Article

|

The April edition of Martin Linton’s Bugle dropped through my door this morning.  The newsletter, funded by his Parliamentary communications allowance always makes interesting reading.

One of the stories is on his successful campaigning against the third runway, to which he is “opposed… on environmental grounds.”  Apparently he “has voted against the third runway twice and will continue to campaign against it.”

Hold it though, that’s not quite right is it? In January he voted with the Government in support of the third runway.  He claimed afterwards that he was confused and tried to blame the Conservatives.  It was all fine though, because “sometimes funny things happen in Parliament.”  Yes, indeed.

I’m glad that, as a taxpayer, he gets some of our money to tell me what he’s up to, it helps transparent government.  I’m not so happy that when he decided to support his beleagured government on Heathrow than stand up for his constituents, but that’s the nature of representative government.  What I am unhappy about is that he’s using our money to pretend he’s always been on our side.  Would it have been to much for him to have taken the opportunity to say sorry?

Article

|

I’m sure he wouldn’t want my sympathy, if he even knew he’d got it, after all he looked very happy in his recent YouTube video.  But I can’t help myself, my opinions remain the same as the beginning of the year.

To add to his woes someone has set up a petition calling on him to resign.  Amazingly this seems to have gathered over 22,000 signatures in just a few days and is the fifth most popular petition on the Number 10 site.  You can see for yourself at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Of course, one of the problems with petitions is that they don’t allow people to put forward the opposing view.  Luckily, someone has set up a petition calling on the Prime Minister to stay.  It hasn’t got quite as many signatures yet (currently 10, including Joy Wendy Endcomes and D N Disnigh) but I’m sure it will soon have thousands.  You can sign that one at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/support-the-PM/

And now I’m going to be serious and slightly sniffy.  These petitions are a bit of political fun.  In practice they are going to make no difference.

While it is interesting that the resignation petition has gained such traction, 22,000 people is still a long way short of the 15,000,000 who voted for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in the 2005 election.  Labour, under Tony Blair, formed the government and no-one seriously claiming they lacked legitimacy or called for his resignation.  And every day opinion polls shows a significant lead for the Conservatives suggesting that more people want another guy in Number 10.

Even when you have a popular Prime Minister the nature of politics means that there will still be millions who would not support them.  You could argue on that basis that the relatively small number of petitioners shows there is general support for the PM.

So while I’m happy to participate and advertise the petition I also recognise that petitions, by their very nature, push a single issue.  They do not require people to consider the alternatives or potential consequences and are often signed by people largely ignorant of the issues (the majority of people will willingly sign a petition calling for a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide).  Of course I think Britain would be better without Brown, and without a Labour government, but know that what does matter and will make a difference are votes at the ballot box.

(As a small codicile, one benefit of petitions is that they can raise awareness and make governments and councils consider an issue.  If you are happy to sign the petition calling on Gordon Brown to go, or even calling on him to stay, then perhaps you could spare a moment to add a signature to some of these lesser known causes:

  • Maternal Health – raised by Jessica’s Trust calling for monitoring of new mothers to help provide early warning of a potentially fatal condition.
  • Bletchley Park – which calls on the Prime Minister to save Bletchley Park, home of Britain’s code-breaking which proved crucial in the Second World War.
  • Photo restrict – which asks for a change in the law to remove the ludicrous restrictions on photography in public places.

I’m sure there are many more, feel free to advertise any causes in the comments of this post.)

Article

|

After Tuesday night’s BATCA Open Forum I was pointed in the direction of Sadiq Khan’s website, and, specifically, his coverage of the news that Tooting town centre is to get its own police team.

Sadiq Khan welcomes Tooting police teamObviously I’m glad that he also welcomes the team. But I was drawn to the comment that “Labour Councillors and Sadiq have lobbied Wandsworth Council to introduce” the new team.

