I was proud last night to join many other local residents in signing the nomination papers for Mary D’Albert to be the Liberal Democrat candidate for St Mary’s ward in the local elections on May 1^st.

Mary’s long-standing record of hard work and local activism is to be admired, as is her sommittment to the local party and its efforts to make Prestwich and Bury better for local people. I have no doubt that she will be a very capable Councillor working continually for the people of the ward.

Mary has lived in Prestwich for decades, and is not only familiar with the issues that matter locally, but feels them personally because she has been a member of this community for so long. Local candidates are vital for local Councils.

Mary has campaigned hard to protect our local Post Offices, in contrast to our local Labour party who’s own MP voted to close thousands more Post offices just last week, including potentially nine more in Bury. Labour should be ashamed. They can’t claim to be standing up for the community when they tried to close our school a couple of years back, and are trying to close our Post Offices now. We opposed them then, we oppose them now, and Mary D’Albert and the Lib Dems will continue to support local community facilities forever.

Mary D’Albert has campaigned with Liberal Democrats in Bury on many issues – she joined our campaigning to stop Labour proposals to close Prestwich Arts College, for instance. She’s been working with Rainsough residents trying to broker a solution on the shops issue, and she’s been instrumental in working with Lib Dems and the Local Area Partnership to bring tens of thousands of pounds to communities across Prestwich.

In the coming weeks Mary and I will be joining the rest of the Bury Lib Dems in asking you for your votes on May 1^st. We are confident that a local, hard-working candidate is a better bet for Prestwich than Labour’s party hack who has been parachuted in to replace the retiring Labour Councillor who led the failed policy to close our local school.

There’ll be plenty more written here and in leaflets about the election in the coming weeks, but for now let me say again that I am proud to have nominated Mary D’Albert to be the next Liberal Democrat councillor for St Mary’s ward, and to join Donal O’Hanlon and me in leading the renaissance of our area.

Rick

Just a brief posting about the new St Mary’s Rose, the Labour leaflet, which I read whilst out leafleting in the ward today (this is about the third one they’ve done - there must be an election coming up!).

Having turned their vitriol-fuelled fire up to “furnace” with the last issue, this time they plunge new depths with an outright and massive lie, putting on paper for the first time what they’ve almost said in the past - that Lib Dems in Bury shouldn’t complain to the Council when things go wrong because the Lib Dems and the Tories “are the Council.”

That’s an absolute lie. The people who wrote it know it’s a lie. And if they had any decency they would publicly retract it and let the people of this ward decide the coming election on facts, not falsehoods. They are spreading lies for votes. That’s not what any of us should be doing. It brings the reputation of all of us down.

If this is what the St Mary’s Labour candidate was taught (and was teaching) at Labour campaign school, then there is a sickness at the heart of his party of which he should be utterly ashamed.

Just for the record, once again, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are not in any coalition, alliance, or anything else. The Conservatives control Bury Council. Lib Dems and Labour have one member of the Executive each, the Conservatives have all the rest. There’s no coalition, no joint policy making, no joint anything. Labour’s leaflet is lying. It’s lying because they want power in Bury, and they are so obsessed with holding on to their last seat in Prestwich that they are stooping to incredibly low depths to do it.

This isn’t political spin. It’s not their take on things as opposed to our take on things. It’s an actual lie. It’s like saying the sky is yellow or the Moon is made of cheese. It’s just not true. Don’t believe it.

I could take a bit of story-fiddling. I could live with them spinning things to suit them. It’s how politics works (although I wish it wasn’t). We all write leaflets promoting ourselves and our achievements, and we all go over the top sometimes. But what St Mary’s Labour are doing is just telling lies in the hope that it wins them votes. It isn’t right.

As it goes, I think the rest of their leaflet is twaddle as well, but that’s pretty much their side of a story against our’s. There are grains of fact in what they say, even if it is skewed virtually beyond recognition and the facts are consumed in rubbish. I can live with that. Let the people decide, fine. I’ll write a better one for us.

But the coalition thing is a downright lie. So don’t be fooled. I would like them to produce a single piece of evidence to back up their claim, and I will gladly speak to anyone who rings me up to speak to me about it, if you aren’t clear. Including St Mary’s Labour, who I know read this blog, and who I take no delight in telling, once again, that they should be ashamed of their continuing actions.

Rick

Last night was another meeting of the Resource and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Commission. The agenda was fairly short last night, and made even shorter when the main item was postponed.

It was supposed to be a report on a strategy for the Borough’s Civic Halls (including the Longfield Suite in St Mary’s). Instead of a paper outlining where the Council wants to go in the future, it was simply a statement of where we are now, lacking in foresight and vision, and really a very disappointing piece of work, not least for the members of the public there to hear it.

