petition against Cornwall Councils privatisation shared services scheme

Sign the petition against Cornwall Council's Strategic Partnership for Shared Services privitisation plans.
link to the epetition here
Four reasons to sign:

1. The people have not been asked. We the people of Cornwall that will pay for this scheme have not been asked. The Conservative party and Independent group did not stand on this privatisation scheme in an election. Despite the multi million pound nature of the contract the administration has unilaterally decided without a public referundum to take this action.

2. The workers that will have their employment transfered no doubt with worse terms and conditions have not been properly consulted. Every indication is that employees -who ought to know best about public services- do not want this part privatisation.

3. Despite the grandiose promises of the scheme providing savings, creating jobs and profits for the partner corporations, examples of this actually happening are hard to find. Authorities elsewhere have already ditched similar schemes when costs rose and taxpayers money was piled into the schemes to keep them afloat. Providing no savings, less jobs, more costs and worse public services.

4. Cornwall Councillors voted down this scheme and were very clear in their opposition. Despite this the select few in the cabinet, will not listen and pay more heed to slick corporate (unrealistic) arguments. Personally I'd prefer to live in a democracy whereby the people and councillors were listened to and respected. This is still a democracy after all.

Thanks for reading and don't forget to sign.

Shared services, Cornwall Council's cabinet must listen to democracy and stop this great gamble

Following on from yesterday's full council vote to turn down the cabinets and officers plans to part privatise public services the Conservative party remains adamant on ignoring the democratic will of the chamber. This is an absolutely ludicrous situation, the obvious contradiction with democracy is that nobody stood on the platform of sharing services with private companies, the people of Cornwall have not been asked whether they agree with these plans either in a referendum or at the ballot box. The staff that will be most effected by these changes have not even been asked. Despite all this the ruling group on Cornwall Council are determined to push through these plans.

If you missed the webcast (link here) various directors and assorted bureaucrats made the case for bringing in private sector companies to run council services in partnership with the council. Most councillors argued against the scheme in the mammoth three hour long debate and a wide array of arguments came to light against the scheme. When it came to the vote councillors voted in a clear majority for a motion that read:

“In view of its far-reaching consequences, including its potential impact on Council governance and elected Member accountability, this Council believes that it is not in the best interests of the people of Cornwall for the Council to enter into the proposed Strategic Partnership for Support Services.”

But the powers that be want to still carry on, they claim that working in partnership with private companies could safeguard and indeed create jobs and could attract investment into Cornwall. The operative word here is of course could, nobody actually knows. Despite the senior bureaucrats being very convincing in their arguments yesterday (the Conservative and Independent cabinet were less forthcoming in their own policy, a sad indictment of Cornish democracy) nobody actually knows what will happen. The ludicrous thing about it all is that despite all the promises contracts with private companies have not been signed in fact, the bid process has not finished. So one half of the partnership (the bureaucrats) is making extravagant claims of jobs, savings and improvements to services without a contract explaining as much or indeed a company clearly and realistically offering as much. For all their intelligence quite how they think that a private company can deliver this great wish list is either very naive or impossibly insightful.

We all no doubt remember too well the widely discredited Labour PFI scheme (private finance initiative) which were sold as cure alls to the state's ills. Before they were introduced they were widely bandied about as a way of private money providing capital for state spending. Allowing authorities to build such things as hospitals without the up front capital, then the company would make a profit and helping the state out of bind, a win win situation. When the rose tinted glasses were removed and the plans introduced costs spiralled and the taxpayer was left vastly out of pocket and the shareholders were left the only happy party. My point is that PFI was too good to be true and Cornwall Council and other authorities in Kernow sharing services will go the same way.

Most troubling thing about the whole endeavour is that it involves Cornwall Council and NHS staff in Cornwall having their employment transferred to the partnership. Quite what pay, conditions and contracts they will be under will be up to the partnership, which will be run by a board of 5, 3 from the private sector, 1 from Cornwall Council the CEO and 1 from the NHS (note none of these people spending taxpayers money will be elected or accountable to the people of Cornwall). More worrying still this board could decide that Cornish services would be better run from elsewhere, perhaps the Cornish taxpayer might ring the council to pay their council tax, or ring Treliske to make an appointment and speak to someone in a call centre on another continent. It will be up to the board to decide what happens, they might decide it's cheaper to take jobs out of Cornwall. Minded more to running down costs and preserving profits, an obvious choice would be to take jobs out of the Cornish economy. Considering the uncertainty about the future of jobs in Cornwall themselves or their pay and conditions, it comes as no surprise that NHS staff in Cornwall do not support the private-public partnership proposals. I'd imagine council staff feel much the same in the face of such uncertainty.

