Category Archives: Government

Many MP’s have a conflict of interest

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Following on from the story that Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, is berating the health and safety culture in this country, I’d like to ask why it’s taking the politicians so long to address the real problem?

Health and safety legislation saves lives and prevents people from being seriously injured everyday. Unfortunately, it also encourages some officials, managers and bosses to go over the top, make silly decisions and sometimes lead to the H&S legislation becoming a laughing stock and an easy target for the press, but why? What are all these officials, managers and bosses afraid of? No win, no fee lawyers, that’s what.

Are our politicians kicking this issue in to the long grass because so many of them were themselves lawyers, solicitors, or even barristers before entering Parliament? It’s more than likely that, having been ‘in the job’, those who should be confronting this issue head on, are still closely associated with the profession in some way. This could be through a business partnership, a family member, or just having close friends plying the legal trade. If so, many of these MPs will be very keen to avoid biting the hand that feeds them, or upsetting the no win, no fee gravy train their professional mates are enjoying such a cushy ride on.

Only say nice things about Greg Clark’s ideas or else!

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , • Leave a comment

Be careful not to respond negatively to any consultation this government launches, especially when it involves the right honourable Greg Clark MP.

The National Trust and the CPRE have had the temerity to suggest that the National Planning Policy Framework, that is designed to replace all existing planning legislation, might cause major problem for rural areas. For having the nerve to say this, Greg Clark has laid in to them, accusing them of, ”Nihilistic Selfishness’ for opposing his planning reforms. I wonder if these bodies should take him to court under the Trade Descriptions Act, for even calling it a consultation?

So next time you respond to any sort of consultation make sure you only say nice things. Read the full story here: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/43442

Gold plating – what we do best!

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

Yet another story about EU legislation having a negative impact on the UK economy. This time it’s agency staff receiving the same employment rights as permanent employees. The legislation was apparently enthusiastically grasped to their bosom by the LibDems soon after they were invited into Government – thanks for dropping us in it yet again Mr Vince Cable.

Following the standard script, ministers claimed, ‘we had no choice because…….this time the excuse being, ‘the unions put pressure on us’. Since when has any government done anything they didn’t want to do because of a union (unless it was Labour of course)?

Read on and you get to the real reason why the UK has yet again been stitched up by it’s own government. According to the Institute of Directors, the Government has once again ‘gold-plated’ a piece of EU legislation and made it’s impact far worse than it needed to be. Either these people just love writing new regulations, or they see it as another opportunity to create more jobs for the boys, with new bunch of Whitehall bureaucrats required to police the new rules.

Charities need to be careful not to bite the hand

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which must cut spending by £35.6 million, faces a high court battle with disability campaigners who claims cuts to charities have been ‘discriminatory’ and ‘rushed through’. I wonder how much of the taxpayer’s money this council will have to waste defending this case?

Charities and the voluntary sector in general need to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them when it comes to challenging councils on how they spend their discretionary budgets. Unless they can prove that the proposed withdrawal of funding is just a case of rearranging the furniture and that the council will have to pick up the tab in another way, they should accept that this is just one of a number of incredibly difficult decisions councils are having to make.

The logical fallout from this type of action, is that all councils will build in to their future charity contributions something akin to a prenuptial agreement. The agreement would say that, should the council decide to cease funding the organisation for any reason, there can be no legal challenge. If the charity or voluntary organisation is unwilling to sign up to any such agreement, then they can go whistle!

Care to eat your words Mr Clark?

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

An excellent article in today’s Daily Telegraph from Clive Aslet, described as Editor at Large of ‘Country Life’. Editor at Large? Does that mean he works from home and drives around a lot?

