst populations do shift, the rate of change is not so significant that moving to a review every 10 years should become a problem. I would also like to see the strict 5% thresholds relaxed. One idea that has been floated is to keep the 5% under threshold (ie so there cannot be constituencies smaller than 95% of the ideal) but to abolish the 5% over limit (ie so that constituencies would have no maximum size - allowing the Isle of Wight to remain a single unit). Alternatively the 5% limits could be retained but be made of less relative importance than community cohesion.

Whatever happens, there is clearly a Cornish interest in changing the detail of the Bill before it becomes law. But I also believe that there is a strong case for MPs from across the UK to have an interest in seeking amendments too.

Hat-tip to Mark Pack for pointing me to the report.

Clegg to hand back second home profit

Full marks to Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg for keeping his promise to hand back the profit he makes when he sells his MP's second home in Sheffield.

When the expenses scandal broke last year, Nick came out with a very clear line - that he did not think it right for MPs to be in the property speculation business. He regarded the second home he bought with taxpayers' money as being on loan to him and he pledged to return any profit he made when he came to sell it to taxpayers.

Now that expenses rules have changed, MPs can only claim rent and so Nick is selling his second home and will be renting in the city.

The pics are of Nick and his wife Miriam at the house in Sheffield on polling day back in May. Miriam hosted a coffee and cakes party for all the journalists who had been with Nick for the election campaign tour.

Remembering Big Cyril

It's very sad to hear of the passing of Sir Cyril Smith, the former MP for Rochdale and one of the most memorable public figures of the 70s and 80s - even more famous than Lembit is today.

I remember Cyril coming to the first Hemsworth by-election in Yorkshire in 1991. Our candidate, Val, owned a couple of fast food takeaways and we held a photo op with Val feeding pizza to Cyril. Not surprisingly, the cameras loved it.

Cyril was never one to 'conform' - he opposed the traditional party stance on capital punishment, nuclear weapons and abortion - and that attitude applied to himself as well. He wasn't someone with a weight problem - he was fat and never tried to hide it. Hence the willingness to play up to his caricature with the photo op in Hemsworth.

My condolences to Norman - his brother and ever faithful attendant - and the rest of the family.

This EU Referendum Campaign - it's a joke, isn't it?

Iain Dale has written a post about the new EU Referendum Campaign. Sorry to have to ask, but it is a joke, isn't it?

There's no sane campaign organisation whose website front page splash includes a picture of the Prime Minister with a small dog and the words - 'Give us a referendum on Europe... or the puppy gets it' - see pic right.

Up to Number 5 in the Total Politics blog roll

This year's Total Politics Blog Lists are being published on a day by day basis at the moment and today saw the publication of the Top 30 councillors blogs.

Last year I came in at number 29. This year I've risen to number 5! There's a new badge on the right of this post to reflect the new ranking.

All I can say is wa-hey (and thanks very much to everyone who voted for me).

Congratulations also to Porthleven Councillor Andy Wallis who has made it in at number 28.