How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between £1.33 and £6.40/mile)?
How much a mile do taxis for Wirral’s councillors cost (between £1.33 and £6.40/mile)?
Last year I published the £multi-million contract Wirral Council has called the Passenger Transport Contract which covers transport for children with special educational needs/disability, children in care and vulnerable adults (to places like school and day centres) (Lot 1), ad hoc journeys for these categories of people (Lot 2), the "Maxi Taxi" scheme (taxis for people to work) (Lot 3) and of course that most interesting category of all taxis for councillors (Lot 4).
From the answer Cllr Adrian Jones gave recently (this blog post details the aspects of the request that relate to an underspend on the modern equivalent of the Poor Laws), I think it is fair to summarise that his answer states that providing me with a 44 A4 page contract about a £multi-million contract such as this, is a great drain on Wirral Council’s resources (bear in mind this is an organisation that has a revenue budget of hundreds of millions of pounds a year plus a capital budget of a similar size). Just the annual invoices to their external auditors Grant Thornton comes to a six-figure sum! Personally I’d prefer Wirral Council to routinely publish such information (but they don’t). Maybe if all such contracts that Wirral Council has for millions of pounds were published the public would know what they were getting for their money?
He pointed out at a public meeting to me last month that it takes a long time to black out " personal information" on such contracts. Out of those 44 pages I published, as only one telephone number is blacked out on page 39, I am truly glad that Wirral Council is saving the public from knowing the phone number of a local taxi company (that I’m pretty sure will be in the phone book anyway!)
It’s a contract estimated at £4.1 million (no that’s not all on taxis for councillors).
Of course, as regular readers of this blog will know, despite the information on councillors’ expenses being open to inspection at "all reasonable times" actually getting information out of Wirral Council on councillors’ expenses is a bit like a dentist asking a patient do they want their teeth out!? I asked (again) and the answer from Cllr Adrian Jones was that I should be "patient".
I gather that "all reasonable times" by Wirral Council’s interpretation of the legislation is at some point between to be poetic "when hell freezes over" or the councillor (or former councillor) to whom the expenses relate is dead.
From a public relations perspective I would say that the drip, drip, drip of information on councillors’ expenses at Wirral Council and repeated attempts to block information is probably far more embarrassing (to all councillors including the ones that don’t claim any expenses) than actually releasing the information in the first place! Has their new PR adviser heard of the Streisand Effect! This FOI request (which will be the third time of asking for this information so I must have a lot of patience) is one I hope will be answered. However dear reader I presume this request will be either refused or ignored (despite the Court of Appeal judgement [2015] EWCA Civ 388, [2015] 1 WLR 2879, [2015] WLR 2, [2015] WLR(D) 194 referred to being extremely clear that such information has to be released). As there is for want of a better term "political resistance" at Wirral Council to the release of expenses information, I am beginning to think an ICO decision notice (which will take an answer to this FOI request past the May 2016 elections) may be what it takes. Who knows? Please leave a comment if you know more than me.
However moving on to oversight and scrutiny. I have conducted some oversight and scrutiny on my original publication of the contract and realised that there was a schedule containing rates that I didn’t include when I published the original contract. That table can be found below. This table is how much that Wirral Council is charged by Eye Cab Limited for taxis for councillors.
You can see the original below (linked to a more high-resolution version). Personally I feel this web version and the PDF file I’ve created above are far easier to read (especially for those with visual issues like myself it can be zoomed in without loss of resolution). However don’t get me started on Wirral Council’s track record towards people with disabilities. I hate to think how much I’d be moaned at if I asked for large print versions of documents and how much of a drain I’d be regarded on resources then!
Councillors Pricing Schedule LOT 4
Item
Description 1 Mile = 1609.344 Metres
Distance
Quoted Mile Cost
Quoted Total Journey Cost
1
First 805 metres (half mile)
First mile
£3.20
£3.80
£3.80
2
Remaining 805 metres
£0.60
3
Additional mile @1609 metres
1-5 miles
£1.40
£9.40
4
Additional mile @1609 metres
5-10 miles
£1.40
£16.40
5
Additional mile @1609 metres
10-15 miles
£1.30
£22.00
6
Additional mile @1609 metres
15-20 miles
£1.20
£26.60
7
Waiting time (if applicable)
Per Minute Cost
£0.20
Additional Information or Charges: All vehicles are Hackney Carriages 5/7 seat vehicles and have been quoted accordingly, any tolls will be charged extra at the appropriate return rate.
