The TaxPayers' Alliance - West Midlands

Report condemns Stoke City Council

Yet again Stoke-on-Trent City Council has come under fire, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is a council in crisis.

A report by the Stoke-on-Trent Governance Commission publicised in today’s The Sentinel has claimed that the council have ‘short-changed’ the residents of the city and a ‘catalogue of failures need to be addressed’.

Some local residents have suggested that many of the report's recommendations could compromise democracy in the city (e.g. fewer councillors and less regular elections), but whatever action is deemed the most suitable there seems to be a consensus that politics has gotten in the way of public service, and radical changes need to be implemented swiftly to save this failing authority.

Read The Sentinel's report here.

And if you'd like to sing along to the council's anthem (yep, that's right) as you read it, you can find it here.

Taxpayers fund desperate bus project

What cost Birmingham City Council and Aston Pride £336,000 to fund, is staffed by six and boasts fifteen computer stations along with broadband and satellite technology?

  The answer is, the school/careers advice on wheels that will be creeping around Aston stalking those aged 16-25 who have dropped out of education and training (Birmingham Post). Just the latest – a particularly desperate – move to round up the disaffected young people, many of whom have been failed by the current education system, and try to push them through some form of meaningless training and shoehorn them into work in the hope of reducing the steadily rising unemployment figures in the area.

This Skills for Life project apparently follows on from a similar venture involving another bus that pursued the so-called “midnight children” who roam the city’s streets after dark. It’s not outlandish to suppose that many of these young adults hanging around on city streets after midnight are drunk or drugged, and yet this has been deemed the optimum time to drag them onto a bus and force some semblance of education upon them or assess what career they are suited to. How much are they truly able to absorb, indeed, what impression are they going to project with addled brains and slurred speech?

However, this previous project – The Beyond Midnight bus – is being heralded as enough of a success to see the introduction of this second project. I’m not quite sure if we now have new criteria for the term ‘success’ but looking at employment figures for the 16-25 age group in Aston, where 27.7% are unemployed, it appears that the projects’ promoters are guilty of overstatement.

The bus itself  ‘engaged’ with over 3,440 young people according to the article, and these hazy terms are obviously supposed to disguise the fact that they haven’t publicised how many of those young people are now in employment as a result of this scheme. What does ‘engaged’ even mean? They spoke to them? The young person stepped on the bus, looked around and stepped off? Does that count? By definition, adolescents throwing stones at the bus might count as an engagement…Who knows?

Nevertheless, this project cost the taxpayer £70 for each of these ‘engagements’, but as is often the case with these last-ditch education and employment projects, what you actually got for that is worryingly unclear.

The new, shiny, expensively equipped - and therefore no doubt thoroughly vulnerable - Mobile Skills for Life bus is being put into operation imminently, with twice the capacity of its predecessor.

The motivation behind this project has nothing to do with ‘engaging’ with young people, this is quite clearly about employment figures and the image of the city. Anyone can recognise that spending £336k on a bus with a few computers that approaches inebriated young people in the middle of the night is no way to solve any problem, but in the absence of any other ideas you can rely on public bodies to our throw money at schemes and keep their fingers crossed.

Stoke hosts £35k dance event

Yesterday’s The Sentinel reported that Arts Council West Midlands and Stoke-on-Trent City Council will be pumping £35,000 of taxpayers’ money into a summer dance event named “A Game of 2 Arfs” in a familiar effort to “make dance a bit more accessible to those who wouldn’t normally go to see it” i.e. those who are really very interested in it.

But don’t let the name lull you into a false sense of security, very little of this project has been planned as the primary function of the article is to appeal to “BMXers, freerunners, skaters and wheelchair users” between the ages of 15-80 (though I doubt those at the top of that age range will have much experience of anything but the latter) to attend a workshop, where they will presumably devise much of what will be showcased to those who normally choose to avoid such events.

Any further content is mysterious to say the least, with the Artistic Director stating, “There will be a now and then theme which will also involve poets”.

Four local dance companies will also be providing some entertainment.

The project clearly has an emphasis on involving disabled performers and encouraging their participation in the arts, perhaps an admirable cause but by no means a bullet-proof defence for spending a substantial amount of money on such a fleeting and insubstantial event with particularly limited appeal (“inspired by Hanley’s history”), and having had first-hand experience of similar Arts Council funded ‘extravaganzas’ I would suggest that the tens of thousands of pounds it’s costing could benefit both the disabled and non-disabled people of the area in a much more practical way.

And if this occasion is to encompass the whole community, rejoice in the area's regeneration and celebrate its history, then why haven’t local businesses been encouraged to put up sponsorship at the very least? If it is truly to benefit the community, then why couldn’t they have fundraised amongst those who were willing and able to support such an event, rather than squeezing those who can’t refuse?

This may have been organised with the best intentions at heart, but that hasn’t prevented it breeding resentment, as one person comments at the bottom of the article:

“How come the council are giving money to this yet shutting the splash pool at dimensions because lack of funds. What are prioritys giving lots of people a service for another year with the swimming pool or giving it to some arty type people which will benefit just a few, for a few hours”.

This isn’t about denying disabled people the opportunity to perform, it’s just about serving the community in the most sensible way with public money, and very often when tax-pounds are used to fund dance spectaculars in areas that badly lack other services or amenities such events only serve to drive apart the communities they sought to unite.

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.