The Last Bank In The Village, The Last Bank In Bradford South

The fight to keep the last bank in Wibsey open continues. Not only is the Santander Bank in Wibsey Village the last remaining bank in Wibsey but it is the last in the whole of Bradford South Constituency.

While more people are using computer and telephone banking high street banks still provide an essential service, especially but not exclusively, to older and vulnerable members of the community. We have spoken to hundreds of people and many businesses who recognise the importance of having a bank they can physically access.

Judith Cummins, MP for Bradford South and myself met with representatives from Santander to express our concerns at their proposals and to ask them to think again. Following this meeting we wrote a joint letter to the bank and I am publishing the text of this letter below.

The fight goes on, petitions are available at shops in Wibsey and on line at http://chng.it/FPXDCKRbRm. We are committed to trying to get this decision reversed and to work with the local community in their efforts to retain this essential high street presence. Please consider writing to the bank personally to express your concerns and opposition to the planned closure.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Letter From Judith Cummins MP and Councillor David Green to Santander

Santander Bank

9 Nelson Street

Bradford

BD1 5AN

Dear Sir / Ms

Re: Proposed Closure Of Wibsey Santander Branch

Judith Cummins MP and I met with Santander Directors last week to discuss the proposed closure of the Wibsey Branch of the bank. At that meeting I specifically asked if the closure was a done deal and was told that there was a consultation process underway, the implication being that the bank was listening to concerns and could be persuaded to review its initial decision. I am therefore writing this as a submission to the announced consultation, supporting the petition being collected in person and online.

The Wibsey bank is not only the last bank in Wibsey but the last bank in Bradford South. We have seen a gradual but accelerating reduction in local access to direct banking services across the constituency over the past few years and in Wibsey in particular. From your own figures the nearest bank to Wibsey is now over 3 miles away and the distance, should this closure go ahead, for other parts of the constituency will be either further.

Much has been made of the Post Office as an alternative for those who wish/need to use a counter service. This suggestion, whilst it may be technically correct, appears to be a generalisation that does not reflect the geography of the Village. Whilst there is a Post office in Wibsey it is several hundred yards away from the commercial and residential centre of the village and significantly further from most of the sheltered and supported housing in the village and the area where most of the population (many of whom are elderly) live. The nearest other Post Office to the other end of the village is at the bottom of an extremely steep hill at Bankfoot. The age profile and the geography of the village combined with the location of the Post Offices makes the generalised statements from both the Bank and the Post Office impractical and unreasonable in relation to Wibsey.  

At the meeting the Bank reiterated their commitment to access to cash, yet the bank closure will mean that there will only be one free to use cash dispenser in the village (the one at the Post Office is subject to the same caveats as above). At present it is not unusual for the free cash machine at the Co-Op to be out of order which would mean that there would be no free cask dispenser available in the Village.

We were told that there has been a significant drop in customers using the bank in person since 2017; figures provided were for 2017-19 to avoid any Covid effect over the past year. We recognise that more and more people are using phone and online banking but do not feel that we have yet reached the tipping point where local branches can be closed without a significant social and financial impact for the local community.

It is clear that, for its size, the bank is well used and valued by people in the village and the surrounding area as there is no other bank within miles. Whilst the number of visits to the bank has reduced the figures would appear to indicate that there are still significant numbers of people using it every day. The Banks figures for Wibsey account holders, whilst indicating that a significant number of people use phone and internet banking exclusively or significantly also show that a greater number visit the bank for transactions on a regular and semi-regular basis. Apart from encouraging and supporting these customers to make greater use of the alternatives to personal face to face transactions the bank offered no recognition of the needs and preferences of these clients. As the bank is the last in the Village and the last in the immediate area there is no alternative available to these customers and whilst the administrative logic for the bank may seem reasonable on paper, the reality for peoples’ lives that will be affected is not.

The local hesitation about the use of on line services in the area has been recognised by the bank who have stated that there are over 2000 customers who you have identified as needing support and help to adopt new forms of banking. It is not clear how this figure was arrived at but we suspect that this may be an underestimate. Under the current lockdown conditions it is not clear how, or even if, you will be able to provide this support prior to your proposed closing date and there appears to be no Plan B as to how such help and support will be provided.