I have to take issue with this for two reasons:

  1. I’m not aware of Sadiq ever asking Wandsworth Council to introduce a police team in Tooting.  As the Cabinet Member responsible for community safety I would expect council officers to have told me if he had. However, even if he had I wouldn’t be that disappointed if officers hadn’t let me know because of my second point…
  2. Wandsworth Council (like every other council in the country) does not control, manage or in any other way direct the police.  We may work in partnership with them, but we do not have any operational control.

Now Sadiq is a minister in the Department for Local Government.  He was also a Wandworth Councillor for many years before becoming an MP.  I suppose it’s entirely possible you could do both those roles without  knowing what’s going on (Gordon Brown was Chancellor for ten years, after all), but it is stretching credibility a bit far.

The more realistic explanation is that he knows the council is not responsible for the police, but took the gamble many people don’t know.  And to his credit it’s actually a pretty good gamble, I’ve spoken to many residents who assume the police are just a part of the council.  And it makes good political sense for a Labour MP in a marginal seat.  You take credit for good news, and get to imply the Conservative council are the bad guys.

So, lesson one: if it’s good, take credit for it.  If possible, do this while suggesting your opponents were to blame for whatever wasn’t so good before.

I won’t pretend that I or my party are whiter than white.  Only this morning I was accused of doing much the same thing, and re-reading my announcement of the news feel I should add to it.

I will still give some credit to this to the Mayor, neighbourhood resources are allocated centrally and very little flexibility is allowed.  When we’d previously tried to address this, by seeing if resources could be moved to priority areas it was refused out of hand: Boris deserves credit for allowing a more pragmatic approach.

And I will still point out that we have repeatedly asked for town centre teams for Tooting and Clapham Junction.  What’s more, we were asking the right people.

However, I didn’t give credit to the police borough commander, Chief Superintendent Stewart Low, who actually made it possible by re-organising his teams to free up the sergeant, constables and community support officers necessary to create the team.  If there is a single individual who deserves credit it is him, and I’m happy to apologise for not pointing that out when I first had the opportunity.

Article

|

One of the books in me is The Aborted Politician, a look at those people who created an embryonic political career and contested a parliamentary seat and then – for whatever reason – did not pursue politics any further. Luckily for the book-buying public no publisher would touch me. My Comprehensive school education barely got beyond ‘doing words’ and ‘describing words’ and while I use semi-colons to appear clever; deep down I know I’m not using them properly.

Unfortunately the internet gives a forum to anyone dull enough, angry enough or self-obsessed enough to set up a blog.

So, prompted by ConservativeHome’s look at the 27 ‘A list’ candidates (from the original 100) who are no longer looking for a seat I started thinking about the issues around this again.  The article is interesting partly because a single internet page has probably ruined my book idea.  And interesting because I’m guessing this is about as close to an exit interview any of these people have got.

My interest in this is that I, too, am one of those aborted politicians.  When younger I was determined to become an MP and in 2001 found myself fighting my unwinnable, the apprenticeship seat, which I enjoyed enormously.  Obviously I lost (only 11,000 or so votes in it), but did a good enough job to get myself on the approved list of candidates for the 2005 election.

And that was it.  I never applied for another seat.

In the run up to the 2005 election I gave myself all sorts of excuses for not applying for seats.  No suitable vacancies…  I wanted to get more life experience…  My time was more valuably spent working in Battersea…  But deep down I think I knew that I just didn’t really want to be an MP anymore, even if I could not pin-point actually taking that decision.

Now I don’t think I’m typical.  And don’t think I’m a great loss to Parliament.  But looking through the list on ConservativeHome, and knowing others who were not even allowed on the list in the first place, I think Parliament and this country has missed out on some very able potential MPs.  And if we want to improve the government of this country we need to work out why those talented people get so close,  invest so much of their time, energy and money, and then walk away.

Maybe I fall into the self-obsessed category (I’m not angry about it, and hope I’m not dull) but I feel an examination of those abortive political careers would cast an interesting light on the political system.  While the Conservative and Labour Parties have fairly professional looking assessment procedures, the whole process is slightly odd.

