Charlotte's blog

It’s rarely mentioned that the introduction of the Localism Bill (now Act) was preceded by Eric Pickles announcing the abolition of Local Area Agreements: ‘So today I am scrapping the existing Local Area Agreements… we are going to give councils what they want – freedom and power – to be able to take your own decisions on housing and planning. That is the foundation of the Localism Bill…’

It wasn’t spelt out how – exactly – co-operation between public sector organisations through Local Strategic Partnerships and Local Area Agreements had diminished the freedoms of local government. And when it came, the public debate about future planning understandably focused more on the draft National Planning Policy Framework.

Partnership working brings with it some additional resource costs for the separate organisations, but most people recognise that co-ordination between public services can be vital, often makes community sense, and also has the scope to enable planned savings.

Cornwall Council bid to lead one of the new ‘whole place’ pilots which – guess what – are now exploring future scope for co-operation between public sector organisations; its unsuccessful bid was called ‘can do Cornwall’.

The Council is now consulting on a strategic planning document known as the ‘core strategy’. Parts of this would take much more than a ‘can do’ Council attitude to deliver.

Through what partnership working or other organisational structure, for example, does Cornwall Council hope to realise its promise to ‘manage public sector service provision to sustainably support the settlement pattern and customer needs’?

That’s a tall order in an area where, regardless of income, many rural residents currently have poor local access to services. The suggestion in the draft National Planning Policy Framework was to locate new housing near to existing services. But the scale of development envisaged by Cornwall Council over the next twenty years means new services would be needed. How is it expected these will be paid for as public sector funding and services are purposefully squeezed and contracted by the coalition Government?

New school buildings in Cornwall which had been planned through Labour’s schools for the future programme were cancelled by the incoming coalition Government. The move towards academies and free schools means any new schools in Cornwall will be reliant on securing national funding through arrangements being managed from Whitehall not County Hall.

Localism has the potential to help us create communities that work and more sustainable local economies; but it can’t be done by fragmenting local service delivery, centralising funding, and removing structures that enabled co-operation between public services.

The latest survey of patients in Cornwall reveals high levels of satisfaction with GPs. From patients’ perspective, the Government’s ideologically driven top-down changes to the NHS make no sense.

In so far as this Government has any democratic mandate, it was partly based on the people who voted for the now democratically bankrupt Tory pledge of no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS.

Like many PCT areas, organisational changes on the ground and commissioning boards in Cornwall have now been placed by the Government in the uncomfortable position of ensuring NHS services continue to meet the needs of patients while surrounded by delays to anticipated timetables for organisational change, and massive legislative uncertainty as the Bill is rightly subject to overwhelming professional and democratic opposition to the proposed changes.

We all know the economy will be an issue whenever the next general election is held.

As the legislative debate of the Health and Social Care Bill continues, it is clear that this Government’s deliberately destructive approach to healthcare – and our most cherished public sector organisation – is likely to be an issue of equal importance for voters.

This may make it Labour turf as Polly Toynbee – whose views rarely concur with mine - said yesterday, but no one in the Labour Party would choose to reach that point only at the expense of patient care and satisfaction with the NHS services we all rely on.

You know that game called Consequences, where names, what they said, and what happened next are compiled into random stories mostly to comical effect. Recently I discovered there is a similar game called Mad Libs, in which names and comments are also added randomly to a story with typically unrelated actions and consequences.

Politically, it reminds me of the coalition government, partly because the Liberal Democrats inclusion was so random in electoral terms. And so many of the Government’s actions are unrelated to either Party’s manifesto. But also because of the way in which many Liberal Democrats – not least, Cornwall Councillors – would so much rather behave as though the consequences of their Government’s actions are nothing to do with them.

Unfortunately the consequences of their actions are all too predictable in hurting most the people – and places – who can least afford it.

It doesn’t take independent research to show in Cornwall that people with least are being hit hardest by Tory and Liberal Democrat cuts (although that is what it says); it can already be seen amongst other things in the growing demands on local food banks.

This month, cuts to housing benefit come into effect. It is clear that in Cornwall this will particularly affect people below the age of 35 in self-contained accommodation, who will lose housing benefit. Nationally, there are fears that housing benefit cuts will lead people without work to move to places with cheaper rents, less buoyant economies and fewer available jobs. In Cornwall as elsewhere, Shelter predict cuts to housing benefit will increase homelessness.

In Cornwall, Labour and European investment had positive impacts – Cornwall’s economy grew ahead of the UK and SW average, and unemployment fell including a 90 per cent fall in youth unemployment. Cornwall was the only UK region to receive EU convergence funding because our economic output was lower; much was made of previous increases in Cornwall’s Gross Value Added (GVA). But the latest GVA figures (from 2009) show Cornwall’s recovery stalling as our economy began lagging further behind in the bottom five. (Even though in 2009, with Labour in government, the UK economy had started to climb out of recession, and unemployment here currently remains below the UK average.)

