Sunday, 31 July 2011
Aurora Southampton
Boring day on Edward Stalk today as its change over day and they are in Southampton
Saturday, 30 July 2011
Edward Watch Saturday 30th July
The boy is spending the day at sea cruising homeward to Southampton. That means "Aurora Cam" shows quite a boring view.
However, never one to miss an opprtunity to cyber stalk my son and heir I've been reading the general bumff about the ship he is on. Aurora is a mid-sized cruise ship, apparently instantly recognisable thanks to her elegant tiered stern. Aurora is designed as a classic ocean going vessel and is therefore ideally suited to world cruising. At her heart is a Lalique-inspired waterfall which forms the centrepiece of her atrium – one of her signature features.
When it comes to bars she offers a variety to suit every mood including her Crow’s Nest bar, which offers a great view of every port along the way (and the oceans in between), Champions sports bar and adjacent casino, and Anderson’s with its rather sophisticated wood panelled walls. Entertainment wise there’s the Playhouse cinema which shows recently released films, a show lounge and theatre.
Her dining options include her two main restaurants, as well as a bistro by Marco Pierre White and an al fresco grill restaurant.
P&O Cruises Aurora is designed for walking or jogging with the opportunity to do just that around her circumference thanks to the broad teak promenade deck. She also welcomes families with children’s clubs and a dedicated family pool. She even has one pool which can be covered by a sky dome.
Her dining options include her two main restaurants, as well as a bistro by Marco Pierre White and an al fresco grill restaurant.
P&O Cruises Aurora is designed for walking or jogging with the opportunity to do just that around her circumference thanks to the broad teak promenade deck. She also welcomes families with children’s clubs and a dedicated family pool. She even has one pool which can be covered by a sky dome.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Save the Prom!
I’ve joined a FACE BOOK Group entitled Stop the Heart from being ripped out of Hartlepool which has been set up to highlight the risk to the sea defences around the headland. The group is very well meaning and enthusiastic but they do not seem to appreciate how naïve their stance is and that if option 4 is actually ever under serious consideration then they have probably lost the fight before it starts.
The group are probably destined to succeed because Option 4 is only there as a sacrificial lamb to make the option the council really want appear more palatable. Standard tactics, propose something so bad that everyone will oppose it, then when the second worst option is actually implemented everyone is grateful and claim a victory. If Option 4 was really the aim of the powers-that-be then the group will fail because they are determined to be pure and above it all by keeping the fight NONE POLITICAL. This means they are relying on the good will of the Hartlepool Councillors and the Hartlepool MP to see that the best option is not the cheapest one! Of course when option 4 is dropped then the group will claim victory, the council will claim it listened to the people and then do what they wanted to do anyway! Cynical, not really, just know how politics works! In fact not politics, just any negotiation. Always start from a position you are willing to concede and fall back to the position you really wanted in the first place. By doing this you appear to be compromising and giving up something, in reality you get exactly what you always wanted AND appear to be reasonable and willing to compromise.
The group are making the same terrible mistake as the “Save our Hospital Group” back in 2004. The SOH Group had the political establishment in Hartlepool TERRIFIED but they then threw away their biggest weapon by deciding not to be POLITICAL. At a stroke the political class in Hartlepool realised these people could effectively be ignored because they were not a threat!
What people have to realize is that the ONLY thing most party politicians really care about is their political career which means they need to keep getting re-elected. Losing their seat is the death knell for an ambitious party politician trying to build a career in politics or who wants to make a good living out of it. If something does not threaten their votes or their career in their chosen party then they simply do not care!
By announcing they are none political the Prom Group have told the party politicians that they don't need to worry. If the Prom group announced NOW that they would be standing candidates in every ward in May 2012 fighting on a manifesto to “Stop the Heart Being Ripped out of Hartlepool” then just look how fast the current councilors would come on board, provided their national party allowed them to! which of course they wouldn't! They would be between a rick and a hard place.
If the Save out Hospital Group has stood a candidate in the 2004 by-election then they would have won and the town would have had a save our hospital MP. If they had stood council candidates then they would have won those seats as well. The Labour party would have been desperate to get the town back and the Save our Hospital Group would have been able to demand anything they wanted. Of course, the SOH group would have had to stand as a group, not just a collection of independents. That is something else people fail to appreciate. Politics is about numbers and about working together. You have to have numbers.
I have joined the group, but am not taking an active part because if I do then there are people in the group who will immediately go onto the attack and accuse me of using the issue as a political football. Therefore, I will support the group from the sidelines but sadly I think the Prom group will ultimately fail and will never achieve anything UNLESS they get political.
The group are probably destined to succeed because Option 4 is only there as a sacrificial lamb to make the option the council really want appear more palatable. Standard tactics, propose something so bad that everyone will oppose it, then when the second worst option is actually implemented everyone is grateful and claim a victory. If Option 4 was really the aim of the powers-that-be then the group will fail because they are determined to be pure and above it all by keeping the fight NONE POLITICAL. This means they are relying on the good will of the Hartlepool Councillors and the Hartlepool MP to see that the best option is not the cheapest one! Of course when option 4 is dropped then the group will claim victory, the council will claim it listened to the people and then do what they wanted to do anyway! Cynical, not really, just know how politics works! In fact not politics, just any negotiation. Always start from a position you are willing to concede and fall back to the position you really wanted in the first place. By doing this you appear to be compromising and giving up something, in reality you get exactly what you always wanted AND appear to be reasonable and willing to compromise.
The group are making the same terrible mistake as the “Save our Hospital Group” back in 2004. The SOH Group had the political establishment in Hartlepool TERRIFIED but they then threw away their biggest weapon by deciding not to be POLITICAL. At a stroke the political class in Hartlepool realised these people could effectively be ignored because they were not a threat!
What people have to realize is that the ONLY thing most party politicians really care about is their political career which means they need to keep getting re-elected. Losing their seat is the death knell for an ambitious party politician trying to build a career in politics or who wants to make a good living out of it. If something does not threaten their votes or their career in their chosen party then they simply do not care!
By announcing they are none political the Prom Group have told the party politicians that they don't need to worry. If the Prom group announced NOW that they would be standing candidates in every ward in May 2012 fighting on a manifesto to “Stop the Heart Being Ripped out of Hartlepool” then just look how fast the current councilors would come on board, provided their national party allowed them to! which of course they wouldn't! They would be between a rick and a hard place.
If the Save out Hospital Group has stood a candidate in the 2004 by-election then they would have won and the town would have had a save our hospital MP. If they had stood council candidates then they would have won those seats as well. The Labour party would have been desperate to get the town back and the Save our Hospital Group would have been able to demand anything they wanted. Of course, the SOH group would have had to stand as a group, not just a collection of independents. That is something else people fail to appreciate. Politics is about numbers and about working together. You have to have numbers.
I have joined the group, but am not taking an active part because if I do then there are people in the group who will immediately go onto the attack and accuse me of using the issue as a political football. Therefore, I will support the group from the sidelines but sadly I think the Prom group will ultimately fail and will never achieve anything UNLESS they get political.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Sognefjord
Continuing my Male Menopause and Male Empty Nest Stalk of son and hier. He is today sailing through Norway's beautiful Sognefjord, the worlds longest and deepest fjord. This is one of the world's most memorable cruise experiences. Overlooked by snow-capped peaks and surrounded by cascading waterfalls, this is a sensational approach to the tiny village of Flamm, which nestles in the innermost part of Sognefjord.
