Yesterday evening the Executive Council of the South Suffolk Conservative Association (SSCA) met and voted not to re-adopt Tim Yeo as our candidate for the 2015 general election.
Tim has represented the seat, which covers much of the Babergh district, for 30 years and is an effective and hard-working MP. He is a very good constituency M.P. and has never shrunk from offering his assistance to the people of Hadleigh when he has been approached with their problems.
At the last general election in 2010 he received 24,500 votes – a 47.75% share.
I am not a member of the Executive Council. I was consulted on deselection in mid September and made my views known.
Last week I wrote to Tim as follows:
“It was with joy that I read that the Committee on Standards had cleared you on all counts of any breach of the MP’s Code of Conduct.
I’ve had no problems in reminding my constituents and colleagues that you have always been of assistance not only to myself but also to anyone who has contacted you with problems”
This letter was read out last night – alas to little effect.
Tim’s reply to my letter is attached Yeo T 131127 fm
It will be a sad day if we lose him as our M.P. We have eighteen months until the general election. That is far too short to select and embed a new candidate. Many of Tim’s 24,500 votes are personal and may not be easily transferred to the new person.
Meanwhile we have UKIP snapping at our heels and everyone else is make hay at our expense.
It’s time to support Tim. If you agree with the Executive Council then you need do nothing. If you think that Tim’s deselection is not a good idea, I suggest you email Toby Kramers, Chairman of the SSCA Executive Council. He can be emailed via Peter Burgoyne (the political agent) at peter@ss-ca.org.uk
Political – Local
Lady Lane Property
On March 31st I wrote how Babergh had approved the transfer of land on Lady Lane to a Registered (Social Housing) Provider for the provision of a four bedroom house. At the time I mentioned that I did not like proposals whereby I didn’t see a price tag nor was I happy that we were approving in principle a four bedroom house when the greatest need in the housing market is for small (one and two bedroom) houses. I made the (unappreciated) point that we should put two two bedroom residences on the site and thus release two four bedroom houses from those families whose children have permanently moved away.
Orwell Housing have now submitted an application (B/13/01087/FUL) to develop the site with a three bedroom house!
I have written to the Planning Control suggesting that the application should be returned to applicant for further work.
Primarily, because there is a minimal amount of information. There is no design statement, nor is there a history of the site. In particular no reference is made to Council Paper No M148 which authorised a single four bedroom scheme on this property.
Consequently the basis on which this application has been allowed to come forward is flawed.
I wonder if this is a case of casting pearls before swine insofar as you should not put what is valuable in front of those who will reject that which has value and furthermore who will diminish or destroy your gifts.
Should it come forward to the Planning Committee for discussion, I will speak against any recommendation for approval since the application is contrary to the authorised use of the Council’s assets.
Non-Salary Expenses
The readers of this blog will recall that since July I have been endeavouring to ascertain the level of the non salary expenses of Babergh’s & Mid Suffolk’s senior managers.
The details are published on Babergh’s report No. JAC15 to the Joint Audit
& Standards Committee. See: http://bdcdocuments.onesuffolk.net/assets/Uploads/Committees/Committee-Reports/Reports-2013-14/JAC15.pdf
The details are quite interesting. There is a one off charge of £10,467 for
relocation and removal expenses. Details of the expense are to be provided
later.
Apart from this figure the expenses are £22,073 spread across 13 posts. The
chunkiest category was £3,573 for attending conferences. Conferences are
attended to keep up to date with what is happening in the public sector as a
whole and also in specialist areas and hopefully ensure that the councils are reflecting current and best practice. Training and course fees came in at £400.
Overall I am quite happy with the outcome of my enquiries. My colleagues
enjoyed themselves pursuing detail which had hitherto remained unreported. More details will come out in future reports and each officer now knows that their actions are subject to more detailed scrutiny than hitherto.
Tesco – The Fall Out
The following appears in the November edition of the Hadleigh Community News under the heading “Towards the Deep End”.
“Damian Thompson in The Daily Telegraph on October 9th commented that being bonkers is no longer a bar to political advancement.
