The Public Interest

Sunday, 14 December 2014

Not My Sunday Sermon 4 – Winning & Losing, by Nigel Slack

This is a bit of a late night piece and a reflection on the fruits of three months of intensive campaigning. Campaigning both for change, through my work on transparency in Sheffield's public affairs, and for the support of that work through my crowdfunding project.

It's not a long piece because, in the scheme of things, three months is not a lot of time to make an impact on the political stage, but when trying to live on next to no income and extending credit to the limit, three months seems like forever. I guess that's why I've titled it 'Winning & Losing' the impact I've achieved in political terms has definitely been a win, my ability to make this my full time employ however, has failed.

In this aspect I am undoubtedly disappointed, deeply so. I have received support from some amazing people and, perhaps not surprisingly, those who have contributed could be considered those least able, financially, to do so. Those people have my undying and immense gratitude. They are people who understand what I have been trying to achieve, understand why it is important to do it and believed in my ability to deliver the goods. At least, in that, I feel vindicated in attempting the difficult sell, asking people to contribute to a project that gave no profitable return and no new gadget to display as evidence of ones tech savvy or fashion forward knowledge.

I admit to having failed to translate that into a mass appeal. Quite simply not enough people saw or understood what I was trying to do. Those that I did connect with and who took the time to look at what I was doing and listened to the things I managed to do, be they public or press, were able to relate to my concerns over the way decisions in our city are made and the lack of real public engagement in that process. A great deal of support was expressed and appreciation offered but the ability to fund it was often not there. It is there that the root of my disappointment lies.

Then there are the winning aspects of my last three months. The top of this list may surprise some people but it is the connections I have made with people, both inside local politics and more importantly outside, that share my belief that we can do better. Whether it's been professors from Universities or a 'Doley from Richmond' as he likes to call himself, Council Officers or 'some' Councillors, there are people throughout this city that realise we need to take a long hard look at how we arrange our politics for the future. That the involvement of the public and their support is the only way to legitimise a system that can get fewer and fewer people to the actual ballot box.

Then there are the little victories that come from constant conversations with the cities decision makers. Commitments to transparency in the planning process, the regreening of the Meadowhead roundabout and to opposing TTIP whilst it allows for the privatisation of the NHS.

The one achievement that will probably have the biggest impact on the transparency of decision making in the city is the latest. Live on Radio Sheffield, Leader of the Council, Julie Dore agreed to support the introduction of Webcasting for council meetings, if it can be done without impacting the city's budget. Why is this such good news? I've already put such a plan to the city's Commercial Director, who sees it as entirely feasible. The political will now matches the public appetite and there should be no more obstacles. Now that is a win worth talking about.

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Sheffield Executive Board Meeting of 10th December 2014, by Nigel Slack.

“Devolution but not as we want it” might have been the subtitle of the first session of the meeting today, as the Board were given the opportunity to discuss local devolution and what it might look like.

The session was opened by Sharon Squires (Director, Sheffield First) who gave a brief comment on the 'English' model of devolution being promoted by the government. That is to say, regions (and at the moment it seems to be available only to City Regions) must ask for the devolution of specific powers. Westminster will then consider this, the Regions ability to prove they are able to provide the devolved policy delivery, and may agree the deal on powers based on targets and outcomes. This is known as 'Functional' devolution.

The other forms of devolution not generally available in England but already granted to Scotland and in some measure Wales are 'Fiscal', concerning the devolving of monetary and tax powers and 'Constitutional' concerning the devolving of governance and accountability. She was then hoping to discuss what might be the 'ask' from Sheffield as a city and the City Region by extension. This generated some discussion but it became clear that most members were struggling to start to visualise what may be possible.

Speculation then arose as to what might be on offer in the current deal being thrashed out by the Cabinet Office and the City Region. It seems likely that the Manchester deal will be a good starting point and that the areas on offer may well be Transport Infrastructure, Planning, Housing & Public Assets, Business Support and Skills & Training. This illustrates that the deal on offer is about the Regional Economic Geography and promoting economic growth rather than anything else.

There was some support for this approach from the private enterprise side of the membership, commenting that economic growth should be the focus for devolution and improving economic performance would be the result. Professor Gordon Dabinett (Regional Studies, Sheffield University) commented that in many European cities economic performance was improved not just through functional devolution but was further enhanced through a tie in to fiscal devolution. He also commented that without constitutional change it is just a rebalancing of economic power.

Julie Dore (City Council Leader) added that to improve the city's economic performance also needed the devolution of investment powers so the local area could define their investment priorities rather than government. There was also discussion about the redistributive approach of current local government funding and concern was expressed about how devolution would affect this. Gordon Dabinett commented that the implementation of progressive regional policies produced an economic benefit. In other words redistribution of wealth to the regions is better for all not just the regions.

A problem highlighted however was the fact that the redistribution formula is not transparent, accountable or understood. As a result it was difficult to assess alternatives or the impact of minor changes to such a complex system's outcomes. This might be illustrated by the current reductions in funding being imposed on many of the poorest areas of the country whilst some wealthy Counties are receiving increasing levels of funding.

This was followed by a suggestion from one member that we should perhaps only ask for the things we need from devolution rather than an extensive wish list. Gordon Dabinett suggested that evidence indicated devolution fails where the ambitions of devolution weren't big enough. James Henderson (Sheffield City Council, Director of Policy, Performance and Communications) suggested that we might consider the 'outcomes' we wanted as a city and then look at the levers we need to achieve that, as a way of determining the devolution we need. Devolution on 'Sheffield's' terms.

Julie Dore commented that we need to connect devolution to what people want, that it's not all about money but about decision making powers as well. This seemed, for me, to highlight the basic differences in the room between those that see devolution as being entirely about economic development, which the likely current deal is and those who want devolution to be about more than that. Gordon Dabinett commented that the deal as proposed is not a 'settlement' (backed by legislation) and therefore not devolution. He also suggested that devolution will only become real when attitudes within Whitehall (Civil Service) change in favour.

This whole conversation illustrates, for me, the lie of the current debate around devolution for England's regions. Central Government, whether politicians or civil servants, are not serious about the real devolution of the full range of powers (economic, fiscal, and constitutional) but are only interested in passing out specific functions in policy areas that they can continue to target and control through funding whilst grandstanding for party political purposes. They also see the opportunity to devolve contentious policies, like the previously devolved 'bedroom tax' responsibilities and the potentially explosive 'workfare' programmes in the current Manchester deal.

The City Council, the City Region and the city's influential leaders, represented at this meeting, need to be clear about this and be open with the public about it too. The public have been told that the government are driving this process and their need for a decision by the Autumn Statement on December 3rd meant we had no opportunity for a consultation period. This announcement did not materialise and the indications are the decision is now targeted at pre-Christmas but is stalled on Whitehall demands for a Metro Mayor and the City Region being unwilling to accept that. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who blinks first.

For me and, I know from the comments I get, the public are completely unimpressed by the whole affair, the secrecy of the negotiations and the lack of consent from the electorate. This so called devolution solution is simply not good enough.

Saturday, 6 December 2014

Sheffield City Full Council Meeting of 3rd December 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The Lord mayor kicked off the meeting with the usual preamble but there were then a couple of announcements. Firstly it was announced that part of today's meeting would be audio recorded, by Kier as a test. The reason for the test is not made clear but hopefully it is part of the response to my ongoing attempts to get meetings recorded and webcast.

Further announcements were, a collection to take place in support of the Archer Project (homeless) and that the Women of Steel statue appeal had reached it's target. Great news. Lastly Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) announced the appointment of Cllr Jayne Dunn as the new cabinet member for Environment, Recycling & Streetscene. She replaces Cllr Jack Scott who seems to have left under a bit of a cloud in relation to the current recycling centre dispute.

After approving the minutes (a question over this will be in my Cabinet Questions in a couple of weeks) the meting moved on to petitions and public questions. There were two petitions this weeki, one relating to road safety on Sharrow Vale Road and one about access problems on a road with a wide central grass verge.