The role of scrutiny is to discuss Council policy is detail. Civic Halls are important to people, as community facilities, and much loved buildings (in some cases, not necessarily Prestwich!). But they are also expensive, so we need to know what the Council wants to do - do we want community facilities that might lose money, and if so, how will we fund them? Or do we want commercially run venues, and if so, what will that mean for the community?

I don’t know the answer, but we need to have the debate. We need the Executive of the Council to come up with a strategy for Halls that we can debate and discuss with local people. At the moment they are content to muddle along in a halfway house scenario where the halls are attempting to do both things but are doing neither of the two options well.

So we sent the report back, and will hopefully have our strategy at a future meeting.

Also on the agenda last night was a report on Housing management costs. Six Town Housing, who manage the Council’s housing stock, are still expensive, and still costing more than before. This is worrying because their service isn’t very good either in a lot of areas. However, the report painted some positive pictures, including rent arrears falling. The Six Town picture may be getting slightly rosier, which is good news.

Rick

In a shapshot, here’s what was agreed at last night’s Budget Council: 

- a Council Tax rise of 3.4% from 1st April. This is a significantly lower rise than in recent years - which is good. 

- A discount for the over 65s of 3.4% off their council tax. 

- The ability for people to pay their council tax in 12 installments, not 10 as is the case now, if they want. 

- More money to pay for pressures on services for disabled people, more money (thanks to the Lib Dems!) for environmental issues like parks, street cleaning and environmental enforcement. 

- A “capital programme” over the next three years which includes building the new High School at Radcliffe Riverside, as well as plans to develop Phillips Park Hall in Prestwich. 

What did the Liberal Democrats do?

The Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the Budget which proposed to reallocate just over £1/3 million of different expenditure than what was being proposed by the Conservative Party administration that runs Bury. 

£250,000 to maintain services in a number of important areas for young people and children. This included: - saving proposed cuts to the youth service and schools advice services. We believe that services for young people are an essential, not just for their own sake, but also because they help tackle issues like anti-social behaviour. 

- saving proposed cuts to services to vulnerable children including: disabled children, the whole young carers service, the whole service to support parents with mental health needs, and vulnerable children at risk. 

£100,000 of new expenditure for our parks, streets and environment 

- we proposed £50,000 on environmental issues to help deal with issues such as Street Cleaning and maintaining the “Green Flag” status of our parks. We’ve been promised a Saturday clean of town centre areas which should be excellent 

- we proposed £50,000 on environmental enforcement which will tackle issues such as fly-tipping, dog fouling and stray dogs (dog warden service). 

The Liberal Democrat Group amendment was accepted (not, it should be noted with any support from the Labour Party…) and became part of the agreed budget. 

Labour proposed to:

- ignore the needs of disabled people in Bury by removing £700,000 of much needed expenditure for people with learning and physical disabilities. This is a disgrace. They should be ashamed of suggesting that disabled people don’t need services from the Council. 

- ignore the needs of children and young people by cutting £350,000 of services for young people and vulnerable children. Mostly this was exactly the same list of services saved by the Liberal Democrats.  

- cut youth services, cut ALL services to young carers, cut services for disabled children and, most worryingly, cut services for vulnerable children at risk. This is a disgrace. 

- put the future finances of the council at risk by spending all the “reserves” down to the bare minimum (reserves are needed to cope for emergencies such as spending on flooding, unexpected demand etc) AND ignoring the long standing “equal pay” issue to address women employees who have been paid less than men doing the same job. 

And the Conservatives… 

In the end it was the proposals of the Conservative Party, with the addition of the new expenditure proposed by the Liberal Democrats that won the day which are outlined about. 

We didn’t feel able to support all the proposals of the Conservatives - particularly some of the savings around the environment and social services, so abstained on the final vote.

Rick

Last night Bury Council was stunned by a grossly irresponsible proposal from Bury Labour to cut funding for children, vulnerable adults, and vital reserves, to achieve the headline-grabbing and cheap stunt of a nil-increase Council Tax.

Their tactics must be seen in their true light – dangerous and short-sighted populism designed to do nothing more than win votes.

Labour will claim that their budget is sustainable. They will claim that it is the sensible answer to our problems. But it isn’t. It is a cheap political stunt designed to lure people’s trust. It is, in typical New Labour style, utter spin with no substance at all.

It is a lie to say that we can save services without raising Council Tax. We just can’t. And the reason is that the Labour government settlement for Bury is woefully inadequate. In Bolton and Oldham (coincidentally, two Labour-run Councils), government settlement per-head is so high that they can legitimately afford a 0% rise. Here in Bury, the settlement is so low that taxes go up and services come down each and ever year.

