For six months now many of Cornwall's Lib Dems have been grinding their teeth about their national coalition with the Conservatives. Yet the end of this month offers a remarkable opportunity for them to re-invent themselves as a distinct anti-Conservative political party.
Under normal circumstances the Conservative-Independent administration at Cornwall Council would get a majority of about 30 on any really crucial vote, with the chamber dividing roughly 75-45 (assuming most councillors actually turn up.)
At first that majority looks impregnable - but actually it will take only 15 members to swap sides and then things suddenly look very tight. It's only three days since the Cabinet approved the budget and already I know of four members of the Con/Ind groups who say they currently plan to vote against it. "I will be a renegade," one Tory tells me.
One of the proposals in the budget is to reduce the number of libraries to single figures - so about 20 would have to close. Most councillors are also looking at reductions in local leisure facilities, bus services and social care. The temptation for some councillors, particularly those elected as "Independent," to portray themselves as local heroes could prove irresistible.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Devonwall's dates with destiny
A big day tomorrow as the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill hits the Report Stage in the House of Commons.
For Cornwall's MPs, this is their last chance to introduce pro-Cornwall amendments to save the existing political border with Devon. Should they fail, Tuesday is the Third Reading and the day they have to decide if their enthusiasm for an early referendum on the Alternative Vote system matters more than their opposition to the idea of a Devonwall constituency (or constituencies.)
After that, it's game over - although no doubt some MPs will continue to pretend that the Boundary Commission might yet save the day (it won't.)
Some of our MPs have suggested that the reason they were unable to debate pro-Cornwall amendments at the committee stage was because of boring and long-winded speeches from the Labour and nationalist benches, some of which, they allege, were close to organised filibustering.
Well, I listened to the committee stage and in my opinion there were plenty of very boring speeches from both sides of the chamber, with all sorts of contributions from the Isle of Wight and faraway places in Scotland. Perhaps the real reason the pro-Cornwall amendments were not debated was because the Bill needed more time for consideration (this was the view of the Select Committee.)
One of the very first votes on this Bill was on its Parliamentary timetable. And all of Cornwall's MPs voted in favour of it.
For Cornwall's MPs, this is their last chance to introduce pro-Cornwall amendments to save the existing political border with Devon. Should they fail, Tuesday is the Third Reading and the day they have to decide if their enthusiasm for an early referendum on the Alternative Vote system matters more than their opposition to the idea of a Devonwall constituency (or constituencies.)
After that, it's game over - although no doubt some MPs will continue to pretend that the Boundary Commission might yet save the day (it won't.)
Some of our MPs have suggested that the reason they were unable to debate pro-Cornwall amendments at the committee stage was because of boring and long-winded speeches from the Labour and nationalist benches, some of which, they allege, were close to organised filibustering.
Well, I listened to the committee stage and in my opinion there were plenty of very boring speeches from both sides of the chamber, with all sorts of contributions from the Isle of Wight and faraway places in Scotland. Perhaps the real reason the pro-Cornwall amendments were not debated was because the Bill needed more time for consideration (this was the view of the Select Committee.)
One of the very first votes on this Bill was on its Parliamentary timetable. And all of Cornwall's MPs voted in favour of it.
More than just sympathy for the old devil
I've just made time to watch Thursday's BBC2 Culture Show, which profiled Keith Richards - the former choirboy who once sang for the Queen, ultimate rock'n'roll survivor, historian and thoughtful, articulate elder statesman of his industry.
It's nearly seven years since Mick Jagger accepted a knighthood - and at the time Keith dismissed it as a "paltry honour" saying he didn't want to tour with "someone wearing a coronet and sporting the old ermine." Keith said he hadn't forgotten about the "establishment" which tried to put him in jail for drugs offences and he made it pretty clear he thought Sir Mick (these days also a member of the MCC) had sold out.
And yet still the Rolling Stones, like Bob Dylan, continue to tour well beyond the conventional retirement age, spokesmen for a generation whether they like it or not. I'm sure he wouldn't want to go, and I'm equally sure there are BBC rules which prevent me from starting a campaign about it, but I have to say the red leather benches of the Upper House would be far more interesting and entertaining were they to be graced one day by Lord Keith.
Ah, happy days. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy of Keith's biography, "Life," (hint to family and friends - my birthday soon.)