From our own experience during the local campaign there is a preference locally for physical rather than internet / social media contact. The petition is in demand on paper and we have four to five times the number of signatures on the paper petition than on the one on line. This is despite many of the outlets where paper petitions would normally be available being closed.  

It is not clear to us, or any of the residents in the area, why this branch has been selected for closure in light of the information that has been noted above. We note that the building has recently been put up for sale and that the particulars in the sales information indicate that the bank has a lease until 2023. We assume that this indicates that you are not taking advantage of a lease break and, subject to any negotiations, Santander will still have a liability on the site for the next two years.

We recognise the increase in people using online and phone services, and the increased competition from banks that trade solely on the internet but we have seen no evidence that the population in Wibsey and your cliental have bought into the new ways of banking in a way that would justify the closure of the branch without significant financial and social consequences for the local community. There has been no analysis of the effect of this proposed closure on the fabric of the village and the social and economic consequences for the people and businesses that live and trade there.

We hope that we are correct that Santander are carrying out a consultation process as stated and we would ask that the decision to close the Wibsey Branch of the bank be reversed for the reasons stated above. The bank is a key economic, social and community anchor not just for the village of Wibsey but, as the only bank branch for miles. To remove this last bank in Wibsey and in the whole of Bradford South would be to abandon a significant portion of the population with no alternative on offer for a local physical bank.

Yours sincerely

Cllr D Green                                                                            Judith Cummins MP               

Councillor Wibsey Ward                                                        Bradford South

Devolution – Some Further Thoughts & Questions To Be Answered

A bit like the Loch Ness Monster devolution has raised its head in public again following a period of under the surface negotiations and discussions. The clock is ticking as a decision needs to be taken by government as to whether it is serious about devolution or whether they are going to continue with devo-lite through the City Deals to allow the City Region concept they invented to continue to function.

The latest regional position is that a majority of those involved in the discussions have decided to support a partial Yorkshire deal. I understand that this has the support of 17 of the 23 regional leaders with a varying degree of warmth, ranging from this deal is possibly better than no deal to a long standing principled support for the largest possible Yorkshire footprint.

I am not involved in any way with the detailed discussions but I am still in touch with various people who are, on all sides of the argument, and I appreciate the arm wrestle that has been going on locally and with national government and know the political, economic and geographic difficulties that there are in trying to get a deal. I also recognise that as someone who is semi-detached from the process it is easy to quibble but I do believe that, locally and nationally, we are in danger of losing site of the fundamental economic reasons devolution is needed and the issue of geography should follow on from this.

When the Government set up City Regions it did so on the basis that they were functioning economic areas. This means that most people who lived in the region worked in the region and that there was a supply chain infrastructure and economic links that meant local control of budgets would benefit the widest group of residents and businesses. There was also social aspect to these areas, people know something about each others districts and there was a level of interaction that enabled informed decisions to be made. The wider the geographic area becomes the less these links become and the more diluted and unfocused do these decisions become as do the benefits.

A large geography, based simply on county boundaries has an emotional and cultural significance and this is not to be ignored; nor is the international recognition of Yorkshire (or in this case a majority of it) unimportant which is why local authorities have supported Welcome To Yorkshire so strongly over the years. However the economic reality is that large parts of West Yorkshire have greater links with Manchester and East Lancashire than they do with large parts of North Yorkshire. This is not related to regional geography but to the historical developments of our economies, it is less romantic or culturally significant but in terms of jobs and economic growth it is a key issue that is not being considered as part of our devolution discussion. If devolution is about economic growth which is what everyone says it is it must be based on economic regions. Bradford and West Yorkshire are proud parts of Yorkshire but have traditionally looked East and South to create links with other manufacturing and industrialised areas, not North to the more rural areas for business growth.

There are large parts of West Yorkshire authorities that are rural and do have commonalities with North Yorkshire but any analysis comparing employment, potential jobs growth and economic output between the two areas shows that the comparative importance of this section of the economy in North Yorkshire far outweighs that in West Yorkshire. A consequence of this in a wider devolved setting is that the money allocated will be subject to severe political and sectional pressure from both sides of the economy with a danger that either one side will lose out or that a compromise deal will result in ineffective investment.

