Strayside Sunday: Now is the time to seek a better future for our children

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Something different this week from me this week.  A bit of a manifesto actually.

Having spent the last two weekends in the company of my adult daughters, I’m struck by the uncertainties they now face.  When covid struck, Daughter 1 was furloughed; then, when it was realised that her employment had commenced too late to participate in the scheme, she was placed on 50% salary. And then, perhaps inevitably, she was made redundant.  In the past month she has applied for more than 100 jobs, but to no avail; I suspect her experience is no different from that of hundreds of thousands of young people across the country.

Daughter 2 is now well into her third year of drama school; a middle-class child at a private university.  She’s a worker (her father is from mill working stock) and earns money in her spare time working behind the bar at a pub.  I’m afraid she’d better get used to it. As things currently stand, little opportunity for graduates is afforded by the arts and culture sector.  In common with so many others, her sector is in crisis.

As a parent, I encourage, I console and I subsidise.

So, instead of sounding off from the cheap seats about the actions and intentions of others I feel compelled to set down some of my own views, such as they are, about how, in the age of covid, we need to think about repairing and renewing ourselves, each other and our society.  And make no mistake, the economic and knock on social consequences of the pandemic will last at least a generation.  We are emphatically not “post” covid and we won’t be for a very long time.

My view is that we need to take this time to think on and think deep, to re-examine the beliefs we have lived by heretofore and to ask ourselves whether or not they are fit for purpose, let alone fit to create a world we would want for our children and theirs.

My daughters, and yours, face a new reality.  Their vista is nowhere near as pretty and compelling as my own was, thirty years ago.  Surely we have a responsibility to ask ourselves what can we do to make things better for them?

In this column I want to outline three broad subject areas – inclusive growth, health and wellbeing and justice – to which I’ll return in future weeks, to explore in more detail and to place in local context.  Additionally, in the age of the NHS Test & Trace App, I will touch on the dangers of the disruption caused by data and technology, if its benefits for capital are not balanced by a consideration for people.  Technology is here, let’s give it a purpose.

So, for the record, I believe a good and prosperous society is one where economic growth is not, de facto, good.  Inclusive economic growth – in which people can participate and engage actively in meaningful work, benefit fully from the fruits of that work,  and be valued by both employer and government, with true agency in their economic and social relationships – builds better communities. Communities that thrive, rather than simply grow.

I believe that good health and wellbeing for people and children is a right to enjoy; governments and business are responsible for that achievement. Those rights bring responsibilities, so people must play their full part in looking after themselves.  If covid has taught us anything, we must cherish our NHS, it’s our first and foremost democratic privilege. It is not simply an entitlement.

And I believe that justice should be available equally and for all, unconstrained by means, social standing or personal health histories. In turn, people have a responsibility to do the right thing.  During lockdown most of us behaved properly (most of the time).  Now, as we begin to feel the vice grip of restriction tighten on our movements and liberty; behavioural compliance is slipping – part fatigue, part defiance, on any view, wrong.

As we seek to build a good society, technology, data and artificial Intelligence are revolutionising democracy, the work of government, public service provision, human relationships and community fabric (whether these are ‘place-based’ or ‘of interest’). Further, data and technology are revolutionising traditional business models, their fundamental economics and the value-exchange (what we each get from the deal) they provide with consumers like you and me.

At the moment, technology is being harnessed almost exclusively for the good of capital.  This balance needs to change; because technology offers us opportunities to make things better for all by connecting people through technology to tackle social exclusion blight, solitude and unwarranted loneliness; by using data insights and understanding  to strengthen the human “ties that bind” people together in community; and by promoting data rights and agency to empower people in our new digital economy and in their relationship with government.

I could be wrong. I often am. But if we don’t anchor our values and the way we behave in new modes of thinking, the future looks bleak indeed.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Next Sunday Paul will be taking a break –  Strayside Sunday will return on October 11th. 

Read More:

Strayside Sunday: Covid testing should be devolved to local authorities

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Life, it has been said, is just the correct apportionment of blame.

It certainly seems that way in politics and the media coverage of it. I’m as guilty as the rest, often writing negative opinion in this column and raging against the machine in conversation. Time for some perspective I feel.

Last Sunday I wrote about the dilemma faced by former Northern Ireland Secretary and Ripon MP Julian Smith in whether or not to support a new trade bill that would break international law and ignore the Northern Ireland protocol he signed when in office. When the moment of truth came Mr. Smith found enough moral fibre and courage to abstain, thereby preserving his principle, avoiding conflict with his own party leadership, safe in the knowledge that his vote would not put too much of a dent in the government’s whopping majority in parliament. He made a mature political decision to do the right thing both by the people of Northern Ireland and by the party he represents. For this he is to be applauded.

Contrast this with the position of Harrogate’s Andrew Jones MP. A remainer, Mr. Jones waved through the bill, voting with my old boss Iain Duncan Smith, Jacob Reese-Mogg, Steve Baker and the rest of the European Reform Group ultras, for a law that breaks previous agreements with the European Union and breaks international law.

There may well be good reasons for this (although preserving his odour with the Conservative Chief Whip is not one them), but, as ever, Harrogate’s MP is reticent, some might say invisible, when it comes to explaining the reasons behind his actions to the people he purports to represent. Try as they might, I understand the journalistic staff of The Stray Ferret can’t extract comment or explanation from Mr. Jones, nor his office. At worst this pattern of behaviour is undemocratic, at best it is disrespectful, regardless it is cowardly.

But governing is always difficult; it is the consideration of competing claims and countervailing arguments. Done well and, in normal times, government should arrive at negotiated settlements, grounded in their own cogent and transparent philosophy, or “political bottom” as I call it, with enough marrow to satisfy the appetites of all interested parties, voters prime amongst them.

