Inconvenient Questions

Just before the local elections kicked off officially, Rugby had a Full Council meeting. It lasted about 10 minutes, and had little business in it, except for a question from councillor. This is the exact text from the minutes:


Councillor Miss Lawrence asked the following question of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Humphrey:-

“Given the number and nature of questions that have been presented to Council and Cabinet by elected members and the public in the last year, does the Leader of the Council consider the amount of officer and member time spent on this process is justified ?”

Councillor Humphrey to reply as follows:-

“Our aim as a local authority is to be lean and efficient. That way we can provide the services that the people of Rugby want. Enquiries are dealt with, wherever possible, at the first point of contact, driving waste from the system.
We are open and transparent. It is therefore frustrating to note the volume of work created for officers from quarters within this Council. It often does little to help us deliver our corporate strategy, distracts us from being efficient and is often used to appease a different audience.”

I’m still trying understand what it means. I did ask the Rugby Tory party what their view was, as the question was from a Conservative councillor, and the answer from the Leader of their group (and of the council). The tweeted response was less than helpful:

@DanivonUK Questions aren’t asked as a political group, you would need to ask the councillor who asked the question.

— Rugby Conservatives (@RugbyTory) April 25, 2014

I am detecting a pattern here – Tories don’t like “questions”.

But to go back to the point of Cllr Lawrence’s question, and the answer…

What is interesting about it is that it does not tell us how many questions have been asked, or how much they ‘cost’ to answer. I can think of a way to save officer costs, though. Perhaps instead of insisting that the public (and councillors) present their questions in writing, days in advance to officers, and perhaps if the answers were not pre-arranged, officers would have less to do.

And perhaps the ‘value’ of allowing councillors to ask questions freely is that they get to do their job – holding the Council itself to account, overseeing the work of the officers, and representing their constituents.

And perhaps the ‘value’ of allowing the public to ask questions is to hold the councillors to account.

It seems to me that the only bit of democracy that Craig Humphrey and his cronies like is the elections bit (because they have been winning them). But the part where people have an open debate, oh no, that gets in the way, “distracts us from being efficient” etc.

It was asking awkward questions that helped to scupper the waste of money that was the “pedestrianisation” in the Town Centre.

And I am perhaps to blame in part for the idea that people are asking unfair questions of our ‘lords and masters’ at the Town Hall. Earlier in the month, this was my question to the Cabinet (I could not make the meeting myself as I had done my back in that day):

(i) The following question was received from Mr Owen Richards. Mr Richards did not attend the meeting.
“In recent media articles, it has been reported that the Borough Council has changed an aspect of housing policy, particularly affecting people who are homeless and going through local shelters. What was the basis for this change, and was it change determined by officers with or without reference to the Cabinet member responsible – was there any consultation with other councillors or the public?”
For reference, an excerpt from the Rugby Advertiser:
“Senior support worker Pete Wayman said many winter shelter guests automatically qualified for council help under what is called ‘band one provision’.
He said: “This meant that some guests were helped to leave the shelter and find accommodation much more quickly.
Published 9th April 2104
“The council housing team remain very supportive of us and do what they can but their recent decision to make winter shelter guests ‘band two’ only this winter has only added to our pressures.
“We have asked the council housing team to urgently reconsider this decision.”
Councillor Humphrey, Leader of the Council, responded as follows:
“The council has a responsibility to allocate fairly the limited number of council homes to local people. Prior to the review of the allocations policy in May 2013, on which we consulted widely in line with the Warwickshire Compact, local homeless people were being given different priority for housing depending on whether or not they had approached the winter night shelter or not. Now homeless people living rough or sofa surfing are placed into Band One, a high priority for social housing, if they are so vulnerable that the council has a statutory responsibility to house them, regardless of whether they have visited the winter shelter or not. Homeless people who are less vulnerable are placed into Band Two, which still gives them a good chance of being offered a council home. The council continues to work closely with people allocated this lower priority to find them housing with other providers, such as housing associations or private landlords.
Most recently, the council has had a number of discussions with those managing the winter night shelter, HOPE4, on this issue since the opening of this year’s night shelter, in part to discuss with our community partners the reasons for the changed approach.
As we review the allocations policy later this year, we will again be consulting widely with local community groups in line with the Warwickshire Compact. We are happy to revisit this issue then, but I must be clear that fairness in letting scarce public housing will be at the centre of any changes”

First of all, I don’t understand why Craig Humphrey answered, rather than the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing. Secondly, this does not actually answer my question.