Then came questions one expressing concern over the consultation exercise about the changes to Chesterfield Road at Heeley, another about the Council's response times for complaints and one about the proposed changes to the road plan around Heeley City Farm and the suggested removal of many mature trees to make way for a bus lane.

My questions were up next. My first was a continuation of my attempts to find out what is happening on the City Region deal misleadingly labelled 'devolution'. The answer from Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) basically confirmed that the supposed deadline of the Autumn Statement for an announcement of a deal had been missed, heads of terms had not yet been agreed, and that as soon as the Council know what's happening, the public will know.

Audio below.

My second question asked about the governments commitment to the 'Northern Powerhouse' idea, in light of the announcement of the new Garden City based around Bicester in Oxfordshire, within commuting distance of the capital. Julie Dore responded that she understood the Garden City proposal was about housing mainly and that she hoped the government would still continue to invest in the economic future of the Northern cities.

Audio below.

Finally I asked about the Council supporting the call for a minimum wage of £10/Hour for the UK based on the successful campaign in Seattle USA to introduce a minimum wage of $15. It should be noted that this is already Green Party policy. The basis of the idea being both a reduction of in-work benefit costs and an increase in local economic activity as most low paid workers spent any pay increases in the local economy. Julie Dore again responded. She said she needed to see more evidence on the figure that was being chosen by the Unions to support this and to think about the general economic situation in terms of affordability but that in general she was minded to support the idea.

Audio below.

Unfortunately I was unable to stay for any more of the meeting but will be following up on the recording test that was carried out to see why it was undertaken and the result.

Tuesday, 2 December 2014

Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee Meeting of 26th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

This committee is responsible for keeping a watchful eye on the work programmes of the Council's scrutiny committees. It also has overview of city wide matters that cut across other committee boundaries.

After the usual housekeeping announcements and approval of minutes, the meeting moved straight to Public Questions. I had put a question about the review of the Locality Management arrangements and their scrutiny but was asked by the Chair, Cllr Chris Weldon (Labour) if it could be passed to the next days Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny meeting, which was more appropriate as they were to receive a report on same. I agreed.

The only other question was from Alan Kewley. He first expressed concern over the time taken to respond, in writing to questions when that was promised. His response to the questions asked at the previous months meeting had arrived in his e-mail that very morning and he had no time to digest the response nor disseminate it before today's meeting. He then went on to discuss how it might be possible to increase public involvement in these meetings and with more and more Council's now webcasting their meetings what the potential was for this in Sheffield?

The Chair's response was that there had been lots of changes over the last few years that had improved peoples involvement in council matters and that webcasting had been considered in the past. He promised a written answer from officers, that would come to the board for their consideration. Cllr Ian Auckland (Lib/Dem) asked that the responses be available within ten days. The Chairs agreed this should be so.

The main item of interest on the rest of the agenda was a report on the Boundary Commission review of the ward boundaries for the council. This was given by James Henderson and Victoria Penman.

They recapped the position so far. The commission had considered the size (number of councillors) of the council and agreed to keep that at 84, in 28 three councillor wards. This stage of the commissions proceedings was consultation about the actual ward boundaries. This is a complex decision and the Boundary Commission report is available here. The main problem however was to cut the size of the Central Ward which had 148% of the number of electors it was supposed to have. The consequence of this is that the Commission has radically shifted many residents into neighbouring wards and the ripples move outwards to a lesser degree.

There were eight public comments in this item, six from residents in Highfield who were unhappy about the splitting of the community into two different wards and two from Bradway who were upset that the same thing had happened to Bradway last time around and had not been corrected this time.

There were also comments from the members of the committee about Highfield and who had made this decision. James Henderson said it was a result of the decision about Council size. The Council elects by thirds and this meant that all wards had to have three councillors. A proposal by officers to split the Central ward in two each with two councillors was therefore not feasible despite the fact it was the best solution to future proof the ward against new development that was in the offing.

Cllr Sarah Jane Smalley (Green) commented that she understood there had been consideration of a proposal to split Gleedless from Arbouthorne and that this would have balanced the numbers but it was unpopular with Councillors in that area. Cllr Pat Midgley (Labour) suggested that boundary changes settle down over time and few people now remember the defunct Castle ward.

Cllr Jillian Creasey (Green) commented that the Council still needed to make strong submissions to the commission as they are a powerful consultee and their comments would be crucial. Finally Cllr Bryan Lodge (Labour) wanted to clarify for the record that this was a commission proposal and not the City Council's.

The Chair then summarised that this was the second consultation by the commission and that all public comments today would be included in the Council's submission. He also asked officers to meet with the Highfield community and relevant Councillors to get further comments.

The rest of the agenda was quickly despatched and the meeting dispersed.

Monday, 1 December 2014

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 12th November, by Nigel Slack.

After the usual preliminaries and approval of minutes and such, we came quite quickly to Public Questions. Slightly unusually the first questioner did not wish to be recorded, so I obliged and I will not detail his question, which was very personal in this blog either. The outcome was that the relevant cabinet member arranged to meet with the individual outside the meeting to pursue his problem.

In due course my own questions came around and there were quite a few. My first two could actually be taken together and so I will. The first was about the extension of the Capita contract for the provision of what are known as Treasury services and also back office IT services. My second was on the start of the 'Budget Conversation' and asking for greater transparency about what savings had already been found.

Unfortunately due to poor recording conditions the answers were inaudible so I'm afraid it's back to the old routine of giving my precis of what was said in response. To the first question Cllr Ben Curran (Finance & Resources) made no specific comment about the 'capacity' issue but explained at some length the benefits of the new contracts break points and the savings that have been made during the redesign of the service provision. He also commented on the continued testing of the service against market norms and the council's ability to take advantage of the breaks in the contract if needed.

On the question about the budget conversation he commented that we were only at the start of the process and this was to get the ball rolling. Essentially more information will come out as they feel confident to do so, leading to the final budget in March. Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) also chipped in to say that the officers were tasked with briefing the opposition parties throughoutt he process and that they had more detailed information as it became available. Some however chose not to engage with the process that deeply.

My question three commented on the recent CBI conference and their suggestion that National Insurance limits be raised to alleviate the suffering of the low paid. I suggested that it would be easier for the CBI to suggest their members raise the low wages rather than the government subsidies and asked if the Council agreed? Julie Dore responded that she did agree they should be raising wages and believed her Labour Group would also. She then commented on the city supporting the living wage, above the minimum wage.

My question four concerned the webcasting debate and asked whether, in the absence of that facility the council would facilitate using a direct input from the Council's own amplification system to enable me to achieve better quality recordings. This was referred to the legal officer to look into and we will correspond on this issue.

Question five was an opportunity to commend the Council over the intention of the city to reflect on the 100th anniversary of the first world war with the Centenary Fields project. This will lead to the Weston Park, adjacent to the city museum to be designated and reserved for public use in perpetuity as a memorial to those whose lives were sacrificed in the bloody conflict. Cllr Isobel Bowler (Culture, Sport & Leisure) thanked me for the commendation and said it was important that this project would not only commemorate the centenary but secure the park for the future use of the people of the city.

My final short notice question, drew attention to the negotiations ongoing between the City region and the Government over so called 'Devolution' and to ask if there would be public consultation over the debate before a decision was made. Julie Dore answered a simple no. She followed this by saying there just wasn't time. The timetable is the governments and they want to make an announcement in the Autumn Statement on 3rd December. She did comment that she hoped that the subsequent negotiations on the detail of the agreement would allow for fuller consultation with the public over that detail.

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Not My Sunday Sermon 3, by Nigel Slack.

For today's evening offering I wanted to try and give some idea as to why I'm fundraising to be able to do what I do full time. In other words, a brief update on what I've been making happen since I started this campaign.

Over the last six weeks I have, essentially been doing my Public Interest work almost full time. In that six weeks I've been to 13 political meetings including Full Council meetings, Cabinet meetings, individual meetings with cabinet councillors, an interview with the 'Sheffield Star', two Hustings events for the PCC election, and attended Public meetings on Planning Issues and the City's Budget Conversation, amongst others.