The same concerns arise when you look at infrastructure investment. Even if you assume that a larger geographic area will result in additional devolved funds the priorities for the allocation of those funds will vary widely. Through the Transport for The North and Northern Powerhouse arrangements distinct West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire priorities have been tabled and each is free to pursue these, a larger devolved area would have to deal internally with these competing priorities before tabling them. The clear rail priorities for West Yorkshire (and to be fair some of our neighbouring districts) would be HS3 and the electrification of the Trans Pennine rail service, for understandable reasons this would not be a priority for some other parts of the region. Dealing with this would not be insurmountable, assuming good will on all side, but would a layer of complication that is not helpful or needed.

The last pan Yorkshire regeneration body, Yorkshire Forward, had to split the county up into its sub regions to allow it to function effectively. The talk is now about having an elected mayor but keep the current existing sub-regional combined authorities which in itself recognises that the regional proposal is not effective or efficient. The in-built tension between the CAs and the Mayor is a potential recipe for frustration and delay and the elephant in the room will be who has final say over the allocation of resources.

The proposal as it currently stands and as I understand it is not for Yorkshire devolution, there are six areas which have not signed up to the idea, possibly as they have the same concerns as expressed above. We are told that this is the coalition of the willing and I recognise the need for willing participants in any deal but it may be better described as the line of least resistance. At least some of those involved are not willing and if and when push comes to shove may not sign up to the final deal, I don’t know what will happen but there has been precedent in other regions of last-minute hold outs by areas for all manner of reasons. Various parts of the Yorkshire region see their economic interests lying outside of the proposed geography, others have been concerned about their interests being overwhelmed by parts of the region which have no synergy with their social and economic needs, and for others there are political concerns, not least how such an area can have a structure that is both accountable and of a size that allows it to function.

The West Yorkshire / LCR model was of a size where the functions and structure were such that there was a level of accountability and control which may have been indirect but had a clear link to the  constituent authorities and this could continue even with a Mayor should one be forced on us. The size of the current proposal can only be compared to London which had to invent another layer of accountability to ensure that the Mayor had at least some level of scrutiny and accountability via the GLA. Currently there appear to be no such plans for a similar system in these proposals or much of a discussion about whether this would be possible or desirable.

All the above is based on my long-held views on the devolution debate but comes with the warning that I have not been directly involved over the last 18 months but I have continued to keep my ear to the ground.

As ever we await a response from government but as with Brexit we should expect that their response will be based on their own political interests rather than any desire to secure the best deal for our region and like Brexit they may conclude that no deal is better than a bad deal for them. I know that regional Tory politicians at all levels have used their influence to block deals that have met the governments publicly stated policies on devolution because of their own sectional interests and I have no doubt that somewhere in central office someone will be number crunching likely political scenarios. Whilst they do that people in Bradford, Wakefield, York, Harrogate and Skipton will continue to lose out compared to those areas where the Tories do not have to worry about electoral geography.

I do not know if this proposal will work but I doubt it will be as effective or beneficial as a deal based on the governments own stated policy of functional economic areas would be. The chances are that we will only know if it is an improvement many years down the line when we can compare it to what LCR and WYCA have achieved over the last few years. Whilst not perfect the current system has delivered and if used as a the basis for a devolution deal it could deliver more whereas government intransigence will break what is delivering to install an untested idea for their own political ends.

For me devolution has always been about giving power and resources from Government to the most effective and efficient local structure to deliver for the good of local people. I think that there is a good case for a Yorkshire wide assembly to deal with many of the issues that are best dealt with at a Yorkshire level, in the same way that we have set up the Northern Powerhouse and Transport for the North to work together over larger geographical areas, but these have grown from below, not been imposed for political advantage from above.

I know how difficult this process has been and will continue to be in the months to come and that compromise and movement is needed but apart from the need to release government grants for future development I have seen no recent economic or practical argument that convinces me to change my view that this proposal has anymore chance of success than it did when it was put forward some years ago. The devil will be in the detail, of which there is a limited amount to go on but unless some of the fundamental issues can be addressed soon it maybe that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that Government continues to work with the existing City Region structure and Combined Authorities to allow us to continue to deliver to our communities.