It really is simple – who changed the policy? Which councillors were involved or consulted? Why can’t you share with the public the ‘reasons for the changed approach’?

I tell you what, these question thingies may or may not be ‘value for money’, but perhaps if the leader of the council answered them (and truthfully), it would help a lot.

Boundary Reviews R Us

Rugby has been covered by quite a few Boundary Reviews lately:

In 2004 there were changes to the County Council boundaries, which came into force in the 2005 elections. Another one is on the cards at the moment, and it is about due after 10 years.

In 2010 we had the first elections after the Parliamentary boundaries in Warwickshire were changed. Rugby & Kenilworth lost the Kenilworth bit (and MP Jeremy Wright) to a new constituency of Kenilworth & Southam, but the new Rugby seat gained the village of Bulkington – much to the chagrin of the Bulkingtonians.

After 2010 there was the national review provoked by the coalition’s wish to reduce the number of MPs, which would have seen a ‘Rugby’ that stretched all the way down to the M40 near Banbury. That review was killed off by the Lib Dems when they did not get their way on Lords Reform.t

In 2012 we had a set of all-out elections after changes to the Borough Council boundaries. This reduced the number of councillors, and dealt with the changes in population that had already happened and were likely with planned development.

So you’d think that we’d not have another one for a while. And that if anything, the least likely one to need a re-do was the one we’d just had. But of course you are not the genius Craig Humphrey, Rugby’s answer to Vladimir Putin (thankfully less often topless).

You see, because of some spat with the Warwickshire Tory heirarchy over whether there should be a county-wide Unitary Authority, and because autocrats love an opportunity to reduce the prospect for dissent, it makes perfect sense to change all our council boundaries. And to reduce the number of councillors from 42 to “30-35”.

And because in order to start one this year, a council needs to contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) by early April, a report was knocked up in a hurry and rushed through an ’emergency’ Full Council meeting last night.

And what a report it is. Shoddy does not come close.

It claims that since the 2012 review, “a number of factors have emerged that mean we need to request a review of electoral arrangements and council size.” And they are, in full, deconstructed below.

The Government’s programme of reducing local government funding means that we
must review all aspects of our services, including electoral arrangements and
council size. We believe that we have substantial local reasons to make changes
that will provide synergy with this national priority and provide a sustainable basis
for adapting to future population growth:

The government was making cuts to local government funding well before 2012 – pretty much since the 2010 election is was clear. Interestingly, Rugby has been fairly lucky in that the building of hundreds of new houses provides it with a “New Homes Bonus” income that keeps council tax down. But this is not new. Oh, and anyone who uses the word ‘synergy’ should at least understand what it means. Ignore the colon at the end, it’s erroneous.

Rugby is currently undergoing considerable change as the fastest-growing borough
in the West Midlands and the latest expectations of further growth are different to
those envisaged in 2011/12 at the time of the last review. Several housing and
employment development schemes are underway, with more to follow within the
next 10 years. Our ability to provide effective and sustainable electoral
arrangements must therefore reflect the revised housing growth pattern within the

The main new development in the Borough is the housing planned for the Mast Site between Hillmorton and the DIRFT. This was already allowed for in the boundary review of 2012, which is why Hillmorton and Clifton are both currently over-represented and over the next 5-ten years that will balance out. When they are done, it would make sense to have another review then.

