A blog about Wirral Council's public meetings, Wirral Council's councillors, Bidston & St. James ward and other public bodies on Merseyside
Author: John Brace
New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council.
Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.
Why did Labour’s Cllr Foulkes gag Green Party Cllr Cleary in devolution debate and what’s happening at the next Merseytravel Committee meeting?
Why did Labour’s Cllr Foulkes gag Green Party Cllr Cleary in devolution debate and what’s happening at the next Merseytravel Committee meeting?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
In a debate of Wirral Council councillors held yesterday evening to agree changes to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Labour’s Cllr Steve Foulkes used a procedural motion to gag the Green Party councillor Cllr Pat Cleary from speaking.
Despite an intervention by Cllr Stuart Kelly, pointing out that in Cllr Kelly’s opinion no such power exists in Wirral Council’s constitution, the gag remained.
Asked after the meeting for his views on what happened, Cllr Pat Cleary stated, “Thank you Labour for gagging me and sparking unprecedented interest in my views on devolution.” and he has blogged about what he would’ve said had he not been gagged here.
In other Liverpool City Region Combined Authority news, an Extraordinary meeting of LCRCA’s Merseytravel Committee is scheduled for the morning of the 16th December, followed by a meeting of the Combined Authority later that day. Cllr Steve Foulkes is one of Wirral’s four representatives on the Merseytravel Committee. The purposes of the next Merseytravel Committee meeting is to agree a contract for new rolling stock.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?
What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) features in one of the stories
As we’re approaching the end of the year, I thought it would be useful to look back and see the posts that were most read on this blog each month from January 2016 to November 2016, along with some comments of my own.
The recently elected Cllr Kelly called in the Cabinet decision to consult on changes to the bin collections. So did the Conservatives, however Labour made sure that the consultation went ahead.
And then it became November’s most read story too.
So the themes of stories most read for 2016 were Hoylake Golf Resort, a pay off to a former senior manager, gagging, elections, secret public meetings, bins, Lyndale School, a planning application refused for a Tesco supermarket and election expenses.
Who knows what will happen in 2017?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Mayor Anderson rejects plan for NHS cuts at packed meeting of protestors
Mayor Anderson rejects plan for NHS cuts at packed meeting of protestors
Mayor Joe Anderson at a meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board 1st December 2016
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
protest before Liverpool Health and Wellbeing Board (Liverpool City Council) 1st December 2016 (Cunard Building)
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool Health and Wellbeing Board (Liverpool City Council) 1st December 2016 Part 1 of 3
Last week I witnessed a large protest of local people angry at proposed changes to their National Health Service.
Despite a very large number of people with banners and a megaphone who came into the Cunard Building, unlike previous protests in Liverpool neither the local police (or even Liverpool City Council’s own City Watch) nor local newspapers appeared to be present.
In fact the protest was so large, there was not enough space for all of them in the Banquet Suite on the 6th floor where the public meeting was held.
Mayor Joe Anderson (of Liverpool City Council), Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Board rejected the NHS STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plan) emphatically and let some of the protesters address the meeting with their questions.
Clearly, the protests about this issue are getting bigger and the protesters louder.
Some are openly predicting an early General Election. At this point in time I see an early General Election as unlikely but the political outlook is very fluid.
It remains to be seen what happens next, Liverpool certainly has a long history of protest politics and of calling for political reforms.
The rise in racist abuse following the Brexit referendum is concerning and political uncertainty coupled with economic uncertainty mean that these are ideal conditions for civil unrest to happen.
The recent 2011 riots (at a time of anti-austerity protests) were sparked by the police shooting dead a black man in London. There is a concern that the rise in racism following the Brexit referendum could lead to history repeating itself.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why did a councillor refer to NHS Plan for cuts as a “PR disaster”?
Why did a councillor refer to NHS Plan for cuts as a “PR disaster”?
Before I write about what happened at Monday’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Phil Davies shut down any debate and ruled that he wasn’t allowing the public to speak at an earlier public meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board (which he chairs) on the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall side door 28th November 2016 38 Degrees Wirral West over NHS Sustainability and Transformation PlanProtest outside Wallasey Town Hall 28th November 2016 Green Party over NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan
Prior to the People and Overview Scrutiny Committee starting there were two protests at ways in to Wallasey Town Hall (photos above). Apologies for the poor quality of the photos!
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
I’ll try to sum up what this means in a nutshell. If you look beyond the fancy words, glossy brochures in essence it’s a plan for NHS cuts (that is if the plan is implemented people will lose their job).
In addition to that with such a radical reorganisation of how NHS services are delivered locally proposed, services to the general public are also likely to be altered too.
Before a decision is made there will have to be a formal consultation with the public.
I’ve been asked to decipher what decision the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee made on the STP Plan.
However councillors do have a scrutiny role over matters such as this. To give an example, the move of some of the functions of Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology to a new hospital in Liverpool from 2019 was rubber stamped by a scrutiny committee made up of councillors from the affected areas. The impact on thousands of Wirral patients and the consultation was reported previously on this blog.
