Slow Down And Everyone's A Winner

Just over a year ago, I posted a couple of videos showing Nudge theory at its best,with a staircase being converted into a keyboard to encourage people to exercise and a bin that plays a falling sound when something is thrown into it to push people into putting their rubbish where it belongs. Volkswagen created these videos and ran a competition to find a new idea. The winning entry, shown above is a fantastically creative way of looking at something that is the bane of many people's lives. Swindon showed that speed cameras on their own are not effective. Maybe committing to the carrot rather than the stick is a better way forward after all?

Tuition Fees - Difficult But Correct Choice

There has been a lot written about tuition fees in the last few weeks and there will be plenty more next year when the rest of the changes are brought in. At the moment the only change in regulation has been the increase in fees to £6,000pa and £9,000pa. Separate amendments will need to be made to alter the interest rates, maximum repayment period and the minimum salary before repayments are collected. Despite the protests and newspapers' column inches, there still appears to be a lack of understanding about how the changes will affect students and why the changes are being made.

I was opposed to the original introduction of tuition fees for many of the reasons that people are now up in arms about the increase. Since that time the number of students has increased by 44%. The choice to have as many students studying fulltime for a University degree is a political one and one that seems to be set in stone. Assuming that this won't be reversed, the original Lib Dem position of scrapping tuition fees is simply not affordable.

Neither is the status quo. The Russell Group which represents 20 of the leading Universities suggested that they may have needed to go private, should the Browne Review not have recommended an increase in fees. This would have meant that they could charge what fees they wanted and demanded them up front. The London School of Economics, despite having a reputation of being a home for left-wing firebrands and having one of the largest banners at the protests, went one step further in commissioning a report on going private which was presented to their board.

This leaves two choices, an increase in fees or a graduate tax. The latter was looked at by Vince Cable but dismissed in favour of the former. Alan Johnson, the Shadow Chancellor originally called a graduate tax 'unworkable' until whipped in by his fledgling leader. There are a few problems with a tax. This would be become payable at the ridiculously low salary level of £6,475pa and would remain with you for the rest of your life; far more punitive than the current system. Any other change would have been difficult to collect. A tax would not be payable if the graduate moved abroad to work and there is no link between the amount payable and the service that the student received at university. The tax would lead to the richer paying less and the poorer paying more.

So we are left with an increase in fees. There seems to be 3 main concerns.

1. Will this stop poorer people going to university?

The BBC reported that a survey by Nat West showed 40% of sixth formers saying that tuition fees made them consider not going to university. The date of this response? 13th June 1999, the summer after David Blunkett first introduced fees. Since this time student numbers have increased substantially. Although £150million has been found to reduce the amount of fees payable by the poorest 20% of the population, no parents will need to pay as fees are not payable up front, students will only pay when they earn more than £21,000pa and the monthly amount payable will be less than at present.

2. Will it affect social mobility?

Social mobility starts at school. Poorer people are often held back from going to university because they don't get the grades at A level in the first place. We need to ensure that opportunity exists far early in a student's life. OECD figures show graduates earn around 50% more in their lifetime than non-graduates, with female graduates earning double their counterparts who finish education at secondary level.

Allowing the money to follow the student will allow them to consider their choice of course more carefully and make the university more accountable to them as a customer. People have been concerned about the future of some institutions. However, should it be right for one London university to be able to claim £50million in funding for students that don't exist?

The higher £9,000 tuition fee charge will only be allowed if the university can clearly demonstrate that they are taking measures to further encourage social mobility. It was interesting to note a letter in the Daily Telegraph written by 18 Vice-Chancellors and Principals, expressing their fears of the effect on social mobility should the increase in fees not go through Parliament.

Is it fair?

In a word, yes.

It is only fair to taxpayers that students make a contribution towards their education. (Education can be considered a right, but further education is exactly that; education to further one's development).

It is only fair to students that neither they nor their parents should have to find any money up front.

