New council leader sets the agenda for Wirral's future (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
New council leader sets the agenda for Wirral's future
2:20pm Thursday 26th May 2011 in News Exclusive By Leigh Marles, Editor
New council leader sets the agenda for Wirral's future
THE new leader of Wirral Council, Cllr Steve Foulkes, has announced his cabinet of ten Labour members - banishing Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to the sidelines.
Councillor Foulkes has been highly critical of some key decisions made by the previous Tory/Lib Dem coalition.
Now his group has total control of the all-powerful cabinet it may be possible - in theory - for them to overturn some of the policies.
The closure of five respite care homes and the exodus of 1,100 council staff on voluntary redundancy terms are among the coalition's more controversial rulings and came in for a hammering from the Labour leader.
But Cllr Foulkes says he will not be rushed into anything.
Until he has been through the books and grasped the "big picture" if there are any major changes ahead, they will have to wait a while.
The new leader says he is seeking to take a "more democratic and inclusive" approach to council business.
He said: "I want to continue public consultation to help inform our decisions.
"But we'll do this by using our scrutiny committees, which will need to get out in to the community.
"That means real people talking to politicians who have an ear for what's actually going on, not an unaccountable 'task force' which was the previous administration's chosen route."
And he stressed: "In future, I want our council to decide policy by discussion, not press release."
Under "cabinet" administration, the ten councillors have responsibility for making all major decisions and need only put the setting of the authority's annual budget to a vote of the full council.
Councillor Foulkes continued: "The cabinet does have powers, but I will not be wielding those powers in such a ruthless fashion as we have seen others do over this past year.
"Nor do I want to go to war with the Government over our financial settlements.
"I want them to revisit the way they decided how much money councils receive, how it would be divided.
"We have taken a savage hit - £51m gone from the budget this year and £24m next.
"For some reason, the southern counties ended up getting a much better deal than northern councils.
"I want to tell them they got their formula wrong."
He said he has no intention of trying to prevent any of the 1,100 staff who have made the decision to leave council employment from doing so: "Clearly they have taken a major life-decision here, and it would be quite wrong for us to intervene now.
"But there was no strategic planning at all in the way the coalition handled this, so we might have to re-jig a few departments to deliver the best services we can for the people of Wirral.
"The reality of all this is that people will have to understand that their services might take longer to deliver, or they might have to be delivered differently."
The new cabinet's first meeting will be held on Thursday, and on the agenda is a review of major policy such as freezing council tax, but Cllr Foulkes suggested this part of proceedings may be put on hold for now.
"As the new administration, we are still getting to grips with the many issues that need to be addressed, and some items for discussion at cabinet may be adjourned to a later date."
However, he confirmed that one of the five doomed respite homes - Fernleigh in Leasowe - which was granted a temporary stay of execution will now be kept open on a permanent basis.
He said: "There are some decisions concerning the respite homes which would be extremely difficult to change right now.
"That's not to say it will be impossible, and I'm not ruling anything in or ruling anything out. But this we can change. Fernleigh will stay open."
The other cabinet members are: Children’s services, Ann McLachlan; community engagement, Jean Stapleton; corporate resources, Adrian Jones; culture, tourism and leisure, Chris Meaden; environment, Brian Kenny; housing, George Davies; social care, Ann McArdle; Streetscene and transport, Harry Smith.
Councillor Phil Davies is deputy leader with special responsibility for regeneration and planning strategy.
Comments(18)
Spiffy
says...
12:53pm Thu 26 May 11
...
He says that as if they had been out of power for over a decade instead of just 1 year and didn't cause all the problems in the first place. Amnesia ? Deliberately so.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
9:45am Fri 27 May 11
The nine Lib Dem councillors who abstained in the leadership vote at Monday's meeting of the council effectively banished themselves and their former Tory friends to political oblivion.
Interesting to note, though, how somebody has at last come clean as to how Wirral Borough Council is actually run.
"Ten councillors have responsibility for making all major decisions and need only put the setting of the authority's annual budget to a vote of the full council."
So this is what we are paying £800,000 plus a year for in allowances - just ten responsible decision-making councillors out of 66.
Let's have one councillor per ward instead of three. After all, we only have one MP per constituency.
johnbrace
says...
9:58am Fri 27 May 11
It seems strange for Labour to now take credit for the decision when it was made many months ago by the Tory/Lib Dem parties.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems will I'm sure be at next Thursday's Cabinet meeting. After all it is a public meeting so anyone can go.
Using the scrutiny committee system as Cllr Foulkes outlined, we had the library fiasco and public meetings with hundreds of angry people.
