1995 Redux

David Cameron's troubles with Europe continue, as it appears he can't even rely on his ministers to vote through an unamended Queen's Speech and certainly can't risk sacking anyone who might then become an instant martyr to the Eurosceptic cause and a flagbearer on the backbenches. As we know, Europe has been a problem for the Tories over the past few decades and it remains problematic for Cameron. He won the leadership by throwing the party members the red meat of a withdrawal from the centre-right European parliamentary grouping. He held off from delivering on that for as long as he could, before finally giving in. His promise of a referendum on Europe after the next election, following a period of renegotiation unlikely to bring anything of any consequence, is another attempt to calm the wingnut tendency. 

The only thing it does do is divert attention from the ongoing economic problems in the country. Yesterday's news that we might not have slipped back into technical recession last year doesn't change the central fact that the economy has effectively flatlined since 2010, a record that would surely seen any other chancellor reshuffled. Ipsos/MORI's opinion polling shows clearly that the EU doesn't even figure on the national radar as the most important issue amongst the general public. .

Cameron may be able to satisfy his troops with talking tough on the EU, but the evidence so far is that he always caves in and each time, they want something more. He may need to persuade his Liberal Democrat colleagues to allow him to bring in some sort of bill that sets a pathway to a referendum at some point after the next general election to calm his backbiting backbenchers' suicidal tendencies. 

While there is some short term gain from these diversionary tactics, ultimately, it does make the Conservative party look divided - proved during the 80s by Labour and the mid 90s by the Tories - divided parties at war with themselves do not win elections. 

Council Meeting Update Pt 1 - Margaret Thatcher

I note from the local and national press that somebody has decided to be offended by the decision of most Labour councillors not to join in Tuesday's minute's silence for the death of Margaret Thatcher. It was a personal choice by many councillors and not a collective Group decision and we were actually joined by three Liberal Democrat councillors, although I suspect that only one was joining our abstention. Some Labour councillors remained in the chamber and I respect their decisions to do so.

Some points to make - we did not 'flounce' out of the meeting, as some of the press have put it. The Lord Mayor put the silence at the very start of the meeting and we didn't enter the chamber until the silence had finished. It is rather hard to flounce out when you haven't even been in the room.

As one of the first filing quietly back into the chamber, I was disappointed that some of those present decided to hiss at us. Nobody had made a scene or staged a walkout and the decision to mark Baroness Thatcher's passing was respected - people just chose not to take part in it. Enforced public demonstrations of sorrow are not worthy of my country and are demeaning to those grieving.

I don't speak for anyone but myself on this - this blog has always been my personal voice and is not the mouthpiece of the Labour Group. As I have said since the news was announced on Monday, I don't find joy in the death of another human being - she had friends, family and close employees who should be allowed to grieve for their loss. I separate the politics from the personal and her politics were, on balance, bad for Britain and bad for the people of Birmingham. Britain became more selfish, more profit orientated and more socially divided. We are still paying the price for that today and Birmingham continues to suffer from the children of Thatcher who dominate the government - from both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties - and who have taken her policies further than she ever dreamed possible, keeping the flame alive.


As for the flag not flying at half mast? It wasn't lowered for the deaths of Edward Heath, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Alec Douglas Home or Harold Macmillan. It was lowered for both Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee, but because they had been honoured with the freedom of the city. In this, we join Ealing, Wakefield, Eastbourne, Bradford, Bury, Camden, Islington and Slough, to name but a few.

There is also something particularly hypocritical in those eulogising her now, so many of whom gathered to force her from office in 1990. Cameron may well come to regret being so much to the fore of the public mourning - he will not come off well in comparison. Whatever you may think of Thatcher, she had a clear direction of travel and broad command of her party. Cameron is a sapling, twisted by every change in the wind direction and barely tolerated by many of his party. These days, the nearest the government gets to a conviction politician is Chris Huhne.

Margaret Thatcher was the first prime minister to really impinge on my consciousness - I was at secondary school and then university for most of her time in office. Lucy Mangan puts it really well in this weekend's column and like her, I remember.

I can remember the leaking school roofs, the lack of books, the dole queues and the rising waiting lists. I can remember that when the Tories were thrown out in 1997, their big idea on health was to promise treatment within eighteen months of diagnosis. By the end of Labour's time, we were confidently delivering treatment within eighteen weeks. When the Tories accuse Labour of not fixing the roof when the sun was shining, I can remember the schools and hospitals rebuilt after decades of neglect, where the roofs fixed were not merely metaphors. I can remember the rise in crime under the Thatcher years. I can remember her and her acolytes creating a culture that celebrated the individual and denied the reality that we achieve more together as a society. I remember that families, children and whole communities were left behind by an ideologically-driven economic shift, all just so much collateral damage.

Those memories are why I didn't stand on Tuesday and I make no apology for my choice.

Scrutiny Committee Report on Cycling

I didn't get called to speak, but here's the speech I would have given.

It has been a great introduction to the life of this council to have served as part of a group that has shown such cross-party agreement in setting a transformational direction for cycling and other forms of low-carbon transport in our city. In that mood, it seems appropriate today to borrow from the Thatcherite's Thatcherite, Norman Tebbit, as we encourage the people of Birmingham to get on their bikes. Indeed, only last weekend, one of my children went solo on his bike for the first time.

In particular, I welcome the recommendation that specific targets should be set - it was a criticism of the last strategy document that it was long on words, but short on measurable outcomes. This report has not made the same mistake and I welcome the executive commitment to take it through to delivery. We have a chance to build on the legacy of the Olympics, to seize the moment to take this city forward, but it takes commitment at the highest level amongst officers and executives to deliver on the ambitions.

This report is also about road safety - I would particularly encourage the spread of 20mph zones and limits across appropriate roads in the city. These will help make our neighbourhoods better places to live as well as delivering proven benefits in terms of reducing casualties and the severity of injuries. There is safety in numbers - the more people we can encourage to get on their bikes, the safer it becomes for them, as drivers get used to their presence, as Cllr Barnett pointed out.

A public outcry over road safety brought about a massive change in the Netherlands. They made the same mistakes that we did after the war, building cities and towns designed around car ownership. It was only at the start of the 1970s, following a rise in injuries to children, that they took a political decision to change direction and embarked on building the system that we see today. Make no mistake, this is a long term project that will take decades, but we need to make a start and this report is a good point.

