DEVO LANCS – Have your say!

Devo Lancs

In September the government will be consulting local authority leaders from across the country and deciding which areas will be offered the type of devolution deal that Manchester secured earlier this year.

It is time for Lancashire’s businesses to get involved in this important discussion, because if we don’t then there is every likelihood that our county will miss the opportunity of making any progress on an agenda that is part of chancellor George Osborne’s ‘Northern Powerhouse’ aspirations.

Devolved powers do not simply hand additional resources and extra responsibilities to political leaders. They offer the local business community a far greater say in how those resources are utilised, and how those additional policy making powers are shaped.

So on the many issues that Downtown members often express frustration with; the skills gap, poor transport links, planning, access to finance and business support, there is potentially a governance model that would establish a direct engagement between Lancashire’s decision makers and the county’s private sector.

To give our members a voice in this crucial debate, Downtown has organised a special breakfast event on the morning of Thursday 27th August at the Tickled Trout. ‘Devo Lancs- What Next?’ will explore the impact devolution could have on Lancashire, particularly in relation to the local economy and business. You should come along and have your say.

To register for the event and have your say please CLICK HERE.

Labour Isn’t Dead – The Tories Will Save It

Labour

“I grew up in a working – class household, had the traditional loud left leanings in my young manhood, but the Labour Party is receding into the mists of history, as relevant to our own time as the Whigs or the Monster Raving Loony Party. There is no Old Labour or New Labour anymore; there is only Dead Labour – a 20th Century party who find themselves as pertinent as banana rationing.”

So wrote my favourite author of fiction Tony Parsons in his latest column for GQ magazine, in a sarcastic, cynical and, to be fair, at times accurate rant dressed up as an obituary for the Labour Party.

As we approach the end of what has been an unmitigated disaster of a leadership contest for the official opposition, it would be easy to agree with Parson’s analysis that, for Labour, there is no coming back from this.

Even if Jeremy Corbyn fails in his bid to become leader, the damage Labour has suffered as a result of it behaving like a sixth form debating society, and worse allowing the extreme left to hijack its post- election post mortem is clearly significant.

It will take more than one parliament for Labour to recover, and it will be relying on local government leaders such as Sir Richard Leese in Manchester, Joe Anderson in Liverpool and, they hope, Tessa Jowell in London, to keep Labour alive, even in its ‘heartlands’.

However, what Parson’s and other Left turned Right commentators forget is that Labour has been here before – and managed to come back spectacularly.

Margaret Thatcher swept to power on the slogan ‘Labour isn’t Working’ in 1979, and the Conservatives were then presented with a run of 18 years in government as their opponents elected Michael Foot as its leader, and in 1983 offered the British electorate a red blooded, Socialist Manifesto described after a record General Election trouncing as ‘the longest suicide note in history’.

Not until 1997, with a bright young thing that was Tony Blair, was New Labour able to extinguish an image of union domination, endless strikes, the winter of discontent and a politics of envy.

But, as much as Blair, Mandelson, Campbell, Brown and even Prescott can take a degree of credit for their party’s rehabilitation, Labour’s recovery was most significantly contributed to by – the Conservative Party.

The poor quality of opposition, the belief that they were unbeatable, an arrogance that was felt and, eventually loathed, by most of us outside of the Westminster bubble, was the real undoing of Conservative rule, and the beginning of a record thirteen year run of Labour power than would have seemed beyond impossible just fourteen years earlier.

Mrs Thatcher’s introduction of the poll tax; cash for questions with Neil Hamilton; Norman Lamont’s economic disaster that was the ERM; David Mellor’s extra marital activities in a Chelsea shirt; Cecil Parkinson’s extra marital activities without a shirt; the Tories obsession with Europe and John Major’s ‘Bastards’ moment – the list of gaffs, mishaps and downright moments of incompetence became endless.

Blair was an attractive alternative for the electorate to turn to, and his modernisation of Labour helped deliver a landslide for his party in ’97. But, Blair or no Blair, Labour would have won that election anyway.

For, in the end, it is government’s that lose elections, rather than opposition’s winning them.