Passenger Transport Contract Councillors Pricing Schedule Lot 4
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making
Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making
Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts
The special Cabinet meeting to discuss the future of Lyndale School is now down to meet in Committee Room 1 in Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm. It’s a public meeting so anyone can attend. The agenda should be available around the 10th December. However many of the reports that will be on the agenda have already been published either as part of the consultation or for previous Cabinet meetings on this subject.
I’ve done a bit of thinking about the consultation, officer advice and councillor decision-making on the subject of disability issues ahead of Friday’s meeting of the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel.
The constitution of Wirral Council states that councillors have to take on board the responses to a consultation and officer advice when making decisions.
What used to happen was a consultation would be agreed. It would run for x weeks or xx weeks, then there’d be a further public meeting at which all the consultation responses were published and the matter discussed.
Now what seems to happen at Wirral Council is this (not just over Lyndale but other matters).
A consultation on whatever change or policy issue is held running from date x to date y.
Following the end of the consultation (date y) Wirral Council employees read through the consultation responses. They then pick out the bits out of the responses they want to and put them in a report. In fact, as the ideas expressed in this report won’t be attributed back to the consultation respondees in academia it would be classed as plagiarism.
Once they’ve cherry picked the bits of the consultation they want to respond to, they’ll include a summary of them in the report, but alter the responses by including a response from officers.
Often these responses will state how the people responding (although they raise valid points) are somehow wrong and the recommendation consulted on should just be agreed (by councillors).
Councillors never see the consultation responses, nor do the public. Some consultation responses people with publishing capabilities (for instance individual councillors or political parties) are published during the consultation.
So what eventually happens is politicians just see a one-sided report written by officers, with brief references to the consultation responses but with more in the report stating officer’s advice than the actual consultation responses.
Naturally anything inconvenient brought up in the consultation, or points raised that officers don’t have a clever answer to gets left out of the public report.
Those who responded to the consultation (if they’re lucky) turn up to the public meeting where this is decided. If by some minor miracle one of the people responding to the consultation actually gets permission to speak at the meeting from the Chair.
Usually they are told they can’t speak as Article 21 although signed up to by Wirral Council was never implemented in their constitution. Although people do have a legal right (in the Human Rights Act 1998 c. 42) to freedom of expression, they will be told they can’t speak either. In an authority that gets annoyed with the press for filming public meetings what do you expect?
In my opinion, it’s a terrible, terrible way to run local democracy and make decisions. It leads to widespread resentment of certain politicians (and Wirral Council employees) and makes people think it’s terribly unfair. Maybe it suits some people though.
It means you have a two tier system. Those with the education, resources and/or connections can get their voice heard on any issue they want. Everyone else (even if they’ve responded to a consultation) just gets lost in the crowd.
It’s something I find personally very wrong about Wirral Council democracy and needs to change as a matter of urgency.
Take both Liverpool City Council and Chester West and Chester as examples. In both cases people can table questions at certain public meetings and speak at public meetings even if they’re not councillors or employees of the organisation.
On Wirral, especially since the abolition of the Area Forums, the public seem to have been written out of the political process. OK they get a vote (or two votes next year), but that’s about it. In many places people know their vote won’t make a difference to the outcome leading to apathy.
The rest of the time (outside of elections) the public are politely ignored by politicians who know they only need to get a minimum of 42% of the votes of the people who do vote to get re-elected under the first past the post system. It’s led to a situation where senior Wirral Council officers and senior politicians have too much power and the checks and balances just aren’t even there or ain’t working.
When the checks and balances are used (such as call in) councillors are just accused of playing party politics for actually holding other politicians to account!
Nothing will change unless the people demand it. Even then the politicians will probably get excuses from the employees as to why changes can’t be made. Even the unions seem to be having a hard time.
I despair of Wirral Council politics at times, I really do! The fallout from what’s going on affects my workplace too. However it’s time to come up with a plan to bring about change and to carry it out. I know the press from a balance perspective aren’t really supposed to have an opinion on matters other than freedom of speech/freedom of expression/the media.
However it’s time to point out that although there are always the elections in May 2015 that the fundamental nature of how Wirral Council makes decisions is either broken, fundamentally flawed or being routinely abused by those with vested interests in maintaining their power base.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Youtube censors 4th September Wirral Council Cabinet video about Lyndale School closure consultation
Youtube censors 4th September Wirral Council Cabinet video about Lyndale School closure consultation
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 (the public meeting Sony Music Entertainment won’t allow you to watch the first part of) to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Interest declarations: The author of this piece filmed the Cabinet meeting of 4th September 2014 referred to in this piece. The author of this piece works for an organisation that receives royalties from Youtube/Google for videos he films of Wirral Council. The author is in dispute with Sony Music Entertainment over the filming of a video shown at the Cabinet meeting of the 4th September 2014.