None of the venom and spite we’ve seen from our illustrious leaders, Clark and Neill (Shapps seems to sensible enough to keep his head down for now). It’s a reasoned argument in favour of listening to the genuine concerns of those who care about our countryside. He also calls for the public consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework, to be treated as a genuine exercise and not the current sham suggested by the hysterical utterances Clark and Neill have spouted upon hearing that the National Trust and CPRE have concerns about the potential negative impact of the NPPF.
The best bit of the article for me, is a quote from a then Tory MP in opposition, Greg Clark. Upon hearing that the Labour Government wanted to see 6,000 houses built in Tunbridge Wells, Clark’s constituency, he said: “One of the delights of our area is that there is scarcely a neighbourhood that is not within a short walk of the green fields that surround us”. This is the self same minister now laying in to those who dare to challenge his new passion for covering those green fields in houses and factories.
No wonder politicians are often seen as cynical opportunists, ready to jump on the nearest passing bandwagon. I sincerely hope the members of the Tunbridge Wells Conservative Party are seeking answers from their local MP.

Health and safety is NOT the problem

Posted on by • Posted in Everyday life, Government • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Today’s newspaper contains a story that Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, is berating the health and safety culture that some bosses use to hide unpopular decisions behind. He is of course right to challenge this cynical use of H&S legislation, but this story smacks more of ministerial headline grabbing, than any serious attempt to address the issue.

Attacking health and safety in this wholesale fashion and demanding that everybody apply common sense when making decisions, is the lazy approach and ignores completely the reason why H&S has become both a blight and a joke to many – the no win, no fee lawyer.

Chris Grayling is calling for common sense from bosses, but without acknowledging that common sense immediately goes out of the window as soon as the lawyers become involved. How many companies pay up immediately they get that solicitor’s letter, instead of going to court and fighting their case, because it is nearly always the cheapest option.

The whole no win no fee system is obviously a lucrative business for the numerous companies now chasing every passing ambulance, as witnessed by the frequent adverts on television. If there was no H&S legislation, then there would be no law for these lawyers to sue under. However, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s the no win no fee lawyers that need culling, not the H&S legislation that undoubtedly saves lives everyday of the week.

Unless these constantly circling sharks are dealt with, Mr Grayling is whistling in the wind and those who are vulnerable to being sued by a careless employee, or a customer or member of the public out to make a fast buck, will continue to play it safe – wouldn’t you?

More on roadworks idea

Posted on by • Posted in Government, Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • 2 Comments

Just to prove my point,here are two more stories related to my last roadworks post. The first, is the previous government’s attempt. The second is just to prove what I said about the minister’s initial response.

1. 26 November, 2001 – A new approach to reducing the delays and disruptions caused by utility company road works was put forward in a consultation paper launched today.

Sarah Boyack, minister for transport and planning, launched ‘Reducing Disruption from Utilities’ Road Works – A Consultation Paper’ and invited comments on the proposals from local authorities, the utility companies and other interested parties.26 November, 2001.

2. Ministers reject call to give councils powers over utility companies

27 July, 2011 – Ministers have rejected proposals to give councils more powers to recoup the cost of repairs to roads damaged by work done on behalf of utility companies.
The Local Government Association had called for the government to make utility companies pay a bond or deposit in advance of roadworks to make it easier for councils to recoup the cost of damage – estimated at £70m in England and Wales last year – caused by inferior road repairs.
The LGA also called for councils to be given stronger powers to ensure roadworks are timed to cause the minimum disruption to motorists, and to guarantee roads are repaired properly once work has finished
But transport minister Norman Baker rejected the proposals. In a letter to the LGA he said that he “sympathised” with local authorities concerns about street works causing long-term damage, but said the proposal to take a bond from utility companies in order to recoup the cost of remediation was “inconsistent with the coalition government’s commitment to reduce regulatory costs on business.”
He said “a more pragmatic approach would be to reduce the extent of long-term damage costs through a greater focus on high-quality reinstatements.”
He added that giving councils more statutory powers would not be a “proportionate or workable solution that creates the right incentives for utility companies”.
“I consider that where a utility company’s highway reinstatement is substandard, local authorities currently do have adequate powers to require them to put things right,” he said.