So far I've published 19 articles to my Blog site, had an article published in Now Then Magazine, another, an interview with them is to be published on December 3rd, had an interview with Ellen Beardmore published in 'The Sheffield Star' newspaper and talked on BBC Radio Sheffield about the post of the PCC and the by-election.

I was also interviewed by Max Munday alongside Scott Lavery, from SPERI (Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute) of the University of Sheffield, on Sheffield Live TV, talking about the current so called 'devolution' deal on offer to the City Regions and how little it resembles the actual devolution ceded to Scotland through legislation.

During that short six weeks I've managed to to create some waves. My main achievement has been to drag the 'Devolution' issue into the light of public scrutiny. The secret discussions between Councils and the Government on what is being termed 'Devolution' has been brought out into the open. The fact that both Government and Councils are denying the public any knowledge of the terms of this deal or any say in the process has now been publicised.

In addition, I've managed to get a Cabinet Councillor to confirm that transparency and openness are the most important things in the planning process and the commitment of another Cabinet Councillor to regreening Meadowhead roundabout, previously desecrated by Highways Department 'improvements'. Finally I was able to act as a catalyst for the objections to the proposed demolition plans for the Devonshire Street shops that include 'Rare and Racy', a legendary local record & book store, along with other independent traders.

I think that's a good record for six weeks work. The trouble is, unless this campaign generates significantly more money than to date, this level of work is unsustainable. To give you some idea of the difference. To get the information I needed to 'out' the devolution deal I had to attend two Council meetings, a meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board and a meeting of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) in Barnsley. I asked nine or ten different questions in those meetings and my experience of who answered those questions and how they were answered enabled me to understand that something was happening that was considered not for public consumption. My persistence, however, meant that by the time of the SCRCA meeting there was little choice but for them to admit to being in discussions with the Government and give a brief report on where the discussions had reached.

That amounts to some 10 or 12 hours over two weeks. All daytime meetings during normal working hours. A level of coverage that can only be achieved by someone working on a full time basis. Without this level of access and scrutiny the actions and decisions of City Council and of regional decision makers like the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, The Sheffield Executive Board and the Police and Crime Panel will go largely under the radar. Some may believe that newspapers should be doing this job and they probably should but without bigger staffs and unless they can risk their editors wrath following the boring stuff as well as the sexy stuff, they will never be able to do it effectively. This is bad news for the public and bad news for the city.

That is a fairly simplistic explanation of why it is so important that someone like me does something like this as a professional. Because that is the only way to develop the knowledge and the instincts for effective scrutiny. I therefore appeal to each and every person who reads this to contribute to my campaign. Without support I cannot continue at the full time and professional level that this city's public deserve, if at all. A small donation from many people will enable me to continue and to keep our community leaders as honest as possible and their decision making as transparent as possible. In the end, if you don't contribute who will?

Friday, 21 November 2014

Talking About My Funding Campaign, by Nigel Slack.

I've created this short piece of audio for my funding campaign web pages and thought it would be good for people to be able to access it on my blog as well. If you want to see it in it's intended spot, click on the orange banner or button next to this post to visit my 'Public Interest' crowdfunding campaign.

Click here for my Indiegogo funding campaign page.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Police & Crime Panel meeting on 19th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The Police & Crime Panel is the body that is intended to provide scrutiny of the Police & Crime Commissioner. The legislation that created it and the PCC set the panel up more as a support for the PCCs's work, as representative of the public engagement and as such the crutiny powers that the panel has are very limited. This became very apparent during the crisis over the previous PCC and his refusal to stand down. It then became clear that this panel had no powers to sack or insist on the resignation of the PCC.

This particular meeting was called to try and look at ways forward for the Panel and whether public engagement was a part of this? The meeting was webcast, so I will not be going into great detail and will largely let the broadcast speak for itself. The public involvement in the meeting starts after the report from Debbie Pons and includes questions from colleagues in Neighboutrhood Watch and myself representing Sheffield for Democracy. Be aware that the video is silent for the first few minutes, the engineer can be seen trying to fix this but it kicks in before the PCC's introduction.

This is a video file direct from the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council website.
If there are any problems viewing this file please go to this page and check out the player there - http://www.rotherham.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/154494

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

"‘No time’ to consult public on Sheffield devolution deal" - article in The Star 18th November 2014

Nigel is quoted in today's local Sheffield newspaper The Star (18th November 2014, written by political reporter Ellen Beardmore ) concerning the undemorcratic nature of devolution that is being presented to Sheffield. more information after the link below.

Click here for The Star article

Monday, 17 November 2014

Article in Now Then magazine, November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

Just a quick post to record that I have an article in this months Now Then magazine (Issue no.80 November 2014). The article's entitled 'Devolution. MP's Mayors and the PCC and is a timely comment on the very significant powers these individuals can wield with very little opportunity for the public to hold them to account.

Click here for Now Then Article

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting of 17th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

This Combined Authority is the body that the Government will address with it's plan for so called 'City Region Devolution' that I have discussed in previous posts. The meeting was held in Barnsley at the offices of the South Yorkshire Joint Secretariat. The meeting room has the facility for webcasting meetings but this was not available on this occasion.

The reason I was attending the meeting was fairly singular as there was nothing of particular note on the agenda. It was simply to get answers to my questions about the potential devolution deal. I sent advanced notice of three questions, with 5 working days notice. These were;

Has SCRCA been approached by the government about the potential for a so called devolution deal similar to the one accepted recently by Greater Manchester Combined Authority, or indeed any deal at all that might be framed as 'devolution'?
Did members of the SCRCA attend the Northern Futures event in Leeds and if so who?
Will the SCRCA allow a public consultation and vote on any devolution deal offered by the government, of whatever political party?

My regular followers will know that two of those questions were answered by the Sheffield City Council Cabinet meeting on the 12th November. I therefore already knew that there was an approach over the deal as the answer to one of my questions that day, from Julie Dore (Leader), was that there would not be time to consult the public on the matter, as a decision is being slated prior to the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on 3rd December. This also covered my third question to the SCRCA.

So, to that part of the meeting that addressed my inquiries. As part of a report into some small changes in the Governance of the SCRCA and the subsuming of the Joint Secretariat functions into Barnsley MBC, Ben Still the Chief Executive of the City Region LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) reported on the approach they had received from the Cabinet Office about a devolution deal. He confirmed that discussions had begun and that he would report back to the SCRCA on details as they emerged. He also commented that it was hoped to agree at least what are phrased as 'Heads of Terms' in time for the Autumn Statement.

It was also suggested by Ben Still that the deal would be aimed at helping to fulfil the SCRCA Strategic Economic Plan. The chair of the meeting Cllr Steve Houghton of Barnsley MBC commented that the detail would then be subject to considerably more negotiation. The chair then went on to answer the three questions I addressed to the meeting. First, yes they were in discussion about an approach regarding 'devolution'. Second, Julie Dore and John Mothersole (CEO Sheffield City Council) were the only two members of the SCRCA to attend the 'Northern Futures' event in Leeds, though they were missing from this SCRCA meeting. Third, a public vote is not required nor expected by the Cabinet Office in order to agree the 'deal'. The SCRCA will discuss it with the LEP but the decision is for the SCRCA alone.

That would seem to be that then, simple. Well not quite. As usual some of the most interesting information came out in casual discussion after the meeting. There will apparently be a press release in a few days concerning the potential deal. It would seem however this may well be designed to say very little, as little seems to be known. It was also clear that the odd voting arrangements of the SCRCA will make for a strange decision apparatus. Unlike in Greater Manchester, the authorities that make up the SCRCA cover three distinct geographic areas. South Yorkshire Metro's, North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire. Only the South Yorkshire Metro's get to vote on any 'deal' so it is unclear whether the other councils will fall in line or not.

