The TaxPayers' Alliance - West Midlands

Golden oldies

Today’s Express and Star reports that residents of a Staffordshire residential home deemed ‘not fit for purpose’ have been moved out to a luxury care home at a cost of £1,000-per-person-per-week.

  Staffordshire County Council shied away from revealing just how many former residents of Billbrook House are now living in the £21million Sunrise Residential Village in Tettenhall, which can charge residents up to £50,000 per year, and their reluctance to release the numbers really just says it all.

Billbrook House was closed despite campaigners’ pleas, as the council insisted that they could not afford to keep it open, and yet so many private residential care homes potter along perfectly efficiently for years and years. We are left to wonder how Billbrook House got into such an unsalvageable state in the first place and why taxayers’ are having to shoulder these huge costs.

One thing is for sure, failing to maintain this residential home has certainly cost them dear, as the paper also reports that twenty residents have chosen to move to the 5* Wergs Road complex, with plasma TVs and silver service.

No-one resents these elderly people decent accommodation, let’s just make that clear, but this situation should have been foreseen by the council and more suitable provision should have been arranged. Must these people be moved again once a more inexpensive solution is found? Or will the council continue to pay these extortionate fees for as long as they have to?

This is just another costly muddle that could have been avoided by proper planning, but when planning isn’t paramount because costly mistakes have few consequences and the coffers can be boosted quite easily by the public purse, situations like this will arise time and time again.

West Midlands Police pay out six-figure sum

West Midlands Police are set to cost taxpayers £100,000 in a payout to Channel 4 after accusing them of misleading the public and ‘heavily editing’ their documentary, Dispatches: Undercover Mosque.

The story is reported in various national newspapers as well as on the front page of Today’s Birmingham Post.

  Police say the original investigation was launched to ascertain whether three individuals shown in the programme could be prosecuted for inciting terrorism or racial hatred, but police soon reported the programme makers themselves to regulator Ofcom, releasing a press statement criticising them for misrepresenting the views of Muslim clerics with misleading editing. Ofcom did not agree and Channel 4 took the decision to launch libel action.

Last year the TaxPayers’ Alliance discovered that our police force had spent £14,000 on investigations after the programme’s broadcast, despite not having received a single complaint. As it turns out, this waste of money was really just the tip of the iceberg, and WMP’s complete lack of judgement is set to cost the taxpayer dear.

Why are our police using public money to launch investigations based on what they may have watched on the TV the previous night? Surely it’s patently obvious that they have more pressing issues to address in the West Midlands? Since when are they the arbiter of television editorial decisions anyway? There’s little doubt that they completely overshot their mandate here, and consequently we’ve all lost out.

West Midlands Police acted like a dog with a bone, and now money that should have been directed into real and legitimate policing in this area has been wasted, not to mention the staff hours that should have been spent making this area safer. And when the vast expenditure of the West Midlands Police Authority is coupled with such costly misdemeanours on behalf of the police themselves, no-one could blame local taxpayers for expressing concern over just how recklessly their money has been managed.

Council's big screen dream

Tramps, hoodlums and the various other categories of loiterer who clutter both Chamberlain and Victoria Square in central Birmingham must be bracing themselves for the return of their BBC Big Screen television that was removed from Chamberlain Square eight months ago.

The screen has been remounted in Victoria Square due to the nearby Waterloo House office block obtaining an injunction for noise disturbance and planning irregularities, but having spent £365,000 on the colossus Birmingham City Council were not about to give it up as a bad idea.

Far from ditching the screen, it has been reported today that the council will be building an ‘acoustic barrier’ at an undisclosed cost to ensure that office workers can work in peace whilst new arrivals to the country can be treated to the delights of Doctors, al fresco.

The council have insisted that the screen has a vital role, stating that it is the “key to our future development and status as a forward-thinking global city”. Eh? Now that’s an awful lot of emphasis to place on the presence of a big TV outside the council…

Of course, at the root of this is that Birmingham City Council are preoccupied with what the city looks like, rather than what it does and who it serves. They seem to think that if they pack enough screens and tall buildings (another obsession) into the centre and cross their fingers, it will eventually morph into New York. They seem to overlook that the aesthetic of somewhere like NY is purely a bi-product of what it does.

