Meanwhile on Planet Babergh – Political Assistants for all?
There are days when we all have “would you believe it?” moments. The key skill is that one’s reaction should be just below that which irritates the family beyond measure. You only have to be a regular reader of the EADT to be glad that you are not a close family member of some of the regular Europhile correspondents.
One such WYBI moment was when I became aware that Babergh-Midsuffolk are advertising for a political assistant to support the new Green Party administration at an exciting time for Mid Suffolk District Council.
Now in the normal course of events I have only a brief interest in what Mid Suffolk Greens are up to. But, as Mid Suffolk and Babergh’s expenses tend to be shared I get concerned that we might be paying for this extravagance. So, I put the following question down for answering at the Council meeting on the 21st November.
Would you kindly confirm that:
No costs for this post will fall upon the taxpayers and residents of Babergh District Council and that any recruitment by Babergh District Council for a similar post will come to full council for approval prior to the post being advertised.
You’d have thought that the answers would be simple and that this could be an exercise in discovering something right and reasonable for a change. But, no! The matter was referred the Political Leaders’ Group who rejected the question.
Discreet enquiries as to the constitutionality of this action caused the question to be reinstated on the Council’s agenda.
The answers were that the costs of Mid Suffolk’s Political Assistant were for them to fund and that there were no plans for Babergh to have Political Assistants.
So, what does this mean?
Why the fuss, if the matter was innocuous?
Were one or more of Babergh’s coalition groups thinking of having political assistants and didn’t want the matter aired before they were ready?
Did they change their mind about their perceived needs once the disinfectant of public awareness’ was applied to their ambitions?
All in all, I think Babergh has dodged the Political Assistant bullet for the time being and the future requires us to be alert to similar future developments.
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley.
It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association
Meanwhile on Planet Babergh
`Quite often, it is very difficult to come away from Council Meetings without looking for a wall to bang one’s head against.
Thus, in October I attended a meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. One of the key areas to look at was the Annual Review of the Joint Homes and Housing Annual Strategy. Lurking at the back of the paper was the delivery plan which included the following new task:
“Ensure we deliver a quality repairs and planned works service by holding our contractors to account. Making sure they respond to works orders in a timely manner as set out in their contract KPIs and our tenancy agreements.”
If we are not holding contractors to account already, what are we doing? Ten years ago, I asked after the frequency of checking on housing repair. I was told that Babergh aimed for one contract in three but only managed to check one in six. It now seems that we are not even doing that! I was told that the main problem currently is one of resources. In which case we need a reallocation of resources from writing about work to doing it.
Meanwhile, The Suffolk County Council Head of Community Safety advised that any additional statutory responsibilities assigned to the (Western Suffolk Community) Partnership would result in increased financial costs (my italics) for recruiting external officers to undertake these duties and that there would be significant risks regarding the capacity of existing Officers to fulfil their standard responsibilities within their own organisations.
Is this a classic case of crying before you are hurt? What’s wrong with waiting to see what’s coming down the pike? What’s wrong with axing a lesser service priority?
The principle must be that if something is not worth doing well, then it is not worth doing. But it is easier to raise taxes than it is to be more efficient. `Quite often, it is very difficult to come away from Council Meetings without looking for a wall to bang one’s head against.
Thus, in October I attended a meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. One of the key areas to look at was the Annual Review of the Joint Homes and Housing Annual Strategy. Lurking at the back of the paper was the delivery plan which included the following new task:
“Ensure we deliver a quality repairs and planned works service by holding our contractors to account. Making sure they respond to works orders in a timely manner as set out in their contract KPIs and our tenancy agreements.”
If we are not holding contractors to account already, what are we doing? Ten years ago, I asked after the frequency of checking on housing repair. I was told that Babergh aimed for one contract in three but only managed to check one in six. It now seems that we are not even doing that! I was told that the main problem currently is one of resources. In which case we need a reallocation of resources from writing about work to doing it.
Meanwhile, The Suffolk County Council Head of Community Safety advised that any additional statutory responsibilities assigned to the (Western Suffolk Community) Partnership would result in increased financial costs (my italics) for recruiting external officers to undertake these duties and that there would be significant risks regarding the capacity of existing Officers to fulfil their standard responsibilities within their own organisations.
Is this a classic case of crying before you are hurt? What’s wrong with waiting to see what’s coming down the pike? What’s wrong with axing a lesser service priority?
The principle must be that if something is not worth doing well, then it is not worth doing. But it is easier to raise taxes than it is to be more efficient.
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley.
