Ten reasons why I am a Labour Party activist

As we are in the midst of a UK election, where it seems Labour may not poll as high as I would hope I have been left reflecting deeply on why I remain an active Labour Party member and supporter.

So here are my ten foundations for why, after 40+ years, I have been and will carry on being a Labour activist until my ashes wash out into Cardigan Bay:

1) My parents were both Liberal teachers and I heard them tell stories about the students they taught who were experiencing hardship of various kinds. My early childhood was spent in dusty haystacks In north Devon, small friendly schools and on Welsh beaches in the summer holidays. I was lucky. So it did not seem right to me that there were others who were far less fortunate than me. I wanted to change this from an early age.

2) I now cannot remember why, but at secondary school, I became involved in supporting Oxfam. I went away on youth weekends and met charismatic people who educated me about the vast divisions in wealth and opportunity in the world, both between and within nations. I became angry at this huge injustice and informed myself by reading numerous articles in the New Internationalist magazine. I began to consolidate my political opinions. I remember helping to get out the vote late into the evening for Frank Judd in Paulsgrove in February 1974, just a few days before my 16th birthday.

3) At university, I became an activist: a pragmatic socialist that helped to organise a 'Progressive Alliance' of International Socialist, Labour, Liberal & Ecology party members into a combined force that wrangled control of the Student's Union out of the hands of the Federation of Conservative Students (from whom I first heard the abusive label of 'pleb'). While still at university, after the 1979 general election, I joined the Labour Party. I was prompted to do so out of fear of what was to come from a Tory government. (And I was right to be fearful)

4) I was involved in many political activities then around gay liberation, amnesty international, men's health, Anti Nazi League / Rock Against Racism, National Council for Civil Liberties, supporting the Miners etc. Even though many of these were apolitical, with a big P, there were never any Tories involved then. I remember that in these days when (at last) social liberalism has been adopted by the Tories.

5) My first few jobs (unemployment benefit office, council housing department, learning disability planning, health promotion services) served to consolidate my belief in the importance solid public services. Along with my appreciation of education (remember 1 above), I learnt that public services are not merely a 'safety net' for those who are less fortunate. Public services are the glue that holds our whole country together and creates the essential conditions for enterprise and commercial growth. Publicly funded & commercially developed organisations are two sides of the same coin, the same economy, the same society... People need the wherewithal to imagine and fulfil their ambitions: public services provide much of that through education, infrastructure, community safety, healthcare, national security and so forth.

6)  I well remember the bleak years between 1979 and 1997 with rampant militarism, legalised homophobia, political corruption and harsh treatment of anyone or any group that wasn't 'one of us'. Ours was a grey and dismal country when public services and capital investment was stripped to the bone as the government revelled in selling off the 'family silver'. The housing crisis began and continues to this day. This is when I fully began to appreciate that Tories only seem to want to know the price of everything while the value is of far lesser concern. The accountants had taken over the asylum. Self interest ('greed is good') was in the ascendant.

7) 1997 was a turning point and the sun shone again. The Labour government made real progress on many matters such as SureStart, social exclusion, community policing, human rights and decent investment in schools and hospitals. The economy grew steadily and this all seemed like practical democratic socialism in working practice. For ten years, the engines of commercial business and public services hummed along well: a fact that appears to be have been forgotten after the 2007 worldwide financial crash. Suddenly the national debt and deficit became Labour's fault, even though they were not and indeed had been far higher in previous decades.

8) However lurking behind the Oz curtains, were some of the same old same old: inequalities, militarism, privatisation, corruption and pandering to big business interests. At times like this, my pragmatic socialism comes to the fore and I remain with the party with which there is always hope of better times to come (whereas with the Tories, there is never any hope...)

9) The harsh & cruel reality of 9 years of Tory led government has only bolstered my resolve: only the Labour Party can really offer hope to the many people. For me socialism is about creating the conditions in which people can find the resources to shape their dreams and achieve these ambitions for themselves and their families. Tories like to pretend they are party of aspiration for the many but in truth, they are the party of aspiration only for the few who are lucky enough to have the resources.

