Tag: bad economics

Not for the first time, Brunel FM finds itself orphaned. With the news that its latest parent company has gone into administration, the station stumbles on, as does the speech of some of its presenters. Its last owners have done the job of improving the station’s output, despite some of their sillier attempts at self-publicising — though to be honest it would have been difficult to be worse than it was. No doubt if the parent company hadn’t been so short of money and forced to spread its few good presenters around its stations, things might have been better still and the other presenters more eloquent.

What, of course, the station’s owners past or present can’t do is change the fact that there’s a limit to how much radio advertising one town can sustain. The regulator ofcom sets rules that allow holders of local radio licences to — after the first few years — ditch virtually all their local commitments and effectively become the local branch of a national station. They then let another licence, in an attempt to reintroduce some local element to the broadcasting, for the first few years of the licence…. And so the cycle continues.

Four ‘local’ stations — even if two of them aren’t dependent on advertising — seems to be more than Swindon can sustain.

It’s refreshing to see that Swindon Borough Council’s licensing committee has had the sense to ignore, for the moment, its officers’ recommendation to ban street traders from much of Swindon town centre. It has postponed making a decision because, without more detail about the regeneration which putting street traders out of business is meant to support, the case wasn’t well made. I suspect that even with more detail, the case for removing street traders wouldn’t be obvious. We already know much about the New Swindon Company’s plans for degenerating regenerating the town centre. Even in some of the grander plans that have now failed, there was nothing that would justify removing the street traders from the existing pedestrianised area. There’s also nothing in the council’s own licensing policy that would justify such a move.

Unfortunately for the street traders, there’s not much cause for celebration, as the European Union has plans to make their lives more difficult too. The proposal for removing street traders contained this little EU gem.*

the EU Services Directive takes effect before the 2010 season and seems to decree that consents (which are not renewable) cannot be preferentially offered to incumbent traders but must instead be opened up to competition (randomly chosen from those meeting the standard, not determined by a bidding process).

So even if the council’s decision is put off indefinitely — rather like the town centre regeneration — the existing street traders may lose their pitches in an EU instigated lottery anyway.

Anyone remember the ‘principle of subsidiarity’?

*A few words of caution: in a quick search of the EU’s directives I couldn’t find this directive. I am, perhaps, putting too much trust in Swindon Borough Council’s Head of Licensing.

It seems that Swindon Borough Council are unaware that we’re in the midst of an economic recession. Six months after they forced several street traders to move, the council’s licensing committee is at it again, this time with more draconian measures. They now propose to exclude all street traders from the main pedestrianised streets in the town centre (Canal Walk, The Parade, Regent Street, Regent Circus, Edgeware Road and Bridge Street). This will displace street traders that have only just moved following the committee’s last attempt at stifling street trading.

So, not content with there already being many empty shops in the town centre, the council now wants to get rid of street traders too. Under the proposals, street trading will be allowed in very few town centre streets. Farmers and continental markets will be allowed in Wharf Green (it seems that the council likes those); fast food stalls will be exiled to the site of the post office at Fleming Way. The only good news for street traders is that the fees the council charges them will be decreased. Given how little trade some of the permitted streets will allow, that’s no comfort to the street traders.

This commercial vindictiveness is, supposedly, to help regenerate the town centre.

This proposal relates to the 2010 Promise 35 that we will take all necessary steps to secure the regeneration of the town centre.

As the proposals are backed by the New Swindon Company — the quango whose only tangible contribution to the town centre’s regeneration has been demolition — it’s no surprise that the proposals are totally illogical. If the town centre was thriving and the street traders were in some way dragging it down, perhaps there would be some sense to it. But it is not, and will not be for some years yet. To claim that removing street traders contributes to the regeneration of the town centre is like claiming that sanding down a few rust spots would allow a broken-down car to pass an MOT.

Swindon’s blue nest councillors should be ashamed of the authoritarian leanings that this policy displays.

The Beeb has happily trumpeted that the South West Regional Development Agency is bringing forward £3M of ‘investment’ in the regeneration of Swindon town centre, whilst making cuts almost everywhere else. But that’s only part of the story. The details of the plans say rather more about how that money is being spent.