But the fjord is not Flamms only claim to fame, it also has the extraordinary Flamm Railway. A masterpiece of engineering, this rises more than 2,845ft above sea level in just 12 miles and the views are just as dramatic as the journey. There are a variety of other boat and road trips which promise more fantastic scenery along with visits to farms, mines, villages and isolated mountain lodges
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Statistics recently came my way on the use of Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks by local authorities. The figures, released under a Freedom of Information request, showed Hartlepool was the 91st highest user of CRB Checks in 2010/11 out of 628 local authorities asked.
On Teesside, the highest user was Stockton who carried out 4,220 CRB. Hartlepool reported carrying out 3,716. However, Hartlepool "Public Protection" lists their CRB checks separately to the council and they carried out 266 checks. Therefore, Hartlepool's total is actually 3,982. This puts them on par with Cumbria County Council.
The only other Teesside Council who split their CRB's is Redcar and Cleveland; they list their "Development Department" separately. Their 183 checks in 2010/11 give Redcar and Cleveland an overall total of 3,168. Still considerably lower than Hartlepool.
The lowest user of CRB Checks on Teesside is Middlesbrough Council. They checked 1,057 people in 2010/11, less than one third of the people checked by Hartlepool. Does this mean Middlesbrough is less concerned with public safety? Alternatively, could it just mean they manage their CRB Process more effectively? It might be interesting to find out how much these CRB Checks are costing Hartlepool Council, not just in the fees payable to the Criminal Records Bureau but also the internal costs of administration within the council? If they cost just £100 each and the Council could reduce their use to the level of Middlesbrough, which is a much larger local authority, then there are potential savings of almost £300,000.
/628 Council CRB Checks 2010 / 11
79 STOCKTON ON TEES BOROUGH COUNCIL 4220
91 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL 3716
120 REDCAR & CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL 2985
168 DARLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL 1226
175 MIDDLESBROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL 1057
On Teesside, the highest user was Stockton who carried out 4,220 CRB. Hartlepool reported carrying out 3,716. However, Hartlepool "Public Protection" lists their CRB checks separately to the council and they carried out 266 checks. Therefore, Hartlepool's total is actually 3,982. This puts them on par with Cumbria County Council.
The only other Teesside Council who split their CRB's is Redcar and Cleveland; they list their "Development Department" separately. Their 183 checks in 2010/11 give Redcar and Cleveland an overall total of 3,168. Still considerably lower than Hartlepool.
The lowest user of CRB Checks on Teesside is Middlesbrough Council. They checked 1,057 people in 2010/11, less than one third of the people checked by Hartlepool. Does this mean Middlesbrough is less concerned with public safety? Alternatively, could it just mean they manage their CRB Process more effectively? It might be interesting to find out how much these CRB Checks are costing Hartlepool Council, not just in the fees payable to the Criminal Records Bureau but also the internal costs of administration within the council? If they cost just £100 each and the Council could reduce their use to the level of Middlesbrough, which is a much larger local authority, then there are potential savings of almost £300,000.
/628 Council CRB Checks 2010 / 11
79 STOCKTON ON TEES BOROUGH COUNCIL 4220
91 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL 3716
120 REDCAR & CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL 2985
168 DARLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL 1226
175 MIDDLESBROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL 1057
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Edward Watch
Today's cyberstalk of son and heir reveals he is in the peaceful Norwegian village of Olden. The perfect Fjordland cruise setting - nestling at the southern end of one branch of the beautiful Nordfjord and at the entrance to the gorgeous Oldedalen Valley.
A lake in the valley has been turned a rich, deep green by the river pouring down the mountains from the vast, million-years-old Briksdal Glacier. Giant waterfalls also cascade down making the views even more spectacular as you travel through the valley to the foot of the glacier - one of the offshoots of the vast Jostedal Glacier now designated as a national park.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Plastic Penguins
I was brought up in a household where we played boardgames. Classics like Monopoly and Cluedo were regularly out of the box and the family sat round the table and fought it out.
Other games have come and gone. Railroader, and Escape From Colditz are still in the top cupboard in my room at my parent's house. Now a days we are more likely to be playing RISK, although a friend of mine from University who was visiting a while ago was horrified by how cut throat the game was! "You couldn't play this if you were not a close family" was his comment "Your relationship would never survive!"
Recent games that have arrived are Carcassonne, and the current favourite, until this week, was Ticket to Ride. However, there is a new kid on the block North Pole - A penguin vacation .
Very simple game. Your penguin wants to leave the North Pole and go on holiday. He (or she) has the travel across the pack ice. You can waddle (the slowest method), use snow shoes or a sled. If you are really going for it then the Dog Sled is the fastest way to move. You have to watch out for holes in the ice though. They can block your progress. The only gripe I have with the game is the penguin playing pieces! Flimsy cards on cheap plastic stands. OK they look cute but I would have preferred something a bit more substantial.
So I trotted off today to Toys-R-Us to buy some cheap plastic penguins. Its the first time I've been in this shop for several years. Just about every toy in the place seemed to be linked to a film, TV Show or other "integrated marketing strategy" Kids these days apparently don't play with anything that doesn't have a theme or a TV Show behind it. I did eventually find a plastic penguin. In a small section of farm animals. However, they were £4.95 EACH. That would be £30 for playing pieces for a game that cost me £10. I didn't buy them but the search continues!
Other games have come and gone. Railroader, and Escape From Colditz are still in the top cupboard in my room at my parent's house. Now a days we are more likely to be playing RISK, although a friend of mine from University who was visiting a while ago was horrified by how cut throat the game was! "You couldn't play this if you were not a close family" was his comment "Your relationship would never survive!"
Recent games that have arrived are Carcassonne, and the current favourite, until this week, was Ticket to Ride. However, there is a new kid on the block North Pole - A penguin vacation .
Very simple game. Your penguin wants to leave the North Pole and go on holiday. He (or she) has the travel across the pack ice. You can waddle (the slowest method), use snow shoes or a sled. If you are really going for it then the Dog Sled is the fastest way to move. You have to watch out for holes in the ice though. They can block your progress. The only gripe I have with the game is the penguin playing pieces! Flimsy cards on cheap plastic stands. OK they look cute but I would have preferred something a bit more substantial.
Elected Mayors and local Media
Traditional local government in the UK has been carried out by the election of councilors to represent a number of residents in a ward. These councilors then chose from amongst themselves a Mayor who served as Chair of the Council and undertook the civic duties associated with the post. Normally the tenure of a mayor was 12 months. The actual power associated with the Mayor’s office being almost entirely ceremonial. Real influence lay with the chairs of the various committees.
The short duration of the period any individual spent in the Mayor’s office usually meant that the individual occupying the post was rarely well known in his or her own town. Profile amongst your fellow councilors, or leadership of the largest political group on the council, not public recognition, being the criteria for wearing the robes and chains of office. This anonymity was felt to be one of the reasons that there was a general drop in the turn out for local elections. The councilors elected to serve in the town halls being seen as mainly faceless and not really accountable to the electorate.
To address this anonymity and other perceived deficiencies in local government organisation, the post of elected mayor was created by the Blair government in the Local Government Act 2000. The role of the councilors in choosing who would be mayor was to be removed and instead the Mayor would be an individual who would be elected by the residents of a town and who would serve for four years.