What Cllr Foulkes fails to mention is the large amount of £millions left to the Labour Cabinet in reserves by the previous Tory/Lib Dem administration.
The current predicted Budget shortfall for 2012-2013 is not £24 million as Cllr Foulkes states, but according to the Director of Finance Ian Coleman £20.8 million.
In fact you can see the report stating this going to next Thursday's Cabinet here - http://democracy.wir
ral.gov.uk/mgConvert
2PDF.aspx?ID=19240 .
Who is the Cabinet Member in charge of Finance, Best Value and the Big Society - yes Cllr Steve Foulkes himself?
johnbrace
says...
10:11am Fri 27 May 11
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:@Ben Beaconsfield
In setting up his new Steve Foulkes has banished nobody to the sidelines.
The nine Lib Dem councillors who abstained in the leadership vote at Monday's meeting of the council effectively banished themselves and their former Tory friends to political oblivion.
Interesting to note, though, how somebody has at last come clean as to how Wirral Borough Council is actually run.
"Ten councillors have responsibility for making all major decisions and need only put the setting of the authority's annual budget to a vote of the full council."
So this is what we are paying £800,000 plus a year for in allowances - just ten responsible decision-making councillors out of 66.
Let's have one councillor per ward instead of three. After all, we only have one MP per constituency.
You seem to not realise the many outside bodies that Wirral councillors sit on Merseyside Police Authority, Merseytravel, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, hospital trusts etc etc.
Cabinet isn't everything that Wirral Council does.
Also councillors (assuming no other responsibilities) are classed as part-time (if I remember the report correctly at ~10 hours a week). Therefore we only have the equivalent of one full-time councillor per a ward of ~10,000 people (but split across three people).
Many councillors have backup and support from the political parties they represent.
Yes there is only one MP per a constituency but they have paid full-time staff to help them, for example this year their staffing allowance is £115,000 per an MP (or £460,000 across the four MPs on Wirral).
Councillors have less support given to them. Each party leader gets a secretary and any group larger than seven councillors gets a research assistant but that's far, far less than an MP with a staff allowance of about £115,000/year.
You're not comparing like with like. Also MPs cover areas of about six council wards.
If you had only one councillor per a ward what would you do when they went on holiday, or died or fell ill?
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:47am Fri 27 May 11
Please, stop it, you'll have me in tears.
Let's put the outside bodies bit to bed first of all. Councillors get paid mega-bucks to sit on these part-time pisitions and vie for places accordingly.
I have told this story before, but it is well worth telling again.
I once asked a young new councillor what his ambition was, thinking I would get a reply along the lines of : "Chair of Education, then I can really influence the help given to children." The answer I got? "A place on the MPTE. That's where the money is." Appalling. (My terminology dates the encounter, before you correct me).
A recent eaflet I saw said ex-councillor Knowles was paid around £50,000 over a two-year period to chair a "Tram Committee". Not drive a tram full-time, but chair a committee meeting, what, one a fortnight for a couple of hours?
And where are the trams?
You make it sound as though a gun is put to the head of these people and they are forced to be councillors.
But the actual process is as far from the real world as it can be.
A handful of people in a smoke-filled room (not politically correct, I know, but you will get the picture) pick a candidate for a safe seat and he or she is then in for four years. They can do as little as they can get away with, but can't be replaced during that period unless they commit a criminal offence. They can even change parties !!
What other job operates on that sort of basis? No annual assessment, little accountability, a four-year fixed contract, the ability to move to a competitor with portable continuous employment entitlement ?
johnbrace
says...
12:38pm Fri 27 May 11
In many cases, these councillors are under agreements with their relevant political parties to hand over x% or xx% of allowances they receive, thus leading to the taxpayer funding party political activity by the back door.
They also have to (in many cases) to pay income tax and national insurance contributions on this leading to a much smaller net allowance.
However the national increase in the personal allowance has helped some councillors receive a higher net amount.
You are right that political parties pick a candidate (although independents of no political party have stood as candidates in the past on Wirral), who is then put to the electorate for a vote.
They can be replaced however during their term of office for a variety of reasons. Councillors can resign, die, be suspended, chucked out and the list of what leads to a councillor having to leave is very long!
Also (as pointed out) there are a variety of offences which if convicted of disbars them from office.
A disgruntled political rival could get their election declared null and void by a judge etc.
However they are not employees and shouldn't be compared to such. It is not all criminal offences that disbar them from office, just some.
>What other job operates on that >sort of basis?
