Tuesday, 29th September, 2015
Labour inducements
You have to see the funny side of the Labour party’s recent big change.
The unlikely socialist devotee’s unexpected elevation to a position of power.
The frosty aftermath following said comrade’s shock promotion.
Former allies scratching their heads as the gravity of the situation dawns on them.
No, not Jeremy Corbyn’s resounding Labour leadership victory but the writing of the final chapter in Cllr. Sue Perkins’ opposition career.
JW learns that Sue’s just been removed as a signatory of Pembrokeshire County Council Labour party’s bank account.
Presumably this task was overlooked among the many other pressing jobs necessary in the group’s post-Sue era.
Sue ditched the Labour party and joined the authority’s ruling IPPG in a move many of the party’s supporters never thought they’d live to see.
It was something of an about turn for the Pembroke Dock member as I’m reliably informed that opposition-era Sue used to invite other conspiring councillors to her Pembroke Dock home to plot the IPPG’s downfall!
Sue had been a loyal Labour councillor since winning her 1997 by-election and served as the party’s long-time leader when she took up her cabinet post for education in 2012.
As a card-carrying Labour councillor she was in good company when she crossed the floor to the IPPG. And hers wasn’t the only defection with a lucrative cabinet post in the mix.
Another notable floor-crosser can be found just across the Cleddau from Sue, in Neyland, where Cllr. Simon Hancock had represented Neyland as a Labour councillor since 1995.
In 2012 Hancock won his fifth election under the party’s banner – unopposed – yet immediately after all other results were in he threw in his lot with, you’ve guessed it: the ruling ‘independent’ party.
It had been struggling to achieve majority status following a bruising electoral cycle for its brethren, but, as luck would have it, before the ink was dry on Simon’s membership form he landed a cabinet post, attracting an annual £15k bonus.
And he was able to adhere to a prior pledge he had made never to join the (then) ruling IPG (Independent Political Group) thanks to the ever-accommodating and resourceful IPG. They simply renamed themselves Independent Plus Political Group = independents plus Hancock!
The last I heard, Cllr. Hancock was still serving as the Labour party’s Neyland branch chairman, long after his deed. Clearly no grudges there, but it remains to be seen if his Neyland East constituents are the forgiving sort.
As for True Blue Sue, one can understand how expunging her every trace was a big task for the exorcist priest, but to wait all these years to remove her name from the banking mandate reeks of carelessness.
Just think how many prank pizza purchases she could have ordered to Labour party HQ!
Then again, IPPG HQ may have been a more likely recipient.
21 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
Surely not another example of a politician using their influence for their own means???
Whatever next…
I understand that, under Labour Party rules, any member who joins another political group when there is a Labour Group on the council is automatically booted out of the party.
That’s what happened to Cllr Pearl Llewellyn many years ago when she defected to the IPG and she had to serve out her full five year suspension before she was allowed back into the fold.
Not for long, as it turned out, because she soon flew the nest for a second time when the Labour Group removed her from her lucrative post on the fire authority after she defied party policy and voted for cuts in fire cover in Haverfordwest.
For those of you who like a laugh, this vote occurred just a week after the Western Telegraph published a photograph of a demo in Haverfordwest with Pearl the Girl in the front row holding a banner with the words “Save our Fire Station”.
Why an exception should be made for Simon Hancock is something of a mystery, but my own guess is that it has something to do with political machinations in Neyland.
Now that the national Labour Party has a man of principle at the helm, can we expect party rules to be applied without fear or favour?
On the other hand, kicking a long-standing member like Simon Hancock out of the party would not sit well with the “kinder sort of politics” that Mr Corbyn seeks to promote.
At first glance I thought you said ‘floor tossers’!
Your blog is always appreciated for the light you throw on this (words fail me right now) council.
Jacob, I’d love to give my opinion of the whole affair but I’m afraid that it would lead people into thinking that these two have no principles whatsoever other than to look after number 1.
The less said about how I think that they got those cabinet posts the better.
Though this story does well to highlight hypocrisy amongst our elected it might not be totally fair. My direct experience of banks is that they take absolutely no interest in helping with the administration of accounts belonging to small groups such as clubs/societies/local political bodies.
Once you have set up a joint signatory for withdrawals it is not unusual for the bank to take over a year to carry out any changes with a myriad of forms and questions to be resolved in slow time by their staff.
Brian, I have no reason to doubt your own experience with banks (however off-target your comment may be perceived!) but that’s not the issue – the Labour party only sought to make the changes this month.
Does the term ‘runs with the fox and hounds’ still hold water since the hunting ban?
If only this were fiction…
Fair enough Jacob.
As a Labour member who has been totally against what Sue Perkins and Simon Hancock did by defecting, I find it interesting that Lord Adonis will be assisting the Tories, yet also retaining his party membership.
Perhaps a new pragmatism within the Labour Party?
Yes but Lord Adonis hasn’t taken thirty pieces of silver in return for propping up the Tory government’s slight majority, enabling them to keep the gravy train on track like Perkins and Hancock did with the IPPG.
If they were both so talented and suitable for their cabinet roles why couldn’t Adams have offered them the posts without the caveat that they must join and toe the party line of the ruling group?
My original comment was slightly tongue in cheek, Martin. I’m not sure why these two still retain party membership. It’s not as if the Labour Party needs them. Membership in Pembs has pretty well doubled over the last few months.