As a committee, we have had sterling support from cycling evangelists like CTC and Sustrans, in the gallery today, as well as individual enthusiasts in the city, for which we are grateful, but the are not our target audience. We need to deliver, but not for those hundreds of indefatigable cyclists, who will resort to two wheels no matter how hard we, as a council have made it over the years. We need to deliver for those thousands, or tens of thousands, who will cycle if we make it easier and safer. We need to deliver on this for future generations.

Build it and they will come.

Location:Chamberlain Square,Birmingham,United Kingdom

And so farewell to Margaret Thatcher

I cannot celebrate the death of another human being. Margaret Thatcher had family, friends and people who cared about her, especially in her declining years. We can allow them the space to mourn her death by separating Thatcher the person from her policies.

She was, without question, the towering figure of British politics in the 1980s, a globally-recognisable symbol of the age and one that still casts a long shadow over politics in this country.

Her policies have outlived her and have been given new force and direction by this current government, which has picked up on policy proposals that she was unable to implement even at the height of her powers. If you want to get angry, direct yourself towards them - don't fight old battles when we have enough to do today.

Train crash a'coming

John Hemming was his usual charming self on BBC WM, loyally regurgitating his government's line on the bedroom tax. He's had four or five cases come to him so far. I can tell him that there are about 1200 households in Yardley that will be affected by this. We do not have sufficient properties to rehouse them - about 250 one bed properties are let each year in Yardley and many of those will be mainly suitable for the elderly. We just do not have the stock to allow social tenants to downsize.

Partly, it was their own fault for not taking action sooner:

John Hemming: "They were set in chain about eighteen months ago... I know of cases in Birmingham where people have already moved... reason why such a long time allowed for the changes to come in is to allow people to get things organised in sufficient time to deal with it."
Richard Wilford: "Was that enough time?"
John Hemming: "Well, I think so, yeah. It's no good saying its coming in next week when eighteen months notice was given - that's nonsense."

Nowhere does he mention the costs of moving or the disruption that it causes to people's lives - let alone the chance of finding a suitable property - a major challenge in Birmingham. As the bedroom tax starts to bite, people may find it harder to move if they have arrears. He then went on to recommend that social tenants should take a lodger, although whether a tenant can do so depends on their tenancy agreement. Not all Birmingham council tenants are allowed to do so. In any case, the income from a lodger can affect benefits.

I will remind you that John Hemming, upon election to parliament, remortgaged a flat he already owned in London so that he could claim on expenses and "reorganise [his] finances because [his] income was going down". John Hemming has been a vociferous opponent of the Living Wage in Birmingham - anyone would think he believes that our poorest-paid employees, predominantly women and many of them part time, don't deserve a proper wage. He launched an early day motion and dragging a government minister to a brief debate between him and two of our city's Labour MPs to criticise us. He backs the cuts because he believes that they stopped the country going bust (it wasn't) and if people lose their jobs, they have to understand why it is in everyone's interest. When questioned over Universal Credit paying rent to tenants rather than direct to landlords, he said that "if you have people frightened of handling their own rent, clearly they would be frightened of having a job" - conveniently forgetting that many people receiving Housing Benefit are actually in work, but that some people in receipt of housing benefit live chaotic lives and may be faced with the choice of paying rent to the distant council or paying off the dodgy lender standing on the doorstep.

John is wealthier than virtually everybody in Yardley, so it is no surprise that he has no concept of what ordinary peoples' lives are like, but it is shocking how lacking in humility he is about the damage that he and his government are causing.

Let's talk reality here. There are plenty of people who will be affected by the Bedroom Tax who do not have room to take in a lodger. They may have a spare room, but that is used by their child when they come to stay because the parents live apart (and as predominantly women have custody, that disadvantages separated and divorced fathers, damaging the link between father and child). The spare room may be required for a carer overnight occasionally or to allow the spouse to sleep apart from someone whose illness makes it difficult to share a room. The room might be required for medical equipment - it might even have been converted to allow access because of disability. There are hundreds of reasons why a 'spare' room might not be spare at all, none of which make a difference to the housing benefit level.

What we are talking about are not housing units, but homes. People - other human beings - will be faced with the stark choice of cutting back on food or heating to try to make up the difference in income, reduced to hoping that the council will be able to support them through a discretionary housing payment or simply be forced to move. The government tell us this is about freeing up housing for others in need, but if that was the case, why aren't pensioners included in the bedroom tax? The government talks about help through the Discretionary Housing Benefit scheme administered by local councils, but as the bedroom tax is supposed to save £500m from the housing benefit bill, the promise of £30m looks like a sticking plaster across a sucking chest wound. There will be tens of thousands of tough cases, many of whom will not be eligible for help from the Discretionary Housing Benefit fund.

More broadly, this will have a tremendously damaging effect on communities, forcing increased mobility and causing disruption. If people don't put down roots, they are less likely to engage in their community, less likely to vote and less likely to feel valued as part of society. This might be the idea - force the poor to the edge of society and make them pathetically grateful for every scrap that they can scavenge.

We'll also see problems with housing associations and councils, as they struggle to collect rents, which will have an impact on their ability to service their properties. Nationally, only 1% of tenants affected have moved and almost half intend to stay where they are. On that basis, the policy is going to fail to free up housing for the homeless and it may also fail to provide any savings. As the NHF found out, there are 180,000 households underoccupying two bedroom homes by one bed, but only 85,000 single bedroom homes became available last year, potentially forcing 95,000 households into the private sector, where the housing benefit payments to cover a privately rented one bedroom property will outstrip the costs of renting a two bedroom social let. Potentially, that could be an additional £143 million for just that small group - let alone any additional costs for the remaining 480,000 affected households.

Homelessness is rising - up six percent annually in the last quarter of 2012 across the country and up 22% in London. The welfare 'reforms' look certain to make that worse. We already have a housing crisis - it looks like it is about to descend into a full-blown emergency. With one hand, the Budget promised 30,000 more affordable homes at a time when we have 53,000 families in temporary accommodation and then immediately delivered fuel for a housing price bubble with the Chancellor's mortgage support scheme. In Birmingham alone, we have over 25,000 people on the waiting list for a council property - we could use all those promised social houses within the City.

One of my major criticisms of the last Labour government was that it did not sufficiently support social housing, whether council or housing association. This government is making the situation worse and there is a real opportunity here for Labour to put a marker down for 2015. We should promise a major investment in affordable, rented social property. That may mean borrowing, but it will be borrowing for investment. It will be borrowing that employs real people in the building industry to create infrastructure for the future, that can then be rented out at sensible rates and simultaneously control our housing benefit bill.