10) In my head, I have a poem by Roger McGough: There are fascists pretending to be libertarians like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians. Now I am not saying that any party to the right (or left) of the Labour Party are fascists - by no means! But I think there are many politicians who pretend and fake a concern for social development and the interests of the ordinary working person but who actually have other aims really in mind. Only the Labour Party has the organisation, the principles, the policies, the reach and the experience to deliver a country that is fair, creative, ambitious, peaceful and prosperous for the many (not just the few).

Green light or flashing red light for vulnerable children?

This week, the County Council cabinet decided to move forwards on closing 35 Children's Centres throughout Buckinghamshire and replacing these with a new "Early Help service" based around "nine community team bases" (or "hubs" as they have also been called).

I am profoundly worried about the impact this change will have on families with new babies and small children. Of course the Tory administration will issue hundreds of emollient words and assurances that nobody in real need will suffer as a result. Of course they would. But how can they be so sure? And what measures will be installed to identify whether these assurances are true as the new service is rolled out?

You can read all about the proposals here in their press statement (see annotated version below too), the agenda for the meeting which discussed and agreed these proposals and the core paper on which all this is based.

As both a politician and as adviser on organisational change and development over nearly 30 years, I am always intensely interested in aims and measurement: what will success look like and how will you measure whether you are making progress towards this goal or not?

Turning to measurement first, the core paper says this:

46. The proposed new lower cost model has been introduced in a wide range of local authority areas across England over the last 3 years, with many citing positive impact on children and families. 

I would have expected to see some reference here, you know the sort of thing: a footnote listing the "wide range of local authority areas" or an article which does so. But of course there is no such footnote and frankly I am sceptical about whether there is any well researched basis for such an assertion. I am of course, because I am a scientist, more than happy to be pointed towards the research. But currently, for me, this statement has about as much evidential substance as a exhalation from Nigel Farage after four pints.

Earlier in the paper, I should add, three authorities are mentioned as places of good practice: North Lincs, Kent and Sutton.

14. An analysis of best practice in other Local Authorities shows that strong Early Help services support an effective system of help and protection for children and young people. 

Here is a page describing the full list of Childen's Centre in North Lincs. And here are details of the Children's Centres in Kent. And the ones for Sutton. So the three authorities cited as sources of good practice all still have Children's Centres... Interesting. Tell me again, why is Bucks closing all of its Children's Centres...?

The paper goes on:

47. Whilst there has been no formal benchmarking of success measures to date, there is an increasing consensus that the Troubled Families measures are a valid and evidence based approach, as they address the following key areas of success:

• School attendance rate including exclusions

• Crime and antisocial behaviour

• Worklessness in adults and young people 

• Children in need – reducing the demand for statutory services

• Domestic abuse incidence 

• Health and wellbeing of children and parents

OK. Let's highlight that statement "Whilst there has been no formal benchmarking of success measures to date". What this means, in fact, is that the current service has not been measured in any serious way against other models of service up until now. Millions of taxpayers' money has been spent on a wing and prayer. If there is no benchmarking data, the County Council probably doesn't even know whether the current service has become more or less effective or efficient over the last (say) 10 years. Without doubt there will also be no way of knowing whether the new service will be better than the old one or not. Because... there have been "no formal ...measures"! How is this a good way to run council services?! Indeed, how is this a way to plan new ones?!

But let us also examine the statement "here is an increasing consensus that the Troubled Families measures are a valid and evidence based approach". Really? Again no reference, just a set of bland words that sound good. Here is a quote from "Troubled families: progress review. Thirty-third Report of Session 2016–17. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. December 2016"

The Department [DCLG] had a target of “turning around” the lives of 117,910 families identified by local authorities as troubled. It made payments to local authorities for “turning around” the lives of 99% of these. An evaluation commissioned by the Department could not find evidence of whether or not there had been any significant impact.

Let me emphasise that last statement again, this time in bold:

An evaluation commissioned by the Department could not find evidence of whether or not there had been any significant impact.

I think we can dispense immediately with the fatuous statement "there is an increasing consensus". Evidently, this not the case and assert such is at best misleading and at worst downright disingenuous. As to whether the measures are "a valid and evidence based approach" is at least debatable if not also untrue.

It seems to me that the whole basis of driving forward on these plans has no substance or evidence. And moreover, I am not exactly persuaded that there will be any serious measures of success of the new service as it is established. Which means that the County Council is either gambling with the future of some very vulnerable children's lives or will continue not to measure seriously the impact of the new service... or both!

