Wobbling over Wolsey

The purchase of Wolsey Place has attracted a lot of debate in various places, including local Lib Dem blogs and a dismal Facebook group set up by UKIPpers, who have taken a break from blaming everything on Europe.

I’m disappointed that having agreed to it in council, some Lib Dems in Horsell are trying the old “we don’t have to follow the party line” gag just as they did over county hall. No – you don’t have to follow the party line on a Horsell issue such as development in the village or bus service cuts. But this is nothing to do with Horsell specifically and it’s a major financial commitment that the council has signed up to on a cross-party basis. For local activists to now try and wriggle out of their party’s official position on Wolsey Place is opportunistic and disingenuous. If they were so concerned, did they lobby their leadership against cross-party agreement?

For what it’s worth, Horsell West councillor Tony Branagan voted against the purchase but now the matter has been resolved he is committed to defending the council’s position, even though it wasn’t his own. How very easy to abdicate responsibility in the face of hard questions – to me, elected representatives need more fibre than that and Tony has it in spades.

I’d prefer a world where Woking Borough Council was debt-free, as it was six years ago under Jim Armitage. But that isn’t the council we’ve got and only a firesale would restore that position. In the circumstances, the best place to spend the borrowed money is on appreciating assets and generating revenue. So let’s look at Wasteful Woking and see just how inaccurate the UKIP information is.

“Not only do they splash out 68M for Wolsey, they also just announced a 2.5% council tax increase. It’s time to take some control back!”

And just think how much more your council tax would be without £1.5m in revenues next year from Wolsey Place. This is a totally misplaced statement based on the notion that Woking Borough Council itself has written a cheque for £68m.

“It will take the council 50 years to pay back the loan for Wolsey Place, a development that will probably be beyond it’s usab…le life within 20 years. That means a major capital expenditure to either rebuild or upgrade the current site. “Invest to save” is a phrase usually best applied to upgrade work or repairs that will lower future bill and fixed cost base. Not buying a leaky old shopping centre and half occupied office.”

What is wrong with taking 50 years to pay back the loan? People with mortgages usually pay them back over half that and they usually borrow a good deal less than half the money. As time goes on, the value of the repayments will decrease while the rental income keeps pace with inflation ie the value of income over repayments will increase hugely over 50 years. If the centre is sold on, the loan could be paid back or if the site is sold in say 15 years, it will be most likely be worth a great deal more than was paid for it and will cover substantially the amount of the loan outstanding.

Whatever the author’s view of the shopping centre, actually looking at the books (rather than guessing wildly) revealed a sound basis for buying. In addition, there is potential for development in the future, although that’s not something I think would be considered for some time. For the record, floors one to five of Export House are empty, with six to 15 occupied. The internal decor and facilities are very good and I know that because I work on the 14th floor.

Elsewhere, we’ve had concerns about maintenance, unforeseen legislation and all sorts of other things that really scrape the barrel. There are always risks associated with everything – given all the information available, councillors on all sides took the view that this was worth doing.

Finally, there are Lib Dem concerns about the process, about the fact that the deal was done with press and public excluded (Part II). I’m no fan of Part II and as a journalist I fought tooth and nail to find out what was going on “behind closed doors”. But consider this – councillors are elected by the people to take decisions. As residents, we’d no doubt prefer everything to be decided in public but just because the press and public are excluded doesn’t make the process less democratic. These are still the same councillors making the same decisions under the same constitution in the same way that magistrates confer in private rather than open court. And the Lib Dems, who have to a person all been involved in Part II items in the past, know that perfectly well.

In his blog Denzil Coulson claims that the Lib Dems have helped rescue us from a financial disaster this year by backing Wolsey Place. If that makes him happy, so be it - but he is right that the financial outlook for 2010/11 is a lot better because of this purchase. Remember that net of repayments, net of tax, net of maintenance the council will get £1.5m a year from the Wolsey Place purchase – it pays for itself and a lot more besides.

So t’s time that UKIPpers stopped spreading rubbish about the deal that was done for pure electoral gain and that Lib Dems locally had the bottle to agree – as Denzil seems to want to say – that this deal was the very best of the bad job that Woking’s borrowing is.

Shopping Centre cardinal to Woking economy

Earlier today, Woking Borough Council officially announced that it had purchased Wolsey Place Shopping Centre following a decision on February 2 to become sole owners. The cost is £68million, which has been financed by the Public Works Loan Board.

