Scully's Blog Spot

Localism: Wake Up And Smell The Coffee

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:07:00 +0000

You may assume that the Daily Mail would welcome George Osborne's announcement that Council Tax would be frozen for the second year in a row. In an interesting but perverse article, Ross Clark of the Mail argues that the freeze will lead to councils increasing fees elsewhere. In fact councils will receive the full amount because George Osborne is picking up the slack by using an £800million fund of money left unspent in Whitehall to compensate local authorities for lost revenue. The amount of council expenditure covered by council tax collected varies enormously between authorities. Two London Boroughs illustrate the stark contrast with 34% of Kingston's spending coming from council tax receipts compared to a mere 6% across the way in Tower Hamlets.

The article continues by claiming that Eric Pickle's call for localism has exploded in his face because of councils increasing their parking charges by different amounts. The fact that different councils are responding to the economic climate in different ways is not new and is exactly what would be expected from a truly localised system of local government. What is new is the lack of regulation, inspection and bribery through ring-fenced grants that the previous central government used to flatten out local differences. This stifled so much innovation, and pandered to the lowest common denominator. Councillors acted as branch managers of Whitehall, rather than being able to respond to local challenges and demands.

We have a degree of choice in the education of our children; community schools, academies, Free Schools and the independent sector. The National Health Service has an increasing level of choice for patients but local authorities have remained largely untouched with the occasional tinkering around the edges and the occasional discretionary scraps of funding to give neighbourhoods the impression that they could engage with their local authority in a meaningful way.

Allowing local authorities to make visibly different decisions may startle some people, who then may investigate further and realise how long some things have been allowed to carry on without challenge. Similarly, they may discover some superb examples of innovation that have been hidden from view. Residents can then engage on the basis of full disclosure, voting less on a tribal basis and more on what effect their decision may have on their lives over the following four years. Few people would hand over £5,000 to a travel agent or car salesman without worrying about the details of the holiday or specification of the car that they will receive in return. However, a huge number of people do exactly this with their council tax over the four years of most council administrations.

It was only when councillors in Reading discovered that £1.4million of taxpayers' money had been spent over 12 years funding fulltime union representatives rather than union subscriptions that something was done about it. Sutton taxpayers are still only now beginning to realise that 10% of the entire council tax bill for the Borough was spent on a single building to service schools mainly outside the area whilst significant cuts were made. Such stories are uncovered by a handful of dedicated councillors, residents and local journalists. Greater transparency and local accountability will throw up more examples and eventually stop many more decisions being taken that are simply not in the interests of the taxpayer.

We're used to exercising choice right down to what coffee we buy in the supermarket. When presented with fifty different jars on the shelves, the decision is not always on what is the cheapest. An ethically minded shopper may spend extra on Fairtrade, someone who wants to impress may choose a coffee from a particular area. Most people still end up with the big, safe brands and this will be the case when it comes to voting. However, a choice based on the fact that local representatives will take important decisions close to the people who are most affected, must surely always be the best. Localism can be edgy, especially whilst people adjust to their new responsibilities and to greater accountability, but voters will now know where their local decision makers live and councillors will need to up their game. You cannot have it both ways. It is a case of responsive local government or highly regulated, centralised decision making from Whitehall. So, go local but then shop around. Wake up, smell the coffee and see if there's another brand that suits you better. Maybe that quietly streamlined jar in the corner will have a fuller flavour at a lower cost.

Project Maja - Conservative Social Action in Bangladesh

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:56:00 +0000

Politicians too often have an opinion on everything, whilst being light on experience. The Conservative Party have a volunteering programme called Social Action which turns this truism on its head. I joined 35 volunteers, made up of MPs and activists, on a trip to Bangladesh, where we spent a week undertaking four projects in the Sylhet region that will have a significant effect on some of the poorest people in the world.

I helped document the work of BRAC and Sightsavers, two inspirational organisations coming together with the ambitious target of eliminating avoidable blindness in the region by 2013. Our team, led by Nicky Morgan, MP for Loughborough, saw how BRAC were building a network of 'Barefoot Doctors', women who visited each house in a number of villages to offer advice on such medical matters as eye care and family planning. We saw the impressive number of cataract operations that were performed each day and the instant, positive effect that they had on the patients, allowing them to return to work and so provide for their families. It takes 5 minutes to restore someone's sight through a cataract operation at a cost of just £27. We'll continue to work with BRAC to raise the profile of their Vision Bangladesh programme. If you are able to help restore just one person's sight, you can donate via the BRAC website.

Andrew Stephenson MP took a team to a number of schools to teach English, sometimes in classes of 120 children. A calf nonchalantly walking into one of the classes mid-lesson, gave Andrew some material to speak to the children about. Anne Main MP helped to launch a cricket centre and conduct trials for a football team in Sylhet, all under the auspices of the London Tigers, a London-based charity which has grown from strength to strength since developing from a local football team who felt they could give opportunities to disadvantaged Bangladeshi children in London.

The keynote project was working with Islamic Relief on the total refurbishment of the Hazi Muhammed Shafiq High School in Sylhet. 400 children were trying to get an education with no electricity, no fans, no proper toilet facilities a leaking roof and four children sharing each desk. We've remedied this with a little money, generously donated by four successful Sylheti businessmen, and a lot of hard work. The response from the children was worth it alone.