When you really consider the function of a big screen of Birmingham, it’s actually very difficult to pinpoint any particular benefit at all (aside from the benefit to those who don’t have a TV at home, or indeed a home).

In New York’s Time Square a screen might be used to advertise or to relate international news to tourists and workers from the four corners of the earth, acting almost like a sort of global mirror, whereas in Birmingham it plays Midlands Today to those visiting the Bullring from Dudley. If anything it only serves to magnify the more local and provincial nature of our city, something that Birmingham City Council seem to be ashamed of. 

Even if the council have good intentions, today’s Birmingham Post told of a £600,000 bill for the screen by 2012, a large amount of money that surely could have been put to much more constructive use?

Victoria Square is undoubtedly the jewel in central Birmingham’s crown, regularly surprising first-time visitors who have previously thought of the city as an urban concrete jungle. That Birmingham City Council would want to attract attention away from the magnificent council house building and the newly refurbished town hall with a ‘flashy’ oversized TV really does beggar belief.

Big screens are a great idea for sporting or music events during the summer, but having one as a permanent all-year-round fixture just isn’t necessary. If Birmingham wants to make an impact as a global city then the council are going to need residents on board, and when they’re wasting our money on frills like this that seems increasingly unlikely.

Wolverhampton branch on its way

On Friday those interested in forming the Wolverhampton TaxPayers’ Alliance gathered at Bantock House to discuss how a campaign for lower taxes and less government waste might be received in the local area.

The meeting had a great turn-out with residents keen to voice their views about the pressures of taxation. From local council tax campaigner Don Morris to retired Superintendent of Police John Mellor OBE QSM, all were in agreement that a movement was needed to make taxpayers’ voices heard.

Some Wolverhampton residents at the meeting insisted that the city was “more communist than China” due to the control of its various groups and organisations, but no feeling of futility persisted and I was delighted to be relieved of all the leaflets I took along to the meeting (and to be given a couple of orders for some more!).

Most attendees seemed to feel confident that they knew other who felt similarly and I do hope they will encourage their friends to attend our next meeting, which is already scheduled provisionally for Friday 30th May, 1pm at Bantock House. If you’d like to come along and see what you can do to help the campaign then just call or drop me an email at fiona.mcevoy@taxpayersalliance.com.

And don’t forget to listen out for WCR FM’s Wolverhampton Politics Show next Friday to hear an interview about our first meeting!

Worcester branch making an impression

With a spread in the local press about the launch and a brand new website now in place, it’s no wonder the new Worcester branch of the TaxPayers’ Alliance is already going from strength to strength!

Since being introduced on the 21st April, the founding activists of this new spin-off of the WMTPA have certainly made their presence felt in the Worcestershire area, and they’re meeting again tomorrow to discuss how to progress the campaign in the area.

The first success of the campaign came with a splash in the local Worcester News, with ex-NHS nurse Doug Langdon’s excellent comments to the press:

The 60-year-old said: "People need to take an interest in what is going on and need to feel they can have a say."I get pamphlets from Wychavon District Council particularly
when council tax forms come out and they are self-praising.
"I am not saying Wychavon is not one of the best run local authorities in the country, that may well be the case, but people should keep an eye on it so we are not lulled into a false sense of security."

The article certainly sparked some interest, with two new members expressing their support for the branch and requesting that they be kept up to date with any action days or events. All in all, a great profile-raiser for the campaign.

Not long after this article was published activist John Church started drafting the Worcester branch website, which is now up-and-running and will no doubt fill up with content over the coming months. It’d be great to see some lively debates in the forum! You can access the Worcester branch website by clicking the link on the right or clicking here will take you straight to it. I think you’ll agree that it’s coming along very nicely indeed!

The third success of this branch came in the shape of a meeting, requested by the leader of Wychavon District Council, who clearly wanted to see what this group was all about after reading Doug’s comments in the paper.

