Towards an Assembly with Kevin Lavery?

I guess I wasn’t alone in being somewhat surprised at Cornwall Council Chief Executive Kevin Lavery’s reported comments on the ConLib Government’s cuts (£33m a year equivalent for Cornwall in this year alone).

Anyway, I finally ran out of better things to do and found myself watching Lavery’s speech to last Saturday’s Cornish Constitutional Convention.

Sure enough, Lavery delivered an avuncular, ever so slightly patronising but effective speech that was indeed peppered with admonitions not to panic or get depressed. Here’s a man who can talk about the ‘brave new world’ of the Big Society with no apparent irony intended. Here is someone who shares the central tenet of the Biscoeite creed – unrelenting optimism.

This is ‘Cornwall’s time’ if only we work together. There were some nice sound bites, to be sure. We (although who is this ‘we’ precisely?) have to ‘take control’, to ‘stop looking to London or Brussels to solve our problems’. We have a ‘window of opportunity’ over the next 18 months. Grasp it and an ‘exciting future’ beckons. Reject it and we’re stuck in the same old doldrums for another 20 years.

But I listened in vain for some direct mention of an Assembly. The phrase ‘greater home rule’ turned out to exist only in the fevered imagination of the Western Morning News, seemingly stuck in some Gladstonian time-warp where home rule bills are all the rage. Incidentally, they also misquoted Lavery saying that ‘if we took 25 per cent out of Cornwall spending’. The inability to utter the adjective ‘Cornish’ is usually a give-away for the colonialist mind-set but it was the Morning News that committed this gaffe and not Lavery. He actually said ‘the council’s spending’.

And his focus was most definitely on the council throughout the speech. The unitary authority ‘can be Cornwall’s saviour’. And a ‘platform for greater devolution’. Be ‘innovative’. Have ‘vision’. And of course ‘embrace’ the unitary council. Indeed, the speech was more an impressive PR job for his organisation than a vision of an Assembly.

Of course, one could be cynical and suggest that Lavery is intensely relaxed about the 25% promised cuts because they are unlikely to include him, his £200,000+ a year or his pension rights. Indeed, he offered to go further than 25%, which will be welcome news to all those less optimistic council employees worried about their paying their inflated mortgages presumably.

The outline of his ‘vision’ seemed to include a council that’s transformed into a leaner strategic authority, a commissioning council that works with the private sector and other bodies to deliver. With a background in the murky world of public private partnerships and PFI scams this should come as little surprise.

Yet, although ‘only the people of Cornwall can solve our problems’ there was less vision about how they might exert democratic control over this more efficiently synergetic set-up. This is a ‘vision’ that transforms local government in Cornwall seamlessly into regional government but fails to distinguish between the two. Devolution here does not equate to enhanced democratic oversight but is a more efficient managerialist response to the ‘George Osborne challenge’.

Kevin Lavery also made much of the need for a ‘joined-up approach’. Yet, listen closely to his own words and discover a depressingly familiar absence of joined-up thinking in one central respect. He was ‘proud’ of ‘Green Cornwall’ and a low carbon future. Yet Council Council could also ‘continue the 15 years of high levels of growth this area has enjoyed’!

Moreover, on the few occasions when sound bites were made concrete we were informed about the ‘lots of development opportunities in Camborne and Redruth’. Unfortunately, these were being stopped by the Highways Agency because of a lack of capacity on the A30. So we need to grasp the opportunity to ask for the power to ... reduce speed limits on the A30 to 50 mph to increase the road capacity. So that we can use Camborne-Redruth to build more houses to accommodate incomers??

The mountain roared. And brought forth a mouse. Or should that be the Constitutional Convention rumbled. And out popped managerialism and business as usual.

Yet Lavery is right. We desperately need an innovative, visionary plan for the kind of Cornwall, we, the people and communities of Cornwall, want. But this must be a genuinely innovative vision that refuses to be imprisoned within the confines of corporate managerialism. Its keynotes could be sustainability, fairness, participation and a confident sense of place. Its objective a Cornwall no longer dependent on endless growth, on the crumbs from the speculators’ table, on EU handouts, on the short-sighted destruction of our open spaces to accommodate external agendas and fill external pockets, on cramming in more and more vacationers.

There may well be areas of convergence and overlap between this vision and the view from County [sic] Hall. It’s up to those of us outside its diminishing office space to identify those commonalties and try to put together a real plan for Cornwall that is capable of uniting a large body of Cornish opinion behind it. According to Kevin Lavery we have 18 months. Can we do it?

Tory gerrymandering: Lib Dems in usual confusion

I’m told that Lib Dem activists in Cornwall (are there any left?) are in growing despair over the concessions that the Clegg Orange Book entrists have made to their Tory public school chums.

First, we had the U-turn over cuts. Assured by Cable that rapid cuts were unnecessary, even dangerous, within days after the votes were safely in Cable and Clegg had changed their minds. Mysterious new evidence, in the shape of urgings from Mervyn King (since denied by King himself) and comparisons with the Greeks made it imperative to pay the markets’ ransom.

Tax the rich? Forget it. The Lib Dems have for a couple of years been wedded to the zombie economics that demands the poor and vulnerable will pay to clear up the mess the greed of the super-rich got us into. Then recall the ensuing impotent Lib Dem backbench ‘revolt’ over the cutters’ budget and cringe with embarrassment.

Now the cuts are ricocheting into the real world. No longer mere parliamentary sound-bites, they’re being translated from macho abstract posturing into actual cuts in school buildings, services, jobs and pensions. The crimes of the super-rich and the paralysis of the politicians will be paid for by the tears of the old, the sick and the powerless for years to come.

‘Shock’ is expressed by Lib Dem luminaries on Cornwall Council like Doris Ansari about the scale of the planned job losses. Businesses ‘brace themselves’ for the loss of contracts worth £millions. Receivership and redundancies no doubt feature down the line. Though it beats me why there’s so much ‘shock’. Where have these people been for the past 18 months? Hasn’t it been perfectly plain for a very long time that all three corporate parties were planning a slash and burn attack on public spending?

On the constitutional front the Lib Dems played a suspiciously prominent role in the disgracefully hasty decision to prolong the life of this parliament to five years. In the process they promptly ditched their previously implied commitment to four year fixed parliaments – in line with virtually every other representative assembly in the globe – merely to save their own scrawny necks. Lib Dem ‘activists’, to their eternal shame, remained dumbstruck.

And now we have the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, timed to go though the Commons when they’re back from their hols. This Frankenstein’s monstrosity of a bill splices together two issues that in any rational constitution would be kept decently separate – voting reform and the re-districting of an antiquated and creaking plurality or first past the post system.

A referendum on the alternative vote is shackled to the gerrymandering of constituencies by regular five yearly boundary reviews transparently designed to ensure the Tories remain in power with a minority of the votes until the end of time. This gerrymander would of course be entirely superfluous if we were getting a properly proportional voting system rather than this pathetic substitute of AV. Didn’t PR use to be a core Lib Dem demand? Those were the days.

This alone makes it impossible to vote for this bastard offspring of an expedient union. But, to add insult to injury, the Lib Dem leadership has colluded in ignoring Cornwall’s historic boundaries, in the process conveniently making the future task of Cornish nationalists in the east even more difficult.

Rumours of a ‘campaign’ by Tory and Lib Dem MPs to oppose this have surfaced this week. But details are scarce. What will they do? Just ‘make representations’ as Tory Cornwall Council supremo Alec Robertson fearlessly threatens? Or will they unite to table an amendment? And when it’s inevitably defeated what then? Will they vote against this bill?

If they’re stuck for an amendment here’s a suggestion. At present paragraph 9.3 (1) of Part 2 of the bill reads

Each constituency shall be wholly in one of the four parts of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)

This sentence needs amending to read

Each constituency shall be wholly in one of the five parts of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall)

Job done.

The political class in England is surely near its end time. The Tories are in hock to their friends in the City and ‘business’, the Lib Dems drift around clueless in a familiar sea of despondent hypocrisy, the Labour Party is leaderless and reluctant to give up on its unrequited love affair with the rich and powerful. All parties underestimate the deep but unchannelled disenchantment and rising righteous anger of the people and treat them with unconcealed contempt.