So why do we do it? Shouldn't politicians be chained to their office desks sorting out the deficit? Doesn't charity begin at home? These questions are valid but fail to look at the wider picture. We've spent a small amount of time, making a huge difference to people who have nothing. We have a moral responsibility to help where we can. Such programmes have a knock-on effect in the UK as well. The city of Sylhet has a population of 463,000. The Sylheti population in the UK is around 300,000. There is a well-trodden path of migration between this region and the UK, especially Tower Hamlets in East London. Bangladeshis play an important role in the UK. The vast majority of 'Indian' restaurants in the UK are owned and staffed by Bangladeshis, specifically Sylhetis and the curry industry contributes some £3.5 billion to the UK economy. However, 10% of the GDP of Bangladesh is from remittances, Bangladeshis across the world sending money back to their families. We should welcome Bangladeshis to study and gain experience in the UK, but they should feel that a return to Bangladesh is a realistic and attractive prospect should they wish to do so. Investment and improvement in their own infrastructure, education and health care will help improve the life chances of Bangladeshi people.

We can manage immigration more effectively by not simply waiting to act when people arrive at our borders. Programmes such as this can help. Bangladeshis should not feel that they have to migrate to London to find opportunities for their families. It should be more appealing for people to stay and help develop their own country, something which would be beneficial for both their country and the UK.

The work on this trip went against the grain of handouts and dependency. A Sylheti Member of Parliament, himself educated in Britain, told us that what was needed most was expertise and support, rather than simply dipping into our pockets. In our small contribution, we have given a few people a hand-up and opportunity.

The amazing scenery, the warmth of the people and, yes, the curries, left a massive mark on the group and we would all go back, to a man. Beyond the projects, the earthquake which rocked the Sikkim region of India just one hundred miles away, shook our hotel, leaving one MP to attend an official dinner in her pyjamas. We finished the week with a cricket match against a team of Bangladeshi MPs shown live on TV. I was stumped off a wide first ball. Of course, this was being polite to my hosts. No taxpayers' money was spent on this trip, nor Conservative party funds. Four generous UK-based donors made this all possible and they should serve as a great example of how to remain loyal to the country in which they live, whilst loving the country where they were born.

Big Society: Less Talk, More Action

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:21:00 +0000

Last Sunday, I led a group of local students to clear a Carshalton school sports pitch of rubbish.

The four Year 8 pupils from Wallington High School for Girls helped me clear the Camden Junior pitch in Carshalton in order to show that they were active in their community for a school project, collecting several large bags of rubbish and 2 fire extinguishers along the way.

In my role as Chair of Governors at Camden, I’m aware that the Junior School haven’t got the resources to clear up the mess that arises from being next to Grove Park. Making connections like this brings people together to ensure that everyone benefits.

I hope the girls will be a great example for others that just a little work from everyone in the community has a big effect on the area in which we live. Sutton Conservatives are starting a programme of social action working on a range of environmental, voluntary sector and community projects. If anyone can help me with time, money, expertise or just enthusiasm, then do please leave a comment.

An Economics Primer Sponsored by Amstel

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:13:00 +0000

Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1.The sixth would pay £3.The seventh would pay £7.The eighth would pay £12.The ninth would pay £18.And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 .The seventh paid £5 instead of £7.The eighth paid £9 instead of £12.The ninth paid £14 instead of £18.And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.

But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.

No Votes For Prisoners

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:53:00 +0000

There has been a lot written about whether prisoners should get the vote and what we should do about the European Court of Human Rights. Both of these are highly emotive issues and so it is important that we look at the facts and respond in a sustainable manner. There is no point kicking off about something if the Government will end up having to comply anyway.

So first of all let's look at the original ruling which was made with 12 Judges in support and 5 voting against. The Grand Committee report of 6th October 2005 said:

"The Court accepts that this is an area in which a wide margin of appreciation should be granted to the national legislature in determining whether restrictions on prisoners’ right to vote can still be justified in modern times and if so how a fair balance is to be struck. In particular, it should be for the legislature to decide whether any restriction on the right to vote should be tailored to particular offences, or offences of a particular gravity or whether, for instance, the sentencing court should be left with an overriding discretion to deprive a convicted person of his right to vote. The Court would observe that there is no evidence that the legislature in the United Kingdom has ever sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of the ban as it affects convicted prisoners. It cannot accept however that an absolute bar on voting by any serving prisoner in any circumstances falls within an acceptable margin of appreciation. The applicant in the present case lost his right to vote as the result of the imposition of an automatic and blanket restriction on convicted prisoners’ franchise and may therefore claim to be a victim of the measure. The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would still have been deprived of the vote even if a more limited restriction on the right of prisoners to vote had been imposed, which was such as to comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.”

I have put in bold the key sentences as I see them in this ruling. It is also worth noting that the Court did not award Mr Hirst any compensation, although it was galling to see that he was awarded £23,000 costs despite the fact that he was on legal aid. His solicitor charged £300 per hour - nice work if you can stomach it.

So the Court says that it is up to Parliament to decide on whether we should give prisoners the vote but we haven't discussed the matter for a while and the Court wouldn't be happy if the UK kept a blanket ban. Can you spot the obvious contradiction here? Ken Clarke's 'best legal advice' seems to ignore the first part of this and concentrate on keeping the Court happy.

The recent motion debated in Parliament, to my mind, complies with the demand that Parliament should 'weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of the ban'. Therefore we are left with the second contention, that a blanket ban is not appropriate. This isn't a ruling but clear guidance on what the Court is likely to decide should another case be brought. The motion acknowledged the treaty obligations of the UK so no-one voted on whether to ignore the Court outright, although there was very much a mood to do so from many in the Chamber.

The media have covered in detail the story of the man who brought the case to court, John Hirst. He is a particularly odious man who killed his landlady with an axe. Having a battle about human rights with someone who thought nothing of extinguishing the life of an innocent woman is simply galling. He runs a blog which, quite frankly, you can look up yourself. In it, he thinks nothing of resorting to offensive insults and meandering rants when he can't summon up a coherent argument. After calling Priti Patel a 'paki', he said of the London-born MP, ‘Unlike the foreign import Patel, I am a Brit born and bred.’ This, because she has been vociferous in disagreeing with Hirst.