As if the piece about blog comments being censored wasn’t bad enough, Sony Music Entertainment have chosen to stop you viewing video of the 4th September meeting of Wirral Council over the decision to close Lyndale School (which includes contributions from parents and those associated with the school).
However it was viewed 88 times (and called in and then a minority report was written on it decided at Council a week ago), so I suppose many people who want to see it have seen it by now.
Why have Sony Music Entertainment done this? Well they claim to have a licence to the track created by Icelandic musician Jonsi “We Bought a Zoo” [2011] which was used in the video about the school shown at the meeting. I’m not disputing that this track wasn’t used as background music in the video.
However both British and American law allows for “fair use” of copyrighted materials for the purpose of news reporting and the music is only incidental. These exemptions written into both British copyright law and American copyright law. This is a point I’ve repeatedly pointed out to Sony Music Entertainment and Youtube over the past month and two weeks. A bit like dealing with Wirral Council I’ve been ignored.
There was another copyright claim made on the video (not by Sony Music Entertainment but by another organisation), but once it was explained to them the fair use claim they released their claim.
Here is the video (which you now can’t see):
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.
So the battle for Lyndale School takes an unusual turn as an American multinational, based on the work of an Icelandic musician Jonsi insists Youtube not show the world what happened at Wirral Council’s Cabinet on the 4th September 2014.
Don’t you just love American culture who trumpets constitutional protections to “freedom of speech” (but seemingly for fellow Americans and not for foreigners)?
Also Youtube have told me that until it’s all sorted out (which at this rate could be forever and a day) I’m not allowed to upload new clips of over 15 minutes (there aren’t many Wirral Council meetings that are shorter than this). Yes I can re edit video clips of Wirral Council down to shorter than fifteen minutes before uploading, but it’ll just take more time and hastle to do so.
I have submitted a counter notification, whether Sony Music Entertainment bother to pay any attention to it is anyone’s guess! My guess is that Sony Music Entertainment have a policy of going after everybody (fair use or not) to try and take down possibly infringing works.
This is making me seriously consider alternatives to Youtube for uploading videos of Wirral Council. I’ve been considering a podcast for a while, so will seriously consider Apple and other alternatives.
In the meantime this is another issue to do with Lyndale School that cheeses me off. Many people know that American multinationals seem to put profits ahead of people but in censoring a meeting about Lyndale School Sony are showing disrespect to children, the press, the public and the disabled community.
As long as this dispute lasts, I won’t personally be buying any music (or other media) sold through Sony Music Entertainment and suggest readers boycott them too as perhaps that is the only way Sony Music Entertainment will actually listen?
Before you leave a comment the total revenue earned on this particular video over the last two months I estimate at a grand total of 6 British pence (or if you’re Sony Music Entertainment an American dime).
Personally if I was Sony Music Entertainment I’d be wondering whether this is all worth it for what they’re going to get out of it. Perhaps they’re trying to make a political point about greed and Lyndale School, but I seriously doubt it! 🙂
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the above, so please leave a comment below.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
9 councillors vote to make Wirral Council leisure centre concession scheme for Armed Forces less generous despite objections
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.
I will start by declaring an interest in this story as I have a friend who is now a Lance Corporal in the Armed Forces and was recently mentioned in this Telegraph article.
Last month (23rd September) there was a review (by the Coordinating Committee) of a Wirral Council Cabinet decision made on the 7th July 2014 to change the concessions provided at Wirral’s leisure centres to former Armed Forces personnel.
The decision had originally been scheduled to be decided by the Coordinating Committee on 7th August 2014, however the meeting on the 7th August 2014 was adjourned because on 7th August 2014 key Wirral Council officers involved in the decision were on holiday and couldn’t be present to answer questions. So the meeting of the 7th August 2014 was adjourned to the 23rd September 2014.
There was then an interesting meeting on the 23rd September 2014 (which was in part a repeat of the adjourned meeting on the 7th August 2014). Councillors discussed the impact of the proposed changes to the policy and witnesses were heard from and questioned.
