Torbay Mayor on 60K slams councillors on £8K a year

Yes, only in Torbay could the much derided Conservative Executive mayor Nick Bye, he of the rhetorical flourishes and 60K per annum 'allowance', publicly question whether councillors on £8,000 a year are justifying this figure. Let's not forget this is a man whose holiday allowance and time away from the Town Hall is far greater than anyone else I know in any regular workplace. How many holidays and cruises does this man have each year ?

Add to this the sacked former Tory group leader Kevin Carroll (but still Deputy Mayor) is on £30K a year and it needs to be questioned whether this 'leadership' pair are 'good value' to the Torbay taxpayer ! Talk about pot, kettles and black !

Failure to attend a meeting was what had Nick Bye shooting from the hip once again. But, Mr Bye, as you principally make all the decisions, there is little point in prioritising Town Hall meetings over constituent casework. Under the system you and your Tory colleagues promoted, one is left with impotent backbenchers, so quelle suprise that engagement of councillors (from all parties) under an elected executive mayor system of local government isn't great.


Below is the unedited letter to the local 'Herald Express on this subject :

I am appalled at the sideswipe at Councillor colleagues by Mayor Nick Bye. It is ironic that he questions the payment of £8,000 per year to backbench councillors when I believe few would contend that the £90,000 per annum paid to the mayor and his deputy represents 'good value' for taxpayers.

Allow me to put things in perspective. Prior to the last local election I surveyed over 30 councils, mostly unitary authorities, only to find that allowance paid in Torbay is broadly the average paid nationwide. The idea of a gravy train authority therefore doesn't stack up, bar the leadership's allowance, of course.

Further, as a candidate in the May 2007 elections, I can clearly say that had I been elected I would have been hit financially, due to loss of earnings and the likelihood of limited future advancement within the company I work for. Moreover, balancing full time work, family life and council commitments would have been very difficult, but I stood for council as I love the bay and sought a better way forward than the one the mayor and his fellow Conservatives were and are offering. Add to this the way coucillors are continually vilified in the media it is a wonder that anyone stands at all !

Having been a councillor on a hung council 'up country' years ago and having lived all over England and in areas that have been run by all 3 main parties, most councillors of all parties become such as they seek to represent their areas to their best abilities. Since those elections I have continued to work with the hard working Councillor Cindy Stocks in Ellacombe and remain active in the ward. Money is definitely not the motivating factor. I do so in my spare time.

Two of the councillors referred to by Mayor Bye, Jenny Faulkner and Robert Excell (one Lib Dem and one Conservative) both work hard for Tormohun. Indeed, under the present local government structure in Torbay, they are right to put casework before Town Hall meetings, as the ability of councillors to influence the all-powerful Conservative mayor's agenda or 'vision' is minimal.

Frankly, I am fed up with the pontificating of this egregious Mayor. He might like the council to continue to be unrepresentative of the bay, reflecting the aspirations of the few rather than the many, but a more diverse council is needed. That the council is in danger of being the preserve of the monied or retired classes is entirely unhealthy in my view. Yet again it is Bye whose judgment is wrong and his criticism misplaced.

Slurring the reputations of Torbay councillors is unwarranted. It is you Mayor Bye that brings Torbay Council into disrepute. However, take heart, the good people of Stoke on Trent after a referendum have thrown out the Mayoral model of local governance. My guess is that given a further referendum here the result would be the same as that in Stoke. Our day will come too to be rid of this undemocratic structure and maybe then it would be worth councillors attending most meetings again !

Yours Sincerely,

Barrie Wood
Torquay.

Do Liberals annoy you ?

This gem can be found on LabourHome. The original text is this :

Do liberals annoy you?

jkitleft Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:22:27 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook
I am young, so I don't know many in my age group who would describe themselves as 'socialists', or 'social democrats'. Most describe themselves as liberals.

What does that mean exactly? They're 'liberal', because they are pro gay-rights, pro-choice, and anti death penalty.