My view, which chimes with the majority of those MPs who voted, is that we shouldn't give prisoners the vote, least of all to brutal murderers like John Hirst, who despite his protestations about rehabilitation and human rights is a nihilist, interested in nothing but himself and his self-gratification. Therefore, the question is do we risk a follow-up case and possible compensation payments by ignoring the ruling or do we do the bare minimum to comply?

The legal advice given to the Lord Chancellor is that the vote should be given to prisoners serving a sentence of four years or less. This seems to be on the basis that this largely excludes violent offenders. This still sounds arbitrary to me. Supporters of votes for prisoners make much of the role that this would have in rehabilitation. Former jail-bird politician, Jonathan Aitken, was very sceptical of this position in an interview with the Daily Politics. If it was decided that we should try to comply with the ruling, one solution may be to allow prisoners in the final six months of their sentence the vote, rather than looking at the sentence as a whole. This would go some way to complying with the ruling whilst demonstrating a clear reasoning behind the decision, gradually reintroducing prisoners to the idea of reentering society.

However my position is not to compromise. The Conservative manifesto pledged to introduce a British Bill of Rights. The coalition has changed this somewhat, with a Commission being set up to look into the matter. This is usually a kick into the long grass. I hope not too long. Yes we were one of the original signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights, but, as so many things European, we still remain with an out of date solution to a problem that barely exists. The EHCR was set up in the wake of a destructive conflict that tore Europe apart. Nowadays, it keeps busy by dabbling in prisoner votes and whether sex offenders can apply to have themselves removed from the register. Surely the UK legislative and judicial systems are more than capable of tackling these issues?

One final thought; the very mention of Europe gets people hot under the collar about the EU. This is not connected to that thorny issue. Yes, leaving the EHCR and so, probably the Council of Europe will get members of the EU flustered, but it can and should be done. Muddling this up with a yes/no referendum will not help solve this issue, so we ought to tackle one thing at a time.

Slow Down And Everyone's A Winner

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:31:00 +0000

Just over a year ago, I posted a couple of videos showing Nudge theory at its best,with a staircase being converted into a keyboard to encourage people to exercise and a bin that plays a falling sound when something is thrown into it to push people into putting their rubbish where it belongs. Volkswagen created these videos and ran a competition to find a new idea. The winning entry, shown above is a fantastically creative way of looking at something that is the bane of many people's lives. Swindon showed that speed cameras on their own are not effective. Maybe committing to the carrot rather than the stick is a better way forward after all?

Tuition Fees - Difficult But Correct Choice

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:14:00 +0000

There has been a lot written about tuition fees in the last few weeks and there will be plenty more next year when the rest of the changes are brought in. At the moment the only change in regulation has been the increase in fees to £6,000pa and £9,000pa. Separate amendments will need to be made to alter the interest rates, maximum repayment period and the minimum salary before repayments are collected. Despite the protests and newspapers' column inches, there still appears to be a lack of understanding about how the changes will affect students and why the changes are being made.

I was opposed to the original introduction of tuition fees for many of the reasons that people are now up in arms about the increase. Since that time the number of students has increased by 44%. The choice to have as many students studying fulltime for a University degree is a political one and one that seems to be set in stone. Assuming that this won't be reversed, the original Lib Dem position of scrapping tuition fees is simply not affordable.

Neither is the status quo. The Russell Group which represents 20 of the leading Universities suggested that they may have needed to go private, should the Browne Review not have recommended an increase in fees. This would have meant that they could charge what fees they wanted and demanded them up front. The London School of Economics, despite having a reputation of being a home for left-wing firebrands and having one of the largest banners at the protests, went one step further in commissioning a report on going private which was presented to their board.

This leaves two choices, an increase in fees or a graduate tax. The latter was looked at by Vince Cable but dismissed in favour of the former. Alan Johnson, the Shadow Chancellor originally called a graduate tax 'unworkable' until whipped in by his fledgling leader. There are a few problems with a tax. This would be become payable at the ridiculously low salary level of £6,475pa and would remain with you for the rest of your life; far more punitive than the current system. Any other change would have been difficult to collect. A tax would not be payable if the graduate moved abroad to work and there is no link between the amount payable and the service that the student received at university. The tax would lead to the richer paying less and the poorer paying more.

So we are left with an increase in fees. There seems to be 3 main concerns.

1. Will this stop poorer people going to university?

The BBC reported that a survey by Nat West showed 40% of sixth formers saying that tuition fees made them consider not going to university. The date of this response? 13th June 1999, the summer after David Blunkett first introduced fees. Since this time student numbers have increased substantially. Although £150million has been found to reduce the amount of fees payable by the poorest 20% of the population, no parents will need to pay as fees are not payable up front, students will only pay when they earn more than £21,000pa and the monthly amount payable will be less than at present.

2. Will it affect social mobility?

Social mobility starts at school. Poorer people are often held back from going to university because they don't get the grades at A level in the first place. We need to ensure that opportunity exists far early in a student's life. OECD figures show graduates earn around 50% more in their lifetime than non-graduates, with female graduates earning double their counterparts who finish education at secondary level.

Allowing the money to follow the student will allow them to consider their choice of course more carefully and make the university more accountable to them as a customer. People have been concerned about the future of some institutions. However, should it be right for one London university to be able to claim £50million in funding for students that don't exist?