Add to this a distinct feeling that some of the Metro's are to say the least antipathetic to the idea, particularly if attached to the idea of a City Region Mayor, then there would seem to be little assurance that it will happen at all. I guess now only time will tell but it seems certain that nobody wants the public to have a say in this arrangement, neither central nor local government.

This must not be the end however, there are still concerns that need addressing. One, a deal that addresses the economic performance of the SCRCA rather than the democracy of powers devolved to them is simply not devolution. It is nothing more than an extended 'city deal'. Two, there is no apparent fiscal devolution beyond what is being offered to deliver certain central government policies. Three, without public or possibly even local councillor's being involved in any conversation, this is just top down reorganisation not devolution. Four, If this deal can be decided by the four Metro's where will that leave the five other councils in the SCRCA? Five, what are the heads of terms? I struggle to believe that with just two weeks to the Autumn Statement, nobody has addressed this yet.

There is much about the organisation and transparency of the SCRCA that concerns me and, considering that it may soon hold great sway over substantial parts of our daily lives, we need to be holding them to account.

Full Council Meeting on 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The meeting kicked off as usual but this time the public gallery was full. There was a significant contingent of the GMB Union members currently striking against the Green Company, who run the recycling centres in the city as sub-contractors for Veolia, the outsourcing company. In addition there was a petition to be presented about the outsourcing of the Learning Disability Service and with over 5,000 signatures this triggers a debate in council.

Soon enough public petitions and questions came around and there were lots of petitions this time. Subjects were; Devonshire Street shops demolition, Tesco Express planning application in Stannington, Re-instatement of free city centre shuttle bus service, Misuse of Totley Scout Hut, and School crossing patrol at St Anne's Park School.

The meeting then moved on to Public Questions. Again lots of questions from a full public gallery, inevitably meaning I would be towards the end. As a regular there it seems to me that this means the 'new' people get to ask their questions first. This is fine in general terms but sometimes leads to boredom in the cheap seats and those of us at the end of the process are less likely to be able to preface or contextualise our questions, which leads to uncertainty in answers and the liklihood of additional questions being needed at a later date.

Questions were on the subjects of; Protocols of child protection, Employment and economic development, Gritting of Blindside Lane, Questions grouped by the GMB Union members on the strike at Sheffield's waste recycling centres and the management by 'Green Company' on a sub-contract from Veolia, The privatisation of the 'Supported Living Service', Arbourthorne TARA concerns, The Sheffield Federation of TARA's and council recognition, and the roadworks for the new Sainsbury's store in Hillsborough and consequent problems for local traders.

Finally it came around to my questions. My first was aimed at Julie Dore (Leader) and concerned the recent News that Greater Manchester Combined Authority had signed a so called devolution deal with the Treasury to give them certain extra spending responsibilities in exchange for accepting an elected City Region Mayor.

"How does the council think of Manchester jumping ship on the other Northern cities?
Do the council agree with the approach that gives business leaders a chance to vote on these devolution proposals but no vote for the public that will pay for them?
Which experts and business leaders from Sheffield will be attending?
Do the two remaining councils involved see the trap that Manchester is being led into?
Does the council agree with the potential imposition of a directly elected Mayor that we rejected in 2012?
Will the council accept administering the hateful welfare to work programme?"

To my surprise the response was from Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills & Economic Development) who outlined the benefits of serious devolution and the fact that the Manchester deal was lacking these benefits. He also commented negatively on the idea of an elected mayor. There was however no comment on the Northern Futures meeting the next day or on who from Sheffield would be attending.

Full Audio below.

My second question was on some planning matters. Trying to avoid asking for comment on specific proposals in order not to step on legal procedural toes.

"The planning system is currently mired in controversy and poor public relations and two particular proposals are causing the bulk of the problems. I will refrain from mentioning them or asking direct questions about them, for fear of being told they can't be answered without jeopardising the planning process. So, in general; When a planning application on the council's website indicates a determination deadline date, what does that mean?"

And;

"Where a planning guideline indicates a ratio of different usage types within an area, ie between A1 and A3 uses, will the recommendation by officers and the decision of the planning committee on this aspect of the proposal be based on, the current guidelines, guidelines proposed but rejected by the council on some previous occasion or a developers feeling as to the likely future guidelines yet to be tabled or put to a council decision making process?"

Cllr Bramall's response was exactly what I hoped to elicit with this question. To the first part he responded that transparency and open procedure was all important in planning matters. This gives me the confirmation I need to press for greater information in the early stages of applications and a more balanced availability of Officers to 'objectors' as well as 'developers'. Something to pursue at my personal meeting with Cllr Bramall.

Full Audio below.

My final question was about the appalling turnout of voters at the PCC by-election and an unedifying, almost snide argument witnessed on Twitter between a cabinet councillor and a councillor of the Green Party, about the ethics of voting or not voting as an elected representative.

"The PCC election was neither a particularly legitimate expression of democracy with less than 15% turnout and a winner with less than 8% of the electorate voting for them, nor a value for money exercise costing approximately £11.50 per vote cast. In addition Doncaster reported that of their electorate only 3.5% voted at the ballot box, the remaining 11.5% being postal votes. What was the ratio of postal to ballot box votes in Sheffield?"

And;

"With 86% of the electorate not voting, no party was in a position to take the moral high ground about who did or did not publicly support voting. The supporters of all parties stayed away from the ballot box and it seems unlikely they listened to any of the politicians pro or anti voting in this particular election. Can the council please urge all politicians to act more responsibly over such issues?"

Cllr Julie Dore responded to this question and apologised for not having the election figures to hand that I asked for but she would get them from the Returning Officer. On the second part of the question she was unable to offer direct comment as lack of context meant it was unclear but she did illustrate her own opinion on the responsibilities of elected officials to engage with the ballot box.

For me the question remains whether the act of not voting is still a means of engaging with the process?

Full Audio below.

At this point I had to leave and poor Martin Brighton was still asking his question the meeting already having been running for two hours and with an important debate on road safety about to start which was triggered by a large petition. This again illustrates the need to look seriously and urgently at webcasting council meetings. Then those unable to attend at all, or those who found it necessary to leave before the end can still see and comment on the democracy, or lack of it, in action in our council meetings.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

When is Devolution Not Devolution? by Nigel Slack.

Since the Greater Manchester Combined Authority 'came out' as the first of the Northern Cities to be offered and to accept the Clegg/Osbourne version of devolution I have written about my concerns. I have written not only about their sudden acceptance of an imposed elected mayor but also about the weaknesses of the deal and the impact for the other Northern cities of this split in their, until then, united front.

Click here for the previous article Divide & Conquer the North? - by Nigel Slack - 3rd Nov 2014.

Since then there has been discussion and debate amongst a broad range of people as to whether this type of deal would be offered to Sheffield City Region and whether they would fall for the rhetoric. I use the word rhetoric because for me the Greater Manchester deal is full of holes, both in the freedom it alleges it will give Manchester and in describing it as devolution at all. The deal as outlined by the Daily Telegraph seems to be nothing more than an extended version of the 'City Deals' that have been around for a while now and which enable government to target funds at Local Councils in return for them following agendas and targets agreed between the two.

The freedoms being offered in the 'devolution' deal are similarly ringfenced with specific policy aims;
Housing Investment Fund £300M, to build houses.
Planning Powers, but no detail and presumably still bound by current planning law.
Local Transport, something already in negotiation in the North with Rail North and attempts to reintegrate bus services.
Pooling of Health & Social Care budgets, probably could be negotiated without this deal.
Greater responsibility for business support and economic regeneration, already being targeted at the City Regions through the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
£100M for 'welfare to work' making local councils responsible for administering National Policy on benefit claimants.

Why do I say this is not devolution? If you look at devolution as exhibited in Scotland you have some monies and policies determined by Westminster but, most importantly, a significant amount of money is given by way of a block grant with no strings attached and the Scots powers can decide how this money is spent. They can vary the way they spend that grant to achieve not only their legal obligations but also determined by their local policies rather than those handed down from on high.