At present this growing alienation is unfocused, diverted by the rabid tabloids into racism and other dead ends or bought off by the apparently endless cornucopia of corporate capitalism. But the people could act to sweep away the political classes who take them for granted. It’s happened before, even within the constraints of crony capitalist societies.

Take Italy, where the party system collapsed after the tangentopoli crisis. OK, frying pans and fires come to mind in this instance but a whole generation of networking careerists and chancers were exposed and kicked out. And then there was the less traumatic example of New Zealand, where cynical manoeuvrings of ‘mainstream’ politicians trying to retain a first past the post electoral system eventually crumbled in the face of widespread voter disgust. The same could surely happen here. Couldn’t it?

What exactly do Tory MPs do?

Now that the parliamentary session has been adjourned until September to allow the political class to go off and shoot some grouse it’s a good time to look at how active they’ve been in the first eleven weeks of the new Parliament.

I’m going to adopt a rather crude measure here and tot up their oral interventions and the number of written questions and then weight the former at twice the latter. This says nothing about the length of speeches, level of idiocy, number of rambling non-sequiturs, pointlessness of the questions and the like but merely provides an initial quantitative measure.

What’s immediately striking is the vast gulf between the most and least active backbenchers. This is the case even amongst our Cornish MPs. Andrew George easily tops the class with 27 spoken contributions and 60 written questions. He’s followed at a distance by Dan Rogerson (10 and 13), Sarah Newton (12 and 5) and Steve Gilbert (7 and 13) who are all around the same level. Bringing up the rear are George Eustice (four spoken and one written) and the accident prone Sheryll Murray, who managed just one of each.

But let’s concentrate on the new boys and girls and ignore the experienced old lags. There are 223 new MPs in this Parliament. Two Tory new boys – Robert Halfon (Harlow) and Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford) have managed to catch the Speaker’s eye even more often than Andrew George, racking up 39 and 30 spoken interventions respectively.

Others prefer to deluge Minsters with written questions. Andrew Stephenson (Con, Pendle) has asked 118 questions and Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park) 101. But the most prolific is Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan) who’s asked a phenomenal 145 written questions.

Using my measure above the top five MPs of the class of 2010 are therefore

1 Lisa Nandy (Labr) 79.5
2 Andrew Stephenson (Con) 70
3 Robert Halfon (Con) 66
=4 Zac Goldsmith (Con) 55.5
=4 Caroline Lucas (Green) 55.5

Compared to these the scores of George Eustice – at 4.5 – and Sheryll Murray – 1.5 – look less than impressive. Indeed, ranking the new MPs we find Sarah Newton comes in as a respectable equal 83rd of the 223 new MPs, but George Eustice is 182nd and Sheryll Murray down at 214th.

Maybe George was ‘hard at work making the case’ behind closed doors, using his PR skills. Maybe that’s why he’s apparently not bothering with a constituency office despite sitting on a mere 66 vote majority. No doubt both he and Sheryll Murray will be reporting on their constituency websites about what they’ve been up to in order to earn their basic £65,738.

Eustice U-turn on Camborne-Redruth ‘bonkers’ housing targets

Fanatical anti-Cornish nationalist blogger Mudhook (pretentious? moi?) commented the other day on a question on July 19th to the Minister for Work and Pensions from Camborne-Redruth MP George Eustice. Our George pointed out that former tin miners were being denied compensation for osteoarthritis of the knee and asked the Minister for parity with coal miners.

All well and good. Though how odd that an interview at politics.co.uk a month ago should conclude that

Camborne and Redruth might have a conscientious character as their new MP but he seems more at home discussing the media strategies of the Labour leadership contest than the health problems of a tin miner in his constituency.

Strange too that the Mudhook didn’t bother to mention Eustice’s question three days later to the Under Secretary of Transport Norman Baker.

[10301] George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): One of the projects currently under review in my area is the east-west link road in Camborne and Redruth, which is a crucial element of a broader regeneration project, led by the private sector, that would create 6,000 new jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that when it comes to prioritising transport projects after the comprehensive spending review, one of the key criteria to apply will be the impact on enterprise and jobs?

In the run-up to the election Eustice made a huge song and dance about the ‘bonkers target’ of 11,000 extra houses being imposed on Camborne-Redruth by Labour’s regional quango. Yet now he’s supporting a ‘regeneration’ project and its associated road to nowhere because it creates 6,000 new jobs.

But why does George think 6,000 new jobs are needed? Mopping up unemployment entirely in the district would require nothing like this number. In fact they were only needed for all the new residents in those 11,000 houses. So if George is in favour of the 6,000 then he must also favour the 11,000.

On the other hand, if the 11,000 is a ‘bonkers target’ then isn’t the 6,000 also ‘bonkers’? But if that’s also ‘bonkers’ then why do we need another road?


Eustice, baffled by bonkers targets

Environmental sustainability? Or endless growth fetish? Business co-opts academic agendas

A large chunk of Convergence cash is being spent on Exeter University’s Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI) on the Tremough campus near Penryn. Some confusion seems to cloud the reporting of this, with the Western Morning News claiming it will research ‘the causes of environmental change’. Think again.

From Exeter University’s point of view this is presumably one more convenient cash cow, courtesy of European grant aid. This Devon-based institution is set to make money from it in two ways. First, it will attract the ‘world-class’ (what else) academics who in turn generate more research income. Second, it allows the recruitment of 500 extra students, each of whom (at present at least) brings teaching grants with them.

Yes, a proportion (maybe even a majority) of this money will no doubt percolate into the Cornish economy. More indirectly, there’s the hyped up promise of another 800 spin-off jobs (and how was this number calculated?) in a ‘thriving cluster of businesses’ that will make money out of the problem of climate change.


According to the University’s press release, which seems to have been recycled by the WMN, the ESI’s main purpose is clearly to ‘drive forward economic development in Cornwall’. Carleen Keleman of the Convergence Office views the ‘principle of environment’ as an ‘economic driver’. Suzanne Bond of the SWRDA says the ESI will ‘drive long term growth’.

What we appear to have therefore is a classic example of the way business and profitability agendas co-opt climate change and the sustainability agenda. Will those ‘world-class’ researchers conclude that sustainability and ‘long term growth’ are incompatible? Will their efforts lead them to argue that capitalism itself and its insatiable drive for profits is the ultimate cause of climate change? I think not.

It’s unlikely that they will challenge the behaviour encouraged daily by the needs of profit - buy more, consume more, travel more. Although this lies at the root of the global environmental crisis challenging it is likely to be one ‘step-change’ too many. Sadly, the ESI is a con-trick, a device that lulls us into thinking that climate change will be ‘solved’ by more growth. At bottom, it legitimates the current frenetic rush to eat up the world’s resources, holding out the desperate hope that a series of technological fixes can act as sticking plasters on the wounds inflicted by capital.

It’s such a waste. Potentially, an unfettered ESI could be a think-tank for the innovative ideas needed to build a stable state and sustainable economy and society in Cornwall. But it can’t as it’s trapped within a business-led fantasy world where resources are infinite, where markets grow without end and where academics jet around the globe researching into sustainability but acting unsustainably.

The connection between endless growth and environmental catastrophe will be one thing we can safely predict won’t be on the agenda at Tremough. The frightening implications of this are just too terrifying to be allowed to disturb the dreamworld of the project class holed up in its regional quangos and government offices. This new ESI is yet another part of the growth addiction we are locked into and an irrelevance when seeking a solution to it.

Does the Cornish Constitutional Convention have a future?

This morning all roads to Truro will be clogged as the Cornish Constitutional Convention holds its annual meeting at County [sic] Hall. The Western Morning News, fervent supporter of Cornish devolution (and of course Devonwall but never let a few contradictions ruin the day) gave CCC leader Bert Biscoe two whole pages this week for his rambling reflections on devolution.

Some of this is quite sensible. For example

we need to redraw the balance between the value of our land as our key agricultural and destination resource, and the use of land for development – the accepted formula is changing quickly. We need the toolkit to safeguard our land

Some of it is more questionable. Cllr Biscoe loves the grandiloquent yet ultimately emptily banal phrase and is quick to repeat the gobbledygook of management-speak as if it’s holy writ.