The intention was that this would provide a name and a face for residents to identify with and provide a vehicle to re-engage the public with local authority decision making. It was also hoped that the executive powers granted to a mayor would reduce the amount of time necessary for decisions to be made.
The aim of this paper is therefore to examine the success, or otherwise, of the introduction of elected mayors in achieving a higher recognition of the mayor’s office through the medium of the local media, in particular local newspapers.
Outside of London, there are currently eight directly elected mayors. The Mayor of London is elected under different primary legislation and is not included in this study as the huge media profile of Boris Johnson (and before him Ken Livingston) would totally overshadow all other Mayors. The plans by the new Tory-LibDem coalition to introduce elected mayors into major cities, such as Birmingham, may see the emergence of a mayor with a large enough mandate and a platform to match the Mayor of London. However, the people of Birmingham will still need to vote in favour of an elected mayor in the forthcoming referendum to introduce the mayor system.
The eight elected mayors currently in post have a range of local newspapers covering their constituencies. Some compete for coverage in what is a predominately regional newspaper; others have much more locally focused publications with restricted circulations.
The publication frequency also varies with both daily and weekly publications covering the different elected mayors.
All eight of the elected Mayors were contacted to ask if they would participate in this study and the editors of the appropriate local newspapers were also invited to take part.
Four Mayors, Torquay, Mansfield, Bedford and Watford agreed to be interviewed. The Editors of the Watford Observer and the Mansfield Chad also agreed to take part. The two pairs of interviews in Mansfield and Watford have therefore formed the bulk of the conclusions and discussion in this study. Where appropriate supporting remarks from the interviews with the Mayors of Torquay and Bedford have also been included.
There was universal agreement amongst all participants that the role of elected mayor had markedly increased to visibility of the local decision maker within the local town Hall.
There was also agreement amongst the elected Mayors that the local journalists did not fully understand the role of the elected Mayor and so sometimes, the coverage in the local newspapers was not as clear or as comprehensive as it could be. The Mayor for example has no direct control over the planning process and yet this is often one of the most contentious issues in any local authority. This has sometimes led to dissatisfaction with the mayor where it was not really valid.
The Editors of the Watford Observer and Mansfield Chad did on the whole agree with this view. The lack of in depth training for journalists in the elected mayor role was given as one of the possible reasons for this.
This lack of awareness for journalists on the role of elected Mayors has been addressed in the NCTJ recommended textbook for the public affairs for journalists syllabus. However, as the number of elected mayors is still only a tiny fraction of the number of local authorities most journalists working on provincial news papers are still highly unlikely to ever come across an elected mayor. The alternative local government structure of a council leader and executive cabinet exists in the majority of local authorities and they are given even less mention than elected mayors in the NCTJ recommended textbook for the public affairs for journalists syllabus
The other finding of the study was that the newspaper editors and reporters saw the role of elected mayor as being much more newsworthy when it was linked to a clash with the local Member of Parliament over an issue. This was an interesting example of the news value of a story being linked to the perceived value of the source and gave support to the theories of news values that dictate the prominence or otherwise of a particular story.
The conclusions of the study are of course highly subjective as they are based on qualitative interviews that do not readily lend themselves to quantitative analysis.
However, the conclusion is inescapable that the introduction of elected mayors has raised the profile of the local decision makers in the areas of Mansfield and Watford .
As the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill, said in an interview for this study;
“I was stopped the other day by one of my residents who said, “I know who you are, I know what you are doing, I don’t always agree with what you do but I know why you are doing it” I liked that. I told him I would put it on my gravestone.”
The short duration of the period any individual spent in the Mayor’s office usually meant that the individual occupying the post was rarely well known in his or her own town. Profile amongst your fellow councilors, or leadership of the largest political group on the council, not public recognition, being the criteria for wearing the robes and chains of office. This anonymity was felt to be one of the reasons that there was a general drop in the turn out for local elections. The councilors elected to serve in the town halls being seen as mainly faceless and not really accountable to the electorate.
To address this anonymity and other perceived deficiencies in local government organisation, the post of elected mayor was created by the Blair government in the Local Government Act 2000. The role of the councilors in choosing who would be mayor was to be removed and instead the Mayor would be an individual who would be elected by the residents of a town and who would serve for four years.
The intention was that this would provide a name and a face for residents to identify with and provide a vehicle to re-engage the public with local authority decision making. It was also hoped that the executive powers granted to a mayor would reduce the amount of time necessary for decisions to be made.
The aim of this paper is therefore to examine the success, or otherwise, of the introduction of elected mayors in achieving a higher recognition of the mayor’s office through the medium of the local media, in particular local newspapers.
Outside of London, there are currently eight directly elected mayors. The Mayor of London is elected under different primary legislation and is not included in this study as the huge media profile of Boris Johnson (and before him Ken Livingston) would totally overshadow all other Mayors. The plans by the new Tory-LibDem coalition to introduce elected mayors into major cities, such as Birmingham, may see the emergence of a mayor with a large enough mandate and a platform to match the Mayor of London. However, the people of Birmingham will still need to vote in favour of an elected mayor in the forthcoming referendum to introduce the mayor system.
The eight elected mayors currently in post have a range of local newspapers covering their constituencies. Some compete for coverage in what is a predominately regional newspaper; others have much more locally focused publications with restricted circulations.
The publication frequency also varies with both daily and weekly publications covering the different elected mayors.
All eight of the elected Mayors were contacted to ask if they would participate in this study and the editors of the appropriate local newspapers were also invited to take part.
Four Mayors, Torquay, Mansfield, Bedford and Watford agreed to be interviewed. The Editors of the Watford Observer and the Mansfield Chad also agreed to take part. The two pairs of interviews in Mansfield and Watford have therefore formed the bulk of the conclusions and discussion in this study. Where appropriate supporting remarks from the interviews with the Mayors of Torquay and Bedford have also been included.
There was universal agreement amongst all participants that the role of elected mayor had markedly increased to visibility of the local decision maker within the local town Hall.
There was also agreement amongst the elected Mayors that the local journalists did not fully understand the role of the elected Mayor and so sometimes, the coverage in the local newspapers was not as clear or as comprehensive as it could be. The Mayor for example has no direct control over the planning process and yet this is often one of the most contentious issues in any local authority. This has sometimes led to dissatisfaction with the mayor where it was not really valid.
The Editors of the Watford Observer and Mansfield Chad did on the whole agree with this view. The lack of in depth training for journalists in the elected mayor role was given as one of the possible reasons for this.
This lack of awareness for journalists on the role of elected Mayors has been addressed in the NCTJ recommended textbook for the public affairs for journalists syllabus. However, as the number of elected mayors is still only a tiny fraction of the number of local authorities most journalists working on provincial news papers are still highly unlikely to ever come across an elected mayor. The alternative local government structure of a council leader and executive cabinet exists in the majority of local authorities and they are given even less mention than elected mayors in the NCTJ recommended textbook for the public affairs for journalists syllabus
The other finding of the study was that the newspaper editors and reporters saw the role of elected mayor as being much more newsworthy when it was linked to a clash with the local Member of Parliament over an issue. This was an interesting example of the news value of a story being linked to the perceived value of the source and gave support to the theories of news values that dictate the prominence or otherwise of a particular story.
The conclusions of the study are of course highly subjective as they are based on qualitative interviews that do not readily lend themselves to quantitative analysis.
However, the conclusion is inescapable that the introduction of elected mayors has raised the profile of the local decision makers in the areas of Mansfield and Watford .