One of the concerns is that the local deals with Government run out next year and this could mean that the current limited ability to allocate investment locally may cease if a deal is not done by then. Whilst this is a genuine concern it should not be the basis for making a long term decision which will affect our economy for years to come. Whilst the current proposal would not need primary legislation it is highly unlikely that any deal could be completed by the time that the money stops under the current arrangments. If the Govermnm,ent is saying that they will only continue to fund regeneration if this deal is agreed you can make up your own mind about their priorities.

I hope that the above may contribute to the debate that will continue at many levels both formally and informally. For the current proposals to work we need to know more about the what and the how. If Government is going to simply ignore that whole basis of its economic approach for the last 7 years to achieve a political fix for its supporters then we should all look very carefully at this particular gift horses teeth.

 

 

 

 

The Recycling Walk Of Shame & Other City Centre Experiences

I have lived in a flat in Bradford City Centre for over 18 months now and by and large I have enjoyed it. I have just moved and when I calm down a little I will most likely post about agents and landlords but currently my blood pressure won’t take it.

If you live in any City Centre you know you will experience many things, some good, some bad and some just annoying. The occasional noisy late night bash at a local club or bar may keep you awake at night but this is balanced that getting to and from an occassional late night bash at a club or bar is easy.

The noise of traffic is a constant and I cannot deny that the noise of the idiotic boy racers in their souped up ( or at least amplified exhausts) cars is perhaps more prevalent in the city but then, as a non-driver, I benefit from public transport links that will get me to most places I want to go.

Shops are all within easy reach, and the Markets are there for great value fresh food, snacks and all those things you never knew you needed until something goes wrong (people all talk about the food offer which is great but the hardware stall has provided everything I need when something needs fixing)

All of the above is good and bad in equal measure but the one thing that has really bugged me is recycling. I have yet to view any flat that has on site recycling facilities. I am not sure that Bradford is unique in this but it would appear that whilst we insist on adequate refuse facilities and storage we do not demand recycling bins be provided in these residential developments. There are communal public recycling bins available in the City Centre but their convenience depends on where you live.

I have always tried to recycle so I put my cans, bottle, paper and cardboard to one side to take down to the bin some 100 yards away. But then I got tired, or it was raining or there was something good on telly so the trip was put off until the next day, then the next etc etc. The upshot was that by the time I got my act together there was a significant quantities of tins, bottles, paper and cardboard to go to the recycling bins.

Walking through the City Centre with bags clanging and banging, with the odd lager can or wine bottle peaking over the top of the bag, with the sleeve from admittedly too many ready meals poking through the handles always attracted attention from passing pedestrians. It was difficult to read some of the facial expressions: was that pity or disgust on that persons face? Does that person think that I drank all that booze in the last day or so? Honest I do cook with fresh ingredients most of the time it’s just I’ve been busy this week.

If only landlords were made to provide on site recycling I would not have to air all my sins in public in my efforts to be virtuous.

 

So Now What? A Scond Rate Pundits Thoughts

As we emerged into the chilly morning air outside Richard Dunn Sports Centre,, bleary eyed and still slightly damp from the days campaigning but delighted with the results in Bradford I reflected on all the second guessing and second rate punditry that had accompanied the count from the moment the exit poll had been published and the results started coming in.

I think it is fair to say that whatever Party people were from, and whatever wing of that Party, there was a look of shellshocked disbelief on everyones faces when the exit poll started to come true. As the night wore on thoughts and conversations turned to what would happen in the days and weeks ahead, both within the Tory Party and Government.

I think it is safe to say that the anger of many of the Tories at the count aimed at Theresa May, for calling the election and then running an appalling campaign was palpable. If this is reflected nationally I cannot see how she can carry on with any authority or self respect. However having seen her on TV today this would appear to be exactly what she appears to be planning. What no one has said yet is that this decision may not be in her own hands and I would love to be a fly on the wall of the much reduced Conservative Parliamentary party when they gather next week.

If she does remain, or if she is succeeded by someone else, the Tories clearly intend to rule with the support of the DUP which will throw up a number of extremely difficult questions.