The motions at the end of that meeting were:
1) “That Cabinet minute 37 – 7 July 2014 (Transformation of Leisure Services Sports and Leisure Facilities Pricing Structure) be upheld” (proposed by Cllr Moira McLaughlin and seconded by Cllr Paul Doughty)
and the proposed amendment (proposed by Cllr Chris Blakeley and seconded by Cllr Mike Hornby) was
2) “That this Committee, having heard evidence this evening, stands unconvinced that any potential saving (the achievement of which remains dubious) made by implementing the decision at paragraph 3 of the Cabinet report, outweighs the harm this decision will do to Wirral’s reputation as an Authority which takes seriously its duties under the Military Covenant and as an Authority that does all it can to actively uphold and advance the Covenant.
Therefore, this Committee urges the Cabinet to reconsider its decision and restore the free Leisure Passes to all the veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”
The vote on the amendment was 6 votes for (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem) and 9 votes against (9 Labour councillors).
The amendment was therefore lost.
The vote on the original motion was 9 votes for (9 Labour) and 6 votes against (5 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem).
The original motion/recommendation was therefore carried.
At the start of the meeting both Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Walter Smith declared interests as former members of the Armed Forces.
The Cabinet Member (not part of the committee but a witness) Cllr Chris Meaden declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces.
Cllr Paul Doughty (the Vice-Chair) declared an interest as his late father had been in the Armed Forces.
There is then an “anomaly” (as Surjit Tour would put it) identified at this point.
Cllr Chris Meaden (the Cabinet Member) declared an interest as her daughter is a former member of the Armed Forces at the Coordinating Committee on the 23rd September 2014 which reviewed the earlier decision of Cabinet (of which she was one of the Cabinet Members present) on the 7th July 2014.
Certainly the video (below) of that Cabinet meeting in July shows Cllr Chris Meaden both present and speaking on that item which fell under her portfolio.
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.
The video footage of declarations of interest was earlier in that meeting (see below)
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.
However in Cllr Chris Meaden’s defence, this item did come near the end of a long Cabinet meeting held in the evening. Politicians do get tired and overlook things. She [Cllr Chris Meaden] referred to a conversation with Surjit Tour (who is Monitoring Officer) at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September. By the way she was talking then she seems to realise it was an oversight on her part and was trying to make amends by declaring the interest instead at the Coordinating Committee meeting in September, when it should have happened at the Cabinet meeting on the 7th July.
Declaring interests is one of the few bits left of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct on which separate legal provisions apply. It’s also a personal legal responsibility of politicians, so they can’t pass the buck to someone else or blame them. The guidance from the DCLG titled Openness and transparency on personal interests A guide for councillors issued in September 2013 states in reference to councillors starting at the bottom of page 4:
“One of these is the principle of integrity – that ‘Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.’”
By my reading of the rules, this interest would be classed as a “personal interest” not a “prejudicial interest”. Therefore even had she declared this on the 7th July 2014, she would still have been able to take part and vote in that agenda item. Had it been an undeclared pecuniary/prejudicial interest it would be a much more serious matter.
4.2 You have a personal interest in any business of the Council where it relates to or is likely to affect:-
(i) any body of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council;
(ii) any body:-
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes; or
(c) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party), of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management.
4.3 You also have a personal interest in any business of the Council:-
(i) where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the
majority of other council taxpayers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision, or,
(ii) it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests you have registered as a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Sensitive Interests
4.4 Where you consider that disclosure of the details of an interest could lead to you, or a person connected with you, being subject to violence or intimidation, and the Monitoring Officer agrees, if the interest is entered on the Register, copies of the Register which are made available for inspection and any published version of the
Register will exclude details of the interest, but may state that you have an interest, the details of which are withheld.
Disclosure and participation
4. At a meeting where such issues arise, DO declare any personal and/or professional interests relating to your public duties and DO take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
5. Certain types of decisions, including those relating to a permission, licence, consent or registration for yourself, your friends, your family members, your employer or your business interests, are so closely tied to your personal and/or professional life that your ability to make a decision in an impartial manner in your role as a member may be called into question and in turn raise issues about the validity of the decision of the authority. DO NOT become involved in these decisions any more than a member of the public in the same personal and/or professional position as yourself is able to be and DO NOT vote in relation to such matters.
Just in case someone thinks I’m singling Cllr Chris Meaden out for criticism. At a recent meeting last week Cllr Leah Fraser was present at a meeting of the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group when a decision (following a recommendation from the Merseyside Police) over whether to spend money on Ian Fraser Walk in New Brighton was made. As far as I can as I was present throughout the whole of the meeting, I don’t remember her declaring an interest in that agenda item (although I may not have heard her if she did).