This is what was agreed by councillors (although some voted against) at the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee (followed by my analysis of what it means).
The People Overview and Scrutiny Committee thank Phil Meaken for attending the meeting and presenting the key points of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.
The Committee is concerned that elected Members [councillors] have had no opportunity to feed into the development of the STP, nor have they been given the opportunity to see the plan before it was published on the 23rd of November.
The Committee is also concerned by any lack of meaningful consultation with the public of Wirral prior to the publication of the Plan.
As a result of the failure by authors of the Plan to engage with local authorities in Cheshire and Merseyside Committee is concerned at the high level of anxiety and speculation of the implications for the future delivery of health services on the Wirral which the Plan has generated.
The Committee further notes that though there is very little detail included, many of the proposals would represent a significant variation in service delivery and would therefore need to be presented for scrutiny to this Committee and possibly a pan-Merseyside and Cheshire Committee before any proposals could be implemented.
The Committee does not believe that Wirral Council can agree to the STP without absolute clarity on the proposal and a meaningful process of consultation, that engages with elected Members [councillors] and local residents.
My analysis is briefly this, consultation on the Plan was going to happen and if the result of the Plan is to change how local services are delivered, the pan-Merseyside and Cheshire Committee would happen too any way. For whatever reason politicians are agreeing to steps that would happen in any event.
Obviously there is a lot of concern as to what the impact will be for staff and patients of the NHS.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why was trouble brewing in the Shire about a fire station? (Lord of the Rings parody)
Why was trouble brewing in the Shire about a fire station? (Lord of the Rings parody)
This is a parody of local politics based on the Lord of the Rings. As someone referred to in it I’d better declare an interest. As a child I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy in a Wirral Council library that Wirral Council later tried to close (but the government stopped them) because of people who Wirral Council would probably label “unreasonable”.
The Shire in the Lord of the Rings as imagined in the film
In the Shire, trouble was brewing. Not only were the hobbits cross at plans to concrete over their beloved countryside with a fire station, but Men had decided (although it was now under review) to spend much of the hobbits’ money on a golf resort project too.
This story had begun some time ago.
The hobbits had decided on a representative called McVey who a group of the Men had taken a dislike to*. The Men had told the hobbits that McVey was why their fire stations must close (even though the Men had decided this). This way the Men could persuade the hobbits to ditch McVey and pick the Men’s representative instead. It was all about power!
* I’m being diplomatic.
So there were consultation meetings of the hobbits so well attended, hobbits couldn’t get in and stood outside getting cross.
At these meetings the Fire Man, who lived in the Shire, told those who actually managed to make it inside that whoever the hobbits voted for the fire stations would still close. So much for democracy!
However the Men got worried, enough of the hobbits were cross about the issue, that if the Men decided to put a new fire station in Greasby (demolishing a much-loved library and community centre in the process), McVey might win again! So the Men gave the credit for stopping the fire station plans to the Men’s candidate instead who had a very Shirey sounding name Greenwood.
Instead as a plan B, the new fire station would now be in Saughall Massie.
Around this time, a man who’d grown up in the Shire as a child and was described by some as a legend (or as the Judge described him “obstinate” and “unreasonable”*) asked the Men for the costs of this project as the Men claimed it was to save money. The arguments around this matter carried on for 1 year and 5 months (despite the law stating this information should be provided within 20 working days!)
* George Bernard Shaw: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Although the information was eventually provided, it turned out that the hobbits had been lied to during the consultations so that the Men could get the answers they wanted!
Oh dear!
Not only that but the Men had repeated these lies in their planning application for the fire station in Saughall Massie.
Double oh dear!
However the Judge decreed at a hearing (the Judge later admitted that he hadn’t read all the papers about this matter before the hearing took place*) that there was no “public importance” to the hobbits knowing that they’d been lied to and later ordered the man to pay the Men £500.
* thus stating more in a nutshell about justice, fairness and decision-making than the man ever could
This was despite the Men who controlled the Fire Authority having an annual budget of £62.673 million (revenue) and £20.6 million (capital). The Fire Authority had also received £297,900 (revenue) and £4.171 million (capital) in extra funds by the government for the fire stations mergers project.
The Men on the Fire Authority also had decided to pay their in-house solicitor £102,000 a year and picked this person too.
After all the Men had been saying for ages the hobbits should give them more money and the Men really disliked requests for information! This was money that the Men on the Fire Authority could then spend on taxis to public meetings, expensive dinners and stays in hotels.
The fact that the man who had grown up in the Shire had (as a result of this) told the hobbits that ~£300,000* of their money for the land would go to the very body who decided on the planning application (if the planning application was approved) was embarrassing to the Men (who had wanted to keep this a secret).
* at 2015 prices, anybody want to leave a comment on the legal implications of this?
But the legend (that was what people called him) still believed in openness and transparency.
He had realised that the Shire was in danger of being altered permanently and corrupted by greedy Men interested in power.
Not just with the fire station, but with the golf resort too.
Greed had truly corrupted the Men’s hearts.
But what would happen next?
Would the Planning Committee refuse the planning application for the fire station?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