As we understand more about climate change, so our ability to optimise our potential as a food producer and value-adder is emerging. We remain a globally competitive destination for visitors seeking stimulation, high standards of service, environmental awareness and action, excellent products and a desire to be brand-loyal where consistency, depth and quality prevail.

Yes, let’s swiftly move on. Occasionally however, he takes a flying leap right off the wall. For example before the (sound of trumpets and heavenly choirs) miraculous arrival of Objective One we’re informed that ‘the murder rate in Bodmin was one of the highest in the UK’.

Or that the success of the Convention campaign in the heart of Westminster is measured by the ‘possibility of a Cornish Assembly never having been dismissed or crushed’. Just ignored and patronised then. Always one to see a few drops at the bottom as meaning the glass is more than half full, Biscoeism involves levels of unreal optimism unattainable to the average citizen.

However, while its aim is laudable, the time has surely come for a fundamental rethink of the Convention’s approach in new conditions of state restructuring. I would suggest it faces three fundamental issues, strategic, political and economic.

Strategically Bert Biscoe and his parliamentary alter-ego Andrew George decided at an early stage to put their faith in converting the great and the good rather than anything as distasteful as a grassroots campaign. Arguably, the biggest success of the Convention was to raise a petition of 50,000+ signatures in favour of an Assembly, to date still the only unequivocal evidence of support for devolution anywhere in Britain outside Scotland and Wales.

Yet, having relied on the foot soldiers of MK and other organisations to do the work, Biscoe and George then regularly and gratuitously set about insulting unnamed ‘Cornish nationalists’. The ‘political bias’ of nationalists is contrasted with the ‘
‘inclusivity’ of Biscoeism. In pursuit of this MK’s Dick Cole has been quietly removed from Convention platforms, replaced by luminaries of the devolutionist movement such as Kevin Lavery and Sarah Newton MP.

While sidelining ‘nationalism’ Biscoe himself claims to have

moved national discussion forward, we have stamped our case into the minds of those who shape and deliver national policy

What ‘nation’ might this be exactly? And why is (I assume) British nationalism an unrecognised and more acceptable framework for the Convention?

Pandering to local political and economic elites comes easier because of the political and economic assumptions of Biscoeism. Politically, in Biscoe-land the unitary authority is a ‘success … moving towards a successful single council and a governance model that genuinely practices the principles of devolution.’ This ignores the small detail that by concentrating local government on a Cornwall-wide scale the unitary authority brilliantly results in making a Cornish Assembly less not more attainable.

That’s because we now require not just the Assembly infrastructure but a restoration of proper local government. Which will cost money. Which the ConLibs have no intention of spending. Politically, the Convention badly lost its way when it was bought off by the Lib Dem leadership of the former County Council and failed to argue for unitary local government on a local (i.e. sub-Cornwall) level.

Finally, economically, what is the Assembly for? Is it just a more devolved shell for the continuing rapacious exploitation of Cornwall? In the Biscoeite model the ‘key message’ is that it’s ‘simply good for business’. But what sort of business? Is this business as usual? And how is this supposed to rally the troops or hold out a ‘vision’ for meaningful change?

However, have to stop there or and get down to Truro or I’ll miss most of the Convention.

Quangocrat quits before he even starts

Events certainly move fast in the dynamic world of quangoland.

On July 15th we were all pleased as Punch to read that

Cornwall Cornwall Development Company had achieved a ‘coup’ by appointing Colin Molton, south west Director of the Homes and Communities Agency, as their new chief executive. Tears of joy were shed across Cornwall as the news percolated through to communities desperate for regeneration.

Far from disqualifying him from the job, Molton’s background working for English Partnerships and the South West Regional Destruction (of Cornwall) Agency meant he was eminently suitable. In the narrow circle where ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ rules this was close to being the second coming. But now he’s not coming at all.

Only a week later and gloom and despondency shrouds County [sic] Hall. Molton has done a bunk. Well, in fact it seems he was never that keen on leaving the HCA in the first place. Following ‘further discussions’ with his central government employers he’s decided to stay in his current post. Tim Jones commented ‘we’re losing a figure who would have been able to deliver on projects and who is recognised by the public and private sectors’. (Although not by the Cornish people. But hey, who’s asking them?)

Hold on a sec though. Tim who? And who’s this ‘we’? Jones, spokesman for the Devonwall undead, is no doubt quietly delighted at this shambles as it sets back Cornwall Council’s plans (??) for a Cornwall-based Local Enterprise Partnership and boosts his own Devonwall proposal.

So why has Molton bottled out and refused the offer to enjoy a ‘quality lifestyle’ and go surfing every evening after a hard day at the office? Two possible reasons. Either he’s heard through his networking connections that the CDC will be severely strapped for funds in this new ConLib ‘age of austerity’. Or he never really intended to take the job in the first place. Surely his ‘acceptance’ wasn’t just a ploy to enable him to negotiate improved conditions to his estimated £165,000 a year package with the HCA, was it?

The new An Gof? Cornish rebel leader in final cave in

Spot the difference - Cornish rebels 1497 and 2010





Seemingly hardly noticed in the Cornish media on Tuesday the Budget got its Third (and final) Reading in the Commons. Here was the last chance for the self-appointed leader of the Lib Dem backbench revolt to stake his claim to fame. The time had arrived to register clear opposition to a palpably unfair Budget by voting against it. The opportunity was presented to make a statement about the cynical cuts policy that’s just a smokescreen to put millions into the pockets of private companies.


Andrew George had set himself up as the leader of the Lib Dem rebels, a fearsome bunch of four angry middle-aged men. He’d tabled amendments, only to withdraw them before a vote. He’d spoken against the VAT rise, only to then change his mind. He’d blustered, he’d threatened, he’d pontificated, he’d prevaricated. He’d also massively confused everyone by voting both ways – for and against the VAT rise.

But, having failed dismally with his ‘botched attempts’ to persuade the ConLib hard men to look again at the effects of VAT, how did he jump on the final vote? It’s my sad duty to relate that the great AG rebellion finally spluttered into the ignominious damp squib it was unfortunately always destined to be.

On Tuesday George dutifully trooped through the ayes lobby along with the other 321 units of voting fodder, including his friends Eustice, Newton, Gilbert, Rogerson and Murray. This final feeble surrender makes one wonder exactly what all the fuss was about in the first place. Unable to do anything to defend the poor will he be able to do anything to defend Cornwall? And more to the point when he next threatens to cause havoc is anyone at all going to believe him?

In denial: the myth of ‘green Cornwall’

I picked up a booklet the other day. All about the ‘bold, innovative and exciting’ eco-town in the clay country. Odd, I thought it was just a scam to build more houses and put money in the pockets of overseas developers. How wrong could I be. No, this is apparently a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to ‘make a difference’.

The booklet is a fine example of post-modern gibberish, complete with its own summary in quaint medieval revived Cornish to add to its dizzying unreality. It’s all ‘vision’, ‘transformational’, ‘vibrant’ and a ‘catalyst for behaviour change’. But at the heart is a rotten lie and a series of unaddressed questions. Like

* why is the eco-town thus described when the booklet admits it ‘adopts a polycentric approach across five sites’ (in plain English it’s not a town)?
* where are the residents coming from?
* how will they make 50% of their trips from the clay country by ‘non-car means’ and how will this be ensured? Compulsory bus journeys? Free bikes for the downhill journeys and a ski-lift to come home?
* since when has a marina (an essential part of the eco-town at Par) been ‘green’?
* how much is Orascom Developments, the developers, set to make from this?

Of course this isn’t just ‘change’. It’s ‘stepped change’. Which is better than change. Obviously.

Cornwall Council live in a dream world where proclaiming Cornwall ‘is the green penininsular [sic] of the South West’ replaces reality. It’s a never-never land of wishful thinking, unsubstantiated rosy claims and gallons of greenwash.

A green peninsula?? Let’s just check the most recent figures for CO2 emissions by local authority, which date from 2007. At that time the per capita emissions in Cornwall were 7.5 kt of CO2 a year. But there must be some mistake! In Devon per capita emissions were running at 7.1. In Bristol they were 5.6, in Exeter 5.5, in Torbay 5.0. So that must mean that Devon and Bristol are really green.

Maybe CO2 emissions are decreasing faster in Cornwall. Well, not quite. From 2005 to 2007 CO2 emissions declined by 2.9% in Cornwall. But they fell much faster in Devon – by 5.0%. But then, in postmodern times who cares? Say it loud and say it often and any idiotic rubbish can become the truth.