Ian Fraser Walk is in fact named after her late father-in-law but she didn’t declare an interest. However whether Cllr Leah Fraser should have to declare a personal interest in whether money is spent on a stretch of promenade named after her late father in law is another matter.
If I wend through all the times councillors had failed to declare personal interests, it would be a very long list! Some are like the last example somewhat subjective. It’s more when councillors actually fail to declare prejudicial interests and then speak and vote on agenda items, which are the kind of major abuses that should be tackled and not happen in the first place.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation
A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation
Marvin the Martian from Disney’s Looney Tunes
The below is a fictional interview with Marvin the Martian about Lyndale School. Marvin the Martian is trademarked to Warner Brothers Entertainment. Our legal team point out their trademark doesn’t actually cover its use on blogs but in case they try to argue this blog is an “entertainment service”, it isn’t, so no laughing! Yes I mean it, not even a smile! We also point out it’s not an infringing use of class 9 of this trademark as that refers to its use on goods rather than virtually.
JOHN BRACE: Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed about Lyndale School.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: You’re welcome. We have watched your news broadcasts about this school and are frankly confused. Back on Mars we would be asking our politicians to resign if they behaved as yours do. Why do your politicians think they can get away with being like this?
JOHN BRACE: Well they don’t operate under Martian law for a start. British law gives them wide latitude to do what they like within reason.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well our politicians always tell us they’re on the side of the people, how come yours aren’t?
JOHN BRACE: Well that’s difficult to say. The yellow, blue and green politicians have said they are. The red ones are being careful not to express an opinion.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: “Not to express an opinion”! If we had politicians like that it would spark a revolution!
JOHN BRACE: We’re too polite for revolutions here, the most the British tend to do if they’re cross is write a grumpy letter.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Does that work?
JOHN BRACE: Sometimes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So getting back to Lyndale, can you explain it simply in terms we can understand?
JOHN BRACE: If someone could they would have. Money is taken off the people in the form of taxes. These taxes are then used for services such as education and schools such as Lyndale.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Yes, we have schools for our young Martians too.
JOHN BRACE: The politicians decide how the money is spent and what on. They’ve decided to spend it on Lyndale this year, but have yet to make their minds up about next year.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what’s changed?
JOHN BRACE: Well, there’s been a consultation about closing the school. This is because of lack of money, but everyone’s also been told it won’t save any money and could in fact cost more.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: That sounds very confusing.
JOHN BRACE: It is. The other reason given is that the school is small.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s the problem with small schools then?
JOHN BRACE: Seems the bureaucrats don’t like them. More schools means more problems for them.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So this is being done to suit the bureaucrats?
JOHN BRACE: Well no, the politicians decided on this.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?
JOHN BRACE: Because the bureaucrats told them too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: These bureaucrats sound like they have more power than the politicians.
JOHN BRACE: Well we’ll leave that discussion for another day. The bureaucrats blame it on the government.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s “the government”?
JOHN BRACE: Another set of politicians.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So let’s recap, one set of politicians “the government” is used as a reason by the bureaucrats to persuade another set of politicians to close the school?
JOHN BRACE: Almost right, but “the government” deny that they want to close the school.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again.
JOHN BRACE: So am I.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wouldn’t it be easier if we just invaded Wallasey Town Hall and promised not to close the school?
JOHN BRACE: Maybe it would, but sadly as you’re a fictional character it won’t happen.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: A shame, I was looking forward to invading your planet. So going back to Lyndale, apart from confusing arguments about money and its small size is there any other unstated reason why they want to shut it?
JOHN BRACE: Well the person in charge of special educational needs left and a new guy came in. Some people don’t like him.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why don’t they like him?
JOHN BRACE: For a wide variety of reasons I won’t go into because it’ll probably lead to another libel threat.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s that?
JOHN BRACE: Where Wirral Council threaten to sue you for telling the public the truth.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Can they do that?
JOHN BRACE: No they can’t, our laws don’t allow it but sometimes they get a little cheesed off with me.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would they have issues with someone telling the truth about them?
JOHN BRACE: Because they have been known in the past not to tell the truth, if the public hears two mutually contradictory versions of the same thing they tend to assume Wirral Council is lying.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why would they lie?
JOHN BRACE: The less the public know about what goes on, the easier it is for them to do things. If the public do find out they can get quite grumpy and ask the politicians to do something about it.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, so the public have been asking the politicians to do something about Lyndale?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So if the red politicians are so gung-ho about closure that must mean lots of people have asked them to close it?
