We're not the mean guys

Today's Full Council was pretty typical, large areas of consensus, including on a debate on cycling and about an issue with drought as well as almost universal support for the Independent Review of Allowances - which has recommended no immediate increase for Councillors.  Of course the Conservatives had a totally free vote on this and one of our Councillors abstained, funnily enough no such announcement about a free vote from the opposition.

The area where there was most argument was over a motion submitted by the Lib Dems in support of the Chisholm Trail - a cycle trail that will make the future Cambridge Science Park Railway Station more accessible to cyclists.  The Conservatives have already committed to this route but chose to oppose the motion.  I absolutely endorsed the decision to oppose, but it does bother me that in doing so we are the ones that come across as the bad guys. I think that needs some thought and discussion - because it is fundamental to the dishonesty that exists in modern politics - a dishonesty that is exercised through political opportunism.   My earlier post about the dishonesty surrounding the Lib Dem leaflet on the Cambridge Science Park Railway Station lies at the heart of it.

Despite huge opportunity today, the Lib Dems have so far totally failed to justify the dishonesty surrounding that leaflet, in fact one of the Lib Dems was gloriously smiling today as she took a picture of the Council Leader, Nick Clarke expressing his disgust at that leaflet - no doubt that photo will manifest itself as a piece of Lib Dem spin in the future.

The point is the motion today need not have been there.   In proposing it Killiam Bourke, the Leader of the Lib Dems, acknowledged that the Chisholm Trail was "implicitly part of the Council's plan" and yet chose to propose a motion that called for feasibility studies as well as for the Council to fully implement the trail by 2020 (which would immediately raise the price of the land we would need to TPO to deliver the trail).  The question you should ask is why would someone propose a motion on an area of universal support when areas like Delayed Transfers of Care or the desperate need for restructuring of adult social care (which are both part of my portfolio and remain serious contentious issues for the County)  remain totally disregarded by the opposition.  Well, the reason is - that even though the latter are more urgent and pressing, there are less headlines in them.

 The difficulty is, if we support motions like these, we open up doors for the Lib Dems to say they are setting the agenda, but if we oppose them we are portrayed as the nasty people playing politics in the Council chamber.  Ask yourself the question - who are the ones exploiting politics for the sake of votes at the expense of the people of Cambridgeshire?  My morals mean I have to oppose this stuff and I have to speak against those who use such tactics.  I am accused of playing these sort of politics continuously - but in truth I often compliment and thank the opposition when they ask the right questions for the right reasons - but I will always speak out against political opportunism and if that leads to my name being besmirched, so be it - at least I will be able to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day

This stance does not mean, for one second, that the Conservative group  are opposed to cycling, nor to the Chisholm trail.  Very much the opposite, I love cycling and recognise how important it is, especially with the cost of fuel going through the roof (more about my support for cycling over the next few days!) - this debate was not about this, it was about opposition politicians creating easy headlines for themselves.  Judge them, not those who are put in a no-win situation by having to deal with such malicious tactics.

Reasons to never, ever, ever trust the Lib Dems No 6,000,007.

People often ask me about my oft repeated mantra that the Lib Dems will do and say anything for electoral advantage, here is more evidence to support that line of thought.  Their latest line is that they are delivering 75% of their manifesto.  Well, the truth is probably best found by looking at their pledge card from the last election:

I am glad they are not delivering on most of this stuff (not all - but most).   But the point is this.  Never, ever, ever trust the Liberal Democrats.

I still fear for the coalition's future because as soon as the Lib Dems can see advantage in pulling out of it, they will - they will do it when it is right for them, irrespective of what it means for Britain.

Lib Dems, Hypocrits? More Proof

The Lib Dems contributed a mere 40 seconds to the debate at Full Council on allowances.  A debate that ended in a free vote and where an argument needed to be won.  They could have spoken as much as they liked, but adopted a group policy to stay silent, so they could make as much political capital as possible afterwards.

Someone has just reminded me that they complained back in May about being silenced.  Total hypocrites.

Be in no doubt that the current bluster is about votes not principle.