A Cornwall LEP: all change or no change?

This week in Newquay David Cameron (no less) promised us a Cornwall based Local Enterprise Partnership.

Let's get business leaders and local councils coming together and say "this is what we are going to do".

That is the idea behind local enterprise partnerships and we could have one here in Cornwall.

Local businesses, chambers of commerce and CBI (Confederation of British Industry) – they know what Cornwall needs to develop. They should be saying, 'we are better at spending money in Cornwall ourselves rather than have someone in Bristol decide what we should do'.

I would hope that a Cornish scheme will come forward and the decisions can be made here for what I think will be a very bright economic future.

Can’t say fairer than that. It’s now up to Cornwall Council to work with local businesses, come up with a convincing framework and make sure that the Council, businesses and parliamentarians unite in pressing for it rather than be seduced by a stale old Devonwall framework recycled by the Devon and Cornwall Business Council.

The Cornwall Development Company, established in April 2009 by the former County Council as its economic development arm, is being seen as the potential core of a Cornwall LEP. Its vision includes the possibly contradictory aim of ‘low carbon economic growth’.

However, the uninspiring recent appointment of Colin Molton as chief executive has got the alarm bells ringing in some quarters about its commitment to transcending a business as usual agenda. Molton’s career so far has been in textbook mainstream regeneration quango-land. There’s little hint of any opinions that might conflict with a regeneration agenda that’s basically a cover for the ongoing exploitation of Cornwall.

After working for English Partnerships in the Midlands Molton became an executive director of the SWRDA in 1999. While there he was ‘delighted’ at the expansion of Exeter airport which had ‘an important role to play in serving the far [sic] south west’.

In 2008 he supported a strategy to

enable us to build an economy - from planning through to housing and transport - that will remove the barriers to growth. This will enable us to lead a sustainable economy by unlocking the region's business potential.

And a year before he reported how the south west was ‘preparing for significant levels of growth’.

Not much evidence there of any understanding of what’s required for ‘low carbon economic growth’, let alone a properly sustainable economy. No sign of any sneaking unease at the environmental consequences of this ‘growth’.

In November 2008 he gave up his £151,000 a year job with the RDA and took his accrued pension of £30-35k a year plus £100-105 lump sum to the Homes and Communities Agency. There his total salary was around £165,000. Although Cornwall Council is being notoriously secretive about the deals it makes with its top executives, it will be interesting to learn what salary he’s now on.

At the HCA he noted the ‘much needed new housing’ in Camborne. Well, yes – needed by locals priced out by population growth. But not otherwise needed. And he was apparently looking forward to working with ex-Lib Dem MP and South West Water director Matthew Taylor on the Eco-Town [sic] board. In his RDA days he was on the board of the CPR Degeneration Company. Many years of uncritical involvement at the heart of the project class must have reinforced a predictable set of establishment assumptions.

In the course of this and in his time at the HCA he’s forged close relations with the property industry, winning the Insider Property Personality of the Year Award South West in 2009. Maybe his experience in funding social housing at the HCA has resulted in this poacher turning gamekeeper. But for the moment the jury’s out.

Convergence and the RDA: messy manoeuvring or scorched earth policy?

On Monday this week the Treasury ordered the doomed South West Regional Development Agency to freeze its processing of applications and payments of match funding for EU grants, including Cornwall’s Convergence spending. Cue panic amongst the project class.

The Western Morning News reported that projects at risk could include the sensible such as high speed broadband and the Wave Hub; the more dubious such as innovation centres; and the downright stupid, such as funding the expansion of carbon dioxide production at Newquay airport.

At the end of the working week all was chaos and confusion. No-one from the Treasury or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had been available for comments to the press on Wednesday. By Thursday it turned out that the Wave Hub at least was unaffected as all contracts had already been signed. Alec Robertson, Tory leader at Cornwall Council, pitched in, all soothing words pointing out this was a postponement, not a cancellation and that it was a ‘sensible move’.

The next day, it was still uncertain what was being postponed, what cancelled. On Friday the Convergence Partnership Office was still seeking clarification. Meanwhile, Andrew George had demanded in the Commons on Thursday that Ministers from the relevant departments respond to the uncertainty. He then led the three Lib Dem musketeers into discussions with Government ministers. According to George ministers indicated that no previously approved schemes were in jeopardy.

As an aside, regular readers will know that I’ve had little time for Andrew George’s naïve prevaricating over the unfair budget and the punitive ConLib cuts designed to transfer money (and profits) from the public to the private sector. But credit where credit’s due. On the Convergence funding issue, he’s provided a sterling lead. What’s more difficult to discern is the role of our three Tory MPs. Deep and utter silence continues to cluster around their empty heads. Do they agree with Robertson that this was a ‘sensible move’? I can find no comment this week on this issue from any of them. Which begs the question of what might be happening if we had six Conservative MPs I suppose.

But back to Convergence. Wasson then? Things still aren’t exactly transparent with rumours going the rounds that the Government plans to stop the EU funded schemes in order to get a rebate. Is this therefore a cunning part of the mad ConLib attack on public spending? Or is it just another government cock-up, like the school building cuts announced by the insufferable public school twit Gove.

Or is it, as Chief Devonwall Zombie Tim Jones suggests in a remarkably astute comment, just cynical politics, testing the reaction to possible cuts. Those who shout loudest save their bacon. But whose cynical politics? Could it be the RDA engaging in a scorched earth policy? This was at least implied by Andrew George’s comment on local TV on Friday evening when he suggested the RDA may have been over-zealous in interpreting the Treasury order that kicked it all off.

It might well be in the RDA’s interests to show how absolutely essential it is to the management of European regional development spending. Indeed, a story in the local press back on July 1st, clearly emanating from the RDA’s press office, made exactly that point.

Is the RDA therefore indulging in a little inter-departmental sniping, deliberately sowing confusion as it conducts its retreat to its Bristol bunker? On Thursday, somewhat mysteriously, David Armstrong of Francis Clark accountants at Plymouth, popped up saying that the importance of Convergence funding made a strong case for the SWRDA to be excluded from the government moratorium. Armstrong is a grant advisor and has worked closely with the RDA.

Faced by the imminent disappearance of their jobs, those who staff regional quangos (and central and local government come to that) will no doubt fight like ferrets in a sack for survival over the coming months. We’re likely to see a lot more deliberate disinformation, hyped up claims and cynical manipulation of public opinion before the Regional Destruction (of Cornwall) Agency bites the dust.

This week David Cameron was doing a question and answer session at Newquay (interesting choice of location in Little England by the Sea). Anyway, Cameron was asked why he was scrapping the RDA. And which ‘member of the public’ asked this question.? None other than Stephen Bohane, RDA head of business development in Cornwall. I trust that Bohane was on his day off and we weren’t paying him to spend his time confronting the PM in the interests of keeping his own job.

Amidst all the confusion surrounding this the real issue, rather conveniently for some, gets lost. Surely this is a perfect opportunity to critically examine the Convergence gravy train, scheme by scheme? Which projects will actually help a properly sustainable and stable economy to emerge in Cornwall? And which are just fronts for feeding the voracious appetites of private and corporate greed? The latter should be scrapped, alongside the clearly dysfunctional SWRDA.

West Briton shows its age

It must have been even more difficult than usual yesterday to press through the throngs of gormless shoppers and tourists in Truro desperate for their next consumption fix. For locals were presumably also out in force in the streets celebrating the 200th birthday of the dear old West Briton.

On the first of 25 (!?) pages of this week’s paper given over to this momentous anniversary the West Brit’s editor Richard Best came up with this remarkable statement.

The West Briton was originally a Whig newspaper, set up to provide an alternative view to a local Tory rival which had begun publication in 1803.

This, also, has changed. These days we have no affiliation to any political party and endeavour to treat every issue on its merits as it arises, trying whenever we can to present both or all points of view to enable our readers to make up their own minds.

We are happy to give a voice to the underdog and to challenge those in positions of power. At all times we endeavour to act in what we perceive to be the best interests of the community.