It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association
Deputy Leaders’ Allowances
Often, District and County Council meetings test one’s boredom level as the meetings are often a formality and decision making is often pushed to the side. So it was on Tuesday when Babergh Councillors were asked to note the Council’s Annual Treasury Management Report and the progress and strategy of CIFCO (the Council’s property company). Although the papers presented to us were for noting rather than approval there was some lively questioning
About an hour and a half into the meeting we sat down to look at a paper for approval bearing the seemingly innocuous title “BC/23/17 Recommendation from the Independent Review Panel”.
This paper suggested that as we now had two Deputy Leaders (one a legal requirement) and the other discretionary (depending upon the wishes of the parties concerned), they should both be classified as political and were recommended to receive 1.25 times the basic Councillor’s allowance as a special responsibility allowance for their respective positions.
The paper’s arguments seemed reasonable until the assumptions were tested. The comparative councils with two or more deputy leaders were much larger than Babergh. The range of skills and duties suggested that we would be paying over the odds for a job share programme. Really, this was a ruse to reward political allies.
After much discussion in the chamber, I was pleased to move an amendment to the original proposals and suggest that as this was a job share, each of the deputies should receive half of the suggested allowance.
The voting went to 11 votes for and 11 votes against with 5 abstentions. The Chair exercised her casting vote against the amendment, even though there was a distinct mood that the original suggestions were not acceptable.
We then moved to voting on the substantive motion. 10 voted for and 11 voted against whereupon the original recommendation was lost and the residents won.
Taxpayers should not be paying for vanity projects and this whole exercise demonstrated that although the Conservative Group at Council is small (seven of us) we are not without friends.
The meeting may be viewed on YouTube and the web address is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQhNAX5Que0
Disclaimer:
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley.
It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association
Beware of the Greens
On Tuesday 18th July I attended a full meeting of Babergh District Council.
We were treated to a report on Greenhouse Gases for the period 2021-22 and the first question of the day was why were we looking at figures fifteen months out of date. I didn’t quite understand the response but I gather that as they hadn’t been reported earlier it was thought that they ought to be before the 2022/2023 report was due. Which prompted the question that as that report was over three months in the making when would we see it? The answer was that we should expect to see it at the September meeting.
We were also treated to a motion by Green member Councillor Jamieson asking us to reiterate the Council’s commitment to making its services carbon neutral by 2030.
I was less than enamoured with the motion and responded that the motion indicated that since July 2019 there had been no improvement in the climate or biodiversity emergencies. What I was unable to understand is why in the last four years there had been no improvement in the situation. What have we been doing? How far have we advanced on our target of being carbon neutral by 2030?
The commitment we were asked to make was without any explanation as to where we were now, how much we have spent, how much we’re going to spend, where we going to spend it and how will it be financed?
The motion lacked coherence or meaningful purpose.
All I could see was an unyet disclosed pathway to pillaging the taxpayers’ pockets to pay for the commitment. Which is why I was unable to support the motion, which was a waste of time, air, and good trees. It was weak, insipid and had no place in the assembly.
If this is the Greens at their best, I dread to think what we can expect during the next four years.
Sproughton & Pinewood Election 2023
I’m very pleased to share the news that on Thursday the 4th of May I was elected to be a district councillor for the two councillor ward of Sproughton and Pinewood,
It was an uphill campaign very much overshadowed by national events. However, there were only twenty two votes between the leader and myself and despite the new requirements for voter identification we had a higher turnout.
The E.A.D.T., published the photo below with the inference that my candidacy and election relied more on luck rather than hard work and general support. But perhaps they also recognise the XVIth Century saying which implies that the harder you work the luckier you get.
Thank you to everyone who assisted, supported and generally gave me encouragement. I look forward to the next four years and hope that if I can be of personal assistance to anyone in my ward then they will not hesitate to contact me on brian@brianriley.co.uk or by phone on 07592 629 328.
Thank you very much once again to everyone who voted.
And Bollards to You
The latest advice from Babergh District Council is that the Pinewood Parish precept has risen by 5%
Looking at the Pinewood Parish web site you would be hard pressed to know how much will be raised and what the money will be spent on.
The minutes for the Parish meeting on 24th January record that the pubic were excluded from the discussions on financial matters.
The minutes do show the Parish spending will rise to £173,781.
But, the public were denied details of the Parish’s priorities for spending…
So, we are all being treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and unlikely to see the light until we are harvested.
Previously I have commented on the extravagance of the car park bollards.
Without the daylight of public scrutiny, more extravagances are on the horizon.
We need more transparency and accountability.
We need to know what they are spending our money on.
Without the disinfectant of public knowledge and scrutiny we are just maintaining a money-pit.
Was Ipswich Doomed from the Beginning?
Ipswich seems to be forever championed by professional doomsters.
For some time, Ipswich’s ills have been blamed on central Government and the lack of appropriate help in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, Brexit, adverse economic winds (both local and international) and so on.
