New Council Website

It is with much expectation that the Council has released a beta version of the new Council website which will serve the towns (or City) for half a decade.

It is probably a topic much ignored by a number of those who care not for the internet, but in reality this forum will become the only major contact between Council and citizen in terms of paying bills, joining the electoral register and registering a complaint or service issue.

Medway Council need you to tell them what you think of it. They have released a beta site which we would like you to test drive with the following questions in mind:

Is it easy to use?

Can you find what you are looking for?

Do you like ir or dislike it and why?

Why beta?

Every website needs to be tested by users before it launches. If there are parts of the site that you find difficult to use, please tell them and they will try to fix them before launch. They want you to fully explore the site and tell them what works for you and what doesn't.

The site has cost the Medway Council tax payer a combined sum of £250,000 according to Council budgets. This is therefore a major project which will need support, irrelevant of whether you agreed with the original spend.

This blog is a fan of e-government and indeed it is topic which comes close to the heart of this blogger. Good public websites can drive down cost and drive up public accountability and scrutiny of publicly elected officials. It is the reason why this blogger would video Council meetings to ensure public accountability. It is reason why this blogger has encouraged all the political groups to embrace twitter, blogs and websites. Though all parties, including Labour, need to improve.

I would ask the Council to use the proper Medway logo in the html box (are we re-branding?) and seek to use videos as much as possible. The service boxes are sensible and show where to pay council tax and fines. The site looks presentable and friendly. It could link in with other apps - perhaps train, bus timetables and/or services from National Government - DirectGov services etc.

In all some manager somewhere needs to feel quite pleased with themselves. It is a massive improvement on the current site which is laughable.

The site is in beta because it isn't finished yet. There are features missing, the content isn't all in yet and some things may not work 100 per cent. The Council are still working on the site but are keen to ask for your thoughts as soon as possible so that they have time to improve things.

There are a few new features that you might want to test out:

Find my nearest - location based services, tailored to your postcode;

Search box - we've invested in this so that you can find your information quickly and easily;

Top tabs - whatever you want to do, get it done quickly;

Navigation - search by who you are or what you want to do.

This blog supports the development of new websites which serve the public and increase transparency. It has to be said that the website looks pretty good. Whether it is worth a £250,000 at a time of fiscal austerity. We will wait and see the live version before making a judge on that.

Pre-emptive Strike

Alan Johnson today launched Labour’s counter attack to George Osborne before the Wednesday spending review.

He has said the coalition government is taking a "reckless gamble" with economic growth and jobs.

He also made a clear statement on the level of taxation v cuts. He has set Labour to a course of halving the deficit over the next five years and took the sensible position of splitting 60:40 Cuts: Tax increases.

Of course the deficit is important but jobs are more important and so is restoring prosperity to this country. You can’t do that by making the deficit the focus of your economic programme. You can only do that by making job creation and a new industrial strategy to focus of your economic programme. Do that, and the deficit cures itself. Ignore that and the deficit , inevitably, continues because private saving will increase, investment will remain at very low levels and the balance on the international trade current account will remain in deficit.If all those things happen then inevitably the government cannot, ever, clear its deficit as a matter of fact

The formula under his predecessor, Alistair Darling, suggested that 66% of the deficit reduction plan should be achieved by spending cuts, and 33% by tax rises. Johnson said that he believed a 60:40 ratio was "about the right balance". And he said "targeted tax changes" were needed because economic growth had to come first.

As this blogger said on Radio Kent two weeks ago, banks should be bear a greater part of the burden of reducing the deficit.

And the mood music in this statement is absolutely right:

We are constantly told that there is no alternative to the current economic strategy pursued by the government. But there is another way, a balanced approach that gets the deficit down, but recognises that growth and jobs are not a sideshow to an economic strategy, they are what it is for. And that approach requires thinking again about the role that capital investment plays and prioritising it. Without growth, attempts to cut the deficit will be self-defeating. A rising dole queue means a bigger dole bill. And less tax coming in. The Tory plan, for all its Liberal Democrat cheerleaders, is a huge gamble with growth and jobs.