As the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill, said in an interview for this study;
“I was stopped the other day by one of my residents who said, “I know who you are, I know what you are doing, I don’t always agree with what you do but I know why you are doing it” I liked that. I told him I would put it on my gravestone.”
Monday, 27 June 2011
Too many pharmacies
A row is brewing, or a decision has been "slammed" in Hartlepool Mail Speak, regarding a new pharmacy on Catcote Road. Predictably the owner of the shops criticised the decision, he after all wants tenants in the units and rents coming in. One of the local councillors also critisised the decision, after all that's his job to defend the perceived interests of his residents and getting his picture in the Hartlepool Mail always helps his re-election chances!
However, the decision to refuse the pharmacy was not just some random act of malice against the downtrodden of Rift House. There already is adequate pharmacy coverage in the area according to the NHS Litigation Authority, which received objections by nearby pharmacists who argued there was already sufficient provision in the area.
A local chemist is like any local shop, local pub, local bus service, local library, local anything. A well patronised and PROFITABLE local anything will have businesses cuing up to provide them. A poorly patronised and unprofitable local anything will go out of business. If there is sufficient customers for two business to survive in any area and a third one opens then unless it generates new customers then it can only take them from existing businesses.
Of course some altruistic person, charity or other organisation may be willing to run a business at a loss.Altruistic individuals are few and far between these days. Charities are also no longer in the loss making business. They have of armies of paid staff to support. The most altruistic organisations recently have been local authorities. These are willing to spend any amount of other peoples' money to provide services to their clients. One silver lining of the current credit crunch might just be that local authorities, like Hartlepool, who are proud of being high spending authorities, might just have to start looking at value for money on their spending schemes. However, don't bet on it!
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/pharmacy_u_turn_slammed_1_3514775
However, the decision to refuse the pharmacy was not just some random act of malice against the downtrodden of Rift House. There already is adequate pharmacy coverage in the area according to the NHS Litigation Authority, which received objections by nearby pharmacists who argued there was already sufficient provision in the area.
A local chemist is like any local shop, local pub, local bus service, local library, local anything. A well patronised and PROFITABLE local anything will have businesses cuing up to provide them. A poorly patronised and unprofitable local anything will go out of business. If there is sufficient customers for two business to survive in any area and a third one opens then unless it generates new customers then it can only take them from existing businesses.
Of course some altruistic person, charity or other organisation may be willing to run a business at a loss.Altruistic individuals are few and far between these days. Charities are also no longer in the loss making business. They have of armies of paid staff to support. The most altruistic organisations recently have been local authorities. These are willing to spend any amount of other peoples' money to provide services to their clients. One silver lining of the current credit crunch might just be that local authorities, like Hartlepool, who are proud of being high spending authorities, might just have to start looking at value for money on their spending schemes. However, don't bet on it!
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/pharmacy_u_turn_slammed_1_3514775
Friday, 24 June 2011
It's an ill wind!
If Hartlepool Council is facing the difficult and troubled period we are lead to believe, and needs Mayor Drummond’s firm hand on the tiller, then how can he justify abandoning his post and effectively taking on a second paid job?
As part of the shake up of Cleveland Police Authority Mayor Drummond has reportedly been promoted to Vice Chairman of the Authority. When he joined Cleveland Police Authority, he added an additional £9,548 to his take home pay as Mayor of Hartlepool and the Vice Chairmanship bolsters that by another £6,131.
Councilor’s allowances are supposed to compensate Councilors for the financial implications (such as lost earnings) of serving their communities. They are not supposed to provide lucrative second incomes. Mayor Drummond is a full time politician who is paid over £1,200 a week to carry out his duties. What exactly is he being compensated for with the additional £15,685 he apparently now receives as Vice Chairman of the Police Authority?
If Mayor Drummond has time to devote to the Police Authority then his working day cannot be fully committed as Mayor of Hartlepool? At the very least Drummond should surely follow the example of his Chief Executive and return to the Council the extras cash he now takes from his second job. That £15,685 a year would keep a minimum wage employee at the council off the dole cue. Maybe Mayor Drummond could lead by example and show some restraint in what he is gobbling down from the public trough!
As part of the shake up of Cleveland Police Authority Mayor Drummond has reportedly been promoted to Vice Chairman of the Authority. When he joined Cleveland Police Authority, he added an additional £9,548 to his take home pay as Mayor of Hartlepool and the Vice Chairmanship bolsters that by another £6,131.
Councilor’s allowances are supposed to compensate Councilors for the financial implications (such as lost earnings) of serving their communities. They are not supposed to provide lucrative second incomes. Mayor Drummond is a full time politician who is paid over £1,200 a week to carry out his duties. What exactly is he being compensated for with the additional £15,685 he apparently now receives as Vice Chairman of the Police Authority?
If Mayor Drummond has time to devote to the Police Authority then his working day cannot be fully committed as Mayor of Hartlepool? At the very least Drummond should surely follow the example of his Chief Executive and return to the Council the extras cash he now takes from his second job. That £15,685 a year would keep a minimum wage employee at the council off the dole cue. Maybe Mayor Drummond could lead by example and show some restraint in what he is gobbling down from the public trough!
Monday, 20 June 2011
Constraint payments, the latest "set aside" to stop farms from producing anything
We all know about farmers being paid NOT to grow crops. "Set Aside" payments have been around for years. We might question the value of set aside in these days of rising food prices but now there is a another form of "set aside" available to struggling farmers.
This time farmers are being given "constraint payments"
These payments do not give farmers money NOT to produce food stuffs. These payments are to Wind Farmers and the crop they are being paid NOT to produce is electricity.
We really are seeing the economics of the mad house with wind turbines!
According to a written answer to a question in May this year from Labour MP Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire), the "constraint payments" made to Scottish wind farms over the last two financial years are as follows:
Beinn Tharsuinn Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £31,950.00
Black Law Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £134,960.24
Whitelee Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £466,396.47
Farr Wind Farm,
operator RWE Power Renewables,
payments received £263,484.11
Hadyard Hill Wind Farm,
operator Scottish and Southern,
payments received £152,698.51
Millennium Wind Farm,
operator Flack Renewables,
payments received £32,533.80
According to National Grid estimates, by 2020 wind farmers will be receiving £300 Million a year to STOP the turbines from turning.
PS I don't want to say "I told you so" but here is a post I made on this very subject back in 2007!
This time farmers are being given "constraint payments"
These payments do not give farmers money NOT to produce food stuffs. These payments are to Wind Farmers and the crop they are being paid NOT to produce is electricity.
We really are seeing the economics of the mad house with wind turbines!
According to a written answer to a question in May this year from Labour MP Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire), the "constraint payments" made to Scottish wind farms over the last two financial years are as follows:
Beinn Tharsuinn Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £31,950.00
Black Law Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £134,960.24
Whitelee Wind Farm,
operator Scottish Power,
payments received £466,396.47
Farr Wind Farm,
operator RWE Power Renewables,
payments received £263,484.11
Hadyard Hill Wind Farm,
operator Scottish and Southern,
payments received £152,698.51
Millennium Wind Farm,
operator Flack Renewables,
payments received £32,533.80
According to National Grid estimates, by 2020 wind farmers will be receiving £300 Million a year to STOP the turbines from turning.
PS I don't want to say "I told you so" but here is a post I made on this very subject back in 2007!
No Change is not an option........