The subtext seems to be that if only there was a change of government, then towns like Ipswich would be on the receiving end of a cornucopia of monies sufficient to right all ills.
But recently another meme has come into view and this is to blame all ills on historical factors that worked against Ipswich’s interests.
A writer on the East Anglia Daily Times on February 6th lamented the founding of Suffolk County Council in 1974 and Ipswich’s consequential loss of County Borough Status and the subsequent winds that followed.
The writer affirmed that rarely ever has Ipswich had portfolio holders at Suffolk County Council with control over budgetary departments. Conveniently the writer overlooks the period between 1993 and 2005 when Labour controlled the County and leadership was provided by Chris Mole and Bryony Rudkin (both Ipswich based politicians)
Also overlooked is the year 2003/4 which saw an 18% increase in Ipswich’s Band D Council Tax.
The question arises whether 1974 is too recent a time to receive the blame for present circumstances.
There could be a sound argument that the backwash from the downfall of Thomas Wolsey lead to long term detrimental effects on the town, relieved only from time to time by economic happenstance, for example, by the coming of the railway.
Amongst other things Ipswich lost it ambition to host a third major university in the country rivalling Oxford and Cambridge. The resources were reallocated and for nearly 500 years Ipswich did not have a university it could call their own.
Wolsey’s downfall was caused by the Spanish Aragonese who had the money and the Medici Pope who needed powerful and moneyed allies. The Holy Roman Emperor was Catherine of Aragon’s nephew and there was no way the Pope was going against such a powerful force and grant Henry VIII the divorce he needed.
So, watch out for the next steps in this saga. Ipswich will look to blame the combination of various European powers colluding against our best interests. Once this seam is mined the limits are almost endless. The Norman French wiped away our nobility in 1066. The Vikings martyred King Edmund in 869 and in AD60 Boudicca was forced to march down the A12 to assert her rights against Roman (Italian) hegemony over East Anglia.
Disillusioned but Nevertheless True
I had always thought that it was Deng XiaoPing who said that it was too soon to tell whether the French Revolution had been successful.
I’ve since been updated insofar as it was Chou EnLai talking to Richard Nixon in 1972 and the comment referred to the 1968 student demonstrations
Nevertheless, it does illustrate that revolutions tend to have long tails. In modern times we can look at the 1917 Russian revolution and the Irish Civil War of 1922 as illustrative.
Tim Stanley writing in the Daily Telegraph on 31st October under the banner headline that “the Brexit revolution has come to an end” argued that as with France in 1799, the elites are back in control, but Britain has still been changed for the better.
“…why did the Tories elect Liz Truss even though it was obvious six weeks ago, now confirmed, that Rishi would be a far better PM? My theory is that we all subconsciously knew that Sunak spelled the end of the Brexit revolution. Not its reversal but, like Napoleon’s coup of 1799, the defeat of its radical spirit.
Brexit conforms to the four stages of the French Revolution: crisis, contradiction, purification and reaction. In 1789, Louis XVI called an Estates General in his quest to raise cash; in 2016, David Cameron called a referendum to eliminate Euroscepticism. Both backfired. The Estates General demanded a constitutional monarchy and the Brits voted to leave the EU, so Louis fled to Varennes and Dave to his garden shed.
Theresa May now tried to ride two visions of the new order – protectionist and paternalist vs free trade and liberal – and with Parliament fractured, and counter-revolutionaries conspiring, she was unable to get us out of the EU. This necessitated the election of Boris Johnson, the British Georges Danton, a literate rake, a champion of the people. His instincts were small state but, being a populist, was inclined to give the mob what it wanted – hence he marched us out of Europe but also rebranded Tory politics as faux-European. Conservatism became Gaullist: culturally conservative and littered with grands projets.
I liked it, but Boris will be Boris and his regime collapsed in scandal. With the PM forced to retire (Danton took refuge in Acris, Big Dog at the Casa del Campo), we entered our Jacobin phase of ideological intensification. Yes, Liz Truss was our Maximilien Robespierre, and though her utopian vision was far more modest than critics made out, the very idea that we might guillotine the board of the Bank of England triggered a Thermidorian Reaction.
The French decapitated Robespierre and installed a collective leadership till Napoleon took power. In Britain, some faceless men pulled off a coup to install Sunak in four days flat, which was impressive for a country where it can take six months to replace a boiler.
Looking back on the 1790s, many Frenchmen asked what the point of their revolution had been. They killed a king and finished with an emperor.