Many others do, MPs, MEPs, elected Mayors etc... including many other elected posts
Not all councillors have a four year term of office. Firstly there are "all-up" elections every ten years. A councillor winning in a byelection only has the term of office left by their predecessor (always shorter than four years). Councillors elected near the "all-up" elections are elected for much shorter than 4 years and those elected in the "all-up" year have an office of 2,3 or 4 years depending on whether they come 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
I repeat though it's not employment. If it was you'd have to pay things like pensions, redundancy etc and any Wirral Council employee is barred by law from even being a candidate for Wirral Council due to the inherent conflict of interest.
As to councillors switching sides, our political system elects an individual person, not a political party.
That person is free to choose a different political party if they so wish.
The accountability exists in three directions, to the public, to their political party and to their own consciences. Sometimes these pull a councillor in different directions.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
12:25pm Sat 28 May 11
I won't go through your posting point by point, even though I do think you are 'nit-picking' my general observations.
However, one thing I cannot let pass.
"I repeat though, it's not employment" you say in relation to the role (or should I say 'job') of a councillor.
Well consider this conversation in Wallasey Town Hall last week:
"Hello, 'x'. How are you getting on since losing your seat last week?"
"I've gone back 'on the tools' but there's little work around for my trade so I've had to sign on."
Says it all, doesn't it?
And what about the new breed of professional local politicians, like the councillor being paid an allowance, until recently an additional whopping sum for occasional representation on an outside body, and for for running a local MP's office and for running a party office in another constituency.
Whatever happened to the principle of 'service' ?
johnbrace
says...
5:13pm Sat 28 May 11
Being a councillor isn't a job in the employment sense of the term.
Look, there was a time when councillors didn't get allowances and merely did it out of a sense of public service, because they believed in politics as a force for good and because they were trying to make a difference to the communities they served.
As to having to sign on, well they're used to getting handouts from the taxpayer aren't they? However most would have a Plan B. If they didn't have a Plan B I get the feeling they must have taken the role for the wrong reasons.
I think I know which councillor you're referring to, but if a person can do all that they're entitled to be paid for it. Many are called, but few are chosen.
It's not rare in politics for a person to have about 4-5 paid jobs/offices at the same time.
As to service, well there are still many local councillors that do it (and well) for that very reason.
MPs are entitled to hire who they like. *sarcasm mode* The fact their entire staff is often of the same political party as the MP is just a complete & utter coincidence, as people are obviously hired for their skills, qualifications, experience and attributes and not for who they know. *end sarcasm mode*
However in relation to the Conservative MP, at least (despite a few roadblocks put in her way) she did hire an apprentice.
Look to Area Forum panels and you'll often find the same problem where many are of the same political party as the councillors on it (or former party members). In fact I have heard a former councillor say they would veto the appointment of someone who tried to apply from a different political party.
The same goes for co-optees on Council committees and many other walks of public life.
As to the principle of service, some people have it in their bones, whereas others are parachuted into "safe seats".
As to the "new breed of professional local politicians" I've never really seen politics as a profession. If it was, it'd be far better organised.
As one of them said last Monday evening and I paraphrase, "I've never known anybody (sane) come into politics who wanted to be Leader of Wirral Council".
If it was a profession careers advisers would suggest it in schools etc.. I wonder what the training would be like though. The below sounds like the kind of skills most would need.
1) How to communicate with the public
2) How to act
3) How to write leaflets, deal with the press, teamworking and networking
4) How to make unpopular decisions and blame them on someone else
5) How to take credit for someone else's hard work
6) How to get reelected.
7) How to deal with being undermined, people being abusive and threats made against you and your family
I'm sure you can write a few further points!
P.S. In relation to your Town Hall conversation here's another one to relay.
Person talking to Howard Cooper after he leaves as Director of Education but gets rehired as Director of Adult Social Services: "You landed on your feet there, didn't you?"
Just as there is a merry-go-round for politicians, there is something similar for senior council officers, some of whom make sure their cronies get awarded lucrative 6-figure public sector jobs.
The public wouldn't know as it all happens "behind closed doors".
Most journalism is either based on a press release or just factual reporting of what has happened as opposed to an in depth investigation. Many publishers are concerned about the high legal costs of defending a libel lawsuit and the Martin Morton type stories are rare. When things get that bad people close ranks and try to cover things up. If it carries on a few sacrificial lambs are thrown to the slaughter.
Perhaps I am nit picking and a little disillusioned, but the more you look into it the more you'll find it's in need of reform.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
8:42pm Sat 28 May 11
A broad, sweeping tour of the local political scene.
I don't agree with all of it, agree strongly with some of it so that probably balances out.
But I wholeheartedly support your conclusion: it's in need of reform.
Well said all round, anyway,except....