Did anyone hear BBC Tees this morning? They were discussing stoke care in Darlington.
A consultation has been started on concentrating the care in Durham and removing the specialist care from Darlington. No decision has been made (Yea right) but according to the spokesman "No change is not an option"
So if the choice is leave it as it is, or move it to Durham, BUT, No change (ie leave things as they are) is NOT an option, then all that is left is moving the unit to Durham?
Why can't people see these "consultations" are meaningless exercises to provide a pseudo-democratic smokescreen for decision that are already made!
Mind you Darlington has been a fairly safe Labour seat since Alan Millburn took it from the Tories in 1992, although the vote fell by 13% when he stepped down in 2010 taking it below the 50% level for the first time since 1992. Durham however is a definite Lib-dem target so the cynics amongst us might look for the political advantages and disadvantages of moving the health care provision from one town to another. Wasn't it Labour who relied on political heat maps to make these decisions. Closing facilities in solid labour areas (like Hartlepool), where the electorate could be relied on to vote labour no matter what, and moving the facilities to marginals or target seats (like Stockton) to bolster up weak support. The Tories are no different, it's just different heat maps so different decisions.
A consultation has been started on concentrating the care in Durham and removing the specialist care from Darlington. No decision has been made (Yea right) but according to the spokesman "No change is not an option"
So if the choice is leave it as it is, or move it to Durham, BUT, No change (ie leave things as they are) is NOT an option, then all that is left is moving the unit to Durham?
Why can't people see these "consultations" are meaningless exercises to provide a pseudo-democratic smokescreen for decision that are already made!
Mind you Darlington has been a fairly safe Labour seat since Alan Millburn took it from the Tories in 1992, although the vote fell by 13% when he stepped down in 2010 taking it below the 50% level for the first time since 1992. Durham however is a definite Lib-dem target so the cynics amongst us might look for the political advantages and disadvantages of moving the health care provision from one town to another. Wasn't it Labour who relied on political heat maps to make these decisions. Closing facilities in solid labour areas (like Hartlepool), where the electorate could be relied on to vote labour no matter what, and moving the facilities to marginals or target seats (like Stockton) to bolster up weak support. The Tories are no different, it's just different heat maps so different decisions.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Britain a democrastic country? Not any more!
I used to think we lived in a democracy. Unfortunately the political classes have forgotten that. Or more realistically they have found a way to retain the pretence of democracy but without all that troublesome need to actually reflect the will of the ordinary people.
The recent farce of a referendum on changing the voting system shows how false our democracy really is these days. Everyone I spoke to wanted a vote on PR. That was what most people wanted instead of First Past the Post. The political class knew this and they knew the pressure was building for a change. So what did they do? They gave the people what they wanted, a vote on changing the system.
Well in fact they gave the people HALF of what they wanted. Yes they gave us a vote, but they rigged the question so that the result was irrelevant. Effectively the question was "Do you want no change to our voting system or do you want a change that will effectively make no difference to the results"
A brilliant piece of real politic. Give the people the appearance of choice and then do what you wanted to do in the first place. Anyone who has been through a government "consultation" process will know exactly how that is done.
With this in mind I was surprised by the honesty of a senior advisor to Ed Milliband who explained why the Labour Party will not back a referendum on in/out of the EU. The Daily Express contacted the Labour Leader, Ed Milliband, to ask if he would side with the Daily Express and back an In/Out referendum?
One of Milliband's aides thought about this briefly before replying: “The problem with that is that the British people would probably vote to leave the EU.”
The pro-EU blinkers were firmly on, it was Brussels first and democracy a distant second.
A letter written in response to a query from one of the Labour Leader's constituents also contained the claim that a referendum on EU Membership isn't necessary because we had one in 1975. This overlooks the fact that the EU did not exist in 1975. The vote the British people were permitted was merely to rubber-stamp a decision to join the “Common Market” that had already been implemented by the political class.
So do we live in a democracy? Apparently yes but in reality no. The political class pay lip service to representing the people but in reality they represent only the political class. The Tory Party used to make no bones about the fact that they represented the property owning, ruling classes. The Labour Party represented the working class. The Lib-Dems represented those people who were confused over their identity, working class people who couldn't make the intellectual step to the Tories or Tories who became embarrassed by the divisions in our society but couldn't quite bring themselves to join the nasty, uncivilised working class. Now of course all three parties are almost indistinguishable at the top.
The parties are like a growing forest. Initially separate trees grow and compete for sunlight and space. As they get bigger they retain their own roots and separate trunks but the uppermost branches merge into a continuous canopy where you can't tell one tree from another. The big three parties in the UK are now thoroughly merged at the top, to the point where it's almost irrelevant which trunk you climb up, once you reach your place in the sun at the top of the tree then you are at the top of them all and everyone you meet there is the same as you are.
The other advantage (well advantage if you are at the top) of a mature canopy is that it provides a secure place where the people at the top can reproduce. If you are born up there then you stay there. The realities of the dark floor of the forest are unknown to you. You don't have to climb the trunk, you are born to live in the sunlight amongst the upper branches and all your friends and contemporaries are also from the top of the trees. So you may be from a Labour Tree or A Tory Tree originally but it doesn't really matter.
The other advantage of being at the top of a big tree is that the interlocking branches completely shut out the sunlight from the forest floor. Down there in the gloom and twilight a new tree trying to establish itself cannot survive. This is why it is so hard to establish a new political party in the UK, the established parties make sure they keep the lion's share of the sunlight!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253397/Ed-Miliband-has-just-made-a-terrible-decision-on-the-EUWhat%27s
The recent farce of a referendum on changing the voting system shows how false our democracy really is these days. Everyone I spoke to wanted a vote on PR. That was what most people wanted instead of First Past the Post. The political class knew this and they knew the pressure was building for a change. So what did they do? They gave the people what they wanted, a vote on changing the system.
Well in fact they gave the people HALF of what they wanted. Yes they gave us a vote, but they rigged the question so that the result was irrelevant. Effectively the question was "Do you want no change to our voting system or do you want a change that will effectively make no difference to the results"
A brilliant piece of real politic. Give the people the appearance of choice and then do what you wanted to do in the first place. Anyone who has been through a government "consultation" process will know exactly how that is done.
With this in mind I was surprised by the honesty of a senior advisor to Ed Milliband who explained why the Labour Party will not back a referendum on in/out of the EU. The Daily Express contacted the Labour Leader, Ed Milliband, to ask if he would side with the Daily Express and back an In/Out referendum?
One of Milliband's aides thought about this briefly before replying: “The problem with that is that the British people would probably vote to leave the EU.”
The pro-EU blinkers were firmly on, it was Brussels first and democracy a distant second.
A letter written in response to a query from one of the Labour Leader's constituents also contained the claim that a referendum on EU Membership isn't necessary because we had one in 1975. This overlooks the fact that the EU did not exist in 1975. The vote the British people were permitted was merely to rubber-stamp a decision to join the “Common Market” that had already been implemented by the political class.
So do we live in a democracy? Apparently yes but in reality no. The political class pay lip service to representing the people but in reality they represent only the political class. The Tory Party used to make no bones about the fact that they represented the property owning, ruling classes. The Labour Party represented the working class. The Lib-Dems represented those people who were confused over their identity, working class people who couldn't make the intellectual step to the Tories or Tories who became embarrassed by the divisions in our society but couldn't quite bring themselves to join the nasty, uncivilised working class. Now of course all three parties are almost indistinguishable at the top.