It is only fair to graduates that they should pay less than at present with many being £45 pm better off.

It is only fair to poorer students that they should only pay when they start earning a reasonable income, some 40% higher than under the present system.

There has been some concern about the effect on graduates getting mortgages. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has confirmed that lenders will not take the total debt into account when considering how much to lend. Unlike a personal loan, it is very difficult to default, with payments being taken at source, it is not repayable if unemployed or taking a career break and is automatically written-off after 30 years. The only effect that it will have is that repayments reduce disposable income. This is the case at present but since repayments will be lower, graduates will have more disposable income with which to service a mortgage.

Another concern has been the timing of the introduction of the higher fee structure. This will start in 2012 for new students. Existing students will not be affected as they will have already entered a contract with the university. Similarly the repayment structure will be introduced to come in later, as the 2012 students graduate so they will be coordinated.

The actions of a significant minority of students on the protests have done them no favours. They have good reason to debate this difficult issue but it needs to be done in an informed, sensible way. Smashing windows, pulling policemen off their horses and throwing fire extinguishers from a roof into a crowd does the student's cause no good whatsoever. Instead, they should acquaint themselves with the facts on fees from this excellent website and then let us have a grown-up debate about this important decision.

Peers Getting Their Pleasure

Working in the Houses of Parliament often throws up something new and something surprising. A number of us were slightly perturbed when we saw this on one of the screens known as annunciators which lets everyone know what is happening in the House of Lords.

Thanks to the BBC website, I can tell you that it is not as fruity as it might suggest. The Lords has a dinner break and if nothing else is happening, they will 'adjourn during pleasure'. Similarly if the Lords has sent a Bill back to the Commons, they may adjourn during pleasure, waiting for the Commons to debate the matter and refer it back. This sometimes happens with controversial pieces of legislation that are debated long into the night, with the two Houses playing ping-pong. The Commons usually gets its way in the end.

Joining Up The Loss Of Life

I am heading out shortly to Belmont to attend the Civic Act of Remembrance and the Remembrance Day Service. Following that I am going to a fundraising lunch for Help for Heroes.

Whenever we reflect on those that have fallen, we cannot help consider the massive waste of life that war brings, not least the two World Wars when families, villages and towns were ripped apart. However, as General Sir David Richards has just said on the Andrew Marr Show, it is important to remember the achievements that our armed forces have made in various conflicts including those still underway. This is not to glorify war, but to rationalise and determine its place in the history of the world.

I have been on the edge of my seat watching and waiting for news of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, an inspirational lady who I have written about before and will again. Meanwhile, my uncle has sent me another part of the jigsaw of my family's history in Burma. Last year, he found records at the Rangoon Memorial of the death of my great-uncles Patrick and Terence. This year, he has found a poignant memorial placed in The Statesman newspaper in India on 25th June 1945 by my great-grandparents. I will dedicate my silence to them as well as those fallen in Afghanistan.

LibDems Say "Budgeting is Not An Exact Science"

At the meeting of the Executive of Sutton Council on Monday, Cllr Graham Tope spoke about the business plan for the controversial £8.5million Sutton Life Centre. As expected, the business plan was, to quote one Sutton insider, "optimistic". Bearing in mind this is only to break even, Sutton taxpayers have every reason to remain worried about the burden that they will have to carry to hide the embarrassment of the Liberal Democrat administration.

Cllr Tope explained that "budgeting is not an exact science", something that will come as news to business people up and down the country who realise that this is the polar opposite of the truth. Homeopathy is not an exact science. Budgeting, however, is a detailed appraisal of the future using case studies, market research, and an assessment of how best to use a certain amount of capital and income. Assumptions can be kept to a bare minimum by taking a pragmatic, not dogmatic view, something that does not come easily to the administration in Sutton.

