Deputy Leader Jim Currie told Cornwall councillors today that the administration submitted a plan for a Local Enterprise Partnership controlled by the private sector "because that is what the Government wanted us to do".
As I blogged yesterday, the Council's LEP bid is flawed because it proposes that the new organisation should be chaired and run by the private sector and because it will seek to bid for contracts well away from Cornwall - presumably in a bid to make money. In my view, because the new LEP will control vast amounts of taxpayers' money, it should have democratic accountability and be led by elected councillors working in genuine partnership with the business and voluntary sectors.
So today a number of councillors including my Lib Dem colleague Edwina Hannaford and myself pressed Cllr Currie on the decision to hand over control to unaccountable interests. His response was, as stated above, that they did so because that is what they believe the Government wants.
Surely the LEP bid should seek a structure which reflects what Cornwall and its people need, not simply what the Government wants. It seems as though the administration has abandoned any concept of localism altogether. This is also true of the decision to pursue contracts outside Cornwall. Such a move would dilute the focus on Cornwall, its needs and problems.
(Note: Jim Currie's words are based on my hastily scribbled notes taken during the meeting. As soon as the webcast is available readers will have the chance to view the actual statement.)
Selasa, 07 September 2010
Webcasting - Council shows its worst side
Cornwall Council today voted to continue its webcasting experiment for the next six months - but at the same time produced an unedifying spectacle for anyone who happened to be watching the current product.
There was a report on the first few months of the project which showed that as many as 17,000 people had viewed the three webcast meetings to date - either live or in archive. The recommendation was to continue the experiment and to extend it to other meetings including Cabinet and big planning meetings.
However there seemed to be a move afoot to limit the extension because of concerns about costs and so an amendment was proposed. Except that the amendment has resulted in an unworkable policy. It wants the Cabinet meetings to be covered, but denied the right to extend the coverage to the room in which the meetings are held. Councillors were unclear what they were meant to be voting on and even after the vote was taken were asking what was going on.
Even at a time when we have to make cuts, the extra costs incurred in webcasting meetings are relatively tiny compared to the ability to reach out to people who care about Council decisions but cannot (or will not) travel to Truro to watch them in person.
Today's decision denies the ability to webcast Strategic Planning meetings - despite the fact that these usually take place in the room which has the cameras fitted.
I don't think that Cornwall Council meetings will ever overtake Eastenders as popular entertainment. But finding a way to reach out to new audiences and to engage them is a key part of what I think the Council should be doing. I'm therefore very disappointed with the decision today.
There was a report on the first few months of the project which showed that as many as 17,000 people had viewed the three webcast meetings to date - either live or in archive. The recommendation was to continue the experiment and to extend it to other meetings including Cabinet and big planning meetings.
However there seemed to be a move afoot to limit the extension because of concerns about costs and so an amendment was proposed. Except that the amendment has resulted in an unworkable policy. It wants the Cabinet meetings to be covered, but denied the right to extend the coverage to the room in which the meetings are held. Councillors were unclear what they were meant to be voting on and even after the vote was taken were asking what was going on.
Even at a time when we have to make cuts, the extra costs incurred in webcasting meetings are relatively tiny compared to the ability to reach out to people who care about Council decisions but cannot (or will not) travel to Truro to watch them in person.
Today's decision denies the ability to webcast Strategic Planning meetings - despite the fact that these usually take place in the room which has the cameras fitted.
I don't think that Cornwall Council meetings will ever overtake Eastenders as popular entertainment. But finding a way to reach out to new audiences and to engage them is a key part of what I think the Council should be doing. I'm therefore very disappointed with the decision today.
Cornwall misses the boat on second home voter clarification
It seems Cornwall is missing the chance to get clarification of the law on the rights of second home owners to vote in Cornish elections.
Back on 2nd July, the Electoral Review Panel discussed the issue and was told that the law on voting entitlement is very unclear. Although the information provided by the Electoral Commission suggests that you cannot use a purely recreational second home to get entitlement to vote, it seems that the actual law is not so clear.
And so the Panel agreed that the Council should write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to clarify the law. My personal belief is that second home ownership should not allow entitlement to vote, but even if the Government disagrees with this view we need clarification. Clarification would need to come in the form of an amendment to the law.
You would have thought that the best avenue for doing this would be the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill which had its second reading yesterday. But Cornwall Council has failed to send the letter despite having had more than 9 weeks to do so. And so the chance for the Government to consider the issue and put forward its own amendment has been lost.
Why has Cornwall Council failed to write the promised letter? Apparently, it's because they did not want a letter arriving before Parliament returned to work on the basis that it might get lost or ignored during the summer. We are now promised that the letter will be written within the next 7 days.
If we are to get clarification then it will almost certainly have to wait until another elections bill is promoted in Parliament. The trouble is that, on average, these only come forward every four years or so.
Back on 2nd July, the Electoral Review Panel discussed the issue and was told that the law on voting entitlement is very unclear. Although the information provided by the Electoral Commission suggests that you cannot use a purely recreational second home to get entitlement to vote, it seems that the actual law is not so clear.
And so the Panel agreed that the Council should write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to clarify the law. My personal belief is that second home ownership should not allow entitlement to vote, but even if the Government disagrees with this view we need clarification. Clarification would need to come in the form of an amendment to the law.
You would have thought that the best avenue for doing this would be the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill which had its second reading yesterday. But Cornwall Council has failed to send the letter despite having had more than 9 weeks to do so. And so the chance for the Government to consider the issue and put forward its own amendment has been lost.
Why has Cornwall Council failed to write the promised letter? Apparently, it's because they did not want a letter arriving before Parliament returned to work on the basis that it might get lost or ignored during the summer. We are now promised that the letter will be written within the next 7 days.
If we are to get clarification then it will almost certainly have to wait until another elections bill is promoted in Parliament. The trouble is that, on average, these only come forward every four years or so.
Senin, 06 September 2010
Another award
After being named in the top councillors blogs, I've now also been named among the top 20 Lib Dem bloggers by Total Politics. I have risen from number 60 last year to number 16 this - the highest climber.And so there's another little award button on the right hand side.
Many congratulations to Jeremy Rowe who entered the charts at number 19.
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?
Minggu, 05 September 2010
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.
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.
Langganan:
Postingan
(
Atom
)