Best preferred to remain silent on the cover page about the possibly relevant current ownership of the paper. The West Brit is, along with the Cornish Guardian, Cornishman and Western Morning News (whatever happened to competition?), owned by the Cornwall and Devon Media Group. Which is owned by Northcliffe Newspapers. Which is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Yes, the Daily Mail. The same Daily Mail that’s always happy to give ‘voice to the underdog and challenge those in positions of power’.

But let’s take the hapless hack’s words at face value. What do we find? On page 1 we have a photo of the Duke of Cornwall (who also warrants two whole pages covering a flying visit to his dominion later in the paper). Pages 2 and 3 have messages from those well-known underdogs Lady Mary Holborow, Jeremy Hunt (Secretary of State for Culture), the Duke of Cornwall (again), Viscount Rothermere and David Cameron.

A positive cacophony of voices of the great and good there then. Not much sign of the underdog though. In the following pages we’re subjected to some more very important people. The Bishop of Truro, the Chief Constable, and Malcolm Bell, tourism apologist extraordinaire and head of VisitCornwall occupy the next three pages with their riveting opinions. Hold in there through. There’s a picture of some poll tax protestors from back in 1991 on page 11. Not that we hear their voices though. God forbid.

And somehow the paper doesn’t link its loyal coverage of the Duke’s visit with the plans it reports for a Waitrose, a Cornish Food Centre, a park and ride facility and recycling centre all on greenfield land between the A39 and A390 east of Truro in the valley running down to Tresillian. Oh, and it seems there’s likely to be some unquantified ‘housing’ built there too.

The landowner happens to be … the Duchy of Cornwall. As in Newquay, this developer is keen to extract more profits by expanding the built-up area into the surrounding fields. Apparently, the Duchy has already been stitching this up with Cornwall Council planners on the quiet despite widespread local disquiet. Never mind though, they’re having open sessions for the public about their plans at the extremely convenient times of 5-6.30 pm this coming Sunday and 6.30-8.30 pm next Tuesday. On the planet circling Alpha Centauri B. Or Alverton Manor. Whichever is closest.

The voice of the underdog, if we define local Tory councillor Fiona Ferguson as such, is relegated to page 58. Meanwhile, on the other side of Truro, Cornwall Cabinet was yesterday discussing the disposal of the old Richard Lander school site. For reasons ‘relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person’ this took place in secret behind closed doors. Locals would like the site to be used for leisure facilities. Some chance! The betting is that it will be sold to a supermarket – Morrisons and Tescos are in the running. Or to another property speculator to build 350 houses to accommodate incomers.

With Cornwall rapidly being sold off around us by the landed class and Cornwall Council to supermarket sharks and property developers it’s a relief to know we have the plucky West Briton standing up for the underdog. However, what would the nineteenth century journalists on the Liberal-leaning newspaper think of the great sale of Cornwall? And would they recognise their bastard media offspring? Come to that, would they recognise their twenty-first century Liberal progeny?

Will he? Won’t he? George trembles on the brink.

ConLib MP Andrew George continues to walk his gravity-defying tightrope between being leader of a mini-backbench Lib Dem revolt and loyal supporter of the coalition. Swaying this way and that, tottering between welcoming Lib Dem influence on an unfair budget and condemning its reliance on raising VAT. Following his gyrations makes one giddy.

Yesterday, further debate at the committee stage of the Finance Bill presented George with another opportunity to become the lightning rod of dissent. Sadly it was more of a lollipop stick of mild disparagement. This was no Myghal An Gof moment. Offered the chance to support an SNP/Plaid Cymru amendment to strike out the iniquitous VAT rise, George meekly abstained from voting. As Labour, for some devious reasons of their own, also abstained this amendment was soundly defeated 316 votes to 21. The 316 included Cornish Lib Dems Gilbert and Rogerson although a number of other Lib Dems didn’t vote.

Andrew George’s own amendment, to remove charities, public authorities and various other categories from VAT, was, we were informed, merely a ‘probing amendment’. Having probed and tickled away the amendment was withdrawn. The Government front bench, drunk with mad axeman cutting hysteria, must have breathed a sigh of relief.

On a Labour amendment proposing much the same thing but pushed to a vote Andrew George again abstained. Rogerson and Gilbert again voted the government line. But wait, George did support a Labour amendment demanding a report on the impact of VAT on mountain rescue services. The mountain rescue services in craggy West Penwith were heartened. The government again held its breath. Rogerson and Gilbert again helped it to an easy victory.

Then the crunch vote. The final division on the VAT clause found Lib Dem ‘rebels’ hopelessly confused. One – Bob Russell – actually voted against the VAT clause and full credit to him for consistency. But what was this – a second brave Lib Dem name recorded voting against was … Andrew George. Break out the pasties! Here’s 20,000 Cornishmen … etc. So who voted for the Government? Well, all the rest of the Lib Dems, including Gilbert and Rogerson. Oh, and someone called Andrew George. Yes, true to form, our hero had voted both for and against.

The basic problem Andrew George has is that he accepts that

in its entirety, the bundle of proposed tax rises and public spending cuts in the Budget is at about the right level.

No, it’s not. This just legitimates a fundamentally unfair Budget. It then becomes merely a question of divvying up the 20% of the debt reduction met through tax rises. Should we tax those who can afford it through bankers’ levies, capital gains tax, corporation tax or income tax or tax the poor through VAT?

But this also totally misses the point. Paying for this latest crisis of capitalism by relying 80% on public sector cuts is itself deeply regressive. If Andrew George can’t see this then it’s no wonder he’s impaled wriggling on that fence.

Sheryll Murray: from bad to worse

Oh dear, I’m beginning to feel sympathy for the hapless Sheryll Murray, new Tory MP for South East Cornwall. Sheryll has now achieved what might have been her lifetime ambition by making it into the Daily Mail. But the Mail prefers to concentrate on scurrilous tales of too many glasses of wine taken (prices subsidised by the taxpayer) ....

South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray, who had also been drinking on the terrace, was reportedly involved in an exchange with a Commons doorkeeper who asked if she needed help when encountering her in a corridor.

Mrs Murray, 54, who is married to a Cornish trawlerman and, like Mr Reckless, entered the Commons in May, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I don’t recall any altercation. I remember catching my breath.

'I’d had a couple of glasses of wine on the terrace but I wasn’t rude to anybody. If
I had been rude I would apologise.

'Somebody did say, “Are you all right?” But I don’t remember being under the influence
of alcohol.

‘There is a lesson to be learned from this: You don’t drink at all on the terrace.’

The following day, a Conser­vative official apologised to the doorkeeper.

Excoriated by her constituents, Sheryll seems to be somewhat accident prone.

While her colourful exploits provide great fun and remind us of the great days of eighteenth century Cornish parliamentary representation I’m more concerned by her activities (or lack of them) since getting elected. Is one rather feeble maiden speech and staggering into a few voting lobbies really good enough value for all those people in South East Cornwall who gave her their vote? Just make sure it’s the right voting lobby, Sheryll.

Who backs Devonwall?

Distasteful it might be but let’s look a bit more closely at the Devonwall lobby. What interests lie behind the resurrection of this failed project from the 1970s? The public face of Devonwall is the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, which very quickly put its proposal for a Devon and Cornwall Local Enterprise Partnership on the table and garnered publicity from the Daily Mail local press monopoly. Yet the DCBC also suffers from the contradictions of a project that conceals special pleading from a small largely Devon-based clique centred on Exeter.

The DCBC claims to represent 40,000 businesses. But this is as inaccurate as the Lib Dems claiming to represent the views of 540,000 Cornish residents. It’s funded mainly through sponsorships and its listed business sponsors amount to a grand total of 51. That’s a tiny 0.13% of the businesses in Cornwall and Devon. The Council also has six directors and an advisory board of 20, although it’s rather coy about giving details of who these ‘advisers’ might be.

Instead six names are offered. The spokesperson is Tim Jones, who uncannily resembles one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Jeremy Filmer-Bennetts, the Chief Executive, is a north Devon man with experience in the ‘hospitality’ business. Then there’s Tony Parry, Derek Phillips, former hospitality services director at Exeter University, Michael Dunn of BT and the single Cornish representative, Thelma Sorensen of Saltash.