The original budget for 2010-11 required £131,000 of taxpayers' money to keep the fledgling Life Centre open. The latest update shows that they will have spent £190,000 over and above this, a whopping 145% over budget. This is largely put down to an 'underachievement of income', a euphemism if ever there was one. One-off costs covered the remaining overspend. One of these costs was £40,000 for a website. Apart from the fact that this is an extraordinary amount to be spending in addition to the £208,000 Sutton Council spent on their main site, why is this an overspend? It is not beyond the wit of man to realise that a decent website would be needed to market the Centre. Why was this not included in the original budget? It is oversights like this that show why the Council believes that budgeting is not an exact science. You can't just put a wet finger in the air before undertaking a massive project like this. The business plan has more space given over to 'One Planet Living' than spreadsheets. There is nothing exact about 'One Planet Living' It really doesn't matter how many planets you need to live on if they are all bankrupt.

Since the original concept came about, the Council won a Government grant of £4million. Following this, the scheme doubled in size to fit this extra money, rather than the sensible approach of keeping this vaguely within reason. The builders were already booked to start digging the day after the council meeting which approved the decision. After even the most intransigent fan of the Centre realised that most schools realised that parents did a better job of teaching their children how to behave and so failed to book places, other activities have been brought into the Centre to justify its existence.

• Ex-offenders will come along to be told not to re offend (could the money have not been used for Job Clubs and drug rehabilitation?)
• Council meetings and other community meetings will take place at the Centre (taking important income away from schools and other community facilities)
• A Life Clinic will be set up (No, I don't know either?!)
• Some School Governors' training will be held here (threatening the future of the Glastonbury Centre that has already been saved from imminent closure once)

Nick Clegg opened the centre at an event which was mainly attended by the senior management

of Sutton Council and Liberal Democrat councillors. Half a dozen children from nearby Glenthorne School came along as guinea pigs. It would be interesting to know quite how many thousands of pounds of lost productivity it took to have the great and the good at this corporate backslapping exercise.

The Sutton Life Centre is being held up as an example of the Big Society as part of Sutton Council's status as a 'Big Society Vanguard Council'. People are struggling to understand what the Big Society concept actually is and this project pushes that understanding further away from the truth. Big Society should be about people taking back areas from the state to be under their own control. It is about people not buildings. The Sutton Life Centre is anathema to the Big Society, instead standing as a paternalistic, patronising monolith that illustrates the real centralising views of Sutton's Liberal Democrats; Power coming down from Whitehall is fine, as long as it stops at the Civic Offices, where politicians know best. That is not localism. That is not freeing individuals. That is just bringing the nanny state closer to home.

Have a look and judge for yourself if the £40k website is worth it and the £8.5million (10% of council tax collected in the entire Borough for a year) was well spent

Thanks For Your Support

I'm always really grateful for the support of friends and regular readers in my attempt to keep Sutton residents aware of what is happening in Sutton politics. I am especially glad for the support whilst I try to continue alongside a busy job in Westminster. So thank you to all who voted in the recent Total Politics Blog Awards. Your support helped me to achieve:

• 2nd Councillor in the UK
• 17th Conservative blog
• 48th Right Wing blog
• 107th overall political blog

Yes, I am aware that I am no longer a councillor! However, since most of the entries were written when I was in office, I think that's fair enough. Anyway, thank you again for sticking with me whilst posting is slack. It all goes towards helping me rediscover my political mojo. There is plenty left to do in Sutton.

Paying People To Hang Around On High Street

Recently Sutton Council held an event, 'The Art of Suburbia' to reopen the High Street. The funding for the 2 day event was £81,300 of which £36,000 was from the Arts Council, meaning that taxpayers living outside Sutton were helping the Council to indulge itself. The relaunch was not exactly as described with lighting columns left disconnected and lumps of tarmac crudely filling holes left along the pavement. Work was not due to be completed for another week, having run overtime.

The headline act 'Trans Expresse' (pictured right) were a French troupe of drummers whose piece de resistance was to attach themselves to one of the biggest cranes in London and drum in middair on a giant children's mobile. This was witnessed by about 250 people on a cold, dark Friday evening. That'll be £162.50 per person to watch someone hanging around on Sutton High Street, something people can do for free on most days.