The truth about the Health and Wellbeing Board

One of the decisions I guided through Cabinet today was the approval of the structure, terms of reference and make up of the Shadow Health and Well Being Board in Cambridgeshire, which is being created as part of the changes being made to Health delivery in England through Andrew Lansley's changes to the NHS.

A number of factors went into our thinking about the Board; we wanted it to be small enough to be an efficient vehicle for delivery and for everyone involved in Health to be able to have their voice heard, whilst recognising that not everyone could have a seat on the Board without it becoming too cumbersome.

As a result, we created a board of eleven members, including; the Leader of the County Council, myself and a representative from the District Councils as democratic representatives along with a number of Council Officers and representatives of the Health Sector.  But we also agreed to create a number of networks underneath this, including Local Health Partnerships which will ensure some of the thinking is done in a more localist way.  We also agreed for the District Councils to be able to create their own network so that their representative on the board could speak for all.

I believe this is an excellent structure - but of course the Lib Dems claim it is undemocratic.  So let me explain where the democracy is in this structure.  Firstly, our overview and scrutiny function will be continuously overseeing the function of the board; that committee includes District Councillors and Liberal Democrats.  The Local Health Partnerships will have councillors on them (including in some places Liberal Democrats) and the Board itself has three Councillors.  So, whilst maintaining an efficient top level structure, we have managed to make the overall structure localist and democratic.

The Lib Dem position is, of course, about headlines rather than reality. Some things never change.

Appropriate or Not?

I have a number of Conservative Councillors in Peterborough whom I would count amongst my friends.  I don't always agree with what Peterborough City Council do (but most of the time I do) - I also recognise the opposition's right to oppose.   But sometimes that can go too far.

Take Lib Dem Peterborough City Councillor Darren Fower for example.  At about 8.14 this evening he tweeted:

"Replace the word NAZIs - with "Peterborough Tories" + this would be an enjoyable trailer! Click: http://ow.ly/5gJmM "

I have taken out the link, because it is not appropriate for some.   Basically it is for a trailer for a rather gruesome Quentin Tarantino film called Inglorious B******s" in which Brad Pitt leads a team of extremely nasty insurgents behind enemy lines in France to torture and murder Nazis.

I am not easily offended - as an example I have watched and enjoyed the above mentioned film - but taking the context and applying it to politicians and friends in Peterborough is not appropriate.  That tweet is, at best, a very poor and very sick joke.

Of course he is a Lib Dem.  My views about Lib Dems are clearly laid out in previous posts on this blog - but I'm sure most people will find my comments here absolutely spot on - if you disagree - feel free to comment.  I would like to know whether the Leader of Peterborough Liberal Democrats supports Cllr Fower's comments?

I'll email him later to find out.

New Leader of Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats

Never let it be said that Cambridgeshrie Liberal Democrats stand united.   Their current Leader, Fiona Whelan is stepping down on June 19th, which means, I beleive, they are now embarking on their 3rd leader in a little over 3 years.

My congratulations to Killian Bourke who is the new leader elect.  He has set his stall out early with the following quote:

"I look forward to continuing the group’s role as a powerful and effective opposition, challenging decisions made by the Conservative administration"

Maybe the first thing he ought to learn is that effective opposition is not just about "challenging decisions" - it is about challenging where things are wrong and supporting where they are right.  The quote just about sums up the Lib Dem approach; they think effective opposition means opposing everything - because they think that is the line of maximum political advantage.

Seriously, I wish Killian well.

Another Lib Dem...

Many, like me, believe Vince Cable is sat at the Cabinet table as a reluctant member of the coalition, biding his time waiting for exactly the right moment to mount his coup.   It can be the only reason for his now seemingly regular snipes - they are a way of constantly test the water.  Today he has described the Conservatives as "ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal".

Can't think why people call politicians two-faced?

Nothing more to be said..

Nothing more to be said about this guy except that he is a Lib Dem, one they keep putting forward as a candidate. Can it be any surprise that there are those who say the Lib Dems started to get their cum-uppence in yesterday's elections.

