Showing posts with label Taxpayers Alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxpayers Alliance. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 July 2018
Why the Taxpayers Alliance needs to shut up or learn something about local government
I can't speak for others in local government but the Taxpayers Alliance really gets my goat. And I say this as someone who wants low taxes and small government. The TPA seem to specialise in a particular low rent form of attack - sending freedom of information requests to every council usually to obtain information already publicly available. This information is then totted up and badged as waste. Thousands of hours - all funded by the taxpayer naturally - spent providing trite information about councillor expenses, officer pay, trade union facilities time or numbers of press officers. The TPA then bungs out a press release screaming about waste, how hard-working officers are 'overpaid' or councillors travelling the land on junkets.
The problem is that none of this febrile investigative work gets anywhere near the heart of the TPA's alleged mission of lower taxes and smaller government. It gets them a headline - "Ten Borsetshire top bosses earn over £100,000" or "Big Borough Chief Executive earns more than the Prime Minister" - but the effect of this isn't to get us better, smaller government but rather to undermine public confidence in their local government. The TPA will then get some information about potholes and claim that, if we didn't pay chief executives so much money or employ press officers then we'd have all the cash needed to fix those potholes - despite this being utter tripe.
Don't get me wrong, this is good politics - at least if you're looking for a stick to beat incumbent council leaderships - but it completely and totally misses the point. If you want smaller, cheaper local government then the only way to do it is for one or both of two things to happen - councils stop doing things they do right now and/or councils start charging people for the services we give them (see green waste collections, for example). At the moment - not that the TPA ever mention this, of course - top tier local councils spend between 50% and 80% of their budgets providing social services and social care - in Bradford's case about £180,000,000. Paying the chief executive £120,000 instead of £160,000 isn't going to make one jot of difference to this problem bar making it more difficult to recruit a good enough person to run the organisation.
I was talking recently about the difficulties councils have recruiting and retaining planning officers (typical pay £30,000-50,000). As soon as we get an experienced officer with his or her boots under the table, up pops a far better paid opportunity in private consultancy and off zooms the experienced planning officer. The same applies for property and planning lawyers, good accountants, leisure centre managers, and human resources officers. Maybe the nice folk working for the TPA are doing so for love and a bowl of rice every second day but in the real world there's a competitive market for the skills needed to run large and complex organisations and the professional expertise to deliver the services those organisations provide.
If the Taxpayers Alliance wants to meet its mission of lower taxes it needs to start saying what it is that government should stop providing so as to do this - not just infrastructure projects like HS2 but actual revenue services like defence, benefits, health, education or pensions. It would be more interesting to see a picture painted of the small state, low tax future implied by the TPA's mission but all we get is attacks on petty waste (and often not even waste but legitimate spending) and the wages of senior offers - wages that aren't competitive and which often result in poor management in those local councils.
It's time we started to push back at the TPA - for sure they provide good copy - over local government pay, service delivery and funding. Because the TPA is wrong, damages the reputation of local government and prefers a cheap headline over a thoughtful contribution to the debate about how English local government is run and funded.
....
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Propping up declining political parties is not why we elect MPs or pay taxes
It’s time for some honesty about political parties. They are dying out. Only the ambitious and the anorak join them now. And ordinary folk just use them as a cipher for voting choice that compromises the discussion of the issues and the effectiveness of our democracy.
There are currently 334 registered political parties in the UK – I don’t propose to trawl through each of these but have focused on the main ones (defined as those with a public profile and a chance of getting folk elected) excluding Northern Ireland to give membership figures:
British National Party (BNP) 12,000 members
Conservative Party 290,000
Green Party 8,000
Labour Party 160,000
Liberal Democrats 65,000
Plaid Cymru 2,500
Respect 5,000 (pre-split)
Scottish National Party 15,000
UKIP 15,000
This amounts to some 572,500 political activists – to which can be added various “parties” created as vehicles for independent councillors, assorted trots and commies and collections of what we’ll call “others”. Perhaps 600,000 folk actively engaged with the party system that, under current legislation, is a core component of our political system:
“The Bill will help to prevent the use of misleading candidates' descriptions on ballot papers at elections, thus helping to protect the identity of political parties and, therefore, the integrity of the political process. In addition, the Bill will allow, for the first time, a registered party's emblem to be printed on the ballot paper as a way of helping to distinguish as clearly as possible between candidates from different parties. (Jack Straw introducing the second reading)”
The assumption here is that we – the poor electorate – are unable to make a judgment who to vote for without the state prompting us towards one or other “registered” political party (you don’t have to register your party but if you don’t all the jolly emblems and descriptions are barred to you).