On the Saturday, an extraordinary claim by the Council that 25,000 came to see the launch. I'm not sure who counted nor if the people that just came to shop (or even just hang around) were included in that figure. Nonetheless, even allowing for the most rose-tinted of spectacles, this appears optimistic. Those that did come witnessed a giant robot, some giant painting and a giant accident when a lady in a motorised scooter drove off the edge of a raised platform on the new Trinity Square.

Meanwhile the main local paper, the Sutton Guardian, were hugged closely by the Council who made them 'Official Media Partners', thus ensuring that the headlines that followed were favourable. Fortunately, the Guardian followed up the next week by asking residents what they thought of the overall expense.

The irony was not lost when reading the launch day programme which explained that one of the groups of performance artists were named "The Bureau of Silly Ideas." (Too many jokes, too little time so I'll leave you to add your punchlines.)

Sutton Council Just Don't Get It - Part 1

From the Council which gave you £25k totem poles sited opposite a cash-strapped hospital, comes the latest wheeze in how to spray taxpayers' money around on 'art'.

The wooden menagerie pictured opposite has been concreted into the pavement on Sutton High Street where there was previously an open space. The metal globe sculpture has been relocated so that people avoiding the wooden fish to go to All Bar One and the Civic Office crash straight into it.

Lest we forget within the apparent benefits for this £3million splurge of your cash was the statement "Wider footways, better road crossings and less clutter will create a people-friendly zone."

I'm not sure that mocking laughter was the reaction first envisaged by the Lib Dem Council cabinet who approved this project, but that is what appears to be the first reaction of those walking by.

We are still waiting for the 'green wall' to be installed on the face of Wilkinsons, which involves a lawn to be laid vertically up the front of the shop. When challenged over such expenditure, the Lib Dem administration claim that the £3million would have just be spent in another borough. That's just not good enough. Whilst we all reevaluate the services that we receive and our own personal incomes as a result of the massive deficit created over the last few years, it is not acceptable for councillors to spend such amounts on needless projects. How many wooden fish will it take to fill one of the many empty shops on the High Street? How will a grass curtain on the front of one of the busier shops on the High Street help the hot dog seller that is being thrown off the pitch that she has held for the last 15 years? The north end of the High Street will remain largely a ghost town, with the lion's share of the investment within yards of the Civic Offices. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind for the councillors that have been embolden by their win at the last election leaving them another four years to rack up the bills for Sutton's taxpayers.

Leaving on a largely positive note, I am glad that another one of the Conservative manifesto commitments was adopted by siting recycling bins next to normal bins along the High Street. It's just a shame that the brushed metal used makes them look a decade old already.

Big Society to Save Sutton From Big Mistake?

The Leader of the Council in Sutton has joined David Cameron on his trip to India to tell people there about his very own white elephant, the controversial £8million Sutton Life Centre.

Sutton has been picked as one of four councils to pioneer the Big Society as a Liberal Council, alongside Labour Liverpool and Conservative-run Windsor & Maidenhead and Eden Valley. Sutton have picked four projects to trial

1.give people influence for transport decisions and allowing greater local choice in schemes that suit them

Essentially this is keeping Smarter Travel Sutton going now that the £5million Transport for London funding has been spent.

2.train a new generation of community organisers

In a serendipitous move, a team of 'young advisers' will meet in the Sutton Life Centre attracting another revenue stream for the building that still has no meaningful business plan and an uncertain future. Ostensibly this is to help 'continue' to allow the Council to consult local residents. Sutton has one of the poorest records in London when residents ask whether they feel if they can influence local decision making. Promotional banners were put up along residential streets telling people that they can influence decisions last year so that the Council could help boost their survey figures and so hit a government target that attracted some funding. So they spent some taxpayers money to get some more taxpayers money. Not the most efficient way to do things.

