London calling ...

Off down to London this evening - still using the sleeper, as part of my no-flying regime :-)

... attending the regular Electoral Reform Society 'Council' meeting, which has a pretty full agenda. Could be a long Saturday?

And then, upon my return late Saturday night, there will have to be frantic preparations for a certain household members' 10th Birthday Party on Sunday!!

I just cannot believe he's 10 already :-))

What can you say?

Seems "serious stooshie" may have been an understatement!

Another electronic epistle has arrived from cyber-space this morning, in a swift clarification following a maelstrom of negative press coverage - both local and national :-(

... as per yesterday, I'll re-produce the message in full below.

What can you say? ... I am still intrigued as to why on earth this type of information was sent out by e-mail in the first place??


====================


From: Communications
Sent: Fri 11/30/2007 9:35 AM
To: Everyone
Subject: Shared Service Pathfinder project

You may have noticed media coverage concerning the Shared Services Pathfinder project which was the subject of an e-mail Chief Executive’s briefing yesterday, 29 November.

Following the inaccuracy of some of this press coverage we are taking the opportunity to address these matters.

To recap, the Pathfinder project is part of a national project for which we are receiving government funding. The Shared Services team, working with departments, have put together a high level business case with an estimate of potential efficiency savings of over £57m over three years.

It is important to stress that it is now over six months since the baseline data was gathered and many departments have already introduced significant efficiency savings in the intervening period to address their projected budget deficits. The Chief Executive’s briefing states that the business case was for a reduction of 800 employees across all departments. As almost half of these posts related to agency staff on temporary contracts and some of these have already been put into effect. This means that the figures quoted will be significantly lower than those shown in the press.

In particular the Contact Centre jobs figure quoted is inaccurate. These figures relate to initial contact and assessment roles rather than staff in the Contact Centre.

Work will now be undertaken to bring forward detailed proposals and accurate cost and benefits calculations that will enable informed decisions to be taken over the next three to four months.

Although it is not possible to rule out redundancy at this stage, the Chief Executive in his briefing states the aim will be to achieve any staff reductions through natural wastage and redeployment wherever possible.


Managers should ensure this message is cascaded to staff who do not have access to e-mail.
The High Level Business Case will be published on the intranet homepage shortly.

===========================

Interesting rates

I mentioned earlier this week how I really rate some of the BBC Correspondent blogs ...

... as well as Nick Bryant's excellent coverage of the recent Australian election, I've really enjoyed Robert Peston's ongoing coverage of the financial challenges currently facing the UK economy :-(

Peston posted an entry earlier today, ending with a brief update about the Governor of the Bank of England's statement to the Treasury Select Committee this morning, that frankly made me thankful that our 1989 mortgage now has less than 7-years to completion ...

... all that said, the interest rate today (at the end of 2007) is still some way below (if not half the level?) of that when we first took out the mortgage at the end of the 80's.

Will it stay below that highpoint all the way through to 2014 though ... any bets??

The joy of mass e-mail

Bit of a serious stooshie brewing at the Council this afternoon ... all down, it appears, to some injudicious use of mass e-mail :-(

Just after 4pm, everyone at the Local Authority (yes, everyone on e-mail ... that's thousands and thousands and thousands of individuals) received an e-mail 'Briefing' from the Council's Chief Executive.

I'm just going to re-produce it in full below (at the bottom of this post) - I don't usually do that, but given the BBC story (here) that originally appeared less than 2-hours after the e-mail was sent, I hardly think its contents are a state secret?

It all centres around the "Pathfinder Project", as it's known within the Council.

In itself, this is not anything new - indeed, there was a report about it at the October 2007 Full Council meeting, see here, which stemmed from a motion that one of my colleagues had moved at the September 2007 Full Council meeting as follows:


10.3 By Councillor Munro - KPMG Pathfinder Project

“Council calls for a report to the next Full Council on the work by KPMG on the Pathfinder Project, containing:
1 ) the full original report and its recommendations;
2) details of how these recommendations have been implemented; and
3) whether the potential for savings identified in the report can help improve the Council’s financial position.”


... and, as you'll see from the October report which resulted, the whole topic has it's origins in mid-2006 - see paras. 2.1 and 2.2 therein.

So why, oh why, send round an e-mail - of all things! - stating that nearly 1,000 jobs 'could' be affected? ... the October report made it clear (see para. 3.1 therein) that further work is ongoing and Trade Union consultation would take place??

Just an accident of judgement (??) or is there something more 'immediate' to all of this than we've been led to believe to date?

