Big trouble in the big society

How one local authority is facing a 46% budget cut



Will the citizens of Hastings take up the reins of the Big Society?



Hastings is a seaside resort famous for its connection with the Norman conquest. In 1066, William the Bastard became William the Conqueror after his victory at the Battle of Hastings, defeating Harold II as King. It led to William securing control of most of England, but twenty years of rebellion and resistance.

Today, Hastings is somewhat less concerned with dramatic occupations, and more in keeping the fabric of essential local services intact. A Labour-led borough council – unique south of London – is opposed by a docile Conservative party which steadfastly refuses to condemn the severity of the cuts which have hit the council. The area's Tory MP, Amber Rudd, even goes so far as to call the cutbacks “an opportunity”.

But in the words of the council itself, Hastings has just been handed “the toughest settlement in living history”. And this is a town which knows a thing or two about tough settlements.

Local government took a massive blow in the aftermath of October's comprehensive spending review. Over the next four years, government funding to local authorities will decrease by a total of 28%. Hastings loses an astounding 46% of its total funding; £3.6 million from an Area Based Grant (cut altogether), and its Formula Grant cut from £9.1 million to £7.7 million. A 'transition fund' replaces some of the lost funding - £2.6 million in 2011/2012 – but this too is reduced next year by around a fifth. Like other Labour-led councils, which are suffering disproportionately through the loss of central government grants, Hastings is emerging from the shock of the CSR to deal with the reality of cutting essential services as well as generators of economic growth.

Labour Councillor Paul Barlow “fell in love with the town” when he moved from inner-city London in 2003, just after a substantial amount of government grants had been awarded to breathe new life into the area. “I wanted to buy somewhere for an investment,” says Barlow, who came to work for a regeneration company, recognising the potential of what could have been just another unloved seaside town. His talents have recently been rewarded with a cabinet post, without any single portfolio, helping to run the council in an extraordinarily tough economic environment.

Barlow's 'patch' reflects a personal passion for regeneration and renewal, covering the Castle Ward, which aside from the castle itself, and everything from the railway station to the main shopping areas and the beach. It also includes the famous Victorian pier ravaged by fire in October and now the subject of a Heritage Lottery Fund application to restore it to former glory. A feature of the seafront is distinctive Georgian architecture, much of which seems to be looked after a lot better now than it has done for years. A variety of thriving independent businesses dominate the town centre: only a branch of Costa stands out as a rare concession to the global coffee giants.

Under Labour, Hastings received substantial public investment. The Priory Quarter office development is a prime example of the sort of boost – a speculative office development that has coaxed major employers such as Saga, which brought 800 jobs to the town. The new Sussex Coast College offers degree level courses to a young population habitually bound by the confines of the borough and lacking in aspiration. But despite these redeeming features, Councillor Barlow's ward is still the 29^th most deprived in the UK.

Barlow is understandably proud of the progress over the last ten years or so, and is keen to emphasise the council's overall vision for the town: 

“Many seaside towns like Hastings fell into a spiral of decline in the 1960s and 1970s because there was no-one to drive things forward and councils allowed the downward spiral to continue. When we took control in 1998 much of the seafront was semi-derelict, but using our planning powers we forced landlords to use their own money in refurbish their properties.  

"The council's own 'Grotbusters' team helped out, working with owners of run down buildings to help bring properties up to scratch.

“We've now changed the seafront so dramatically, at one point the town even ran out of scaffolding!” laughs Barlow.

Indeed, the pleasant surroundings of the White Rock Hotel, where I meet Barlow, is testament to the general improvement of the area.

But Barlow is fearful that this sort of progress could be reversed:

“We recently won money for developing the fishing industry in the town from the European Union, but a lot of our regeneration staff are paid for from area-based grants – which are going completely. So, we lose much of our regeneration funding, and the ability to put forward applications for new money.

“These people provide a lot of added value to the town. But we're losing experience that we've built up. And if the council doesn't provide direction and funding, who does?”

In the aftermath of the spending review, Barlow has to help make decisions on what, if any of this sort of work can be continued.

“There are things we have to do, like development control, but there's very little guidance on what you have to provide. We will have to bring things down to a level we think is safe, and look at what else we've got left in terms of savings.” 