These plans are very badly thought out, there is no guarantee that the extravagant promises of the bureaucrats will be matched in reality, in fact examples from local authorities in England where these kind of schemes have been a success for the taxpayer are few and far between in stark contrast to the many examples where they have failed. Those in charge at Cornwall Council may well think that this is a great idea and they may have convinced themselves that companies as far afield as America will place the best interests of Cornwall before their profits. Even if they were right, even if, this is besides the point, democracy is the guiding principle of Cornwall Council not what the select few thinks is best. The council chamber was very clear, councillors from all parties joined together to condemn these plans. The people of Cornwall have not been asked if they want their services run by private companies. The staff at Cornwall Council have not been asked and the staff at Treliske have been very clear to their management that they do not want this. There is absolutely no mandate outside of the top floor of County Hall and corporate boardrooms for these plans, this great gamble should be binned immediately.

Problem with Serco (NHS) out of hours service in Cornwall today

Bit of a public service announcement, via Pirate FM news. Serco that run the NHS out of hours service are having troubles with their phone lines today (first September). Posted on the Pirate website from a Serco spokeperson.

"A spokesperson said: "Patients can also get medical advice from the NHS Direct service on 0845 4647. For very urgent cases only, patients should consider using emergency services. Please listen for further announcements this evening."

The link to the Pirate story is here and it does include more information, NHS out of hours helpline problems.

If you need to contact Serco for some form of medical problem, please follow the instructions on the Pirate FM site. If you don't, this case is something to ponder, Serco has been in the news for failing in their Cornwall NHS service and this is more problems with it. This is one of the problems of privatisation, whereas a NHS run service could probably find alternative arrangements, a company running a public service obviously having huge problems and putting great strain on the actual NHS in Cornwall.

Also worth noting that this news comes in the same week that the Conservative- Independent run Cornwall Council are looking to farm out more services to companies like Serco. I sincerely hope that this does not happen and that councillors on Cornwall Council will see sense and not risk more of our public services in the hands of companies that have little ability to cope and have a complete focus on making money not providing the best service to the public.

Localism enough slogans already, what will happen? and what will it cost?

There is a lot of talk by government MPs about their coveted localism and what good it will do to Cornwall. But I don't know what they mean. I understand the concept don't get me wrong, I've heard the slogans of 'power to the townhall' in fact I'm sick of hearing them. We know localism has introduced directly elected mayors to English cities and been rejected by voters in others. But what does it actually mean for Cornwall? what does power to the townhall mean?  Is it a credible alternative to a 'costly' Cornish assembly as George Eustice and Sarah Newton claim? Here's my thoughts...

Firstly and foremostly, I have to say I hate the word localism, I think it means devolution to local government but there's no clear simple definition. Why the real widely used word devolution could not have been used is beyond me. There is nothing local about the invention of localism, localism is not local councils demanding more power it is about the centre offering more power to the periphery. Localism is the idea of central government, imposed upon local government. The devolution of powers is something I welcome don't get me wrong, but I fear that central government inventing and dictating what localism is and isn't to local government, is a deeply flawed beginning to the whole process.

 

Outlining their localist versus nationalist agenda in an article titled Devolution is defunct Sarah Newton and George Eustice Conservative MP, (formerly of UKIP) roundly condemn the assembly campaign :

Instead of clinging to this defunct devolution agenda, Cornwall must embrace a forward-looking approach. Rather than espousing the politics of victimhood and isolationism, our agenda must project Cornwall as a distinct, self-confident but outward-looking and enthusiastic part of the UK.

Other than depicting the ideas of devolutionists such as Mebyon Kernow in a meaningless way, they portray their ideas as positive and ours as negative. Which is a cheap political trick, they're bad we're good, they offer poverty and sadness, we offer wealth and happiness blah blah blah. I'm not interested in their sound bite critique of other parties and groups. What does interest me is what localism is and what it actually means. From my perspective it is clear that there is a clearly made case for a Cornish assembly, the petition pictured above outlines some powers. The Mebyon Kernow website clearly explains MK's position and ideas and the Cornish Constitutional Convention website offers research and publications outlining how an assembly would work. We might not know the exact details but we can be clear that plans for a Cornish assembly offer legislation to be written in Cornwall, for services -and importantly jobs- to be devolved to a Cornwall but for us to remain distinctly part of the UK, leaving some powers vested with central Westminster.

What does localism offer? how will a 'localist' Cornwall Council deliver the Conservative promises of 'distinct, self-confident but outward looking and enthusiastic part of the UK'. There are so many questions yet to be answered:

What powers will be devolved?
How will Cornwall be distinct?
How will these powers makes us 'self confident'?
Does Cornwall have a self confidence problem?
Will people in Cornwall make the decisions?
What decisions will Westminster make?
Will quangos, departments and bureaucrats be devolved to Cornwall?
Or will jobs and administration remain in London?
Will council tax pay for services previously supplied by central government?
When will the locals get a say in localism?

All these things are abundantly unclear, I would imagine the 'distinct' aspect of the benefits of localism is an out and out fabrication. It is impossible for everywhere to be under the same uniform Westminster localism policy and yet be distinct in any meaningful way.