The question of the power sharing crisis in Northern Ireland barely got a mention in England during this election but the province still has not devolved government and tensions are high. The UK Governments ability to broker an agreement will be severely compromised if the nationalist / republican communities and politicians see the DUP tail wagging the Tory dog. The potential implications of this are serious and if the deal is to go ahead the government will need to give real and bankable assurances to all communities if the crisis is not to boil over.

Whilst the Government and DUP agree on Brexit, the people of Northern Ireland voted remain by a large majority. The DUP have made it clear that they want to keep an open border with the Republic and my assumption is that this will form part of the deal they do with the Tories, who have simply sidestepped the issue for the last year. If I’ve worked this out so will the EU negotiators who will use it as a lever to try to force their own version of a deal on the UK. I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing but it does mean that all May’s promises on Brexit will need to be treated with even greater scepticism than they were before.

The latter comment is true about the whole of the Tory manifesto. It is highly unlikely that the DUP will give carte blanche to the Tories to implement the policies they laid out and it is also extremely unlikely that the Tory backbenchers, especially those with now wafer thin majorities will. As a result will are likely to witness a stagnant and lame duck government, especially on domestic policy; a government that struggles get its own supporters to implement it’s manifesto and faces the same problem if it deviates from it.

All these problems rest at the door of Theresa May, who called an election she didn’t need to then lost it. She is a lame duck in her own party and internationally and given the subtlety and charm that is usual in the Tory Party when dealing with failure she may not be there long but this gives the Tories and the UK another problem. If May goes there is no obvious successor and I am not sure that the Tories will want another coronations (look what happened before). So, in the middle of a period of massive uncertainty we could be in a position where we have no national leadership for weeks, or months, whilst the tories sort themselves out. This will either lead to a delay in Brexit negotiations which will push the current timetable back, or negotiations going on without anyone being able to sign off any agreement in the short term.

The Labour Party on the other hand won, but didn’t win. Jeremy Corbyn fought a brilliant campaign despite all the slurs and insults that were thrown at him He was underestimated by the Tories and the press despite them all knowing that he has built his reputation on campaigning for all sorts of causes. There were clearly glitches in presentation on occasion and we know from our doorknocking that he is not universally liked by Labour voters but he mangaed to overcome this by enthusing younger voters and non voters to our cause. Labour was also helped by the appalling Tory campaign and the number or workers we were able to put out on the ground.

The Labour manifesto was popular and was able to put figures to pledges. This was partly because it reflected the previous 2015 manifesto and many of the policies were extensions of the manifesto put out when Ed Milliband was leader, with certain important additions. It was clearly more left wing, something I welcome in terms of commitments to abolish some of the most debilitating Tory policies, something previous leadership had shied away from for fear of scaring the horses, but is also sought to move us on from the 2008 financial crisis and to put the blame for it where if truely lies, the international financial institutions.

Time will tell how embedded the changes in the Party have become. I have been around too long to rush to judgement about what this means long term and the next couple of years will show what the future holds of Labour. This will be about how we balance being able to perform in Parliament (which despite what some people say is still important) and keep up the campaigning work. The worst option will be a resumption of the civil war inside the party and allowing freedom of debate.

So will there be another snap general election? Gazing into my crystal ball I guess no. My prediction, and this will I am sure come back to haunt me, is that there will be no election until after the Brexit negotiations have finished with the Tories limping on until then. Once a deal has been done I predict we will have a Brexit election when the tories go to the country to accept or reject the deal.

I fully expect all of the above predictions to be proved incorrect; either through events or simply because they are wrong. However the one thing I am sure of is that we will be living through the ancient chinese curse – may you live in interesting times.

Pub Politics, Markets and the City Centre – not a criticism just some thoughts

I attended the Politics in the Pub event on Tuesday night discussing the recently announced plans for Bradford’s Markets and Darley Street. The three speakers made some good points but they also failed to address some of the practical challenges facing the City Centre and some of the unanswered questions that the plan fails to address.