The government's current policy is morally and economically wrong. They claim it will save money - it won't. They claim it will free up housing for others, but at a terrible cost to those affected, as they are forced away from their support networks, their schools, their families - even away from their jobs, if London councils look to rehouse people in more northern local authorities because of the benefit cap.

I don't give a damn if John Hemming is out of touch or insensitive. The people of Yardley will judge him in two years' time. I do give a damn about the people in Yardley who will be affected by the policies that he so piously and wrongly defends.

The yellow bird flaps again....

As forecast, the Liberal Democrats retained Eastleigh last night. Rather more surprisingly, UKIP ran a close second and beat the Tories into third place.

So, is this a sign of a LibDem renaissance or just a wounded animal flapping around the place?

Well, despite my usual caveats about drawing any broad conclusions from the peculiarities of a by-election, I shall now proceed to do just that. The surprise isn't that the LibDems held on - it would have been more of a shock if they hadn't, given the extremely favourable electoral geography.

Firstly, they controlled the time of the byelection - moving the writ rapidly after Huhne's resignation and thus gaining an advantage. They also chose wisely - a candidate with a local profile as a councillor. The seat itself contains 40 of the 44 councillors on Eastleigh Borough Council - all of those are Liberal Democrat and they have increased their representation during the course of this parliament, bringing with it an effective and established local campaigning machine that could be refreshed by the influx of volunteers from across the country. Finally, it was a LibDem/Tory marginal, so there was still room to squeeze the Labour voters and see if they could hold their noses long enough to put a LibDem into parliament rather than see another right-wing Tory join the ranks. Finally, they have been established long enough to build up their loyal postal voters, with (I believe) over 8000 cast in this election. This proved to be especially fortuitous, as many of those would have been completed and returned prior to the Rennard revelations over the past week and the constantly shifting sands that have passed for Nick Clegg's versions of the truths.

The Tory selection of their 2010 candidate also proved to be a surprising help to the Liberal Democrats. Despite her well-known anti-European credentials and opposition to gay marriage, this did not persuade the sizeable UKIP vote existing within the seat to back her, but may have encouraged some of the left of centre to back the candidate most likely to beat her. She also proved to be extraordinarily gaffe-prone and apparently incapable of opening her mouth without inserting at least one foot - to the point where she seems to have become invisible in the last week or so of the campaign, avoiding two high-profile husting events. Far from being the vote winner that I thought she might be, she managed to drop the ball quite effectively.

Labour actually slightly increased their vote share, but not by any statistically significant amount. Given that they went from a standing start with little local structure, by all accounts, then that's a creditable result in the scheme of things. It would have been a brave pundit to have forecast a Labour win during this campaign.

UKIP have been the story of the campaign with their best ever parliamentary election result and coming within 1800 votes of winning their first seat. Their candidate looked competent and sane - rare qualities amongst some of the UKIPpers and seemed every inch the perfect Tory candidate.

I tweeted last night that the by election was probably more important for internal party politics than anything else. Clegg looks to have protected himself a little, but I'll still be surprised if he fights the 2015 election as leader. Cameron now feels the slavering hounds of the Eurosceptics at his heels again. They've tasted a little meat with the promise of renegotiation and a referendum, plus the minor triumph of the EU budget - but if Cameron thought that would calm them, he's wrong. They want more and he's not got a lot to give away. Expect the Tory party to look again at Dave and wonder if he's really the man to deliver them their first national majority in almost a quarter of a century. An increasing number will decide that he isn't (odd, as he has consistently proved more personally popular than his party in opinion polls). Could that be enough for a few of them to write those letters to the 1922 Committee Chair to trigger a leadership election? Perhaps not today, but maybe later in the year.

So we'll let the LibDems parade their 'Winning Here' signs round one more time, but remember this. In a General Election, it will not be possible to pour the entire party's resource into one parliamentary seat. Those fifteen to twenty LibDem MPs with narrow majorities, whether facing Tory or Labour opponents should be rather nervous. It seems that Labour voters will still turn out to back them against more terrifying options, but they will not always be advantaged with flocks of local councillors, a Tory candidate whose confidence drained away by the second or a handy right wing party to siphon off the Conservative vote. It isn't as bleak for the LibDems as it once was, but this is hardly a new dawn breaking - perhaps just a delayed sunset.

In truth, this was a damn close run thing.

Eastleigh bound and down

The upcoming by election in Eastleigh is a big one for the coalition parties. Not only is it a so far unique opportunity for them to compete with each other head to head in a parliamentary seat, it is also a seat that both would have reason to expect to win and recriminations can be expected when one of them doesn't.
I always make caveats about drawing conclusions from the overheated atmosphere of by elections, which are singular beasts in the political world, allowing parties to focus their entire national clout on 70,000 voters for three weeks. This campaign is no different, but conclusions will be drawn nonetheless, which may have quite far reaching impacts.
The Tories need to win seats like Eastleigh if they have hopes of winning a majority in 2015. If they fail, rumblings may get louder about the direction of the government and even the Cameron leadership - although I fully expect him to continue through the 2015 election. The Ashcroft polling initially puts them a nose ahead of the incumbents, with a 34% vote share. Shrewdly, they have picked a candidate who stood in 2010, so comes with some local profile and can also point towards her opposition to gay marriage, Europe and immigration. This makes her ideally placed to pick up tactical voters floating away from the 13% currently considering UKIP and she can also take comfort from Ashcroft's polling which shows Tory voters quite firm in their intentions.
Meanwhile, if the LibDems lose Eastleigh, a seat formerly occupied by an MP regarded locally as popular and a hard-working constituency member and in a seat where all 40 Eastleigh borough councillors within the constituency are Liberal Democrat (the other four seats are Tory, but not actually in the parliamentary constituency), then it will worry a number of Liberal Democrat MPs who have southern seats with similar majorities. Nothing concentrates the mind more than the rising fear that their political careers are about to end in failure rather earlier than they planned. After attacking the Tory candidate for not being local enough - a tried and tested tactic - they have sensibly picked a local councillor as their candidate, hoping to build on their continued electoral success at a local level. They will need to target the 19% Labour vote to boost their 31% vote share past the winning post, but Ashcroft reports that even the Liberal Democrat vote may be soft as they seem quite prepared to vote Conservative, even as Labour voters are prepared to back them to keep the Tories out - so we can expect the equally well worn tactic of squeezing Labour voters.
Historically, of course, you would have backed the Liberal Democrat by election machine to deliver a straightforward win, even starting 3 points behind, but with the Tories ahead and hungry for some good news, you wonder if the Liberals can field their usual army of supporters and whether they can outgun the Tories in spending terms. The Huhne effect is unclear - my suspicion is that voters won't seek to punish the Liberal Democrats for his behaviour in any significant way, but the loss of the incumbent personal vote might be damaging.
In the end, I think this is too close to call with any degree of reliability, but if I'm pushed, I suspect a Liberal Democrat hold on the 28th February. That is, however, three weeks away and in by election terms, that's a very long time.