During the past 3 years, Rugby Borough Council through a close partnership
between the Leader and Cabinet, Executive Directors and Heads of Service. We
now have conclusive evidence that this innovative arrangement has been of great
benefit. In addition, in September 2013 an LGA Peer Group Review report
confirmed the efficacy of our executive arrangements, approving them as a model
of best practice. We now wish to build on this model across applicable areas of the
Authority, enabling greater involvement by Councillors working closely with Council

It’s been of great benefit to the Leader, who acts as if he is also the Chief Executive of the Council, and has taken it upon himself to push other councillors out of the usual pattern of representing RBC on outside bodies. Essentially, this is about the desire to change the council body from being a set of representatives of the public, into a group who are so closely working with senior officers that they are co-opted. Reducing their representative role

The authority has applied “systems thinking” techniques towards the delivery of
services during the past 5 years, resulting in streamlined practices and structures
that deliver better services at reduced costs. We now wish to deploy considerations
towards electoral arrangements, the size of our council and the way councillors and
officers work together.

I get enough of this corporate BS working for or with large financial companies in my time in IT. This is meaningless except for the key parts – ‘streamlined’. What do councillors do? They set policy, they represent the public, they challenge each other and they hold the council officers to account. Streamlining that means less of it.

Warwickshire County Council’s recent budget consultation demonstrated public
opinion that there are too many councillors for the work that needs doing, and that
the reduction in costs associated with electing and supporting fewer councillors
should contribute towards the spending reductions needed in the public sector. It is
worth noting that this was specifically aimed at the county council, which needs to
identify £92million of cuts and is struggling to meet this target. Nevertheless,
ignoring the financial considerations and taking into account the local context
where neighbouring district authorities have 36 (Daventry District Council),
37 (Harborough District Council), 35 (North Warwickshire Borough Council) and 34
councillors (Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council), there is clearly a view
among the general public that there should be fewer councillors.

This conflates several things – the WCC review was asking for people to identify £92m in cuts, and politicians being unpopular it was an easy target (but would have saved tuppence-ha’penny compared to the real cuts WCC is making). Elections cost money, but that is the price of democracy. It would be cheapest not to hold any elections and just live in a dictatorship, but as a nation we rejected (and fought wars against) that kind of thing. And looking at neighbouring councils to just compare the number of councillors is not enough. Population and make-up would be factors too…

Daventry (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 78,100 – people per councillor 2169
Harborough (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 85,700 – people per councillor 2316North Warks (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 62,000 – people per councillor 1771
Nuneaton and Bedworth (mainly urban) – pop 125,400 – people per councillor 3688

Rugby (mainly rural area, one main town) – pop 100,500 – people per councillor 2393 – already more than the similar neighbouring councils cited.

If we went to 35 councillors, that would change to 2871 people per councillor. If we went to 30 councillors, it would be 3350, about double that of North Warks.

Interestingly, the nearby councils of Warwick (46 councillors) and Stratford-upon-Avon (53 councillors) were not used for comparison, despite both being immediate neighbours of Rugby. Warwick has 2993 people per councillor, and Stratford District has 2279

Basically, Rugby has a lower ‘density’ of councillors than most of these comparators, and a higher one only than two – both of which are more compact and more urban.

Also, public hostility to politicians is not new, and neither is the make-up of any of these other districts and boroughs, so it was known in 2012.

Rugby Borough Council are also keen to incorporate Central Government’s desire
to reduce the cost of Politics. We believe that by reducing the number of
Councillors to between 30 and 34 there will be a minimal annual saving of at least
£80,000. This amount added to the savings that will be created from changing from
election by thirds to all out elections will generate substantial savings.

Ignore the fact that the numbers change (sometimes it’s 30-35 councillors, others it’s 30-34). What is the basis for the ‘belief’ that there will be savings of at least £80k?

A councillor’s allowance is £5,214. Even if you removed 12 councillors (down to 30), that would only save £62,528. If you took the lower saving option of removing 7 (to 35) it’s down to £36498. So where does the other £45k come from?

Not to mention that councillors’ allowances are based on recommendations from an Independent Panel. Who look at, among other things, the number of people they represent. If you increase that from c.2400 to c.2800, they are likely to suggest a higher allowance, diluting any savings.