Let me be clear, I love the Oastler Market and shop there regularly and will continue to do so should it move to another location but the market itself will not be the catalyst for regenerating Darley Street as some people appear to be suggesting. If the market was a big enough draw on its own it would be thriving where it is but it is clearly not, to argue therefore that it can support the regeneration of a whole street, as some seem to claim, is therefore dubious unless there is significant other work and financial support which is as yet unclear.

The problem is that many of the units on Darley Street do not meet the needs of retailers in the 21st Century, and as someone who used to shop there regularly some of them struggled with the last century,and they would need significant investment to bring them up to date. There is also the challenge of having a two floor market, something which has not worked where it has been tried in the past and which has previously been rejected in Markets reviews in Bradford.

In addition to the Market stallholders there are also many shop fronts on John Street and Rawson Road which would be affected by the closure of the centre and it is not clear where these would go if they wished to stay trading. The council has stated it will help them relocate but it is not clear where this would be to and given the discrepancy between council and private sector rent levels (the council are much more realistic) whether they would remain viable. The same is true of the Asian Bazaar which occupies land which is likely to be needed for development. It may be that as part of the reduction of the size of the retail footprint some of these shops may not survive but we need to recognise that this may be the case.

It has always been recognised that the retail footprint in Bradford would move and shrink once the Broadway centre was opened with the Kirkgate Centre becoming the top of town retail boundary. Plans were being developed over the years to deal with this and one of the options considered was to move the Oastler Centre to Darley Street but it was not pursued, in part, because of the valuation put on the building at the time as well as some of the concerns listed above. The valuation has reduced which is presumably why this particular obstacle has been overcome.

If the move goes ahead and the market and other retailers are accommodated elsewhere there is then the issue of what to do with the large development site at the top of town. Currently the plans talk about family housing and I agree with two of the speakers at the Politics in the Pub meeting that this is unlikely to be viewed as viable or desirable by investors and the current social housing sector is in such a state of flux that I am not sure that they would look on this site as a priority. But more important than viability in the first instance is the principle.

I know, better than many, the pressure there is to provide land for housing, and I have previously voiced my concerns about the fact that this pressure is resulting in land that should be used for job creation and economic development is being redesignated for housing which will affect our ability to create local jobs and investment. A cleared site at the top of town is a clear example of these competing pressures and I am concerned that the current suggestion for housing will result in a lost opportunity for job creation. I would love there to be family housing built in Bradford City Centre and tried for years to encourage developers to take the plunge but with no success and at the meeting on Tuesday I met no one with a family who would want to live in the city centre for all sorts of reasons so I am fearful that the idea may not actually happen but as I say my biggest concern is the loss of employment land.

Developing the site for mixed use, including modern, purpose built manufacturing units to attract spin offs from projects such as the Digital Health Zone, the university and also tap into local entrepreneurs would boost the economy and create jobs. This could be done via a joint enterprise with a developer ( see last years blog on regeneration) and mixing this with some housing, and lets be honest this may mean flats (but lets make them larger flats to accommodate more than just young singles, or in my case old singles) as well as some street level food outlets and restaurants we could not only revitalise the top of town but also boost city centre footfall.

So then what do you do with Darley Street? As I have said I do not think moving the market there will resolve either the markets problems or Darley Streets’ challenges. An alternative would be to look at land closer to Broadway to build a new Market to put it at the heart of retail. There are a few options that can be looked at if the Council was willing to be radical and this could also mean that you could combine the two markets. As for Darley Street I would seriously consider demolishing the buildings that are in the centre of the street ( M & S and the others) and making it an urban park with small kiosk type units which could be used to animate the street into the night. This would form a destination link between the top and bottom of town and also open up Piccadilly and the wonderful buildings that are blocked out, and in soime cases unused at present.

Some people have suggected putting a canopy over Darley Street to make it an all weather venue. Whilst that may be a nice idea I would have concerns about it becoming a wind tunnel.

How much would all this cost? I don’t have access to the technical know how to put a price on it at present, nor to argue with those ‘experts’ who come up with intiguing costsings depending on whether they like the ideas or not, but the Council does have a budget for the current scheme and if it can pull in a private sector partner with the imagination and vision to support it then it could happen in some form or another.