I am not going to comment more, except to say, that Lib Dems are free to disown their own candidates in the comments section of my blog - AND I KNOW YOU READ IT!!

In Defence of the Coalition

It would not surprise anyone to know that I am not a fan of the Lib Dems, and especially of their passion for taking political advantage out of any situation.  However, I am also understanding of the reasons for a coalition Government given the outcome of last year's General Election.

One aspect of a coalition that I don't think is understood is the inevitably of tensions and differences, such as we are seeing at the moment over AV.  Mature coalition Government and mature media has to recognise this and accept that those tensions are sometimes going to break out in the open.  Just because it does, should not continuously lead to commentary about the end of the coalition, it should, instead, be interpreted and accepted as an inevitable part of it how it operates.

I am absolutely clear about the need for a No vote in the referendum.  As are almost all of my Conservative colleagues.  The one thing that does bother me is that the Lib Dems will use the outcome of the referendum as an excuse to get rid of Nick Clegg and to end the coalition.  It will be a mistake in my opinion.  Much as I disagree with electoral reform, Nick Clegg has taken the Lib Dems closer to changing the electoral system than any previous Lib Dem leader.  To get so close and fail may not be perfect, but it will be better than any of his predecessors managed.  That would not have happened without him or the coalition.

Lib Dems also need to understand the implications of such a decision.  If it forced a general election, the end result could be to put the deficit denying Labour Party in power again.  That would be a disaster for our Country, not least because it would come about because of a collapse in the Lib Dem vote; people don't vote for divided parties (yes, I know they are currently polling at a disastrous 10% - but leaving will potentially make that even worse).

I suspect that latter issue is what will make the difference - Lib Dems will always do what is best for them electorally, rather than what is best for the Country.

Is there an election going on..

Is there an election going on?

I ask that question because I can't think of any reason why the Lib Dems would want to create a story out of nothing?

This is the story.

There is no suggestion, nor has there ever been that the Government's music grant will be used on anything other than music.  What we are looking at is how we can use that grant to make sure every child in Cambridgeshire benefits given that not all schools use Cambridgeshire Music's services.  This is not a cause it's an election stunt.

Oh - and there's another one.  Last week we put out this press release - bear in mind this is for funding for the whole County.   Yesterday Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge City put out a press release claiming credit for Cambridge City's share.  I refuse to link to the press release out of principle.

Lib Dems will do anything for a vote - remember that on May 5th.

Vulgar Abuse (or not)

I challenge a local Lib Dem on their blog about yet another attempt to claim that the pupil premium was their initiative - it was a feature in both the Conservative and Lib Dem manifesto, so it is no surprise that it featured within the coalition Government's programme. (the pupil premium gives schools additional funding for each of the children eligible for Free School Meals)

Anyway my final sentence on the comment was this:

I would like to say that I don't think you are deliberately twisting the facts - except it is about the third time I have seen the Lib Dims play this trick.

The final part of the response on the blog was:

And as for your last sentence, when a senior elected politician descends to mere vulgar abuse, all it does is diminish you and your credibility.

I'll leave it up to you whether I am guilty of vulgar abuse or whether a Lib Dem is spinning what was a legitimate challenge.

Lib Dems in Disguise (2)

Given the huge reaction to my comments on my previous blog (methinks they doth protest too much) I strongly suspect my non-attendance will be misrepresented on Monday's meeting.  So, to make it plain, I am not attending because I will not give credibility to a meeting that has misrepresented its intent - and IMHO it clearly has.

I have been doing some digging.   Hinchinbrooke School, along with the other Hunts partners, have put it's consultation letter on the website.  It is here.

The letter is certainly not biased and does make clear there are two views - it also welcomes people to make their views known.  So the comments against my previous blog seem strange:

the information issued by schools in the process of conversion highlight their posative reasons for conversion with little or no opportunity for other views to be heard. 

the schools that are persuing Academy status are not consulting in any meaningful way 

in this way way it should be very different from the so called 'consultations' organised at local schools considering the move to academy status.

The HSEP plans on academies are widely reported, and websites highlight the consultation letter which shows how to comment - pretty wide consultation really.

