Why I'll be saying "yes" to an elected mayor for Bradford

Today, Greg Clark, the “Cities Minister”, confirmed the date for Bradford’s referendum on a directly elected executive mayor:

Our greatest cities can benefit from strong, visible leadership and international standing that a mayor, elected with a clear mandate, can bring.

"Around the world, including in London, a mayor has become a vital part in ensuring that a great city has a strong voice and can attract investment from home and aboard.

"Britain's success depends on the success of our great cities and I am convinced that an elected mayor, taking powers previously confined to ministers, can help realise their potential."

Now, leaving aside the slightly gushing nature of this announcement, I can say that I shall be campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote – Bradford has had long enough with behind closed doors, unaccountable, party whip controlled government. The result of this has been to create a jaundiced electorate – something noted (to the distaste of local leaders) by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:

In part defined by outsiders as a ‘problem city’, individuals, businesses and groups who took part in the research often argued that Bradford’s leaders had not done enough to counter these negative images. They felt this had discouraged investment in the area and damaged the confidence and perceptions of people within the city and district.

However much we may – as those local leaders – chunter and complain about this analysis, we cannot deny that a fair old chunk of the City’s populace simply don’t think much of their leaders. Maybe they’re wrong – I certainly think many Councillors have tried hard to break through the begging bowl mentality, present a positive image of the City and provide high quality services to Bradford’s residents.

A mayor would – as we have seen elsewhere – be able to rise above the party machines through having a direct relationship with all the Bradford electorate. A mayor would set a different tone to politics in the city. Instead of an endless round of conflicted negotiations between party leaders, we would have one individual able to set a clear agenda – an agenda for which that individual would be accountable to the whole electorate.

Right now the agenda is set in the different party groups on the council; these groups choose the leaders giving the voters no say in that process. Elections are conducted on the basis of national political positions – if parties have a position on Bradford’s priorities it isn’t one that is presented to the electorate, debated and discussed, it is contained in a document read by only a few.

A mayor would break the stranglehold of professional administrators and the dominance of officer “expertise” is defining what the council does. My colleagues on council complain all the time about it being “officer-led” or “officer-controlled”. One former councillor once described the chief executive, with some merit, as the “unelected mayor”. If we have a directly elected executive mayor, we will see political direction and leadership (and I don’t mean party political here) replacing the deadening hand of bureaucratic stasis that dominates what we do today.

Above all, a mayor would provide the city with a clear, recognisable and accountable face to the wider world. Right now, I’m prepared to bet that more Bradfordians know the name of the directly elected mayor of London than know the name of the indirectly elected, unaccountable leader of Bradford Council.

So next May, I’ll be asking Bradfordians to vote for change. To vote for a system that will give the City a strong public voice, a man or woman who can step outside the now smoke-free rooms of City Hall and provide the leadership the people of Bradford say they want.

....

It really is absolutely none of your business, Mr Clegg

****

Nick Clegg really doesn't have the first idea about what the word "liberal" means:

Nick Clegg has committed the government to a crackdown on excessive executive pay, saying that austerity in the public sector had to be balanced by curbs on "irresponsible and unjustifiable" pay rises in the private sector.

The clue here, Mr Clegg, lies in the word "private" - that means it is absolutely none of the government's business. How much business owners choose to pay executives is entirely a matter to be agreed between those business owners and those executives.

This is simply Mr Clegg seeking cheap headlines by playing to the gallery.

Clegg said he was particularly outraged by a recent report saying that directors working for FTSE 100 companies had had pay rises up by 49%. He said they were getting the extra money even though their firms were not doing any better and that this was "a real slap in the face for millions of people in this country who are struggling to make ends meet".

Outraged! Get that folks - now even if the headline is true (and trust me, dear reader, it isn't) it is still nothing to do with Mr Clegg unless he is a shareholder in one of those FTSE 100 companies. In which case the place to raise his concerns is the general meeting of the company not an interview on the BBC.

In the end, it isn't a zero sum game. High levels of executive pay do not lead to lower wages elsewhere. And the FTSE 100 companies are international businesses employing international executives.

Finally, Mr Clegg, let's look at the realities of this high pay. The Chief Executive of Sainsburys - a massive, multi-billion pound turnover business - earns around £900,000 per year. This is less that Carlos Tevez, who occasionally turns out to play football, earns in two months. I reckon the shareholders of Sainsburys are getting a rather better deal, don't you. Mr Clegg?

....

A reminder that regulation of personal choice by the state doesn't work...

****

The oh so clever nannying fussbuckets who run San Francisco thought they'd got one over on Ronald McDonald:

The politicians bragged that they had instituted a de facto ban on the Happy Meal when they passed the law. Their assumption was that the crafty corporate types had programmed kids to incessantly nag their parents to buy meals that the nanny state had decreed unhealthy by dangling a plastic toy in front of impressionable youngsters.

Once the evil plastic toy was gone, Little Johnny and Little Sue would be clamoring for tofu burgers, carrot sticks, and spinach soufflé. The evil McDonald’s Empire would be brought to its knees.