The Pickles Poll Tax

Last Tuesday, Birmingham City Council voted on a new Council Tax Support Scheme that replaces the Council Tax Benefit currently paid. This will impose 20% council tax on some people who have previously received 100% discount under council tax benefit. It wasn't an easy decision, but I believe that it was the best we could do in the circumstances. I think that everybody is also aware that other tough decisions lie ahead when we come to the budget proposals.

The government has decided to 'localise' Council Tax Benefit - probably the most common means-tested benefit, supporting a million households across the country - and give each local authority the chance to set their own scheme. Sadly, this localism came with a price tag - 10% of the benefit grant is retained by the government, a cut of £11 million to Birmingham (£470 million nationally). They also insisted that nothing could be done to affect the 100% discount for pensioners - so any change has to fall upon people of working age, which means that any change in benefit will have to be greater than 10%. By closing various loopholes in terms of unoccupied properties and backdating claims, we've managed to fill some of the gap, but there's still a black hole there.

The government offered us £2.1 million towards the cost, but only if we created a scheme that imposed an average 8.5% council tax payment (about £95 on 2012's figures) across all groups apart from pensioners. To get to that level would take the government money AND £1.3 million from the council, which could only be found by making cuts somewhere else. Don't forget that we've still got to make cuts of £110 million in 2013 - a figure that is likely to rise as the final settlement figures are still being developed. It looks like most councils are following this route, with only a third of councils so far deciding to run a scheme that takes advantage of the government money - all have to decide by the end of this month or will be stuck with funding the current scheme.

Some local councils have decided to continue with the current scheme, but they face much smaller shortfalls that they feel they can accommodate within their budgets this year. I would be very surprised if they maintain that position for the start of the 2014 budget year, especially with the additional cuts coming. Councils with smaller numbers of claimants may find it easier to absorb the relatively smaller costs, as might councils who have not suffered the same level of cuts - remember that Birmingham is hit by cuts at twice the national average.

As with any money offered by the government, you can be sure that they will attach conditions. The additional funding is only promised for one year, meaning that in 2014, we'd either have to find the full £3.4 million or impose the same sort of scheme we're bringing in this year. Actually, it might well take more, as the government let it slip this week that there might be further cuts in the 2014/15 council tax support scheme funding - dropping another 8.5%.

Our scheme will protect more people than the government proposal. With Labour, the following groups continue to get their 100% discount - something not guaranteed by the government scheme:

• Claimant or partner in receipt of the disability premium, severe disability premium and enhanced disability premium.
• Claimant or partner with a child under the age of 6
• Claimant or partner with a disabled child of any age
• Claimant or partner in receipt of a war pension
• Claimant or partner in receipt of the carer's premium
• Claimant or partner in receipt of employment and support allowance, who are also in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as disability living allowance

The last two groups were added as a direct result of the consultation process and we also increased the discount level from 76% to 80% - meaning that those now required to contribute will have to pay £223 a year, based on 2012's band D rate, less than we originally proposed. The survey, which received most responses from those currently claiming Council Tax Benefit showed some support for our proposals - 45% were in favour, 35% against, with the remainder undecided.

Unsurprisingly, the opposition were up in arms at us "taxing the unemployed." Liberal Democrats are already drafting petitions, although failing to mention that their government is to blame for this mess. What we will have is the Pickles Poll Tax. Tho original worked so well in the 80s and 90s that it brought down a
government and the Tory architect of that scheme now issues a similar warning

"The poll tax was introduced with the proposition that everyone should pay something, and with the present structure of society it doesn't work. We got it wrong.... The same factor will apply here, that there will be large numbers of fairly poor households who have hitherto been protected from Council Tax, who are going to be asked to pay small sums"

Make no mistake, the blame for this sits squarely with the current government.

What kind of year has it been?

A quick glance back at last year's predictions saw four out of five hit the mark. There was no general election in the UK, the coalition has stumbled on, we slipped back into recession and Obama won a second term quite convincingly in the end. I missed the mark over the mayoral elections in Birmingham, which were quite resoundingly rejected by the electorate, although we did get a Labour Police and Crime Commissioner, despite an embarrassingly low turnout which demonstrated the public apathy over this flagship government policy.

Personally, it has been a mixed year. The exhilaration of winning Acocks Green for Labour in May was tempered by redundancy from the Energy Saving Trust and it has proved difficult to get back into work since. That said, I'm not complaining - the job of a councillor is challenging and sometimes as frustrating as it is rewarding. Sometimes you can feel powerless to help deserving housing allocation cases who simply don't have enough points under the scheme. On the other hand, getting a tenant back into their home after a water leak had taken out their power or helping a resident find help that wins a benefit tribunal hands down makes for a very good day. I love doing it and am painfully grateful to the electorate for placing their trust in me.

Looking ahead to 2013, I still see no end to this government or the coalition, but this will be a big year for them. A number of their key policies come to fruition in April - the NHS changes kick off and Ian Duncan Smith's Universal Credit starts to roll out. When combined with other changes to the benefits system, this will be a brutal year for many - and they aren't aware of it. While the government have run a maliciously effective campaign designed to set the poorer economic groups against each other, the job of the Labour Party must be to hold a mirror up to the electorate and explain that when the government talk of scroungers, they actually mean people like you - not the faceless neighbours with their curtains drawn as you leave for work.
I'm also prepared to forecast that the Universal Credit scheme will be an ongoing train crash with dodgy IT over-reliant on internet access from a group for whom it is not necessarily a priority.

I suspect the economy will continue to bounce up and down around the point of stagnation. We may well avoid a technical recession this year, but things are so fragile at the moment that two quarters of negative growth are quite credible, depending on external events - there is no resilience in the economy. However, I think that the underlying trend will continue to be around the flatline.

In Birmingham, we are blessed with a fallow year in the electoral cycle, with the next council elections not until May 2014 (or more likely in June, to coincide with the 2014 European elections). That will not herald a year of peace and goodwill, however, as Sir Albert has promised that the summer will bring detailed consultation on what services are to be decommissioned over the next couple of years. 2013-14 will be the last year of trimming and salami-slicing budgets. From 2014's budget, Birmingham will be extracting itself from some functions and services that the council currently provides. Even before that, we will have discussions over the final budget for 2013, which is still guaranteed to be controversial. I have promised never to use the phrase 'This is not what I came into politics for' - although it certainly isn't.