But as we teeter on the brink of another national lockdown; likely a 2-week “circuit break,” it does begin to feel as though the government’s response to Covid is out of control, lurching from one entirely reactive policy to the next. ‘Whack-a-mole;’ knocking local outbreaks on the head, was tried and failed, bubbling was given a go and hasn’t worked, and the ‘Rule of Six’ has lasted less than two weeks. The Government is at sea, but, let’s remember, by definition there is no playbook for handling this pandemic, unprecedented in its scale and effect. This is as true in Harrogate and North Yorkshire as it is nationally.

Our “world class” Test and Trace programme is a disaster. The national testing system is the latest in a long line of national ‘top-down’ IT programmes that are not fit for purpose. Stories of people finding it difficult to book a test online are myriad, delays are common and tests have been offered that require 200-mile or more round trips. Quietly, significant rates of false positives and false negatives confuse the picture. Consequently, as Covid rates rise again, local authority leaders are holding back testing capacity to ensure tests are available for their own key workers. Cases go unchecked, frustration mounts and decisions are made in fear.

I would imagine that this fear (of a rise in Covid infection rates) is at least in part behind Harrogate council’s decision to give a week’s notice that it will not extend permission for outdoor drinking and dining to continue on Stray land outside the The Blues Bar. Hot on the heels of the mess made of the Stray by the World Cycling Championships the council worries publicly that, as Autumn sets in, slippery conditions underfoot will endanger the local public and leave it with a turf repair bill. Sod it, I say. The more than 3000 people who have signed a petition against the council’s plan seem to agree.

I understand that government has to find a way to act in our best interest while reassuring us that all will be well. But fobbing us off with jobsworth “elf and safety” justifications for actions taken to protect us from the coming second wave will not wash.

Local authority leaders are also exasperated with Westminster’s efforts to recruit a national workforce of Trace Agents. Beyond the fact that few of these people possess the established local, third sector and civil society networks which enable effective communication with local people, they also lack detailed knowledge of the key societal variables driving both Covid behavioural compliance and outbreaks; such as the nature of local housing stock, family living patterns, travel habits, culture and language. This is, in fact, what local authorities are in business to do. We need to let them get on with it.

Tracing efforts were initially outsourced to national private providers such as Serco (offering a one size fits all approach) when, instead, local authorities would much rather use their own staff, equipped both with specialist epidemiological training (asking the right questions in the right order) and a detailed understanding of their own patch. This is how it works round here and all that. Our MP’s, Messrs Adams, Jones and Smith, ought to be advocating loudly and publicly for this approach, rather than following blindly the party line that all is well in Test and Trace land. They must know that this is beyond politics; it’s a matter of life and death.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

 

 

 

Read More:

 

Strayside Sunday: If our government feels able to break the law then why shouldn’t we? 

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Lament; a noun. As in “a week-long lament for the rule of law and Britain’s standing in the world”.

To lament; a verb. As in “I lament the end of a credible Conservative Government”.

Either way, it’s a sad tale and a sorry state of affairs.

Having focused my attention on the small “p” politics and goings on in Harrogate and surrounds for the past 16 weeks I find I need a refresher, to avert my gaze and take in vistas new.  It’s not so much that I’m tired, or that I think that the performance of Harrogate Borough Council is not worthy of attention.  Quite the reverse.  The great American Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas “Tip” O’Neill had it almost right when he said that “all politics is local” (when in fact it may be that ‘all that’s local is politics’).  No, it’s rather that, in respect of the council, I find myself in the first stage of grief; one of shock and denial, in which I inhabit a state of disbelief and numbed feelings.  I need to look away for a moment and think of something else, to find some hope.

So to Westminster, to the excitement and derring do of the national scene and to the swashbuckling antics of Enid Blyton character and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.  The mop haired titan must be feeling the pressure.  On two fronts, the ongoing Covid-19 crisis and the haunting return of Brexit.

Coronavirus rates of infection are climbing alarmingly again in many of our towns and cities.  Published by Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace, the government watchlist, in which places are categorised as places of ‘concern’ (green) as warranting ‘enhanced support’ (amber) or as requiring ‘intervention’ (red), is beginning to resemble New York’s 5th Avenue when the traffic lights turn and stop all north/south traffic.  The trend is not good.

In an attempt to avoid a second national lockdown and never one to let a good slogan go to waste, on September 9, the PM announced “The Rule of Six,” which means that, from tomorrow, no more than 6 Englishmen and Women can gather, indoors or out.  If we do we will be breaking the law.  But, I hear you cry, it would only be in, as Brandon Lewis MP said, a “very specific and limited way.”  Hang on.  Wait a minute. My apologies, I got my wires crossed there for a moment.  When the Northern Ireland Secretary said that he was actually talking about the fact that Britain looks like it is going to break international law by putting a bill to Parliament overriding elements of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.  Including parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol negotiated and signed during Ripon’s own MP Julian Smith’s tenure as predecessor to Brandon Lewis.

I’m of the opinion that the Conservative Party is the party of freedom.  Guardians of a rule of law based on the notion of individual sovereignty and responsibility.  Boris Johnson, if he believes anything, is a libertarian who thinks we should all be left alone to control our own lives, in so far as moral conduct and the law allows.  So it’s a world turned upside down in which this Prime Minister inflicts upon us restrictions on our movements and associations unprecedented in peacetime.  Rather than appealing to our moral code, appealing to our better angels if you will, the government is instead imposing a new penal code.  Clearly our government doesn’t trust us to behave properly and wants us punished when we don’t.