Now leaving aside the gross immorality of this interference in personal choice, it seems that those running McDonald's are smarter than those running San Francisco (no surprise there):

Happy Meal sales haven’t slowed down, McDonald’s is making even more money, and parents are now spending an extra 10 cents per kid every time they stop by the golden arches.

How can that be?

McDonald’s simply started charging separately for the toys allowing them to continue hawking the dreaded Happy Meal. It essentially allowed Ronald McDonald’s bosses to institute a price increase by not having to package a toy with the meal.

And to cap it all Ronnie's mates are giving the extra revenue to their house charity that helps seriously ill children and their families. 


You see New Puritan regulation of personal choice doesn't work. Minimum prices for booze promotes smuggling, home production and moonshine. Smoking bans push smoking and drinking into "smoky-drinkies", the 21st century equivalent of the speakeasy. And officious attempts to target the food preferences of ordinary folk will result in much the same.


It really is time we started treating people like grown ups. So, for perhaps the first time in my life (and maybe the last) I shall say well done to McDonalds!


....

Friday Fungus: A sad tale - and probably a wise warning

Dogs have a terrible habit of eating almost everything:

Devastated Fred Marchment and his wife were walking with their three dogs at Danebury Hill Fort, a beauty spot near their home in the village of Upper Clatford, near Andover, Hants. Their springer spaniel-collie cross dog Jake, who was just under two years old, scampered excitedly into the woods and ate some poisonous fungi.

"We shouted at him to stop but it was too late - within three hours he died. It was horrible. We are really upset" said Fred. "There's fungi and toadstools everywhere. It's been so damp and warm, they are all over the place even though it's nearly Christmas."

The distraught family are warning other dog owners to take care and make sure their pets don't eat deadly fungi growing wild in the woods and meadows. 

The best advice is not to let your dogs eat mushrooms - the story doesn't make clear what mushroom this poor dog ate. Judging by the speed of reaction it sounds like a death cap - but dogs could react badly to fungi that wouldn't make humans ill.

A sad tale  - as the story relates there are a lot of mushrooms around at the moment including many of the edible species like oysters and assorted field mushrooms but we are as ever advised to be careful and to make absolutely sure we know what we're eating.

.....

Of course Bradford Council is pro-business! It just doesn't seem that way...

****

Bradford Council isn’t actively anti-business – indeed I’m sure that the leader and chief executive will proclaim to the heavens that the aim is to support business, encourage enterprise and promote inward investment. There are whole teams dedicated to these tasks.

The problem is that the council, in its decision-making, is thoughtless and inconsiderate of the challenges facing businesses and especially retail businesses:

Business owners have hit out at Bradford Council after being told to take down sandwich boards advertising their premises.

Shops and businesses in Belmont Avenue, Low Moor have until Thursday to remove the A-frame boards from a grassy area in Cleckheaton Road, which they say are needed to inform customers of their location.

OK, so we have a policy. One designed to make it safer for the visually and mobility impaired resident to get about the high street. And it is being applied to boards put up on a grassy verge by the roadside.  One can only assume a verge widely travelled over by the blind and wheelchair bound!

Hardly a day passes without some council official or other making a decision that has the consequence of making it harder for a business or businesses to trade. It might be some nonsense about recycling, or shutters or putting some stock on display outside, or handing out flyers – almost anything a business does might just be subject to the idiocy of some jobsworth.

But it’s not just the attitude of individual officers (although my favourite was the officer who tried to stop a major event involving over 400 market stalls from across Europe because it meant moving some bus stops for a few days), it is the policy environment.

This year – in the worst retail recession in living memory – Bradford Council plans to introduce parking charges on North Parade. Forget that a few more people will decide now to go to the retail park or elsewhere out of town, never mind that the decision might just tip another of those fragile independent traders into folding – we need the revenue so on goes the charge!

Yes Bradford Council is pro-business! It just doesn’t seem that way!

....

It had to happen...

****

...the denormalisation of coffee commences:

Researchers found large discrepancies in caffeine levels in espressos, contradicting the widespread belief that retailers follow a uniform set of guidelines.

Medical experts warned that the differences were potentially putting pregnant women at greater risk of miscarriage. They found that café customers were unaware of the wide variations in caffeine levels. 

Watch it grow, folks!

....

Someone thinks social housing is an investment...

****

...or it seems that way:

Investment manager M&G is set to step into the social housing lending market after securing £200 million of pension fund investment for the sector.

The fund, which launched today, will offer those housing associations that are unable to access the bond market long-term loans. The £200 million pot, which has attracted a number of investors, is the first of what M&G hopes to be a series of funds, with reports earlier this year putting the target value at around £1 billion.

 All this without a farthing of public subsidy. And why...

William Nicoll, director of fixed income at M&G Investments, said: ‘Social housing is a natural lending opportunity for any pension fund or insurance company that wants an inflation-linked income for the long-term."

There you go George - done with you even moving your lips!

...