3.give communities the power to green their neighbourhoods

This will help fund the Hackbridge project, which aspires to make this part of the Borough 'the greenest place to live in the UK'. This ambitious project has struggled for funding since its inception.

4.give people a greater say in local health provision

The Council is a major commissioner of services from the National Health Service, in particular for Adult Social Care. It is right that health provision should be moved away from the great monoliths of the Primary Care Trusts and closer to local people but I wonder if this move has been superceded by the Government's plans to scrap Primary Care Trusts, putting the power and decision-making with GPs.

You'll see a thread with the first three. Sutton's LibDems are saying that the Big Society has already started in Sutton. I say that they've found three projects that were struggling for cash and have latched onto a sugar daddy.

The Big Society is a great concept, that has not been discussed widely enough yet to be understood by many. However, this isn't it. Handing down power to the Local Authority from central government is just a first stepping stone. Free schools, giving spending decisions to GPs, giving voters the power of recall, these are all examples of handing power back down as close as is possible to where decisions are made and should be the way ahead. Instead, here in Sutton, we'll see the majority of residents shrug their shoulders at best and continue to rightly complain about why decisions are made about paving the High Street for £3m and putting up the Sutton Life Centre at £8m without them being consulted first. Sutton could and should have been bolder in putting forward ideas. Maybe, and whisper it quietly now, they could have asked residents how they would see the Big Society manifest itself in Sutton?

Local Government Around The World - Part 2

An interesting council story comes to me from Singapore. Friends staying over there were disturbed by the host family's dogs barking at a cobra, rearing up and hissing at them near the front door. They called the local equivalent of pest control who are adept at getting rid of snakes.

The next day, the snake man came all kitted out ready for anything...except one thing. He refused to step into the house because of the dogs.

Their bark was definitely not worse than the snake's bite. Is this Singapore's equivalent of Health & Safety?

Local Government Around The World - Part 1

Maywood, California: The Independent reports that this small bluecollar town has outsourced all of its services to other councils and private contractors. Everything: policing, bin collection, school crossing. Everyone got the sack and new teams came in from various parts. The City Treasurer said "You have single-handedly destroyed this city" before getting the tin-tack but a month later the view has changed. The gangs have moved on, the parks and leisure centre are still open and doing well. The insurers of the old police service had refused to pay out on public liability claims because of the amount of compensation claims relating to police misconduct. Quite some change.


Clearing out the Civic Offices would be extreme and unneccessary but there is always scope for Councils to concentrate on what they do best and leave other activities to those who can do things better. We already have plenty of other companies and organisations running services for us in Sutton, from bin collection to another council running our communication department. We need to do more of this, market-testing the contracts on a regular basis.

However, should the Council be teaching children how not to take drugs at the Sutton Life Centre? Should the Council have a paternalistic view on Youth Services rather than allowing organisations with great track records across London the freedom to offer something more relevant to young people? Should the Council be paying people to tell us how to 'live on one planet'. The Council has a key role as a facilitator but it doesn't need to remain after making the introductions, becoming an obstacle for people to cross to get things done. Councils like Sutton need to know when to simplify and when to let go entirely. There's plenty of scope here before we do a Maywood.

'This Is Going To Hurt You More Than It Is Us.'

Sutton Council met as a whole to discuss business for the first time last week, more than two months after the election. The first debate was to vote on the first decision that the LibDem administration took in the first week of office, to increase the total cost of councillor allowances.


They attempted to soften the blow of taking on two more cabinet roles at £34,440 between them by trimming the amount paid to local committee chairs (We'd proposed halving this) and totally scrapping the Opposition Deputy Leader's allowance (So one Conservative takes almost as big a hit as five LibDems.) To their credit, the Conservative Opposition rightly accepted this cut as unlike the LibDems, we could not look residents in the eye whilst cutting frontline services, knowing that they are paying for increased allowances for politicians. We are residents too.