For my assessment I had to go to Melton Mowbray, home of the pork pie and a rather nice conference hotel venue, where I sat psychometric tests, took part in role plays, did desk-top exercises and was interviewed but – very curiously – encouraged not to talk about politics.  The reasoning was that they were looking for people who could bring real life experience to the party.  But I couldn’t, and still can’t, help but think it’s a bit odd.  Would you want a doctor who has no curiosity about the human body?  A musician with no passion for music?

The problem is that parties only have a veneer of professionalism and, while it’s getting better, we still have amateurs running the country.  There isn’t an HR department identifying training needs, nor a proper disciplinary process to deal with problem members (you can’t pretend elections serve this purpose when the majority of seats never change hands).  The fact is that initiatives like the Conservative ‘A list’ are window dressing, the aims are noble, but they do not address the underlying issues that need tackling to improve female or ethnic minority representation in Parliament.  My suspicion is that despite all the initiatives on both sides of the political divide the basic profile of the MP hasn’t really changed all that much in the last 20 or 30 years.

Of course, I can imagine what the Daily Mail’s response would be if MPs were to vote themselves a decent training allowance, or Parliament were to start giving political parties money to develop talented grassroots activists who may have something to offer on a wider stage.  So, instead, we end up with the legislature and executive we deserve, just because that’s the way politics is done in this country.

Article

|

I just do not understand why it has taken so long.

One of my recurrent themes is ‘being human’.  For some reason politicians often seem to equate signs of humanity as signs of weakness.  So when the Prime Minister’s staff were planning smear campaigns it took him days to do what any decent human being would do, and say sorry.

As a total aside I did a little spot on engagement for the Improvement and Development Agency in which I suggested the Muppet-Superman continuum on which politicians are judged (the description comes in at 2:05):


This video is also available on YouTube.

This whole episode reminded me of Margaret Thatcher’s household budgeting analogy, and for some reason I couldn’t help but bring it down to a household level. If your children had accidentally damaged your neighbour’s property, say a football through a window, the first thing you would do is march them round, apologise and make the child apologise and offer to make amends.

So it wasn’t actually that much of a surprise to come across Matthew Parris’ column in today’s Times. Her approach, when an aide had offended a member of the public, was to demand an apology immediately. Obviously, politics played their part, but behind it is a realisation that sometimes saying sorry is both appropriate and necessary.

Unfortunately it’s not something the Prime Minister has worked out and he, instead, behaves like a petulant child refusing to accept that something is very wrong in his government. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but I find myself wishing we had Blair back.

And this is where the Muppet-Superman continuum comes in. Brown has spent years portraying himself as the ‘Iron Chancellor’, a son of the manse, straightforward and honest. A sort of super politician who would provide competent, unshowy, government with principle after the years of Blair/Campbell spin.

And instead we have a muppet, a Prime Minister who sort of co-ordinates the show, but without the hilarity and, most definitely, without Kermit’s charm.

Article

|

I’ve tried to resist, I really have.  But I can’t help but post on Jacqui Smith submitting a claim for her husband’s porn.   But it’s just too good a story to let pass by.  And it isn’t just a case of taking the high moral ground, although I did oppose the government’s attempt to conceal MPs’ expenses.  Nor is it a case of believing that MPs’ should wear hair-shirts.

If anything, I’m a bit uncomfortable about the whole row because I think MPs are entitled to expenses for second homes.  What’s more, I have no problem with them using it for a bit of luxury.  If you are expecting most of them to divide their lives between two homes I do not see how they would be made more effective if one was a ‘home’ and the other the political equivalent of a monk’s cell.  People need a degree of comfort.

Where the line is drawn is a matter for debate.  What I might consider a perfectly acceptable comfort might be a luxury too far for someone else.  Indeed, I don’t think I’d object to a media package, why shouldn’t MPs be able to unwind with a bit of mindless TV or a movie?  But even having said that, paying for porn for the other half is surely a step too far.  What really gets me on this is that the Home Secretary submitted this claim nearly a year ago.  Only now it’s in the news has it become a problem.  But didn’t she check the claims made in her name?  Didn’t she spot the curiously titled items on her Virgin Media bill?