The aim of the purchase is twofold – to invest in an asset that will both appreciate in time and generate a healthy £1.5m every year for the council and to play a pro-active role in encouraging economic growth in the town - in this case by securing the future of a major retail space. There are, it must be stressed, no plans for the council to run the centre, this will remain with existing staff.

There will no doubt be those that criticise the council for taking on more borrowing. They will stand on the fact that Woking has borrowed more than almost any other district council and that this somehow indicates financial imcompetence. Not so. The act of investing in tangible assets on a long-term basis and generating net profits from those investments is using borrowing as a force for good. I won’t defend all of the projects WBC has invested – and I favour a debt-free position – but in this case, one has to consider the broader interests of Woking in the future.

The nature of local government finances has changed. No longer are councils about revenue income, support grants, non-domestic rates and council tax versus costs – they have a wider, enabling role to play through investment in communities. We aren’t the only council looking to be more pro-active economically. Surrey Heath has got pro-active with The Atrium development and there are other options for the future. Runnymede redeveloped its Civic Centre and Guildford has worked to improve its Civic Hall and Friary Centre infrastructure for years.

The difference is that we have already gone into the market while the money is cheap and we are ahead of the curve – as suggested by the fact that the Liberal Democrats also backed the purchase of the centre. I’m pleased we’ve got a consensus on this and hope it survives the election intact.

Traditional local government finance will fade out as more and more cuts have to be made and councils look to other means of raising revenue. Outsourcing only gets you so far and is politically challengingfar better to invest cheaply in strategic assets that will generate multiple benefits for both residents and the council.

Lord oh Lord, Lib Dems get personal

Jonathan (centre) at Woking Community HospitalThere may still be two months to go before an election is called but already the Liberal Democrats are beginning to show that they are far more comfortable talking about personalities than policies. The latest attempt to smear our excellent parliamentary candidate Jonathan Lord comes from Spiderplant Land, where a load of hackneyed drivel masquerades as an informed piece of opinion.

The blogger in question has already got the number of times Jonathan has stood for parliament wrong, amusingly confused Jonathan’s current place of residence five miles away with somewhere 25 miles away and stated quite catagorically that he knew nothing about Woking, despite the fact that she has never met him. She then sought to blame our literature for the faulty information! The Lib Dems really need to learn the difference between blogging and blagging.

In addition, the “anonymous” comments that she quotes from ConservativeHome (and which have now been removed) originate from someone know to be a compulsive fibber, who is not a Guildford party member and doesn’t even appear to be on the electoral roll in Guildford or Waverley. Still, that’s about the standard of reasonsing that underpins most Lib Dem policies, so expect to see these fake “quotes” used again.

I have stated before how impressed I have been with Jonathan’s commitment to Woking since he was adopted as our candidate. Last week, he visited Woking Community Hospital to emphasise our commitment to the NHS, something I know he feels strongly about. This weekend, he is campaigning – by which I mean knocking on doors rather than tweeting friends like @RosieSharpley – in opposite ends of the borough because he wants to listen to concerns and articulate the Conservative message of change and recovery.

People who have seen Jonathan at events and visits will tell you that as well as being a great communicator he is usually the last to leave, wanting to spend time with the hosts who are usually busy during the event itself. Jonathan is a dynamic, intelligent and experienced man with a record of getting things done in the public and private sector. He has fantastic connections within the Conservative Party that will help Woking – should he be elected – get its voice heard at the highest level.

After 13 years of being punished by Labour for being in Surrey, Woking deserves that opportunity once again. Don’t be seduced by Lib Dem untruths and heresayit may suit them locally but it is not in the best interests of the constituency or the country.

Update 16/2: For those that can stand it, Spiderplant Land has responded at some considerable length here.  It’s typical baseless Lib Demmery. But it gives me a good indication of what we can expect going forward. For the record, I have not smeared Rosie Sharpley above – I’ve talked about Jonathan, save for plugging Rosie’s Twitter account (I think Twitter is marvellous but a very limited campaigning tool).  She’s right though - it’s not worth responding to. So I’m going to get on with our Horsell In Touches instead.

Fiddling the system

Tony Blair talked about it after his win in 1997 but soon kicked it into the long grass when civil servants pointed out the advantage that it could potentially give him during the next 10 years. I am of course talking about the first-past-the-post voting system, which has served the country well for 150 years by delivering strong governments in a two-party system.

Yes, it tends to flatter the winning party – enabling them to get legislation through that would otherwise be compromised by protracted negotiations with coalition partners. We haven’t had a hung parliament in this country since 1974 and you have to go back to 1929 for the one before that. In that time, the country has undergone radical economic and social change and the fact that we’ve had governments able to push through their legislation – both popular and unpopular – has been one of the factors that still allows us to be competitive nearly a century after the onset of post-Imperial decline.