Their final sleight of hand was to include the removal of political assistants from both parties. Again, this is fine as a separate decision but somewhat duplicitous to say that they are taking a cut. The Conservative Political Assistant left at the end of their contract in May. The Liberal Democrat Assistant has now morphed into a 'neutral' council officer...looking after the Liberal Democrat administration. Political assistants came to Sutton after a previous holder of the Head of Leadership post was overtly political whilst being bound by the restrictions of being a Council Officer. Now, it'll just be swept under the carpet again.


Cllr Tony Shields made the valid point that increasing the number of cabinet members of the Council equated to 10 pay rises. If you do less work for the same money, this is an improvement in your working conditions that is equivalent to a pay rise. Ask anyone that has been in negotiations with a union.


Lord Tope in his speech at the meeting, expressed the view that it is an unedifying sight to watch politicians arguing about their own pay. I have agreed with him on this on several occasions. However, he then went on to argue that it is not just about how much money councillors get as individuals but how much they value the job as a councillor, saying if we did not value the role then how could they possibly expect anyone else to value it. So says someone that has been in politics for 30 years and has earned more than £100,000 per year from politics for several of those years until recently stepping down from one of his many roles. Meanwhile, those who have run a business know that this is a specious argument. Yes, we ought to market-test our allowances, benchmarking them against other authorities. The recent independent review of allowances in London did this. However, we need to pay a rate that is commensurate to the job at hand.


The reason that I wanted to halve allowances for Local Committee chairs is that £9,000 was far too much for the majority of them who chaired 5 meetings a year, attended two other short meetings in advance of each committee and took a few phone calls (say, one hour per week for this). Beyond this, they were taking up the slack of less-effective ward councillors who should be capable of covering ward specific issues. Lord Tope may put a value of £125 per hour on this role (the equivalent of an annual salary of £260,000) I certainly don't. This is what is allowed to happen if you get disconnected from real life and start talking about arbitrary values rather than commonsense.

Competition: Song for Sutton

This brilliant video based on Jay-Z's song 'Empire State of Mind' has been all over the news this weekend after attracting 1.2million viewers on YouTube. I especially liked the reference to the fact that Newport is twinned with Guangxi Province in China, (there's no province finer.)

With the dicy economic climate at the moment, we need to attract people and investment into Sutton and, quite frankly, we need a laugh. So, put your thinking caps on. Give us your best lyrics for the next big thing, 'Sutton State of Mind'.

Tackling the Pothole in the Age of Austerity

Sutton Council are still manfully trying to keep up with filling in the potholes caused by the icy weather in February. This was after the LibDem administration slashed £20k from the Highways Winter Maintenance budget whilst roads were still icy in 2009. Park Hill has just been resurfaced. Hopefully this will

a better job than in Beeches Avenue where residents have complained that the repairs made the road more bumpy than when it was full of potholes.

The entire roads maintenance budget for 2009-10 was around £500k. A single road in St Helier needs some £450k worth of work to bring it up to scratch. Removing speed bumps whilst resurfacing would have released tens of thousands of pounds to add to this meagre budget. The new LibDem administration are unlikely to go down this route so how will they ensure that this important frontline service is kept up whilst the overall Council budget is reduced by 25%? As ever, I try to be helpful so here's some suggestions.

1. Guerilla gardening. UK Design student, Peter Dungey suggests filling in potholes with plants "like oases in asphalt deserts." Sutton likes to bill itself as a 'green' council but this might be a step too far. The flowers will quickly be more pressed than Alan Partridge's slacks Verdict: Quirky but rubbish.

2. Pothole Adverts. KFC has offered to fill in potholes in 5 cities in America for free, putting a chalk logo over the repair advertising the fried chicken restaurant chain. This has not been without problems. PETA have offered double the money to put their own logos attacking KFC Despite promising to fund a portion of Sutton Scene through advertising, Sutton Council continue to fail to get to grips with advertising sales so they may struggle with this one. Who would advertise on Sutton's roads. Answers in the comments please. Also how off-putting would these be to drivers. Verdict: Interesting but dangers ahead.