The parties are like a growing forest. Initially separate trees grow and compete for sunlight and space. As they get bigger they retain their own roots and separate trunks but the uppermost branches merge into a continuous canopy where you can't tell one tree from another. The big three parties in the UK are now thoroughly merged at the top, to the point where it's almost irrelevant which trunk you climb up, once you reach your place in the sun at the top of the tree then you are at the top of them all and everyone you meet there is the same as you are.
The other advantage (well advantage if you are at the top) of a mature canopy is that it provides a secure place where the people at the top can reproduce. If you are born up there then you stay there. The realities of the dark floor of the forest are unknown to you. You don't have to climb the trunk, you are born to live in the sunlight amongst the upper branches and all your friends and contemporaries are also from the top of the trees. So you may be from a Labour Tree or A Tory Tree originally but it doesn't really matter.
The other advantage of being at the top of a big tree is that the interlocking branches completely shut out the sunlight from the forest floor. Down there in the gloom and twilight a new tree trying to establish itself cannot survive. This is why it is so hard to establish a new political party in the UK, the established parties make sure they keep the lion's share of the sunlight!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253397/Ed-Miliband-has-just-made-a-terrible-decision-on-the-EUWhat%27s
Friday, 17 June 2011
Spade Ready!
On Radio Cleveland BBC Tees this morning there was a report about 400 new jobs coming to Tesside by the construction of a bio-refinery to produce around 150,000 tonnes per year of bioethanol, which is enough to run 1.5 million family cars running on E10 petrol. The finished INEOS plant would employ around 50 and the other 350 jobs would be in the construction phase.
Sounds like good news. The firm got £7.3 Million from One North East to get the project rolling and they have completed all the necessary feasibility studies, obtained planning permission, carried out environmental impact assessments, traffic assessments, great crest newt threat surveys, badger and bat watch and confirmed there are no rare or endanger species of plant or animal on the site. They are now, and this was the phrase he used on the radio, "Spade Ready" which means they can start construction as soon as they have the funding in place.
The BBC Tees reported asked how much more did they need? After all they had already had £7.3 Million pounds. Well the plant INEOS are building in Florida is costing around $130 Million so if the UK government kicks in £100 Million then that should be enough to see the construction started. Sounds like a fantastic deal to me! Hand over £100 Million to a private company in return for 50 jobs. The private company then get the revenue the plant generates for the rest of its operating life. That's even worse value for money than the public sector.
A new hospital in Hartlepool could be built for around £100 Million and would employ considerably more than 50 people! Why not use the £100 Million to build the hospital and let INEOS raise the cash through venture capital or sale of shares? Isn't that how it used to work? Public money built public facilities like schools and hospitals and private equity built shops, offices and factories. That seems to be turned upside down these days, public facilities are built with private money but private firms get public money in the form of "grants" to fund their businesses.
Sounds like good news. The firm got £7.3 Million from One North East to get the project rolling and they have completed all the necessary feasibility studies, obtained planning permission, carried out environmental impact assessments, traffic assessments, great crest newt threat surveys, badger and bat watch and confirmed there are no rare or endanger species of plant or animal on the site. They are now, and this was the phrase he used on the radio, "Spade Ready" which means they can start construction as soon as they have the funding in place.
The BBC Tees reported asked how much more did they need? After all they had already had £7.3 Million pounds. Well the plant INEOS are building in Florida is costing around $130 Million so if the UK government kicks in £100 Million then that should be enough to see the construction started. Sounds like a fantastic deal to me! Hand over £100 Million to a private company in return for 50 jobs. The private company then get the revenue the plant generates for the rest of its operating life. That's even worse value for money than the public sector.
A new hospital in Hartlepool could be built for around £100 Million and would employ considerably more than 50 people! Why not use the £100 Million to build the hospital and let INEOS raise the cash through venture capital or sale of shares? Isn't that how it used to work? Public money built public facilities like schools and hospitals and private equity built shops, offices and factories. That seems to be turned upside down these days, public facilities are built with private money but private firms get public money in the form of "grants" to fund their businesses.
Is this your vehicle?
Hartlepool, in common with many towns around the UK, charges for car parking in the town centre. The residential streets around the town centre are now all "Residents Parking Only" to prevent people using these residential streets to avoid the town centre charges. This of course generates a mass of paperwork to issue these parking permits, which of course only last for 12 months, after which they have to be re-issued. A nice job for someone in the Civic Centre.
So my parking permit expired at the end of May. I telephoned the civic centre "Contact Centre" and after listening to the on-hold music, being told all of their operators were busy, followed by more music and a warning that calls would be recorded for quality and training purposes, I finally got to speak to someone. A protracted discussion took place after which he decided that I had to present myself, in person, with proof of eligibility (gas bill, electricity bill, etc) and I could then be issued with a new permit for the cost of £10.
Arriving at the Hartlepool Civic Centre I was greeted by two very nice ladies at the reception desk, who after they had completed their very important conversation, directed me towards a machine which gave out numbered tickets so that people were seen strictly in order or arrival. There was a choice of buttons at this machine. I pressed to one for Car Parking and received ticket number 834.
The next number called was 82! Through the glass security screens I could see groups of people standing around chatting to each other. How refreshing that Hartlepool Council Staff don't bother with conference rooms with tea and biscuits when they need to exchange information. They hold their meetings standing up in the middle of the office! I was in for a long wait I thought. Number 83 didn't show up and number 84 was called. However I then discovered that each of the three buttons gave out tickets in a different number sequence. Number 843 was the next number served after number 84? Work that out? Why have three separate ticketing systems running? Someone is obviously in love with making things complicated! Possibly that was why the staff had to go into little huddles in the middle of the office, they needed to co-ordinate three separate cuing systems.
After only 30 minutes my number came up! I presented the old permit and asked for a replacement. Did I have proof of entitlement? The electricity bill was presented and accepted. What was the registration number of the vehicle for which the permit was required. I told him. Did I have proof of ownership of the vehicle? That one floored me! Why would I be asking for a permit for some else's car? Sorry he said, I need to see the log book to prove you own the car. Brilliant I thought, another trip to the civic centre and another half a day out of my life that I'd never get back.
However, there was a way out. I was entitled to a permit, as proved by my electricity bill, but as I didn't have the paperwork to prove I actually owned a car I would have to have an open permit valid for ANY Vehicle! I paid my £10 and it was duly issued. Why would anyone want a permit limited to one vehicle when they can present less paperwork and get one they can use for any car, van, truck, motorbike or side-car. The bureaucratic mind never fails to amaze me!
So my parking permit expired at the end of May. I telephoned the civic centre "Contact Centre" and after listening to the on-hold music, being told all of their operators were busy, followed by more music and a warning that calls would be recorded for quality and training purposes, I finally got to speak to someone. A protracted discussion took place after which he decided that I had to present myself, in person, with proof of eligibility (gas bill, electricity bill, etc) and I could then be issued with a new permit for the cost of £10.
Arriving at the Hartlepool Civic Centre I was greeted by two very nice ladies at the reception desk, who after they had completed their very important conversation, directed me towards a machine which gave out numbered tickets so that people were seen strictly in order or arrival. There was a choice of buttons at this machine. I pressed to one for Car Parking and received ticket number 834.
