Eric pickles

Pickles on the offensive against ‘propaganda sheets’

Eric Pickles is no longer a genial giant. His speech to the Conservative Spring Forum was the rallying cry that many Conservatives in local government, some of whom will be scrapping for survival in May’s elections, have waited to hear.   ‘Ed Miliband,’ Pickles said, ‘is weaker than Neil Kinnock.’ The Labour leader could not take on his unions and militant councils, the Communities Secretaries said before turning an example: ‘Take Labour-run Camden. Ed Miliband’s local council. His councillors are cutting the Surma Community Centre, coincidentally visited by Samantha Cameron. Yet the council has spent twice as much on its town hall newspaper. His councillors are now cutting back tax

Of course Pickles is ambitious. He needs to be

No one, most of all the normally genial Eric Pickles, said that reforming local government would be easy or quick. The New Local Government Network reports that the government’s plan to encourage councils to share back office functions is ‘hugely ambitious’. It says that considerable savings can be made, but it doubts that councils will meet the 40 percent target for backroom efficiencies. Savings of 20 percent are more likely, the NLGN argues. On the face of it, the NLGN is correct. Eric Pickles’s demand that councils share their functions and facilities is ambitious. At the moment, councils are struggling to meet the upfront costs of uniting geographically diverse buildings

Pickles on the offensive

The normally chummy Eric Pickles was in a black mood on the Today programme. Despite councils’ brazen politicking, Pickles has been deferential in recent months, a stance bemoaned by his allies in local government. But he cut loose this morning. Ostensibly, he was on the programme to defend his policy that councillors vote, in open session, on pay deals worth over £100,000. He believes this will strengthen local authorities by empowering ‘backbench councillors’, provided that they honour the privilege they have been awarded: council meetings are not renowned for being edifying. (There is clear case for extending the policy to the Civil Service, and no doubt many will call for

Cameron downgrades the Big Society

It’s written in print: the Big Society has become the “big society”. David Cameron has responded to criticism of his flagship agenda by downgrading it from a proper noun to a compound adjective. He makes no attempt to define “big society”; rather, Cameron suggests that the term is descriptive of the impulses he hopes to encourage. He writes in today’s Observer: ‘Take a trip with me to Balsall Heath in Birmingham and I’ll show you a place once depressingly known as a sink estate but now a genuinely desirable place to live. Why the transformation? Because even in a tough neighbourhood, the seeds of a stronger society were there and residents boldly decided they’d

Lib Dem grassroots turn on the government

More so than other parties, the Liberal Democrats depend on their grassroots’ presence in local government. The foot soldiers’ importance has increased as the party’s polling strength wanes. So, Nick Clegg will be aghast that 88 leading Liberal Democrats have written to the Times (£) to castigate the government’s ‘front-loaded’ cuts to local government. Tuition fees were thought to be the toughest possible battle for Clegg, but this will run them close. Government MPs have been cast into a black mood. The coalition’s unity has been rocked; its long-term prospects weakened. Now Clegg and Cameron face a tactical dilemma: do they conciliate or do they fight? The indications tend to

Central government and local government lock horns over bin collection

It seems that Cardinal Walter Kasper was right: parts of Britain are suggestive of the Third World. The Sun has been leading the tally-ho against council leaders in Exeter and Birmingham, who have allowed rubbish to lie in the streets for more than a month. And today, Local Government Minister Bob Neil joined (£) the fray, condemning councils for failing to deliver ‘one of the most basic services’. (He also mentioned executive pay, again.) Recalcitrant councils have issued a plethora of meteorological excuses, but these are mostly a distraction. Many councils managed to remove rubbish over Christmas; David Cameron commended them for their efforts. Others remained inert on grounds of