The higher £9,000 tuition fee charge will only be allowed if the university can clearly demonstrate that they are taking measures to further encourage social mobility. It was interesting to note a letter in the Daily Telegraph written by 18 Vice-Chancellors and Principals, expressing their fears of the effect on social mobility should the increase in fees not go through Parliament.

Is it fair?

In a word, yes.

It is only fair to taxpayers that students make a contribution towards their education. (Education can be considered a right, but further education is exactly that; education to further one's development).

It is only fair to students that neither they nor their parents should have to find any money up front.

It is only fair to graduates that they should pay less than at present with many being £45 pm better off.

It is only fair to poorer students that they should only pay when they start earning a reasonable income, some 40% higher than under the present system.

There has been some concern about the effect on graduates getting mortgages. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has confirmed that lenders will not take the total debt into account when considering how much to lend. Unlike a personal loan, it is very difficult to default, with payments being taken at source, it is not repayable if unemployed or taking a career break and is automatically written-off after 30 years. The only effect that it will have is that repayments reduce disposable income. This is the case at present but since repayments will be lower, graduates will have more disposable income with which to service a mortgage.

Another concern has been the timing of the introduction of the higher fee structure. This will start in 2012 for new students. Existing students will not be affected as they will have already entered a contract with the university. Similarly the repayment structure will be introduced to come in later, as the 2012 students graduate so they will be coordinated.

The actions of a significant minority of students on the protests have done them no favours. They have good reason to debate this difficult issue but it needs to be done in an informed, sensible way. Smashing windows, pulling policemen off their horses and throwing fire extinguishers from a roof into a crowd does the student's cause no good whatsoever. Instead, they should acquaint themselves with the facts on fees from this excellent website and then let us have a grown-up debate about this important decision.

Peers Getting Their Pleasure

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:31:00 +0000

Working in the Houses of Parliament often throws up something new and something surprising. A number of us were slightly perturbed when we saw this on one of the screens known as annunciators which lets everyone know what is happening in the House of Lords.

Thanks to the BBC website, I can tell you that it is not as fruity as it might suggest. The Lords has a dinner break and if nothing else is happening, they will 'adjourn during pleasure'. Similarly if the Lords has sent a Bill back to the Commons, they may adjourn during pleasure, waiting for the Commons to debate the matter and refer it back. This sometimes happens with controversial pieces of legislation that are debated long into the night, with the two Houses playing ping-pong. The Commons usually gets its way in the end.

Joining Up The Loss Of Life

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:06:00 +0000

I am heading out shortly to Belmont to attend the Civic Act of Remembrance and the Remembrance Day Service. Following that I am going to a fundraising lunch for Help for Heroes.

Whenever we reflect on those that have fallen, we cannot help consider the massive waste of life that war brings, not least the two World Wars when families, villages and towns were ripped apart. However, as General Sir David Richards has just said on the Andrew Marr Show, it is important to remember the achievements that our armed forces have made in various conflicts including those still underway. This is not to glorify war, but to rationalise and determine its place in the history of the world.

I have been on the edge of my seat watching and waiting for news of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, an inspirational lady who I have written about before and will again. Meanwhile, my uncle has sent me another part of the jigsaw of my family's history in Burma. Last year, he found records at the Rangoon Memorial of the death of my great-uncles Patrick and Terence. This year, he has found a poignant memorial placed in The Statesman newspaper in India on 25th June 1945 by my great-grandparents. I will dedicate my silence to them as well as those fallen in Afghanistan.

LibDems Say "Budgeting is Not An Exact Science"

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:08:00 +0000

At the meeting of the Executive of Sutton Council on Monday, Cllr Graham Tope spoke about the business plan for the controversial £8.5million Sutton Life Centre. As expected, the business plan was, to quote one Sutton insider, "optimistic". Bearing in mind this is only to break even, Sutton taxpayers have every reason to remain worried about the burden that they will have to carry to hide the embarrassment of the Liberal Democrat administration.

Cllr Tope explained that "budgeting is not an exact science", something that will come as news to business people up and down the country who realise that this is the polar opposite of the truth. Homeopathy is not an exact science. Budgeting, however, is a detailed appraisal of the future using case studies, market research, and an assessment of how best to use a certain amount of capital and income. Assumptions can be kept to a bare minimum by taking a pragmatic, not dogmatic view, something that does not come easily to the administration in Sutton.

The original budget for 2010-11 required £131,000 of taxpayers' money to keep the fledgling Life Centre open. The latest update shows that they will have spent £190,000 over and above this, a whopping 145% over budget. This is largely put down to an 'underachievement of income', a euphemism if ever there was one. One-off costs covered the remaining overspend. One of these costs was £40,000 for a website. Apart from the fact that this is an extraordinary amount to be spending in addition to the £208,000 Sutton Council spent on their main site, why is this an overspend? It is not beyond the wit of man to realise that a decent website would be needed to market the Centre. Why was this not included in the original budget? It is oversights like this that show why the Council believes that budgeting is not an exact science. You can't just put a wet finger in the air before undertaking a massive project like this. The business plan has more space given over to 'One Planet Living' than spreadsheets. There is nothing exact about 'One Planet Living' It really doesn't matter how many planets you need to live on if they are all bankrupt.

Since the original concept came about, the Council won a Government grant of £4million. Following this, the scheme doubled in size to fit this extra money, rather than the sensible approach of keeping this vaguely within reason. The builders were already booked to start digging the day after the council meeting which approved the decision. After even the most intransigent fan of the Centre realised that most schools realised that parents did a better job of teaching their children how to behave and so failed to book places, other activities have been brought into the Centre to justify its existence.

