Community – John Vincent

Financial Pressures and Local Government Restructuring

It was a long time ago, but I remember the travails of local government reorganisation. A massive amount of councillor and officer time was consumed. Endless discussions going backwards and forwards. Loads of heat but little light.

I had my one term as a Surrey County Councillor between 1993 and 1997. Now, that is 30-years back. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since. That said, the issues are still hanging in the air. The outcome of that Conservative attempt at local government reorganisation was no change for the one million people in Surrey. That meant one large County Council and eleven smaller Boroughs and Districts. Not forgetting several Town and Parish Councils.

Having moved, my concern is now local government reorganisation in Berkshire. The situation here is that the two-tier structure of local government has already been swept away. We pay our council tax to one unitary local authority.

Here we are in a different time and place. Labour’s first six months in government behind us. A new era. All smiles to begin. Sadly, the write-ups of the last six-months are less than flattering[1]. It would be reasonable to think that during a period of opposition in Parliament. Those 14-years. The prospective future government would have put in place policies and plans that would have been “oven ready,” to use a term an unsuccessful past Prime Minister would use.

Just as it was 30-years ago, English local government is facing huge financial pressures. Residents are struggling to access good services. Local issues, like potholes, planning, special educational needs and social care are as intractable as they always have been.

So, is this the time to bring out local government reorganisation again? Regardless of what I think, it’s clear that Jim McMahon MP, Minister of State (Minister for Local Government and English Devolution) has local government reorganisation on his agenda[2].

From what I hear, existing county Boroughs and Districts are going to become history. Small unitary authorities had better watch out too. Council leaders are being asked to find ways of building scale. That means no English local authority smaller than a population of half a million.

Will this turn around performance? Economies of scale may have some benefits. The problem that strikes me is the notion that “local”, meaning a natural community, is generally much less than 500,000 people. Especially in rural areas.

The Government White Paper that sets out these plans is called “English Devolution”. An interesting use of that nice word. In the circumstances that the new Minister imagines it could be that local government becomes more and more an implementing arm of central government. No more or less. To some extent this is already the cases, but localism and community are not completely extinguished. The tension continues to be one between governance being top-down or bottom-up driven.

The Labour government might imagine this “silver bullet” will harmonise, sanitise and make local services run like clockwork. I wonder if it will.

[1] https://inews.co.uk/news/messy-muddled-starmer-struggles-worse-rebellion-3444812

[2] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/government-2025-conference

Unfair

That’s one way to start a note. “As a member of the post-active population”, I now feel that all the activity I now do is conveniently wrapped up as being somewhat like cosmic dark matter. It’s there in theory but no one knows what it is in fact. It’s activity that’s hidden activity.

There’s a great deal of talk about the large number of those people in their 50s, and above who have left the conventional workforce post-COVID. Unfortunately, much of it is tainted. The general implication being that the protestant work ethic runs deep and those who are not on the traditional 9-5 treadmill are letting society down. As if the only work worth counting is that which statisticians count into that magic number, namely Gross domestic product (GDP). The tyranny of an abbreviation. A great deal of useful productive and valuable activity is excluded from GDP.

Trogging off to Sunshine Deserts[1] every day, electronically or physically, and making or processing stuff and pushing rocks up hill is counted as the gold standard. This way of looking at the society is foolish. It comes from commentators being way behind the curve and politicians living life as if they were stuck in an idyllic childhood.

This way of thinking is especially true in the UK. More so than other European countries, we are dependent up charities and voluntary workers. German visitors are often struck by the number of charity shops in the UK. If you ask how palliative care, emergency services, children’s support, food banks, homeless shelters and crisis support are funded in German the response is simple – taxes.

The amount of unpaid work, like that performed in the home or by volunteers, in a massive range of organisations, is huge in the UK. That’s not wholly a bad thing. Sadly, this reality not recognised in government policy circles, other than being a way of off-loading responsibilities as funding cuts kick in. Of course, there’s politicians who turn-up for photo shoots at election time when there’s smidgen of recognition. If a charity is not in vogue or well known even those opportunities to raise funds and profile are few and far between.

All the above said, I do support the call for some education organisations that are deemed charities to lose the privileges rightly afforded to much more worthy charities. I know that’s a matter of judgement but not all fish in the sea are the same.

Often, it’s has struck me as strange that tertiary colleges (public funded education)[2] must pay Value Added Tax (VAT), but private colleges deemed to be “charities” do not. An uneven distribution of privileges is another characteristic of a way of doing things in this country.

As I understand, it what’s going on looks like this. Staff at Any Town College, where most local young people get their post-16 educational experience, order reams of paper for a printer. They pay 20% VAT. Staff at an expensive Public School, like the Prime Minister’s ex-college, order reams of paper for a printer. They don’t pay 20% VAT. That’s crazy.

