Yesterday, describing the latest and even gloomier budget outlook for the country’s largest council. At first glance it might appear Bore is simply trotting out his familiar line in a quiet August. He uses his well-worn Jaws of Doom descriptor and graph, only with the jaws opening even wider. So nothing really new, hey?
The headline figure is that rather than cutting £615M pa between 2011-2017, it will now be £825 until 2018.
Sir Albert Bore has tried to seek the middle ground in the context of austerity economics. He has gone to great lengths, successful or not, to position himself as figure of pragmatism at the centre of Birmingham politics.
Bore’s critics have mischaracterised his rhetoric as hyperbole and protestation, with John Hemming MP going as far as deriding the leader as “disingenuous” and saying it is time to put aside the “woe is me” attitude in order to start “cutting his cloth accordingly”. Genuine criticism could be levelled at the Leader for pushing the budget crisis too hard, too often and having a negative impact on confidence in Greater Birmingham’s economy and Birmingham’s image beyond its borders. His open letter did manage to remind readers about positive news on inward investment and jobs, albeit in paragraph 11 of 12.
Rather, in keeping with his pragmatism, Bore has actually accepted the need for cuts dictated by central government and hasn’t attempted to create much partisan capital from a “woe is me” tone, preferring instead to appear as a consensus leader. He even managed to remain positive when the Lord Heseltine-inspired Local Growth Fund turned from a pot to a thimble.
While Bore has deployed “Jaws of Doom” device as a means of communicating increasing costs and decreasing revenues, rarely has he challenged the actual basis of the cuts demanded by central government. He could have picked up his toys and refused to play the austerity game or at least attacked the Coalition parties, but Bore has chosen to get on with governing the city in difficult times. It has already cost him a significant dent from Councillor John Clancy in the latest leadership contest.
seek to demonstrate an attempt to turn the tough lot given to him by Osborne and Pickles into an opportunity to redefine local government with “creative, bold solutions.” He hasn’t truly challenged the cuts, or signalled an expectation that a Labour government would reverse the position. That is until yesterday.
Bore’s decision to suggest calling in the auditors (or at least the National Audit Office, although it doesn’t yet have responsibility for auditing local government) marks a watershed moment. Put simply, he’s had enough. By calling for the NAO to investigate central government’s management of funding to councils, and to assess the future viability of local government as a result of continuing cuts and an inability to meet its statutory responsibilities, Bore is no longer playing nicely.
Bore is challenging the basis on which the budget allocations are made, or at least the lack of clarity and transparency by which funding is decided through complex formulas. In particular, he’s probably reached his limit with a lack of real engagement and partnership from Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.
There is not much prospect of anything changing radically in Whitehall. A new Communities Secretary in an Autumn re-shuffle might change the mood music. The Core Cities Cabinet is building a stronger voice. A Select Committee inquiry might shine more light on the big issues. However, it falls to the Council’s service reviews to map out a new model for Birmingham City Council. Will they be radical enough – or will they be a case of turkeys not voting for Christmas and just result in compromises that simply nibble at the edges?
Sir Albert as leader of the council has to act in a responsible and measured way and has to cut his cloth in relation to the resources allocated by Central Government, in general he must act reasonably and evidentially in his decision making process.
While trying to ensure that the city fulfills its statutory service delivery it is still reasonable to advocate that the city receives funding at a level which enables the council to improve neighbourhoods and tackle deprivation.
No one can disagree that council expenditure should be in relation to best value and efficiency and that it is right to make the council leaner and more efficient, but there is a limit to which cut backs in council staff and funding can be taken before things start to go wrong in a dramatic way.
The National Audit office can advise the Government about the level of funding to Local Authorities but the government can ignore recommendations.
Cut backs ( efficiency savings ) totalling £825 million by 2017 are excessive, capable and competent officers at the council have taken voluntary redundancy and some compulsory redundancy. This leaves a situation of the Political elected representatives having a reduced pool of knowledgeable Local Government Officers to advise them.
The answer must be to increase the number of Cabinet Members to bring in competent and capable Councillors such as Councillors John Clancy, Barry Henley with experience intellect and political competence and maybe a younger councillor with fresh and lateral thinking ability Cllr. Majid Mahmood.
Cabinet members such as Councillor John Cotton with a portfolio that adds nothing to improving the lives of Birmingham people or its economy and Cllr. Steve Bedser who spends more time as a self publicist should be removed from the Cabinet.
Sir Albert should sit down in a darkened room and think about a new cabinet that can achieve positive movement forward, not about ensuring that potential rivals or those he feels comfortable with are in the cabinet.
This austerity and nature of funding reduction to Birmingham is a ‘ War situation’ and needs a ‘War Cabinet’ to deal with it.
If Sir Albert wants to secure his leadership he needs to think outside of the box not continue to act in his usual, predicatable way. He needs to be innovative not just resurrect ideas from his previous administrations.
If he wants to be remembered as one of the political greats of this city he needs to take the political gamble of moving to the edge of the political cliff of challenge and embrace risk, rather than to continue with the lack lustre leadership and path he is presently on.
Sir Albert never managed to make the upward political move to become an MP a possible indication that he does not have the desire or political capability to be in a position to have the political power to make significant change to this country.
He can just carry on in the hope of a Lordship and disappear into the cobwebs of political obscurity or think back to the days when he must have had some revolutionary blood flowing through his veins and do things today that will make all of us admire him and look at his political legacy as being a positive one.
so basically, Bore is a puppet.
Albert Bore and the Labour Party have done nothing to fight the massive cuts imposed by central government. The party is dead as a dodo in Birmingham. Only Communities Against the Cuts (CATC) has the guts to stand up and oppose this unholy alliance between the Con-Dem central government and Borite local government. After all, he has already received his knighthood, so why should he bother? Quite sickening, really.