All that we see in the report is:

I. Progress Monitoring70. Implementation of the new service will be through the Change for Children Programme Board and reported regularly to the cabinet members for Children’s Services and Education and Skills. Once the new service is fully established, the project management and governance arrangements will transfer to normal operational management arrangements. The Children’s Partnership Board will monitor the new Early Help Service.

There is no mention of how the new service will be measured. I will be watching closely how the programme board will conduct its work. How much of this will be done behind closed doors and how will be open for the public/service users/taxpayers to see, will be illuminating. I await to hear about what reliable, evidence based and even consensual measures are being established....

But what is the shape of success? Against what vision, should this new Early Help service be compared? The paper describes that it aims to:

• put the children and families at the heart of our thinking and design services that simplify the complexity of support that is currently available across a range of organisations
• make sure children and families in Buckinghamshire get the right support at the right time
• help children and families be independent and build their own resilience so when problems occur they can find their own solutions at the earliest point of difficulty
• ensure that children and families only have to tell their story once, by working closely with our colleagues and partners to identify and meet their needs together

Noble aims which I would broadly agree with... but how will these be measured? Clearly the Troubled Families measures do not even come close to measuring these. So I repeat: how will progress towards this visions of success be measured? How will, once the detail has been worked out by the programme board, the new service be guaranteed to deliver this vision. At the very least, I would expect to see a link between the new structures, cultures and processes of the new model service mapped against these four points - showing clearly how one will achieve the other.

But finally let's turn to the press statement that was issued within minutes of the decision being taken. I have annotated it below (original in italics - my comments in bold & non-italic):

Green light for new service to help children and families earlier

Published 08.01.2018

Today, 8 January 2018, Cabinet gave their seal of approval for a new service that will help children and families more effectively by developing one Early Help service for Buckinghamshire. [to be clear: whatever now happens is the responsibility of the Cabinet and if Ofsted later criticises the model when it is operating, the buck stops with the whole Cabinet]

Following public consultation in 2017, the council plans to improve services and help families most in need by shifting the focus further from reactive services, to preventative support. [noble aim but I thought Children's Centres have always been about prevention through education. If they have become reactive that will almost certainly be as a consequence of reductions in budgets rather than an strategic plan to do so] By providing more coordinated support to children and families as soon as a problem emerges [really? And will this be identified? And this does sound rather, errr, reactive, does it not?] , the aim is to prevent small problems from getting out of control and help families to become more resilient to deal with problems in the future. [for me the question here is how? What is the basis of lack of 'resilience' in families with small children? My hunch, as a non expert, is that this is down to four things: lack of resources, lack of family & community support, lack of confidence built up over many years and lack of parenting skills for a whole array of complex reasons. Tackling these requires monumental skill, time, patience and probably resources that won't be easily magicked into existence. I await to see how this is done. I do know this won't be done without highly qualified and well resourced staff... do we have these now or will they be acquiring such?]

Cabinet agreed that the new service will be created by bringing together council delivered and commissioned  services that currently provide early help support across the county. This will enable the council to support families with all of their problems at the same time; meaning families and children only have to tell their story once. [OMG: If I had hot dinners for the numbers of decision makers who blithely assert the ease by which fragmented services can be combined into one seamless organisation, I would be very much fatter than I already am! This won't be easy and without proper transitional resourcing, it will be nigh on impossible. I am not holding my breath because I don't think the transitional resourcing will be provided...]

The new service will:                                                                                       
Be targeted at children and families most in need

[what a wonderful word 'targeted' is! What is usually means is lets reduce the service and then describe it as targeting. Two issues emerge - how far do you go? And can services be so easily 'targeted'. Let's deal with the second first. To target a service, you have to know of the whole range of need to begin with. If the new service is so limited, it may not be possible to target the services as the people most in need may not appear on the radar. The advantage of Children's Centres was that everyone was welcome. Those who needed most support would become evident. In a service that won't have that same broad appeal, it is highly likely that many of the people who need the service most will disappear under the radar. But back to the first point: allow me to propose that we strip back the Royal Navy to just six ships. I will convince you that these six ships will be very well 'targeted' where they are needed most. You see what I mean: targeting is meaningless unless you are also clear about the thresholds of need...]