In that case, what happens when the council says they can't afford to certain things any more? Isn't the Big Society already waiting in the wings, geared up to provide services more cheaply?

Unsurprisingly, Barlow is sceptical of this notion. 

“It's rather patronising to assume that there are lots of people just waiting to take over – there aren't.”

Barlow questions the benefit of increased involvement by the voluntary sector: 

“They may have a different angle. But it's hard to think what else we could outsource - there's no way any other organisation can provide a lot of things cheaper. Local government is already the most efficient way of doing a lot of things. 

“Much of the regeneration money goes through the council's budget to Hastings' voluntary sector. The Pier and White Rock Trust already has some great people doing a full-time job voluntarily. But as a result of cuts in our regeneration budget, we're going to see a smaller 'Big Society'. It will contract and shrink as a result of the cuts." 

Barlow points out that the council have already begun to consult with local residents about what's most important to them. 

“We had a borough wide conversation about people's priorities. Not what about we improve, but what we dramatically reduce, or cut. People prioritised safety things, environmental issues, cleaner streets - a greener town. 

“Lower down on their agendas are things like arts and the theatre. But we're a small council, and very often services are provided by just one or two people. If you make a 40% cut in some arts services you end up stopping it altogether. The severity of this is pretty much out of the blue, and we're still in the process of going through what's possible”.

Barlow is convinced that central government fundamentally misunderstands what local authorities like Hastings actually do. He argues that local government is an essential co-ordinator of services, not necessarily responsible for carrying them out. 

“They've a weird idea that local government is a monolith, but most money simply goes through us to organisations that work on our behalf. And there's this myth that people will provide things for free - that's not going to happen. Even the Friends of the Park requires office space and structured professional support to keep them going. And we're already engaging local people in the management of the park”.

Does Barlow have any faith in the government's vision for more localism?

“The net impact of localism so far has been zero because we have no resources to achieve it.

“We have some staff for example, who help develop community forums. But when you no longer have the grants for these kinds of things, how do they happen? You just get the same people coming forward at planning meetings and organising petitions”.

In the light of all this, what successes might Barlow have to his name in five years' time?

“We're going to be hard pressed to identify great achievements.

“I suppose I'm quite lucky in that I've been able to take control of a trust which, under an Elizabethan agreement, dictates that an area of land between high tide and low tide would be given for the benefit of the people of Hastings. It got drowned by council bureaucracy, which we managed to unpick. What we have now is a large area of the foreshore which is now land – not underwater – including fairgrounds and a car park – and which has an income. Once the trust pays off its costs, there's an opportunity for the excess to be spent in a targeted way. We can focus it on the most needy in Hastings and St Leonards – and possibly some seafront improvements."

At the same time, Barlow is realistic about his political responsibilities:

“My main role, as local campaign co-ordinator for the Labour party - is to see that our Conservative MP has a short tenure, and that she's replaced by a Labour MP. The previous Tory MP only lasted one term – and the way the current MP is going, she could follow him.

“If we can keep things ticking over in a way that protects the most vulnerable – that's probably the best achievement we can hope for”. 

 

That was the year that was

And so I've come to write my look back at 2010 – a sort of between Christmas-and-New Year special – in which I pick out the things that have made an impact on me this year from the political, to the personal, and the things that just didn't quite make sense. Or just or made me laugh.

As 2010 dawned I think I can safely say I was one of those people who would have put a bet on a hung parliament being the most likely outcome of the General Election. Six months on from that political soap opera in May I think the electorate probably think that overall, they made the right decision – namely, refusing to vote for any single party to have a whopping majority. Although the polls are looking positive for Ed Miliband's Labour with a backdrop of savage cuts to public services, most people aren't quite ready to trust them with government again just yet. They may even be prepared to give them a further drubbing with the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election early in 2011 – but for what it's worth, I don't think it matters. Labour's still my party and I want it to do well but Miliband is a wise man to play the long game, and not be forced into the sort of short-term tactics that damaged his predecessor.