The problem is that politicians – elected as representatives of their constituents but in reality representing their party – voted to protect the role of political parties because those parties are declining rapidly. Back in 1953 when the Conservative Party had nearly 3 million members and the Labour Party in excess of 1 million, there was no need to protect the party “identity” in law!
However, the real reason for the registering political parties, for requiring all kinds of onerous reporting of income and membership, is to pave the way for state funding of political parties. For us poor taxpayers to pay for those posh London addresses, spin doctors and policy groups – mostly because we’ve stopped giving the money directly because political parties are anachronistic: relics of a different age.
We no longer need to clump together in class-based groups so as to protect our interests – we’re all pretty much middle class with much the same interests as each other. And in the main this interest involves keeping the Government and its agents out of our lives, getting on with raising our families, enjoying the house & garden on which we’ve spent all the cash the government leaves us after tax and not bothering our neighbours overmuch with our individual problems.
In truth we don’t need political parties. We don’t need to spend taxpayers’ money on sustaining the 1% of the adult population who join those parties. And we don’t need special protections or status in law for such bodies. If people like me want to join them that’s our business and we should not expect any privileged status or treatment for the organisation just because they are engaged in politics.
There are currently 334 registered political parties in the UK – I don’t propose to trawl through each of these but have focused on the main ones (defined as those with a public profile and a chance of getting folk elected) excluding Northern Ireland to give membership figures:
British National Party (BNP) 12,000 members
Conservative Party 290,000
Green Party 8,000
Labour Party 160,000
Liberal Democrats 65,000
Plaid Cymru 2,500
Respect 5,000 (pre-split)
Scottish National Party 15,000
UKIP 15,000
This amounts to some 572,500 political activists – to which can be added various “parties” created as vehicles for independent councillors, assorted trots and commies and collections of what we’ll call “others”. Perhaps 600,000 folk actively engaged with the party system that, under current legislation, is a core component of our political system:
“The Bill will help to prevent the use of misleading candidates' descriptions on ballot papers at elections, thus helping to protect the identity of political parties and, therefore, the integrity of the political process. In addition, the Bill will allow, for the first time, a registered party's emblem to be printed on the ballot paper as a way of helping to distinguish as clearly as possible between candidates from different parties. (Jack Straw introducing the second reading)”
The assumption here is that we – the poor electorate – are unable to make a judgment who to vote for without the state prompting us towards one or other “registered” political party (you don’t have to register your party but if you don’t all the jolly emblems and descriptions are barred to you).
The problem is that politicians – elected as representatives of their constituents but in reality representing their party – voted to protect the role of political parties because those parties are declining rapidly. Back in 1953 when the Conservative Party had nearly 3 million members and the Labour Party in excess of 1 million, there was no need to protect the party “identity” in law!
However, the real reason for the registering political parties, for requiring all kinds of onerous reporting of income and membership, is to pave the way for state funding of political parties. For us poor taxpayers to pay for those posh London addresses, spin doctors and policy groups – mostly because we’ve stopped giving the money directly because political parties are anachronistic: relics of a different age.
We no longer need to clump together in class-based groups so as to protect our interests – we’re all pretty much middle class with much the same interests as each other. And in the main this interest involves keeping the Government and its agents out of our lives, getting on with raising our families, enjoying the house & garden on which we’ve spent all the cash the government leaves us after tax and not bothering our neighbours overmuch with our individual problems.
In truth we don’t need political parties. We don’t need to spend taxpayers’ money on sustaining the 1% of the adult population who join those parties. And we don’t need special protections or status in law for such bodies. If people like me want to join them that’s our business and we should not expect any privileged status or treatment for the organisation just because they are engaged in politics.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Of course Bradford Council talks to local residents - and that costs money!
Now this is a sensitive subject for a marketing professional to embark on - defending the budget for communications of England's fourth biggest local council. And, it's rather more sensitive when you're also a councillor on that authority!
According to my dear friends at the Taxpayers Alliance (whoever said they were a Tory front?) Bradford Council spends £6 million on communications. Phew, I hear you say! All that cash on spin doctors, propaganda and glossy brochures - whatever happened to spending priorities then guys! Surely you can make some savings here?
Well yes - there are always the options for savings. But can we please remember that councils do have to try and communicate with those they serve! And Bradford, with nearly 500,000 of those local residents, probably needs a little more than the average local council to achieve that communication. So what's involved and how might we make it better?