• Support the whole family and work with them to deal with all of their issues together 
• Be made up of teams of family workers who will work closely with families in the community and with partners
• Operate from  nine community team bases from where family workers can go out into the community and provide services at locations that best suit the families’ individual situations
• Support families with a wide variety of issues from money worries, parenting and child behaviour difficulties to mental health issues
• Work closely with partners for the benefit of the whole family
• The service will bring together a range of experience and expertise from across the existing early help services, ensuring teams of multi-skilled family workers who will be able to support families across a wide range of issues and age groups.

The nine community team bases will be close to areas where we know there are more children and families in need. This will enable workers to go out into the community to meet with families in places where they feel most at ease [unless that most at ease means the childrens centres that will no longer exist of course! It also suggests that all of this will happen at a one to one level whereas it is my understanding is that childrens centres thrive on peer support as well. If the services is fragmented into discrete conversations in the corners of coffee shops, all that peer support is lost!].  The team bases will replace some of our current children’s centres and will be located at:

• Aylesbury, covering the Quarrendon area
• Aylesbury Southcourt, Aylesbury College Campus, Oxford Road
• Aylesbury Elmhurst, Dunsham Lane
• Buckingham: this team base will be established as part of the options being explored for co-location of a variety of public sector services. [so they don't know then. What happens in the meantime? And it is the first I have heard of 'co-locating' services. Such as what? More detail please!!]
• Burnham, Minniecroft Road
• Chesham Newtown, Berkhampstead Road
• Wycombe Castlefield, Rutland Avenue, Castlefield
• Wycombe Millbrook, Mill End Road
• Wycombe Hamilton Road

Seven of these will make use of the existing children’s centre buildings, while Quarrendon and Buckingham areas are currently being assessed for appropriate locations.

Over the next six months discussions with local communities, schools and early years providers will look at how the remaining 28 buildings can be used in the future for the maximum benefit of children, families and communities. [weasel words. Does this include selling them off?]

Throughout the consultation in 2017 concerns were raised about the continuation of specific services that take place at children’s centres such as health visitor clinics and speech and language therapy. Many of these services that are provided by partner organisations using children’s centres as a venue, will continue. For example, health visitor clinics which include drop-ins, postnatal well-being groups, post-natal and antenatal clinics, breastfeeding support, and child development reviews will continue to be provided across the county. Specific services such as speech and language support for children, grief counselling and parenting classes will also continue to be delivered by partners or by the new service. Locations for these services may need to change and be delivered from a broader range of community buildings or venues that are close to where people live. [so the lofty idea above of bringing together services does not extend to those provided by say the NHS or others. Which means where there used to be co-location of clinics and nurseries etc - this is now going to be more fragmented and scattered. Good job!!]

Alongside the development of this new service the council will be improving information, advice and support online for children and families through the Buckinghamshire Family Information Service.

One coordinated Early Help service for Buckinghamshire is planned to have a service budget of £7.125m in comparison to the budget of £10.08m for the current services, saving the council £3.07m over four years. [Please can we stop the use of this Owellian phrase 'savings'. These are not savings - these are cuts, pure and simple!] Alongside this, better early help for children and families at the right time should [should... and with no reliable measures as yet - and indeed no way of comparing to past...] reduce the demand for more costly support from children's services such as social care in the future.

Cabinet member for Children’s Services, Warren Whyte said: “This is a great opportunity to support children and families who need us the most. By going out to where they are, dealing with the whole family and all of their issues and listening to what families need rather than waiting for them to reach a crisis point, I’m confident we can make some real positive changes for families in Buckinghamshire. [I am not confident and I think hundreds of families in Bucks are not either. But I guess we will see and the families concerned will know who to contact if or when the services reduce and more crises happen... And isn't there an Ofsted report on Bucks Children's services coming out soon? I look forward to reading its results...]