Whereas, at the beginning of the year most people would have wagered on David Cameron becoming Prime Minister one way or another, I'm not sure many would have envisaged the stratospheric journey of Nick Clegg and his subsequent appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. It was hard to make sense of a new sort of Liberal Democrat party, half of them parachuted into ministerial positions by Cameron's 'open and generous' offer. In one bold move, Cameron enacted Blair's pre-1997 dream, except this time it was the Tories and not Labour who were joining forces with the third party in the 'national interest'. I'm still not sure whether LibDem ministers could quite believe their luck at being able to play with the big boys at last, but it's clear that there were many more of the so-called 'Orange Book' free market types able to work with some decidedly Thatcherite Tories in government. The Labour party has enough ideological baggage to permanently put them at odds with the Conservative view of the world – not so for the LibDems who didn't take too long to decide whether they wanted real power, and after all have happily worked with Tories in local government for years.

Despite the cosying up and the rose garden love-ins, we've already witnessed some of the bloodiest battles already and the next year could highlight more dividing lines in the Coalition.

The certainties of politics and I think, the nature of democracy have been called into question in other ways. We now have a spontaneous, radical student movement, united in opposition to tuition fees that has taken politics in protest to a new level. While it's fair to say that this movement haven't quite agreed what they're for – there may be a few disagreements down the line over the extent to which education should be funded by general taxation – there's a renewed engagement in ideas and the way in which debate is framed. Politicians themselves seem ever more terrified of the prospect of having to have a genuine conversation over these 'policy outcomes'. The only comparable 'movement' of any kind I can think of was the poll tax riots in 1990 – and possibly the anti-war movement, in which over a million people marched against an invasion of Iraq in 2003. The UK Uncut campaign will be interesting to watch too. I've already boycotted the January sales at Topman in solidarity.

***

Technology – and in particular the web - has been a bigger part of my life this year than ever before. The edge-of-your seat political blockbuster of 2010 has been accompanied by a revolution in the media. Although the 2010 General Election was by most accounts a TV election, the part played by social media can't be ignored. I followed every development of the election campaign – and plenty of other big news – through the all-knowing Twitter and Facebook and many other sites through my trusty laptop, not to mention the background distraction of rolling news. And when you're me, it really is a terrible distraction. I love 'microblogging' and the conversations of the Twitterati, but I must learn in 2011 to focus my creative efforts on more than 140 characters. But cats in wheelie bins, Chilean miners, rogue Geordie gunmen and bigoted Daily Mail columnists all make up the rich tapestry of life and I suppose the media would have even more space for DFS adverts if these things didn't make the news.

***

I got engaged in July. Andy caught me completely unawares, since I'd always assumed it had been my responsibility to pop the question. It all happened in a quite beautiful location on 2 July, in the garden of a pub overlooking the Millennium Dome – or the O2. There's nothing quite like that place to represent an exciting new beginning, marking the transition from my relationship with Andy over the last three years – to the beginning of the rest of our lives. It was lovely, and beautiful, and a bit soppy! Plans remain at what I call the 'storyboarding' stage but once I've got this MA out of the way I'll be in full wedding mode. 

Talking of the MA, I took a bold decision to apply for a Political Journalism course at City University in May, and subsequently got offered a place, accompanied by a generous bursary which was a much appreciated reward for my written efforts. It's going well so far, and I can't say I've ever been bored or unmotivated during the week-night lectures which have included some fantastic guest speakers. Over Christmas I became the proud owner of a new digital voice recorder (thanks, Dad!) which I think symbolises me becoming a 'proper' journalist at last – even if I'm not being paid for it just yet...

The next year presents just as many questions as the beginning of the last one, and I'm not going to make any more predictions here. Except to say that it won't be dull – and I hope that everyone who reads this blog will continue to read my occasionally thoughtful analysis of what's going on in the world.

THANK YOU FOR READING!

Alastair Stewart and the new theatre of TV politics



Alastair Stewart, moderator of the first ever UK General Election televised debate



“The TV debates were a tipping point in how we do politics” according to Alastair Stewart, who made history as moderator of Britain's first ever televised election debate between the three main party leaders. And having experienced in the flesh the effervescence of the man himself, I couldn't think of anyone better to do so.

For Gordon Brown, there was much to fear from a new spotlight on his persona. For David Cameron, it was a chance to prove his statesman credentials. Nick Clegg would be the new boy with the clean slate, railing against the 'Labservative' duopoly. They had everything to lose, and everything to gain. For the broadcasters, the debates were a long-awaited “alignment of the planets” as according to Ric Bailey, the BBC's political adviser, previous Prime Ministers had refused their rivals an equal footing.