Now Gordon Brown wants to change all that.  Isn’t it interesting that having thought about it in 1997 as Chancellor only now is he coming to realise that perhaps it might be a good idea after all? Or, more likely, isn’t he just after a chance to gerrymander the electoral system? He knows that if he wins the election in May, he’s very unlikely to deliver a fifth term for Labour in 2015 because governments just don’t stay popular for that long. So, he reasons, let’s change the system to make it tougher for the Tories, if they don’t win in 2010, to get in at a later point.

And it’s interesting that a graphic in the Guardian today shows how the House of Commons would have looked if the AV system had been in place already. We can see that while it appears to bolster the interests of the largest and smallest parties at the expense of the one in between, that isn’t really what happens. What happens is that Conservative voters are far more likely to vote Lib Dem as their second choice, Lib Dem voters far more likely to put Labour as theirs and Labour voters also likely to vote Lib Dem as a second preference. So with Conservative shorn of the majority of second choices, they have to win on the first preference votes alone, whereas the other two parties are more likely to win on second choices.

It, in effect, seals an unofficial electoral pact between the Lib Dems and Labour – even though a good many people who vote Lib Dem do so because they don’t want to vote Labour or Conservative and have little idea what they are voting for – except they “think that Vince Cable is ever such a nice chap”.

There is an issue with the first-past-the-post system in how it works in a three-party, not two-party system. The largest party is inflated, the smallest party negated. But the Lib Dems have always called for proportional voting out of self-interest and not because they believe it enhances democracy. I don’t remember it being quite so far up their list of priorities 100 years ago when they were forming governments on the back of the FPTP system.

Thankfully, not everyone is taken in by the PM’s Saulian conversion to the cause of electoral reform. I’m heartened to see that the BBC reports (I’ll quote becuase it’s a long way down):

“Campaigners for democratic reform give a mixed reaction on Mr Brown’s proposals, with some, such as Power 2010 saying it did not go far enough: “Without troubling the public for their views, ministers hand-picked the voting system they favour in a cynical exercise aimed at wrong-footing the Tories ahead of a likely election defeat.

“The future of our democracy is far too important to be decided by empty gestures such as this.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Food waste muck-raking

Enough information to fill a blue bin

A couple of days ago I received among the more dubious of Lib Dem leaflets, which was masquerading as a National and Local issues survey. Actually, there was only one short and very general question on national issues and the rest of it was dedicated to stirring up local matters, which the Lib Dems usually achieve with some skill. None of the issues probed about was particularly surprising.

The one thing that did catch my eye though was question six, which asked people “Do you have all the information you need about the new food waste collections (starting January 2010)”? Apart from inviting the answer “no” and provoking a small degree of antipathy among voters, I’m left wondering what all this is about. In case the Lib Dems hadn’t noticed, a whole section of the Woking Borough Council website is dedicated to answering a myriad of questions on the service and it is also linked to on the homepage.

In addition, I had my caddies delivered today and there is included in the package an eight-page booklet that describes in more detail than you could ever need why the scheme is being introduced, how to use it, what can go in the bins and includes a tear-out calendar of collection dates. As a PR officer, I’m fairly certain that this covers most bases.

Anyone who still doesn’t have enough information on the scheme after that either has an unhealthy interest in the mechanics of waste collection or simply isn’t listening. To me, question six demonstrates that the Lib Dems suffer from one of these afflictions. Answers on a postcard.

Not so easy now

Reality bites - Nick Clegg has ditched some of his key promises

Writing in the Grauniad this morning, a smug Michael White claimed that DC’s appearance on the Andrew Marr Show had clarified nothing and that he had not been able to give firm promises on any of his draft manifesto commitments. Well, I can’t deny that DC is avoiding any more cast-iron guarantees but neither can Mr White deny that the reason he is doing so is because of the total and utter ruin to which the government his newspaper supports has brought the economy.

Furthermore, we know that the government is being deliberately obstructive of Conservative attempts to gain access to Treasury information – both to hide the extent of their failure and deny the opposition any advantage they may derive once in government. DC knows that things are bad but he isn’t sure how bad and until he knows he’s not making any promises. Is Mr White saying this isn’t sensible?