Well anyone who watched Councillors support the proposition in September that the Brett Works site should be developed by Tesco would not be strangers to this idea.
Reasons advanced in favour of the development included:
The development of the site as a supermarket would be a long term benefit for our town.
There are no shops in Polstead.
It will raise the profile of Hadleigh.
The introduction of Tesco into the town will benefit out of town residents (especially those from Polstead).
The development will bring people into the town.
There are no good reasons for rejection.
Some councillors once again demonstrated that every time they speak they put the cause of local democracy back by at least five years. It became embarrassing to hear some of the speeches of support for the proposed Brett Works site development.
That being said, the Planning Committee meeting was a very interesting day and brought about a satisfactory outcome. I was glad that I was able to cancel and re-jig my holiday arrangements joining my wife and her cousins a few days late in Croatia.”
The Brett Works Site/Tesco discussion continues with people in Hadleigh grateful for their escape from Tesco but bemused that the margin for victory was so slender.
There is no question
to which the answer is “We need more Liberal Democrats in the Upper House” (i.e. the House of Lords).
Courtesy Damien Thompson in today’s Daily Telegraph see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100229544/the-amish-jews-muslims-and-the-future-of-religion/ for further amplification.
Visions & Priorities
It is generally accepted that organisations which have a clear vision and values have greater chances of success than those whose vision and values are unclear and blurred.
One of Babergh’s Strategic Priorities is to shape, influence and provide the leadership to enable growth whilst protecting and enhancing our environment. One of the outcomes flowing from this priority is that Babergh is open for business and a champion of the local economy.
So it was with some surprise that when visiting the Council’s office foyer in Corks Lane I saw “Take One” boxes advertising theatre and amusements in Norfolk.
I’m always irked when I see pamphlets in Hadleigh promoting Lavenham and yet I never see any leaflets in Lavenham promoting Hadleigh despite Hadleigh Town Council offering to supply as much literature as needed.
Babergh has spent considerable time formulating its vision and priorities. If you want to bring the vision and values to life we all have to “live the brand”. It’s part of the why and how you work. You can see living the brand in any High Street bank where all staff conform to the dress code. It reinforces the values represented by the brand.
So why aren’t Babergh staff living the brand and sharing the values? Why do we promote activities outside of Babergh and even outside Suffolk? Babergh has plenty of attractions and if you are so minded go to http://hadleigh.onesuffolk.net/assets/Tourism/Town-Guide-2011.pdf for a copy of Hadleigh’s Town Guide.
Perhaps running Babergh is like running a cemetery: you’ve got a lot of people under you but nobody listens.
Quis Custodiet
Y
esterday I attended the inaugural meeting of the Babergh & Mid Suffolk Joint Audit & Standards Committee. The first substantive item of business was to approve the Committee’s Terms of Reference (TOR). The TOR is nice document, well written, reasonably unambiguous and for the most part fit for purpose. It is however written by officers and lacks sensitivity to the needs of the tax payers’ and residents.
Readers of this blog will be aware that I often feel that the information and opinions given to us at Babergh are often not as robust as I would like. I’m also conscious that some of my Councillor colleagues are reluctant to challenge and hold the executive to account.
So in a cross group collaboration I suggested that the TOR should be invigorated with the following additional duty:
To peruse, review and comment upon the non-salary expenses of the officers of the joint councils.
You would think that this was a no brainer – but no – the Chairman dithered and at one point suggested that such oversight could be unnecessary. None the less the item was put to the vote and approved (but not unanimously).
Already I can hear the Sir Humphreys in Corks Lane telling me that the new requirements will be too complicated, too expensive, and (I expect) too controversial to implement..
But the outcome will be that our employees will be fully accountable for their travel expenses etc., and we will enjoy a greater degree of transparency.
There’s nothing like the disinfectant of sunlight to force out sloppy practices.