I’m particularly keen now for ideas on how we can continue to keep our Children’s Centre buildings in use going forward; whether that is to support increasing Early Years places, schools, other support and services for children, young people and families, or broader community use.” [You can send your ideas to Cllr Warren Whyte here or email: wwhyte@buckscc.gov.uk]

The Tory #CareTax proposals

The 2017 Conservative Manifesto has promised "Dignity and protection in old age through the right long-term solution for elderly care" if they are returned to power. They are proposing three measures:

• First, we will align the future basis for means-testing for domiciliary care with that for residential care, so that people are looked after in the place that is best for them. This will mean that the value of the family home will be taken into account along with other assets and income, whether care is provided at home, or in a residential or nursing care home.
• Second, to ensure this is fair, we will introduce a single capital floor, set at £100,000,more than four times the current means test threshold. This will ensure that, no matter how large the cost of care turns out to be, people will always retain at least £100,000 of their savings and assets, including value in the family home.
• Third, we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care.

Hitherto, older people who have worked all their lives and managed to become home owners through paying into a mortgage of some kind, could rest easy that their efforts would be passed on to their offspring (or whomever). And if they happened to need some care at home, they knew their own home was not at risk. If the Tories are elected to government, everyone who owns a home would know their behest is at risk: because no one can know whether they will eventually need long term domiciliary care. 

No longer would many older people have the comfort of knowing that their capital asset would maybe help their son or daughter or their grandchildren to buy a home for the first time. For many older people, this is really, really important and helps to make them feel worthwhile. The Tories are threatening to take this comfort away. Indeed I have already seen one tweet this morning from someone saying that they explored the Dignitas site for the first time in response to the manifesto. I really worry that some older people will make the decision to end their own lives rather than see their hard earned assets be whittled away by this policy. 

There are many, many reasons why this policy is very unfair and punitive. And it will ultimately result in more people gaming the system (but that is for another blog...) What I want to focus on here is how would it actually work in practice? Here some questions that I would like to have answers to:

1. The proposal refers to the value of the family home. How will that value be determined? 
2. Will measures be put in place to prevent people from putting their homes into trust to avoid this tax?
3. Will this only apply to older people, or all people who need help at home such as people with disabilities?
4. How old is old? Pension age or younger? Or older?
5. Given the massive financial consequences, who will adjudicate on whether someone has health needs (paid for free by the NHS) or social care needs (subjected to surrender of their home asset)? Will such decisions be open to legal challenge?
6. How much will this policy cost to administer?
7. Will the process of releasing the equity on the homes in question be outsourced to private financial institutions? Will they charge fees and interest?
8. What happens if the person needing such care has a partner/spouse who also owns the property? Will the legal status of this ownership (tenants in common vs joint tenancy) make any kind of difference?
9. What legal instrument will be used to extract the monies after the death of the person who needed social care? Will the government expect to put a charge on the house? What happens if the person concerned refuses to sign their home over to the government? Will they be compelled to?
10. Will this policy apply to family members who do not own the family home but live in it? In other words, will it impact on social care support for younger people (perhaps with disabilities) still living with their carers/parents?
11. If a family home would be taken into account for these purposes, will that revision of the basis of means-testing eventually be made to apply in other circumstances as well? Is this the beginning of a very large wedge of policies that will mean the state seizing more and more privately owned assets?

I am sure there are many more and more critical questions that need to be asked and answered about this policy. We need to know now so that people can make their own decision on how to vote on June 8 and before. 

Does this policy feel like one that is making the country fairer to you? I know my answer to that: no!

Fostering in Bucks: time to rattle some cages!

We all know that County Councils up and down the country are facing a crisis of significant proportions around finding and indeed paying for social care - be it social care for vulnerable adults, older people or children/young people who are now being looked after by the state.

Buckinghamshire County Council is no exception. It has statutory responsibilities to care for 'looked after children'. The most recent Buckinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report (2015-16) has the following information:

Children Looked After

Our rates of children looked after have become more comparable to our statistical neighbours over the last few years, but remain lower than rates for the South East or national. Given the relative prosperity of Buckinghamshire compared to other areas, this is to be expected.

