Having arrived back from my annual holidays last week I’ve been catching up with the political news both national and local whilst I was away. Whilst there has been a lot to get through one story I came across tickled me as a friend recounted with amusement the comments of David Cameron in the wake of the recent European Elections results.

Surprise, surprise, and for the record, Mr Cameron doesn’t believe political coalitions work and argued strongly against them.

Mr Cameron has been seen quite a lot in the North West of late and was recently spied in the Telegraph offices in the centre of Blackburn. I assume therefore he has been talking to local people about their local Council.

• They will have pointed out that the Blackburn Tory Party are making a pigs ear of running the Council in coalition with the Liberals and Darwen independents.
• He will have been told that coalition partners often can’t agree and constantly fall out amongst themselves.
• He will also have been told the Council is rudderless, spending is out of control despite slashing services and they have started to be heavily criticised by external inspectors.

In short he will have been informed that the Conservative led coalition in Blackburn doesn’t work.

Comment (0)

"It's not me Guv it must be someone else", is a refrain you expect from a dodgy builder or someone who, in Arthur Daley fashion, has sold you something that is obviously faulty and won't do what they said it would.

Understandably such an experience leaves you frustrated and feeling bad towards your fellow human being.

Well that's how I feel as time and time again I and my Labour colleagues on the Council challenge the policies that are being undertaken by the Tory, Liberal and For Darwen independents who are presently running Blackburn with Darwen Council.

Just a few examples of the dodgy goings on*:

Huge hikes in the cost for family's who want to swim at Waves

"Don't know anything about that, love" - Tory Cllr Michael Law Riding Executive Member for Culture, Leisure and Sport

Closing old peoples homes and doing back-room deals

"It can't be us dear we believe in openness and new ways of doing politics" - Liberal Democrat Leader David Foster Executive member for Adult Services

Cuts in support for vital bus services across Blackburn

"Nothing to do with me, darling, I use a car" - Tory Cllr Alan Cottam Executive Member for Regeneration

Secrecy about children at risk

"We've been misquoted by the Telegraph, honey" - Liberal Democrat Cllr Chris Thayne Executive Member for Children

Salary increases for senior officers and cuts in pay for everyone else

"I know nothing babe, it was before my time" - Tory Leader Michael Lee and former Executive Member for Resources

I know others who have attended meeting at the Council recently share our frustration too as members of the public are treated rudely and disdainfully when they raise concerns at Executive Boards and Council forums.

If it's any comfort however, history tells us that once people get conned they are much more careful the next time someone tries to sell them something dodgy. That though helps me remember that the day of reckoning isn't that far off before our friends controlling the Council will get their collars felt and told by the electorate that the game is up and they don't want to buy their mixed brand of politics anymore.

*These aren't direct quotes, obviously. But I think it's fair to say these sum up the attitude of Executive members.

Comment (0)

You've got to laugh sometimes when you're at the Council meeting.  The answers that members of the ruling coalition give to those tabled by Labour members vary from complete avoidance to the utterly bizarre.  More than once I've been on the end of Exec members trying to dodge questions - usually Salim Lorgat, Executive Member for Housing; however, last week's meeting beats them all.

Under the report for Culture, Leisure and Sport like my fellow ward Councillors in Mill Hill, Malcolm Doherty and Jim Smith, I was keen to comment on the success of last years' Mill Hill Festival and how many people believe that Arts in the Park should be brought back.  This was supported by many other Councillors.

Following on from this question I asked about the future of Griffin Lodge, a Grade II listed building situated in the middle of Griffin Park which the Council owns and which has been vacant and semi-derelict for the past four years.  The listed building's use has been under review and it is the subject of repeated and worsening vandalism.

In spite of the fact that this large Victorian mansion used to be occupied by the County Museum Service restoration department, when asked the question about its future Cllr Law-Riding - who is standing to be Blackburn's next MP - confused the listed building with Griffin Park School.

Bizarrely - and to the chuckles of everyone in the Council chamber - he stated that he thought 'it is an issue for the Executive Member for Childrens Services'.  Later in the evening Cllr Thayne (Childrens Services) took some pleasure in batting the issue back, having been advised by his officer that it is nothing to do with his portfolio.

It's nice to know that Cllr Law-Riding has a grip of his department!

Comment (3)

Last week's meeting of the Council Executive Board was like the three wise monkeys. Except there were nine of them.

Hear no sense, see no sense, and speak no sense.

Liberal Leader, Deputy Leader and Executive Member in charge of Social Services, David Foster, explained why, despite warnings from the Labour Group eighteen months ago, that Adult Care Homes should not be for sale, he decided to put three of them on the market for £3.6 million. He assured residents that nothing would change, they would not have to move home and they would be better off looked after by the private sector.