=================

From: Communications

Sent: Thu 11/29/2007 4:07 PM

To: Everyone

Subject: Chief Executive's Briefing - Shared Services

The Council has made progress in improving performance in recent years but we recognise that there is more that we need to do to improve services and maintain value for money for the people of Edinburgh. Therefore the Council welcomed the opportunity, funded by the Scottish Government, to lead a Shared Services Pathfinder project, in partnership with Fife and Scottish Borders Councils and to be at the forefront of moves to create a more efficient public sector in Scotland.

This project aims to identify opportunities for efficiency savings and service improvements through the simplification, standardisation and sharing of council processes and services. It builds on a range of improvement activity that has already been undertaken by the Council, including restructuring around customer focussed service groupings, rationalising our office buildings and investing in modern technology.

The first phase of the project resulted in the development of an outline business case which highlighted nine areas where simplification, standardisation or sharing could potentially improve services and reduce costs. However, it is still at a preliminary stage with more detailed work required before any decisions on changes to services can be taken by the Council. Also while a potential net saving over three years of up to £30 million was estimated, some service areas would require substantial investment before any benefits could be realised and it has currently not been identified how this investment would be funded.

The service areas considered during phase 1 of the project were:
1. Initial customer contact
2. Customer assessment and decision making processes
3. Council tax revenues
4. Home based services
5. Procurement
6. Strategic functions
7. Administration and clerical support
8. Pensions administration and investments
9. Trading standards and environmental health

The business case also points to a potential reduction of over 800 employees across all departments. Almost half of these posts relate to agency staff on temporary contracts and in fact some of these staff reductions have been put into effect already with a dramatic reduction in the number of agency staff working across the Council as a result of the tight financial constraints. The aim will be to achieve any staff reductions through natural wastage and redeployment wherever possible.

The Council has recently received further funding from the Scottish Government to undertake a second phase of work which will bring forward detailed proposals and accurate cost and benefit calculations that will enable informed decisions to be taken on the way forward for the Council. This work should be complete by spring 2008 and we will inform you of the details in the proposals at that time.

Tom Aitchison Chief Executive

Managers should ensure this message is cascaded to staff who do not have access to e-mail.

==========================

Gould - again!

The Electoral Commission have today published a fairly detailed response to the earlier Gould report, which I've posted about extensively.

The Commission's News Release is here; their main report here, and the brief BBC coverage here.

The second of those links - the main report - is a pretty comprehensive response to the Gould recommendations. Given my earlier ramblings about all of this requiring the Scotland Act (1998) to be re-opened, I was particularly intrigued to read para. 17 of the report this morning:

"17. The Commission intends to undertake an examination of electoral administration structures across the UK, rather than considering Scotland in isolation, or considering some Scottish elections but not all as needing changed arrangements. It is our view that this matter is urgent, and must proceed immediately."

... now if that isn't a good enough excuse to end up saying what Gould wanted to, but didn't (that STV-PR for the Holyrood elections would solve a lot of problems!) I don't know what is?

Surely such a comprehensive review should conclude that a single system for all Scottish elections - whether decoupled or not - would be desirable and given the last decades' move away from majoritarian to proportional systems, then STV-PR has to be the universal answer??

We may find out pretty soon, as the said-report is apparently due in mid-2008!

On a less-important issue, but interesting for my nationalist colleagues, para. 32/33 is noteworthy:

"It is our recommendation that legislation is amended to require that registered names of political parties (rather than their descriptions) appear first on all regional ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary elections."

... no more 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' - I'm gutted :-)

Another blogging Councillor

Yet another blogging Councillor has entered cyber-space today ... Ian Murray (pictured opposite) is now the first Edinburgh South Labour Councillor - that I know of! - who has crept into the 21st century :-)

... I make that six of the Edinburgh Labour Group who are now keeping (reasonably?) regular blogs - soon be half the Group at this rate :-))

What about the rest? - I know Cllr. Cameron Rose (Tory) has a 'Newsblog' - it can be found here - and also has a Facebook presence (along with Cllrs. Charles Dundas and Louise Young - both Libs) ... but nothing else on the blogging front that I'm aware of??

If you know of any more out there, then do pass on the details ...

Bike trauma

My poor old bike - it is some 24-years of age! - suffered a bit of a trauma this week ... one of the pedals, and associated crank, sheered right off and the thread to the main shaft is completely shot!

Not good :-(

... so, temporarily back on the bus whilst I locate a decent mechanic to give the 'old boy' a complete overhaul - obviously badly needed!

It has to be said that the evening commute, from town centre back home, is now much slower than when I was on two wheels :-((

Elections fatigue

Elections Consultative Group met again this morning - last in a long line of meetings that have been trawling over the problems encountered during the May 2007 elections.

It does finally appear that a pretty comprehensive set of reports is now going to the December meeting of the Full Council.