This blogs concern is whether he’s got the cart before the horse, or vice versa, but what I do know is that he has definitely got them coupled together, and that’s a lot better than the Conservatives have done.

SouthEastern Commuter?

Is this you? No seat, overpriced ticket, Tory promises broken?

Despite the interest of local Conservative MPs it is now all but confirmed that train fares are due for significant increase next Wednesday with the government predicted to retain the +3% Inflation increase in fares.

This is of course despite the express promises of Tracey Crouch, Rehman Chisthi and Mark Reckless who promised Medway commuters that the government would stop unfair fare increases. Their reputations are directly at risk with a commuter population in Medway which put their trust in these representatives to act in the interests of them. A failure to follow-through on promises, be it VAT increases, NHS re-organisations or cuts to Child Benefit is now becoming a common theme with our MPs. Some of whom started with good intentions are not standing up locally in the interests of commuters.

About 600 million annual train journeys have fares that are regulated by a formula set by the Government in relation to the near £2 billion subsidy it gives to the train operators. The end result could be train fares rising by near double digit percentages in each year of the Spending Review.

Overall, Government sources are expecting these train fares to be over 30 per cent higher by 2015, and industry sources pointed towards a 40 per cent hike by 2015.

The increase in regulated fares is currently set at the Retail Price Index plus 3 per cent in Medway, sources from inside government indiciate that this is set to either remain at this level or rise substantially. Either way, if this is the result, Medway Conservative MPs have not followed through on promises to commuters.

As the RPI number used in this equation is currently set at 4.8 per cent, multi-year double digit rises are possible.

This would mean for annual season ticket for commuters, that prices could rise by well over a thousand pounds.

The reason for this increase is clear. Despite the false pleasantaries and shadow campaigns managed by Conservatives this is a government that believes in the market, and as we have seen with university fees debate, it believes that the user should pay. This is about shifting the burden of payment from taxpayers towards passengers.

All fair perhaps, until you realise that the majority of commuters travelling into London do not earn mega-salaries and expect a government to be on their side during such difficult times. With cuts to family budgets, how is a father of two children who commutes into London supposed to feel as Tories increase is train fares. Especially, after they were the one's taking advantage of the issue in the pre-election period.

Secondly it is important to note that this rise in fares will not go to train companies. Government says it is keen to do this so that there is funding for investment in train infrastructure, but surely these extra fees will simply go into the general deficit reduction pot? This is therefore nothing more then a tax increase which does not even benefit the commuter. We in fact end up with even worse conditions.

If we do end up, on some lines, with RPI plus 5 per cent, where on earth will that leave Norman Baker, the Lib Dem transport minister, who was elected on a manifesto of RPI minus 1 per cent? Where does it leave Mark Reckless who campaigned for RPI (plus 1 per cent) and Rehman Chisthi and Tracey Crouch?

And if it is the Coalition’s strategy for a so-called modal shift from private to public transport, then these sorts of fare rises will do the opposite, unless they are planning massive road taxes too.

This blog also notes that Network Rail is sitting on some rather valuable real estate, that could prove a handy piece of family silver for George Osborne.

Either way, it is looking like Wednesday could be a shocking day for commuters and by sunset we will know if we have been betrayed by Conservative MPs or saved by them. The stakes could not be higher to all their reputations.

Full Council

Full Council last night proved to be a more respectable event then was billed. The usual small turnout sat in the public pews overlooking the mastered ranks of Councillors and the Council entourage of sherpers, note-takers and senior executives.

The meeting started as it meant to go on. The man in the red frock walked in behind a man with a massive gong which looked very expensive. We had a quick prayer from the resident priest before he had to leg-it to a more pressing engagement. It seems all were in a rush to be somewhere else.

We started with a tiny quibble about the recording of events for minute taking purposes. All agreed, accountability and transparency, how new. One wonders why Medway still, unlike other Councils, don't video the event for public distribution. Perhaps then people could, um, judge the quality of their Councillors. Perhaps then, people who have families, who work, who have normal lives, could actually have accessibility to those that serve them. On second thoughts, perhaps I do know the reason.