Nowhere in the report is the £80k figure broken down. It is asserted, but never substantiated by anything more than ‘belief’.

The changes to our electoral arrangements and council size are based upon :-
o All-out elections from 2016
o A reduction in the number of Councillors to between 30 and 35
o A baseline of 2700 electors per ward

All-out elections are not really the issue – the boundary commission has no real say in that and the Council could move to them if they wanted to. They had the chance to in 2012 and, largely through Tory opposition, did not. So what changed?

The reduction in the of number of councillors is vague, but the ‘baseline of 2700 electors’ is oddly specific. It also is leading toward single-member wards, which is fine for rural areas with lots of small parishes, but in urban areas it means lots of tiny wards with odd boundaries (not that Rugby is a stranger to that thanks to recent reviews).

We wish to reinforce our compliance with provisions within the Local Government
Act 2000 regarding effective and transparent decision-making.

Why just this Act and not the several others since (2002, 2003, 2007, 2010)? And why not the spirit of the legislation on Boundary Reviews that they should not take place within five years of the last one?

Last night the Tories forced through the report to approach the LGBCE, despite the faulty reasoning given. Because they are Humphrey’s little followers now.


On… getting fit again

So the other thing I’ve been doing recently is taking up exercise again.

I’ve not really been all that active over the years. Some mountain biking 10-15 years ago, a couple of attempts to get into using a gym, and that’s it. So with the office-work, relaxed lifestyle, beers and not hugely healthy diet, I started to put on a bit of weight, and now my belly has become a paunch.

A mate of mine – my best man Darren – started running a couple of years ago, and he had found that it had helped him to feel a lot better. So in March I started going to parkrun. Going from virtually no exercise to a 5km run may seem a bit of a leap, but I did always enjoy middle-long distance and cross-country as a teenager, and reckoned I could give it a go. So it was on a snowy Saturday morning that I went over to Coventry to give it a go. Due to the weather only about 100 people took part (usually it’s about 300), and I came somewhere in the 90s after walking about a third of the course. But I finished it, and in just under 34 minutes.

Since then I’ve done it most weekends. Twice my time has been worse than that first one, once when I got bad cramp about halfway round the Bushy Park course and another time when I turned up twenty minutes late and ran it anyway. The great thing about parkrun is that it is quite simple for a rank amateur. It’s free (many running races have fees), you get a time for each run – as long as you have registered and bring your barcode – and most events are big enough with a range of abilities that isn’t too intimidating.

Having picked up the bug, I am taking it a bit more seriously than before – I got a proper pair of running shoes and a watch for my birthday. Yesterday my time was 31:07, but that was on a bad hangover. The four runs before that were all personal bests for the course I was on, and I’ve got my record down to 28:31.

And this month I have (along with my wife) joined a gym. The new Leisure Centre in Rugby was opened at the end of August (although it’s not completely smoothly running if the queues are anything to go by), and we’ve decided to help each other to get more fit and lose weight.

On… changing jobs

Shortly after I got married, I also changed jobs. Just to make things more stressful.

Well, not quite. My actual job is the same as before, and it wasn’t my idea

What happened was that the company I’d been working for over the past 17 years (Steria, formerly Xansa, who I joined when they were called the FI Group) was asked to transfer all the people working for Barclaycard over to Barclays. Most of my colleagues had been TUPE’d over from Barclays ten years before, so for them it was going back. It’s not a culture shock for me, as I’ve been working at Barclaycard for over four years anyway, but it’s strange to have a new set of bosses.

I never had intended to work for one company for so long – I think of the 60 people who joined the Graduate scheme at FI when I did, only 1 still works for them now. All through the nineties I kept hearing that the ‘job for life’ was history, and I had always wanted to get varied experience anyway. But as FI/Xansa/Steria supply other companies, I did get to work at a few places and do different things. There was programming at first, then all kinds of data analysis for Y2K (a very real problem in big and old systems such as in the bank we were at), then application support with overnight on call, followed by doing specifications and design and more recently Business Analysis.