That is devolution. In addition it is backed by legislation not some shady back room deal. Without an Act of Parliament the deals being bandied about by Clegg/Osbourne can be withdrawn by any future Government on a whim.

So where does that leave us in Sheffield? On the 5th I asked in the Full Council meeting a number of questions about the city's view on the Clegg/Osbourne deal. I knew something was amiss when a question I would normally expect to be answered by the Leader, Julie Dore was instead responded to by Leigh Bramall with his business and economy hat on. Then at the beginning of this week I was being told by a different city council cabinet member that there was no deal on the table.

Fast forward to Wednesday morning when I attended a meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board , that body of leaders from the city's public services, private sector and VCF sectors that influences the direction of policy within the city. The first hour and a half of the meeting was a closed session, public excluded.

Attending the open session it soon became obvious, from a number of dropped comments that the closed session had been discussing something about the 'devolution' deals doing the rounds. At the end of the meeting I enquired why the devolution discussion had been held in closed session and it became crystal clear that they had been discussing an actual offer on the table for the City Region to decide upon. I imagine and to some extent hope they were being asked their view, but possibly it was no more than an information session.

I was due to attend the City Council Cabinet meeting that same afternoon so drafted a quick question asking if the public would get an opportunity to consider and offer an opinion on the 'devolution' deal for Sheffield currently on the table, before the City Region decided? The answer, this time from Julie Dore was a straightforward No. She explained that they were under pressure to agree the deal before the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and therefore there would not be time. Just like that the option for any democratic debate on a huge decision for this city and this region is squashed.

The decision will now, presumably be made by the ten council leaders that make up the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. Not by their Council's elected representatives debating the benefits or pitfalls of the idea, not by consultation and consent of the Millions of people over whom they will govern but by ten men and women behind closed doors negotiating and consenting to secret deals. That is why this is not devolution, it is not even democracy.

Finally we have to ask, why is the government so keen to have this deal decided before the Autumn Statement? The autumn statement is where the Chancellor reveals the Local Government settlement for the next financial year. In other words he will be telling local councils how much money they have to spend or cut over the following year. Could it be that once the City Regions have signed on the dotted line there will be a nasty clause in the small print that they have all overlooked? I guess only time and George Osbourne will tell but I wouldn't trust him would you?

Monday, 10 November 2014

Meeting with Cllr Jack Scott - 10th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

My meeting with Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling & Streetscene) was due to start at 11am. He finally arrived about twenty past full of apologies. Indications are he does this a lot. Apologies out of the way we got down to discussing matters that fall in his portfolio.

First up was Meadowhead roundabout. Well not just that roundabout but that's the one that kicked it off. For those that don't know a great deal of work was carried out at this roundabout, courtesy of the Highways Dep't rather than 'Streets Ahead', to address safety issues. At the same time however the green space that it had been was completely destroyed. There was a bit of justification for that, as poor maintenance had left many of the trees in a poor condition and some potential for them to fall into the carriageway.

This aside, a habitat for invertebrates and insects and consequently a feeding post for birds was lost. The few scraggy replacement trees were a poor substitute for the forty years of mature growth that had been destroyed. I pointed out to Cllr Scott that he underestimated peoples attachment to these minor green spaces and that a better solution might be found as a method to regreen, not just this space, but any space where mature growth had to be sacrificed for the sake of development, assuming of course that all efforts had first been made to prevent destruction if possible.

I have chatted the concerns through with a close friend of mine who, as a recent graduate from the MA in Landscape Architecture at Sheffield University, knows a bit about green things. We talked through my thoughts on needing to re-instate the planting and she came up with some great ideas on making the space a diverse habitat with minimal maintenance needs and a low cost planting scheme.

She drew up a scheme for me and we believe the cost would be in the region of £250 for the necessary saplings, bulbs and seeds. There is also a suggestion that by approaching this in concert with the University landscaping department, the initial graft could be a project for the students or some such and thereby keep additional costs minimal. Maintenance would also be low cost as the scheme creates good groundcover that inhibits weed growth and gives colour all year round.

The proposal was well received by Jack Scott and we have agreed to get Fran Halsall into the discussion and progress the idea. This needs to be relatively quick as planting season is already upon us and it would be good to get this done before next spring. Cllr Scott and I both agreed that as a major feature on the Southern approaches to Sheffield the appearance off his site was important for the city as well as for local residents and wildlife.

The conversation then wandered a little as we discussed the current state of devolution for the Northern cities. Cllr Scott is a recent convert to my point of view that the deal accepted by Greater Manchester and allegedly being put forward for the Sheffield City Region is little more than an extended 'City Deal' and that without financial powers and legal status it does not really measure up as devolution at all. He assures me that as far as he knows there is not currently anything on the table for Sheffield but we'll wait and see.

I then asked for an update on Fracking. Previously we have talked fracking and I wanted to check up on the current license situation for the city. Cllr Scott has not been advised either by the relevant government department of by the group 'Frack Off' with whom he maintains contact of any new licenses in our area but there are some outstanding license blocks awaiting decisions by the sound of it. He seems quite sanguine about the potential of a license and claims to have a strong case to dissuade fracking companies from coming to the city region. He is not only relying on the normal pollution and saftety arguments but has taken on board my comments at our last meeting about the added dangers of our coal mining heritage. Sheffield is dotted with old mine workings dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries.

Finally I had only a short time to talk about that perennial favourite the bins. My area is not big for student housing but there are three or so houses in the streets around me that are student lets. My attention was drawn to a problem as the summer progressed, where many of the bins outside these student houses were not emptied because, as they left at the end of term, they dumped anything in any bin regardless of 'proper' usage.

After some eight weeks of this I finally complained to Veolia and, after a few more weeks the bins were finally emptied. Two thoughts occurred to me. One, why was this problem left to mature over the summer? And two, why aren't the landlords being held to account for their tenants? We discussed this problem and it became apparent that it may be the situation arose because of the fact there are only a few student houses in the area. The steps taken, outlined by Jack Scott, suggest that the problem is better handled in areas with a high student population and therefore landlords that are more used to the vagaries of student behaviour.

I did urge that the Veolia collection teams might need better support for their unemptied bin reports as the problem near me did not get dealt with for far too long. I also suggested that Landlords should be more accountable for their tenants and that some surcharge be available to prevent the Council picking up the tab for the problem. According to Cllr Scott, central government changes now prevent much by way of this type of action, so I suggested a 'Bond' similar to the security deposit that tenants leave with landlords to cover damage to the property during the tenancy. This seemed more feasible and Cllr Scott is going to look into the potentuial for that sort of scheme.

All in all it was a positive meeting and it will be interesting to see what concrete actions come from it. Needless to say I will try to keep my eye on it.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Not my Sunday Sermon 2, by Nigel Slack

This may become a thing, a Sunday contemplation on the state of the world and our tendency towards 'self' over 'society'. I talked in my last Sunday piece about the attitude amongst so many people today, that if you are not a part of the economic machine, creating wealth for self or others, and the other is preferably somebody paying your wages, then our efforts are not considered worthy or even legitimate.

This is promulgated by government and media and, to some extent has become part of the narrative by all political parties. It seems they are incapable now of discussing their policies and plans except through the prism of getting the 'workshy' back to work. Economic growth has become the mantra of this neo-liberal religion, whether the world & society can sustain it or not. Dave DeGraw, US economist and author recently commented that there were only enough jobs in America for 50% of the working age population. This means the idea of full employment is a myth that politicians continue to peddle in order to make those who are unemployed or even underemployed (part time workers) appear to be part of the problem.

The real trick for politicians and corporations however, has been their ability to convince many of the rest of society that this is the case. They appeal to our selfishness, our baser instincts to protect our selves and our loved ones from the 'outsider'. We are in an unprecedented period of inequality in this society, where wages for most are stagnant or falling and yet where corporate profits and the fortunes of the richest are continuing to boom. This is not only a problem for those in low paid jobs but for those, until now, relatively secure middle classes and graduates.