To me, the worst sin here is not a husband who likes porn when his wife is away, but the culture in which an MP can claim for anything they want without any sort of moral check.  Now it might be that Jacqui Smith doesn’t do her own expenses claims, and that would be even worse; you then have people in her office (and I know her husband is one of them) who don’t check the claims, or if they do, don’t feel they can challenge what is a blatant abuse of public money.  Whatever way you look at it the whole culture around MPs expenses in corrupt.

Article

|

Battersea In TouchWe are currently in the process of distributing the latest issue of ‘In Touch’, our consitutency wide paper.

If you prefer paperless, you can download a copy by following this link (543kb).

The issue contains:

  • Zero council tax increase this year
  • A message from Wandsworth Council Leader Edward Lister
  • Boris tackles City Hall waste to deliver tax freeze this year
  • What Wandsworth is doing to help combat the recession
  • David Cameron on the change our country needs
Article

|

South Thames College has become the latest victim of the government’s rudderless interpretation of the ship of state.

The college has been undergoing a dramatic makeover recently, with new facilities being built to the rear of their Wandsworth High Street site the next phase was on the listed front of the building. Despite having got agreement in principle and being told the money had been ringfenced for them, the college is now told the money just isn’t there.

The government were aware of the problems six months ago. On yesterday’s Today programme Education Minister Siôn Simon accepted that one of his officials had attended meetings, but that the minutes just weren’t very detailed, and didn’t really cover the funding problems until late last year. So that’s all right then.

All the time this gives the impression of a government that seems to know the game is up, and is just going through the motions until the electorate get the chance to blow the whistle. Unfortunately South Thames College, and the people employed on the work there, are amongst those paying the price on this one.

Article

|

I think Wandsworth is pretty good at avoiding ‘jargon’ in its communications, so don’t expect to be too embarrassed by The Local Government Association‘s (LGA) attack on jargon in councils.  Indeed, generally I support the LGA in its stance.  If councils can’t communicate with their residents, then you have to wonder who can.  But I cannot help but feel they have got it slightly wrong.

Let’s nail the idea that jargon is necessarily bad straight away.  It isn’t.  Jargon is essential in virtually every business or trade. People use the word ‘jargon’ in a derogoratory way to simply refer to phrases they do not understand.  But to people dealing with the particular concepts, ideas or tools jargon is essential, it’s a verbal short-hand.  You will probably have some in your line of work that I would not understand.  And for some reason we seem to accuse some jobs and professions more than others.  We rarely hear doctors accused of using jargon, do we?  But council staff?  All the time, and I worry that actually reflects an inherent bias in our culture that values council staff less than doctors.

Jargon becomes inappropriate when it is used outside that trade.  A lot of the words they use I would never consider using even when talking to other councillors or council officers.  But some of them I do, because they have become that convenient short-hand that allows us to communicate efficiently, it takes a lot longer to describe a local area agreement without jargon than it does to refer to the LAA.  But I wouldn’t expect the average person to know what an LAA is, or even, for that matter understand or care if it was explained to them.  Most people want to know public services work, not how they work.

Where I have to depart company from the LGA when they start condemning perfectly good English words.

There is something disturbingly Orwellian about trying to chop words out of the language.  I have two concerns about this.  First, is that language is incredibly powerful, we use it every day but rarely acknowledge how much it shapes our world.  One of the most striking successes of the 1997-2007 Labour governments was that they were incredibly good at adapting the political vocabulary, this effectively meant the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were reduced to arguing on Labour’s ground – they had defined the political territory and created the words and concepts to describe it.  The opposition parties became tourists in a foreign land, reduced to speaking loudly and slowly in the hope of getting their message across.

Second, is that at best we are patronising people by using ‘simple’ language, and at worst conniving in the dumbing down of a population.  The LGA has done a fantastic job of promoting their view, and they have picked up on some fine examples of where councils have reduced communication to meaningless jumbles of words and letters.  But in doing so they’ve targeted some perfectly fine words; which will presumably become tragic victims of friendly fire in a noble cause.  The most tragic, I think, is coterminous.