Ex-offenders will come along to be told not to re offend (could the money have not been used for Job Clubs and drug rehabilitation?)
Council meetings and other community meetings will take place at the Centre (taking important income away from schools and other community facilities)
A Life Clinic will be set up (No, I don't know either?!)
Some School Governors' training will be held here (threatening the future of the Glastonbury Centre that has already been saved from imminent closure once)

Nick Clegg opened the centre at an event which was mainly attended by the senior management

of Sutton Council and Liberal Democrat councillors. Half a dozen children from nearby Glenthorne School came along as guinea pigs. It would be interesting to know quite how many thousands of pounds of lost productivity it took to have the great and the good at this corporate backslapping exercise.

The Sutton Life Centre is being held up as an example of the Big Society as part of Sutton Council's status as a 'Big Society Vanguard Council'. People are struggling to understand what the Big Society concept actually is and this project pushes that understanding further away from the truth. Big Society should be about people taking back areas from the state to be under their own control. It is about people not buildings. The Sutton Life Centre is anathema to the Big Society, instead standing as a paternalistic, patronising monolith that illustrates the real centralising views of Sutton's Liberal Democrats; Power coming down from Whitehall is fine, as long as it stops at the Civic Offices, where politicians know best. That is not localism. That is not freeing individuals. That is just bringing the nanny state closer to home.

Have a look and judge for yourself if the £40k website is worth it and the £8.5million (10% of council tax collected in the entire Borough for a year) was well spent

Thanks For Your Support

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:43:00 +0000

I'm always really grateful for the support of friends and regular readers in my attempt to keep Sutton residents aware of what is happening in Sutton politics. I am especially glad for the support whilst I try to continue alongside a busy job in Westminster. So thank you to all who voted in the recent Total Politics Blog Awards. Your support helped me to achieve:

2nd Councillor in the UK
17th Conservative blog
48th Right Wing blog
107th overall political blog

Yes, I am aware that I am no longer a councillor! However, since most of the entries were written when I was in office, I think that's fair enough. Anyway, thank you again for sticking with me whilst posting is slack. It all goes towards helping me rediscover my political mojo. There is plenty left to do in Sutton.

Paying People To Hang Around On High Street

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:31:00 +0000

Recently Sutton Council held an event, 'The Art of Suburbia' to reopen the High Street. The funding for the 2 day event was £81,300 of which £36,000 was from the Arts Council, meaning that taxpayers living outside Sutton were helping the Council to indulge itself. The relaunch was not exactly as described with lighting columns left disconnected and lumps of tarmac crudely filling holes left along the pavement. Work was not due to be completed for another week, having run overtime.

The headline act 'Trans Expresse' (pictured right) were a French troupe of drummers whose piece de resistance was to attach themselves to one of the biggest cranes in London and drum in middair on a giant children's mobile. This was witnessed by about 250 people on a cold, dark Friday evening. That'll be £162.50 per person to watch someone hanging around on Sutton High Street, something people can do for free on most days.

On the Saturday, an extraordinary claim by the Council that 25,000 came to see the launch. I'm not sure who counted nor if the people that just came to shop (or even just hang around) were included in that figure. Nonetheless, even allowing for the most rose-tinted of spectacles, this appears optimistic. Those that did come witnessed a giant robot, some giant painting and a giant accident when a lady in a motorised scooter drove off the edge of a raised platform on the new Trinity Square.

Meanwhile the main local paper, the Sutton Guardian, were hugged closely by the Council who made them 'Official Media Partners', thus ensuring that the headlines that followed were favourable. Fortunately, the Guardian followed up the next week by asking residents what they thought of the overall expense.

The irony was not lost when reading the launch day programme which explained that one of the groups of performance artists were named "The Bureau of Silly Ideas." (Too many jokes, too little time so I'll leave you to add your punchlines.)

Sutton Council Just Don't Get It - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:56:00 +0000

From the Council which gave you £25k totem poles sited opposite a cash-strapped hospital, comes the latest wheeze in how to spray taxpayers' money around on 'art'.

The wooden menagerie pictured opposite has been concreted into the pavement on Sutton High Street where there was previously an open space. The metal globe sculpture has been relocated so that people avoiding the wooden fish to go to All Bar One and the Civic Office crash straight into it.

Lest we forget within the apparent benefits for this £3million splurge of your cash was the statement "Wider footways, better road crossings and less clutter will create a people-friendly zone."

I'm not sure that mocking laughter was the reaction first envisaged by the Lib Dem Council cabinet who approved this project, but that is what appears to be the first reaction of those walking by.

We are still waiting for the 'green wall' to be installed on the face of Wilkinsons, which involves a lawn to be laid vertically up the front of the shop. When challenged over such expenditure, the Lib Dem administration claim that the £3million would have just be spent in another borough. That's just not good enough. Whilst we all reevaluate the services that we receive and our own personal incomes as a result of the massive deficit created over the last few years, it is not acceptable for councillors to spend such amounts on needless projects. How many wooden fish will it take to fill one of the many empty shops on the High Street? How will a grass curtain on the front of one of the busier shops on the High Street help the hot dog seller that is being thrown off the pitch that she has held for the last 15 years? The north end of the High Street will remain largely a ghost town, with the lion's share of the investment within yards of the Civic Offices. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind for the councillors that have been embolden by their win at the last election leaving them another four years to rack up the bills for Sutton's taxpayers.

Leaving on a largely positive note, I am glad that another one of the Conservative manifesto commitments was adopted by siting recycling bins next to normal bins along the High Street. It's just a shame that the brushed metal used makes them look a decade old already.

Big Society to Save Sutton From Big Mistake?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:58:00 +0000

The Leader of the Council in Sutton has joined David Cameron on his trip to India to tell people there about his very own white elephant, the controversial £8million Sutton Life Centre.