 

Sorry, Lib Dems again..

I have just seen the detail of the Lib Dems alternative budget in Cambridgeshire

One of the tricks in the budget is to take out a cash grant that we are giving to the new St Neots secondary schools federation and deferring the payment over three years.   By doing this, they hold back St Neots by delaying the solution to their problems despite this they would still have to make the savings they are deferring in a few years time; they are deferring the solution to St Neots' problems so they can defer the inevitable budget issues in the County Council.  The Lib Dems opposed and called-in the creation of the federation of schools in St Neots (which is making really good progress) and now they are denying them funding?  What have they got against schools in St Neots?

They have built in additional savings from an assumption that they can decrease reliance on taxis for Home to School transport and from reviewing bus routes to schools.  There are already savings built into the proposed Budget for Full Council and they have not articulated any rationale behind what they have proposed (in fact "we can do better" is pretty much the only rationale behind all of it).  As an answer to the fact that they are double-counting savings already in the budget, it just cannot wash.

They have also gone one step further than us in taking further savings from business mileage.  It is really easy to say "we can do better than they are proposing" in this area - it is much harder to deliver.  We are already proposing savings from mileage in Children's Services.  But even that is a quandary.  Much of our mileage comes from social workers visiting families in various locations - often at home.   We cannot stop them doing this and, indeed, part of the pretext that the Munro review of Social Care is based on is ensuring that social workers spend more time in front of families - which will increase mileage.  I suspect the Lib Dems haven't even thought about this (in fact I know they haven't).  They talk about increasing video conferencing (which needs big capital investment) but actually there is much work going on to increase the amount of telephone conferencing - in fact I took part in a telephone conference last week.

These are just the children's services issues in their budget.  I am pretty sure that the other portfolio holders can pick holes elsewhere, but I want to talk about another aspect of their proposed cuts, which is to decimate the County Councils central communications department to just one.  This is really easy proposal to make - it's a great headline.  But it won't work, they could never deliver it.   Communications Departments do much, much more than just press releases.  As an example, our head of Comms co-ordinated and wrote the proposal for Cambridgeshire's bid to have the olympic torch relay in the County - it was a superb document that was lauded by the media and which we hope will bring a result for the County, our communications department have also co-ordinated media activity around our serious case reviews - a tough task given that they involve the whole public sector in Cambridgeshire (and sometimes beyond).  Communications departments do much, much more than just press releases - they are extremely important.  Of course, like every other area of the Council, we need to review and cut unnecessary cost - but the decimation they are talking about will harm the people of Cambridgeshire, but the Lib Dems have their eyes closed to the reality because it doesn't suit their argument.

Nationally the Lib Dems have been found wanting because in opposition they promised the world and then proved totally unable to live up to key promises in Government.  They are adopting the same patterns of behaviour in opposition in Cambridgeshire.  No doubt about it - it's just that they will never have to deliver it.

I was right..

As predicted, Cambridgeshire Lib Dems alternative budget, going by their press release, is basically that they are saving an additional £3.5million this year, £10.5 million next year and reinvesting it back in services in a way that creates them the best headlines.  That is all on top of over £50m worth of savings the Council is already making this year (and more next).

They have spent the last year challenging and opposing every single cut, without offering any alternative.  Now they say they can find more and reinvest it. The detail is not available for scrutiny, but it looks like they have taken a two year view and not five years, which gives them more flexibility to be creative.  I suspect one of the things they will do is make savings from short-term spending and make it look like a long term saving.  I also expect they will take savings that are already proposed and double count them.

Oh, by the way, they propose a 3.5% Council Tax rise next year (I predicted they would go over 2.5%).  Not this year, presumably because they know they have elections this year and not next.

Again, as predicted, they have used "protects vulnerable" in their headline.  Immoral and alarmist.

I am really looking forward to the detail, but that is not available yet.  I suspect it will be provided as late as possible so as to minimise scrutiny (I challenge them to send it to me now).  It is, of course, a budget that will never have to be delivered.  Just as well.