As we predicted, there was no buyers and thousands of pounds was wasted exploring this option. His next plan of action, in typical Liberal fashion, is to close one of the care homes. But rather than be honest about it he spouted that the reason for the decision was all for "the good of the users", "to improve the care of our older residents". They would have more carers per resident and a much improved quality of life, away from premises that were badly in need of hundreds of thousands of pounds of investment to make it fit to live in. This decision would greatly improve the quality of life for these residents, the accommodation would be much improved and he knows best, he has their interests at heart.

He added that staff would be transferred to increase the ratio of carers per residents, there would be some cut backs as domestics and gardeners would be surplus to requirements but as these were small numbers they would be found other jobs within the Council.

That is difficult to argue against, but when the true reasons for closure were revealed it emerged that what he really wants to do is cut £300 k from the staff budget, reducing the number of staff that care for the elderly, move residents into other homes and make them more "efficient". Cheaper by the dozen.

Families and residents would be consulted, however their opinions would have little weight as he must think of the bigger picture and the long term future of Care Homes. What he really means is, he has to save money to enable this Coalition to continue to waste money on a fitted kitchen (which I have seen, but not had a cup of tea from yet) for the Chief Executive, 12% increase in salaries for some of the highest earners in the Council, and to waste thousands of pounds in consultant and legal fees to explore these heartless options.

Why waste eighteen months if the care was so bad and the building was so bad and no one wanted to live there. Why was he not honest enough to take the tough decision at the time? Or is the truth of the matter is that there are no elections this year and therefore no one will notice what a mess he and his Tory alliance has made.

Typical Liberal, say one thing, do another.

The wise monkeys are alive and kicking in this Borough, unfortunately it is the most vulnerable they are kicking.

Comment (0)

The representative body for local authorities, the Local Government Association, has produced a list of banned words (with suggested replacements) which councils should not use!

We thought it would be fun to see how Blackburn with Darwen Council is doing. So here's a choice selection:

• baseline - used 266 times
• consensual - used once
• community engagement - used 134 times
• double devolution - used once
• framework - used 2,300 times
• joint working - used 388 times
• situational - used four times
• upstream - used 24 times

To their credit, they missed out some of the worst ones!

But this is slightly unfair. A significant chunk of these hits are policy documents, whereas the list is aimed squarely at the general public in the vein of the Plain English Campaign. As the chair of the LGA explains over at LocalGov.co.uk:

'During the recession, it is vital that we explain to people in plain English how to get access to the eight hundred different services that local government provides with taxpayers' money'.

Good luck to the council officers who can't use 'engagement' or 'sustainable' any more!

Hat tip: Arun Marsh at LocalGov.co.uk

See what people are saying about this story over on Twitter.

Comment (0)

Or so ran the theme tune to Record Breakers.

Labour in Blackburn are proud that we're the only party that is active in all areas of our town. Unfortunately the Tories and Liberal Democrats don't see it that way - they don't stand against each other in local elections because they're in coalition on the council. They've nothing in common with each other and stick together for a love of power and the extra expenses that go with it.

We stand candidates in every ward, every year because we believe in giving people choice and speaking to the electorate, rather than restricting who people can vote for due to deals in back rooms of the town hall. Good local politics is about engaging with people everywhere you can and all year round - and not just at election time.

This short (and very funny) video from Luke Pollard, a Labour candidate some 300 miles away in South West Devon, is a real inspiration for those who believe there shouldn't be "no go areas" when out campaigning!

Comment (0)

The first ever blog post from Cllr Kate Hollern, leader of the Labour opposition group on Blackburn with Darwen Council:

If you are a follower of local politics over the last 18 months, you could be forgiven for believing the rainbow coalition of Tories, Liberals and misfits were getting on with the job of running the Council.

Not a day went by without an announcement of what they were going to do for the people of Blackburn with Darwen. It will come as no surprise to Labour supporters that the reality is somewhat different and a close examination shows that on almost every area they are responsible for a lack of progress and broken promises abound.

Here are just a few of the whoppers they have tried to get away with so far:

CLAIM: They promised to protect key bus routes.

REALITY: Under a Labour Administration local Bus routes were subsidised by the Council. Under this Administration every day we hear of bus services being cut due to lack of commitment from the Tories and their colleagues to subsidise vital routes.

CLAIM: They said they were committed to open and transparent meetings.