The Liberal Democrats have been busy making quite a bit of hay over that situation in the past. But now it turns out that they too have seen the absurdity of promising free elderly care and scrapping tuition fees when the money most obviously isn’t there to fund it. It’s not the first time they’ve decided they want to scrap some of their policies (Mansion Tax, anyone?) but at least Nick Clegg is shelving these because he can’t afford it, rather than because they are rubbish.

As ever with the Lib Dems though, they don’t have to be properly costed because they aren’t ever going to be enacted. But there comes a time when promising the earth just looks silly - even when you don’t necessarily know the details of the costs involved. Such a point has been reached and Nick Clegg is using the opportunity to launch his own austerity regime.

Which just leaves Labour. The Chancellor has promised cuts, the PM used the word once but thinks he got away with it and one half of the Labour party wants class war and investment and the other half wants the middle class vote and a pair of sharp scissors. It is clear that the government is in total disarray not about the economic policy needed – because both spending cuts and tax rises are coming without a doubt – but how to present this to voters.

The Conservatives went for honesty at their conference last year and it went down well at first but started to wobble once the government comms department got hold of it. The Lib Dems tried honesty, the party didn’t fancy it and so they went back to investment but now Nick Clegg has obviously put his foot down for the sake of credibility – as far as it goes, good on him.

But Labour – Labour is a complete and utter shambles with PM, Alistair Darling and Milipede pulling one way and Balls/Cooper the other. Most of the cabinet seem to have given up, obviously completely bemused with the whole situation and the shattering lack of leadership.

They didn’t go into politics for this. Hopefully, they’ll be put out of their misery before too long.

Sky is the limit

Only class war to offer voters

No such slacking over at Sky News, where clearly the fact that the company doesn’t get a £3.5bn windfall from the government every year means that journos have to be in over the New Year period.

It doesn’t seem to have made them any less subservient to the PM though as they dutifully report his pitiful whingeing about what he thinks the country would look like under the Conservatives. I’m happy to quote:

“The Prime Minister says he was resolved to delivering “radical” public service reform, “a new, cleaned-up politics” and tackling terrorism as priorities in the new year. Mr Brown also promises to publish the first part of a “prosperity plan for a successful, fairer and more responsible Britain” later in the week. The proposals include investment in high-speed rail, aerospace, the digital economy, clean energy and other “industries and jobs of the future”.”

Radical public service reform went out of the window with Frank Field in 1998, his talk about cleaning up politics would be more believable if it were backed up with action and, er, I thought that we’d been tackling terrorism since about 1969. And we know that Labour tackling terrorism is code for taking away more civil liberty.

As for his prosperity plan, we’ve had stories about high-speed rail before, aerospace is anyone’s guess, clean energy is nothing new and the “other” stuff is just bluster. Investing in all of these things is easy to announce – far more difficult to deliver on time, to specification and to budget. Government, particularly during the Labour tenure, has a dreadful record on overspend and delayed capital projects from the MoD to IT systems across all government departments.

And where is all this investment going to come from by the way? It’s just nonsense. Labour has nothing new to offer apart from class war and divisive rhetoric. I hope the public votes for an alternative  – and frankly that includes the Lib Dems in northern inner-city seats where the Conservatives won’t win – to deliver a strong verdict against this shambles of a government that has led Britain to the brink of bankruptcy and hastened our decline.

Something Astor give

Nancy Astor

Nancy Astor

It is 90 years ago to the day that Nancy Astor became the first woman to take her seat in the House of Commons. It’s fair to say that her political career was a good deal less significant than her electoral achievement – given the accounts of the time, not something that can entirely be explained away by the difficulties she faced in a house full of men.

Ninety years on, we have 125 women out of 646 members of parliament, which is better but represents only one fifth of parliament representing more than half the population. Needless to say, the worst offenders are we Conservatives, with just 18 out of 193 seats (less than one in ten), then the Liberal Democrats (one in six) followed by Labour, which actually does rather well with 98 out of 349 (two in seven). 

There are those who say that all of this is the fault of women for not coming forward in greater numbers, that women don’t want to be MPs. I suspect the truth is that women don’t feel an environment that continues to be male-dominated is an attractive prospect and while they would like to be active in politics, they take the decision to do something equally constructive in another field of life.

I don’t think that helps parliament or the countryWe have come a certain distance in statistical terms since Nancy Astor but depressingly little has changed in the corridors, stairways and offices where the real power to make decisions lays.