The stuff we are having to do this year is tough - it's the toughest thing I have had to do in my ten years as a Councillor.  But we have fought hard to make sure that what we do is fair and as reasonable as possible - but of course it has an impact.  Cambridgeshire Lib Dems have deliberately set themselves apart from their National Party's position of austerity, responsibility and balancing the books in order to create local headlines.
It is such a shame, Nationally, Nick Clegg's announcement on Mental Health today was absolutely awesome.


NB:   I am pleased to say that further clarification of central government's grant has identified some additional funding for Children's Services (it is not uncommon for this to happen), it means that one of our toughest cuts, to post 16 transport, does not need to be made.

If Cambridgeshire's Future was Lib Dem....

Looking around a few Lib Dem blogs it looks like they are planning to take an alarmist line in order to scare Cambridgeshire electorate into thinking that what we really need is a Council Tax rise above 2.5%.  I can't say this for definite, but it certainly reads that way.

Actually, under the Conservative plans, Cambridgeshire County Council will not be raising Council Tax.  That is because the Coalition Government have lived up to the pledge made by Conservatives at the General Election to pay Councils the equivalent of a 2.5% rise if they hold Council Tax where it is.  So if, as I suspect, the Lib Dems go for a higher rise it will be a direct choice between residents facing no rise at all or facing a significant rise.

Their basis for this seems to be based on some alarmist story telling, which includes talking about vulnerable young people and adults suffering.   The trouble with having to make cuts is that it is easy to take specific headlines and spin them in a way that creates an alarmist story.  It would also be immoral to do that when you have full knowledge of a bigger picture that contradicts that view.  That hasn't stopped Cambridgeshire Lib Dems before so I suspect it won't stop them again.

So, as an example, they are already picking on certain headlines in my own portfolio and suggesting that these will have an impact on vulnerable children, when they know the context in which they are set.  In Children's Services we are going through a complete transformation.  We have protected front line social care, but are embarking on a restructuring based on a model used in Hackney which has resulted in less children going into care, which is both better for the children concerned, but also a lower cost to the taxpayer in the medium term.  Similarly, we have plans to provide a much more tailored respite service for disabled children, increasing our ability to respond to individual needs.  We have restructured our locality teams so that our Connexions service is focused more on young people who are likely to drop out of the system when they leave school and to drive up their preventative role in other areas- whilst this does mean less universal services - it totally contradicts any claim that our budget will impinge on young people who need our support most.  There are more areas like this, but I just want to give the broad picture.

As I said, it is easy to pick out individual budget headings and make alarmist comments.  But when you have had every opportunity to comment and influence, where you are fully aware of the whole picture, is that responsible?  Of course not - so when you read Cambridgeshire Lib Dems headlines, remember that.

There is, of course, the possibility that I am reading between the lines and getting it wrong, but I doubt it.

Nick Clegg and our Edwardian Maternity Laws

I actually like the proposed change to maternity rights that were announced today.

But who on earth was it that advised Nick Clegg to call our current system Edwardian?  I believe the first paid maternity rights were not introduced until 1975 - an Edwardian system would be one with absolutely no rights at all!

Lib Dems - Half Truths and Spin over the pupil premium

Over the last few months the Lib Dems have resorted to a great deal of spin and over promotion in order to promote their own position.  It is interesting that our local Lib Dems in North East Cambridgeshire have made no comment about tuition fees - the issue where many people feel let down because of their failure to stand up to an important pre-election commitment yet they are perfectly happy to over-promote their role in the pupil premium.  Here is the link to the website and their comments on the pupil premium.  I urge you to read it before moving on with this blog post.

Now, based on this, it would be quite legitimate to think that the pupil premium was solely a Lib Dem idea at the last election.  So here is a quote from page 53 of the Conservative Manifesto from last year's General Election:

"Education's real power lies in its ability to transform life chances, but we can't go on giving the poorest children the worst education.  That is why we will introduce a pupil premium - extra funding for children from disadvantaged backgrounds"

Now, I don't mind the Lib Dems taking a bit of credit for the pupil premium, but let's be honest and admit it was a key commitment of both parties in the coalition.  Not to make the plain is, in my opinion, a little deceitful.  But then that's the Lib Dems.