Last night it took Lib Dem action to secure funding for children and environmental services. The Labour government and the Conservative Group were happy to see them fall by the way side. We were not.

Labour’s response was to rob the people of Bury of their reserves. It was to rob vulnerable children of the funding for their youth and social workers. It was to rob disabled adults of the funding they need. And it was to cynically “earmark” money for electorally competitive areas which simply can’t be spent, just to lie about it in leaflets.

It was a disgrace, and I am glad it was defeated.

Of course I’d like a 0% rise in Council Tax. Then I’d like to see it cut, and then the Lib Dems are the only party who’d like to see it abolished because it is unfair and utterly regressive. Labour and the Tories support this tax.

But we can’t have a 0% rise, because there’s not enough money to fund the vital services if we do. It isn’t about efficiency, it’s about an awful government settlement from a Labour party who’ve let down Bury again.

Lib Dems were sensible last night, targeting money where people need it and people want it the most. Labour spun a web of deceit designed to win votes and headlines. They may well have done that, but they will lose respect along the way.

The Lib Dems are the only credible opposition to the Tory Council. Our amendment was the only one adopted, and voting Lib Dem is the only way to influence the ruling group. Labour’s plans are preposterous and were treated with bemusement and shock, rather than seriousness.

The last desperate attempts at credibility from this fading political force have fallen woefully short.

Rick

Bury Liberal Democrats broke new ground last night, ensuring the largest investment in the Council’s budget from any third party in the history of the Council.

In a budget amendment proposed by Group Leader Cllr Tim Pickstone, the Lib Dems ensured that £350,000 would be invested in services for the most vulnerable in our society, and to protect the environment and keep our Borough clean, safe and green.

We earmarked a quarter of a million pounds to reverse dangerous Conservative cuts to Children’s Services which would have drastically cut back the numbers of youth workers, social workers and those supporting disabled children. In doing so, we protected the neediest by providing the services that they desperately need.

The Lib Dems achieved this whilst calling for no greater increase in Council Tax than that proposed by the Conservatives. The 3.4% increase agreed by Council last night is lower than the inflation rate, and yet still achieves Lib Dem values.

Last year the Lib Dems ensured that the budget contained provision for every house in the Borough to have a blue recycling bin. This year, the Lib Dem commitment to Bury’s environment was shown even more clearly, with an amendment ensuring greater street cleaning and enforcement powers.

We have ensured that Saturday street cleaning occurs in commercial centres in the Borough such as in Prestwich Village, helping to alleviate the scourge of litter.

We have ensured that support is given to all of our parks, building on the successes of St Mary’s Park and helping the Council to achieve its vision of having 12 “Green Flag” parks across the Borough.

And we have ensured that enforcement of dog waste, littering and fly-tipping is boosted so that our environment is protected.

A third of a million pounds worth of additional investment is something I am personally proud of. We stood up for our values and made good our promises last night, in a sustainable and sensible way. It wasn’t the budget that a Lib Dem Council would have passed, but it instilled the Lib Dem ideals of a fairer, greener Bury, and made sure that the Conservatives listened to the views of those who elected us to make Bury a better place.

Rick

Last night’s meeting with the CPA inspectors was like pretty much everything else that I experience at the Town Hall - it had its good points and its bad.

It was very refreshing to see five members from three different parties sit in a room for an hour and not have a single petty political squabble. Despite us talking about the hottest of hot political potatoes in terms of issues in Bury, the debate stayed high-quality, and the discussion stayed out of the playground. The group of backbench members was made up of me, Cllr Ann Garner (Lib Dem), Cllrs Tim Chamberlain and Trevor Holt (Lab) and Cllr Jack Walton (Con). We were asked about our thoughts on Scrutiny, risk management, the Council’s priorities, and the challenges Bury faces.

The discussion was full of passion and vigour, which is no surprise to me because I have been struck by just how passionate our Councillors are about the Borough since I’ve come into office.

But I was disappointed with some of the questions, and the tone of the enquiry which struck me as sounding a bit like minds were closed to new ideas. Avenues were pursued relentlessly despite lots of us saying that they weren’t really relevant, and sometimes I thought that the inspectors’ knowledge of Bury was a bit sketchy. Which is a shame given that their report has so much importance.

Still, we’ll see how it goes, and what comes out in the wash. I think we can all be proud that we played our part and did it truthfully.

Tonight it’s full Council. I am asking the Leader a question on street cleanliness, and I may pop another one in there about something else if there’s time. I am also answering some questions as the Council’s Deputy Spokesperson on the Passenger Transport Authority. I will write a full report tomorrow. And don’t forget that it is a public meeting, with public question time available at the start. The Town Hall is the venue, and it kicks off at 7pm.