They annoy the hell out of me.



Don't get me wrong, I think gay rights, a woman's right to choose, and the abolishment of the death penalty are incredibly important, and I support all three causes. But to me, social housing, minimum wage, parental leave, redistribution, the fight to end child poverty etc. are more important issues.

I resent being told that the Labour party is more right-wing than the Tories, by 'liberals' who publically admit to being snobs.

These liberals would easily vote fo Cameron: ooh look, he has had a picture taken with a polar bear. There he is with one, wait, TWO(!), gay shadow cabinet ministers. He must be such a progressive then...

You can call yourself left-wing if you come help Labour defend redistribution and equality. You can call yourself left-wing if you come join Labour in defending universal healthcare. You can't call yourself left-wing if you're only claim to liberalism is being 'green', while fanning yourself with industrial sized air conditioning in Whole Foods Market, but not giving a damn about the day to day issues that effect the working and lower middle classes of this country.


Ok, rant over.


Even more interesting are the comments to this. These can be found out :

http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/10/11/72227/583

Two quick points :

1) Few have any notion of any of the differing strands of Liberalism or understanding thereof

2) Remarkably many see their party as being on for 'liberals' !

Public Services and 'the parasitic classes' - A classic quote !

Here is Tristan Mills' view of public services :

So called public services don't serve individuals, they serve the parasitic classes who live off the sweat of others.

Huh ? Do we inhabit the same planet as well as the same party Tristan ?!

Liberal Vision (Again) - Pressure Group ? Faction ? Entryists ?

Let's be clear, I have an inherent dislike of closing down debate and respect there are many libertarians who pose questions and raise issues that otherwise would go unheard in the Lib Dems. In that context, they firmly belong within the broad church that is, and should be, the Liberal Democrats.

Now my formative political years were spent (like Messrs Littlewood and Fernando) in, ahem, another political party. My time as a Labour member and councillor saw the rise of the 'Militant' faction within the party. Despite being on the 'left' the damage this group did to the wider left and to Labour in particular is now a matter of record. They had a separate agenda, a different ideological base and ran parallel to the party they resided within. They were not too keen on their own internal democracy either. To my mind Liberal Vision [LV] share some of these 'entryist' and factional tendencies.

Mark Littlewood argues that they are no different from any other organised group within the party (minus internal democratic elections of course), such as ALDTU, Women Lib Dems, DAGGER et al. But, there is a difference the SAO/SO groups all sign up to the preamble of the party, rather than the pick and mix approach of those who support the politics of LV.

As I said in a previous post, LV is I believe a subsidiary of Progressive Voice and has a remarkably similar narrative to the UK Libertarian Party. Just take a cursory glance at the policy proposals of the UK Libertarian Party and compare them to the proposals of Progressive Vision.

As for the policy thrust of LV, consider this currently unpopular truth. It has been a progressive centre and centre-left agenda influenced by liberal and social democratic thought that has delivered over the last three elections (1997 / 2001 / 2005) for this party the greatest number of parliamentarians for us since the 1920s.

Although critical of an over-bearing state the Lib Dems and it's predecessors have never been afraid to legislate and be 'interventionist'. The welfare state has a Liberal DNA running right through it. The LDs, since it's foundation, has been a progressive tax party to fund improved public services. Now it seeks to be the party that offers a quasi-Thatcherite helping of tax and spending cuts. This looks like an opportunist attempt to stem the Tory tide across a swathe of southern English seats.


The party, rightly, continues to be interventionist. Presently it has offered distinctive positions on policy debates relating to issues as diverse as 'nationalisation' of banks through to minimum prices for alcohol (although I strongly disagree with this very illiberal proposal - booze for the wealthy only - what a vote winner !!!).

LV has little to say to the poor, little to say on the environment. Further as Thomas Gilbert remarks on Lib Dem Voice many Lib Dems have fought against the small government, low tax agenda for years. Mr. Littlewood and others like him wants us to spin around 360 degrees and offer the electorate something totally inconsistent with what the Lib Dems have offered since the formation of the party, thereby putting at risk the coalition of support built up thus far.