It will take Labour time to recover from its current self- indulgence, but recover it will. Because, in time, whether it be another huge split over Europe, a cut too far, personality clashes between Boris Johnson and George Osborne, or just politicians acting like humans and getting caught out, the Tories, at some point, will save Labour. That’s why Tony Parson’s latest column in GQ is simply another piece of fiction.

Will Councillors Become Extinct?

Councillors Extinct

There are huge changes taking place in local government at the moment. In fairness, there have been huge changes taking place in local government for well over a quarter of a century.

In the name of making local democracy more efficient, more transparent, or more effective, Westminster politicians have meddled in the affairs of council’s big and small, always in the name of ‘supporting’ the strengthening of local authorities and their autonomy.

It is nonsense of course. Most of the changes that have been implemented have undermined local government, and simply resulted in increasing power to Whitehall mandarins.

From the abolition of metropolitan county councils such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester in the 80s – motivated by Margaret Thatcher’s hatred of the Ken Livingstone led Greater London Council – through to a shake-up of governance structures by New Labour that placed most powers and decision making in the hands of a few councillors on what we now call council ‘cabinet’s’, leaving the remainder of our elected representatives as glorified ‘scrutineers’, Parliamentary assistance to local authorities has been anything but helpful.

In more recent times, the government’s austerity programme has meant a huge hit to the resources of council’s, particularly in the north, whilst the cap that has been imposed on council tax increases that has been long imposed, has robbed local authorities of any fiscal ability to map out comprehensive, genuine long term plans and strategies.

Cynics may suggest that our wonderful civil service, who have to be admired for sustaining its own power and influence throughout a whole range of ‘modernisation’ initiatives over the years, have been undermining local government to justify their own positions for all eternity.

However, more reasonable observers may concede that though the methods employed to try and drag local government into the twenty first century are ineffective at best, at worst cruel, there is little doubt that a massive and radical review of local democracy is long overdue.

George Osborne addresses some of the issues through his Northern Powerhouse agenda, which devolves strategic powers to city region bodies and, eventually, to elected metro mayors.

However, for counties and areas that cannot boast a city ‘hub’, there seems to have been little thought given as to how they will contribute to this new world order.

In simple terms, I believe that we need fewer council’s and far fewer Councillors. The world has changed, and the days when we needed a council for every small town, and a councillor for every street has long gone.

As the old saying goes, chickens don’t vote for Christmas, and so the chances of local authorities addressing this issue themselves voluntarily appear remote.

However, Merseyside authority Knowsley is currently reducing its number of Members by a third, for which they should be applauded; Birmingham will go from 120 to 100 councillors in two years’ time. It seems inevitable that more of the smaller borough and district council’s in the country will be forced to merge just to survive at some point in the foreseeable future.

If this pragmatic approach gathers momentum, and local government leads in providing its own solutions to the challenges it faces, it may survive as we know it. If not, the notion of civil servants being dispatched from their London desks to look after us needy souls in the rest of what remains of the Empire, will be a more attractive proposition for a government that is more interested in cutting the deficit than increasing local democracy. Why do we need councillors, they will ask, particularly as so few of the electorate even bother to take part in local elections.

Council’s without councillors seems a bit of a barmy notion. But if local authorities bury their heads in the sand and ignore what is going on around them, including the very real attacks from Whitehall, then it is a very real prospect in the future.

Lost Labour

Lost Labour

It is fair to say that the Labour Party was not expecting to be defeated in the manner in which it suffered on 7th May.

Most members, activists and MPs, had accepted the fact that Ed Miliband was an unpopular leader among the electorate, but comforted themselves with the notion that Cameron and Osborne were equally unpopular.

The polls also convinced many Labour supporting pessimists that, actually, a hung parliament was inevitable, and therefore the party had another five years to get their act together, without the Tories being able to implement a comprehensive Conservative programme.

The General Election result produced such a radically different outcome to what Labour bosses expected that they had no idea how to react – and almost three months later they still don’t.