Rick

This evening I am heading to the Town Hall to take part in a focus group for Councillors as part of Bury Council’s Corporate Assessment. The  Corporate Assessment forms part of the overall Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) score, which all Councils receive. The Corporate Assessment only happens once every four years, so this is a really important fortnight for the Council, as its ability to manage and improve services is judged by inspectors from the Audit Commission.

In my days as a Council officer with Oldham MBC, I experienced first hand the stresses of these inspections, and I know that the officers in Bury are probably going through a tough time at the moment. The burden of inspection on Councils may well be slightly less than it once was, but it is still very onerous, and the recent announcement that the Commission are increasing their fees by a huge amount will certainly do nothing to alleviate budgetary pressures as Councils face more of these types of inspections going forward.

Tonight’s focus group will be an all-party affair, with the Lib Dems being represented by me and Cllr Ann Garner from Sedgley. I don’t know quite how it’ll work, or what the focus of enquiry will be. But I will give an honest account of how I see things, and certainly won’t use the event as an opportunity to score political points. It will certainly be interesting to be on the other side of things for once!

Rick

This morning I have been chasing up a number of outstanding environmental issues in the ward, with limited success. I must say that I am still very frustrated at the lengths I have to go to to even get a response from Council officers, let alone any action to taken to remedy legitimate residents’ concerns. We aren’t asking for solid gold pavements and diamond encrusted bin-wagons. We’re asking for dangerous trees to be cut back, and our streets dragged up from the medieval levels of squalor which they sometimes seem to have sunk to.

So I contacted the Council again regarding over-hanging trees on Bury New Road and on Church Drive, having received no word on progress since I first got in touch nearly two weeks ago. It’s not good enough, and I let the Council officers know as much.

It really is incredibly frustrating, and goodness knows how this level of “service” makes average Council-tax payers feel if this is how Councillors get routinely treated.

But still, I hope to be able to report success with these initiatives shortly. If anyone ever bothers to return my calls.

Rick

Hazel Blears, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, was in the news today with plans for a “contract” between local government and the people. The plans struck me as a pretty good idea at first. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s yet another bit of New Labour tinkering that will do nothing to increase either participation or satisfaction.

The idea is that public service providers like Councils will effectively sign a “contract” with local people to provide a certain level of service. And if they don’t live up to their side of the bargain, they’ll be forced to answer for it. This could be through appearing at public meetings, or even refunding some Council Tax if it’s serious and repetitive failure.

This last point is obviously the headline-grabber, but I don’t think it grabs much more than that. I’d be first in the queue for a Council Tax rebate (and I’d pull rank with non-elected people to make sure of it!), but the whole idea is unworkable, and even if it wasn’t on the manic side of impractical, it still wouldn’t solve anything. For starters, who’s going to decide who gets money back? And how much they get back? Will the person who’s house backs on to the dirty street get more than his neighbour over the road? Will the person who sprayed the graffiti benefit with a rebate when the Council don’t scrub it off and everyone gets some money back? If my town doesn’t get something that the next town does, why should I pay more than them?

It won’t work. And the idea that this unworkable solution is the end of a several-step programme of explanatory letters and meetings involving Council officers and the clamouring public is, again, silly. Such meetings already exist, and nobody goes. I know because I sit through most of them.

Nobody goes for two reasons – firstly because they are hugely boring gusts of hot air involving Councillors trying their best to surmount massive brick walls of bureaucracy, and doing so with very little power to change anything. And secondly, because the Council should be doing what it’s paid to do anyway, and we shouldn’t have to come to a meeting in our free time to beg and plead with these people to clean our streets.

If the government is serious about making local Councils accountable to local people, it should give them real powers to innovate and change things. It should devolve far more powers to local communities to decide the services they want.  It should do more than pay lip service to localism, by giving Councillors real powers to lead communities and give local people what they want. More people would come to meetings if they knew they could join us in changing things. And then when things changed for the better, more still would come.

But the government won’t do this. Instead it tinkers and it grabs headlines. So community meetings take place in empty halls, local election turnout stays tiny, and dissatisfaction with Councillors and Councils grow. And we as the elected representatives of the people can do nothing, nothing, to make the Council do what communities want.

So don’t be fooled by these announcements. Power still doesn’t rest with the people at a local level. We are still far, far too centralised, and no amount of silly schemes will change this without root and branch reform of the way decisions are made in this country. It’s a shame the government won’t grasp the nettle and realise this, because I for one want a refund on the money spent dreaming up this latest half-baked plan.

Rick