Yet feudalism was also eliminated, and the French now saw themselves as a nation, with a Left and a Right, both espousing liberties – the rights of the people – they each claimed to be more willing to protect. Here, Britain is out of the EU for good. The greatest testament to the permanence of Brexit is that even the Labour Party accepts it, and is patriotic and critical of free movement (have you noticed how often its MPs are on GB News?). At some point, a Labour government, or a Tory one, may well put us back in the Single Market, for if we are not willing to reform tax and trade on the lines Citizen Truss wanted, then we’ll wind up a stagnating economy trapped behind a tariff wall. And how else do we resolve Northern Ireland?
But even if that came to pass, we have still dodged the bullet of European political integration, re-establishing Britain as an Atlantic-facing nation, global and yet parochial. Sunak, elected in just 2015, is a child of that revolution, even if he doesn’t entirely understand what the founding fathers wanted. I recall seeing him interviewed at the 2019 Tory conference where he was asked to name the best bit of Brexit. The correct answer is “freedom”. He gushed, “Free trade zones!”
I preferred it when Boris reputedly said “F business”. I translated it from the unpardonable French to mean: “Something matters more than making money, and we will not be dictated to by the markets” – which is precisely what has now happened. Rishi will never blaspheme against business. His job is to sell austerity, hiking taxes on the middle class and cutting services for the poor, sugaring the pill by appointing Suella Braverman to the Home Office and Kemi Badenoch to equalities; culture war bribes to the Red Wall sans-culottes.
I’ll be honest: I miss the hope-filled Sturm und Drang of early Brexit, of the sense of forces unleashed and institutions scaled. One could almost hear the glass shattering in Whitehall.
But I have no right to impose an ideological vision on the country, especially when the chief issues now are feeding our people and keeping the lights on (I’m not Greta Thunberg), and I take comfort in what our revolution has achieved.
It has given us greater sovereignty, an empowered parliament, municipal conservatism, controlled legal migration, levelling-up, a renaissance of journalism, books and independent TV. I believe our era will be regarded as a golden age of debate, when, after decades of consensus, real ideas were passionately interrogated and regular citizens elevated to the king and queen of politics.
Like the French in 1799, we are a different society now: Labour stands for the King, the Tories kneel before the voters of Grimsby. Brexit has made Britain a better place.”
But we still voted for Truss and ended up with Sunak. The Conservative Party activists are pondering their futures as members and candidates in next May’s local elections are asking how many Hail Mary’s do they need to win their seats.
See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/31/brexit-revolution-has-come-end/
Tribal Attacks
A version of the following letter appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times on Saturday (29th October). Ellesmere is Leader of Ipswich Borough Council (and is a vociferous Labour party member). He appears more or less every Monday in the EADT. I read his column to ensure that my low blood pressure is raised to an appropriate level. Last week I had had enough hence my response. Please enjoy or ignore as appropriate.
Dear Sir,
David Ellesmere on Monday (No Tories can be trusted to act in our best interests) paints his usual one-sided picture attacking the Government of the Day. Yes, I voted for Liz Truss – why, because she offered a vision of the future which I found attractive rather than the bleak outlook offered by Rishi. My regret is that the supply side economic vision was not sold properly on the establishment. I suspect that the Treasury did not like the ideas and neglected to get the Bank of England on side – thus when purse strings should have been loosened, they were tightened by the means of raising interest rates to dampen demand. And yet, inflation is not being caused by excess financial demands. Rising costs are being caused by increased fuel costs, lack of supplies in the Italian pasta belt and the shortage of sunflower oil (from Ukraine) and so on.
Putting up interest rates will shrink the economy, reduce business opportunities and penalise the working middle classes and the poor. The first will suffer because their aspirations will be blunted and the poor because their opportunities to get on the working ladder will be further reduced.
The Bank of England were late recognising that there were inflationary pressures following on from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Russians squeezing their oil supplies to Europe.
But what are the choices for the electorate after Rishi Sunak? Labour is united behind a doctrine of no policies except to criticise everything as being too early, too late, too little, too much. They would have shut down the economy sooner and prolonged it further than Boris Johnson.
Mr Ellesmere should concentrate upon making Ipswich more attractive and stop complaining that not enough Government money is forthcoming. He cannot publicly criticise the government and then expect to be treated generously. Some Labour Mayors understand this only too well. They keep political purity and recognise the need to work with the centre.
Like Mr Ellesmere I regret the current economic realities. We are well placed compared to our European neighbours and our borrowing levels are not excessive. Although Mr Ellesmere claimed that the Bank of England had spent £65billion over a few days in supporting the Gilts market – the real figure as of last week was around £20billion over three weeks. But then any extravagance in speech is worth it if it makes a point.
Let’s focus on Ipswich. The new owners of the football club are bringing millions in development funds to the town. Let’s make sure that Ipswich Borough Council supports those developments and stops seeing itself as a permanent victim of whatever economic winds are blowing.
Yours faithfully,
Brian Riley
brian riley's blog 