The polls remain positive for Labour, with double digit leads now normal, but I'm not convinced that this is actually all that solid a lead. I do think that Ed Miliband has secured his place as leader - he made some shrewd political calls in 2012 and has got Labour on the right side of the argument a few times, wrong-footing Cameron once or twice in the process. The decision to oppose the 1% limit on benefit increases is both the right decision and a brave one. It is right, because we should be the party in defence of those in need of help and it is brave because of the campaign waged by the government and the press to paint claimants as scroungers, living high on the state. This campaign has proved effective in setting people against faceless claimants, although the reality for many is that if they want to see a claimant, they shouldn't look up at a curtained window when they leave for work in the morning, but in the mirror instead. When IDS lies about people on benefit, chances are he means to punish you. The caution I would urge is that we do not join in the Tory aim of dividing the poor into the deserving and undeserving - do not play into their rhetoric. If you want to cut the benefit bill, get people into jobs that pay a decent wage, not subsistence pay that demands a top-up from the government.

This will also be the year that the coalition moves closer to stage three of their relationship. To start with, they were inseparable, hanging off each other's words like any new couple. Now, they need to find their own space - we see a number of Tories and LibDems querying coalition policies as they manoeuvre for a post-coalition phase. Stage three will be when they each want to see other people - mainly the electorate, although the Lib Dems may find that the dating market is rather tougher for them than for the Tories, who have a chance of doing better out of the next election. In particular, expect to see certain LibDems - Simon Hughes and Tim Farron in particular - become increasingly publicly questioning of government policy and direction. This, they believe, will be of advantage to their party in the run up to the election, so they can point to their differences from the Tories. It will also be of help in the run up to the 2014 LibDem leadership election as Clegg makes way for somebody that the electorate might not loathe on sight.

I see no reason to change my view that the 2015 election will be a bloody one for the Liberal Democrats - I suspect that their parliamentary numbers could easily be halved overnight. This does not necessarily mean good news for Labour, as a number of those seats can be expected to fall to the Tories if Labour tactical voters cannot stomach casting their vote accordingly. Similarly, I still maintain that 2015 will have the economy at its centre and also that the Tories will benefit from any turn round in the situation. However, I'm also convinced that for them to have a hope, that this is the year that the green shoots must really start to show and I struggle to see from where they will come. As I have said before, I still firmly believe that if Labour want an election-winning policy for 2015, then a commitment to build social housing would be it.

We continue to pay a high price for Tory/LibDem economic incompetence and that price is the wholesale dismantling of the post-war Attlee legacy to the nation. Perhaps this will be the year that the people wake up to the destruction being wrought on our public services and our safety net for the poor.

Rolling out the bins

You may be aware that Eric Pickles offered a £250 million fund open to competitive bids from local authorities, ostensibly to help councils restore weekly bin collections - which Eric believes are a basic human right. The fact that best estimates suggest that it would cost something over £500 million to restore weekly collections may explain why only a single council actually bid to do that - Blackpool. Other local authorities have either used the cash offer to "protect" weekly rounds or to add something else to existing fortnightly collections. Birmingham submitted a bid for £29.5 million of that fund, that will increase the frequency of recycling collections for the quarter of the city that recycles the most, expand the rewards scheme, modernise our collection fleet and bring wheeled bins to about 90% of homes in the city. Although 40 bids were turned down, we had a bid sufficiently good enough to be allocated full funding as it delivered across the board exactly what the government wanted. This will cover the capital costs of the service transformation. 

We've committed to trialling it in two wards, to ensuring that it isn't a 'one size fits all' offer, so that where wheeled bins are entirely inappropriate, they will not be used. Assisted collections will be maintained, so that people who currently get help with handling their bin bags will get help with their wheeled bins (every round has a list of them, usually with a few more that the crews know about as well). Waste disposal has always been changing. BBC Four have had a couple of excellent programmes on recently about how we've dealt with rubbish, from the days when the old metal dustbins really did only contain dust, as food waste was put into bins for pig swill, through the expansion of rubbish as the economy recovered post-war and consumerism took hold, right through to the arrival of the black bag and their replacement by wheeled bins. 

I happen to believe that this will be good for Birmingham for a number of reasons, so I was disappointed to see the Liberal Democrat motion at the last council meeting, even more disappointed at the speeches and then at the call-in to scrutiny committee from the Tories last week. From the sound of it, you would believe that the 80% of authorities (including Solihull, Walsall, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Lichfield and Coventry) that use wheeled bins must have descended into some post-apocalyptic hell, where the few bins not blazing in the street are being used to help burglars enter your home. Still, given their current rate of electoral descent, you aren't surprised at seeing the Liberal Democrats leaping aboard any bandwagon that trundles past. Their reports don't match the reality of anywhere I've ever lived or been that has these bins. Indeed, on a fact finding expedition into the dystopia that must be Solihull since wheeled bins were introduced back in 2009, I didn't have to negotiate rows of aflame bins or dodge hordes of burglars leaping down from conveniently placed chunks of moulded plastic. Friends living outside Birmingham's borders confirm that my experience is not unusual.

Yes, some people will set some bins on fire - West Midlands Fire Service currently attend ten fires a day involving rubbish. Yes, some will be used to facilitate entry to properties by thieves - who currently manage it anyway. I note in passing that one police team in wheelie-bin infested Solihull have just reported that they've managed a whole month without a burglary from a property being reported.

Will they obstruct the streets? Their physical footprint is very similar to the recycling boxes that are currently used, so if left out they will offer the same level of obstruction. Visually, they are more intrusive, but shouldn't we balance that against the wider public good of increased recyling?

Their objections entirely fail to address the funding gap. We know that by the end of the decade, if we do anothing, we will face an £8 million gap in the finances of this service alone. We currently spend £1 million a year on bin bags - and residents add to that with the bags they buy themselves. If anyone tells you that they want to retain bin bags - as the Yardley Liberal Democrats decided a couple of weeks back - then they also need to tell you what other service should be axed to pay for it, as we face a bleak funding future from a brutal and uncaring Tory/Liberal Democrat government. I'd rather see us spend that £8 million on services for those most in need than on continuing a failing system. Currently, we spend about £75 per household on bin collection - this will cut that cost to under £40 per property. 