At March 2016, 463 children were being looked after by the local authority. Of this number:

• 52% lived outside the local authority area and 57% were placed further than 20 miles from home. 83 lived in residential care. This figure remains high compared to other areas;

• 195 lived with an agency foster carer and 83 with a Local Authority foster carer;

• 7 were in independent living; 

• 24 lived with parents;

• In the last 12 months there have been 38 adoptions - an increase from 30 adoptions in2014/15

The County Council has been seeking to increase the number of foster carers for some years. I would expect that this is driven by concern for the well being of the children themselves as well as the fact that foster caring is considerably cheaper that residential care (extracted from here 2012/13 figures):

• a council foster care placement was in the range of £23,000 to £27,000, compared with a range of £41,000 to £42,000 for a placement with other providers.
• a council residential care placement was in the range of £129,000 to £215,000 (compared with a range of £122,000 to £200,000 in a voluntary, private or independent home)

So I think we can all agree, that foster care for Looked After Children is better than residential care. (Though not in all cases, of course). The challenge then becomes one of recruiting and keeping adults prepared to foster children.

How is Bucks doing, given that this is one of their priorities. We might hope, rather well... but is it? So from the same BSCB report above we discover that "20 new foster carers were identified this year (a reduction from the 30 identified last year). However, 19 stopped being foster carers within the same time frame". So that is a net gain of one.

The report goes onto to say:

Private fostering is when a child under the age of 16 (under 18 if disabled) is cared for by someone who is not their parent or a ‘close relative’. This is a private arrangement made between a parent and a carer, for 28 days or more. In such situations the Local Authority must be notified so that they can check on the suitability of the placements and ensure other advice and support is provided.

During the last 12 months, the Local Authority has undertaken considerable work to increase awareness around private fostering, but this has not had a significant impact on the number of private fostering notifications [my added emphasis]

And with what result from all this work? One extra foster carer over the course of the year. It doesn't point to a great deal of success...

But there is good success elsewhere and plenty that is know about what it takes to run successful foster carer recruitment campaigns. For example the Social Care Institute for Excellence has this information:

Successful campaigns are likely to have the following features:

• good knowledge of the local area
• close collaboration with experienced carers
• systems in place for following up enquiries
• use of the local media
• ongoing recruitment drives.

A majority of foster carers were attracted to fostering because they had spoken to existing foster carers, seen or heard a description about fostering in the local media or both. Foster carers thought that if they played more of a central role in recruitment they could address commonly held public fears and stereotypes about fostering and social work.

Higher levels of pay is also an important factor that can influence recruitment levels. One foster carer in a consultation group said:
'We might not do it for the money, but I wouldn’t do it without the money.'

Fostering Network (www.fostering.net) takes the view that no one should be out of pocket as a result of fostering. Each year, the Fostering Network produces a minimum recommended fostering allowance and a survey, which keeps track of the allowances paid by fostering services throughout the UK.

Have you seen any evidence of this in Buckinghamshire? Do you get the impression that the County Council says recruiting foster carers is a priority but isn't doing very much that is visible about this apart from putting up the odd poster in a library...?

There is this website: http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/services/care-for-children-and-families/fostering/becoming-a-foster-carer/

True...

So I searched on > recruiting foster carers buckinghamshire strategy < and found this: https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/documents/s85538/Buckinghamshire%20Looked%20After%20Children%20Strategy.pdf

It is an illuminating report, not quite a year old. It says:

The number of foster carers provided by the Council’s fostering service has remained the same in the last four years. The recruitment of foster carers in Buckinghamshire is extremely challenging. There was only one fostering enquiry per thousand households in 2013/14. Most comparator authorities have twice as many enquiries. 

Whilst recent Council investment in marketing has driven a 25% increase in fostering enquiries in 2014/15, with a doubling of the numbers of people receiving an initial visit and subsequently being assessed, the impact of this on increasing the numbers of foster carers needs to be evaluated to decide where the in house recruitment should focus future activities. The loss of foster carers, through retirement or other factors means that the net gain in available carers is very small.[my added emphases]

In other words, not much is being achieved...

Later on the document reports on this action:

Increase the number of local foster care placements through a radical
partnership with fostering providers.

A radical partnership! Hmm. Sounds good. So I googled to find more. All I have found is this (https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=85542) which is a report some three months later, listing the same set of actions...

I just get the overwhelming impression that Bucks County Council are great at talking and fluffing their limited successes. But when you drill down, the results are just not really there.

This needs to change! 

We need more people prepared to rattle the ruling administration and push for the fine words to be turned into action and thence robust results. In short, please vote for me & Robin so that we can rattle a few cages! And in this instance, roll up our sleeves, and see what can be done about increasing the numbers of foster carers.