REALITY: At a secret meeting held with other Lancashire councils the Tory Leader agreed to give away over £ 400,000 of money given to Blackburn by the Labour Government for concessionary fares. On the very same day they lied publicly that the Government had not given them enough funds and Blackburn needed to find the shortfall from the local council tax payers.

CLAIM: The Tory leader made a big song and dance about the Council believing in investing in its employees.

REALITY: That is why they cut the wages of hundreds of ordinary staff, many who were on minimum rates of pay, whilst giving Fat Cat Directors already on well paid salaries up to a 12% increase. Staff morale has as a result become so low that sickness absence is currently running at 5.6% with almost 16000 working days lost each year. Disgruntled staff even set up their own website.

CLAIM: The Tory leader announced the council's new objectives would be improving public health and well-being, improving neighbourhoods and tackling worklessness.

REALITY: The streets are full of potholes, shops are boarded up, and the town centre is dead.

These are only a few of the broken promises and in the weeks and months ahead both in this blog and at every opportunity I and my colleagues on the Labour Group will expose the Coalition's record and lack of delivery of their promises.

Comment (1)

The Labour Government believes that older people have paid their fair share into the system and deserve free public transport – that’s why we introduced free bus travel for the over 60s.

However, it seems that Tory councillors – with big cars and no need to ever step on a bus – think differently. The borough's regeneration boss is councillor Alan Cottam from Livesey with Pleasington ward. He was recently quoted in the Lancashire Telegraph as claiming that OAPs should be more considerate to other bus users and complaining that the scheme was costing the Council money.

We wonder when the last time Cllr Cottam had to struggle onto a bus with bags of shopping?

Comment (6)

Being in opposition in politics is frustrating, as I discovered during my first eighteen years as Blackburn's MP. It's about what you say, and little else. Being in power and taking decisions from a range of often unpalatable choices is harder, as I think the new coalition running the Blackburn with Darwen council is discovering. It's rare for me ever to receive a submission as a Minister saying "you can either do this, low cost, popular, or do that, high cost, unpopular". Were I to, it would take a milli-second to decide.

The "equal pay" saga - highlighted by the Lancashire Telegraph's stories of how Graham Brunton, the long-serving Mayor's attendant for Blackburn with Darwen is stated to lose £5,000 of his £25,000 salary - well illustrates my point.

Equal pay between men and women who are doing similar jobs is a principle about which no one these days could or should possibly argue. I say "similar jobs" for a reason. Giving equal pay for men and women doing exactly the same jobs is not an issue (It was once - teachers even in the same school on the same grade used to get lower pay because they were women. That wasn't changed till after the war.) The problem however arises where the jobs are comparable ones in terms of skill and effort, but where, for historical reasons men have tended to pre-dominate in one area, women in another. Refuse collectors, and dinner ladies are two examples.

So there's been a legal requirement on employers to sort this out, and local and national agreements going back ten years to provide the framework for doing so. Trades unions have taken legal actions to gain back pay, and some "no win, no fee" lawyers have not only sued councils but have started to sue trades unions for allegedly agreeing to deals which were still discriminatory. It's a quagmire.

It would be wonderful if the kind of restructuring which inevitably has to follow such agreements and changes in the law could be carried out without any pain. We do not live in that world.

So the fact that there will be some "losers" as well as "winners" is an inevitable consequence of any such re-grading exercise. Blackburn with Darwen Council say that they have managed to avoid some of the pitfalls into which other councils have fallen.

However, although the scope for exercising a discretion may be limited - for choosing to do "X" rather than "Y" - it is not absent altogether. And here, on the information I've been able to study so far, I do take issue with the council.

My concern is about the impact on the low paid.

I'm very well paid from my jobs as MP and a Cabinet Minster. All of us tend to spend up to what we earn. If I were suddenly to lose £5000 a year for no reason connected with my performance in my jobs I'd be pretty annoyed. But I could manage - I've a big cushion underneath me.

But if I were earning £25,000 and lost £5000 I'd be both angry and anxious about how I was going to make ends meet. The Telegraph's many blogs - and direct information I've received - show this is by no means the only example. Including someone on £15,000 being cut to £12,000.

It's not just the impact on the individuals which worries me, but the impact on morale and therefore the service to the public. I'm sure this is not intentional but it is a signal that low pay is not the concern it should be. I'm aware that the Council have said they will try to minimise the impact.

So what would I do if this landed on my plate? First I would drill down to ascertain just what extra cash was available (It's surprising what this exercise can sometimes unearth) Then, if it were humanly possible, even if it did cost a little more, I'd regrade those right at the bottom so that the impact was much less, and allow a longer period for protected pay than the 15 months currently planned. Though this is not easy, I hope the council will now look at this very carefully.

Comment (0)