Thelma heads up Cornwall Business Partnerships and comes from a construction industry background. Like many Cornwall Councillors Thelma rabbits on about a ‘low carbon, renewable energy economy’. In practice however she’s actually very keen on deeply ungreen projects such as the Carlyon Bay exploitation and expanding Newquay airport. She also has a finger in the Convergence pie, with a seat on the Convergence Advisory Board.

Almost half of the DCBC’s sponsors are business support companies – solicitors, accountants, banks, IT support, recruitment, marketing companies and the like. Only a minority actually produce useful stuff themselves. Just two of the 51 sponsors are manufacturing companies, while four are in communications and transport, including the rail franchise companies. There are only two from construction - one being Midas, the Exeter and Plymouth based beneficiary of much EU spending in Cornwall. And three are energy and utility companies – South West Water, BT and EDF.

Of these sponsors four (or 8%) have their HQ in Cornwall, and that’s being generous. Two of these are St Austell Brewery and the Digital Peninsula Network - the Penzance based small business and ICT network funded by EU money and originally chaired by the ubiquitous ‘networker’ Tim Dwelly. The other two are both rather ambiguous. Chocolate Dog Marketing Services gives an address in St Tudy and another in Plymouth while Coast Communications is another marketing agency that claims it’s ‘based in Cornwall’ but works from four locations ‘across the south west’, sports all its recommendations from Devon and a Plymouth phone number.

At a minimum then perhaps DCBC should consider renaming itself the Devon and east Cornwall Business Council.

But the DCBC also claim ‘supporters’. These are listed under the curious and rather ominous heading of ‘The Organisation’. The ‘organisation’ includes 73 ‘supporters, many being central government agencies or public-private companies. Of these, 22 are based outside Cornwall and Devon entirely, 38 have their home base in Devon and 13 (18%) in Cornwall.

But some question marks hover over this list. For a start, it includes bodies such as the Objective One and Objective Two partnerships, which ended a few years back. There’s also the Rail Passengers Committee (West of England), which was abolished in 2005. The description of Cornwall Council as Cornwall County Council, while accurately reflecting the lack of change, should give pause for thought about the veracity of this list. One can’t avoid the impression of a rather desperate trawl through any and every possible supporter. (For example ‘MPs and MEPs’ is on the list. All of them?)

The second question needs to be directed at Cornwall Council. Why is it listed as supporting a body calling for a Devon and Cornwall LEP when its own policy is a Cornwall LEP? Isn’t this somewhat counter-productive? In addition other organisations wholly or partly funded by Cornwall Council also appear – Cornwall Enterprise, Newquay Airport. So does Cornwall Council support DCBC policy or not?

Thelma Sorensen’s Cornwall Business Partnership is joined by Finance Cornwall (of which she was a non-executive director) and Cornwall College (where one of the governors happens to be … oh, Thelma Sorensen again). Making up the Cornish support are the greenwash Eden Project, the CUC (funded by public money) and various Chambers of Commerce.

To sum up, it would be foolish to underestimate the strengths of the DCBC and the Devonwall lobby. These include the involvement and support of some powerful and large companies such as SWW, EDF and BT along with central government agencies, its ability to tap into a Devonwall media and its facility for the more invisible networking that, like an iceberg, removes most of the action to below the surface.

On the other hand, it displays some fundamental weaknesses. The DCBC website is amateurish, poorly designed, out of date and with inoperable links. Its case is based on desperation rather than evidence, on the repetition of unsubstantiated claims and assertions. These reach absurd levels when its ‘track record’ claims credit for ‘developing affordable housing’ and ‘supporting the Dobwall [sic] by pass’. Surprised that ‘dry weather in June’ doesn’t appear on the list.

Ultimately it represents a tiny Devon-based clique driven by special pleading on behalf of its own profit margins. It depends on hired mercenaries to argue its corner and lacks any deep belief in the rightness of the Devonwall concept. The opportunistic presence among its supporters of organisations with a long record of depredation and plunder in Cornwall – such as the Duchy of Cornwall – indicates that Devonwall is just a shell for profitability and exploitation. And a fragile shell at that.

On opposition politics in Cornwall and the state of parliamentary representation

The Cornish Democrat calls for Cornish resistance to the attacks that are daily mounting on various fronts. But who will lead this resistance? More to the immediate point, where is the democratically elected opposition to the ConLib Government assault going to come from? If all six MPs are at ‘the heart of government’ then it follows that there's no parliamentary opposition standing up for Cornwall.

Labour has gone on extended AWOL as they sort out who’s going to their new telegenic (male, Oxbridge, middle-aged) leader. That’ll mark them out from the others then. And in any case there’s little or no evidence that Labour is likely to jettison its top-down, over-centralised and statist approach. When in government Labour showed scant sign of being aware of the existence of Cornwall, let alone acknowledge its special case. Furthermore, Labour has no local authority councillors in Cornwall and, having helped to halve our elections, no chance of any more until 2013.

The Lib Dems have now clearly thrown in their hat with the Tories. The most active Lib Dem MP – Andrew George – acts like a prima donna, first supporting the unfair Budget, then getting us all excited that there might be some backbone after all by announcing his opposition, before meekly accepting the same unfair Budget. This behaviour does not exactly engender confidence in his ability to confront Clegg and lead any Cornish opposition.

Dan Rogerson asks the occasional good question but has yet to prove he can take over a leadership mantle. It’s too early to say when it comes to Steve Gilbert. He’s also asked some apposite questions and been almost as active as Dan Rogerson although the pair of them have asked less than a quarter the number of written questions as Andrew George and spoken in a third of the number of debates.

One question posed by Gilbert was about second homes, where he was informed by the Government that there were 13,995 homes registered as second homes for council tax purposes in Cornwall in 2009. However, asked what the constituency breakdown was, the Government replied that ‘data are not available at a constituency level’. Strange, if he’d gone to Cornwall 24, he’d have found these ‘unavailable’ data (which probably greatly underestimate the true picture). Might be worth following up that question, Steve.

There’s also the Tories. Can we have any hope they’ll rebel against their party whips on Cornish issues? Or are they just backbench voting fodder? So far there’s little value to show for the expense of having elected them. In a month and a half of hard parliamentary graft George Eustice has intervened in just two debates and Sheryll Murray in just one – her seven minute maiden speech.

Sarah Newton shows a little more spirit. She tried to intervene, successfully and unsuccessfully, in three debates even before her maiden speech and has clocked up six debate interventions in total. I also like the way she clashed with the Speaker by not following the 13th century mumbo-jumbo that passes for parliamentary procedure. She’s been more verbally active than any other Cornish MP apart from the garrulous Andrew George. Sarah also strongly supported Andrew George’s call for fair funding for the NHS in Cornwall. Although, like her Tory colleagues, she can’t quite bring herself to sign Steve Gilbert’s early day motion calling for a review of funding for Cornwall. But then only eight MPs have.

Which leaves just MK to lead the opposition. With only three Cornwall councillors this is a big ask. But now is the time for some serious long-term strategic thinking on how to build an effective opposition to the right-wing ConLib Government, both inside and outside parliamentary and council chambers.

The attack of the Devonwall undead: latest

Isn’t life so confusing these days. One minute Cornwall is right at the ‘heart of government’, with six fearless crusaders, heralds of a new age when we will no longer be ignored or taken for granted. The next moment not only is the territorial integrity of Cornwall once more at risk from Tory gerrymandering but the air is thick with rumours of the Devonwall undead at large again.

On 22nd June the Government confirmed that it was scrapping the failed centralist regionalist quango, the South West RDA. However, this would be replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships. According to Tory Caroline Spelman back in November 2009, these were ‘leaner, more focused’ development agencies. So LEPs can have come as no shock to those in the know.

And yet somehow they seem to have caught Cornwall Council on the hop. On the 17th June, almost a week before the official announcement of the RDA’s demise, the graveyard echoed to the sound of coffin lids hitting the ground. Zombie leader Tim Jones was launching the Devon and Cornwall Business Council’s proposal for a SW Region (South) LEP. This mouthful basically conceals a Devon and Cornwall LEP, with southern Somerset added in if they can get it.

The DCBC disingenuously claimed the proposal followed requests from (unnamed) partners and was the ‘result of intensive consultation’, ‘consultation’ that has left no discernable trace outside the spirit world. However, they could count on their friends in the Daily Mail local press monopoly to publicise the reborn Devonwall agency.