I am not really sad to leave Steria. It is not the company I joined in 1995 (name changes and mergers notwithstanding). It was largely a private company back then (although they floated 1996), and dominated by female management. This was pretty unusual for an IT company – and still is – but was a legacy of the origins of FI Group, being set up by Stephanie ‘Steve’ Shirley in the 60s primarily to allow women with dependants to get work in the nascent IT industry. They were doing homeworking before it was even a buzzword. It was also regarded as very employee friendly, listed as one of the top companies to work for and much of the shares were owned by workers.

Despite not being a ‘dotcom’ or really working in the web industry back then, they were hit by the 2001 tech bubble crashing. Over time the company has become more like its competitors, more male, more invested in offshoring, more interested in the bottom line. They were never great fans of unions (so I joined one), but towards the end seemed to be even less ready to co-operate

Barclays/Barclaycard of course have their issues in the recent past, with the ‘casino capitalism’ under Bob Diamond and others, LIBOR rate manipulation and mis-selling of PPI.

On… being married

Ok, so I’ve been through another slack period as a blogger. Something about living life rather than writing about it, or more likely too lazy to put a few words through a keyboard.

One of the more significant things I did over the past six months was to get married. We’d been planning it for a while, getting the money together to go out to New Orleans to do it as an elopement. We asked a friend each to come with us, and stayed in a really cool house off Esplanade for a week. Hen/Stag was a night out around Bourbon Street, which would be totally crazy at peak times but in late May was just busy.

The wedding itself was cool – nice and relaxed at the French Quarter Wedding Chapel. It was only when having lunch afterwards that we let people know what we’d done – sending pics out. Luckily my folks were pretty cool about it (I think they’d have loved to do something similar when they got married). The next day, a Saturday, saw me and my mate Darren go off to drink and watch two footie games – the Champions League final in an Irish bar, and then to watch New Orleans Jesters play a fourth tier match against Knoxville Force – while Jas and Sonya went shopping. How quickly we became a stereotype!

We did have a party a couple of months later for family and friends, so people did get to see Jas in her dress (and me in a suit). Our first dance was Jump Around by House of Pain and we ended up with Fairytale of New York.

Over three months on, it’s still a bit weird to be married. We’ve been together for about 12 years, and lived together for all of that apart from two year-long periods when we had to long-distance it. So it’s not like we don’t know each other. The weird thing is that it doesn’t feel that different to be married. Remembering to say ‘wife’ instead of ‘girlfriend’ is getting easier, though.

A million quid?

So the latest plans for pedestrianising the centre of Rugby are out – as reported by the Rugby Advertiser.

For a cost of £1million, we would get…

  • The bit of Church Street and North Street between Regent Street and Chestnut Field will become a bus & taxi only lane during the daytime
  • A slightly larger ‘civic space’ around the Clock Tower

And that’s it. The picture that has been released and shown in the Advertiser site only shows the change in a little part at the top, with the most prominent part being the already pedestrianised area to the south of the Clock Tower (shown empty but will presumably still be used for the Market).

It is not a pedestrianisation if buses and taxis still go along the road.

It is about 150 yards long, meaning the cost is over £6,500 per yard, which is more that the bypass cost even after the delays and overspend.

It will shift traffic into Park Road, Regent Place and Albert Street, and affect roads all around the town centre which are already congested at peak times.

It will make it harder to get to the car parking around the town.

There are ways that the town centre could be made more attractive, and to link the ‘Independent Quarter’ to the north of Church Street with the rest of the town centre for pedestrians. What about these?

  • Pedestrianise between Regent Street and Albert Street, creating a square in front of St. Andrews Church.
  • A proper set of bus stops or (radical!) a bus ‘station’ in the town would help.
  • Perhaps not easing through more out-of-town development with the Debenhams at Elliots Field which will suck custom away from the ‘Independent Quarter’ boutique-y shops

Saturday entertainment

Which is the most embarrassing celeb-heavy ‘game-show’ put on by the BBC on a Saturday night?