Sutton has been picked as one of four councils to pioneer the Big Society as a Liberal Council, alongside Labour Liverpool and Conservative-run Windsor & Maidenhead and Eden Valley. Sutton have picked four projects to trial

1.give people influence for transport decisions and allowing greater local choice in schemes that suit them

Essentially this is keeping Smarter Travel Sutton going now that the £5million Transport for London funding has been spent.

2.train a new generation of community organisers

In a serendipitous move, a team of 'young advisers' will meet in the Sutton Life Centre attracting another revenue stream for the building that still has no meaningful business plan and an uncertain future. Ostensibly this is to help 'continue' to allow the Council to consult local residents. Sutton has one of the poorest records in London when residents ask whether they feel if they can influence local decision making. Promotional banners were put up along residential streets telling people that they can influence decisions last year so that the Council could help boost their survey figures and so hit a government target that attracted some funding. So they spent some taxpayers money to get some more taxpayers money. Not the most efficient way to do things.

3.give communities the power to green their neighbourhoods

This will help fund the Hackbridge project, which aspires to make this part of the Borough 'the greenest place to live in the UK'. This ambitious project has struggled for funding since its inception.

4.give people a greater say in local health provision

The Council is a major commissioner of services from the National Health Service, in particular for Adult Social Care. It is right that health provision should be moved away from the great monoliths of the Primary Care Trusts and closer to local people but I wonder if this move has been superceded by the Government's plans to scrap Primary Care Trusts, putting the power and decision-making with GPs.

You'll see a thread with the first three. Sutton's LibDems are saying that the Big Society has already started in Sutton. I say that they've found three projects that were struggling for cash and have latched onto a sugar daddy.

The Big Society is a great concept, that has not been discussed widely enough yet to be understood by many. However, this isn't it. Handing down power to the Local Authority from central government is just a first stepping stone. Free schools, giving spending decisions to GPs, giving voters the power of recall, these are all examples of handing power back down as close as is possible to where decisions are made and should be the way ahead. Instead, here in Sutton, we'll see the majority of residents shrug their shoulders at best and continue to rightly complain about why decisions are made about paving the High Street for £3m and putting up the Sutton Life Centre at £8m without them being consulted first. Sutton could and should have been bolder in putting forward ideas. Maybe, and whisper it quietly now, they could have asked residents how they would see the Big Society manifest itself in Sutton?

Local Government Around The World - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:39:00 +0000

An interesting council story comes to me from Singapore. Friends staying over there were disturbed by the host family's dogs barking at a cobra, rearing up and hissing at them near the front door. They called the local equivalent of pest control who are adept at getting rid of snakes.

The next day, the snake man came all kitted out ready for anything...except one thing. He refused to step into the house because of the dogs.

Their bark was definitely not worse than the snake's bite. Is this Singapore's equivalent of Health & Safety?

Local Government Around The World - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:11:00 +0000

Maywood, California: The Independent reports that this small bluecollar town has outsourced all of its services to other councils and private contractors. Everything: policing, bin collection, school crossing. Everyone got the sack and new teams came in from various parts. The City Treasurer said "You have single-handedly destroyed this city" before getting the tin-tack but a month later the view has changed. The gangs have moved on, the parks and leisure centre are still open and doing well. The insurers of the old police service had refused to pay out on public liability claims because of the amount of compensation claims relating to police misconduct. Quite some change.

Clearing out the Civic Offices would be extreme and unneccessary but there is always scope for Councils to concentrate on what they do best and leave other activities to those who can do things better. We already have plenty of other companies and organisations running services for us in Sutton, from bin collection to another council running our communication department. We need to do more of this, market-testing the contracts on a regular basis.

However, should the Council be teaching children how not to take drugs at the Sutton Life Centre? Should the Council have a paternalistic view on Youth Services rather than allowing organisations with great track records across London the freedom to offer something more relevant to young people? Should the Council be paying people to tell us how to 'live on one planet'. The Council has a key role as a facilitator but it doesn't need to remain after making the introductions, becoming an obstacle for people to cross to get things done. Councils like Sutton need to know when to simplify and when to let go entirely. There's plenty of scope here before we do a Maywood.

'This Is Going To Hurt You More Than It Is Us.'

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Sutton Council met as a whole to discuss business for the first time last week, more than two months after the election. The first debate was to vote on the first decision that the LibDem administration took in the first week of office, to increase the total cost of councillor allowances.

They attempted to soften the blow of taking on two more cabinet roles at £34,440 between them by trimming the amount paid to local committee chairs (We'd proposed halving this) and totally scrapping the Opposition Deputy Leader's allowance (So one Conservative takes almost as big a hit as five LibDems.) To their credit, the Conservative Opposition rightly accepted this cut as unlike the LibDems, we could not look residents in the eye whilst cutting frontline services, knowing that they are paying for increased allowances for politicians. We are residents too.

Their final sleight of hand was to include the removal of political assistants from both parties. Again, this is fine as a separate decision but somewhat duplicitous to say that they are taking a cut. The Conservative Political Assistant left at the end of their contract in May. The Liberal Democrat Assistant has now morphed into a 'neutral' council officer...looking after the Liberal Democrat administration. Political assistants came to Sutton after a previous holder of the Head of Leadership post was overtly political whilst being bound by the restrictions of being a Council Officer. Now, it'll just be swept under the carpet again.

Cllr Tony Shields made the valid point that increasing the number of cabinet members of the Council equated to 10 pay rises. If you do less work for the same money, this is an improvement in your working conditions that is equivalent to a pay rise. Ask anyone that has been in negotiations with a union.