On Wednesday morning Doug went along to the council and was met by not only the leader, but also his deputy. Armed with knowledge of the area (Wychavon is Doug’s own council) and the TaxPayers’ Alliance Council Spending Series, he was able to discuss what the Worcester branch is in place to do, as well as take them to task on some of their extravagances.

They were quick to defend throwing taxpayers’ cash at the publication and delivery of numerous glossy leaflets and were dismissive of the alternatives, such as using the local newspaper, even asking, “why should we assist commercial enterprise?”! Though apparently it’s fine to channel funds in the direction of designers and printers…

They said they felt they had staffing to an absolute minimum, despite our Middle Management Pay paper showing that in the years 1996/7 and 2001/2 they’d steadily employed three people on over £50k-per-year at a cost of £185,000, but sometime between 2002 and 2006 the number employed jumped to eight and the cost of their salaries trebled to £560,000. That hardly sounds like bare minimum.

On pensions they kept schtum. An interesting reaction and something well worth remembering from this great opportunity to engage with the leaders of one of the local authorities.

Well done Doug for flying the flag – The Worcester TaxPayers’ Alliance have clearly got them rattled already!

And of course, big well done to all those involved. All this in just over two weeks – onwards and upwards Worcester!

If anyone is from the Worcester area and similarly fed-up with the burden of increased taxation and sick of witnessing the money taken from them going to waste, then do please get in touch with me at fiona.mcevoy@taxpayersalliance.com and I’ll put you in touch with the branch.

Sandwell Council's poor customer service

Yesterday a WMTPA supporter forwarded some information confirming that Sandwell Council really have taken meddling to a whole new level.

Whether you’re in a clothes shop or a supermarket, a bank or a shopping centre, or even ordering online, the chances are if something goes wrong you only have to pop over to customer services to have the matter resolved. And traditionally of course, the same is true of local authorities who have customer services centres or counters where you can register a complaint or ask for help and advice…

Not at Sandwell Council!

As of this week, if you live in the Borough and need customer services you’ll be wasting your time looking for this out-moded and obvious title. What you should be looking for is the very jazzy sounding ‘Service Insight Team’.

That’s right, they’ve wasted time, energy, thought and – of course – your money on “re-branding” customer services, only to make it more confusing for those seeking out a sign bearing the trusty and self-explanatory former name.

Whatever happened to “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”? How exactly was the current title failing? Why on earth does it have to be punchy and modern anyway, they don’t need to ‘sell’ it to us – we have no option but to use their service?

Conversely shops and department stores who do have something to sell to us have consistently stayed with the tried and tested name of ‘customer services’. Presumably because people are familiar with it, and terms like ‘Service Insight Team’ betray very little. In fact I actually typed this new name into Google, only to discover that Sandwell MBC are the only people in the country using this term. Not very surprising!  

These sound more like the actions of an authority who can’t get rid of money quick enough, than one that raised council tax again this year. It’s both interesting and alarming to discover some of the ludicrous moves this increased revenue is funding.

Re-branding can be expensive and largely pointless at the best of times, but wasting time and money replacing accepted and entrenched terminology with vacuous newly invented lingo is a disgrace, and most certainly a disservice to residents who pay their rates in good faith.

Quango Board of the Week: Week Five

Have you ever heard of RegenWM? Well you’re paying for them so pay attention. Here’s their mission:

The mission of RegenWM is to promote and develop regeneration excellence in the West Midlands. Our objectives are:
• To improve the skills, capacities and competencies of those working in the sector, in particular cross-occupational working.
• To provide information and intelligence to encourage the pursuit of excellence through the uptake of good practice.
• To influence policy and decision making networks regionally and nationally.
• To secure a sustainable future for RegenWM and its mission.

You can bet the last one is the biggest priority of them all! Sustaining and justifying their existence is the full time job of a quango.

So what do they actually do? Well looking at their website it’s all pretty vague but they primarily seem to ‘provide information’. They run seminars, ‘connect’ people, approach graduates to get involved with regeneration, run Design Environment West Midlands (?!), hold lots of conferences and seemingly give out prizes.