It’s a tough one. “That Puppet Game Show” is like the Muppets with all of the jokes and interesting characters removed (using extreme force) and replaced with the most pointless games imaginable – Punching out lights on a jumpsuit? Grabbing hot-dogs in musical order? Then there was the excruciating banter.

But “I Love My Country” is serious competition. A house band led by Jamelia, who are more painful than Glen Ponder and ‘Chalet’ ever were. Equally pointless games – Hangman with additional pork-pie-on-a-map, for criminy’s sake! And that wheel thing at the end. It’s enough to provoke treason if this is how you are supposed to ‘love’ your country.

I know that ITV have put out some absolute shockers (Red or Black being the most expensive waste of everyone’s time to date), and generally the trend nowadays is to make Saturday nights on TV so atrocious and so celeb-laden, but what are the people commissioning this dross thinking?

I can’t believe I’m actually reminiscing with fondness about Total Wipeout.

To those who may have noticed this post after a huge long gap, well, sorry, I’ve been a bit busy. Since I last posted I got married and changed employer while supervising the selection process for Labour’s Parliamentary candidate in Rugby for 2015, and also started getting a little more serious about my hobbies of running and gaming. Sorry to break my silence with a moan, but it’s the most annoying thing today – more than the breaking of two garden forks or the discovery of a leak from the bath overflow.

Seen leaving our local Tesco…

… A rather red-faced local politician who had been brought in to apply pressure on management not to discipline his nephew for theft. Said nephew had apparently assured his uncle that there was no case to answer, and on that basis the politician had started making a forthright defence… Until the inevitable playing of the CCTV footage showing the scallywag lifting edible goods from the shelves and into his gob.

Uncle ??? has not been seen in the branch since, apparently.

2013 local elections

Nationally, the big story was the surge in UKIP support. Of course, they gained about 140 councillors, while Labour gained 291 (undoing the losses from 2009). And I have seen claims – and no evidence to disprove them – that UKIP didn’t take any Labour seats. In the South Shields by-election, the ‘shock’ was UKIP coming second, but it was a distant second to the Labour victor.

The big losers were the Tories, who are either calmly putting it down to mid-term protest votes or panickedly urging the government to tack rightwards and bash Europe and immigrants. The Lib Dems had a bad time, but more so in the areas they don’t do that well in, and where UKIP were not so active. The Greens made gains around the country.

But as these are Shire county elections in the main (with a couple of Mayoral elections – two gains for Labour there), they are not necessarily going to reflect the national picture, so even trends compared to 2009 may be distorted compared to other local elections years. Still, putting the projected national vote share from the Beeb (Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23%, LDs 14%) into UNS seat predictors for a General Election gives Labour a slim majority – a feature of First Past the Post that will perhaps have Tories ruing their opposition to AV two years ago.

But, Rugby. Well, Warwickshire before that. The Tories lost control to a hung council, seeing seats in the north of the county fall. Labour gained 12 seats from the 2009 result to be not far behind, but far enough that it would be difficult to try and run the council in coalition. The Lib Dems lost a few to go down to 9 seats, and could hold the balance of power, but I hear that neither of the main parties wants to treat with them. The Greens gained two (one from the leader of the Tories up in Nuneaton, one from Labour in Leamington), and there were two new independents to add to the one already there.

UKIP didn’t put many candidates up, although they did get about 20% or so of the vote when they did – but that wasn’t enough to win a seat, just get some second places. I was surprised that they didn’t have candidates across all of the areas affected by HS2, given their stance on it and how they’d been claiming last week it would make a difference in Warwickshire. Are they not well organised around here, or perhaps better at vetting candidates than other UKIP branches?

The pattern seems to show that Nuneaton and North Warwickshire parliamentary seats are very likely to go back to Labour in 2015. Leamington & Warwick and Rugby seem a little more tenacious.