JOHN BRACE: No, quite the opposite the majority of people have told the red politicians not to close it.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again, I thought the politicians were supposed to be on the side of the people.
JOHN BRACE: Well you’d hope so, but not always. Generally the public don’t get a say in political decision-making, it all gets carved up by the establishment.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who or what are the “establishment”?
JOHN BRACE: People with the connections to make sure the decision-making always goes their way.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wow, they sound very powerful.!
JOHN BRACE: They are.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t the “establishment” just listen to the people?
JOHN BRACE: Well in public they say they do, in private things are a little more complex. Sometimes different sections of the public ask for two completely different things.
MARVIN THE MARTIN: So they have to use their own judgement on matters?
JOHN BRACE: Yes, but getting back to Lyndale.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh yes Lyndale. You have red, green, blue and yellow politicians who individually don’t seem to understand the “big picture”.
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who all say they’re on the side of the public?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The green, blue and yellow politicians all say they’ll do their best with Lyndale knowing it’s only the red politicians that will decide?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The red politicians are doing this because the bureaucrats told them that they’d have to because of a different set of blue and yellow (but not green) politicians?
JOHN BRACE: Sort of.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But it’s not about money.
JOHN BRACE: Different answers have been given to that one.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what is it really about?
JOHN BRACE: Well the school is for disabled children, some of whom thankfully have a sense of humour and laugh at all this.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good for them, but it’s no “laughing matter”?
JOHN BRACE: You got it it’s a very serious matter.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t they just let the children decide?
JOHN BRACE: It’s a novel suggestion, but the red politicians wouldn’t allow it no.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Is there another reason why the red politicians could be doing it this way?
JOHN BRACE: Well another red politician called Alison is in a battle with the blues to carry on as a politician.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So is she on the side of the reds or the people?
JOHN BRACE: She would say both. However it would be breaking the rules to use such issues for party political gain.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But that could explain why the red politicians are keeping quiet?
JOHN BRACE: The red politicians just do what they’re told.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: By who?
JOHN BRACE: The red leader and the Cabinet Member.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?
JOHN BRACE: Because if they didn’t, they’d be causing trouble and nobody wants to be seen to rock the boat.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So they have to vote for something they may not personally agree with?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Sounds strange, I thought they were supposed to represent the people.
JOHN BRACE: At election time yes, but they also represent their party too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what will happen about Lyndale?
JOHN BRACE: A solution will have to be found that means the red politicians save face.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What does that mean?
JOHN BRACE: Well they will need to both blame what’s happened on someone (something they’ve had a lot of practice doing) and come out of it smelling like roses.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But the public think something stinks?
JOHN BRACE: Yes they do, but as I said before the public aren’t the establishment.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I see, so it’s terribly complicated isn’t it? The blue, green and yellow politicians can say what they like because they don’t make the decisions. The red politicians do make the decision but won’t talk. The bureaucrats have told the red politicians it’s all the blue and yellow politicians’ (but not green politicians’) fault. The shadowy “establishment” always gets its own way and basically the wishes of the children, staff, public are pushed to one side and politely ignored?
JOHN BRACE: In a nutshell, but it’s a little more complicated than that. There’s also a group called the media or press that is powerful too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, you haven’t mentioned them yet!
JOHN BRACE: Well I’m part of them so I have. The broadcast (TV), print (newspaper), online (blogs) have all decided to side with the school.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why’s that?
JOHN BRACE: Well the media don’t have to give reasons, but they think the politicians are being unfair by picking on people that can’t stick up for themselves.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But they are!
JOHN BRACE: That’s a matter of opinion.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Only a coward would pick on someone that couldn’t fight back.
JOHN BRACE: Indeed. However the media are powerful because they influence how people think.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, including the politicians, the establishment, the bureaucrats and the people.
JOHN BRACE: Yes, however there are wider international considerations too. Nobody wants another war.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would picking on disabled kids and closing a school start a war?
JOHN BRACE: On its own no, but pandering to society’s prejudices towards the disabled, coupled with the purple party talking about immigration and other factors could.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh there’s a purple party too!
JOHN BRACE: Yes but they really don’t feature in this tale. They have politicians at the European level but not national or local.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good as we’re starting to run out of colours.
JOHN BRACE: As I was saying, the fragmentation of society by playing off people against each other and scapegoating minorities leads eventually to war.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Oh dear. Has that happened before?
JOHN BRACE: Yes. Many times which is why measures were put in place to prevent things getting to that stage.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So will these “measures” prevent Lyndale being closed?
JOHN BRACE: Who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.