3. Partnering with GenShock. A new invention takes the energy released from hitting a pothole and converts it into electricity. At the moment shock absorbers simply protect us from bumps. GenShock allows the jarring experience to power the windscreen wipers. Now I can see this appealing to the LibDem administration, renewable energy and embracing speed bumps and potholes at the same time; three birds with one environmentally-friendly stone. Forget filling the craters, make it your civic duty to stress your spine. Verdict: Clever invention but no-one tell the LibDems about it unless we want to see a Council grant go on this.

4. Get the holes filled cheaply. Market-test the contract for road maintenance, ensuring that quality and a high service level agreement is bound into the contract. Then take the cheapest contractor that puts in a tender and get more holes filled for the money. Divert funds from unneccessary road humps due to be replaced. Verdict Commonsense but...Nah! Not a chance.

Total Politics - I Need Your Vote

Now I'm going to be a bit cheeky. For the last two years, I've asked you to vote in these awards and you have been kind enough to help me become one of the leading political blogs in the country. I've hardly posted in the last few months but I'm going to ask once more anyway. I want to help bring you the news of what is happening in your name in the Civic Offices and in Westminster, so I'll gradually make the time to blog more often. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would vote for me as one of your top political blogs, instructions below:

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

I can't help prompt you with my favourites, apart from pointing you to the blogroll on the right hand side of this page. Happy voting and thank you.

A Bit Unneccessary

Since starting a new job in Westminster, I've found it both hard to get the time to blog and to see much evidence of anything happening in Sutton bar increases in councillors' allowances. Having got out of the habit of thinking about council work as soon as I woke up, a few text messages received this week from a single anonymous texter (07812 984365) brought it back.

5am, 14/7/10
HI SCULLYWAG. HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE PLAIN MR INSTEAD OF COUNCILLOR? DUMPED ON THE SCRAP HEAP BY YOUR NEIGHBOURS, VIA THE BALLOT BOX. YOUR CHANCE OF BEING RE-ELECTED WOULD BE BETTER IN BURMA! GOODBYE TO YOU!

8.39 14/7/10
NOW THERE ARE ONLY 10 TORIES LEFT ON THE COUNCIL. FOR YOUR OLD JOB. WHY NOT, PICK A NAME OUT OF A HAT AS YOU ARE ALL TARNISHED WITH THE SAME BRUSH. GOODBYE TO YOU!

8.50 14/7/10
CAMERON SHOULD LOOK AMONGEST THE ETON TOFFS FOR CUTS. INSTEAD OF HAMMERING THE POOR. THATS WHY YOUR NEIGHBOURS DIDN'T VOTE FOR YOU. THEY KNOW THE TORIES ONLY LOOK AFTER THE RICH. GOODBYE TO YOU!

18.38 14/7/10
I SEE BARNET TORY COUNCILLORS HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES A HEFTY PAY RISE. TYPICAL OF YOUR MOB. DO AS YOUR TOLD NOT AS I DO. GOODBYE TO YOU!
(all capitals, punctuation and spelling, sic.)

I don't know why someone feels so moved to start having a pop at five o'clock in the morning, two months after the election, but it is intriguing that people feel that people who volunteer for public service are fair game for this, though I admired the poetic sign offs. At least they got it off their chest and I hope that they are happier for it.

Let Them Eat Cake

Experts predict that Councils across the country are going to have to cut their budgets by 20-25% over the next 4 years. Sutton will not escape the difficult times ahead. There will be some tough decisions ahead.

The new LibDem administration took their first decision within days of resuming power. As is often the way, they got an unpopular decision through early whilst everyone was watching the coalition Goverment in Westminster come together. They have now increased their Cabinet from eight councillors to ten. This means that their chosen few collect an extra £34,440 between them in allowances. This is in stark contrast with the Conservative plans to reduce the cost of councillors by £13,000. This leaves Sutton taxpayers more than £47,000 out of pocket each year. That's about 50p from every household, two new teachers or resurfacing 1 mile of road.