Ten things you need to know about the Localism Bill

Last week’s Localism Bill introduced a range of novel measures, from elected mayors to local referendums. We’ve put together a list of Ten Things You Need To Know about it, by way of a primer for CoffeeHousers. The bill marks an important leap into the unknown. The dangers are less political – it’s hard for Labour to attack the principle of decentralisation – than practical, because it involves a genuine and significant loss of control for the centre. Pickles and company can’t predict what councils do with the new “general powers of competence,” nor what will happen if and when a new community-run service goes awry. But these challenges will

The coming war between the coalition and the councils

Cameron vs the councils may well be the most vicious political battle of 2011 – and one I preview in my News of the World column (£) today. It comes in four stages. First was last week, when the increasingly impressive Eric Pickles said he wanted a 27 percent cut in funding over four years. Grant Shapps weighed in behind him – saying that even 8.9 percent in a year (the maximum cut facing councils) was do-able without any cuts in frontline services. The councils, predictably, said it is not possible. And the threats have started. The strategy amounts to nothing less than a human shield strategy. “If you make

What Kemp’s intervention says about local government

An original Liberal Democrat councillor from Liverpool called Richard Kemp has labelled Eric Pickles and Grant Shapps Laurel and Hardy. Kemp is adamant that savings cannot be made by efficiencies alone; cuts will affect councils’ control of services. It’s a sharp observation. Indeed, he has located the precise point of the Localism Bill. Communities are being empowered; councillors are not. Pickles has introduced a radical agenda on which the dust will take time to settle. The Bill’s political genius is to devolve responsibility and enforce cuts without relinquishing financial control. At best councillors can fondle the purse; the strings remain largely out of reach. Bin taxes have been abolished; infrastructure levies on developers

Who are the government’s regulation busters?

Each time politicians fight regulation, regulation normally wins. So far it seems like this coalition government is no different. John Redwood has been busy tabling parliamentary questions asking each department how many regulations have been introduced, and how many repealed. Rather than “one in, one out” in turns out that two regulations have been introduced for every one revoked. Eric Pickles emerges as the star, having revoked twice as many as he introduced. But the rest? Here’s the league table: I don’t think that the “guilty” ministers have been lax. It’s just that the system is out of control. Three years ago, John Hutton renamed his department “Business, Enterprise and

Eric Pickles kickstarts the local blame game

We’ve got lots of power – please take some. That’s the central message of today’s localism bill, and of Eric Pickles’ article in the Telegraph to accompany it. Indeed, the government’s 15-page document to explain the bill features the word “power” (in the context of shifting power away from the centre) over 50 times. Eight of those come in Nick Clegg’s short, Lib Dem-friendly foreword. The specifics of the bill are, on the whole, already familiar. It’s all about elected mayors, local referendums and greater budgetary control for councils. But just because we’ve heard this drumbeat before, it doesn’t make it any less radical. As the BBC’s Mark Easton notes,

Transparency: the government’s self-protection aid

Monday is eagle day for the overhaul of government machinery. Ben Brogan explains how the publication of 20 departmental business plans will enable the public to chart the progress of government reform – inaugurating a revolution is transparency, that meme of the moment. I’ve always wondered why the Tories are so keen on touting ‘transparency’. One answer, it seems, is to expose those ministers and departments who are dragging their feet. This instrument of New Politics doubles as a self-protection mechanism, which is especially useful with those dastardly Lib Dems and the odd pugilistic right winger scurrying about. Brogan writes: ‘The plans will spell out the timetables for implementing every

The Tory response to Osborne’s Spending Review

George Osborne was well received by the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers when he addressed them on the spending review earlier. There was much thumping of desks, the traditional sign of approval at meetings of the ‘22.   Talking to Tory MPs this afternoon, they are pretty happy with the package. They are glad that the money being taken out of the welfare budget means that the departmental cuts are less than expected. Overall, they think the package is politically sellable and has denied Labour that many targets.   One concern is about how local councils, including Conservative ones, might react to a 28 percent cut in their funding from