Swindon town centre, 2009/2010: Given the current recession and significant uncertainty in the property market, the Agency has agreed to bring forward £2.85m of investment in town centre regeneration projects into 2009/10. This investment, which has now been approved, will help to improve the town centre including helping to tackle empty units, creating construction jobs now and helping to create the conditions for private sector investment when market confidence returns

‘Tackling empty buildings’ sounds like more demolition to me, with only a little bit of building going on. The briefing and project list also make clear that this is the last money Swindon will be receiving from the agency for the foreseeable future.

In five particular areas where we are currently involved in a large number of projects — Plymouth, West of England, Swindon, Gloucester and our support for the aerospace industry — we have decided that we need to place an upper limit on what will still be significant future support for projects in these areas….
Swindon town centre, 2010/2011: Given the shortage of funds available to the Agency in 2010/11 other partners will fund activity in this year. This collaborative approach will allow the RDA and its partners collectively to keep regeneration and development moving forward

That to me sounds like Swindon’s tax payers picking up the tab for the New Swindon Company’s ineffectiveness. Nice. A ‘collaborative approach’ where Swindon gets told what to build by a quango it didn’t ask for, but after this year doesn’t get any extra money to pay for it. That doesn’t look like much of a collaboration to me.

At last, we know how much the Radio 1 Big Weekend cost the people of Swindon, about £400,000 — much the same as it has cost other councils. Half of that, £200,000, went on transport and stewarding; another £160,000 on the police and £40,000. What we don’t yet know — and probably won’t for some time, if ever — is what the financial benefit to Swindon was, despite the council’s speculation.

In the absence of much hard evidence, I’m of the view that this was probably money well spent. What worries me is that the council seems to have made little, if any, effort to do the sums in advance. To quote Mr Young.

It was difficult, as we didn’t know how much it would cost but we knew that Cardiff spent £500,000 in 2003.

And that is what they regard as careful financial planning!

Since my posting yesterday, the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, has published a more detailed breakdown of some of the expenses she had earlier grouped together. To be honest, there’s little of interest in this additional detail. One might wonder in what way a vase (£3.99), pictures (£130) and an ornament (£25) were essential to her performing her duties as an MP, or whether they are consistent with yesterday’s claim

my claims should be for expenses I would not have if I was doing another job working in Swindon only, rather than living and working in two places (London and Swindon) as MPs have to.

We can see how she managed to spend over £2000 on her bedroom (£1000 on a bed, over £1100 on wardrobes, cupboards and drawers) and over £4000 on her living room (including £1000 on a suite, then £356 on chairs two years later, and over £700 on storage units and £395 on a TV unit) but that doesn’t make it appear any better value for money. However, what it does is show how shallow is the spin she’s given the Adver.

I would like the House of Commons to have a hotel because all you really need is a crash pad.

If she really believed that all she needs is a crash pad, then would she have bought something that is clearly much more than a crash pad and then furnished it in some style at our expense? Ms Snelgrove’s actions — and her expense claims — speak louder than her words.

In all the furore over MPs’ expenses, Mr Wills must be feeling fairly calm. For some time now he has published full details of his expenses. For example, his statement of expenses for 2008/09 is itemised down to individual items, such as filing folders bought for £3.61 on 23rd March from a supplier called Banner. When it comes to the Additional Costs Allowance (the allowance for second homes and living in said second home) which has been the centre of attention lately, although his claims are not cheap (£19753.56 in 2007/08 and £18476.53 in 2008/09), they are restricted to paying for his mortgage, council tax, utility bills, telephone and insurance.

In contrast, the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, has been far less open. Until today she has published no more than the house of commons authorities published. Her claims do not match her voting record.

I pride myself upon being an open and accountable Member of Parliament and I am happy for my constituents to see what allowances I use in order to serve the people of South Swindon.

Anyone that claims that whilst consistently voting against such openness clearly doesn’t understand what openness and transparency mean. Only in the last month as the anger has mounted does she seem to have had a change of heart.

So it was that late last week Ms Snelgrove put her signature to a letter urging her colleagues to publish their expenses sooner rather than later.