On 18th June the Western Morning News reported it as


A source apparently told them

The sands of time are running out for the RDA. Suddenly everyone has got the message they are likely to be history pretty quickly.

So as the RDA becomes history they’re going to be replaced by an even worse nightmare from the past. The same day the Exeter Express and Echo rather gave the game away with its headline


And then there was this from the Western Morning News.


Andy Steele, of Stephens Scown solicitors, with offices in Exeter, Truro and St Austell, was wheeled out and given coverage to provide pseudo-intellectual justification.

Cornwall may well want to go it alone, but I remain to be convinced this is in its best interests … the agenda risks being driven by politics rather than pragmatism.

And Devonwall isn’t politics!?

Steele said that Cornwall lacked ‘critical mass’ and ‘we risk handing millions of pounds back to Brussels. That would be unforgivable’. This last is an amazingly stupid statement as it was Devonwallers’ refusal to uncouple Cornwall from Devon in the early 1990s that cost Cornwall millions of pounds. It would certainly be unforgivable to repeat that mistake.

On 28th June the Bristol based Daily Mail owned Western Daily Press pointed out that


And on the 29th the Plymouth Evening Herald quoted Charles Howeson, chair of the Plymouth Business Council, as saying that any LEP should

cover at least Devon and Cornwall and nothing smaller.

In contrast to the daily blizzard of propaganda urging us to embrace our friendly local zombies the response from Cornwall has been muted to say the least. On 23rd June in a lonely report the West Briton and Cornish Guardian told us what Cornwall Council and Cornish MPs were planning.


Yet this brave promise was contradicted by Tory George Eustice’s prevarication in the same article.

So what’s going on? When can we expect to see a counter-proposal for a Cornish-based LEP and equal publicity pointing out the disastrous consequences of reverting to a failed Devonwall project? In the light of all this it’s disappointing to read the letter from MK’s Stuart Cullimore in this week’s West Briton. Stuart says that Westminster has ‘deemed we should not run our own affairs’ and proposed a new Devonwall quango.

This looks a little over-defeatist, surely. Westminster has in fact kept its options open. On 29th June ConLibs Cable and Pickles sent a letter around to local authority leaders. This invited ‘local groups of councils and business leaders to come together to consider how you wish to form local enterprise partnerships.’ A White Paper will follow this autumn and reveal how boundaries will be drawn. So all is not yet lost.

It’s not the Government proposing a new Devonwall quango. It’s the Devonwallers proposing it. Those who want a Cornish LEP as a step towards a properly funded Cornish Development Agency need to get their act together and neutralise the predictable lobbying from Devon-based special interests and their Cornish apologists.

People should be reminded how Devonwall is neither new nor innovative. Quite the opposite. It was the only game in town in the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. They might also be reminded what its record was. Population growth continued apace. Over-reliance on tourism remained a central plank of policy. Wages in Cornwall fell from 85% (men) and over 90% (women) of the UK average in the 1970s to just 74% for men and 81% for women by 1998.

And most fundamentally it lost Cornwall £millions. If Devonwall had been unchallenged in the mid-1990s there would have been no Objective One money, no Convergence money. OK, we might debate how useful this has been. But at least elements such as higher education expansion puts in place some foundations for a future sustainable Cornwall.

Finally, as the Cleggocrat anti-democratic reforms show, we have to demand Cornwall is treated with respect like Wales or Scotland rather than same useless and unimportant appendage of England. If not, we’re always vulnerable to attacks on our territorial integrity and the wilful sacrifice of our land and resources to external agendas.

If the Devonwallers are indeed allowed to suck the lifeblood from us then it will be an utter disaster. Blight and despair will descend on the land. Yet it doesn’t have to. Unlike the 1980s when local political elites were seduced by the evil promise of Devonwall and opposition was confined to Cornish nationalists, it’s different now. Cornwall Council, MPs and local parties (apart from Labour) have publicly committed themselves to a Cornwall-based development agency. Now is the time to make good their rhetoric.

To mix my metaphors, in the 1990s we made the mistake of not hammering a stake into the heart of Devonwall. This time we cannot afford to be so lenient.

Tired of ConLibLab unfairness? Let’s hold hands and imagine a better world.

I really should stop reading Hansard. After consulting its report of yesterday’s second reading of the Finance Bill I could feel another round of bile and invective welling up. True to form, this time not one Lib Dem MP voted against the manifestly unfair Budget, with its narrow and needlessly punitive focus on spending cuts. Our own Grand Old Duke of York (Andrew George) contributed a meandering speech during the debate that was teeth-gratingly tortuous even by his standards.

It’s difficult to be precise. But it seems that the GODoY has reservations about VAT. It may be regressive. But on the other hand it might also be progressive if you look at it squint-eyed through rose-tinted yellow spectacles. Anyway, he’s going to support the Finance Bill. Though giving the impression of agonising over it in the manner of some Oxbridge don choosing his dessert course at high dinner.

The general ConLib limp-wristed line on the budget was to ask those opposing it to suggest alternatives. As if this was a clincher. Nonetheless, Labour MPs did seem to find it difficult and in the main avoided giving an answer. Unsurprising, as they were planning a pretty similar dose of cuts-based medicine themselves. Indeed, the GODoY himself levelled this plaintive question at SNP MP Stewart Hosie. Although this time he got a reply – rely less on short-term cuts and more on medium term cuts of things such as Trident. (Wasn’t that once Lib Dem policy too before they became Conservatives?)

But all this got me thinking. For once. It’s all too easy to give in to a sense of angry outrage induced at the disturbing incompetence of the parliamentary class and their toadying up to the 1 or 2% who really run things. I read back over some recent blogs. Someone entered a comment on a recent one –

I am consistently irritated by this blog. So many negative thoughts.

I assume this was tongue in cheek. Yet unwittingly my friend has a point. Unremitting negativity is an obvious yet ultimately unproductive response. Mind you, I must admit it feels good to vent frustration at the indefensible antics of Lib Dems running around like headless chickens.

But let’s be positive for a change. Let’s answer the great ConLib challenge. Is there an alternative to unfairness? What might a properly fair budget look like, one where the weasel words ‘we’re all in it together’ actually meant something tangible?

The obvious first question to ask is why some things appear to be beyond debate. For example, why do 80% of the savings have to come from cuts? Why not 80% from taxes and 20% from cuts? And why is the debate on cuts centred on public sector workers’ pensions? Why can’t it include pulling out of a pointless war in Afghanistan (saving £4bn a year)?

Or, if things are really so bad, why don’t we stop spending money on the regional London Olympics regeneration scheme and hand it over to a country that can afford it? What about getting rid of Trident, as the SNP, Plaid and the Greens all suggest? Or cutting all that wasteful expense on a ceremonial royal family and all their associated hangers-on? Here’s an opportunity to modernise Britain. Let’s grasp it. Only a couple of centuries late.

If we turn to taxation why is no-one discussing
* abolishing the upper limit for NI contributions, ensuring high earners pay the same proportion as everyone else (£9bn)
* making capital gains tax fair by being equivalent to income tax, thus closing this tax loophole for the wealthy (£1bn)
* as banks benefit more from the reduction in corporation tax than they do from the bankers’ levy, let’s make the windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses permanent (£1.5bn)

How about
* putting VAT and fuel duty on aviation (£7bn)
* replacing PFI with conventional public procurement (saving £3bn)
* taking the opportunity to introduce carbon taxes, gradually replacing VAT

Then of course, if things are so awful, why not consider
* doubling or maybe trebling the council tax on second homes
* reducing the 50% tax band to incomes of £100,000+ (£2.3bn)
* a temporary emergency wealth tax (£billions)

And is there now a law against increasing income tax? This is the only real fair tax and is at historically low levels. So what about sticking a penny or two on income tax (each penny raises another £3bn or so).

But none of these things seem to be discussed in the media or in Parliament. Are they off the agenda because ‘the markets’ (i.e. the rich with the greatest amount of spare cash to invest in ‘the markets’) wouldn’t like them?

While we’re at it it’s not that difficult to imagine what real political renewal might look like either. If Clegg wasn’t such an unimaginative centralist he might consider starting at the bottom rather than the top. So how about introducing PR in local government elections to bring England and Cornwall in line with Scotland? This would have the advantage of getting people used to a PR system before introducing it at a parliamentary level.