Dr John Goldthorpe, a co-author of the study and Oxford sociologist, said:
“For the first time in a long time, we have got a generation coming through education and into the jobs market whose chances of social advancement are not better than their parents, they are worse.” Guardian 6th November 2014 . Patrick Butler.

The much vaunted upward mobility of the 1980's is now a frightening 21st century downward mobility. As a result more and more of the sections of society that prided themselves on either 'working class solidarity' or 'middle class social responsibility' are falling into a self oriented protective stance. The result is the labelling of those that fall outside the norms of society as something 'other' and an acceptance of the disassembling of previously supported care structures (for the unemployed, the disabled and the working poor) as necessary, even though they were not the people that caused the crisis of 2008 but the victims of it.

The architects of the crash, bankers, politicians and corporations continue to profit from the crash almost without pause and the majority of the population are now so scared of their fragile employment and income security that they fall into line and hide behind the 'at least it's not me' selfishness that we all have, in some part, within our make up.

Personally, I will continue my efforts to be, at least partly, outside the system. The prospects for being able to be a full time conscience and watchdog for local politics and decision making is fading fast. Although I have connected with over 2,500 people through my funding campaign, only about 20 have responded with contributions towards my work. If all those I connected with had felt able to give the equivalent of a 'couple of pints and a bag of chips' then I would have busted my target. I continue to make my mark. This week a discussion on Twitter enabled me to make an SCC Cabinet member reconsider their positive stance on the Clegg/Osbourne plans for fake devolution to the Northern cities. This is the sort of thing no-one else is currently doing.

So people, if you were thinking that someone else would contribute, and therefore you weren't really needed, I'm afraid you were wrong, you are all needed. The withdrawal into self and selfishness that all of us are capable of seems just as prevalent in 'social benefit fundraising' as anywhere else. Without your support this campaign will not succeed and what murky decisions will slip by in the half light that remains? Will the few people able to make appearances at Council meetings be able to maintain the pressure? The visits to meetings in Rotherham, Barnsley and even further afield, that are now part of the City Region landscape, will not happen. If we end up with a City Region Mayor, where will they be based and who will be able to hold them to account?

If we want good governance, we cannot rely on the politicians to provide it alone. We must invest, either our time, something which few people can afford, or money, to support someone who has the time and the skills needed. You have a choice, I hope you will choose to support independent scrutiny for the decision making in the city and region. Visit my campaign page and support my work. If you don't, who will?

Saturday, 8 November 2014

Unite Community Branch Meeting of 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

Tonight I was invited by the Unite Community Sheffield branch to talk about what I do and the Funding Campaign I'm running. (See my orange buttons on this blog) I was the last item on a busy agenda so I had the opportunity to see something of what Unite Community do.

The meeting started with an update on the campaign to boycott shops and companies in Sheffield that subscribe to the governments 'Workfare' (welfare to work) schemes. The latest was a protest outside a shop called Savers, on Haymarket. The day went well by the sound of it and with the connections they were making with the public and their reaction to the schemes was a great example of what direct action can achieve in raising awareness.

There were then updates on the Orgreave truth & justice campaign and the Freedom Rides protests. Tony & George, the two pensioners arrested at one of the events are up before the Sheffield Magistrates Court on the 8th December and the group are hoping for significant public support for the two men. Next were brief reports on a number of ongoing matters, the GMB unions strike at Sheffield Recycling Centres against the Veolia sub-contractor 'Green Company', The EDL march (again) in Rotherham and the anti-fascist response, The rep from Unite Community that went to the National Climate Change Meeting and from the Sheffield Trades Council and the Sheffield People's Assembly.

Finally there were two motions passed by the meeting. One supporting a woman's right to choose following the advent of an American pro life group starting to establish in this country and one to support the victim of convicted rapist Ched Evans, who is being hounded and abused by his supporters and some of the fans of Sheffield United.

Last of all I had the oportunity to outline my work with my 'Public Interest' profile and my attempts to bring greater transparency and accountability to Sheffield City Council and others in our region. I answered question after that including;
Isn't that why we pay Councillors? - Yes but they have less freedom than me to ask questions at meetings such as full council and cabinet where they cannot & Councillor performance is not consistent.
Why don't I stand for election? - It's expensive to do as an independent and as above would reduce my freedom to act. Were I to join a party that would reduce my independence as all party politicians are expected to submit to the party line.

I left them with some written material about what I do and hopefully they will distribute this through their own networks. All in all an interesting meeting with a group that could achieve a great deal given the support they need, much like me I guess.

Thursday, 6 November 2014

Central Local Area Partnership – Planning & Licensing Meeting. of 4th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The meeting was chaired by Neale Gibson (Labour) who is also chair of the Central LAP. Presentations were given by Maria Duffy, Head of Planning and Steve Lonnia, Head of Licensing. The meeting was to look at the role of planning and licensing particularly within the city centre and with respect to the night time economy.

The presentations essentially outlined the powers, or more accurately the lack of powers, available to local authorities to restrict or manage development within the city centre, and particularly with respect to licensing of the night time economy. Power seems vested in the developers and public objections are often up against professional legal types when arguing against any proposed changes.

The bigger problem, that became apparent as the meetings presentations and discussions went on, was the seeming ability for developers to simply suggest benefits and positive impacts but the need for objectors to be able to prove and evidence the negative impacts of proposals. Add to that the power of big money when it comes to employing legal types to defend their position and their power to threaten appeals, that can cost councils big money to defend and you see the problem.

There is potentially one light in the dark and that is the councils Unitary Development Plan and the 'Night Time Uses Policy' that it contains. These two documents allow the council, through it's planning department to draw up guidelines that it considers necessary to good planning and development within the city. It can attempt to protect the mix of 'uses' within areas and also specify conditions that can be applied concerning night time use, such as opening hours, live music, etc.

Once again however the plan must be able to resist the test of reasonableness that developers will try to undermine. Suggesting that the UDP is too restrictive or unreasonable means that they can appeal decisions to the 'planning inspectors' who can overturn a council decision at the stroke of a pen and even award legal costs against the council. As a result councils are timid about declining developments and it would seem that any suggestion of an appeal will enable a proposal to find favour. That, at least, is how it seems.

Is there a solution to this? Yes, the proper devolution of planning powers to the councils. Allowing councils to develop and enforce their own planning guidelines, based on local difference and local needs and, more importantly, wants without interference from outside watchdogs would protect local diversity both between cities and towns but also within the different areas of cities and towns. After all, as Cambridge is different to Sheffield both in landscape and culture, so Tinsley is different to the city centre within Sheffield.

Monday, 3 November 2014

Divide & Conquer the North? - by Nigel Slack - 3rd Nov 2014.

In the space of two days the idea of a considered and careful deliberation over the future of devolution in the North has become a done deal for Manchester and the source of huge problems for other Northern cities like Sheffield and Leeds.

Sunday started with the Daily Telegraph announcing that George Osbourne and Nick Clegg have agreed to give 'London style' self rule to Manchester, Sheffield & Leeds. The details were supposed to be announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement and the Nick Clegg sponsored Northern Futures Summit in Leeds on the 6th November would enable 300 experts, business leaders and politicians to vote on various options for the planned handover of powers.

By, what we in the North would call tea time Monday around 5pm, The Guardian's Public Leaders Network was reporting that the Manchester part of that Northern triumvirate had already done a deal with HMG. In exchange for agreeing to the imposition of a City Region Mayor, directly elected of course, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority would be given the extra powers earlier outlined and we're told control over £1Bn of public spending.

So within the space of twenty four hours the goalposts had radically changed. This gives the leaders of the two remaining City Regions a big headache. They have to think fast, do they continue to try and come up with a considered and consensual approach to devolution? One that fits their needs and is acceptable to the people they govern, or do they, for fear of falling behind the new Manchester Juggernaut, clamour to be allowed the same powers for the same concession to Mayoral style management?