Many would ask the question “does it really matter which party or even if they are in a party” when officialdom runs the show at County Hall, not the elected councillors.
In fact many close observers have remarked that the majority of county councillors do not seem to have any views as they never take part in the debates.
They should both have been excluded from party membership as soon as did their dirty deeds. The fact that they weren’t just shows how shallow and weak the Labour party is.
I think all of the above proves that they are now eligible to run for the FIFA President post…
Malcolm, it does matter who is on the council as officialdom can only act with the consent of the elected body.
Jacob is effectively muzzled on the audit committe as the planted chairman can direct questioning. Full council can and should do something about it, how will any vote go?
Jamie and co do not want the boat rocked as officers are given free rein to keep the rates down by any means. Some of these means do not bear too much scrutiny, PD grants for example.
People like Jacob and Old Grumpy can be expensive as they insist on due procedure.
For officers to act in accordance with, and within, council policy, there has to be policies approved by members, preferably costed at each annual budget linked to required performance outcomes (an oft used word).
The link between policy, budget and required performance outcomes is missing. This is clouded by cross cutting policy “themes” and service/directorate orientated budgets where officers have delegated authority to spend within their approved annual service budgets.
When approved budget cuts, based on a full year implementation, are found to be unachievable, our councillors are quite content to leave the decisions about meeting savings from other areas to officers.
Councillors completely abrogate their duty and responsibility to look after our money and determine how it is spent.
It may come as a surprise that the audited annual accounts are not presented to full council. The auditor’s report is only seen and approved by the Audit Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee, both with majority of IPG members.
Full Council, that is all members, are formally unaware of the findings, matters of emphasis and recommendations made by the appointed auditor.
I am beginning to think that the way local government is set up, is too much for lay, part time paid, elected councillors to cope with. They have to rely on, or at least have regard to, advice given by highly paid professional officers.
We have seen where that has led us to, particularly when the auditor concludes that officers have not always fully or properly informed members to enable them to fulfil their statutory duties. Most members apparently lack the necessary motivation and capacity to challenge officers.
This may have something to do with the way officers set the committee system up and the full, financial delegated powers given away by councillors within the council’s constitution.
John, officers were always responsible for achieving programmes set by council but, where projects became unachievable because of say land acquisition problems, so substitute schemes had to be approved by members.
Under the present Pembrokeshire system that power seems to be devolved upon officers. The system was quite deliberately set up by the previous Chief Executive whereby he controlled the council who followed like sheep.
If you want to change things at County Hall the system will have to be abandoned and a more traditional system introduced. How can that be achieved?
I think we are required to have a cabinet with statutory overview and scrutiny arrangements – fit for purpose.
The council’s external auditor has drawn attention to his view that the majority of our councillors lack motivation to challenge. Anyone who has the misfortune to attend O&S committees may have come away with the same opinion.
The auditor has also drawn attention to the fact that officers have not always provided councillors with full information to enable them to fulfil their statutory duties. In addition, the lack of evidence to support formal decisions at officer, cabinet and council level has been noted.
Most of the council’s business rumbles on year after year, or has done until now. There is a greater understanding required now about what the council spends our money on, and what is expected for the spend.
In 2014/15 an additional £6m gross revenue expenditure was incurred on the provision of our services. This was financed by increased grant income of £4m and £2m from rents fees and charges.
The council, as required by law, balances the budget at net expenditure level, so the actual net annual spending balances with the net annual approved budget.
How can officers incur an additional £6m gross spending under their delegated authorities to spend within the annual departmental budgets approved by council, without getting prior approval from cabinet/council?
I do not think that the cabinet system is wrong, it’s just the way that PCC set up and operates it. Hopefully the provision of information to councillors is improving, and there are signs that it is. ALL councillors must adopt a more robust, critical challenging approach, if only to increase understanding as a prerequisite of better decision making.
You only need to look at the Cleddau Bridge fiasco, where after 20 years, PCC have had to admit that the financial position of the bridge is unclear and open to legal and financial interpretation.
Both the responsible cabinet member and the relevant O&S committee are on record of assuring both Council and Cabinet that all was well. How did they arrive at this clearly false assumption? Perhaps the forthcoming review will explain.
Am I correct in stating that the ‘Pembrokeshire System’ is actually imposed from Cardiff Bay? If so, they are demanding more devolved powers from Westminster.
I would suggest Keanjo that it will be almost impossible to change the system at County Hall in the short term. Also, given WAG’s wish to reduce the number of councils in Wales, I would expect them to ignore Pembrokeshire, and to concentrate on their heartlands.
The whole system, from Westminster down, is designed to ensure that decision making is devolved, as if no one is responsible, then it follows that no one can be blamed! (As long as you’ve ‘followed the system’ then you cannot possibly be held responsible).
I’m afraid that we are stuck with it, but what we need to ensure is that our elected councilors are carrying out their duties with full diligence. If this means delegating powers to employees with the relevant skill set, then so be it.
All decisions need to be well informed, and must be reviewed periodically. If it was correct three years ago, it may not be correct today.
In other words, the elected councilors must earn their keep (and be seen to be carrying out their duties).
It’s all down to holding the council to account. And on that note, where has Old Grumpy gone?
Reports of the demise of Old Grumpy were exaggerated. A resurrection?