Participatory budgeting

A concept that's gaining traction in local government, and is seen in a very similar vein to the development of the 3rd sector, is participatory budgeting. (Although that link is a distraction - they're not connected at all).

Basically this means the tax payer gets to decide how to spend some of the Council's cash. Hazel Blears has recently announced some more schemes and is hoping to have every area involved in the system by 2012.

The reason for doing this is to give people more power and involve them more in the process of spending money. It will make us more democratic.

Tosh.

We already have a way of getting members of the public decide how to spend the cash. Bascially, we all get to vote for the person that does it. They're called Councillors.

They get a few perks on the way....free parking at the Town Hall, the occassional luke-warm buffet at a training session, and lots of grief from the public and Vic Barlow. They are normal members of the public who have been nominated to make these decisions. It is open - anyone can give it a go, and you can get rid of people you think are doing a bad job by voting them out.

That is democratic. Having unelected, unaccountable people deciding how to spend my council tax is not. That's just corruption in the making.

Now you may argue that there is a disconnection between politicians and their constituents. This is the case in some wards (I hope it's not in mine, I'm certainly trying really hard to ensure it isn't). When this occurs that is the fault of the Councillor - but importantly it's the job of the public to fix it. By booting that person out next time around and getting someone better. And if there's no-one better on the ballot then you should have a go yourself.

Democracy can work and does work, and we don't need gimmicks like this to make us more "democratic" - we just need a bit more interaction between councillors and the public, a bit more discussion about politics in everyday life, and a bit more tough love for politicians when they're not doing what we want them to do.

Charges

We need to standardise taxes & charges across the new council - and this is always going to throw stories up in the press. It's a contentious issue.

To make matters worse, the recent plans to keep a shared library system with the West means charges in this area need to be in line with theirs, which makes the process even more difficult.

So this is a pre warning of what we'll all be complaining about in the next 12 months.

We've seen evidence which suggests that the parking task group are going to introduce parking charges in Congleton, and I'm sure that there's going to be riots over this.

(Quite right as well - we should have free parking everywhere).

Not all charges will be standardised from day 1, but here are some others in Leisure from a recent council report which need looking at:

* Headline swimming charges are significantly cheaper in Macclesfield when compared to the other two local authority areas;
* Grass football pitches are significantly more expensive within the Congleton (sic) compared with Crewe & Nantwich and Macclesfield;
* Crewe & Nantwich is the only area that offers free entry to children under 5 years whereas the other two areas allow free entry for Children under 3;
* Crewe offers a junior discount for children under 17 years whereas the other two local authority areas offer discounts for those under 16 years;
* Congleton allows free use of leisure facilities by members of the armed forces;
* Crewe offers free swimming for people with a registered disability.

Childrens Trust

Having been as disgusted as everyone else at the news of what happened to Baby P, I surged into action to make sure that similar failings in the Children's Services department couldn't allow such a thing to happen in Cheshire East.

Sadly, you come to the rapid realisation that we can never stop such a thing from happening again. We can't prevent evil, repulsive people like this from becoming parents - all we can do is try and prevent them from doing harm to their children once they have them.

But this is easier said than done. We can't go around whipping kiddies away from everyone who we don't like to look of. We have to strike a balance.

It's clear that they weren't getting this balance right in the case of Baby P, but no one was in the position to point out this failure and correct the matter. It seems that one of the reasons for this was that the council officer who was responsible for running this department was also responsible for ensuring they were doing things right.

So I was pleased to find that the implementation board for our new Cheshire East Children's trust has been tasked to consider: "how those who monitor performance will be separated from those who are responsible for delivery".

A very simple line which will prevent failings like those described occurring in Cheshire East.

School Stuff

I'm a governor at Ivy Bank primary school - and this means that on top of loads of council papers I also get sent lots of guff about schools.

Most of it is guff of the highest quality, but I'm afraid that Cheshire let me down this week.

In the magazine they send to governors we got urged to setup parent forums or councils where they can come to discuss issues.

I'm not very keen on this idea to begin with, because we've got a good system already. We have PTA's, Govenors, and a good Head Teacher will always be available for a chat (I know that the one at Ivy Bank is).

But what angered me even more was being told that we would "Need to think about the impact of culture and...holding women-only meetings".

Rubbish.

The way I see things, the only places that should be women only are the ladies lav's and the changing room at Ann Summers. I call that discrimination and I think it's wrong.

VAT

Often we complain that politicians are too distanced from the real world - and this has been specifically proved by the treasury over the cut in VAT.

They have failed to understand that companies fall into two specific categories, and they set their prices in different ways.

Companies like mine, who sell to other companies that reclaim VAT, price before VAT and then add VAT on. VAT is just a distraction, it doesn't affect what I earn or my client pays.

However companies who sell to consumers price after VAT. They pick an amount they think you'll pay, and stick that on the label. Once you've bought it they work out the VAT fraction, and send that bit to the tax man.