All in all it seems as though they orbit various regeneration projects fairly aimlessly, providing information that would no doubt be freely available to those who seek it without the existence of RegenWM. But then it's likely they’d insist that their function is far too complex for us mere cash cows to comprehend…

In their ‘hot news’ it states that they recently planted 56 trees, ‘one for each of the RegenWM 2007 Prize entries’. Apparently this was to offset the paper used for the prizes catalogue produced. But how are they going to make-up for the money they blew on the same brochures?

Here’s the board (prepare for a little deja vous, they’re an ‘operating unit’ of AWM):

Gerard Coyne - RegenWM Chair
AWM Board Member

Sue Davis CBE - RegenWM Vice-Chair
Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust

Professor Gerald Bennett
West Midlands Higher Education Association

Peter Cromar
Walsall Regeneration Company

Michael Kilduff
Economic Development Director, Learning and Skills Council

David Marr
Government Office West Midlands

Alison Meredith
Accord Housing Association

Stephen Morgan
RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors)

Paul Mountain
BURA (British Urban Regeneration Association)

Mark Pearce
Advantage West Midlands

Richard Quallington
Community First - Herefordshire & Worcestershire

Joy Warmington
b:RAP

Geoff Wright
CABE

Ally Allerson
Greets Green Partnership

  This is another Advantage West Midlands off-shoot with all the trappings of an independent quango. With regards to their board, this is what the website states:

Our Board is known legally as a 'second tier board' which means that it is an advisory group who advise a first tier publically-appointed organisation (that's AWM and its Board). In practice we have a strong and mature relationship with the Development Agency, with them being represented on the Board whilst happy to have all authority over the work programme delegated to that Board group. In practice, therefore, RegenWM enjoys an independence of operation and delivery and is able to guide its own affairs in consultation with appropriate partners and stakeholders.

They refer to AWM as ‘publically appointed’ as though in deference to their superior mandate, despite the fact the RDA is completely unelected and unaccountable to the public.

The very existence of a first and second tier board system really just says it all. With yet another money-draining layer in this complex unwieldy set-up we can see exactly how our money is being eaten up and yet experience few tangible benefits.

These are the people who hold the purse strings and exercise power using our money. We, on the other hand, are completely powerless to eject them.

West Midlands in Europe talk about the climate

According to Mark Mardell’s blog on the BBC News website, West Midlands in Europe, our local money-guzzling Euro-quango, have been busy hosting a climate change seminar in Brussels.

In case you don't know them West Midlands in Europe are, of course, partnered by two of the usual suspects – the West Midlands Local Government Association and, surprise surprise, Advantage West Midlands – and therefore claim to be representing local and regional government from the West Midlands in Brussels…

And if this event is the one on their calendar (no point trusting the ‘What’s New’ section, they barely put a date on anything and much of it is decidedly old), it was named the conference “For Green Transport”.

That’s right, more conferring about climate change…

Even if you were to put aside the cost of this sort of thing (which no doubt involved flying out various experts and putting them up in hotels, refreshments, taxis, the lot) it’s difficult to imagine an event or an issue further removed from the concerns of ordinary council taxpayers.

Household bills are escalating and some people are genuinely struggling to keep up with council tax rises; schools are failing to educate; libraries are closing down; bin collections are infrequent, complicated and unreliable; planning applications (even for some sheds!) face mountains of red-tape. Parochial stuff in some cases, but these are the issues that often matter the most to people.

People are less concerned about green transport, of that you can be almost certain. Even less concerned with talking shops that endlessly rake over such issues to no avail, and with no power to action half of the measures they discuss.

For all West Midlands in Europe can do about climate change, they may just as well be dancing about it as talking about it. They should leave such discussions to global leaders, and divert taxpayers’ money back to where it is needed.

Local council seeks £2.8million reimbursement

A WMTPA activist called today to draw my attention to the plight of his local council, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, as reported in Friday’s edition of the Leek Post & Times.

So the story goes, central Government owe the council no less than £2.8million for their commitment to investing in recycling.