Anyway - whilst pondering this, we were already onto the assorted petitions - most notably the pressing concern of overgrown hedges in Strood and concerns about speed-bumps. Local government at its best. The once constant stream of petitions from the Liberal Democrats has all but dried up. The arch-petitioners are eerily quiet.

Then suddenly onto the questions from members of the public.

Now, questions from the audience can sometimes generate interest and even fireworks because it is the only part of the meeting where Councillors have to acknowledge those behind the blue rope barrier, which physically and psychologically separate the masses from the upper echelons of the establishment. The blue rope is symbolic - all those beyond it are entitled to coffee and nibbles. All those before it, you bring your own water. Who serves who, you could have been very confused.

Despite the interesting topics; from a lack of consultation on planning, CCTV cars, Playbuilder cuts, Pentagon Toilet charges (now at 20p for a pee) and the species of tree sapling that will replace the felled foliage on the Paddock, the answers were unremarkable.

Both my questions were asked, but during the second question I sat next to a man who groaned very loudly when I mentioned the CCTV car. Another victim perhaps?! Either way, I for a moment thought he was going to interject. Finally, some action. No it was a cough...

Despite the rhetoric from those that sit on the refreshment side of the blue rope, I was able to confirm that only 18% of the revenue from the CCTV car is actually sourced from near-school fines. Interesting that the rationale for the car remains safety, but the public at large, for better or worse, regard the car as an income generator. I followed up with a fair question on how the Council can effectively counter the reputational risk and damage that the car is inflicting on the administration. No major thoughts followed. Don't think it has sunk in!

With all the questions out of the way we moved swiftly onto the leaders reports. Cllr Chambers (Con) spoke about local government partnerships and attacked the government, Cllr Godwin (Lab) spoke about job cuts and attacked the government, Cllr Juby (Lib) spoke about procurement in local government and attacked the government. The Tories then hailed the work of their MPs who had secured the Labour BSF funding for the Medway Academies from their own government cuts. Lots of guffaws and patting of backs. Cllr Jarrett talked about cuts, more cuts and the blame for the cuts. The gong sparkled. Gordon Brown suddenly got mentioned as having saved the planet before someone made a remark about Testosterone. Biology, politics and anthropology all under the auspices of a man in a red frock with ermine. How Freudian.

Questions from Councillors followed. Most were answered satisfactorily but Cllr Chitty (Con) seemed to get confused with a basic question from the tee-total Cllr Maple (Lab) on whether she would meet a consortium of publicans. Surely, not a problem for the average Councillor who probably, like most of us, enjoys the occasional tipple. Oops, confusion suddenly turned into outrage. What? The audience perked up. The claws were out for some partisan point scoring. What was it all over?! Who cared! Cllr Chitty in full throttle was spitting fury at the question. What a disgrace! An Outrage! How dare you! She refused to answer. Bluster! Rage! Splutter! No one had a clue why! It was all a bit odd. Perhaps she is angry at loosing her seat...

Talking about seats; the River by-election loomed like a white elephant behind the Conservative back-benches. Its trunk extending into the Council coffers to the tune of £11,500. Now that is in the public interest.

We were entering the final stretch and government waste was on the agenda. The gong sparkled, the Councillors drank their free refreshment and the public had, oh gone about an hour ago. More pressing things to do perhaps?

Home for Question Time... after a quick stop off at McDonalds. Cllr Burt I salute you.

PMQs

Ed Miliband scoring some direct hits at todays Prime Minister's Questions.

More of the same please Ed.

Lies, Damned Lies and Lib Dem Lies

Nothing more needs to be said... It is the biggest Lib Dem lie...

Southern Discomfort Again?

It is with some expectation that Musings from Medway has been awaiting the publication of the latest pamphlet entitled 'Southern Discomfort Again' from the Policy Network.

The full link to the document and polling can be found on the Policy Network website.

As a fan of the previous document 'Southern Discomfort' which was published after Labour lost in 1992, it has been a little known but hugely influential piece which sets a clear narrative for Labour renewal, especially in the South East.

It also sets a discourse which this blogger believes Labour must use if it is to win the South East marginals in 2015 or 2020.

I attended the Southern Discomfort fringe at the Labour Party conference, one of a number of members, and was able to contribute from the floor on what I called 'Medway Man' or in other terms C2DE Southern aspirational swing voters who are typically conservative but are also persuaded by community.