It’s not that tricky to imagine a fair budget. Or real political reform if only we put our minds to it. Odd how parliamentarians and the three corporate parties find it so difficult.

Lib Dem sophistry in action again: millions appalled

In Cornwall we’ve become wearisomely inured to the blandishments of slippery Lib Dem spokespersons over the years. Constantly whining about ‘fair deals’ for Cornwall, given half a chance Lib Dems in office prove to be serial failures in the ‘fairness’ game.

Now they’re in government we can see that this no local aberration. The rot very clearly goes right to the top, as could be seen yesterday in Parliament. Nick Clegg, the man who laughably promised us the

the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th century

offered an exercise in disempowerment, especially for Cornish voters.

From a ConLib perspective the absurd parody of ‘reform’ that he announced is ‘an ambitious programme for political renewal’. If this is ambitious then I’d hate to see what Lib Dems define as unambitious.

There are three main elements to Cleggocracy.

1) Fixed term parliaments.
Now, virtually every other democracy in the world has four year fixed term legislatures. This is also good enough for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly. So what do the two-faced Liberal ‘democrats’ [sic] do? Impose a five year fixed term.

This is over a year longer than the average length of UK parliaments since 1885. At a stroke it effectively reduces the British subjects’ right to vote by 20%. There was no mention at all of five year fixed terms in either Lib Dem or Tory manifestos. Yet that hasn’t stopped a discredited political class extending their mandate at the first opportunity, a deliberate insult to the people.

A proud democratic example of ‘political renewal’? Or merely a shabby attempt to hold on to power as long as possible? It’s just the ConLib version of Gordon Brown refusing to call an election until the last moment possible. Except they’re doing it five years early. Of course, Lib Dems have an honourable record of attacking our basic right to vote, for example by halving local government ballots in Cornwall. As the great Clegg himself said yesterday ‘it is important to avoid asking people to keep returning to the ballot box’, a rather incredible statement from a self-described ‘democrat’ surely!

2) A referendum on the Alternative Vote.
Here’s a riddle. Who was it who told the Independent this back in April?

The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party.

None other than the same dissembling fraudster Clegg.

But now this psephological swindler goes even further. Not content with just the one ‘miserable little compromise’ thrashed out with the Tories it’s coupled with another. The pathetic pipsqueak measure of AV will only happen if at the same time it’s linked to a bill to equalise constituencies.

3) Reduce the number of MPs by 59 and equalise constituencies.
Regular boundary reviews are inevitable in an antiquated first past the post system (and could be made much easier by just replacing it with a sensible fair voting system such as STV). But this isn’t any old normal boundary commission review. This is a special ConLib equalisation (which actually did appear in the Tory manifesto) patently designed to give the Tories more seats. The plan is that no constituency will deviate by more than 5% from the average size – which will be around 78,000 electors.

There are just two exceptions. One saves the two constituencies of Orkney and Shetland and Na H-Eileanan An Iar, although on what grounds remains a little obscure. The other caps constituencies geographically at an area of 13,000 square kms (which is pretty big and will only apply in the Scottish Highlands and possibly northern England).

But there’s a potential timebomb ticking away here for Cornwall. Six constituencies as at present would give us electorates 10% below the magic 78,000. Five on the other hand goes well over the top. So the only answer will be cross-Tamar constituencies. Dan Rogerson popped up and asked the Clegg imposter about this.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. He will be aware that the boundary between Cornwall and England was set more than a thousand years ago, sadly by conquest. Will the direction that he and the Government give to the Electoral Commission through the Bill take account of such ancient boundaries?

Good question. And the answer? After a snide comment about Cornwall being in England we were told the principle of equal size constituencies outweighs all other considerations. So there you have it. The ConLibs have no intention at all of respecting Cornwall’s historic boundary. Is this not a resignation matter for Rogerson, Gilbert and George? And if not, why not?

And what have our local fearless Lib Dem bloggers got to say about all this? Oh, they’re much too busy to comment on it. Instead they’re getting all excited trying to persuade people to vote for their blogs as the best political blogs of the year. Priorities, priorities.

The secret ballot – dead and gone

Do you still harbour the fond belief that we have a secret ballot in Britain? Do you entertain the quaint notion that you have a right to privacy when it comes to others knowing if you’ve voted or not? Then think again.

For years it appears the political parties have been stealthily getting their hands on copies of the marked electoral register after elections. This tells them whether or not we voted. The secret ballot and our right to privacy might still for the present extend to who we vote for but no longer, it seems, to the fact of our vote.

Ever since mass voting appeared the political parties have worked tirelessly to control those masses. In the old days they did it by teams of canvassers and tellers, those men and women who stood or sat outside the polling stations and ticked off voters as they went to cast their vote. But at least we could refuse to give them our voting number.

This system has been undermined by two processes. First, party memberships began to decline in the 1960s, first slowly and then dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s as political policies were handed over wholesale to the corporations. Second, the introduction of widespread postal voting since 1997 by Labour has both greatly increased opportunities for fraud and made physically attending a polling station less common.

The political class discovered that the older methods of finding out who was voting were unsustainable. So they began to obtain copies of the marked registers from Returning Officers. But the rise of postal voting and the flogging off of the electoral registers to marketing companies meant that this had become legally a minefield by the 2000s. No-one was too sure who had or hadn’t the right to access registers, whether marked or unmarked.

In 2005 the Electoral Commission carried out a survey of the issue. It found that political parties were desperate to have information on who had voted as an ‘electoral tool’. Although they disingenuously dressed up the advantages of this for targeting their efforts as ‘increasing turnout’, an odd claim as turnout has steadily fallen.

On the other hand, when the Electoral Commission sought the views of the public it found less than one in four aware that Returning Officers were handing over information on their vote to the parties. Moreover, there was a ‘strong sense among the public that whether someone has voted or not should always remain private’, with 88% agreeing the marked registers should not be given to parties and only 9% agreeing they should. Other qualitative focus group research backed this up, showing ‘instinctive opposition to marked registers being available’.

The Commission also discovered that of the eight western European countries it bothered to research only two – Belgium and Sweden – gave parties access to marked registers. Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and France didn’t. It also heard from the Information Commissioner who concluded that giving this data to political parties was infringing individuals’ right to privacy.

The Information Commissioner also pointed out that if parties really wanted information on turnout this could be provided by aggregated anonymised details of turnout down to ward level or even smaller units. This already happens in countries like France, where not just turnout but voting results are available at commune level - equivalent to our parishes.

However, the Electoral Commission spurned the opportunity to modernise our system and provide more transparent electoral data. Instead, faced by clear public opposition to giving parties access to marked registers on the one hand and the clear desire of the parties to get their hands on this data on the other, the Commission caved in to the parties. It proposed that political parties, candidate and agents should continue, for a fee, to receive copies of the marked registers.

The parties had the gall to ask for copies of postal voting lists before polling day. But even the toothless Electoral Commission felt this was going a little too far.

When access to marked registers was clarified as part of the 2006 Electoral Administration Act the Commons committee spent less time debating this issue than it did the much more serious question of ballot paper design! Not one MP spoke against it. In exchange for £80-150 per constituency a party can find out who voted in any election. This must be a great advantage to those parties with the most resources.

I only became aware of this appalling practice when I read a local Lib Dem councillor moaning about the mysterious disappearance of some Cornish marked registers. The issue is not their disappearance but their shocking availability in the first place. I would guess the vast majority of voters are unaware of the way their privacy is being flouted in this way.

In conniving at this secretive device, the corporate parties again betray their fundamental indifference to the principles of democracy and individual liberty. The sheer arrogance of this beggars belief – coming from a political class who were en masse discovered with their collective snouts deep in the trough only two years ago.

The democratic process in the UK is thoroughly rotten and in need of root and branch reform. Unfortunately, the corporate parties are the roadblock in the way of this reform. We saw this in the way the ConLibs immediately extended their parliamentary life to five years when virtually all other democracies have four year legislative terms. And despite no mention of this in either ConLib manifesto.

We saw it in the halving of local government elections in Cornwall by the forced imposition of the LabLib unitary authority in 2007-08. And no doubt we’ll see it next May when we have the details of Clegg’s non-PR referendum question.