Fine with us

Eurocrats threaten to strike over pay

Eurocrats, threatened with a freeze, are preparing to go on strike

I'm with Daniel on this one: Splendid, please do, might be quite nice for them to have a prolonged strike, interesting to see if anyone actually misses what they do.

Firemen strike, we have a problem.
Teachers strike, we have a problem.
The Police don't strike because it would be a major problem.

Eurocrats may turn out to be their own worse enemies if they strike, surely the wise thing for them to do is to keep quiet and hope nobody notices their (lack of positive) contribution to society. Might even be a good time to re-evaluate just how many (if any) of them we actually need...

You know it's an election year when...

Hull City Council plans to freeze charges for services

Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, but you can't help wondering if this headline would have happened if a) the council was still Labour controlled (and therefore didn't need to "bribe" people in reasonably safe Labour parliamentary seats) or b) the Lib Dems weren't throwing an enormous amount of resources at Hull North, one of their target seats. Still, a freeze in the growth of taxation has to be a good start, although of course we still have no idea whether fire and policing will also have a 0% change.

What I want to know is where are the plans to be able to announce a reduction in council tax next year? What about the year after? Where is Carl Minns announcing that he is going to reduce the burden of council tax by looking seriously at each and every department and asking them to justify their budget for the year? Where are the council chiefs coming up with ideas on how to encourage existing local businesses and attract new ones by reducing the burden of regulation and taxation on them?

I'm a localist, someone who believes that powers should be pushed downwards and outwards. Ultimately I want local councils to assume a number of the responsibilities that central government currently has while other powers should be pushed out to the individual to make their own decisions over. A council who can reduce the cost to local people is a council who might just be worthy of being trusted with new powers and they pass existing ones back to the electorate.

Something to get fired up about?

Fire service consults on tax increase

TAXPAYERS in Hull and the East Riding are being asked to put up more money to improve fire safety.

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is asking the public to pay extra on their council tax bill to help meet rising costs.

On the face of it a fairly uncontentious issue: firemen (by which I include both genders, it pains me to have to say it but otherwise someone will pull me up on it) put their lives on the line every day coming to the rescue of people in fires and road traffic accidents, they deserve to be funded appropriately.

But wait a second, let's look a little closer at why they are asking for the money:

A four per cent rise would cost the taxpayer and extra 25p per month raising £876,000 for the service - which could provide 33,000 home safety checks.

Yes, that's right, it's not about paying firemen or providing extra equipment, it's about doing 33,000 "home safety checks". Well, maybe that's a good thing, helping to reduce the number of domestic fires by checking people's homes (ignoring the obvious concept that maybe people should take responsibility for their own homes). But wait, what does the Humberside Fire & Rescue Service Best Value Performance Summary 2008/09 say about home safety checks?

Our efforts to reduce the number of [accidental fires in dwellings] by undertaking Home Fire Safety Checks and other community safety activities have shown little success.

Does this mean that Humberside Fire & Rescue shouldn't get any more money? Of course not, but it does mean that before agreeing to increases in funding a slightly more convincing justification of where these funds are going to be allocated is required. As everyone else in the public sector and the council tax payers are preparing for a massive belt tightening exercise, can part or all of these increases in spending be be offset by savings within the organisation? Let's hope more details will be forthcoming as park of the consultation process.

And who can blame them...

Tory voters alienated by John Bercow preparing to back UKIP

John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, may struggle to hold his seat as Conservatives angry at outspoken comments by his wife threaten to defect to the UK Independence Party.

Frankly, when presented with the choice between a man who is entirely unambiguous on his feelings about the EU (feelings many Conservative voters will share) and a man who was elected as speaker by Labour and who at times has looked likely to move across the aisle and join them, who do you think they will vote for? Everywhere else, Conservative grass-roots can get behind "their" candidate and help make this an election that the Labour party will never forget. In Buckingham not only is there no official Conservative candidate (by convention), but there's someone standing against the incumbent who Conservatives can feel shares their values and will stand up for what they believe.

The fact that Mrs Farage isn't standing for the Labour party doesn't hurt either...

In defence of high pay

East Yorkshire NHS bosses on rich list

East Yorkshire's hospital trust has been criticised for paying three East Yorkshire hospital bosses salaries in excess of £170,000.

Firstly, for transparency's sake, I should say that I do work for the Trust but these are entirely my own views.

Surely the question shouldn't be "is that a lot of money" but "is that the right amount of money given the job they are doing". Has Stephan Greep saved the tax payer large amounts of money by changing the way the hospital is managed? Is he the right person to be in charge as the hospital has to find additional savings year on year for the foreseeable future? I think he is, I have confidence that he has the vision for lead the Trust is providing excellent value for money, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't be in a job where £187,000 is a reasonable remuneration.

While it has become very fashionable to suggest that paying people large amounts of money is a bad thing, this entirely misses the point. Paying people large amounts of money who aren't worth that much is a problem, and restructuring bankers' bonuses to ensure they are generating money in a slightly more responsible way isn't a bad idea, but simply saying that they shouldn't be paid large sums of money breaks the link between what they are worth and what they are paid. You make the bank £1 billion and I don't think it unfair that you get paid a figure which reflects that value. If you lead a hospital Trust who not too long ago were seriously in the red and now are making annual surpluses, being rewarded to recognise that makes sense. Equally, if you are leading your organisation (or country, I'm looking at you Gordon) towards financial doom, then a P45 and minimal remuneration would seem more appropriate.

Or is that too radical a concept?