I've praised the work that was done to improve recycling in Birmingham over the past decade - including that by the last administration - but we can't rest on our laurels. We send very little to landfill, largely because we send it to Tyseley to be burnt to generate electricity. We currently have a waste system not fit for the future - an elderly fleet of vehicles, with breakdowns causing missed collections. Our streets are strewn with rubbish, feeding a growing population of rats, all because of ripped bags spilling their contents onto the highway. Rubbish collection is our most visible service and the £29.5 million from the government allows us to invest in it and turn it round. 

Contrary to some views, this isn't a hasty decision. Way back in 2007, a council review suggested using smaller wheeled bins for weekly residual collections and noted that giving residents a 140 litre wheeled bin for recycling would “considerably increase capacity.” Indeed, the report proposed constituency-level pilot programmes, but failed to actually put any money into them. The new plans envisage a standard 240 litre wheeled bin for recycling – an even greater opportunity for improving volume, especially when allied to the incentive scheme and weekly recycling collections for a quarter of the city. We have learnt from the 80% of councils that collect from wheeled bins – their experience is that these are safer for our workforce, they increase the volume of recycling, they are cheaper to operate and they help keep the streets cleaner. 

The same report raised two objections to wheeled bins - one of the capital expenditure, which this bid will resolve - and one of the potential for them to increase the volume of waste disposed of. There is mixed evidence on this latter issue. Bear in mind that bins were originally launched some 30 years ago when the idea of a doorstep recycling provision was only a glint in the eye of the most determined tree-hugger. Bins were designed to handle volumes of residual waste and nothing else. There is evidence that the larger bins encourage more waste to be put into them - but there is also a slight gain there, as there is also evidence that the amounts of rubbish taken to household waste sites declined as a result, so saving the carbon dioxide emissions of several cars making that trip. There is a degree of 'channel-shift' there, not just increased volume. 

Like many councils, Bristol initially issued the large 240 litre wheeled bins for residual waste (residual is the technical term for everything that isn't recycled - whatever you currently put into your black bags), but they have recently replaced them with smaller bins, to encourage residents to recycle more - something that early adopters of wheeled bins now recognise as a good move. When I appeared on BBC Radio WM, residents from other authorities were incredulous at the level of opposition from Birmingham residents to the very idea of wheeled bins and I'm convinced that if you come back in five or six years' time, nobody will be asking for a return to black bags.

A decade ago, the Health and Safety Executive produced a report on manual handling in waste collection, which came out quite clearly in favour of wheeled bins - although they do bring about new issues in terms of safe handling. Far too many of our bin crew members either leave service early through ill health or die soon after retirement - it is a tough and very physical job. Providing a bin will help prevent manual handling and sharps injuries, as well as helping to reduce the food for the rat population. Our people have a right to come to work in as safe an environment as we can make it - that isn't about being a health and safety fascist, it is about being human. When you have a worker off sick with stress for six months following a needle stick injury - to the point where his marriage broke up - don't we owe them the safest working environment possible?

In 2009, the Local Government Association, responding to a brief campaign by the Daily Mail, surveyed 28 local authorities to get a quick snapshot view and every one that responded said that introducing wheeled bins increased recycling. As Richard Kemp, then Liberal Democrat deputy chair of the LGA, said,

All the evidence shows that most people like their wheelie bins and think that they make it easier and cleaner to throw out the rubbish. People also find that wheelie bins help to reduce litter on the streets

Food waste was part of the initial proposal from the last administration, but once we actually got to bidding stage, the Department of Communities and Local Government's own advice indicated that a food waste collection was not a high priority for funding – indeed, a third of those applications failed to pass the Pickles test, including applications from Bolton and a £17 million bid from Leeds. Elsewhere, we have seen Nottinghamshire scrap their food waste collections because of costs, as did Pendle in 2011. Shropshire scrapped their separate collections - used to feed an anaerobic digester - back in 2010 in favour of a mixed green/food waste collection to supply in vessel composting. I still want us to explore food waste recycling, but it has to cost in and we need to build the platform that allows us to go down this path. There is no doubt at all that wheeled bins and increasing the capacity for mixed recyclates will improve our recycling rates faster and more sustainably than food waste. That has great potential, but advocates of food waste collections now miss the point that it needs huge investment in education and massive behavioural change to achieve the figures that they have suggested. 

The other practical issue is that a weekly food waste collection would actually remove the need for a weekly residuals (black bag) collection - indeed, if you look at the two year WRAP study on food waste collections, the collection model with the lowest drop off in participation is exactly that model. The graph to the left shows a clear bias towards alternate week collections - note how the red stars are higher and further to the right, indicating both higher participation rates and higher volumes per household for alternate week collections. On that basis alone, I'm very surprised that any food waste collection schemes were approved, but that may be a matter of having to spend the money to avoid losing face. The DCLG were also quite firm that they wanted to see some public support for food waste schemes - either through specific consultation or even just through a manifesto commitment. As we know, neither the Tories nor the Liberal Democrats had the imagination to come up with a manifesto prior to May 2012, so they didn't even try to get over that hurdle. From what little we know of their scheme, I think it would really have struggled to get the funding required and would certainly not have won almost £30 million from the government. If we were already at an alternate week collection model, then we might have succeeded, but it is hard to see the economic justification for bringing in food waste collections and maintaining a weekly residual waste round - I'm not aware of any bids that offered that as an option. The Tory/Lib Dem bid would have failed on value for money terms.  

We found out in scrutiny committee on Friday that Cllr Tim Huxtable (Con) had taken it upon himself to discuss with government ministers whether they would be open to us reopening the bid to discuss changes - to reinsert the food waste scheme, for example. If Cllr Huxtable has such good contacts within the DCLG, then I think we'd be much happier if he could talk to them about not leaving Birmingham in the lurch by ripping away funding from a city with serious and broad needs. But he'd prefer to use his time to talk rubbish. 

To quote from experience elsewhere:

“The introduction of the wheeled bin service was a massive improvement to the bag and box format we had before. We wanted to give residents the chance to be able to recycle more and make it as easy as possible for them and it has been a huge success so far. It wasn't a one size fits all solution as we recognised many properties in the city didn't have enough space... so... we've adapted... some properties can have smaller bins, or can stick with the bag and box collection service. Since the introduction of the wheeled bins, the city has constantly exceeded recycling targets set by the government.”

That is from a Liberal Democrat councillor in Liverpool – a city with a very similar spread of housing to Birmingham and one where the council successfully collect from 90% of properties. 

Even a former Birmingham Liberal Democrat councillor and cabinet member wrote in August that if we won this bid, Cllr McKay and the Labour administration (actually, he also included me, but I can't take any credit) would have

“brilliantly outmanoeuvred every single council in the country and will brilliantly grab £28.5 million from a £250 million pot.”