Investment and jobs growth, as well as the minimum wage, made a difference for many workers in Cornwall. But latest figures show local wages, which had started to rise, are about 80 per cent of the UK average. Reduced hours and Government pay freezes affect many people working in Cornwall. And as people have less to spend, businesses are feeling the pinch too. Business leaders and Trades Unions in Cornwall are united in their opposition to proposed regionalisation of public sector pay.

Cornwall needs a strategy for economic growth and jobs, which the Tories and Liberal Democrats are failing to construct.

What does today’s autumn statement mean for Cornwall?

First, it shows the failure of the Coalition Government’s strategy of cutting further faster – the same strategy which is being pursued by Cornwall Council and that has resulted in many local job and service cuts.  The numbers now suggest that at best the deficit may be halved rather than paid down by 2015, but today’s statement made no real adjustments to provide an effective boost to growth.

Few of the new measures offer hope to those struggling with the rising cost of living, housing shortages, unemployment and transport gaps in Cornwall.

1. Cost of living:

• cancellation of the 3p fuel duty increase from January 2012 will help motorists, but reversing the January 2011 2.5% VAT rise would trim the cost of a much wider range of basic items and services.
• £50 a year off average SW water bills will be welcomed, but this year over-60s households across the UK have already faced a £50 cut from the winter fuel allowance.
• capping public sector pay increases at 1% in 2013-15 will mean that the one in three people who work for the public sector in Cornwall will have seen their pay rise by a maximum of 2% since 2011 by 2015, while facing rising contributions, increased cost of living, and pension cuts.
• pensions, disability and unemployment benefits will rise in line with inflation (the Consumer Price Index) from April 2012, but the decision to freeze tax credits will hit the families of Cornwall’s lowest paid and minimum wage workers, and families relying on child tax credit.
• the 1% cap on rail fares will help those for whom commuting by train is an option – this can already be cheaper than bus fares, and bus services are likely to be reduced in 2012 as a result of Cornwall Council cuts to subsidies and concessionary fares.

2. Affordable housing:

• there are 21,578 households in Cornwall in registered housing need.
• following the recent Government announcement restoring 10% of the previously planned spending on social housing, the Homes and Communities Agency on 22 November 2011 announced it will be funding the completion of 389 affordable homes in Cornwall by 2015.
• current house prices mean right to buy purchases had ceased in practice, the 50% discount announced today will still mean mortgage costs are likely to be more expensive than social housing rents and unaffordable for many; but any sales with a 50% discount would bring in a receipt which would be smaller than the current cost of building a new social home, so not prevent the loss of social housing stock.
• the main source of new social and affordable housing is likely to be through local planning – eg in the former Carrick area the requirement of 35% affordable homes (50% on land sold by public sector like the former Richard Lander School site in Truro).

3. Jobs, earnings and infrastructure

• earnings in Cornwall continue to lag behind the UK at about 80% of the UK average.
• over 9000 people are unemployed in Cornwall – that is 2.7%, compared to 3.8% across the UK – there are also fewer unfilled vacancies in Cornwall than the UK average.
• none of the 500+ transport infrastructure investments announced were in Cornwall, and the focus for next generation broadband appeared to be the largest cities while seeking 90% UK coverage; for Cornwall to prosper we need next generation broadband with rural coverage sooner rather than later. And does the announcement mean the Scillies ferry replacement by 2014, Falmouth docks improvement, Treluswell park and rail ride etc are not amongst the 500+ chosen projects despite the fact that they would bring jobs or help reduce traffic congestion?

4. Young people

• youth unemployment is highest, 6.9% in Cornwall compared to 8% across the UK. The new support scheme won’t start until next summer.
• cuts to the EMA and increased students fees mean young adults face less educational support as well as substantial challenges finding a job and affording a home – and from January 2012, tenants below the age of 35 will not be eligible for housing benefit for self-contained accommodation.

619 voters in the South West were asked which political party they trust most?

One in twelve said the Liberal Democrats.

One in five said Labour.

One in four said the Tories.

The article doesn’t report what the other 46 per cent said.

But the same percentage (46 per cent) said they support deficit reduction. Let me note that bringing down the deficit is a policy supported by all three main Parties.

People were interviewed on October 6-8, before Labour launched its five point plan to boost jobs and growth.

Of course this didn’t stop the article claiming 46 per cent support the Government’s approach, as compared to Labour’s.

One in three voters said they want us to spend more to kick start growth – so there was more support for spending more than for any of the three main Parties. And one in four said they don’t know.

I make that over half the 619 people interviewed don’t definitely support deficit reduction, even though its the policy of all three main Parties.

But why let facts, or what people think, spoil a politically biased news story?

It’s easier to just stick a rosette on the story claiming its from a “trusted source”.