I posted about all of this way back in June - so, it has taken nearly six months for this work to be completed. To be fair to the Council, the whole process was rightly delayed to await the final publication of the Gould Report.

... and, it does appear that Gould's recommendation to de-couple the Holyrood and Local elections (which seems to have been accepted by UK and Scottish Governments) will take the 'heat' out of a lot of the issues which were faced on May 3rd - so, maybe the report going to the December Council meeting will not now be as contentious as I had first thought??

Just in passing, the de-coupling of National/Local elections is something I've firmly changed my mind on over the years. I'm now convinced that yes, for the Council, it will lead to local issues being debated/decided in isolation and on their own merits, but that tragically the turnout for those elections will drop by around 15% as a result. Not good.

And really ... are local issues so separate from national politics? Who is it that provides some 80% of our finance? ... and who are we going to have to sign Single Outcome Agreements with in the not too distant future?

... surely far better to change the electoral system for Holyrood to STV-PR and leave both elections on the same day :-))

Shock, Horror - non-Council evening, meeting!

I mentioned a few weeks ago that "Unlock Democracy" had finally managed to stage its 2007 AGM - was a good meeting - and am pleased to report that tonight the new Scottish Advisory Group will meet for the first time following the earlier AGM.

A non-Council, evening meeting ... it may very well snow tonight :-)

Unfortunately clashes exactly with the bi-monthly meeting of Craiglockhart Community Council, to which I've reluctantly submitted my apologies.

It is nigh-on impossible to make every, single meeting under the new Ward Boundaries ... but, given my long-held views (still as strong as ever!) on STV-PR, I can hardly complain, can I?

No defence, but ...

Just read about the latest "money and politics" saga :-(

I'm not going to try and defend the situation that Peter Watt has found himself in ... he is the legally responsible officer for donation reporting ... but, in all the time he's been General Secretary he has always struck me as the consummate professional - and no, I don't know him!

Personally, for me, it just further underlines the inherent unsatisfactory nature of (all) political Party funding in the UK. If someone doesn't bite-the-bullet soon on some sort of enhanced state funding (and there are a myriad models out there) then it will only get worse, not better.

Spreading too thinly

I've felt a bit like one of those circus plate-spinners for most of today :-(

... just been dragged in too many directions (literally) and have probably spread myself too thinly on everything as a consequence!

Indeed, such a day has it been that the next person who asks me how I'm managing to fill my time now that we're in Opposition may not get the customary politeness in response :-((

Labor election victory

Not that I've been avoiding our own national news today :-(

... but have been particularly drawn to what's happened in Australia over the weekend.

Kevin Rudd does appear to have clinched a pretty emphatic victory, and I think the removal of John Howard from the international stage could have quite an impact - particularly on the green agenda.

I've really enjoyed Nick Bryant's (from the BBC) blog that's been running for the duration of the campaign - great example of a well-informed, running commentary on a big political event as it happens.

I'm convinced that good blogging-journalism like Nick's (and many of the other BBC correspondents) will become pretty valuable source material for future historians.

Airdrieonians Invasion

Talking of a takeover by the West-coast, some old friends from Airdrie coming over to stay with us in Edinburgh this weekend :-)

Don't have any specific plans, but undoubtedly a reasonable amount of food and drink consumption will simply have to take place :-))

... at least there are no high-profile, national football matches on this weekend, the results of which would undoubtedly have wrecked the atmosphere of conviviality :-(

Captured Coalition

Thinking a bit more about yesterday's meeting - and the "yet another debate about finance" ... I'm fast coming to the conclusion that a classic case of what some in the trade call 'official capture' has taken place on a grand scale since May 3rd.

I mean at a local level and certainly not at a national level - the contrast could not be starker.

You can almost hear the voices of senior Council Directors ringing through the comments of the current City Council Coalition politicians ... and I can just hear the earlier debates around the senior management team table - "must keep their feet to the fire, don't let them slack off on re-aligning those damned departmental budgets" ??

And, to be fair, those 'damned departmental budgets' are indeed being re-aligned ... problem is, the whole process is being undertaken in a completely unimaginative, technocratic fashion. Politics seems to be absent; and services for the vulnerable, young and elderly seem to be suffering in the managerial process we are currently in the midst of.

And all the while, if that wasn't bad enough, there seems to be a real lack of direction on all the really big issues facing the city ... what, of significance, has happened in any of the major portfolio areas in the last six months? Again, politics seems to be absent.

All that said, maybe I'm just doomed to suffer the "yet another debate about finance" syndrome for a while yet - but come April next year, the budget thereafter will be a Coalition Budget ... assuming they do actually agree between themselves and accept the removal of significant local autonomy? ... and ducking any sense of responsibility will become increasingly harder.