I will be preparing my expenses over the coming days and will make them public to my local newspaper on Monday 18 May at 2pm.

This she has now done, but in comparison with Mr Wills, Ms Snelgrove’s effort is half-hearted: it’s a summary-level breakdown of the Additional Costs Allowance rather than a full breakdown, and there is no breakdown at all of her other allowances. It is also accompanied by a rambling attempt to justify her troughing at the public expense.

In addition to following the rules I have based my expenses claims on two principles ever since I became an MP in 2005.

That’s the now thoroughly discredited rules.

The first is that I don’t want to profit from the taxpayer in the short or long-term.

Well, she may not be profiting, but she’s certainly been living very comfortably — some might say luxuriously — in her second home at our expense. Over £4000 spent on her living room in three years, over £2000 on her bedroom and over £500 on bedding in the same period.

The second is that my claims should be for expenses I would not have if I was doing another job working in Swindon only, rather than living and working in two places (London and Swindon) as MPs have to.

I presume then that she would have chosen to starve if she hadn’t been an MP, as she claimed £4300 on food in one year.

The majority of items I have bought are one-offs, apart from replacement items when a cupboard collapsed and all the contents were smashed, and water damage to towels and bedding following a leak.

Was she not insured? Perhaps not as it was only in 2007/08 that she claimed £137.23 for insurance.

I want to see the House of Commons introduce a system which is transparent yet enables all MPs to fulfill (sic) their parliamentary and constituency duties fully

That’s not what her voting record suggests.

I also pledge to clean up the second jobs scandal, where many MPs work not for their constituencies but for commercial or lobby companies despite receiving a full parliamentary salary.

Lets not forget that every Labour MP is sponsored by a union. It’s not just those with second jobs that represent interests other than those of their constituents.

I want to be accountable to constituents in Swindon South and I want to maintain your trust.

On the evidence so far, Ms Snelgrove’s failed on both counts.

I can’t help but feel that the local red nest is trying to distract my attention from something… the economy perhaps. The day after Mr Darling announced the worst government debt in over sixty years, along with cuts in services — or ‘efficiencies’ as he called it — and increases in tax, I received a letter from the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove. This letter told me what the government is splurging my money on, and expected me to be grateful for that. Increases in child tax credits, building Children’s Centres and building more government buildings may be good for construction workers with young children, but are not much use to anyone else.

Just a couple of days later, another leaflet from the local red nest dropped onto my doormat. This one talked about a budget where you pay more and get less in return, but they were referring to Swindon Borough Council’s budget, whereas I was thinking of Mr Darling’s.

In these tough times Labour is helping people and investing in services.

Ruining the economy and running up government debts of £1,185bn by 2013 is an odd way of helping.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, is unstinting in her support for Mr Darling’s attempts to bankrupt the country.

This budget is delivering real help now to get people, especially young people, quickly back into work, and support businesses and homeowners facing problems.

Has it not occurred to Ms Snelgrove that the 10% increase in unemployment in Swindon last month indicates that there just aren’t the jobs out there? No amount of unemployment-statistics-massaging training will change that decrease in employment. Having blamed the banks for reckless borrowing, the government is now recklessly borrowing, and we’ll all be paying for that long after Ms Snelgrove is claiming her generous MP’s pension and resettlement allowance.

One thing has been missing from discussion of Radio 1’s Big Weekend coming to Swindon. That is how much it will cost Swindon Borough Council to support it. There’s been plenty of speculation, but nothing from the council to say how much they estimate it and the associated fringe events will cost.

Given that no other council has turned down the chance of hosting this event in the past, does the cost really matter? Well, yes. Even if you believe, as komadori does, that this is something that the council should support, some evidence for that belief would be comforting, especially considering the cost cutting that the Council felt was necessary for this year’s budget.

The Council claims there should be an economic benefit to Swindon, and quote the estimated benefit to Preston of holding the event in 2007 of about £1.4M. With the cost to some councils that have hosted the event in the past being as high as £0.5M, the economy in a mess and applications for tickets seemingly half what they were last year (tho’ still heavily oversubscribed), that benefit could easily disappear and become a debt.