I’m also of the opinion that the Conservative Party is the party of law and order.  Which is to say that rules and their observance matter if we are to maintain a functioning and civilised society.  But Britain’s leaders govern by consent, within a legal framework. We have to trust our leaders to do the right thing, by us.  And our leaders have to work to maintain our trust if they are to have our consent to govern.  Yet the Rule of Six has a disquietingly fascistic sense to it, if not a black-shirt vibe then certainly brown.  Governing by consent this is not.

And breaking international law when it becomes inconvenient cannot be right.  The law is not an a la carte menu available only to the few, it’s a prix fixe with set options, for the mass market.  If our government feels able to break the law when it chooses then why shouldn’t we?  With our international reputation already tarnished badly by our Brexit shenanigans to date, redacting unilaterally the bits of the (already signed) Withdrawal Agreement is dishonourable and edges toward tin pot.  The government has lost credibility.  The EU says told you so.

Finally, all of this has wound up a bizarre coalition of Tory Big Beasts.  Thatcherite, Brexiteer Lords Howard and Lamont are joined, in their spluttering outrage at the latest turn of events and the actions of their own party’s government, by One Nation, Remainer Lords Heseltine and Gummer, as well of course as by Sir John Major.  I share their view.  So should every Conservative.  So should everyone.  If we don’t we are all diminished.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Read More: 

 

Strayside Sunday: Now is a time for Harrogate council to listen and not make big changes

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

We live in strange and disconcerting times.

Uber, the largest taxi company in the world owns no cars.  Airbnb, the largest ‘hotel’ company in the world owns no property.  Both are examples of what are known in the jargon as technology platform “disruptors,” companies that upend existing business models and established values and norms of behaviour in order to increase the risks borne by others (in this case by taxi drivers and homeowners) and, by so doing, derive greater profit for themselves.

At busy times, Uber’s algorithm (now where else have we heard that word recently…?) simultaneously proscribes “surge pricing” for customers – that’s you and me – and increases competition for jobs among the drivers who use the Uber platform.  In other words, Uber operates by price gouging its customers and forcing competition between its own drivers, none of whom it employs.  The model may be an unbridled capitalist’s wet dream, but it reflects an economy and society that increasingly values and celebrates the immediate gratification of individual customer convenience over collective fairness and decency.  I am not a fan.

The always sensible Matthew Parris has written in The Times this week of the dangers of bringing this desire to disrupt, to change and to remake, into the realm of government and public service provision.  Especially now.  Now when we remain gripped by the anxieties and uncertainties unleashed by a global pandemic.  When business is struggling to survive, when unemployment is a long way from cresting its inevitable wave and when the level of public sector borrowing makes inevitable a coming fiscal tightening of asphyxiating strength.

The curse of the social media age is that politicians seem to perceive that it is more important to be seen to do something interesting than it is for them actually to do something meaningful, however mundane.  Keeping your head down and getting on with the job of delivering the fundamentals of government has become distinctly unfashionable.  This affliction affects Harrogate Borough Council’s leadership in spades and, for you grammarians out there, I do mean affect, as in affectation.  Quietly getting on with delivering excellent and value-for-money public services is not this lot’s style, more’s the pity.

Let’s do a quick rollcall of examples to demonstrate what I mean.  I’ve written here before about the fact the council have announced a spin-out of our leisure services into a Local Authority Controlled Company (LACC), sacrificing people, place and wellbeing in the name of costs savings, efficiency and commercialisation.  They are spending a £1m on a design study to redevelop Harrogate’s unprofitable Convention Centre, a redevelopment that will, by the council’s own estimates, cost local taxpayers £46m.  They reside in glass-fronted splendour on Knapping Mount, built at vast expense on valuable land when they could have opted for a much cheaper, more modest and utilitarian building elsewhere.  It is rumoured too, that in the no doubt laudable interests of environmental protection, they intend to become a Carbon Negative council, with the pedestrianisation of James Street being a notable first step.

Which brings me to the subject of consultation, public engagement and “listening.”  The pedestrianisation of James Street is to be imposed against the wishes of local business owners and without authentic consultation.  Having asked for their opinion it transpired the council had already made up its mind and done a deal with North Yorkshire County Council.  This is arrogant, insulting and typical.  Harrogate business fears that at this time of deep uncertainty about their future prospects, the council is pursuing eye-catching environmental measures over the basic interests of economic viability and, let’s face it, the protection of local jobs.  The occupancy of retail outlets on Oxford and James Streets already offers the appearance of swiss-cheese; with holes everywhere.  Surely the council should zero in on what it will take to protect further atrophy of local business and make that its overriding priority during deeply uncertain times.

Devolution is also on the agenda.  This week North Yorkshire district councils held a video consultation to discuss their plans with local people.  It seems we couldn’t care less.  The video consultation attracted just 22 people.  A number reduced when taking into account the virtual attendance of several councillors.  Is this a sign of consultation fatigue?  A recognition evidenced by indifference that the councils’ motivation to Zoom is not to thoroughly understand the needs and wants of the people they purport to serve (actually to consult) but rather much more about being seen to consult, to box tick, while they get on with pushing what they alone want.

Matthew Parris makes the case that what we need now is “not disruption but protection, not upheaval but steadiness, not the sweeping aside but continuity; this should be the call; the call of the known, the tried, the familiar. Conservatives, of all people, should hear it.”  Harrogate Council’s wannabes take note.  Setting aside your bluster, bumble and bullying, unless you focus on your everyday knitting, unless you take the time and care to truly understand local people’s real needs now, for employment, housing and security, unless you work with local business to help them thrive and deliver jobs creation, you cannot in good conscience call yourselves Conservatives.  Announcing what you hope are grand and eye-catching schemes is no substitute for governing effectively, responsibly and sympathetically.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

 

Read More: 

 

Strayside Sunday: Whatever happened to the Nolan Principles?