The next number called was 82! Through the glass security screens I could see groups of people standing around chatting to each other. How refreshing that Hartlepool Council Staff don't bother with conference rooms with tea and biscuits when they need to exchange information. They hold their meetings standing up in the middle of the office! I was in for a long wait I thought. Number 83 didn't show up and number 84 was called. However I then discovered that each of the three buttons gave out tickets in a different number sequence. Number 843 was the next number served after number 84? Work that out? Why have three separate ticketing systems running? Someone is obviously in love with making things complicated! Possibly that was why the staff had to go into little huddles in the middle of the office, they needed to co-ordinate three separate cuing systems.
After only 30 minutes my number came up! I presented the old permit and asked for a replacement. Did I have proof of entitlement? The electricity bill was presented and accepted. What was the registration number of the vehicle for which the permit was required. I told him. Did I have proof of ownership of the vehicle? That one floored me! Why would I be asking for a permit for some else's car? Sorry he said, I need to see the log book to prove you own the car. Brilliant I thought, another trip to the civic centre and another half a day out of my life that I'd never get back.
However, there was a way out. I was entitled to a permit, as proved by my electricity bill, but as I didn't have the paperwork to prove I actually owned a car I would have to have an open permit valid for ANY Vehicle! I paid my £10 and it was duly issued. Why would anyone want a permit limited to one vehicle when they can present less paperwork and get one they can use for any car, van, truck, motorbike or side-car. The bureaucratic mind never fails to amaze me!
Monday, 13 June 2011
One per cent of entire Slovakian population living in Britain
There were an estimated 8,000 Slovaks living in Britain at the time the country was created in 1999 by the break up of Czechoslovakia. In 2004 Slovakia joined the European Union and they now represent the fastest growing foreign-born group living and working in the UK.
An estimated 52,000 Slovakians are now resident in Britain. It represents a six times fold increase in the Slovakian population in Britain but more alarmingly it is the equivalent to 1% of the total population of the country.
The number of Latvian has grown from about 7,000 to an estimated 39,000 in the same period and the number from Romania, which joined the EU later, has risen from an estimated 14,000 in 2004 to 53,000 today.
Eight more Eastern European countries, and of course Turkey, are in line to join the European Union by 2018. Eastern European Workers are often paid below what a British worker would have been paid, they work long hours and accept difficult working conditions.
The reality is that they have added enormously to the competition that British workers face and are one reason why since 1997 a huge proportion of new jobs created in the UK have gone to foreign born workers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8571092/One-per-cent-of-entire-Slovakian-population-living-in-Britain.html
An estimated 52,000 Slovakians are now resident in Britain. It represents a six times fold increase in the Slovakian population in Britain but more alarmingly it is the equivalent to 1% of the total population of the country.
The number of Latvian has grown from about 7,000 to an estimated 39,000 in the same period and the number from Romania, which joined the EU later, has risen from an estimated 14,000 in 2004 to 53,000 today.
Eight more Eastern European countries, and of course Turkey, are in line to join the European Union by 2018. Eastern European Workers are often paid below what a British worker would have been paid, they work long hours and accept difficult working conditions.
The reality is that they have added enormously to the competition that British workers face and are one reason why since 1997 a huge proportion of new jobs created in the UK have gone to foreign born workers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8571092/One-per-cent-of-entire-Slovakian-population-living-in-Britain.html
Friday, 10 June 2011
Eric Pickles' "new favourite word", doppelspitze
http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2011/may/23/international-localism-models
When it comes to localism, it seems the government is now only too willing to look overseas for its cues.
Take for instance Eric Pickles' "new favourite word", doppelspitze, which refers to the former system in several German länder, prior to introducing elected mayors in the 1990s, when it became apparent that an elected politician didn't need to share power and prominence with a costly salaried chief executive.
In recent weeks we have seen Leicester's newly-elected mayor and former council leader Sir Peter Soulsby enter office and propose the abolition of the city's chief executive post pretty much on arrival after swapping Parliament for city hall. Perhaps he was taking his cue from the logic of the localism bill applied in London, where Leo Boland, the chief executive of the Greater London Authority, concluded that his own post was superfluous given the existence of a directly elected London mayor.
That's not to say that antipathy to doppelspitze is without precedent even here in the UK. For instance Doncaster's troubled mayoralty concluded early on that a 'managing director' might be more appropriate for an authority where supposedly the buck stopped with the mayor.
So far, so European.
But what of other countries like Japan? Interest in the idea of merged mayoral posts and chief executives also abounds here, where, since the introduction of a uniform system of local autonomy introduced in 1947 under the US sponsored post-war constitution, elected 'chief executives' (as referred to in Japanese) exist in both the municipal (city and town) and prefectural (county, roughly speaking) tiers as mayors and governors respectively.
As elected city chiefs, Japanese mayors act as both political leadership and head of the administration and are required to appoint one or more vice mayors, who can either come from within the local civil service or be seconded from a central government ministry on request of the mayor.
Executive leadership has become more of a pressing issue in recent years following the wave of municipal mergers (from 3,000 a decade ago to just over 1,800 today) and continued efforts towards decentralisation, with mayors now seen as more than just community leaders. Japanese academics refer to this as a 'presidential' style of local governance, though curiously there is some debate in these quarters about introducing "the British system" of local authority 'chief executives', as well as replacing elected mayors with indirectly elected ones in order to encourage more collegiate governance.
With respect to day to day administration, the vice mayor of the city or town acts as both lead official and their voice on earth, communicating policies and directions to the bureaucracy and the local elected assembly.
We might recognise this as a de facto local authority chief executive in all but name, but it is regarded as more akin to the US city manager model and is not considered the 'head of paid service' like in the UK.
It is, however, important to appreciate certain facts of the Japanese system, where the local civil service is hired on career length contracts from graduation and work as generalists on the basis of regular and almost guaranteed promotion, culminating in a top-tier of service heads below the vice mayors working near to retirement.
British mantras about leadership and performance are simply not present within the local bureaucracy. It's also worth noting that lack of female participation, despite some political efforts at national level, remains stubbornly persistent in Japan, withonly 15 female city mayors and six vice mayors (out of 1,800 nationwide).
So while there's no question of Japanese mayors having to share the stage with a marzipan layer of well-remunerated chief execs, there would probably be zero interest from Eland House in introducing the jobs for life local civil servants required for making it work, nor much appetite in provincial town halls for the arrival of a Department of Communities and Local Government civil servant from London to oversee their administration.
Andrew Stevens is UK editor for CityMayors.com and also works at the Japan Local Government Centre in London (with thanks to Irmelind Kirchner and Mamika Kambayashi)
When it comes to localism, it seems the government is now only too willing to look overseas for its cues.
Take for instance Eric Pickles' "new favourite word", doppelspitze, which refers to the former system in several German länder, prior to introducing elected mayors in the 1990s, when it became apparent that an elected politician didn't need to share power and prominence with a costly salaried chief executive.
In recent weeks we have seen Leicester's newly-elected mayor and former council leader Sir Peter Soulsby enter office and propose the abolition of the city's chief executive post pretty much on arrival after swapping Parliament for city hall. Perhaps he was taking his cue from the logic of the localism bill applied in London, where Leo Boland, the chief executive of the Greater London Authority, concluded that his own post was superfluous given the existence of a directly elected London mayor.
That's not to say that antipathy to doppelspitze is without precedent even here in the UK. For instance Doncaster's troubled mayoralty concluded early on that a 'managing director' might be more appropriate for an authority where supposedly the buck stopped with the mayor.