We have to ask ourselves a question. The Manchester announcement comes three days before the Northern Futures Summit, directly after various other announcements about Opposition Party policies in this area and in time to have at least the Manchester Mayor in place, albeit an interim one, before the next General Election. Is this a coincidence? Probably not, there are very few coincidences in this type of political manoeuvring.

Why is this such a problem? I guess for me and for many other people that I've been in touch with over the last two days it comes down to one basic problem. The public are once more being handed some form of top down reorganisation that we have neither been involved in the design of nor asked for our consent to. The devolution of the English regions came to the fore after the Scottish Independence Referendum and the hope, throughout the country, was that there would be a serious and considered conversation. An inclusive discussion between academics in the field, politicians national and local, community leaders and, most importantly, the public about the form and function of devolved local government. The aim being to bring about a consensus that would stand the test of time and that could be enshrined in law to take the central interference out of local government.

This is now being denied us and in favour of a Mayoral system of governance that the Northern cities rejected as recently as 2012. In the referendums of that year Manchester rejected a Mayor by some 53% of the vote and Sheffield by 65%. The idea of a Mayor, however, remains attractive to the Government, why? Possibly because, although London as a region is dominated by Labour Councils, the 'city' is governed by a Conservative Mayor. This imposition is potentially seen by some, as a means to break the long standing Labour domination of the Northern cities.

Beyond this basic injustice of not giving the public a say, however, there are also other issues that may be leading the Northern cities into a well orchestrated trap. The plan outlines a number of new powers to be given to these new devolved Mayoral cities. The fact that these new powers will not be linked to any new money means that the government also get to drop fault for future cuts firmly in the city's lap, Cuts to or increased fares for public transport, the city's fault. Problems with integrated Health and Social Care budgets, the city's fault. Implementation of the controversial 'Welfare to Work' schemes, the city's fault.

Add to this the fact that whilst some of the powers are attached to funding currently managed by government and this will come to the Mayors alongside the powers, it will still be attached to specific projects and unavailable to the general spending power of the region so is still controlled by government targets and performance expectations. Financial independence? No, just more responsibilities to implement central policies.

This video that follows is a reminder of just how bad the finances are for Sheffield for the next financial year.

Sheffield City Council's Budget Conversation 2015/16

These announcements over the last two days have therefore managed to achieve some important goals for the coalition. The consensus of the Northern cities has been broken with Manchester now being held up as a beacon of the future and Sheffield and Leeds being lured into the same honey trap, and the Councils are being divided from their electorate, who are getting no say in this process and will therefore blame the councils when it all goes pear shaped.

Above all however, this is a process not properly thought through, with no support from the public and with no foundation in law. If the next government is of a different mind they can change this arrangement, again, and all this will go away.

Sunday, 2 November 2014

Not my Sunday Sermon, by Nigel Slack.

I considered calling this my Sunday sermon but, being an atheist that would be a little misleading. I also don't plan a long oration on the moral ills of our society or selves. The subject is certainly not theological but it is, I guess, about some of the attitudes and even ethics that have driven us to be more self focussed than society focussed of late.

The current narrative from government and the media is leading to an attitude amongst many people that any effort that does not produce something, in economic terms, is pointless and therefore not worthy. If you work on something that does not generate greater wealth for yourself, or, if you are not paid by someone to do a job that creates greater wealth for them, you are often considered less worthwhile, as a person, than those that do.

The government would have us believe, ably supported by the media, that Art is now an economy, that the Care Sector is an economy, that Education is an economy (they are supported in that particular myth by Universities that now resemble major corporations rather than seats of learning). Local Councils are manipulated, through shortage of funds, then by incentive payments, to develop only those things that bring 'economic benefit', real or imagined, based on private sector solutions and in ways that further the current economic theories that the market knows best.

Education, as a market, tells us every child is the same blank slate that can be trained to do anything. This is odd. We know that genetics affect our eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, height, health and even left or right handedness, then why not our brains capacity to learn. Could it be that the private sector doesn't want the education system to produce anyone that may step away from the 'correct' economic narrative? Typically those people that are labelled creatives are told they need to be businessmen too and offered training to make them so. They cannot just be creative and have that fostered by society, they have to make a product that can be sold or exploited by them or someone else.

Anything non productive is being left in a space where no-one wants to pay for it. Take my own example. Thirty five years of almost constant employment in business, post graduate management education, years of voluntary work in my twenties and thirties and latterly twenty years in a service industry. Now I've identified a role that, not only am I eminently qualified to do but about which I am passionate and which, I believe, is important to Sheffield as an economically challenged city.

Visit my 'The Public Interest' funding campaign

It's not a role that can be done through employment or by sponsorship of one organisation. That would compromise the independence that is vital to successfully doing what I do. I'm trying to raise the money to continue my work, full time, through public subscription. People who see what I do or read about what I do tell me it is a vital task in this age of corporate and big money lobbying, because I try to stand up for the public in general. They tell me I should carry on doing what I do because they don't have the time or the skills to do it like I do.

The trouble is, that apart from a few sterling silver souls that have been incredibly generous and contributed to my campaign, most people seem to think someone else will pay for it. Some have even commented that what I do is great but what will come out of it? There's the rub. What I do is not producing a product or any content that is economically exploitable and as such is deemed, by many, as less worthy than getting a 'proper job'.

I would like to be proved wrong and that people will support socially beneficial ideas, even if a little unorthodox but as someone without the economically approved acceptability of being employed by someone else, I am beginning to doubt it.

Thursday, 30 October 2014

South Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel - of 29th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The Police & Crime Panel is supposed to be the oversight and scrutiny body for the Police & Crime Commissioner. During what is essentially a hiatus between the resignation of Shaun Wright and the election of the new permanent PCC on 30th October there is not a lot of business to be undertaken so the meeting was short and to the point.

Their was a welcome from Cllr Harry Harpham (Labour, Chair) and an introduction of a new member to replace Cllr Vines (UKIP), who resigned after the last meeting. (The no-confidence deliberations on Shaun Wright.) The new member is Cllr Martyn Parker, (UKIP) representing Rotherham MBC. The chair then proposed the minutes show an expression of condolences to Mayor Ros Jones (Labour) of Doncaster MBC for the bereavement in her family that meant she was not in attendance that day.

The agenda then came on to Public Questions. I was the only member of the public in attendance that day but there were several other written questions to be put to the panel. Cllr Harpham commented that the questions were all on a similar theme, the problems of the last few weeks, the lack of powers of the PCP and the concerns for the future. He then proposed to the meeting that they make the next meeting a one item agenda to discuss these matters in an open forum and try to get as many members of the public involved as possible. He also suggested that as such they hold over the questions at this meeting to the future meeting for consideration then.

Cllr Harpham asked me if I was content to do that, I agreed, and the meeting assented to his proposal concerning the next meeting. Some of the other questions were from members of Neighbourhood Watch and Sheffield for Democracy who were known to me and he asked that I ask them to try to attend that meeting. He would also ask the support officers to contact all the questioners with the same request.

There were only two more short items on the agenda, to agree the last meeting minutes and to offer the panels recommendation on the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer for the PCC's office. The minutes were approved with some matters arising comments from Cllr Parker as a new member not in post at the last meeting. The panel accepted the appointment of the new CFO after a short discussion as to whether it should be held over until the new PCC was elected.

The meeting closed at this point with a brief comment from Cllr Harpham as a reminder of the next meetings purpose, the date of which will be 19th November 2014, at 1.00pm Rotherham Town Hall. He also commented at this point that the next meeting and indeed all future meetings of the PCP would be webcast live. The members then dispersed. Anyone in South Yorkshire who is interested in the working of the PCP can attend, I would encourage them to be there.

The announcement of the webcasting came a bit out off left field so I approached the support Officers to ask when that decision had been made. The response was, “just now”, it seems to have been a spur of the moment decision by the Chair, aware perhaps of the sensitivities of the subject at the next meeting. This should lead to an interesting conversation at Full Council next week, with Sheffield City Council still resisting the introduction of this tool for transparency.