Green refuses to name names

In the government’s grid for the week, Sir Philip Green’s report into how to make the public sector more efficient was meant to be the top story today. For an obvious — and tragic — reason it is not. Politically, the report was meant to help the government make its case that the cuts can be done without throwing Britain back into some Hobbesian state of nature. Indeed, Sir Philip suggests to Robert Peston that a very large chunk of the £83 billion cuts that are needed can be made through savings on the government’s £191bn  property and procurement costs. But as Pete notes, identifying government waste is far easier

Votes and jokes at the Lib Dem conference

The pro AV rally at Lib Dem conference demonstrated the problem with the AV campaign: they don’t think it is the best system. Pam Giddy, chair of Yes! To Fairer Votes, described it as “a small but important upgrade to our electoral system”; hardly the most inspiring campaign slogan. The Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson declared that “in an ideal world … there’d be a majority for STV”. Nick Clegg received a standing ovation and his speech went down well. He joked that one benefit of being in coalition with the Tories was “that he could no longer be accused of being the poshest man in the room” and that

Livingstone the insurgent

Ken Livingstone’s long reign as a Labour London Mayor was predicated on his supposed insurgency against New Labour’s orthodoxy. Well, he remains intent on dissociating himself from his party. For instance today, he has endorsed Eric Pickles’ abolition of the Audit Commission. ‘This is one Tory cut I support,’ he said. This contradicts John Denham’s position. Perhaps Livingstone recognises that Labour cannot give the public sector unqualified support; there are fat cats protecting vested interests in Whitehall, just as there are in the City. Livingstone scents capital in abolishing a public body that wants to pay its chairman £260,000 when ordinary voters are struggling with the bills and the Evening Standard

Pickles axes the Audit Commission

Eric Pickles’ decision to scrap the Audit Commission is further evidence that Pickles is the minister prepared to move quickest on the cuts agenda. It is a bold decision and one that is going to come under heavy attack. The Audit Commission’s supporters will claim that it is self defeating to scrap the watchdog that checks that public services are delivering value for money. Set against that, though, has to be the culture of excessive pay and waste at its hearts. Until Pickles intervened, it wanted to pay its new chairman £240,000. Notably John Denham in his statement tonight opposing the abolition of the Audit Commission, felt obliged to say,

Bravo, Mr Pickles

I think it’s fair to say that Eric Pickles doesn’t look like a pioneer of the Cameroonian “Post-Bureaucratic Age”. But that’s exactly what he is, as his department becomes the first to publish data on all its spending over £500. At the moment, the document provides plenty of ammunition for – rather than against – the coalition, covering as it does the financial year between 6 April 2009 and 5 April 2010. And thus we read of how, under the last administration, £17,000 was spent at a luxury hotel, £635,000 on taxis, £13,000 on Manchester United catering costs, and so on. But this isn’t just a retrospective exercise: the prospect

The cuts start to bite

It must have been the toughest press release that anyone in the Central Office of Infomation has ever had to draft. A freeze on new campaigns and the abandonment of any regarded as “non-essential” mean staff numbers will drop by 40 percent – a loss of 287 jobs. Compulsory redundancies loom. The same press notice also revealed that the COI’s advertising spend was down by a 52% last month compared to June last year. We are not talking about small sums here. Last year’s COI marketing  spend of an eye-watering £531 million – half of it going on advertising – was about 20 percent more than the next biggest spender,

Clegg’s plans to cut back the state

It may have overlapped generously with his first speech as Deputy PM, but Nick Clegg’s effort today is still a breezy read.  Its subject is how the overreaching state should be pushed back out of people’s lives.  Its rhetoric is punchy and persuasive in equal measures. And there’s even a mention for that most underrated of creatures: the grey squirrel.   But it’s not just freedom and fauna; there are dashes of substance in there too.  This, for instance, is something I hadn’t come across before: “…my colleague, Eric Pickles, will shortly be asking Councillors and Council staff to identify outmoded, outdated and obsolete secondary legislation which could be cut