Even so far, the mild shift in emphases doesn't appear to be working. But to suggest that’s because we’re not moving far or fast enough to the right, that we are not radical enough is nonesense to my mind. This line of argument reminds me of Tony Benn and others arguing that Thatcher's victories over Labour were because they were not sufficiently socialist enough ! He also saw the disasterous Labour performance of 1983 as several million votes for 'socialism' ! Pity those of us less well off who had a torrid time under Thatcher, at least we could console ourselves with the fact that an impotent Labour Party had turned to the left. Let's not allow the Lib Dems to repeat elements of that kind of experience through our own internal battles and striving for a vote-losing LV inspired narrative.

Luckily the shrill voices of many libertarians and classical liberals online may not match the reality in the constituencies. I know of no-one active within my local party (Torbay) that would subscribe to the ideas being promoted by LV and others. Is this the same for others ?

One of the things I've most enjoyed about the 4 years or so of LD membership, some of them active and some not, is the lack of organised factionalism. However, it might be necessary, and with some reluctance, for the 'left' of the party to come together, become organised and challenge the classical liberals / libertarians in the party. An open, democratic organisation, maybe modelled on the lines of the Compass grouping within Labour, might be a useful starting point. The Beveridge Group, if it opened out beyond the 'great and the good' might do this, but otherwise we need to do it for ourselves. What do people think

Chandila, Liberal Vision & the LD Presidency

One vital criteria that I believe is important for the postholder of Lib Dem President is ideally that someone should be respected across the party, politically and geographically, and have the ability to be the bridge that brings together the voluntary party and it's senior elected parliamentarians.

Chandila Fernando says many things including the downgrading of party membership in favour of creating party 'supporters'. The US parties already have such 'fan clubs'. Their role is limited to being hired hands at conventions, leaving decision making and policy to the 'great and the good'. This is not a model I can accept for the Lib Dems. Chandila might have experienced this kind of 'engagement' whilst in the Tory party, but this is not how the Lib Dems do things.

His personal hobby horse, Liberal Vision [LV], is an 'interesting' organisation, with Chandila as Director and Mark Littlewood as Chairman(sic). Neiher of these people are elected to these positions by anyone. Indeed on Liberal Vision's FAQ page is the following : "It is an unincorporated association which is run as a “benign dictatorship”. If you expect internal democratic elections, AGMs, committee meetings and minute taking, this may not be the organisation for you." Being a democrat I am instinctively wedded to democratic mandates for officers, that goes hand in hand with membership of an organisation.

Linda Jack asked and Chandila answered : As someone more on the “left” of the party, why should I vote for you? I have in my heart the passion of an activist and the courage of a lion to take on the establishment." What he ought to have said is that I'm a uber-libertarian far removed from the ideas you hold Linda ! It is worth looking at LV. They are a wholly owned susidiary of Progressive Vision, whose politics and ethos are uncannily more akin to those of another party - the UK Liberttarian Party - than the values, practices and policy positions of the Liberal Democrats.

What I am not saying is that such people should be 'banned' from the party. As a liberal, even a 'left wing' one, I am instinctively against banning things or people. Libertarians bring a differing perspective to the party. Many are long-term committed Liberal Democrats and long may that be so, no matter how much I heartily disagree with them. However, uber-libertarians, such as Gavin Webb, surely would find the UKLP far closer to their strident libertarian outlook ?

You may say that the President is a party figure head and non-political. But that person has a key role [and vote] on the Federal Executive, therefore personal political positions are of some importance. Clearly Chandila is ambitious, but his proposals for limiting the usefulness of party membership and the lack of a democratic structure in the organ he does run mean for me he is entirely unsuitable to be LD President.