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Am I alone is reaching a state of desperation about the current state of our politics? Specifically, politicians who refuse blithely to accept accountability for the decisions and actions of their department and instead sacrifice the careers of civil servants tasked with implementing the policies born from politicians themselves.  Politicians who say or do, either that or what, which would have been indefensible just a few short years ago.  Politicians who seek visibility but hide when they become visible for the wrong reasons.  Politicians who do not measure up to standards set by Anthony Nolan’s “Seven Principles of Public Life.”

This week, two long-serving and, as far as we know, previously high achieving public servant lifers – Sally Collier, Chief Executive of Ofqual, the exams regulator, and Jonathan Slater, permanent secretary at the Department of Education – both lost their jobs in the aftermath of the exam grades fiasco.  The imposition of an untested grading algorithm on a cohort of lesson-hungry students stuck at home because of covid lockdown regulations was never going to end well.  But the decision to proceed with the dreaded algorithm was policy, which is always the result of a political decision and a political direction.  In short, the decision to proceed was made by some combination of the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, “Gav” as his aides call him – it seems to fit somehow – and the School’s Standards Minister Nick Gibb.  They both remain firmly in post, backed by Prime Minister BoJo for reasons surely passing understanding, while Ms Collier and Mr. Slater are dispatched to spend more time with their pensions.

Gone are the days, much lamented, when politicians resigned their posts as a matter of honour if they presided over a total horlicks in their department, or if they dropped a clanger that affected the public’s confidence – think Edwina Currie, a dozen eggs and salmonella, John Gummer stuffing burgers in his young daughter’s mouth during the Mad Cow crisis, or even Lord Lambton, caught smoking a joint in bed with a prostitute, filmed by a secret camera hidden in a Teddy Bear.  For reasons of competence, confidence or perception they all had to go.  And, looking back at them now, their crimes seem comically small when compared with the chaos precipitated by Mr. Williamson in England and (let’s not let the SNP off the hook) by John Swinney north of the border.  In 2002, Labour Education Secretary Estelle Morris resigned because “I judge my performance as not quite good enough.”  Such candour and humility feels quaintly out of step with the shameless norms of today’s politics.  But it shouldn’t be.

And at what point does the responsibility that comes with election to public office end?  Can a politician ever be considered “off duty” in respect of what they say and what they do?  I do believe politicians are entitled to a private life – their families, loves and lives outside politics should be of no interest to the public and, in my opinion, strictly “off limits” to the press.  However, assuming public office ought to bring with it the requirement of certain, higher standards of behaviour.  For example, racism, hate speech and sexism are never ok, in any circumstance.  Ergo, politicians of any party, elected to any office, can’t be afforded the luxury of drawing their own lines of distinction between the public and private realms of discourse when discussing these topics.  Whether they like it or not, in today’s hyper-connected ‘internet of things’ social media obsessed world, they are “always on.”

I’ve written in this column before about the case of Darley Parish Councillor Ernest Butler, whose unreconstructed personal views on immigration created a froideur (think tumbleweed…) among Harrogate’s chattering classes.  I won’t rehash the specifics, save to mention that his views were nonetheless deemed to fall outside the purview of the local Councillors code of conduct.  Which is to say that no means exists to make the public servant  man accountable for the unacceptable private views he expresses.  Saying you have no charter to punish the culprit simply becomes the means to inaction.  It seems to me that the answer is a radical overhaul of the code of conduct, this to recognise the contemporary realities of public life, conducted as it is, in full and transparent view for all to see and hear.

The issue here is that modern politics is as much about perception as it is about reality.  I wish this were not so but it’s not my call, nor is it the call of politicians, drawn to publicity, like moth to flame.  Our own Andrew Jones MP had a great photo op when, in December 2018, he visited Porsche specialist second-hand car dealer Gmund Cars Ltd and hailed “an amazing business.”  What he did not know is that six Porsche owners who talked to the Stray Ferret and who had placed their cars with Gmund for sale

allege that their vehicle’s ownership had been transferred without permission and did not receive a penny for the sale of cars worth over fifty grand apiece.  Gmund went into administration 6 months later in July 2019, with more than £1 million worth of cars missing.  A police investigation followed.  An “amazing” business indeed.

In his photo op, Mr Jones was pictured standing next to Gmund owner Andrew Mearns and his wife Samantha, a significant Gmund shareholder and company secretary until December 2018. Mrs Mearns is a Harrogate Borough Councillor and a case worker in Mr. Jones’ constituency office.  Not quite a Lord Lambton moment, but none too reassuring.  Councillor Mearns has made it clear she has not been questioned by the police.  Andrew Jones has kept his counsel, neither supporting publicly his Conservative colleague and office employee, nor commenting on the alleged irregularities in Gmund Cars Ltd. He does, however, have an irate constituent or two, each light to the tune both of tens of thousands of pounds and their cherished Porsche motor cars.

 

However we look at all of this, it makes a mockery of The Nolan Principles, to which public office holders are meant to adhere.  For the record the seven principles of public life are Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.  Whether in Westminster or Knapping Mount, these standards seem absent lately; to the point of depressing irrelevance.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Read More:

 

Strayside Sunday: Pay MPs more and ban outside interests

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

What are we to make of this weeks’ news that two Conservative MP’s and former cabinet ministers, Sajid Javid, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ripon’s own Julian Smith, the former Norther Ireland Secretary, are both supplementing their income to the combined tune of almost a half a million pounds.  This from “interests” beyond the walls of the Palace of Westminster?  Mr. Javid is to work for the American bankers JP Morgan, for a reported salary of £400,000.  Mr. Smith is set to work for a company called Ryse Hydrogen Limited and, as the register of member’s interests states, will provide 20 hours advice annually for the princely sum of £60,000, a billable rate of a cool £3,000 per hour. How do you like those apples?