So far, so European.
But what of other countries like Japan? Interest in the idea of merged mayoral posts and chief executives also abounds here, where, since the introduction of a uniform system of local autonomy introduced in 1947 under the US sponsored post-war constitution, elected 'chief executives' (as referred to in Japanese) exist in both the municipal (city and town) and prefectural (county, roughly speaking) tiers as mayors and governors respectively.
As elected city chiefs, Japanese mayors act as both political leadership and head of the administration and are required to appoint one or more vice mayors, who can either come from within the local civil service or be seconded from a central government ministry on request of the mayor.
Executive leadership has become more of a pressing issue in recent years following the wave of municipal mergers (from 3,000 a decade ago to just over 1,800 today) and continued efforts towards decentralisation, with mayors now seen as more than just community leaders. Japanese academics refer to this as a 'presidential' style of local governance, though curiously there is some debate in these quarters about introducing "the British system" of local authority 'chief executives', as well as replacing elected mayors with indirectly elected ones in order to encourage more collegiate governance.
With respect to day to day administration, the vice mayor of the city or town acts as both lead official and their voice on earth, communicating policies and directions to the bureaucracy and the local elected assembly.
We might recognise this as a de facto local authority chief executive in all but name, but it is regarded as more akin to the US city manager model and is not considered the 'head of paid service' like in the UK.
It is, however, important to appreciate certain facts of the Japanese system, where the local civil service is hired on career length contracts from graduation and work as generalists on the basis of regular and almost guaranteed promotion, culminating in a top-tier of service heads below the vice mayors working near to retirement.
British mantras about leadership and performance are simply not present within the local bureaucracy. It's also worth noting that lack of female participation, despite some political efforts at national level, remains stubbornly persistent in Japan, withonly 15 female city mayors and six vice mayors (out of 1,800 nationwide).
So while there's no question of Japanese mayors having to share the stage with a marzipan layer of well-remunerated chief execs, there would probably be zero interest from Eland House in introducing the jobs for life local civil servants required for making it work, nor much appetite in provincial town halls for the arrival of a Department of Communities and Local Government civil servant from London to oversee their administration.
Andrew Stevens is UK editor for CityMayors.com and also works at the Japan Local Government Centre in London (with thanks to Irmelind Kirchner and Mamika Kambayashi)
key talent quitting the public sector?
In a SHOCK poll result 73% of those surveyed felt that council redundancies will lead to key talent quitting the public sector, leaving councils unable to provide front-line services.
This survey was carried out by, wait for it, the Guardian and those questioned were, yes, you guessed it, members of the local government network.
Well I suppose that confirms it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The question I'd like to have answered is where will all these people quitting the public sector actually be going? The jobs that are available in the private sector generally pay less, have worse job security and the final salary pension schemes collapsed years ago. That's probably the answer, the people quitting the public sector are taking their pensions before the money runs out. Who can blame them really!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/jun/08/redundancies-brain-drain-council-warn?&
This survey was carried out by, wait for it, the Guardian and those questioned were, yes, you guessed it, members of the local government network.
Well I suppose that confirms it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The question I'd like to have answered is where will all these people quitting the public sector actually be going? The jobs that are available in the private sector generally pay less, have worse job security and the final salary pension schemes collapsed years ago. That's probably the answer, the people quitting the public sector are taking their pensions before the money runs out. Who can blame them really!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/jun/08/redundancies-brain-drain-council-warn?&
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Japan, China, Rome, Libya, Afganistan, the UK.............
There are increasing numbers of bloggers and web commentators asking when will the people in the UK wake up to what is happening to democracy in our country and say Enough is Enough. We are spending £Millions on bombing Libya and our troops are being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq but at home the political elite are becoming even more removed from the realities of life. A 19% increase in gas prices might not cause big increasers in heating bills in the summer months but the effects will hit hard next winter.
Unfortunately, I doubt it will be in my lifetime that the people in the UK will reach the point of saying enough is enough.
Materially most people are still much, much better off than they were even just 20 years ago. It is everyone's "right" these days to have central heating, colour TV, mobile phone, internet, McDonalds or a takeaway on every street corner, cheap clothes, reality TV and the chance to be famous for a day. Until things get a lot, lot worse then there is little chance they will ever get better. Ultimately the wealth of the world will be concentrated into a few incredibly wealth families, these people will own EVERYTHING. There will be a small professional class who run everything and a vast mass the rest of us who are given bread and circuses to keep us happy. Social mobility will be zero and you will be born to your station in life.
The Japanese had a stable society based on ridged rank for generations, only toppled by western influences. The Chinese had a stable society for 1,000s of years based on everyone knowing their rank. The basic unit was the family but the principle went from the very top where the Emperor’s family were the ultimate and right down to the lowest peasant in the fields. The father had authority over the wife who had authority over the children. Boys had authority over the girls and the elder children had authority over the younger children. Even in youth, however, younger boys had authority over elder girls. If a grandfather was still alive, he was the most important member of the family with a grandmother the most important woman.
Chinese civilization survived largely unchanged for thousands of years while the West suffered through multiple collapses. Confucianism may not match our modern ideas about gender equality and individual liberty, but the longevity of the hierarchy it produced is still followed by hundreds of millions of Chinese today. The threat to Chinese society now comes from outside influences just as it was Commander Perry, gunboats and outside influences that pulled down the Japanese.
Therefore, the lessons from history are clear. When societies get rotten enough they fall to vigorous and more ambitions outsiders who come in and take over. Even the Roman Empire did not collapse from within; it needed the barbarian tribes to pull it down. However, when the same small group owns the whole world then where will outside influences come from to topple the system?
Unfortunately, I doubt it will be in my lifetime that the people in the UK will reach the point of saying enough is enough.
Materially most people are still much, much better off than they were even just 20 years ago. It is everyone's "right" these days to have central heating, colour TV, mobile phone, internet, McDonalds or a takeaway on every street corner, cheap clothes, reality TV and the chance to be famous for a day. Until things get a lot, lot worse then there is little chance they will ever get better. Ultimately the wealth of the world will be concentrated into a few incredibly wealth families, these people will own EVERYTHING. There will be a small professional class who run everything and a vast mass the rest of us who are given bread and circuses to keep us happy. Social mobility will be zero and you will be born to your station in life.
The Japanese had a stable society based on ridged rank for generations, only toppled by western influences. The Chinese had a stable society for 1,000s of years based on everyone knowing their rank. The basic unit was the family but the principle went from the very top where the Emperor’s family were the ultimate and right down to the lowest peasant in the fields. The father had authority over the wife who had authority over the children. Boys had authority over the girls and the elder children had authority over the younger children. Even in youth, however, younger boys had authority over elder girls. If a grandfather was still alive, he was the most important member of the family with a grandmother the most important woman.
Chinese civilization survived largely unchanged for thousands of years while the West suffered through multiple collapses. Confucianism may not match our modern ideas about gender equality and individual liberty, but the longevity of the hierarchy it produced is still followed by hundreds of millions of Chinese today. The threat to Chinese society now comes from outside influences just as it was Commander Perry, gunboats and outside influences that pulled down the Japanese.
Therefore, the lessons from history are clear. When societies get rotten enough they fall to vigorous and more ambitions outsiders who come in and take over. Even the Roman Empire did not collapse from within; it needed the barbarian tribes to pull it down. However, when the same small group owns the whole world then where will outside influences come from to topple the system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)