He might 'overlook' his politics in running for election. I do not. Why be so shy about your libertarian credentials Chandila ? Further, Chandila is said to have left the Tories when Michael Howard came to the Conservative leadership. Presumably then he had no quarrel with Hague, IDS and Major ? None of these are paragons of liberal virtue. Be honest Chandila, tell us what you are about ?!

I may stand corrected, but it is hardly inspiring to know that even his LV colleague, Mark Littlewood, is voting elsewhere ! The poor quality website, the divisive politics, the re-branding marketing speak all show clearly that Chandila is not the man for the job. So who am I voting for ? It'll be a vote for Ros Scott, a safer mainstream option, with a good track record in the party. That may not sound overly exciting, but after it's fair share of upheaval at the top of the party in recent times a unifying figure I think would be the best choice.

Conference in rude health ?

This Autumn I attended my first Liberal Democrat conference. I enjoyed many a fringe meeting, attended a couple of training events and a fair few of the debates in the hall. The thoughtful nature of the debates, irrespective of outcomes, revealed the party to have a lot of talented people within it's ranks.

However, being the curmudgeonly sort that I am, I have nagging doubts as to how vibrant and important conference is.

1) Can anyone tell me when the party leadership last 'lost' a vote at Conference ? That should happen at least occasionally at a democratic conference. The much talked about 'tax debate' was swung (I believe) by the great and the good - that being largely senior parliamentarians being wheeled out to ensure representatives voted the 'right' way. Don't get me wrong it was a high quality debate and, as a democrat, I accept the result of the vote.

Now this wasn't a one-off either. The part-privatisation of the PO debate was similarly 'won'. I suspect a debate on 'choice' [for some] in school provision could be next. Anyone want to bet David Laws wont seek to further undermine the comprehensive ideal and promote Academy Schools as the way forward ? If Lib Dem News and conference fringe meetings are any guide, albeit an unscientific one, there is no great appetite for re-organisation of the school system, be that via Academies or 'free schools'. More importantly, there is no great demand in the country for such. As ever, especially if you live in a small town / rural area, the key is a good school in your own locality. Now there's an unfashionable idea to strive to realise !

Sadly David Laws seems to be one of the few 'fans' of Lord Adonis....

2) Again thinking of the taxation debate, but also a fair few others, there was relatively little activist participation. Instead it seemed more like a stage-managed display of the leading parliamentarians, PPCs and Euro PPCs. Too harsh ? The diversity of the party and the country as a whole seemed rather under-represented at Bournemouth.

3) Possibly most important of all there were so very few debates / motions resulting from local party and / or conference representative submissions. Take away FE / FPC inspired debates, there was little much evidence of a politically engaged party in the country. Again, possibly harsh, but is there an element of truth to this ?

4) What a clever ruse to have the Bones Commission Report scheduled first up when many delegates are not in the Conference hall. Further, why was the debate only consultative in nature ? Oh what irony, the proposals to centralise a decentralising party !! There may be good reasons, but to a non-seasoned LD conference-goer I'm not sure what they are !

5) I think there should be a sliding scale of conference fees levied. Frankly when added to accomodation costs, for a family man on a limited income like myself, the cost is prohibitive. For the previous two years I've been elected to be a conference representative from Torbay, but cost has ruled out participation. I'm sure I'm not alone in such circumstances. The move to start conference on a Saturday is a good one and allows more people to participate. Reducing costs for those on low(er) incomes might help achieve a more representative conferences too.

Don't misunderstand me. I did enjoy Conference overall, but in conclusion, whilst our Conference may still be soverign and votes do matter, it isn't quite the demonstration of a vibrant and engaged party that we'd like to pretend. Anyone else feel this way ?

Liberals - A party of the left ! Lib Dems a party of ?

Yes it's true ! Darell Goodliffe (http://momentsofc.blogspot.com/) and myself should be pleased ! Sadly, it is the continuing Liberal Party (www.liberal.org.uk) that has decided to indentify itself as a 'party of the left' following it's Annual Assembley two weeks ago in Wolverhampton. Whilst the Liberals are 'officially' a party of the 'left', the Lib Dems are now a party of ...?