'Medway Man' is aspirational, support the family, tough on law and order, distrustful of overweening government but also fervently pro the NHS, pro better education and pro opportunity for children.

'Medway Man' being from the largely C2DE socio-economic groupings are persuaded by the national narrative as opposed to the local. At different electoral periods this blogger suggested, they swing vote Labour or Conservative because at different periods, leaders (and presidential type leaders they are now) will persuade voters to accept one narrative as a priority.

The blogger agreed however that economic security and prosperity was the bedrock upon which the above can be contextualised. Having a strong leader with the wrong narrative will only lead to worse defeat.

This blogger suggested that for cultural reasons the C2DE socio-economic groups in the Midlands, North, Scotland and Wales were culturally more likely to vote Labour because ingrained in the community was an inherent anti-Conservative narrative, based on historical circumstance. This is potentially why constituencies with similar demographics to Medway in the North were retained by Labour on smaller swings.

It is clear that Southern voters abandoned Labour in their droves at the last election because the party failed to address their insecurities, according to the new document. 67 per cent of respondents in the south believe Labour is “close to benefit claimants” and “the trade unions”, while 57 per cent of those surveyed believe Labour is close to immigrants.

The research, a sequel to the 1992 early-Blairite leaflet “Southern Discomfort”, produced by Giles Radice, also demonstrates how the Conservatives outperformed Labour amongst “aspiring” southern voters on major issues. It revealed that 78 per cent of those voters believed the Tories were “close to people in the south” and a further 69 percent thought the Conservatives were close to the middle class and homeowners.

In the May General Election, Labour lost 57 seats in the South and Midlands, almost two-thirds of its loss of 91 seats – this reflected Labour’s inability to adapt to the “age of insecurity”, according to YouGov’s Peter Kellner. Lord Radice, meanwhile, told the event the 1992 and 2010 research had remarkable parallels, particularly on “the party’s inability to appeal to relatively affluent classes and white collar workers”.

He said:

“Now voters feel very insecure about themselves and their future. There is extreme skepticism about what Labour now stands for. No longer are we seen as the party of fairness. Voters are saying ‘we put everything in and get nothing back from Government’ and they no longer trust us on the economy.”

The research also reveals that only 16 per cent trust Labour to run the economy, only 12 per cent trust the party to reduce the deficit, and 12 per cent believe it would “get value for money on behalf of taxpayers”. Additionally, a staggering 47 per cent believe that public spending under Labour was wasted and did not improve services – Lord Radice described this as “the most disappointing finding of the whole survey”.

To combat this perception gap and win back southern voters, the report argues that Labour must address their concerns – particularly reestablishing its reputation for economic competence, its support of individual aspiration and grasping the nettle of the immigration issue.

Labour must change its narrative to voters stressing each of the above. It must become part of our narrative in the South East. Stressing the support for small business and those that work in the private sector, which incidentally include Labour supporters in Kent. Stressing the need for a more conciliatory approach to cuts, and not the over-aggressive cuts which will damage regional growth and prosperity.

It is also true to say that there are organisational differences between the parties in the North and South. The North has stronger Labour support and therefore a bigger base of resources. The same could be said of the Conservatives in the South. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that voters in high contact rate seats in the South East swung on similar to those on low contact rates. Therefore these voters were not persuaded by the ground war as much as people assume, especially in areas with a high C2DE voting population. Obviously there are other factors; media support (locally and nationally) and family/cultural bias.

The challenge for Labour will be to represent the 'squeezed middle class' on issues which affect them and their families; small business, tuition fees, immigration, fuel cost, jobs, schools, train fare increases, NHS and keeping crime low.

If Labour can win these arguments and make a case for less aggressive cuts (which incidentally the public currently support) than we will win big next year and could be in with a shout in 2015, boundary gerrymandering depending.

If we resort to the language of the closed-shop, of waving the red-flag, of pursuing sectional interest over the majority interest, of being too close to the Unions, then we will not win in Medway and we could loose elsewhere.

Ed Miliband has set the right tone for victory. He will be sensitive to 'Medway Man'