Saturday, 30 October 2010
The usual suspects
Congratulations to the West Briton for digging up the story about the temporary Cornwall Council worker who takes home £1,000/day - which is even more than the chief executive.
The inevitable questions follow - who knew what, and when?
I've spoken to about 20 individual back-bench councillors from all of the political groups and not one of them knew anything about it until Thursday's story. And yet this has been going on for nearly 18 months.
So who signed the contract, when was it signed, and which elected members of the council approved it? Crucially, did they approve it before or after it was signed?
Cornwall council leader Alec Robertson is quite correct to point out that the council today relies far less on "consultants" than it used to - but these are questions which won't go away.
The inevitable questions follow - who knew what, and when?
I've spoken to about 20 individual back-bench councillors from all of the political groups and not one of them knew anything about it until Thursday's story. And yet this has been going on for nearly 18 months.
So who signed the contract, when was it signed, and which elected members of the council approved it? Crucially, did they approve it before or after it was signed?
Cornwall council leader Alec Robertson is quite correct to point out that the council today relies far less on "consultants" than it used to - but these are questions which won't go away.
Devil in the detail
One of the potential long-term benefits of the Cornwall Council spending review is that it's encouraged officials and councillors to think very hard about what they do, why they do it and how much it costs.
For example I have yet to find one single back-bench councillor who thinks it's a good idea to keep the £46,000 presence at the Royal Cornwall Show rather than make a similar size cut in rural bus subsidies - and yet this is precisely the choice recommended by the 10-member council Cabinet.
Councillors next week get down to the nitty-gritty of each service portfolio amid some confusion over the "alternative suggestions" they are allowed to make. Council leader Alec Robertson told the Cabinet meeting that councillors campaigning to save libraries, for example, could not suggest taking cash from the Adult Care budget instead - nor vice versa. As several Cabinet members put it, "the bottom line is the bottom line" - suggesting that alternative savings would have to come from within the relevant portfolio.
This means that any fundamental political choices will have to come in the form of an amendment to the budget at the full council meeting on 30th November.
Incidentally I appear to have irritated some members by asking why the Star Chambers did not consider reducing the size of the council, saving more than £12,000 for each member dropped. The price of saving the Camelford leisure centre, for example, is equivalent to cutting the size of the council by only eight councillors, from 123 to 115. Would the council really run any differently with "only" 115 members?
I wonder if the eight councillors with the poorest attendance records would volunteer their positions for the sake of the Camelford community? I know of at least one member (not from Camelford!) who has not turned up for any meetings at all in recent months.
For example I have yet to find one single back-bench councillor who thinks it's a good idea to keep the £46,000 presence at the Royal Cornwall Show rather than make a similar size cut in rural bus subsidies - and yet this is precisely the choice recommended by the 10-member council Cabinet.
Councillors next week get down to the nitty-gritty of each service portfolio amid some confusion over the "alternative suggestions" they are allowed to make. Council leader Alec Robertson told the Cabinet meeting that councillors campaigning to save libraries, for example, could not suggest taking cash from the Adult Care budget instead - nor vice versa. As several Cabinet members put it, "the bottom line is the bottom line" - suggesting that alternative savings would have to come from within the relevant portfolio.
This means that any fundamental political choices will have to come in the form of an amendment to the budget at the full council meeting on 30th November.
Incidentally I appear to have irritated some members by asking why the Star Chambers did not consider reducing the size of the council, saving more than £12,000 for each member dropped. The price of saving the Camelford leisure centre, for example, is equivalent to cutting the size of the council by only eight councillors, from 123 to 115. Would the council really run any differently with "only" 115 members?
I wonder if the eight councillors with the poorest attendance records would volunteer their positions for the sake of the Camelford community? I know of at least one member (not from Camelford!) who has not turned up for any meetings at all in recent months.
The shrinking council
My thanks to Cornwall Council for the latest quarterly headcount statistics.
Compared with the end of September last year, this is a fall of 1,427 employees, or roughly 119 jobs lost per month.
Total headcount June 30 2010: 19,970
Total headcount September 30 2010: 19,620
Headline fall: 350
Total headcount September 30 2010: 19,620
Headline fall: 350
Compared with the end of September last year, this is a fall of 1,427 employees, or roughly 119 jobs lost per month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)