Whilst there are many positions where I agree with the Liberal Party, their influence and reach amongst the electorate is limited to Exeter / parts of Devon, Liverpool and Worcestershire and not many places elsewhere. It is intriguing in todays me-too centrist / centre-right consensus politics to see a party explicitly declare themselves as 'radical' and of the 'left'. But as a public voice of liberalism and liberal ideas - forget it !

In the time I've been away from Lib Dem blogging we've had the spinning to the Torygraph by Clegg about our tax cutting agenda, prior to policy approval by Conference. That it needed the wheeling out of 'big guns' to win the vote for Clegg (and on a narrower majority than the press declared) tells me all isn't lost for the Lib Dems yet. Last December I wasn't convinced by Clegg and I'm still not. Prior to the taxation vote, that Clegg's biggest publicity was for not believing in God and for the laughable GQ interview says it all. That he thought the state pension was around £30 a week just shows out of touch he is. I remain semi-attached to the Lib Dems. Being the best of a bad bunch is hardly a call to arms is it ?

Whatever else the tax positioning does / doesn't do, to me it smacks of opportunism and an attemp to outflank the Tories in the south of England. And, no, I do not put tax cuts above the continuing need for further improving public services as a party priority.

Lazy 'leftie' LD blogger returns to the fray !

Well I've got the motivation to write once more. In it's previous incarnation this blog twice featured in the ' Blogs of the Week' award of Lib Dem Voice and nestled comfortably twice in the Top 100 Lib Dem blogs. It's good to know that people read this blog (and often disagreed with me).

Why did I stop ? In short, I was and remain ambivalent towards a Clegg-led Lib Dems. As someone, who like Sir Menzies Campbell, was happy to descibe my politics as centre-left, the drift to join the me-too centre-right consensus leaves me cold.

Being the best of a bad bunch is hardly a call to arms. Locally it is the wretchedness of the local Tories that keep me active. Having a good MP (Adrian Sanders) and a good council group leader (Cllr. Steve Darling) with good social liberal leanings helps too. But enthused, hardly !

My crystal ball says that the next trimming of policy will come at Spring Conference where David Laws will ask that we further embrace greater 'choice' in schools provision and academies in particular.

Anyway, this curmudgeonly contrarian is back once more.

Vince Cable 'bigged up' by Tribune !

The current issue of 'Tribune', the self-styled voice of the Labour left, contains an interesting piece by Ian Aitken, formerly of The Observer. In it he describes Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats as such :

" If there is a 'great clunking fist' anywhere in the Commons, it belongs to Vince Cable' !!!

Certainly his line about Brown transforming from Stalin to Bean got many laughs at PMQ's this week. However, this is one of a number of consistently impressive contributions by Vince as stand-in leader. He's not my cup of tea politically in party terms, but I have like others been surprised by Mr Cable. Certainly his stance on the future of Northern Rock bank has had Gordon Brown on the ropes. Nice one Vince !

We need Huhne and Clegg rather than Huhne versus Clegg

I see in yesterdays piece by Nick Clegg in the 'Independent on Sunday' that Nick says that his leadership rival Chris Huhne will feature prominently in any Clegg-led Lib Dem party. Rumours of personal antipathy between the two men have hardly been quelled by the leadership campaign, but the party needs to utilise fully the talents of BOTH men, irrespective of the leadership vote.

I'd hope that Chris would be equally magnanimous in victory too in finding Clegg a key role. Has he said anything on this subject ?

To be fair, Clegg's performance on 'Newsnight' a few days ago was rather better than either the Plymouth hustings or 'Question Time' appearances. We need therefore, Huhne and Clegg in tandem, much more than the needlessly divisive 'heat' of the leadership debate.

In closing I'm still voting Huhne but looking beyond the 'froth' of the current contest.