Roadworks disruption – heard it all before?

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

As soon as any government dept announces a new bright idea, it’s always worth looking back through the archives to check to see if it’s all been said before. In this case a story from almost 10 years ago suggests that, as always, there’s nothing new in the world of politics.

November 2002 – A government initiative to reduce the number of holes-in-the-road has instead led to an increase in their number as utilities seek to get round regulations, according to a report commissioned by the Department of Transport, reported The Sunday Telegraph (p11).

The study – details of which have been leaked to the newspaper – showed that, in attempting to get around legislation meant to reduce ‘unnecessary disruption’, utility companies were digging several small holes rather than one large one. In some cases this was causing twice as much disruption as previously.

What makes this latest story even more ironic, is that it was only about 6 weeks ago that I read in the local government press, that the minister didn’t see a need for any more legislation, stating that councils already had sufficient powers to deal with this issue. I what what’s changed? Perhaps he was feeling neglected and needed to see his name in the national press again.

Household refuse collection- no longer a right?

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Everyday life, Government • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Most councils are struggling to balance their books at the moment and are seeking to cut back expenditure in those areas they hope the taxpayers will find acceptable. Many councils have chosen to cut weekly refuse cllections and collect fortnightly instead.

Our own council has always seen weekly refuse collections as something local taxpayers value highly and is therefore one of our top priorities. It was therefore incredible to see Rossendale council in Lancashire, proposing to actually stop collecting refuse all together from hundreds of the rural properties in their district.

If you ask most people, what does your local council do? Their answer would almost always be, empty the bins. It was particularly disappointing to hear a local councillor (albeit Labour) trotting out a bureaucratic justification, ‘we are obliged to collect the refuse, but not necessarily from the dwelling’. It’s extremely poor politics to directly associate yourself with such an unpopular decision by the use of ‘we’, it clearly demonstrates a lack of empathy, let alone sympathy, with the effected residents. Unless of course you are indeed in full and enthusiastic agreement with the decision!

On that basis, if all residents are to be required to manage their own refuse collections in some way or another, as in the case of Rossendale, one has to ask how much longer the council itself would last?

Once a council drops off of the radar of local people, by failing to maintain such a basic as refuse collection, then it surely won’t be long before a local referendum appears demanding that their local council be scrapped altogether.

Making policy by letter

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • 1 Comment

I’m beginning to notice a growing trend in the method being used by this government to make our planning system fit it’s non-planning agenda.

The most recent demonstration of this, is a new consultation on whether or not the installation of security shutters should be permitted development. That would mean that, unlike now, any shop owner that wished to install steel shutters to their shop front, could do so without applying for planning permission. Whilst I have no wish to see planning rules imposed for the sake of it, allowing people to do things without considering the wider impact, is guaranteed to create undesired effects. In the vast majority of cases, a high street turned into a steel walled alley every night, is a very undesirable effect.

Window shopping is a free and enjoyable past time for many people, especially in the summer months and helps to keep a town centre alive and interesting, even when the shops are closed. Endless steel shutters would effectively make a high street a no-go area, telling any visitors that it is a potential trouble spot, where the occupants have had to put up the barricades.

The consultation document refers to the character of an area being protected, as in the case of conservation areas. However, the numerous bear traps that are present in the recently published (for yet another consultation) National Planning Policy Framework, are likely to frustrate councils wishing to control such things as steel shutters on the high street.

The government has recently thrown all of the existing detailed planning policy guidance on to one it’s red tape bonfires. It would now seem that DCLG, through it’s planning mouth piece, the Chief Planner, will ensure that things are done it’s way, by the issuing of letters such as the one referring to security shutters. Even though they’ve called it a consultation letter, it would probably be far more accurate to call it a, ‘this is what we’re going to do eventually letter’. Standby for a lot more of the same.