Just a man, standing in front of you, asking for your vote...

From today onwards, postal votes will be landing on people’s doormats. So here is my request to you and everyone in ‘Buckingham East’ to vote for me to represent you at the County Council.

In summary: while Warren, the existing Councillor, has worked hard and done a good job… I believe I can and will do better. Here are the main reasons why:

The demands on the County Council are growing while resources are getting tighter and tighter. I have spent nearly all of my working life advising local councils and the police on how to get ‘more for less’, how to squeeze out more results with fewer pounds. So I bring a unique set of skills, creativity and insights which will help me argue persuasively for better ways of doing business in the County Council.

For me, being a councillor is not about taking decisions ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’ local people. It is about taking decisions ‘with’ and ‘fully informed by’ local people. This is one of the reasons I started this FB group a little over two years ago. I wanted to create a place where we could connect and have conversations about what matters to each one of us. And it has become a place which has helped keep me up to date with what matters (as well as find lost cats, caravans and wallets etc). A vote for me is a vote for the kind of politics that is done ‘with’ and ‘not to’ our local community. I am the kind of politician that listens because I like to not because I feel I have to…

The County Council has existed for 128 years and has been run by the Conservative Party all that time. I don’t think that is going to change anytime soon. But what I do believe must change is the power of local opposition parties to hold the ruling administration to account. We are all democrats and wise enough to know that power without challenge is a dangerous (and inefficient) thing: there need to be checks and balances… and hard questions and scrutiny. A vote for me is a vote for lots of that. My good friend and colleague, County Councillor Robin Stuchbury has punched way above his weight and punctured some of the complacency there is in a 128 year old government. Just think what two or more of us will achieve for local democracy, transparency and value for money.

I am not going to insult your intelligence by making lots of vague promises to smooth all the roads, fully resource all our schools, provide excellent care for all adults and children that need some, burn all our waste ecologically and economically or install a chocolate fountain in the middle of Buckingham (etc). These are all very important (well, perhaps apart from the fountain!) and I will use every ounce of my energy, wily political spirit and creativity to achieve them. But there are tough times ahead. But I will promise to do all that I can do to get the County Council working better for you.

I want us all, throughout our time here on earth, to lead ambitious lives: lives that make a difference. Nothing delights me more than to hear stories of what people have achieved or what they hope to do. In my book, the job of national and local government is to do as little as possible but as much as possible to help people achieve their goals, dreams and ambitions for themselves and their families. (Why ‘as little’? Because government shouldn’t get in the way on people’s ambitions. Why ‘as much’? Because the purpose of government is to do what individuals cannot do on their own.) This is my kind of politics. This is me. I know that many people locally would never vote ‘red’ in a national election...

But I am asking you to vote for me. Thanks.

Potholes: aaarrgghh!!!

I think it is generally agreed that the roads in Buckinghamshire are in an appalling state, possibly significantly worse than comparable counties. Although there appears to be no set of measures by which we can grade our County for how bad/good it is, we all want and need things to improve. And we all know, don't we, that this is going to take a great deal more money? (Far more than the County Council has got after it pays for schools, adults needing care, children who are being looked after, riding stable purchases and so forth...)

Or do we?

Is it just possible that we could have better roads without more money? 

Allow me to propose some options for doing so... (And this is not the first time I have mentioned these - but it would appear that Transport for Bucks and its commissioner the County Council are not brilliant at listening to troublesome people like me...)

Option one: introduce a warranty scheme

It seems to me that some of the worst potholes happen in the places where the road has been dug up before by a service organisation (gas, water, telecoms etc) and resurfaced - but not very well. The joins between the old and new surfaces let in the water and hey presto potholes begin to form. How about if all agencies that dig up the roads had to pay for a warranty scheme. So if a pothole appears within say five years of the work they have done, the warranty scheme pays for the repair (and a darn good repair that is!) And because warranty schemes are like insurance policies, the better road diggers will pay less whilst the diggers who leave behind jobs at risk of becoming potholes will begin to pay more. This will incentivise the road diggers to leave behind good seals on the surfaces they have replaced (etc becuase it is just about good seals...) Now, this might take primary legislation to enact - but is anyone looking into this? Could our County Council be insisting on such a scheme for any organisation that wants to dig up our roads using existing powers?