Just last month, it was revealed that Sutton Council was keen to be a pilot area for the previous Government's plan to introduce bin taxes for people who they decide do not recycle enough. A second attempt to introduce fortnightly bin collection is being planned for next year. It's a shame for all of us that rather than learn some humility, the large majority acheived by the Liberal Democrats has emboldened them to ensure that residents take the brunt of the cuts. They are happier to cut jobs and services as long as they look after themselves.

Time To Get Over The Election Loss.

It's been a few weeks since the General and Local Elections here in Sutton and I've had a bit of time away from blogging to lick my wounds, gather my thoughts and get a job having been unceremoniously dumped out of office. It's a hollow feeling, one minute making plans genuinely believing that we might take control of the Borough and wanting to be able to start work the day after and then another minute realising that not only did we get stuffed, I lost my own seat. There are plenty of others across the country in the same boat.

It's a shame in so many ways. There are many unsuccessful Conservative council candidates that would have made brilliant contributions to the future of this Borough that will not be able to. It is clear that there are a few reluctant councillors on the Liberal Democrat side who did not expect to get elected and are now going to have to step up to the plate. I hope, as a local resident who has to live with the consequences of their decisions that they do. I know that the Conservative group remaining on the Council will work well, but it won't be easy to provide a loud enough Opposition voice with 80% of the councillors belonging to one party. It is predicted that the Local Government budget will be cut by 20-25% over the next few years. Now is a bad time to let poor decision-making go unchecked.

I have really enjoyed serving as a councillor and working as Leader of the Opposition. Sutton is fortunate to have some great council officers who keep things on track despite the politicians. I'll miss working with them and the many friends that I have made from both sides of the political divide. The kind words that I have received from all quarters mean a lot and soften the blow.

What next? I've started working with a newly-elected MP. It means a long commute until his Westminster office is sorted. I've done it before so it is largely familiar territory apart from the new terrible expenses regime. Which brings me to my last point for this post, what to do with this blog? Posting might be light for the next few weeks whilst I am travelling, but I daresay there will be plenty of Sutton news to talk about and the wider political scene. It'll morph into something soon. In the meantime, I'm still twittering away. It's easier and more immediate. Either way, I expect to be around in some shape or form, working for a better Sutton.

Don't Just Hope For A Better Sutton

The news is all about the final stages of the closest General Election for a generation but there is another crucial decision for residents in Sutton to make this Thursday. Council elections mean that we also get to vote for our three local councillors and ultimately, who runs the Council.

After 24 years of Liberal Democrat control, the ruling party have become a tired, complacent administration, forgetting why they sought election in the first place. We need fresh thinking in Sutton. The difficult economic times will bring tough decisions and we will need strong leadership to protect key council services.

Sutton Conservatives have spent 3 years researching their 100 pledge manifesto. Our collective experience in running small businesses, employing people and working at the highest level in public services allows us to tackle this situation head-on, bringing new angles to problem solving and steering us all through difficult times.

We cannot reward years of taking residents for granted. The green garden waste charge cost us all £800,000 to reverse, the Sutton Life Centre is sucking up the equivalent of 10% of the entire annual Adult Social Services budget for the Borough to build and the repaving of Sutton High Street is costing us the same as four years' worth of road resurfacing.

I don't know about you but I'm simply not rich enough to afford the Liberal Democrats here in Sutton. Don't just hope for a better Sutton on Thursday - join me in voting for it.

Scully on Tweety Hall

Among the hard slog across my ward and the rest of the Borough, I met Arun from Tweety Hall who interviewed me outside my house about social media and how it might affect this election. The interview looks very professional, so well done Arun.

I'm not convinced that this is anywhere near the 'Internet election' that some had hoped for, heralding new media as a game changing force. However, Twitter in particular has proved to be a fast way of spreading news and giving momentum to stories that may have been lost in a small diary column in a newspaper.