According to the article, councils all over the country currently have to pay £32 per tonne to send waste to landfill (to rise to £40 next year and £48 in 2010), but in 2003 the Government promised that any such costs over £14 per tonne would be reimbursed if councils invested in recycling.

So that’s what Staffordshire Moorlands District Council endeavoured to do, and thus spent thousands of pounds on the various paraphernalia that we associate with environmental investment. And backed by the LGA, who estimate that the Government owes £1.5billion in total, they now want their reimbursement of an estimated £2.8million.

This is just passing your money around, there’s no doubt about that. The general public have not only paid for the thousands of extra plastic wheelie bins, plastic tubs, green plastic refuse sacks (none of which sound incredibly environmentally friendly…) and the likes, but no doubt local residents have put up for a couple of climate change officers, or environmental advisors or similarly titled consultants. Having made these investments via council tax, ordinary working people will also be shelling out for the reimbursements too via general taxation.

But presumably if this refund – of almost £3million in this case - was used to lower council tax, this might ease the pain caused by having to stump up all the money in the first place? After all according Sybil Ralphs, the leader of the council, this money amounts to £68 per household. Getting that back wouldn’t hurt.

But Sybil has different ideas, and she and her council colleagues seem to have been lying awake at night, dreaming of what wonderful things they could spend this cash on once they get it back. Sybil thinks that ‘keeping council tax low’ would be a nice idea, but that’s not nearly exciting enough. It ranks third on her list of three in fact. Lowering taxes for local residents just doesn’t involve extravagant planning, consultants, land acquisition, a giant overspend and then an invite only party with council bought refreshments…

Sybil wants to erect her monument it seems, telling the paper:

“It could be a multi-storey car park or a community theatre, or anything residents felt was most needed”.

That’s right, Sybil wants to reward her adoring public, the people who will have spent (by her own admission) thousands of pounds investing in recycling and millions of pounds on reimbursing councils for this environmental drive with…a car park! A facility that means you don’t have to take public transport into town, or indeed walk. Something that actively cultivates cars. Classic.

Or a community theatre of course, hardly something of pressing necessity. As my activist friend pointed out, they’re actually very well positioned for theatre as it is. And what’s more, lots of people are particularly interested in such things. But then lots of people aren't particularly interested in climate change or recycling and they still have to pay for it...

If this money is awarded back, it should be filtered straight back in to the pockets of those who paid it out to start with, to do what they judge best with it. It certainly shouldn’t become a council honey-pot to be dipped in to fund frivolous projects, driven by legacy-seeking councillors rather than local necessity.

Supplementary Business Rates threatening to hit West Midlands business for £30million

The Express and Star reports that Supplementary Business Rates, as recommended by the Centre for Cities, would raise £27.5million by allowing local councils to levy an extra 2p in the pound on businesses in their area.

Apparently this additional money would be spent on transport, roads and housing.

But hang on, don’t we already pay for such things through other forms of taxation? As usual, they want more of our money, and this time the burden falls upon our local businesses, many of whom are already suffering from a pretty serious downturn in trade.

We’re informed by the Centre for Cities that nine out of ten businesses are all in favour of local authorities having the right to slap anything between an extra 2p to an extra 4p onto their rates.

If that seems unlikely, that’s because it is. In reality, of the 122 people surveyed for this report, only 27 of them were actually from the business community. Just 11 of them were from the West Midlands.

  To project the views of a small handful of (no doubt carefully chosen) individuals as if they were representative of the regional, and indeed national business community is really misleading the general public as to the popularity of this scheme.

By far the majority of respondents were from Local Strategic Partnerships and the local authorities themselves, i.e. those with an interest in “generating significant extra funds” as the IPPR Centre for Cities paper says.

The need for these extra funds is invested with a familiar sense of urgency, yet the TaxPayers’ Alliance have consistently highlighted the entrenched profligacy in the public sector. The proposal of another levy can only be treated with hostility in light of local authorities’ track record on spending.

Consultations on the introduction of this new tax will come to their almost inevitable conclusion in June, after which your local businesses could be burdened with a 5% increase in their rates – stumping up funds to subsidise local government's inefficiency.