Lord Tope in his speech at the meeting, expressed the view that it is an unedifying sight to watch politicians arguing about their own pay. I have agreed with him on this on several occasions. However, he then went on to argue that it is not just about how much money councillors get as individuals but how much they value the job as a councillor, saying if we did not value the role then how could they possibly expect anyone else to value it. So says someone that has been in politics for 30 years and has earned more than £100,000 per year from politics for several of those years until recently stepping down from one of his many roles. Meanwhile, those who have run a business know that this is a specious argument. Yes, we ought to market-test our allowances, benchmarking them against other authorities. The recent independent review of allowances in London did this. However, we need to pay a rate that is commensurate to the job at hand.

The reason that I wanted to halve allowances for Local Committee chairs is that £9,000 was far too much for the majority of them who chaired 5 meetings a year, attended two other short meetings in advance of each committee and took a few phone calls (say, one hour per week for this). Beyond this, they were taking up the slack of less-effective ward councillors who should be capable of covering ward specific issues. Lord Tope may put a value of £125 per hour on this role (the equivalent of an annual salary of £260,000) I certainly don't. This is what is allowed to happen if you get disconnected from real life and start talking about arbitrary values rather than commonsense.

Competition: Song for Sutton

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:41:00 +0000

This brilliant video based on Jay-Z's song 'Empire State of Mind' has been all over the news this weekend after attracting 1.2million viewers on YouTube. I especially liked the reference to the fact that Newport is twinned with Guangxi Province in China, (there's no province finer.)

With the dicy economic climate at the moment, we need to attract people and investment into Sutton and, quite frankly, we need a laugh. So, put your thinking caps on. Give us your best lyrics for the next big thing, 'Sutton State of Mind'.

Tackling the Pothole in the Age of Austerity

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:17:00 +0000

Sutton Council are still manfully trying to keep up with filling in the potholes caused by the icy weather in February. This was after the LibDem administration slashed £20k from the Highways Winter Maintenance budget whilst roads were still icy in 2009. Park Hill has just been resurfaced. Hopefully this will

a better job than in Beeches Avenue where residents have complained that the repairs made the road more bumpy than when it was full of potholes.

The entire roads maintenance budget for 2009-10 was around £500k. A single road in St Helier needs some £450k worth of work to bring it up to scratch. Removing speed bumps whilst resurfacing would have released tens of thousands of pounds to add to this meagre budget. The new LibDem administration are unlikely to go down this route so how will they ensure that this important frontline service is kept up whilst the overall Council budget is reduced by 25%? As ever, I try to be helpful so here's some suggestions.

1. Guerilla gardening. UK Design student, Peter Dungey suggests filling in potholes with plants "like oases in asphalt deserts." Sutton likes to bill itself as a 'green' council but this might be a step too far. The flowers will quickly be more pressed than Alan Partridge's slacks Verdict: Quirky but rubbish.

2. Pothole Adverts. KFC has offered to fill in potholes in 5 cities in America for free, putting a chalk logo over the repair advertising the fried chicken restaurant chain. This has not been without problems. PETA have offered double the money to put their own logos attacking KFC Despite promising to fund a portion of Sutton Scene through advertising, Sutton Council continue to fail to get to grips with advertising sales so they may struggle with this one. Who would advertise on Sutton's roads. Answers in the comments please. Also how off-putting would these be to drivers. Verdict: Interesting but dangers ahead.

3. Partnering with GenShock. A new invention takes the energy released from hitting a pothole and converts it into electricity. At the moment shock absorbers simply protect us from bumps. GenShock allows the jarring experience to power the windscreen wipers. Now I can see this appealing to the LibDem administration, renewable energy and embracing speed bumps and potholes at the same time; three birds with one environmentally-friendly stone. Forget filling the craters, make it your civic duty to stress your spine. Verdict: Clever invention but no-one tell the LibDems about it unless we want to see a Council grant go on this.

4. Get the holes filled cheaply. Market-test the contract for road maintenance, ensuring that quality and a high service level agreement is bound into the contract. Then take the cheapest contractor that puts in a tender and get more holes filled for the money. Divert funds from unneccessary road humps due to be replaced. Verdict Commonsense but...Nah! Not a chance.

Total Politics - I Need Your Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:54:00 +0000

Now I'm going to be a bit cheeky. For the last two years, I've asked you to vote in these awards and you have been kind enough to help me become one of the leading political blogs in the country. I've hardly posted in the last few months but I'm going to ask once more anyway. I want to help bring you the news of what is happening in your name in the Civic Offices and in Westminster, so I'll gradually make the time to blog more often. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would vote for me as one of your top political blogs, instructions below:

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

I can't help prompt you with my favourites, apart from pointing you to the blogroll on the right hand side of this page. Happy voting and thank you.

A Bit Unneccessary

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:34:00 +0000

Since starting a new job in Westminster, I've found it both hard to get the time to blog and to see much evidence of anything happening in Sutton bar increases in councillors' allowances. Having got out of the habit of thinking about council work as soon as I woke up, a few text messages received this week from a single anonymous texter (07812 984365) brought it back.

5am, 14/7/10
HI SCULLYWAG. HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE PLAIN MR INSTEAD OF COUNCILLOR? DUMPED ON THE SCRAP HEAP BY YOUR NEIGHBOURS, VIA THE BALLOT BOX. YOUR CHANCE OF BEING RE-ELECTED WOULD BE BETTER IN BURMA! GOODBYE TO YOU!

8.39 14/7/10
NOW THERE ARE ONLY 10 TORIES LEFT ON THE COUNCIL. FOR YOUR OLD JOB. WHY NOT, PICK A NAME OUT OF A HAT AS YOU ARE ALL TARNISHED WITH THE SAME BRUSH. GOODBYE TO YOU!