In my view, Howard Cooper is a very decent man.
Cheers.
johnbrace
says...
9:03pm Sat 28 May 11
However, like the councillors he was to a large degree at the mercy of events.
I don't know exactly why he left and got reappointed to fill the Director of DASS's shoes, I can guess why the Director of Adult Social Services John Webb left after the CQC report ranking it bottom of all Social Services departments inspected, but... the culture among the officers at the Town Hall is determined partly by the interplay between them and the councillors.
The question for the public is how do they ensure things do change for good?
hugo2008
says...
10:03pm Sat 28 May 11
Lets just have 20 Councillors at the most 3 from each of 6 districts, plus a Mayor and Deputy, all elected by the public.
This alone would save over 1 million pounds each and every year for the ratepayers.
Plus if this cabinet had full executive powers over all Appointments, Pay, and Conditions for the entire council staff employees, with a brief from the public to cut costs to sensible levels.
The savings for Wirral could well reach 5 Million pounds each and every year with no loss of services or amenities.
johnbrace
says...
9:11am Sun 29 May 11
Q1. Why have we got 66 elected Councillors?
If you remember in 1974, we had two General Elections and also the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral was created.
At that point the whole system of 22 wards, each with three councillors was started. To change things there would have to be the political will and changes to legislation (which would have to be done by the House of Commons/House of Lords).
Our political system at Wirral Council is modelled on an adversarial system with a party in charge and an opposition party (or two).
With only twenty councillors (as you propose) too much power would be concentrated in too few hands with none of the current checks and balances (ability for councillors to call in a decision - eg Sail Project, PACSPE etc etc).
We need the checks and balances in our political system of local government.
2. It is up to anyone who so wishes to come up with the signatures required on a petition for a referendum for an elected Mayor.
I'm not sure if the legislation allows elections for a Deputy Mayor though.
3. "This alone would save over 1 million pounds each and every year for the ratepayers."
Look the allowances councillors receive, they can quite happily turn them down saving the taxpayer money if they so wish. These thousands could then be spent on other things.
One councillor racks up over £1000/year just in car mileage payments. That's over 2,500 miles! Other councillors don't bother claiming this at all.
The problem that exists though is that since a few crooked Labour MPs and a former Tory Peer got convicted of fiddling their expenses a vast swathe of the public thinks every politician is crooked and on the make.
The savings Wirral Council will have to make this year are at least in the region of £20 million. If you can explain how you do that with no loss of services or amenities I'm sure everyone will be pleased!
hugo2008
says...
10:24am Sun 29 May 11
Glad to hear from you, I am not paid to put right the financial mismanagement within Wirral Council.
But those who are should only be paid on performance results, in other words they are in default of their employment obligation and should be dispensed with.
And that includes all the highly paid parasites in among the Councillors and QUANGOs or other so called public authorities.
I would like to see ultimate power in the hands of the electorate and this would best be achieved by having a much smaller highly efficient professional team running the Wirral, rather that the vast uneconomical and tremendously over paid bunch of poorly performing amateurs we have at present.
Party politics have no place within local government we should move to a serious system of an elected cabinet working for "Wirral plc" All political individuals and organisations should be fully funded from the members of that particular political party, but never from the ratepayers who are being charged for services.
We the public should have the right to the local services we require and pay for, and not be supporting Political Parties, that is what we have 650 very expensive Members of Parliament for, and lord knows that number is far in excess of what a small country like ours needs.
There are some Business Corporations all over the world that have less Executives, Directors, Managers, and staff in general to run companies and groups of companies that dwarf the economy and needs of the population of Great Britain.
We need to look at the Wirral as a small business and make it work efficiently, with Clean, Open, Honest, and Fair service to the local population who pay for it.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
11:30am Sun 29 May 11
ArdalMcFardle
says...
1:43pm Sun 29 May 11
hugo2008
says...
5:16pm Tue 31 May 11
This resulted in a majority vote in favour of such an election, true the total turn out was quite abysmal, but nevertheless in a true democratic society would have gone with the majority vote.
It was Steve Foulkes who used his or abused his powers to completely ignore the democratic majority vote, that is a small measure of this persons integrity.
So much for open clean democratic local politics.
It just does not exist in Wirral.
Jayo
says...
9:14pm Sat 4 Jun 11
The council leader needs to understand that the council is only their to provide their services to the people who have paid for them.!!!!!
Stop acting like you are doing us a favour we have paid for the services. If you can't deliver them cut your costs and not our services.
West Wirral Reader says...
10:35am Thu 26 May 11
So, not like the last time you were in power that, Steve?
"Fewer but better" ring any bells?