Before I go on I should point out that both Javid and Smith asked for, and received, advice on the propriety of their new positions from the government’s Advisory Committee on Business Interests.  Both sinecures were approved by the committee, led by former Conservative Cabinet Minister and professional Yorkshireman, Eric (now Baron) Pickles.  In short, Javid and Smith played by the parliamentary rule book and their commercial actions and activities have been given a clean bill of health.  Well that’s ok then.  But it isn’t really, is it?  Not now, not ever.

Let’s first look at the numbers.  The salary of a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament is £81,932.  None too shabby when one considers that the average full-time salary in the UK is £36,611.  We pay MPs more than twice the average wage to exercise their duties – and I contend they are duties – as public servants.  Given they ask for our vote and seek our trust at election, isn’t full-time working the least we can expect from them in return?  I think so and that it is fair to demand it.  I believe that MPs should not be allowed outside interests, however my view is that we don’t actually pay MPs enough to attract individuals of a calibre to deliver good government.

Most of our current crop of MPs seem like intellectual pygmies in comparison to the politicians we grew up with and that polls show we respected a great deal more than today’s lot.  Margaret Thatcher, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke for the blues; Harold Wilson, Barbara Castle, Dennis Healey for the reds; and Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams for the yellows.  Giants all.

Being an MP was an entirely different proposition then of course: Far greater power was vested in local government, meaning that the volume of business conducted in Westminster was much less than it is today, constituency mailboxes could be dealt with (in written hand) in one good sitting per week, and the demands of the media and social media were not 24/7.  Our politics was better because of it and our politicians were unambiguously superior.  But nostalgia for the good old days will not a significant improvement make.

 

What do we need to do to make things better?  Let’s say that we paid MPs a salary of £150,000 per annum and that outside interests are, in-turn, banned.  By way of comparison and perspective, the basic pay for an NHS consultant (a Doctor with 5 years of medical school training and then another 8 years of on the job experience) tops out at £107,688.  With bonuses known as Clinical Excellence Awards consultants pay nears the £150,000.  This places them just below the average UK Chief Executive, who makes £156,000 per year.  My argument, not original, is that increasing MPs pay will attract a much better quality of potential candidate and that politics can once again become one of the respected professions.  In my view there should also be a lower age limit on parliamentarians, say 30 years old, so that they have to bring several years-worth of real-world experience into their role as elected representatives.  I would create too an independent public HR body to vet potential parliamentary candidates of all parties for their suitability for the profession.

 

When one is recruited to any paid position of employment these days, expert interviews are held, salary benchmarking is conducted, reference checks are made, and personality tests are assessed – especially if the process is handled by a professional headhunting or recruitment agency.  Which brings me back to the Right Honourable Julian Smith.  Before he entered parliament Mr. Smith founded and ran a successful recruiting company.  I doubt very much that he achieved a billable rate of £3,000 an hour for any of the candidates he placed.

Again let’s place this in perspective; a leading London commercial “silk” (a barrister appointed Queen’s Counsel; “Her Majesty’s Counsel Learned in Law”), of which there are very few, following 20 years of practice and an ascent to the very pinnacle of their profession, might, just might, be able to bill their multi-national corporate clients up to £2,000 per hour.  I cannot, in any view, see how Mr. Smith can justify £3,000 an hour for the advice he is giving to a private company to his Ripon constituents (and, for that matter, to himself).  It would be good to hear from Mr. Smith precisely the kind of advice he is to provide for such riches. It looks just awful.

With behaviour like this the Conservative Party is in grave danger of appearing (again) to harness the worst excesses of “the market” to fill its boots, rather than focussing on the now immense twin tasks of rebuilding our nation’s shattered economy and delivering the much vaunted “levelling up” agenda.  This, by the way, at a time when competence and empathy seem in terribly short supply (think Robert Jenrick and his planning fiasco and; see also Gavin Williamson’s exam results debacle).  When I worked for the party our obsession was to lose the tag of being “the nasty party.”  If the current tone-deaf behaviour of its cabinet members continues it won’t be long before we regain that most unwelcome moniker.

And talking of tone deaf, what of the handling by Harrogate Borough Council of its plans to close James Street (the town’s main shopping thoroughfare) to traffic?  Sara Ferguson, the acting chair of Harrogate Business Improvement District, felt moved this week to call out the fact that the council appears to have decided unilaterally on the pedestrianisation of James Street.  The council had asked the BID to canvass opinion among local business about the plan and, in so doing, the BID found that two thirds of businesses on the street are against full pedestrianisation.  However, with more than a whiff of fait accompli it seems that the council had no intention of waiting to hear the views of local business leaders and had already put in a request to North Yorkshire County Council to close the street for “safety and social distancing measures” (a measure since backed by NYCC to come into effect as early as next month).  Through bull-headed incompetence Harrogate Borough Council, much like the United Kingdom government, is testing our patience and goodwill to the limit.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Read More: 

 

Strayside Sunday: The Yorkshire district councils need a clear devolution vision

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

I was in Westminster this week and senior sources close to Simon Clarke, the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government, tell me he is committed to regional devolution – ‘it will happen.’  Devolution is seen by the government as a central pillar of its “levelling up” agenda, targeting economic growth, social inclusion and community engagement in the territories north of Watford Gap.

The theory is that elected Mayors, given new powers to form ‘development corporations’ specific to their region, supported by a single tier of regional unitary authorities of scale, will be much more agile and responsive to the economic and social needs of their local population than national politicians will ever be.  Almost total relaxation of existing planning rules look set to become a centrepiece of these new arrangements, opening the way for mixed use town centres.  The policy white paper outlining these plans in detail will land within the next week or two.