The leadership contest has been a bore fest, with none of the candidates able to really capture the mood of their party, let alone reach out and interest the wider electorate. The Parliamentary Labour Party’s (PLP) decision to allow the left wing ‘standard bearer’ Jeremy Corbyn on the leadership ballot paper in the name of ‘fairness’ was incredibly stupid and naïve – and may turn out to be even worse than that should the latest polls of Labour members be an accurate reflection of who they are going to support.

This week, the same PLP got themselves into a totally unnecessary mess over the government’s welfare proposals; and in Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper Labour appears to have three leadership hopefuls who have very narrow, and in some cases extremely inconsistent views, over the big policy and strategic issues that matter, not least the economy.

The shambles that is Labour is leading some to suggest that the party is finished as a political party of potential government; and it is easy to see why such a conclusion could be reached.

The Tories will use their small majority to press ahead with constituency boundary changes that will shrink the number of ‘safe’ Labour seats. Whoever wins the leadership election would appear to be Labours Iain Duncan Smith, rather than its David Cameron. And it has come up with absolutely no narrative to suggest it has the first clue as to how to win back votes in Scotland.

However, a man who led them to three consecutive election victories was back on a Labour platform this week, explaining why this doesn’t have to be the end for Labour.

Speaking at a Progress meeting in London the man who led Labour to victory over a Conservative government that had been in power for eighteen years, and then proceeded to oversee record levels of spending on health and education; regenerate our core cities; introduce the national minimum wage; restore the UK as a serious participant in the EU; take 800,000 children out of poverty; introduce working tax credits and devolve power to a Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, is someone that Labour needs to listen to.

Tony Blair, that heinous war criminal to some, but a Prime Minister whose record on the domestic scene is second to none, reminded Labour that this is where it was in 1983. In a detailed contribution covering the economy, welfare, immigration and how to tackle the SNP, Blair offered Labour a way out of its current mess. Will the party heed his message, or become an irrelevance by electing a man whose policies are so out of touch with voters that they would be lucky to retain the support of their core vote, let alone convince the voters they need to return to power.

Osborne budget bashes business

George Osborne

The overwhelming analysis of George Osborne’s latest budget has surrounded the planned changes to welfare spend, with an inevitable focus on the scrapping of working tax credits, the introduction of a ‘living wage’ and an ambition to make everyone who is under the age of 25 continue in education, get an apprenticeship or find a job!

By and large, the political classes have split into the traditional left-right fashion to which we have become accustomed, with Labour screaming ‘foul’ and Tories claiming that they are only doing what has been asked for by an increasingly weary debt ridden electorate.

Politically all this has played out very well for the chancellor, as he has been able to concentrate on the savings to the government and UK Plc, accrued on the back of those he claims are overly reliant on ‘hand outs’ – rather than addressing the very real challenges that the business community is about to face in trying to pay for those savings.

I was a long-time advocate of the minimum wage and my instinct is to be equally supportive of the introduction of a living wage. Indeed it is something that we practice at Downtown and we are pleased to be able to do so.

However, I am equally aware of the pressure many small businesses face when thinking about rewarding good staff in order to retain them through pay increases; the challenges they still face in terms of cash flow and dealing with their banks; the masses of red tape and bureaucracy they have to plough through; and negotiating with an increasingly aggressive HMRC.

To have to facto in additional salary costs at a time when many are still replenishing their own bank balances having come through a tough and lengthy recession hardly feels ‘business-friendly’.

There is then, of course, the ticking time bomb of the introduction of the new auto enrolment pension provision – a further cost to business, and one that many will not have adequately planned for or, sadly, be able to afford.

The net result of these demands on business may not be wholesale bankruptcies, closures and redundancies. However, I believe it will prove to be a barrier to growth. Those who have a vision of growing their business by employing more staff will be thinking twice and possibly three times before agreeing to an expenditure bill that is going to be so much higher in eighteen months’ time.

Of course, people will point to the reduction in corporation tax and indeed personal tax allowances too. Unfortunately, many of the smaller businesses and business owners that operate in the UK will benefit little from these changes.

George may have been unkind to the working poor. He has done few favours for the working entrepreneur either.

The budget may be positive for the chancellor in the short term. I wonder whether the impact of that budget in the longer term and the ultimate judgement of it will be quite as kind.