Which we did.

Other parties seem determined to stand in the way of saving money, improving our waste collection service and delaying further development. Along the way, they would condemn the poorest in our city to further cuts to services. These bins will save money, protect our workforce from sharp objects and heavy lifting, keep our streets cleaner and make our city greener. Of course there will be problems and difficulties along the way - any change will bring challenges, but we will solve them. It is what Birmingham does. 

I accept change is difficult for many people, but even in these most challenging of times, shouldn't we try to make our city a better place to live?

At the last council meeting, we were treated to a Liberal Democrat led attack on Labour's plan to bring wheeled bins to Birmingham. This piece is based on a speech I hoped to deliver, before we were timed out without even a chance for Cllr McKay to respond to the attacks from the combined opposition forces. I've also modified it following last week's call in by the Tories of Cabinet's acceptance of the Pickles money.

Hemming opposes Birmingham Living Wage

Last Wednesday, Eric Pickles, David Cameron's commissar for local government, announced the settlements for councils across England, bringing about new, enforced cuts to council services. A number of Birmingham MPs were in the House to hear the announcement and both Richard Burden (Lab, Northfield), Steve McCabe (Lab, Hall Green) and Shabana Mahmood (Lab, Ladywood), raised key issues about the unfair treatment of our City - defending the people who elected them.

John Hemming, (Lib Dem, Yardley) was also there and he too went on the attack. Strangely, he decided to attack the lowest-paid workers in the council who have seen an increase in their pay thanks to the adoption of the Living Wage.

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): When Labour took control of Birmingham earlier this year, the council immediately put up costs by what will be £10 million a year by increasing wages for some staff by as much as 70%. It is now aiming to charge the poor council tax at 24%. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should protect the poor and not put up costs in a time of financial problems? 

Mr Pickles: It was an outrage that Birmingham increased some wages by 73%— 

Steve McCabe: Who? name them. 

Mr Pickles: Birmingham. The council put 16-year-olds on the same wages as adults. It made a mistake and it was foolish to do so—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman should listen, because he is probably not used to dealing with poor people—[Interruption. ] No, no—a toff has an opportunity occasionally to meet the odd poor person. What was really bad about Birmingham involves the second part of the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and how the council is seeking to get 23% council tax from poor people. As a committed socialist the hon. Gentleman should be on the phone now telling the leadership of Birmingham to look after the poor, not to tax them.

Let's see what other Liberal Democrats say. Simon Hughes

In my maiden speech to Parliament I quoted one of my predecessors, Dr Salter, saying "In a civilised society every worker has a right to a living wage. That is as true today as it was then.... it is hard to maintain the argument that the Living Wage is unaffordable"

Cllr Stephen Knight, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Richmond Council - Vince Cable's turf:

"It is unacceptable that any council employees should be paid poverty wages. Thankfully there are very few council staff paid at this very low rate... but most are women and part time staff who always seem to get the worst deal. It is time that the council started treating its employees with the dignity they deserve and pay them at least the London Living Wage rate."

And again, just a few days ago

"In 21st century Britain no company should be profiting from the exploitation of its staff through the paying of poverty wages – and no local authority or other public body should seek to balance its books in this way, let alone a government department."

Gordon Birtwistle MP for Burnley and former PPS to Danny Alexander, co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills said in November this year

"Liberal Democrats support the living wage and we commend those employers who have introduced it."

Not only is there a moral reason for paying people a proper, living wage, there is an economic reason - money paid to the poorest in our society overwhelmingly goes straight into the local economy. 

I'm proud that the first item of business on the first agenda of the new Labour administration was the plan to pay our lowest paid staff a decent wage. 

We face exceptionally tough times in Birmingham - a government settlement that does not take account of the needs of the city (a settlement that John Hemming supports, by dint of his continued support for the government). The government has also imposed an impossible task on our council by handing over the delivery of Council Tax Benefit to local authorities - but with a 10% cut in funding. They have asked every council to develop a scheme to distribute this amount, but insisted that eligible pensioners cannot lose their 100% discount. This Labour council is working hard to protect other groups, such as the disabled, but unless we can find over £10 million to fill the gap (bearing in mind that other government cuts will slice £110 million from our budget in 2013), we have to spread the load over the unemployed and the working poor as well. That decision is enforced on us by John's own government. 

John would make better use of his parliamentary time if he supported the people of Birmingham, rather than attacking the poor and serving Eric Pickles' ego. Perhaps he's been spending too much time with the Tories. 

Vote Lib Dem - get poverty wages. 

Budget Consultation 2013 Public Meetings

Tonight sees the last of the public meetings as part of the consultation process for the 2013/14 budget for Birmingham City Council. It will be held in Committee Room 3 & 4 in the Council House and the public are welcome. I've been to two of the three so far and they've been lively affairs, but generally well-ordered. We've heard the detail from Albert and the cabinet team, who have answered questions from the floor and spent far more time than was originally allocated to ensure that all those who want to speak get the chance.

Incidentally, if you miss the meeting, there will be a webchat with Sir Albert on Wednesday 19 December from 6:30pm to 7:30pm on twitter using the hashtag #askalbert. Even after that, you can send your comments to budget_views@birmingham.gov.uk or write to Budget Views, Room 127, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB.

Youth services and support for the disabled are key issues that keep being brought up. For those that doubt the importance of consultation, Cllr Ian Ward revealed that the consultation into the Council Tax Benefit scheme that we have to introduce next year has raised some important issues and he is minded to adjust our proposal to ensure that the disabled are protected, even if they are moved off Disability Living Allowance onto Employment Support Allowance and he is also looking to protect carers as well. Both of those are directly attributable to responses received from the consultation process.

One thing that comes up time and time again is a demand that we set an illegal budget, as Liverpool did in the 80s - where we plan to spend more than we actually receive.

Councillors can no longer be personally surcharged or jailed for setting an illegal budget. Actually, if that was all it took to sort this, there are several in the Labour Group who would accept it with equanimity, but that isn't the reality. While the council can move small amounts around between years to deal with events, it isn't legal for it to set a deficit budget that spends more than it brings in. The council could set a budget that was in deficit, but the chief finance officer (acting under s114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 - after the Tories got wise to that trick) would refuse to sign it off. Thereafter, the council would be unable to incur any expenditure, enter into any new contracts or collect any council tax until a lawful budget was set. Services in Birmingham would actually cease to be delivered fairly rapidly. Ultimately, if the council still refused to set a budget, the Department of Communities and Local Government would send in a small team to consult with officers and agree a plan of action, which would result in a budget being set solely to meet financial demands, with no thought for services. As the council had not been able to collect council tax, this would lead to a further shortfall in our budget, meaning deeper cuts still.