Suffolk AONB Management Plan
Every now and then one gets a glimpse of the other planets that some people seem to inhabit. One of these astronomical events occurred when the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) Management Plan 2013-2018 came before the Suffolk County Council Cabinet for approval and adoption. This is a well written document and was presented by Councillor David Wood, Chairman of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Partnership. Suffolk gives £66,000 to the partnership and Babergh also makes a contribution. I raised the issue that at some point a well written document of about sixty pages was handed over to the design consultants who proceeded to add thirty pages of photographs and other illustrations. Whilst I could understand such artistic creativity if we were promoting a tourist brochure, it struck me that here was a classic extravagance bordering upon a total waste of money. Councillor Wood told us that the design was done in house and that design consultants were not used. He did not tell us the role of Spring Design & Advertising Ltd who are credited with the design and production of the plan. What he did say was that the production of the plan did not come out of the monies provided by the County. It came from Defra (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs). Management plans are all about Management. (The clue is in the title). They do not need photographs. They may need maps and graphs but we do not need money wasted on fripperies. It all comes out of the same pocket – the taxpayers. The report can be viewed and downloaded from http://www.suffolkcoastandheaths.org/about-us/aonb-management-plan/.
Be careful if you print the maps on pages eleven and twelve in greyscale. It makes the coast seem to be under water.
Did I say that Councillor Wood was Leader of the Liberal Democrat and Independent Group at County and a Babergh District Councillor? Leopards do not change their spots and these people regard spending other people’s money in extravagant ways as a God given right. Thank goodness they did not get a majority in May.
Pay Policy at Babergh
Meanwhile on Planet Babergh, the District Councillors are being asked on Tuesday 25th June to approve the Collective Agreement on Employment Terms, Conditions and Policies.
The statement about financial implications of the new agreement is weak and flabby. Not for the first time do we have a lack of detail in this area. I have previously expressed my reluctance to sign blank cheques or to trust bland opinions.
It should be case of running the spreadsheets to get the opinion that that new arrangements will either mean more money in the staff pockets or not. Telling us that the savings targets as set out in the Business Case will be met, has nothing to do with salaries. Meeting the business case is a sine qua non. We expect nothing less!
What we do expect is hard robust opinions from the officers. How else can we have confidence in their assessments.
Towards the end of the summary of staff benefits we find that parking available to staff at the Council office car parks will be free of charge. The residents and visitors to Hadleigh pay for their parking, whether they are in employment or not. The same should apply to the employees at Babergh.
Free parking is not a perquisite to be enshrined in the Collective Agreement!
It would seem that the staff anticipate further charging for car parking and wish to be exempt from the realities of the people who pay their wages.
The full paper may be read on http://bdcdocuments.onesuffolk.net/council/ see paper N26.
Amazon Again
The Daily Telegraph on 21st May had some cogent comment on the Amazon lack of taxes paid in the U.K . debate.
The article begins:
The criticism, of Google, Amazon and even Marks & Spencer for seemingly trying to lower their corporation tax payments threatens to take the focus away from the real tax issue in retail – business rates.
For all the focus on how little Amazon pays in corporation tax, it is how little they pay in business rates that is really hurting the high street Their business rate bill is negligible while Home Retail Group, the owner of high street rival Argos, pays £140m.
There is no complex tax avoidance scheme by Amazon to avoid paying business rates, their low payment is simply because they have little physical presence as a business compared to the 700 high street stores of Argos.
Therefore, if the Government is serious about making online companies pay taxes and also about saving the high street it must focus on revamping business rates.
One of the reasons Amazon appears to pay little corporation tax is that its profit margins are wafer thin, reflecting the fact that online retailing is not yet as. profitable as high-street retailing. In 2012, for example, the company posted a global operating profit of $676m (£444m) on sales of $61.lbn; That is a profit margin of just 1.1 p.c.
However, business rates have no relation to profitability – they are simply measured by the rentable value of a commercial property and inflation. This means that struggling high street’ retailers have been spending millions on business rates while start-up online retailers have been free of the tax. This imbalance threatens to distort the future of the retail industry.
The full article is enclosed as a PDF Freeze on Business Rates (since the on line version has been truncated).
brian riley's blog 