The main areas of spending include:
1. The Council's press office - dealing with hundreds of enquiries every week from a multitude of different media. We could cut down a little here maybe but at the expense of giving a less good service to the media - I leave it to you to decide whether this is a good thing or not?
2. Community Pride magazine (and its various offspring) - this is an award-winning publication that, were I in opposition, I would hate. Not because it promotes the ruling party - it is very careful not to do that - but because it is attractive, well-written and tells local people about their local services
3. Advertising including statutory notices - there's a huge scope to save money here but wouldn't that jeopardise the viability of the Bradford Telegraph & Argus wherein most of the advertising is placed? I'm no special pal of the T&A but I would think Bradford a poorer place for not having such a rag for us all to get cross about!
4. Notices, leaflets and publications required by statute - we're required to publish in hard copy a whole raft of documents, reports and strategies. It would be possible I guess to simply get a good quality PDF and print off when needed but I'm not sure that would comply with regulation. And the leaflets giving vital information to at risk groups such as the unemployed, elderly, vulnerable young people, single mums and refugees - I guess we can't skimp too much on those either, can we?
And just to add a little extra cost, Bradford - quite rightly - has to meet its access and language obligations which means producing documents in a range of different languages (eighteen and counting) as well as in formats suitable for the blind, the deaf and other disabled groups. Not sure there's huge scope for savings there either?
Now I do believe there's some option to change how we operate - money could be directed from issuing endless turgid press releases replete with quotes from important councillors into direct public communications - we need a good direct marketing strategy. The Council could also make much better use of its much improved IT infrastructure. Perhaps the application of Web 2.0 (ooh, very brave to put that in Simon) stuff might free up some more cash - it would certainly bring a new dimension to the Council's communications activity!
Bradford's communications budget needs a good look - there's a need to sharpen up the strategy and to move away from the very old-fashioned media relations approach that sadly dominates our thinking. But - and try this on any private organisation - spending less than 1/2% of the budget on marketing - that seems a pretty good deal to me!
According to my dear friends at the Taxpayers Alliance (whoever said they were a Tory front?) Bradford Council spends £6 million on communications. Phew, I hear you say! All that cash on spin doctors, propaganda and glossy brochures - whatever happened to spending priorities then guys! Surely you can make some savings here?
Well yes - there are always the options for savings. But can we please remember that councils do have to try and communicate with those they serve! And Bradford, with nearly 500,000 of those local residents, probably needs a little more than the average local council to achieve that communication. So what's involved and how might we make it better?
The main areas of spending include:
1. The Council's press office - dealing with hundreds of enquiries every week from a multitude of different media. We could cut down a little here maybe but at the expense of giving a less good service to the media - I leave it to you to decide whether this is a good thing or not?
2. Community Pride magazine (and its various offspring) - this is an award-winning publication that, were I in opposition, I would hate. Not because it promotes the ruling party - it is very careful not to do that - but because it is attractive, well-written and tells local people about their local services
3. Advertising including statutory notices - there's a huge scope to save money here but wouldn't that jeopardise the viability of the Bradford Telegraph & Argus wherein most of the advertising is placed? I'm no special pal of the T&A but I would think Bradford a poorer place for not having such a rag for us all to get cross about!
4. Notices, leaflets and publications required by statute - we're required to publish in hard copy a whole raft of documents, reports and strategies. It would be possible I guess to simply get a good quality PDF and print off when needed but I'm not sure that would comply with regulation. And the leaflets giving vital information to at risk groups such as the unemployed, elderly, vulnerable young people, single mums and refugees - I guess we can't skimp too much on those either, can we?
And just to add a little extra cost, Bradford - quite rightly - has to meet its access and language obligations which means producing documents in a range of different languages (eighteen and counting) as well as in formats suitable for the blind, the deaf and other disabled groups. Not sure there's huge scope for savings there either?
Now I do believe there's some option to change how we operate - money could be directed from issuing endless turgid press releases replete with quotes from important councillors into direct public communications - we need a good direct marketing strategy. The Council could also make much better use of its much improved IT infrastructure. Perhaps the application of Web 2.0 (ooh, very brave to put that in Simon) stuff might free up some more cash - it would certainly bring a new dimension to the Council's communications activity!
Bradford's communications budget needs a good look - there's a need to sharpen up the strategy and to move away from the very old-fashioned media relations approach that sadly dominates our thinking. But - and try this on any private organisation - spending less than 1/2% of the budget on marketing - that seems a pretty good deal to me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)