This is to be celebrated and offers the tantalising prospect of a £2 billion plus funding settlement for the region if, and it is a big if, our local leaders at borough and county council level can set aside their differences and agree on a devolution blueprint.  At the moment, this seems like a distant prospect, with the leaders of North Yorkshire County and Harrogate Borough Council engaged in a public relations ‘air war’ over their respective devolution plans.  NYCC leader Councillor Carl Les wants to lead a single large unitary council to include Harrogate and its districts (population 600,000 plus), while HBC leader Councillor Cooper proposes 2 smaller unitary authorities, with Harrogate leading 6 other local districts in one of them (population 400,000 plus).

In a press release on Tuesday, Councillor Les set out his pitch for unitary status: Clear accountability for service provision, millions of pounds of savings for the taxpayer by removing service duplication, the empowerment of town and parish councils and the creation of meaningful community networks.

In response, in a letter to local businesses this week, Councillor Cooper laid out his opposition to such a plan.  He contends that the devolved authority would create a ‘massive’ and remote bureaucracy; that employers would have less contact and influence on decisions affecting their future and that North Yorkshire risks spending its time in conflict with its government neighbour the City of York.  Let’s consider each of these contentions in turn.

First, some argue that although tiny, Harrogate itself is a remote bureaucracy.  And, as North Yorkshire pointed out in a press release on Tuesday, size isn’t everything.  Indeed, Labour-led Durham, which became a unitary authority 12 years ago, is consistently ranked among the best councils in the land.  This notwithstanding that it serves a population of well over half a million.  Setting aside the fact that Durham and North Yorkshire are neighbours and share a great many characteristics, if this is what a “mega” council delivers, then yes please, I’d like some of that.

Second, I’d like to hear why a smaller catchment for a devolved authority would be better for business and better for residents?  What is the substance behind the argument that cosy and intimate delivers more effective and cost-efficient government?  I challenge HBC to set out how its actions to date, demonstrate its responsiveness to local business and make it fit to sit atop a unitary authority.  What matters, surely, is vision, imaginative policies that give life to the vision, and local politicians with the competence and courage to behave properly and get things done.

Third, rejecting a course of action because of the possible risk of bad blood and behaviour between politicians  (for that is what it would be) must surely be wrong.  It’s up to us, the electorate, to expect and demand more from our elected representatives.

For my part I am fully persuaded (for now) of the merits of a single, devolved North Yorkshire unitary authority on the grounds that the North Yorkshire County Council bid has a positive and expansive vision for what it might do for residents and community.  This, rather than a myopic ‘not invented here’ perspective, that, absent a vibrant and fleshed out alternative vision for devolution, seems designed only to maintain a self-interested grip on the levers of power.

And time is running short for Harrogate Borough Council and its supporters to lay out a positive alternative vision for a smaller unitary authority.  If it is able to come up with a plan that places people and their wellbeing demonstrably at the heart of its thinking, invigorates business, fundamentally reimagines how services are delivered and reimagines our town centre, then I’m all ears.

Finally, in last week’s column I criticised Pat Marsh, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Harrogate Council, for following the Conservative lead in warning her team that they would be suspended, were they to be identified as the culprit who leaked the council’s confidential report into the dire financial state of Harrogate Convention Centre and the £46 million plans for its renovation.

I want to make clear that my criticism of her action was and is from first principles: the report should never have been marked confidential; neither the council nor the convention centre are private businesses, they are in fact funded with taxpayer money.  As such, reports into their performance should be made public, by definition, in my opinion.  The report was marked confidential to hide the dreadful financial performance it revealed.  Councillor Marsh should be calling this poor performance out, even if, as I accept, she felt her actions were constrained by the National Code of Conduct for councillors in respect of the leak.

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

 

Read More: 

What do you think of Paul’s column – contact him on paul@thestrayferret.co.uk

 

Strayside Sunday: Harrogate council leader risks looking like a bully

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Here are some facts about the recent financial performance of Harrogate Convention Centre under the stewardship of Harrogate Borough Council:

  1. In the twelve years since 2008, the centre turned a profit on just three occasions; 2009, 2016 and 2017.
  2. During that twelve-year period, reported turnover has fallen steadily each year, from £7.1m in 2008 to £4.6m in 2019. This represents a cumulative fall in annual income of 36%, that’s more than a third, to you and me.
  3. Prior to 2020, public domain council documents (not least the now surely discredited town plan) stated that the economic contribution of the centre to the town’s wider economy was £57m. Harrogate council now say that this figure is £35m, a discrepancy blamed on the introduction of a new economic impact methodology.

Some of this we knew already and some we now know because the Stray Ferret was in receipt of a leaked, confidential council cabinet report into the performance of and possible future for what is fast overtaking Knapping Mount as the largest white elephant in town.  In short, the report calls for the council to make a wince inducing £46.8m investment to renovate the centre, reduce the effects of its ageing and make the centre quality competitive with other convention destinations across the country.

Council Leader Richard Cooper is not best pleased that the report has reached the public domain and this week used a full meeting of council to threaten to expel, if identified, the leaking culprit from the Conservative Party (if indeed the leaker is a Conservative) and force them to stand down from the council.  Astonishingly, Cooper managed to get the Lib Dem opposition to match this pledge.  Let’s deconstruct all this.

The Harrogate Convention Centre is failing, this largely as a result of cumulative underinvestment and deficient operational oversight, both the responsibility of the current council administration.  The leaked report is sensitive precisely because it shines a light on more than a decade of poor management.  Given the numbers above it’s no wonder that the council wanted the report and its contents kept confidential.  The facts are an embarrassment.