Option two: do better repairs!!

Every time I drive to MK on the A422, I am struck by the road repairs near the new solar farm close to the BP garage. Why? Because the whole width of the carriageway (well half of it anyways) has been replaced. The bad pot holes that were there before were not just patched (as they probably would have been in Bucks). Northamptonshire made sure a good and lasting repair was done. And so I think somehow, someway the contract between Bucks CC and Transport for Buckinghamshire has allowed / encouraged / forced (???) TfB to do pretty useless repairs - often called 'patch and run'. How about reviewing the contract and looking for ways to reward TfB for doing repairs that last? Surely if we can put a man on the moon and now make phones with more computing power than all of NASA in the sixties - there is the technology to do great road repairs?! Maybe using different filling materials or sealants etc...

Option three: start again and look at the whole system

I have good friend and colleague who has done excellent work in the field of lean and systems thinking. Dave Gaster (Support Services Direct) has also done some brilliant work around potholes as well. He talks about how costs for repairing potholes and improving roads can be dramatically reduced by removing inefficiency from the system/processes used, investing in robust inspection regimes designed to prevent potholes forming rather than just fixing the ones that do occur. From reading about his practice, I am convinced there are ways in which TfB / BCC could reduce costs and improve the roads...

(The three options are not mutually exclusive by the way!)

In the end, this is all about installing 'stay fix' methods rather than 'quick fix' ones. This is something I have taught about for years as a management/leadership trainer, blogged (http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/what-is-your-cutting-angle.html) and even produced a short video (in two parts) about (1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgE3PEmI7yw&feature=youtube_gdata & 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyp0AQx9meM&feature=youtube_gdata).

Is there anyone in Buckinghamshire County Council or TfB that gets this stuff? Is anyone listening?

The state of our roads would suggest otherwise...

What can a Labour councillor do in a sea of blue?

For the last four years, Cllr Robin Stuchbury has been a lone Labour voice on the Conservative dominated County Council. And for six years now, Robin has been on his own for some of the time or with just one other Labour Councillor (now Cllr Mark Bateman) on the District Council, again dominated by Conservative councillors. Notwithstanding the positive relationship that Robin has with local LibDems, Independents and often, perhaps surprisingly, UKIP councillors, this has been some engrossing and challenging years for him.

You might be forgiven for thinking that Robin has been limited to shouting into a bucket over this time. But that is not so. And although the ruling parties in each council would never admit it of course... he has had impacts in many places, asked important questions which have led to change and on several occasions proposed policies which although initially resisted then magically become the way things should be done... In other words Cllr Robin Stuchbury punches way above his weight, speaking up for the many (not just the few) across all of the County and District.

It is my sincere hope that Robin is re-elected to the County Council come May 4th. Indeed, I probably want and hope for that more than success in my own election!

But allow me to evidence my assertions above. First let's turn to the County Council. Throughout his time in County Hall, Robin has participated in many scrutiny inquiries into services for children - as school students overall and children at risk of harm. Here is a list of some of those inquiries:

For example, Robin was an active member of the "Narrowing the Gap" investigation into the attainment gap between economically and socially disadvantaged pupils and their peers in Buckinghamshire. (I cannot seem to find the original report on the County website now - as the links to it appear to be broken both from here: the list of completed inquiries in the County Council and from the report linked above. Here is a link to the Cabinet response to the original report. But here is a link to copy that I dug out of old correspondence as it would seem the County have archived it now...)

Robin tells me that it often felt as if he was the only councillor (aside from the Chair of the committee) to have read the background papers before the meetings and was a key contributor to the discussions and questioning of the external contributors. I think the proceedings were filmed and stored, so this can be seen on the tapes.

Cllr Stuchbury has also being closely involved with:

• Young People Ready for Work 
• Children's Internet Safety 
• Child Sexual Exploitation 
• Children’s Workforce Inquiry 
• Voice of the Child and Young Person

Details of all these inquiries can be found here. In many cases, links to the whole original documents are not working. However Robin can send you the full reports if you wish.

By re-electing Robin and by electing me: the residents of North Bucks will benefit from having councillors who will question, who will challenge, who will scrutinise, who will research and who will oppose (on occasion) decisions made by the ruling group in the County Council - robustly, constructively and tirelessly.