Coterminous is perfectly fine word.  It has a defined meaning.  It is used outside of local councils and is a word I knew long before I set foot in a council meeting (I’m guessing from maths at school).  The LGA are suggesting that ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ is a suitable alternative, but unfortunately that’s not quite the same thing, in fact, nothing like the same thing.  I even Tweeted my support of coterminous to the LGA yesterday (see here and here) but sadly it was not enough and they proceeded with their unprovoked attack on the defenceless word.

But like any good cause I am not alone, a chap called Ben Proctor has written a blog post in defence of this fine word.  Hemming, publishers of The MJ, have also noted that not everyone is joining the LGA’s angry mob and picked up on some of the dissent.  It will not be an easy fight but it will be a worthy one; coterminous is firmly in my top three words (along with ineffable and defenestrate) and I, for one, pledge to use it as often as possible.  When it’s appropriate.

Article

|

I have been wondering exactly how you describe the role of a councillor for quite a while. This was partly prompted when a business owner in the borough recently asked where I fitted in relation to their Town Centre Manager (a council employee) and other Economic Development Office staff. And it’s also prompted by a bit of CV writing; being a councillor is not a full-time role, and I try to fill the rest of my time with some freelance work (not helped by the recession) so constantly tinker with my CV.

In turn, this post was prompted by a post on The Local Government Officer that declared ‘local government is a lot like cricket‘ and used the analogy to categorise various types of councillor (thanks to Ingrid Koehler at the Policy and Performance blog for highlighting it).  The comparison is fairly simple, essentially batsman have the vision and drive the council forward, bowlers scrutinise the batsman and keep an eye on what they are doing and fielders are the community based politicians dealing with casework.  It is an interesting analogy.

The MP/Councillor comparison
A more commonly used comparison is with Parliament, and to see councillors as some form of ‘MP lite’.  This always reminds me of the late Tony Banks’ comments on MPs being a “sort of high-powered social worker and perhaps not even a good one,” not because I share his analysis that casework is tedious, but because it always seemed that a goodly chunk of an MP’s casework would be better directed towards councillors.  Indeed, from time to time Martin Linton directed his residents towards me – though this seems to have stopped now he’s defending a small majority.

In many ways the MP comparison is a better one, if only because most people have an understanding of how Parliament and Government work and can translate this to the local level.  Both have Cabinets which are responsible for the overall direction and vision, and Cabinet Members with individual portfolios.  Parliament as a whole scrutinises the work of the Government, in much the same way as councillors scrutinise the work of the council Cabinet.  And finally councillors have a casework load, not as large as an MP’s, because we tend to have a lower profile, but equally we don’t have a staffed office to help process it.

The councillor and officer relationship
What I find harder to explain is the relationship between councillors and officers.  And this relationship is the key relationship when it comes to councillors delivering results to their residents.  Councillors do not repair roads or collect rubbish, that is done by council employees.  I’ve illustrated two possible comparisons for councillors, but struggle to come up with a widely understood comparison for the way councillors ‘lead’ their council.  Primarily our work is based around medium and long term results, rather than initiating immediate actions.  Councillors are sort of non-executive directors, but I don’t think that’s a readily understood comparison, how many people know what a non-executive director does?!

And this creates problems because there is so much a councillor just cannot do.  I cannot, for example, help you with your parking ticket unless I saw the ticket being incorrectly issued.  I cannot help you with your housing problems, I can only raise your case and have it re-examined.  In cases like this I’m limited to the role of advocate; and with good reason, if councillors were able to influence these decisions it would not take a great leap of imagination to see lots of councillors parking with impunity and living in some of the best council properties going.

I don’t know if I just lack imagination in coming up with a simple metaphor, and hope someone will tell me if there is one.  I tend to use the MP/Cabinet member model, but I’m not sure many people fully understand the relationship between politicians and civil servants, and their expectations of central and local government are different in any case.  But in the absence of anything better, it will do because I think for engagement to really work well, there has to be a good understanding of both positions; council and resident.