People who know me will recognise that none of the above is startling new thinking from me and this is something I have been discussing anbd working towards for the last couple of years but given the council’s recent announcements and last nights meeting it seemed a good point to join in the current discussion and put some ideas forward whilst people are talking about it. I hope people, even if they don’t agree with all or any of it, will at least find it a useful contribution to the ongoing debate that was started last night.

Just Some Thoughts On Future Regeneration

At a time when Bradford Council’s finances are being slashed by central government, the devolution debate in Yorkshire remains just that, the Northern Powerhouse remains just a Government slogan and people are still scratching their heads over the Brexit implications it is tempting to put the next step in Bradford’s regeneration in the too hard pile and simply cry that ‘something must be done’ or ‘what is the Council doing about it’.
Regeneration is not just about the City or town centres, although these are the front doors onto the wider economy it is about the creation of jobs and businesses throughout the district as well as informing and equipping people for opportunities in the wider region.
This process must start with education which everyone recognises has been an Achilles Heal in Bradford for many years. Successive political administrations, of all political persuasions, have tried to solve the problem and governments and heads of OFSTED have pronounced and pontificated, all with mixed success. The truth is that no one really knows why large parts of the system are failing young people in Bradford (we need to recognise that there are some excellent and outstanding schools and teachers in the district). I have heard many theories, seen many initiatives and come up with my own ideas but the real answer is that currently nobody really knows the reasons and until this happens no one is really going to come up with an answer that sticks. We need to support young people, schools and teachers in their efforts to improve, but we should seek to invest in some work to understand whether there is a particular set of circumstances that see Bradford regularly nearer the bottom than the top of any measures used. If there are then what can be done to address them. If there’s not then maybe we are right to look at lessons from elsewhere and import what we perceive are the best but if we are to do this then we have to stick to a plan, not chop and change with fashion.
I appreciate that all of the above is complicated by the fracturing of our education system; academies, free schools, maintained schools etc, and the increasing centralisation of control from Minsters, OFTED and the Regional Schools Commissioners, but from my experience as a local councillor I would have to say that this has not made much of a difference to local people who still see ‘The Council’ as responsible for all things from admissions to standards; and as the authority with a duty to the community we serve they are right, even if we do not have the powers or tools to do all that we, or the community would wish.
As well as schools we need to look at post 16 education in all its guises. I spent several months chairing the West Yorkshire Further Education Review, established by Government to allegedly improve the co-ordination of FE provision and cooperation between colleges in West Yorkshire, after years of seeing them as competing businesses. What became clear to me was that in the eyes of the government the underlying aim was to save money and potentially create merged colleges. In West Yorkshire this proved difficult for them as the changes that the colleges themselves have made over the years meant that they are fairly lean and efficient and many work well with the private sector in developing skills.
However the biggest failure of the whole process was the explicit exclusion of school sixth forms from the process, therefore ignoring a huge tranche of provision for post 16 year olds. Sixth Form Colleges were included in the review but schools were not. No logical reason was given by ministers but in my view this was in part down to a range war between two ministries and in part because of the on going belief that schools provide academic course whilst colleges provide vocational ones. In truth the best schools and colleges provide both.
So if we are going to ensure that local people are equipped to get the jobs that are being created and will be created in the future we need to build on the success of Get Bradford Working, a scheme launched some 5-6 years ago, where training and other provision were designed to meet local demand for job opportunities, rather than on some national template. The outcomes of GBW are significantly higher than any of the national work programme or similar schemes and we need to use this evidence to get control of the Work Programme and similar budgets to make sure that the schemes reflect the local economy, not a national tick box exercise. This scheme could be run at a local or West Yorkshire level and the importance of this funding will increase as the effect of Brexit is felt in a few years time when European Social Fund Money (ESF) and other EU funds for further and higher education are withdrawn from councils and institutions.
ESF money is particularly important for funding for those who have not succeeded in the school system or have particular needs. These funds are either paid directly through EU grants or come through money top sliced at a national level. They have been used to compensate for cuts made by the UK government in the past and their loss will be critical to the most vulnerable and those furthest away from the labour market.