Meantime, unfortunately, our competitor cities (of which there are legion) are leaving us to eat their dust ... and even more worryingly (despite being from the West myself) one of them is just 50-miles away and you can almost 'feel' the centre of economic gravity shifting their way :-((

No early evening finish!

Shock, horror - the Full Council meeting finished just before 4.30pm ... a mere six-and-a-half hours, with at least two breaks totalling around an hour. So only just over 5-hours of actual meeting time! Now, I don't think that's too drastic for the main decision-making body of the capital city, Local Authority of Scotland?

And whilst I've openly admitted that I do think there are a large number of motions at current meetings, there was a strange reaction to them today by the Administration - they simply moved "No Action" to most of them, in an effort to try and 'persuade' us troublesome Opposition politicians from tabling anything that may just commit the Council to anything remotely innovative :-(

And when pressed in various debates on this, they seemed to indicate that all we had to do was ask the relevant Convener (and/or Officer) and we'd get the answers we needed without 'wasting' good Council time by tabling troublesome motions and questions??

I'd accept that with a bit more good grace if I thought it would actually happen - but I've now had two written assurances (via Council Questions, not voluntarily) from the Convener of Education that all Opposition Education Spokespeople would be kept informed of progress with Portobello High School, and the other Wave3 schools, and to date I've received not one single e-mail, letter or verbal briefing to such effect? Could be that absolutely nothing has happened (which wouldn't have surprised me) but I know that's not the case.

Communication has to be two-way, and at the minute it certainly is not. I know who's "court the ball is in" on this general issue, and it's not the Oppositions.

The meeting itself today didn't really tackle any of the key strategic projects for the city, that all appear to be in a permanent state of suspension at the moment: Schools, Zoo, Tynecastle, Meadowbank, Sighthill, Commonwealth Pool, Old Town developments ... to mention but the obvious :-(

Someone will need to take a decision on some of these issues soon - surely??

So, highlights of the day had to be:

• the Depute-Convener (Provost) taking the chair of the meeting; having to use his casting vote twice; and chastising one of his Administration colleagues for using un-Parliamentary (un-Chamberly doesn't sound right?) language in one of the debates. I won't embarrass the Liberal-Democrat member for Southside/Newington by naming him :-)) ... although, joking aside, all-credit to him for immediately withdrawing the phrase used!
• the Convener of Education accusing previous Labour Administrations of "building schools for electoral advantage" ... yes, she really said it? I'd love to know which schools this highly-scientific accusation was referring to??
• the Council Leader pointedly NOT taking part in yet another debate about finance that was generated with the sole purpose of having yet another go at the previous Administration for leaving Edinburgh on the verge of destitution and ruin ... why anybody is still living and working here I don't know? I think the Council Leader's lack of contribution to that debate was very telling - it's a great shame she doesn't have the majority of her colleagues on her side :-(

December's meeting can only be worse :-((

Full Council meeting tomorrow ...

November's Full Council meeting tomorrow - agenda can be found here.

Does seem like a more manageable agenda on the face of it, but still a lot of motions (19 compared to last months 17!) to debate - and four additional deputations, I hear, who are not on the published agenda?

... so, could still be an early evening finish I'm afraid. May not be much blogging tomorrow :-(

Grove Street application approved ...

The Grove Street application was back before the Planning Committee this morning - full report can be found here ... I know the report title says 14th November, but it's a mistake!

Unfortunately, from my personal perspective, the application was finally approved today - you'll remember it's been before Planning twice before; see here and here - as I still believe strongly that the amenity of neighbouring residents will NOT be safeguarded by this development and that the parking facilities (zero!) will come back to haunt the area.

Very unfortunately, officers disagreed with me - they had always recommended approval of the application - as did most of the Committee Members who voted in favour of granting planning permission.

So, pretty disappointing.

That said, a degree of thanks should go to the Committee Members who did have to listen to me on three occasions droning on about this - many of them also attended a site visit into the bargain - and several planning conditions were attached on the issues of density, parking and security which may help ... but I have my doubts :-(

Identity theft

No - I'm not referring to the trouble with missing CD's at HM Revenue and Customs :-((

... but, one of my esteemed colleagues nicking my blog identity!

So, I've decided to change the background - and layout, a little - of the Really Bad Blog. I would welcome any (constructive please!) feedback on whether you think it looks better, worse, or has it just always looked terrible :-)

Remember, you don't have to leave a comment here - you can always e-mail me direct at:

andrew.burns@edinburgh.gov.uk - work
or
andrewdburns@btinternet.com - home (don't miss out the 'd')

... and before any wag asks: it stands for Douglas :-))