In Rugby, UKIP were somewhat of a factor, perhaps – and they may be wishing they had stood elsewhere or had more candidates. Labour gained three seats in the town, partly perhaps due to Tory defectors to UKIP, but also it has to be said due to a fairly consistent swing across the town of 9-10% from Tory to Labour. I would say that the main difference UKIP made was to increase the size of Labour majorities there.

I know Labour were hopeful of winning Admirals back, having lost it in 2009, but it is an area that has changed a lot since last being won by a Labour candidate – Cawston Grange having been developed greatly in that period). Had UKIP stood and got the 20-25% they did elsewhere, however, it could easily have been another Labour gain.

In places where Labour has in recent times been in third place – such as the two-seat divisions of Hillmorton & Eastlands and Caldecott, they are right in the mix. The Lib Dems comfortably won in Hillmorton & Eastlands, but one of the Labour candidates was third ahead of the Tories (and while the other Labour candidate was sixth, the combined Labour vote was higher than the Tory vote). Caldecott saw the Tories hold, but with a cut majority and with Labour and Lib Dem candidates so close they alternated places. Caldecott may be another seat where a UKIP candidacy might have had a major impact.

Outside the Town, the Tories saw their majorities hit, but even in Fosse where UKIP took a chunk these are pretty solid seats for blue. The exceptions, as for last year’s Borough elections, were ex-Tory Howard Roberts winning as an Independent in Dunchurch (causing some mean-spirited comments from some jilted Tories) and Labour taking a seat from the Tories in Bulkington – Dunchurch is in Rugby Borough but not the Parliamentary seat, Bulkington is in Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough but is in the Rugby Parliamentary seat.

In my own race, the by-election for Bilton in the Borough Council, I came third, behind a safely re-elected Tory and a strong showing from UKIP. I did manage to come above the strong local Lib Dem candidate Bill Lewis, which was my main aim. It would have been nice to come second and reduce the Tory majority, but it was not to be.

So what does it tell us? Well, if Labour are to retake the Rugby seat in the General Election, it seems there is more to do. However the swing was large (and larger than the national average), which is better than the 2011 and 2012 Borough elections. The Lib Dems appear to be spent as a force outside the Eastern corner and Overslade/Caldecott, and so their 2010 support appears to be moving away. The Greens and TUSC are still putting up candidates but at the end of the day not really making many inroads – Green share of the vote fell where they stood in Rugby (even if they are doing rather better in other parts of the County). So it seems that the problem of a ‘split left vote’ is less acute for Labour than before. The Tories have been until now successful at holding their vote, but this time did see it slip, especially when the ‘split right vote’ problem emerged in the form of UKIP.

If UKIP in and around Rugby start to build up to the level of activity they have in other areas, they could well be a major headache for the Tories – next year sees Borough elections for the least secure seats won in 2012 and the European elections. But it’s still very uncertain whether that would carry through to a General Election. For Labour, it does have to be about getting a good candidate (and there should be one in place soon) and trying to win on our own terms.

The last four years

I dug out my old bills. The place we were renting from 2009 was Band D, so I have been able to find the correct figures for all of the years covering the Council Tax freeze. What I can see is that there has been a small variation each year

RBC base amount (charged to all households across the Borough)

2009/10: £128.772010/11: £128.59   -£0.18
2011/12: £128.94  +£0.35
2012/13: £128.94   no change
2013/14: £127.67  -£1.27

Net change after 4 years: -£1.10

Town Area precept (charged to households not in a Parish Council area)

2009/10: £64.72
2010/11: £64.58  -£0.14
2011/12: £63.42  -£1.16
2012/13: £63.14  -£0.28
2013/14: £66.27  +£3.13

Net change after 4 years: +£1.55

Total Council Tax for RBC in Town Area:

2009/10: £193.49
2010/11: £193.17  -£0.32
2011/12: £192.36  -£0.81
2012/13: £192.08  -£0.28
2013/14: £193.94  +£1.86

Net change after 4 years: +£0.45

Read the rest of this entry »