But the performance and future of Harrogate Convention Centre is clearly a matter of public interest, especially if, as the council seems set to do, it is to be in receipt of almost £50m of taxpayer money to keep it going (under the same loss-making political leadership).  To attempt to make decisions of this magnitude and effect under a veil of secrecy is at the very least an insult to the people of Harrogate and, in my view, a dereliction of the duty of public servants to deliver government that is transparent and accountable.

Mr. Cooper tries to argue that the cabinet report contained confidential information and that its release could damage the local economy.  Really?  In the Harrogate Advertiser it was reported that a Harrogate council spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that 95% of the leaked document was “already in the public domain.”

Second, let’s look at the politics of this.  Richard Cooper’s threat to expel the leaker doesn’t look good and, from experience, I can tell you is not the right way to handle a leak. To some, Mr. Cooper’s words and actions give the appearance of bullying. Like an angry schoolboy not getting his way, it seems plain to me that this leader is stamping his foot in frustration. Perhaps Mr. Cooper is so used to getting his own way that he was actually just upset by the fact that the leak undermined his beloved authority.  It leads one to wonder whether making threats is an effective way to keep your council team in order or whether there is a point at which it serves to build resentment and create internal opposition.

It beggar’s belief too that Pat Marsh and the Lib Dem group supported Mr. Cooper’s expulsion threat tirade.  The Lib Dems should have celebrated the leak, not least because, however rump, they are the official opposition and it is their role to hold those in power to account.  And boy do they need holding to account in respect of the Convention Centre and their magic money tree spending plans for it.

Finally, congratulations are due this week to Harrogate Town, now proud members of The Football League, for the first time in the club’s history.  Great news indeed for the club, the town and for our economy.  Taking his cue from the MP’s instruction manual, Andrew Jones was quick and fulsome in his praise for Town, his initial breathless account of his own emotional rollercoaster as the game ebbed and flowed spoilt only his reference (before it was corrected) to Notts County’s non-existent equaliser at the start of the second half.  Were you really watching Andrew, or might this have been a little positive PR gone wrong?

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Read More: 

 

Strayside Sunday: Harrogate Convention Centre should not be in the hands of politicians

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

Harrogate Borough Council has been up to its usual incompetent, vainglorious tricks this week and looks set, at the next full council meeting, to greenlight a staggering £1m – yes that is a cool £1m – consultancy project to design and plan a £46m (gasp) renovation of the loss-making lemon that is Harrogate Convention Centre.

In its 2014 town plan, the council made much of the fact that the activities of HCC contributed £57m to the town’s wider economy each year.  Now, to support its case for new investment in the centre, the council tells us that the convention centre contributes £35m to our local economy.  The explanation – a different way of compiling the figures. The lower figure produced with methodology set by an external body, Visit Britain. What a whopping discrepancy from figures the council had previously been in control of compiling. It doesn’t inspire confidence in its ability to now get the maths right with the eye-watering sums it  proposes spending.

So, having presided for years over the centre’s demise as a desirable destination conference venue, the council now seems set to absolve itself of the guilt of its previous underinvestment and mismanagement with profligate and horribly misguided public spending.  The question for Councillor Cooper is why, when you have so clearly been asleep at the wheel, should we trust you to spend a penny more, let alone the millions you plan?

Instead, the centre should be sold to specialist private enterprise, as large conference venues in Manchester and Birmingham have been, to great financial effect.  This would serve to secure the undoubted wider economic benefits of a successful conference centre for the town, away from political interference and leave the council free to focus on serving residents better.

Such a sale would yield significant and sorely needed investment capital for a truly progressive and innovative council to reimagine Harrogate town centre, or to promote independent local business, or to deliver much and never more needed services.  However, as former Harrogate Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis said in these pages this week, the councillors involved are “amateurs”.  They should not be trusted to run any business of scale with public funds. Harrogate Council is simply unable to articulate what it is for and lurches from one expensive vanity project announcement to the next. Crescent Gardens, Knapping Mount, now this. It catches the eye, but for none of the right reasons. The sooner Harrogate council is folded into a single, devolved North Yorkshire Unitary Authority, the better. It’s fair to say that Harrogate council’s leadership don’t welcome the prospect, choosing Yorkshire Day, August 1, to announce the launch of an alternative devolution bid campaign.  And I’ll return to this subject in detail next week.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps dropped another clanger this week; heading off to a family holiday in Spain just hours before the air bridge back to the UK was closed – by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps – thereby condemning himself and his family to a 14-day quarantine on return to the United Kingdom.  Shapps arrived in Spain on Saturday and, at a virtual meeting with departmental and devolved colleagues the same day, was presented with new covid-19 infection figures that suggested a Spanish second wave.  Closing the bridge, he promptly boarded a return flight home to begin a fortnight of self-isolation.  Left in situ on their own in Spain, I suspect Mrs Shapps and their three children are not best pleased that Dad has made a bit of a prat of himself again.

The tragi-comic quality of episodes like this have been described as part of the continued “Graylingisation” of British Politics; so named by journalist Gavin Esler, in honour of poor old Chris “Failing” Grayling, who must surely go down as one of the most spectacularly incompetent British Cabinet Ministers in living memory.  The hapless MP for Epsom and Ewell has most recently been in the news for failing to secure the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Intelligence Select Committee, despite the fact, or more likely because of it, that he was Boris Johnson’s preferred candidate.  So sure was he that he would emerge victorious, Grayling missed the manoeuvres of Julian Lewis MP (who is highly respected in parliament for his intelligence, his Intelligence expertise and his principle).  By the time Grayling realised he was being gazumped, it was too late and Mr Lewis won the Chairmanship of the committee at a canter.  In a fit of petulant and retaliatory pique, BoJo stripped Mr Lewis of the Conservative whip, at once earning the ire of parliament and reminding us all that what seems to matter in contemporary politics – nationally and locally – is not competence and probity, but patronage and blind fealty.