That's why prices are always round numbers (or nearly if some didn't knock the penny off to make it look cheaper).

For example, I've just looked up a Tefal Iron in a well known department store and it's £29. So you're paying £24.69 + VAT.

This is the basic point the chancellor has missed.

Will this Iron now be sold at £28.39? Of course not.

In the majority of cases, the change will be pocketed by the vendor and the customer will see no difference. This means that there will be no stimulus to the economy - but I suppose that leaves us in the same position we were before, right?

Wrong - because the treasury has less income. So we'll have to pay more tax to make up for that.

The end result is the government gets the same, the shops get more, and we get less.

And then it'll be even worse in 2011 when Labour plan to put VAT up to 18.5%. More here

Tax Payers Alliance

Just found this interesting post on the always interesting tax payers alliance website.

It makes a very important point that the setting of Policy should be done by the Councillors - and not by officers.

However, it's worth noting that Councillors are not full time employees of the council (in fact they're not technically employed at all - which is why we get an allowance and not a salary) - and don't always have the time to research policy in minute detail.

So it seems there is a requirement for this position - but perhaps it should form part of Member Services (ie, it's a resource for Councillors to develop policy and not for Officers to develop policy) and should report directly into the leader.

I've written to him to suggest this.

Tesco...Part 4

This might be the last one about Tescos.

Can't promise anything though.

Have you noticed that they're going to knock down the old Tesco's to build a new one? It's going to take 12 months apparently.

They "may consider" building a temporary store somewhere. Which is nice of them. But only may...not definitely will.

At the same time they're doing this, we may be seeing the development of the town centre - which will involve closing the car parks near the other Tesco's to build shops on them. So that shop will be very difficult to access.

So assuming that they don't build a temporary store - we'll be looking at having 12 months with less than 50% of the shopping capacity we have now.

Trust me. You want to start stocking up on tins now.

Phone calls

Was catching up on my Macclesfield Express reading, and was yet again blown away by Barlow and his complaints about the new council phone system.

I'd been keeping a low profile about this, but the sharp witted of you will know that I work with Call Centres. To be specific, I tell people when is the right and wrong time to use these kinds of systems...so I'm really in the thick of it.

But if I'm honest, I find it a pretty easy job to do. It's a carrot and a stick kind of thing. It you push people into using a rubbish system then they're going to get upset about it. If you provide a system that's quicker, more reliable and with more functionality than speaking to a live agent, it will be very popular.

This wasn't a decision I pushed for, but I did discuss it with David a few months back and I think it's a good idea. It's all in the design and implementation of these things. As long as MBC get that bit right then it should be a success.

Barlow may complain about the (one off) setup costs, but he has failed to understand the enormous (daily) cost of handling phone calls to the council. If people choose to use this system rather than a live agent the savings to the council will be many, many times the original investment.

And unlike Journalists, when we save money we don't spend it on the Christmas party. We use it to reduce council tax.

Tesco...Part 3

So when it comes to the actual Tesco's development in Macclesfield (as opposed to the roundabout) I can't honestly say that I'm that up in arms about it.

I don't buy into the arguments about it being another nail in the coffin of competition. The expansion to the shop will be all about poor quality clothes and vacuum cleaners. It's going to be a problem for Currys and TG Hughes, but not anyone else.

Whilst I'm saddened by the demise of local butchers and greengrocers, this isn't going to be made worse by this store redevelopment. And it wasn't the fault of Tesco's in the first place.

Indulge me and I'll explain why.

I was sickened by a woman who was at the consultation at the same time as me. She started off by complaining that they're killing the local competition, and then went on to complain that they're not very good at keeping the shelves stocked.

What a hypocrite.

For her to know that the store is often badly stocked she must have shopped there on many occasions - so she is the exact reason that the other shops are closing.

All Tesco's can do it build a shop. We each chose whether to shop there or not. This hypocrite choses to shop there, but then moan about Tesco's in order to make herself feel better.*

We chose not. We don't and won't shop at Tesco's. Guarentee you won't see us in there.

But you won't catch us moaning about it either, because we don't need to make ourselves feel better.

How about you?




* It's a bit like people who live in nice houses in Bolly standing as socialist candidates for Macc West. If you know what I mean.

Tesco...Part 2

Following on from yesterday - there's one thing about the new roundabout that really got me angry.

And I mean angry.

The chap at the consultation from Tesco's (if you went there you'll know which one - the one that was 12) - said that the roundabout was a good thing because it would slow down the fast traffic on the Silk Road.

That section of the Silk Road is derestricted dual carriageway. Therefore national speed limit applies - 70MPH.

That's what we have decided the speed limit should be, and as far as I am aware it is a very safe road.

Not content with pushing cheap, nasty food with poor welfare standards upon us - they now what to get involved with their own brand of road safety?