It would have been easy to write off the debates as presidential. But for Stewart, they were a chance to revert to “old fashioned campaigning...when TV meets people who are trying to get your vote”. And it worked. Viewing figures compared favourably with, say a Friday night episode of Coronation Street, with the first debate watched by 9.6 million – and remaining consistently high for the Sky and BBC broadcasts.

The debates came at an opportune time for parties to get their message across when public trust in politicians was at an all-time low, in the wake of a damaging expenses scandal and an enormous budget deficit. Stewart reflected the overall feedback seen afterwards in the press, and throughout on social networking sites such as Twitter. Brown came across as “ill at-ease, and made no 'killer' points”. Cameron “hadn't a clue what he was doing”, but Clegg “shone from the outset, with a natural, compelling narrative”.

“The penny dropped in enormous numbers” as the public fell for Clegg's seemingly invincible message. Joint favourites of the 2010 General Election had been the Tories and 'change' – and the result fulfilled a general desire for a hung parliament. But as Stewart said, “the real impact didn't change the outcome” - but did confirm the perception of politics as presidential...the brutal ideological battles are now struggles of the past”.

In articulating party policy, those “three to four minutes of interplay were better than reading out verbatim statements on policy” and for Stewart, from that “brash, commercial channel”, prime time viewing figures were encouraging: “We got 10 million people to watch a TV show about politics – and I'm personally very proud of that.”

Stewart's perception of the debates was unsurprising. And, like Stewart, I'm only partially in agreement with Andrew Rawnsley in that the TV debates dominated to such an extent that they 'sucked the oxygen out of the rest of the campaign'. It could be the fault of the parties themselves, for not creating enough 'real' events. Arguably the only other exciting element of campaign in 2010 was Brown's infamous encounter with Gillian Duffy, which benefited Labour ultimately as they snatched the seat from the LibDems. Might the campaign have benefited from more unscripted encounters? Maybe. “Television has to reflect the tussle that's going on” said Stewart, and, what's more, “there were lots of local candidates who were not being covered by national TV. Local TV needs to work better.”

And, having delivered his script, in true TV style this seasoned pro shuffled his papers as if signing off from the evening bulletin. I half expected the lights to go down and a rousing theme tune to play him out...

The US midterms: will Obama be too late for the Tea Party?

On Thursday 4 November, President Barack Obama will find himself exactly halfway through his first, and possibly his only term in office. In today's election, the results of which will start to trickle through shortly, 435 seats of the House of Representatives, and 37 in the Senate will be up for grabs.

Regardless of the result, Obama should then be able to determine a strategy in which he can survive the rest of his presidency and possibly run again in 2012. And, whether the Republicans can cause an electoral upset not seen on a level since the 1970s remains to be seen.

The first big question is around the impact of the Tea Party, so far an unknown quantity, which has successfully injected a new form of anti-politics into public life. Their success or failure will be a signal of the extent of an hitherto repressed anti-Obama feeling – undoubtedly underpinned by a subliminal racism - which was easily overwhelmed by the media hype around his election in 2008. Since then, hopes of change have been raised and dashed, the American electorate is more insecure than at any time in its history and a strong anti-state feeling has pervaded throughout politics on both the left and right.

The second big question asks whether the Democrats have been able to create an American tale that expresses the hopes and dreams of ordinary citizens in 2010. With unemployment stubbornly lingering at nearly 10% and foreclosures affecting one in every 371 households in September, it's not just about improving your lot, it's about surviving.

A Republican landslide would be a tragedy for America at a time when it needs state intervention more urgently than ever. Political historians point to how Bill Clinton successfully fought off challenges from a Republican dominated Congress in the 1990s – but Obama has even less experience in the sort of political street-fighting skills you need when your legislature doesn't naturally swing your way. And although Clinton presided over a period of healthy growth and economic stability, he also produced law which proved a disappointment to liberals – an example of which includes the pernicious and regressive 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy excluding lesbian and gay people from the armed forces, which Obama will need to fight hard to retract. The political implications for the next two years could see Obama being forced to compromise and water down further his grand designs to prevent the constant threat of gridlock in Congress, alienating those who put him in the White House.