Personality clashes in politics shock!

It amazes me the fuss that is being made of the fact that certain Lib Dems in Government don't like certain Conservative Ministers.  Shall I let you into a secret?  There are some Conservatives in Government who also don't like certain Conservative Ministers.  It is the nature of politics, healthy debates happens when there is a conflict of ideology, different interpretations of events and different perspectives; the debate and disagreement that comes from this is a healthy part of the system.   Within a Cabinet, accepting that these disagreements and dislikes happen and accepting that, as long as you have had your say and have contributed to the debate, means that you should abide by the principles of collective decision-making and collective responsibility.  It is an integral part of being effective in a position of political power.  This is as true of Cabinet systems at local level as as it is Nationally.  There is not a single Cabinet worth its salt that does not have strong debate at its heart.

What is at issue with the latest revelations from Lib Dem Ministers is the damage caused by the total lack of respect for collective responsibility.  The indiscretions which are, in part, about securing personal standings at a time when Ministers are faced with tough decisions because of the failings of the previous Government, actually does those individuals more damage in the long term IMHO.

What fascinates me even more is is these indiscretions come from senior members of a political party that has tried to further its own ends by claiming that our system would be better if it was largely led by coalition Governments (because that IS the only outcome of election through proportional representation) and yet seems to be hell bent on proving that they do not have the will or the ability to work within a coalition.

The Lib Dems need to grow up fast.

Splits in Cambridgeshire Lib Dems

More evidence of Cambridgeshire Lib Dems being split comes in this article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2010/12/11/nick-clegg-fighting-for-his-political-life-after-tuition-fees-betrayal-sparks-fierce-grassroots-backlash-115875-22775576/

I know for a fact that this view is not supported by all of Cllr Gymer's colleagues because I know what they have said to me.

You will note that there is no alternative to tuition fees suggested - and this seems to be Cambs Lib Dems approach to any difficult decision; total denial of reality.

Cllr Gymer, is of course the same person I had to remind at the last County Council meeting to be wary of the sort of public comments she makes about our young people after some quite scurrilous suggestions of what they would all be up to because of what is happening over Youth Services.   I had to remind her that the vast majority of the young people in this county are an asset to us.  Steve Tierney covered this exchange in his blog.

What did I learn from today? Nothing has changed.

We had our Full Council meeting at the County Council yesterday.   It came as we approach one of the most difficult periods we have faced in recent times because of the serious cuts in funding we face.

So what did I learn?  Just that nothing has changed.  Our Labour Group Leader remains in total denial and, more importantly, our main opposition, the Lib Dems, seem to be carrying on with their "heads in the sand" approach to tough decisions - despite belonging to a political party that is sharing Government and therefore should have a better understanding of where we are.

We have a long budget process in Cambridgeshire, to summarise it involves a cycle of increasingly adding detail as more information becomes available.  It is sort of an evaluate, challenge, evaluate, challenge process.  But before the final decision (which is made in Jan/Feb every year) we always get a small period of fiction.  That fiction is the Lib Dems alternative budget.  Every year they produce it and every year it shows a misunderstanding of a number of issues - one in particular is the approach we take to reserves, where they try and pretend that we have far too much stashed away (despite the Audit Commission saying otherwise), and take money out of reserves as the solution to all our problems.  But when their budget is evaluated (it has been through our scrutiny process the last two years) it is proven to be unworkable.

Based on what I saw today we are headed for the same piece of fiction.  I got lots of challenge about the IYSS process that is seeing cuts to County Council funding of Youth and Connexions Services.  I have posted about that before.  I don't mind that challenge and I also know that a number of Councillors, including some of the more responsible Lib Dems, are doing the same sort of work as we are in Whittlesey to try and mitigate the impacts of the County Council's decisions, but in truth none of the senior opposition members offered up any sort of alternative to what we are having to do - just saying we shouldn't do this.  It says to me that they haven't learned anything about their failures of the past, or from the opportunities that being a party with a handle on National power provides.