No wonder growth is slow. No wonder social mobility is stifled. No wonder people are desperate for political change.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_and_Rise_of_Reginald_Perrin

[2] https://feweek.co.uk/no-plans-to-exempt-colleges-from-vat-says-treasury-secretary/

Bland & Blue

How do we get the politicians we do? There’s no originality in that monster question. If we look across the Atlantic the most political peculiar fight is going on. A couple of elder gentlemen running as fast as they are able. I have to say that with solemnity as I’m in my sixties. The United States (US) has a fight no one seems to want, brought about by an inability to plan successions.

In Britain, I look around and see a country full of capable and talented people and then compare them with the political choices in front of us. Big choices are going to be needed this year. The limited choice is as peculiar as any. It’s maddening.

This week, a full gloss blue leaflet popped through our letterbox. Now, I’ve no objection to people putting traditional political messages through the letterbox. One of my favourite sayings is from a long-gone Cornish politician of great merit. If you have something to say, put it on a piece of paper and stuff it through the letterbox. David Penhaligon[1] would make that a mantra. It was about community politics. It was about talking about the local issues that were of most concern to local people. Focusing on what matters.

Anyway, the folded A4 headshot that came through my door looked more like an advert for dentistry than a local political message. Gleaming smiles are fine. When they gleam so much and so wide, I’m reminded of the jailed politician in the second Paddington Bear movie[2]. More of the same and can I count on your vote? No meaningful substance.

The fictional Peruvian bear who travels to London in search of a home would have swiftly been sent to Rwanda by this mob. Paddington’s admirable and lovable qualities wouldn’t last ten minutes in real 21^st century Britain.

I’m assuming this was a paid political leaflet distribution. The Post Office (PO) gave us two copies in two days. Along with some pizza adverts. This is not material carefully delivered by dedicated local party activists. No, it’s a commercial distribution. Remarkable when considering that Reigate’s constituency is a “safe seat”, where the past results for the Conservatives hardly need counting. Just measure the length of the ballot pile on the table.

These expensive colour leaflet distributions happen long before an election is called so that the costs don’t have to be counted in the election expenses of the candidate.

What’s surprising is that this shiny blue leaflet didn’t have a single potholes picture. That’s where the candidate or prospective candidate stands over a pothole and points. Implication being that they will solve that problem. No pictures of flood waters or the attendant sewage outfalls that have become fashionable on political leaflets. No pictures of traffic hazards or schools that need money spent on upkeep. No pictures of abandoned plans to improve local railway services. Just bland page fillers.

Nothing from other Parliamentary candidates – yet. Let’s hope they have something to say.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Penhaligon

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddington_2

Build, but not here

Hearing Michael Gove on the radio this morning is almost a parody of reality. His warbling language doesn’t encourage listening. It wanders around with undulations and platitudes. He’s articulate in a way that’s like sugar dissolving in tea. I didn’t hear this, but I may as well have heard it:

Yes, we are going to feed your grandmother to crocodiles in the interests of the nation. I have great admiration for those who are stepping forward to be eaten.[1] It’s not just Labour grandmothers who will be affected but a whole range of different people. A government code of conduct will ensure they remain in Elysian fields, at least for the term of this administration. We are fully committed to our manifesto commitment (whatever). By the way: what was the question?

It’s strange that it has taken so long to recognise the virtues of another Michael, namely Michael Hesletine[2]. The idea that government intervention is needed to solve housing problems has resurfaced after a long hiatus. Lack of action over a decade, and more is one issue that may surface in next year’s General Election.

Over the weekend, I had a conversation with a parish councillor in a small village deep in the west country[3]. A landscape of great natural beauty. I said, I was all in favour of schemes to help local people buy property to enable them to build lives in rural communities. However, the prevailing view was that building is inevitably destructive and a not to be encouraged in an Idyllic village surrounded by rolling countryside. An urge to place responsibility for housing on towns and cities runs deep.

There’s a little terraced stone-built cottage in the village up for sale now. It’s priced well over £300,000. Yes, it makes sense for the owner to realises as big a receipt as possible for this property but it’s unlikely that anyone of modest means, who grew-up in the area will be the purchaser.

This small country village has a lively primary school, church, and village hall. Unfortunately, the pub is closed, and the village shop has long since gone. There’s now plans to lay fibre optic cable to better connect this rural community. So, with excellent communication one difference between rural and urban communities is eliminated.

Should such blessed places be reserved for those with deep pockets? The question is not a simple one since those incoming often restore and revive buildings and landscapes. My contention is that a balance should be struck. Rural communities that become isolated, museum like enclaves are not desirable or sustainable.

Minister Michael Gove has some workable ideas, but policy is focused on not upsetting the horses. Housing policy should be higher up the national political agenda, it shapes the fabric of our communities. It’s right at the core of determining who we are, not just now but for decades to come.

[1] Apologies to Monty Python.

[2] https://www.cityam.com/docklands-2-0-michael-gove-outlines-vision-for-new-higher-density-london/

[3] https://www.theblackmorevale.co.uk/2022/10/14/the-map-that-hardy-drew/