American politics is having one of its periodic bi-polar episodes, the cure for which in many conservatives' eyes is Sarah Palin, a sort of George W Bush in drag. She will speak for the comfort zone of mid-western, small town politics but where she has seemingly boundless ambition and small-town charm by the RV-load, she has neither the nuance, the political skills or the oratory to lead America away from its own self-destruction. The next few days will be very telling indeed.

Anger over rail fare increases ‘could see MPs losing seats’

A transport policy group has warned that raising train fares above the rate of inflation could cost some MPs their seats at the next election.

A poll of commuters in the Home Counties suggested that 74% would consider switching their support away from parties that want to raise the cap on rail fare increases.

By raising the cap on rail fare increases, the Campaign for Better Transport believes that some commuters in Surrey, Sussex and Kent will be paying up to £1,700 more for their annual season tickets by the time of the next election.

The biggest increase could affect the cost of a Brighton to London season ticket, which by 2015 could be £4,268 – a £1,164 rise from today’s price.

A spokeswoman for the campaign said: “the poll shows that commuters aren’t going to take excessive fare hikes lying down. Passengers have been promised ‘fair fares’ by the Government, and now many could be paying hundreds if not thousands of pounds more for their season tickets in just a few years’ time.

The votes of commuters and other regular rail users could be decisive in many of the key battleground seats in London and the Home Counties that changed hands in the 2010 general election.

It is highly likely that next week’s Spending Review could see the Department for Transport change the rail industry’s current RPI+1% formula to a new RPI+3% formula, causing large fare increases.

In constituencies such as Brighton Kemptown, won by the Conservatives at the General Election, 13.8 million people use nearby Brighton station every year.

Other constituencies where commuters votes’ could cause seats to change hands include Basildon South, Croydon Central, Thurrock East and Watford.

"We need to encourage more people to take the train, not price those who already do back into their cars.”

Season ticket costs in five years?

• Hastings to London: £6,337 (increase of £1,729)
• Milton Keynes to London: £5,269 (increase of £1,437)
• Gillingham to London: £5,236 (increase of £1,428)
• Reading to London: £4,659 (increase of £1,271)
• Brighton to London: £4,268 (increase of £1,164)

Source: YouGov

No surprises there, thankfully!

Well, thankfully I've come out for Labour yet again! Love this site:

Ask The Chancellors - a personal view

If Channel 4's Ask the Chancellors debate tonight was the template for the long-awaited leaders' debates during the General Election campaign, then the real thing may be well worth watching. Maybe it was the focus on specific economic issues rather than general platitudes and populist issues which made it more interesting than the usual 'panel' style of debate, or the skillful chairing by Krishnan Guru-Murthy - I don't know - but it was a good bit of telly – an intelligent alternative to the the usual bloodbath you normally get on Question Time.

Even though I’m admittedly biased towards Labour, putting those prejudices aside for one moment I still thought Darling and Cable both came across exceptionally well – Darling very confident and with good arguments. Cable absolutely right on a lot of things and you could sense a genuine interest in the things he was saying from his views on public spending to bankers’ bonuses. Some people might write off the election campaign as a two-horse race but in a possible and likely hung parliament this guy has a higher chance of becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer than any Liberal/Liberal Democrat since the government of David Lloyd George.

George Osborne, on the other hand, just sounded like he’d been spending far too much time with Andy Coulson, the Tories’ director of communications. There was a time in British politics where you could get away with those sort of vacuous soundbites, but even if (as we are led to believe) Osborne is a very clever guy with a firm grasp of economics, he didn’t display these qualities this evening. I felt Darling and Cable had the right balance of sound figures, a record of making the right judgements and the right sort of political acumen in a studio environment. Osborne tells us it is essential to "learn the lessons" of the banking crisis and calls for stronger regulation, but to me this is a belated conversion. You might have expected that if he'd really believed in reform of the banking system, Osborne would have fought back when Darling pointed out the Tory position on the response to the crisis was completely at odds with 20 of the world's largest economies.

It'll be interesting to see how the Tory high command judge Osborne's performance tonight - if I were Dave I'd be deeply worried at this point. If anything, tonight's debate was a complete vindication of the 'do-nothing' response to the turbulent economic times of the last few years.