Finally, I’d like to recognise that, in respect of his vote, mentioned in my last column,  for the “continuity” Trade Bill and against several amendments to the bill seeking protections for the NHS from foreign trade, Ripon MP Julian Smith made a public statement this week.  Mr. Smith would still have us take as an item of faith the government’s claim that it will not sell out the NHS, but none the less I very much respect his willingness to spell out his position transparently.  It builds trust and understanding between people and their elected representatives, especially if mediated, on the record, through the fourth estate.  Trust has never been needed more.  Andrew Jones MP, why haven’t we heard from you?

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

 

Read More:

 
Strayside Sunday: Our MPs should act on principle when it comes to the NHS

Strayside Sunday is our weekly political opinion column. It is written by Paul Baverstock, former Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. 

In 1942 William Beveridge identified “5 giants on the road to post-war reconstruction in the United Kingdom.”  Disease was one, and, on the 5th July 1948, the NHS became the state’s answer to it.

The NHS is a living breathing political battleground.  Blunt force rhetoric about it generates huge heat, while ideology, knowledge or nuance cast only low light.  Take the following case; the virtue-signalling phenomenon of clapping for the NHS, while failing to ensure or, at the very least, publicly confirm, the post-Brexit future of this treasured institution.

During lockdown, both Harrogate MP Andrew Jones and Ripon MP Julian Smith, together with every MP in parliament, implored us to “clap for the NHS.”  With typical political expediency, (alas) Smith and Jones embraced the NHS rainbow flag and led our constituency-based public displays of affection.  This week, both men voted against an NHS amendment (put down by Green MP Caroline Lucas and supported by the Labour Party) to the Trade Bill that, post-Brexit, will shape our international trading relationships.

The NHS amendment sought to protect the British principle of universal healthcare; it sought protections against wage cuts for NHS staff; the protection of the British medicines market from price gouging; to ensure that our confidential patient data could not be shared without our knowledge and permission.  I don’t know about you, but I have found it difficult to disagree with the NHS being protected from the avarice of Donald Trump’s America.  I challenge our district MPs to take a principled stance in relation to the NHS, rather than simply use its good name when they see a public relations opportunity at a time of crisis.

On the most important guarantor of British wellbeing, the future of the NHS, can there be a more obvious barometer of a person’s character?  In the end, holding to principle against the wishes of one’s own party machinery may well prove personally expensive.  But clapping for the NHS while voting to leave it open to profit-takers from abroad is most certainly cheap.

I know that in the age of the Cummings Tyranny, to vote against the party whip is career limiting.  And if I were in a charitable mood I would accept that the amendments above were put down by the Greens and by Labour to make political mischief; “nasty Tories won’t protect NHS,” “nasty Tories sell out NHS,” and so on.  Of course parliamentary politics is at play, yet it seems to me that the blue team isn’t playing very well.  What would it cost for Smith, Jones and colleagues to go on record, preferably in these pages, to state their views and, specifically, make plain that, even though they voted for the trade bill, they voted tactically against the opposition’s NHS ‘spoiler’ amendments in the interest of post-Brexit progress?

So much ideological tosh is talked about the NHS:  For example, the Labour Party and the British Medical Association (the doctor’s trade union) scream about the ‘privatisation’ of the NHS.  This, despite the fact that no one is charged by the NHS for visiting their GP, or for going to hospital, or for treatment.  Some services that are ‘free at the point of use’ to you and me are, in fact, provided by private companies, themselves paid directly by the NHS.  But at the last official count ,the proportion of the NHS’s overall budget paid to private healthcare providers was less than 9% and falling.

And we Tories bang on about waste and inefficiency, which does exist, but the fact of which is hardly surprising given that, since 1997, the NHS has endured 7 major structural reforms – with New Labour, the Coalition government and the Tories roughly equally culpable – and its demoralised staff don’t know whether they are coming or going.  Billions has been spent too (a good proportion of which has been in vain) on attempting to harness the power of technology to deliver better care outcomes, and to wire together a hugely fragmented healthcare delivery system, so that we can share patient information across and between care settings.

At this point I should declare an interest: The National Health Service is particularly dear to my heart; I worked in the system for several years and, for much of my adult life, have been a frequent acute customer.  In the summer of 2006, I was diagnosed with late stage 4 Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and the odds were very much against my survival.  I spent the next 3 months in hospital receiving brilliant care.  My chemotherapy worked, but a hospital acquired infection almost killed me.

14 years later, the consultant oncologist who saved my life remains a dear friend, a friendship we forged through political discourse; when I arrived at hospital that June, my time as Director of Communication for the Conservative Party was not yet in the distant past.  My doctor, a Professor at Imperial, was then and remains now, a die-hard socialist.  ‘Prof’ refuses on principle to see patients privately, even though with his skills and reputation he could have charged his way to millionairedom, had he been so minded.

Later, when I was discharged as an in-patient and returned to see him for quarterly out-patient check-ups in clinic, Prof would announce loudly “the Tory is back! Everyone remember to give him a hard time.”  Too civilised and sensible a man to subscribe to the view that he “could never be friends with a Tory,” what he meant was that I was to be kept honest in my views about the NHS. ‘Prof’ insists that the service is a humanity defining idea first and a set of healthcare delivery arrangements and economics second.  Do Messrs Smith and Jones?

That’s my Strayside Sunday.

Read More: 

Why not get in touch with Paul and share your views on his column and local politics. paul@thestrayferret.co.uk