I do not believe that residents in Birmingham would thank any council for playing that sort of political game and it would be a dereliction of duty on our part to play it.

Who would you rather take decisions about services that affect you - Pickles' Whitehall mob or your local councillors?

All those who cite Liverpool as an example should remember exactly what concessions the government made when faced with that stand in 1985 when the authority refused to set a budget. Nothing. Not one iota. Just as Gove is spoiling for a fight with the teachers to prove his muscularity, so Pickles would relish putting the boot into Birmingham. We know where it ends - which is why I've included the clip from Neil Kinnock's magnificent 1985 conference speech.

We're taking enough of a beating from this government already. A deficit budget would not work and would actually damage the services that this council is trying to protect.

We were elected in May to run this city and we'll do just that. The budget envelope within which we have to work is not sufficient for the needs of Birmingham, but that is not the fault of this council, but the fault of the Tory and Liberal Democrat government that sets that envelope.

We just have to do the best we can with what we have.

I hate to say it, but I did warn you....

A little while back, I challenged some 'research' done by the boffins over at the Taxpayers Alliance - a well-known Tory front group - about their belief that Police and Crime Commissioners would be cheaper than the existing police authorities. I pointed out that they were likely to be wrong.

And as sure as night follows day, it has come to pass.

Tim Fenton over at Zelo Street kindly linked to that post after he spotted that the TPA are now walking on the other side of the street, all the better to throw stones at the office that they supported. The media have, as usual, lapped up this press release without pointing out that the TPA used to be enthusiastic supporters of the idea. It appears that some PCCs are appointing additional staff - something that the legislation allows them to do. So far, fifteen of the 41 PCCs have appointed deputies, with more to come. The Conservative Northants PCC has appointed no fewer than four deputy commissioners and is seeking to appoint no fewer than seventeen additional staff members, so is the runaway candidate to be the first PCC to cost more than the police authority they replaced.

The West Midlands' Bob Jones appointed Cllr Yvonne Mosquito to the post of deputy commissioner. Over in West Mercia, Bill Longmore has appointed his campaign manager, a path also followed by the Northants PCC, Adam Simmonds. Up in Humberside, the Tory PCC has appointed a fellow Tory councillor to the post, as has the Tory PCC in the Thames Valley.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the PCC appointing staff. Hiring a deputy is entirely sensible - you can't expect the commissioner to be everywhere, in particular when the force area is particularly large, nor can they be expected not to take holidays, so a deputy makes eminent sense. In the future, it would make sense for candidates to name their deputy prior to the election (as both Labour's Bob Jones and the Tory Matt Bennett certainly did) so that they can be scrutinised by the electorate.

And above all, take any dodgy research from the TPA with industrial quantities of salt.

Updated yet AGAIN - The David Cameron Confidence Indicator

"David Cameron has full confidence in...."

Survivors (so far)
Maria Miller
Full confidence declared 13 December 2012
Still in office as Secretary of State for Culture at time of going to press

Stephen Green

Full confidence declared 23 July 2012
Still in office as trade minister in the Lords at time of going to press.

Jeremy Hunt
Full confidence declared 28 June 2010
Full confidence declared again 24 April 2012
Reshuffled from Secretary of State at DCMS to Secretary of State for Health 4 Sept 2012
(Considered a promotion, so confidence still holds)

Theresa May
Full confidence declared 7 November 2011
Full confidence declared again 20 April 2012
Still in office as Home Secretary at time of going to press.

Francis Maude
Full confidence declared 2 April 2012
Still in office as Cabinet Office minister at time of going to press

Confidence lost

Andrew Mitchell
Full confidence declared 12:16 24 September 2012

Resigned as Chief Whip 19 October 2012

Caroline Spelman
Full confidence declared 28 June 2008
Replaced as Conservative Chairman 19 January 2009
Finally sacked as Secretary of State for Environment 4 Sept 2012

Andy Coulson
Full confidence declared 11.25am 21 January 2011
Resigned as Comms Director 11:37am 21 January 2011

HRH Prince Andrew
Full confidence declared 8 March 2011.
"Stepped down" as trade envoy 22 July 2011

Chris Huhne
Full confidence declared 16 May 2011
Full confidence declared again 2.14pm 20 January 2012
Resigned 10:50am 3 Feb 2012.

Liam Fox
Full confidence declared 8 October 2011
Resigned as Defence Secretary 14 October 2011

Baroness Warsi
Full confidence declared 27 May 2012
Reshuffled 4 Sept 2012 to 'Senior' Minister of State at Foreign Office
(Demotion, so confidence lost)

Andrew Lansley
Full 'support' declared 15:13 7 February 2012
Full confidence declared again 14 May 2012
Reshuffled as Secretary of State for Health to Leader of the House of Commons 4 Sept 2012
(I consider this a demotion, although still Cabinet level, so consider confidence lost)

Odds shifting against the confidenced - 62% of them have been sacked subsequent to their support from the PM.

Average survival time is now down to 118 days if counted from first confidence statement to removal from post or 75 days if from last confirmation of confidence to departure.

The record is likely to remain with Andy Coulson, who took just 12 minutes to lose the PM's confidence. Jeremy Hunt holds the record for the longest survival after confidence was first declared, which took less than two months of being in office. Andrew Mitchell also holds the record as the Cameron's only government Chief Whip not to have lost a parliamentary vote. His successor has not only lost a vote, but lost an MP. 

Know your cheese

"This budget has more holes than gorgonzola," said Cllr Paul Tilsley, after Sir Albert Bore launched the Birmingham budget consultation today.

To the left is gorgonzola, an Italian cheese. Notable for the lack of holes. It does have blue veins running through it and as the budget is given to us by a Tory/Lib Dem govt, that seems appropriate.

I rather think that Cllr Tilsley meant Emmental cheese, from Switzerland, as seen on the right. That is packed full of holes. Unlike our budget, but rather like the ones left by the last administration.

Perhaps Cllr Tilsley would like to explain exactly why his colleagues scrapped the events line from this year's budget, but kept booking events for April and May - with no money put aside to cover the costs.

Even better, he and the spectacularly complacent Cllr Mike Whitby, who also appeared on the same broadcast to tell the populace that it wasn't as bad as all that, could explain why their government has decided that the people of Birmingham deserve to face budget cuts twice the size of the average for the rest of the country.

Sadly, there aren't many laughs in this budget process.