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

The Sheffield TTIP Roadshow, Compare & Contrast, by Nigel Slack.

The organisers - Vs - The participant.

It has taken me a little while to get hands on the organiser's view of this event (from 1st October) but, having done so, I've been able to compare that to a report I received from a participant shortly after the event. The contrasts are interesting and I hope illuminating. Both mention the problems now at the forefront of public and political campaigns against this TTIP deal but the organisers inevitably spin the positive.

For background, British American Business is a hugely influential and hugely well funded lobbying group. They suggest they are like an international Chamber of Commerce but one look at their website shows the reach they have and the influence they believe they can exert. They fund the influential 'All party parliamentary group on EU-US trade & investment' and the keynote speaker, John Healey MP (Labour), is the chair of this group.

I will make the comparison by quoting from the BAB report and then highlight using italics any discrepancies from the 'participants' comments. My own additional comments are in [square brackets]. The first discrepancy is actually nothing to do with the meeting as such but the preamble to the BAB report. This states;

“On October 1, 2014 BritishAmerican Business and the Sheffield City Region invited businesses and stakeholders from government and local business and trade organisations to participate in a TTIP Roadshow event in Sheffield. Nabarro LLP kindly hosted the event.”

According to my notes from the Full Council Meeting of the same day (1st October) Cllr Dore commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence, as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

However to continue to matters within the event itself.

After introductions came a keynote address by John Healey MP. His key points were;
“First, this is the best prepared bilateral trade deal in history. Prior to the launch of negotiations, governments on both sides of the Atlantic had been assessing the potential and the feasibility of an agreement concluding with the recommendation to launch negotiations for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. Second, in light of growing competition from other economic regions in the world, TTIP is the opportunity to set a common set of high standards that may function as a template worldwide. Third, this agreement could be beneficial to consumers, workers and businesses in the UK.”

He also suggested;
“If the UK wants to keep its economy successful, it will need this deal.”

On the concerns of the public he said;
“That political leaders and negotiators on both sides have pledged that a trade agreement between the EU and the US will not lower standards and that the National Health Services (NHS) will be protected. However, he also stated that he saw no case for an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system in an EU/US agreement and that this issue should not be a stumbling block for the entire deal.”

Missing comments;
Any deal must be democratically approved by leaders and government (JH thinks it should go to parliament itself).
[Suggests BAB don't like his comments on ISDS or need for democratic debate]

First speaker from the panel was Mark Robson of UK trade and investment. (Gov dept that promotes exports and foreign investment in UK) His comments were;
“pointed out how important the economic and Investment-relationship already is for the Sheffield region and the UK as a whole. Many businesses of all sizes and sectors in the Sheffield region already export to the US, but market access for companies is still limited in various sectors. TTIP can help to remove those limitations to increase the trade and investment relationship.”

Missing comments;
NHS – turn argument on its head, our health companies can be looking to sell services to US; UK provides springboard for US companies to reach Europe so they like to invest here; US market is not easy for UK companies despite common language. [missing comments infer the imbalance of power in transatlantic economic relationships]

Next was Richard Currie of UPS (US parcels & logistics company) he commented;
“TTIP represents an opportunity to remove existing “bottlenecks” in the transatlantic supply chain, and facilitate trade for businesses and consumers. For example, if TTIP results in an increase of the ‘de minimis’ threshold (the value of goods below which customs duties are not applied) to $800, lower value goods could be transported at a lower cost and with less administrative effort. Furthermore, studies have shown that the removal of tariffs, could boost transatlantic trade by $120 billion over a 5-year period. Richard emphasised that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers should be the main beneficiaries of a comprehensive agreement.”

Missing comments; Regulatory compliance or acceptance of each others’ standards (NOT “harmonisation” – Jeffries also rejected that description) – would be especially helpful for pharmaceuticals and locomotives.
[Centred on good for UPS, still suggests ability for US food and agriculture, including GMOs, to be allowed into EU]

Then came William Beckett, CEO of Beckett Plastics, who commented;
“offered an insight into the current challenges small companies face when trading with the US, in particular in regards to cultural and legal differences between the EU and the US. William welcomed the negotiations for a comprehensive trade deal. However, he emphasized the need for government to closely work with trade and business organisations to fully understand the needs of local business.”

Missing comments;
Chairs trade forum of 80 companies in Yorkshire & Humberside, member of 3 US trade organisations with 1000s of members – never heard of TTIP and not excited about it. What would help their exports is to fix the exchange rate (trade tariffs are small problem by comparison). Biggest barriers are cultural, different legal system especially around intellectual property and litigation (don’t automatically get costs). SMEs don’t export to US because they are frightened and apathetic.
[Apparent direct contradiction. Suggests BAB need to bury lack of interest and the uncertainty in UK businesses]

Next up was David Henig, Director for TTIP at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, and the chap that commented to a protester outside the event “it is not the job of Government to protect the public from corporations,” He is reported as commenting;
“Most important element of an agreement will be the removal of existing non-tariff barriers in sectors like chemicals or automotive. But also the removal of existing tariffs will be significant. TTIP will also allow for UK companies to access market segments that are currently protected from outside-US competition. A comprehensive trade agreement will help to keep the EU-US market an attractive destination for business and investment in a more competitive world. It is hoped that the negotiations for TTIP are concluded in 2015 and could be in force by 2017 or 2018. David emphasised that government has been working hard to make the negotiations as transparent as possible and to provide a platform for exchange and input.”

Missing comments;
Multiple examples of how things will be freed up – size of shower trays, insurance, dairy products, chemicals, automobiles, customer checks and paper work, lowering trade tariffs so this trade deal will set a high standard economy and set a bench mark when “facing up to China”. The point of ISDS is that it enshrines that we won’t discriminate against foreign investors, who are keen to see that happen.
[Concerned that re; ISDS a civil servant supports corporations over UK citizens]

Finally came PJ Menner from the US Embassy who commented;
“That for US government, the trade agreement is considered to be an important vehicle for more jobs and growth in two economies that have suffered during the financial crisis in 2008. There is a strong political will and commitment in Washington to accomplish a comprehensive agreement ....Especially for the UK, having a comprehensive trade agreement will mean to bring the economic relationship in line with its political and cultural relationship.”

Missing comments; US is committed, Obama sees it as his legacy project.
[Indicates US sees greater benefit for them over UK]

That was the end of the panel presentations and the floor was open to a question and answer session. BAB reported this as;
“During the Q&A, participants used the opportunity to discuss the balance between the benefits of trade and the need to protect citizens. Participants were assured that government will guard the ability to regulate and that there is a common interest on both sides of the Atlantic to keep standards high. Another question addressed potential consequences of a UK outside of the European Union. Participants agreed that it would be challenging for a UK outside of Europe to negotiate an agreement that would offer similar benefits than TTIP. Participants were also informed that a separate chapter for SMEs is currently being discussed as part of the agreement.”

It's impossible to go into the full detail of the Q&A here but my personal reading of the session suggests that the concerns over the NHS, ISDS and the particular concerns of SME's (Small, Medium Enterprises) about predatory corporations were not assuaged by this roadshow. Indeed it seemed they were not listening to the SME concerns and telling them they were wrong. In addition, although NHS got a mention other public services are apparently fair game. Overall the participants seemed not to be reassured by the event and still see TTIP as more of a threat than a boon.

About This Blog

Pages

Sunday, 14 December 2014

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Saturday, 6 December 2014

Tuesday, 2 December 2014

Monday, 1 December 2014

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Friday, 21 November 2014

Thursday, 20 November 2014

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Monday, 17 November 2014

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Monday, 10 November 2014

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Saturday, 8 November 2014

Thursday, 6 November 2014

Monday, 3 November 2014

Sunday, 2 November 2014

Thursday, 30 October 2014

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

The organisers - Vs - The participant.

Questioning Politics At A Local Level Here In Sheffield And Beyond

The Public
Interest

Questioning Politics At A Local Level
Here In Sheffield And Beyond