One of the Tory arguments against a Cornish assembly deserves some mention and indeed merit, the old refrain it will cost taxpayers more, this is an effective political argument these days and they deploy it well:
"This should be less about paying for more politicians in a costly assembly and more about giving those councillors we already have a greater say."
So the simplistic logic an assembly would cost more, indeed it can not be denied. The reorganisation of government is a costly process whether it be devolution or umm localism (you say potato). If the accusation is that a Cornish assembly would be expensive what then is the true cost of all these unannounced policies of localism? Call me a cynic if you will, but no one can do more for less. If Cornwall Council is to do more, to take control of services and to make more decisions, this will cost more. Councillors salaries, civil servants wages, consultants fees (it is Cornwall Council after all), rental on buildings, electricity, fuel etc. If we are to argue costs of devolution, we should consider costs for both localism and an assembly. We should also consider plans for an assembly include devolution of tax payers money to Cornwall from the Treasury. Localism however is ambiguous, whether council tax will be raided or the Treasury for these extra cost of localist local government is as clear as mud.

The Conservative MPs for Camborne and Redruth, Truro and Falmouth can criticise the assembly campaign that is their right to do so, they can brush aside the 50,000 signatories (albeit ten years ago), if they want. But if a man elected by less than 16,000 people and a woman elected by less than 21,000 can hope to hold authority on the subject, will they please inform the general public of what their ideas actually are? And how these grand promises of a better future can be both realised and paid for? The cross party campaign for a Cornish Assembly has clear well researched ideas of how to implement devolution, our cards are on the table, but when will the government reveal its hand?

Cynical Devonwall foiled by cynical politics

The news is awash with news that the Liberal Democrats have pulled out their support for -the Tory gerrymandering- boundary changes and thus Devonwall. Which is great news obviously, but I can't help but feel that celebrating is not the right thing. After all the plans have not been defeated because there was little appetite for them, they've not been defeated because the Tamar should be a sacrosanct border or that in a democracy with a rising population the number of representatives should go up not down. But no not for any of these good reasons and indeed others the length and breadth of the UK but because the Conservatives have reneged on their coalition promise to reform the House of Lords and Clegg has in turn reneged on his promise to support boundary changes.

So all the arguing for the boundary changes by the Liberal Democrat party, voting for it in the Commons etc has now been cast aside. The question that I ask, speaks to the heart of Westminster democracy, why oh why can parties and MPs vote and argue for laws that they do not agree with? Surely life itself and especially parliamentary life is far too short to waste time on matters they do not agree with? If there is something that politicians should look at, if there is some reform that the UK electoral system needs, surely it is to rectify this problem? There are many qualities people seek in political parties and MPs but I doubt this moral flexibility in voting is one of them.

For more info on the Devonwall u turn see Dick Cole's blog here.

Cornwall Council needs to support the Penlee lifeboat day

I was extremely saddened to read today that the Penlee lifeboat day will not take place this year. The organisers are blaming the amount of forms and organisation and are quoted by the BBC as saying this is "Bureaucracy gone mad". I can't express my frustration properly at this situation. Penlee lifeboat day is a great event, after Golowan one of my favourite days of the year in Penzance. I have a great amount of respect for the RNLI and the volunteer crews that not only risk life and limb to save others but invest a huge amount of time in fundraising, training and out on shouts.

These people go the extra mile to help others, a sentiment that Cornwall Council could do well to learn. Why Cornwall Council -whether it be the councillors of the leading Conservative/ Independent group or civil servants- can not go the extra mile for our brave lifeboat crew and their essential fundraising is beyond me. We should be bending over backwards to help these people not snubbing them in such a way. I think the least Cornwall Council could do is help these people, give them assistance in running the event and make this event work. If they can't do this out of a sense of good will toward good people, perhaps they need to realise that without fundraising the essential lifeboat service couldn't exist, surely of benefit to Cornwall?

My pic from a previous Penlee Lifeboat day,
a great opportunity to see the RNLI in action and donate to them.

Why do English cities get devolution and not Cornwall?

Devolution has many benefits, among them it frees areas from "Whitehall control" to allow more local specific solutions to be found, it allows areas "to decide for themselves how to boost their local economies". Devolution promises to help "young people looking for jobs" and "businesses to expand". Now these arguments and the quotes in italics, are not the words of me or a member of Mebyon Kernow or the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament or a London Assembly member, they are not the words of a nationalist but of Nick Clegg. Announcing the plans to devolve power to eight English cities (Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield) the benefits for these cities are:

1. More power to invest in growth.
2. More freedom to support local businesses.
3. More power over budgets and resources to drive infrastructure and development.
4. Powers to deliver the skills training local people and businesses need.

Certainly these positive attributes of devolution are not merely confined to cities. Cornwall could do with more power to invest in growth. Cornish businesses could do with tailored help. In infrastructure too, we could do with some investment. There are obvious advantages to a tailored Cornish skills training package being rolled out to help our economy.

My only question is why can't the government see that Cornwall could benefit too from such measures? That a Cornish assembly could easily form an integral part of localism. It is obvious to me that is cities can be given the powers and responsibility to fix their own problems why not Kernow? We as much as anywhere on this isle deserve to have change, so we too can be ambitious, so we can drive growth by investing in infrastructure, skills and training. The time has come for Cornwall to gain devolution we were ignored when London, Scotland and Wales were granted their own powers, hopefully this time can be our time.

All quotes taken from the Communities and Local Government website.