Don’t Mansion It

The nation's favourite bean-counter - pity his idealogy isn't as good as his maths

The nation's favourite bean-counter - pity his idealogy isn't as good as his maths

I wouldn’t like to buy a mansion from the Liberal Democrats because they only seem to price them in increments of £1million. Back in conference season, just after Nick Clegg promised “savage cuts” to assauge the thirst of the Orange Book brigade, the nation’s favourite economist Vince Cable stepped forward with a plan to surcharge people with homes worth more than £1million 0.5% of the value above the £1m threshold.

Unfortunately, the Liberals forgot that, somehow, they hold seats in places likes Winchester, Lewes, Oxford West and Abingdon, Richmond and Kingston. Many of the MPs in those areas, almost all of whom face a serious Conservative challenge at the next election, came forward to say that they didn’t like the policy much. Today, Nick Clegg made appearances on a number of popular news outlets announcing a re-think. Otherwise known as an admission that the policy was a silly idea.

Instead, they are going to charge people with homes worth more than £2million a whole 1% in tax above the £2m threshold. I can’t think of many people in Woking with houses worth that much, although I know there are a very few. This copious nonsense of a policy will affect just 70,000 households in the UK and raise just £1.7billion a year. Not only is this a paltry sum compared with the £175bn the government will borrow over the next two years but Mr Clegg is not even proposing to use this money to pay off the debt.

Instead it is part of a muddled package to increase the income tax allowance to £10,000 taking four million people out of income tax - but also giving £700 to every taxpayer, including the super-earners, each year. To counteract this, he wants to reduce the tax relief on pensions for higher earners. Fine. If you want higher taxes for the rich, you can try – but you’ll always end up paying more to get the money from them than you’ll recover in tax, which is why the 50% tax band is nothing more than classist posturing. The best way to raise the tax take is to solve our economic problems, get business booming and increase people’s incomes. When they earn more money, they pay more tax.

So not for the first time, the Lib Dems have a credibility gap on tax. I understand they want the rich to pay proportionally more tax. Yes, so do I. But the way to do that is not to single out the rich, or even “super-rich” for special treatment because wealth has its own way of avoiding penalty. You have to engage the economy, make everyone richer and give the rich a reason to stay in the country - a favourable business and earning environment – to contribute a fair share. I don’t think that 50% is too high a figure – but doing it as Labour have done will not produce anything.

Nor this shambles of a Lib Dem policy on mansions. Nick Clegg says that the changearound is not a U-turn and that the policy does “exactly what it says on the tin“. To me, the tin appears to be saying that the Lib Dems have very little idea how to get the government’s revenues flowing again.

A grand mysterious harmony

It's all peace and tranquility in the council tonight

It's all peace and tranquility in the council tonight

The executive committee tonight was a relatively tame affair and it will be interesting to see whether any sparks fly at the full council meeting on December 10. The fees and charges are always a contentious issue and there were a few murmurs tonight but I thought the most interesting part of that debate was something that won’t catch headlines like parking or leisure centre charges.

Section 4.16 of the report talks about provision for Looked After Children. These are of course the children in Surrey County Council care - either directly or via Foster Carers – who become so for a variety of reasons including abuse, illness or disability but all whom are taken into care because their families - who so many of us take for granted will always be there for us - are unable to fulfill their normal function of nurture. For obvious reasons, their opportunities are reduced compared to others, despite the many good efforts of foster carers and social workers.

Liberal Democrat leader Ian Johnson pointed out the provision that the borough council currently makes to children in this position. Even though social care is a Surrey County Council responsibility, Woking Borough Council is a partner in the Surrey Children and Young People’s Plan and offers free swimming, Key Cards and gym inductions. But these benefits only last until young people reach 19, at which point they considered adults and no longer under the care of the local authority.

Cllr Johnson said:

“I would like to think that in areas such as housing we can extend the care in this paper. These are people who have had a pretty rotten start in life and we ought to be supporting them in other ways and not just cut them off at 19.”

I’m delighted to say that his sentiments were shared by deputy council leader David Bittleston, who said the point was important and needed to be looked at. It is vital that if we are to promote opportunity and real equality in this country that rather than simply capping the aspirations of higher-performing children or creating a huge gap between the independent and public schooling systems, we must give children from inauspicious background the opportunity early to understand they can take control of their lives in a positive way.

Too often the cycle of abuse, neglect and care home childhood is replicated in future generations. We need to break that cycle – and we also need local politicians who understand that government will give them the tools to do so but can’t actually do it for them. It’s nice to see that the Conservatives in Surrey County Council understand that with their plan and it’s nice to see the Liberal Democrats in Woking putting issues of concern before a political opportunity to grab a headline.

I hope that we can work together will the Lib Dems on this to achieve better lives for some of the least fortunate in our borough.