8.50 14/7/10
CAMERON SHOULD LOOK AMONGEST THE ETON TOFFS FOR CUTS. INSTEAD OF HAMMERING THE POOR. THATS WHY YOUR NEIGHBOURS DIDN'T VOTE FOR YOU. THEY KNOW THE TORIES ONLY LOOK AFTER THE RICH. GOODBYE TO YOU!

18.38 14/7/10
I SEE BARNET TORY COUNCILLORS HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES A HEFTY PAY RISE. TYPICAL OF YOUR MOB. DO AS YOUR TOLD NOT AS I DO. GOODBYE TO YOU!
(all capitals, punctuation and spelling, sic.)

I don't know why someone feels so moved to start having a pop at five o'clock in the morning, two months after the election, but it is intriguing that people feel that people who volunteer for public service are fair game for this, though I admired the poetic sign offs. At least they got it off their chest and I hope that they are happier for it.

Let Them Eat Cake

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:45:00 +0000

Experts predict that Councils across the country are going to have to cut their budgets by 20-25% over the next 4 years. Sutton will not escape the difficult times ahead. There will be some tough decisions ahead.

The new LibDem administration took their first decision within days of resuming power. As is often the way, they got an unpopular decision through early whilst everyone was watching the coalition Goverment in Westminster come together. They have now increased their Cabinet from eight councillors to ten. This means that their chosen few collect an extra £34,440 between them in allowances. This is in stark contrast with the Conservative plans to reduce the cost of councillors by £13,000. This leaves Sutton taxpayers more than £47,000 out of pocket each year. That's about 50p from every household, two new teachers or resurfacing 1 mile of road.

Just last month, it was revealed that Sutton Council was keen to be a pilot area for the previous Government's plan to introduce bin taxes for people who they decide do not recycle enough. A second attempt to introduce fortnightly bin collection is being planned for next year. It's a shame for all of us that rather than learn some humility, the large majority acheived by the Liberal Democrats has emboldened them to ensure that residents take the brunt of the cuts. They are happier to cut jobs and services as long as they look after themselves.

Time To Get Over The Election Loss.

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Mon, 31 May 2010 18:27:00 +0000

It's been a few weeks since the General and Local Elections here in Sutton and I've had a bit of time away from blogging to lick my wounds, gather my thoughts and get a job having been unceremoniously dumped out of office. It's a hollow feeling, one minute making plans genuinely believing that we might take control of the Borough and wanting to be able to start work the day after and then another minute realising that not only did we get stuffed, I lost my own seat. There are plenty of others across the country in the same boat.

It's a shame in so many ways. There are many unsuccessful Conservative council candidates that would have made brilliant contributions to the future of this Borough that will not be able to. It is clear that there are a few reluctant councillors on the Liberal Democrat side who did not expect to get elected and are now going to have to step up to the plate. I hope, as a local resident who has to live with the consequences of their decisions that they do. I know that the Conservative group remaining on the Council will work well, but it won't be easy to provide a loud enough Opposition voice with 80% of the councillors belonging to one party. It is predicted that the Local Government budget will be cut by 20-25% over the next few years. Now is a bad time to let poor decision-making go unchecked.

I have really enjoyed serving as a councillor and working as Leader of the Opposition. Sutton is fortunate to have some great council officers who keep things on track despite the politicians. I'll miss working with them and the many friends that I have made from both sides of the political divide. The kind words that I have received from all quarters mean a lot and soften the blow.

What next? I've started working with a newly-elected MP. It means a long commute until his Westminster office is sorted. I've done it before so it is largely familiar territory apart from the new terrible expenses regime. Which brings me to my last point for this post, what to do with this blog? Posting might be light for the next few weeks whilst I am travelling, but I daresay there will be plenty of Sutton news to talk about and the wider political scene. It'll morph into something soon. In the meantime, I'm still twittering away. It's easier and more immediate. Either way, I expect to be around in some shape or form, working for a better Sutton.

Don't Just Hope For A Better Sutton

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Tue, 04 May 2010 07:58:00 +0000

The news is all about the final stages of the closest General Election for a generation but there is another crucial decision for residents in Sutton to make this Thursday. Council elections mean that we also get to vote for our three local councillors and ultimately, who runs the Council.

After 24 years of Liberal Democrat control, the ruling party have become a tired, complacent administration, forgetting why they sought election in the first place. We need fresh thinking in Sutton. The difficult economic times will bring tough decisions and we will need strong leadership to protect key council services.

Sutton Conservatives have spent 3 years researching their 100 pledge manifesto. Our collective experience in running small businesses, employing people and working at the highest level in public services allows us to tackle this situation head-on, bringing new angles to problem solving and steering us all through difficult times.

We cannot reward years of taking residents for granted. The green garden waste charge cost us all £800,000 to reverse, the Sutton Life Centre is sucking up the equivalent of 10% of the entire annual Adult Social Services budget for the Borough to build and the repaving of Sutton High Street is costing us the same as four years' worth of road resurfacing.

I don't know about you but I'm simply not rich enough to afford the Liberal Democrats here in Sutton. Don't just hope for a better Sutton on Thursday - join me in voting for it.

Scully on Tweety Hall

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Scully) — Sat, 01 May 2010 00:33:00 +0000

Among the hard slog across my ward and the rest of the Borough, I met Arun from Tweety Hall who interviewed me outside my house about social media and how it might affect this election. The interview looks very professional, so well done Arun.

I'm not convinced that this is anywhere near the 'Internet election' that some had hoped for, heralding new media as a game changing force. However, Twitter in particular has proved to be a fast way of spreading news and giving momentum to stories that may have been lost in a small diary column in a newspaper.