Get Bradford Working was funded from council reserves and will need replenishing. As a long term investment it has been a success and whilst we are arguing for the devolution of central funds it needs to be continued at a level that is both affordable and effective. This will not only support local citizens in finding employment but also support businesses already in the district, firms moving in or start ups. It will also allow the council to develop training opportunities, in alliance with other local authorities, to develop skills for growth areas in the economy across West Yorkshire to allow access to a wider labour market.
If, as is widely reported, Bradford needs 5000 jobs a year to cope with population growth, it is unlikely that these jobs will all be created in the district and so looking beyond the borders to opportunities will become more important as will the development of infrastructure to allow people to access the jobs. I may well come back to this in future musing but for now I will merely stress the importance of developing a training and skills programme that looks beyond out own, local economy.
How can the Council help create the jobs we need in the future? Given the cuts we have faced and will continue to face for the next few years we need to be very clear about what our priorities are and to concentrate on them. We have invested in public realm over the years and made parts of our district, particularly the City Centre, a more attractive place to invest but we need to maintain this realm to a decent standard. Cuts have fallen hard on the Regeneration Department, as they have on most non statutory services, and this means that our ability to be proactive, rather than reactive has been somewhat curtailed and we need to get back on the front foot.
Business growth and development is not only going to be important for employment but also for the Council’s finances going forward as business rates are going to become a major part of our income as national government removes our grant by 2020, so work to build our economy is not just important for employment but for the provision of other services in the future and should therefore be treated as an investment.
Given the limited financial and human resources available to the Council we need to develop new ways of partnering with investors to bring regeneration to the District. Currently the local economy is not self sustaining as some other cities are and we need to continue to intervene to get ourselves to this point. This means that we must be willing to commit some of our limited reserves to supporting investment but also look at the physical assets, land and buildings, that we own that can be used to lever in investment. We have done this over the years on a case by case basis but now is the time to look at a larger plan and to be proactive.
We should recognise the limitations of what the Council can do on it’s own with limited resources and market intelligence and consider setting up a Joint Venture Partnership with one or more private sector organisations who have the expertise we lack. We already have a JV developing housing on Canal Road and had one in the past which developed the area around Wakefield Road. Both of these have very specific aims but it is now time to think bigger.
The Council could put in land and property into the partnership as well as some capital, either from reserves or through borrowing for investment and purchase of strategic sites. The partners, whoever they may be, would bring their expertise and knowledge of the market as well as finance. By developing a JV that covers significant parts of the district we would be able to access a variety of potential markets, possibly building on our strong manufacturing base and growing service sector.
If the JV was established correctly it has the advantage of a level of democratic oversight that the private market does not have, the ability of the Council to influence the type of investment and the retention of some of the development profits in the local area for either further investment or service provision.
I appreciate that once the lawyers and accountants start on the detail things will not be as simple as I have stated but if the Council is clear and open on its aims and objectives in developing a partnership from the start potential partners will come into the scheme with their eyes wide open.
None of the above is a quick fix, some of it will take several years to even start making a difference, but if we do not start building now on the success we have achieved over the last few years we will again be looking around wondering what has happened to our City and district in a few years time.

After Brexit – What Next

Following the vote last week to leave the EU I, like many of us, have been listening to the experts, pundits and leading politicians, to try and understand what will happen next and what the consequences of it all will be.

Having distilled the wisdom of the last few days I though it would be useful to distill all thoughts and ideas I have heard into one easy, accurate and honest statement:

THEY HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE WHAT WILL HAPPEN, NO IDEA, NIX, NADA, NOT THE FOGGIEST.

The bad news is that this will not stop them pontificating, promising and making unsubstantiated claims, whichever side of the argument they are on.

The good news is…… I’ll get back to you on that

Whither or Wither Devolution

I thought I would return to the subject of devolution as it is still an unresolved issue of West Yorkshire, Bradford and Leeds City Region. I am no longer involved in the detailed debate and negotiation but I hope I am still close enough to have something worth saying.

It needs to be made clear that the devolution that is being proposed by Government is mainly, if not purely, related to the economy. Nothing much has changed from their first pronouncements and whilst many of us would want to see greater local powers over other areas of policy and spend this is currently not on offer. Nor is there any offer of devolution to cities, towns or districts but only to regions. One can debate whether or not this is right, fair or equitable but at the moment we have to play the cards we are dealt and hope that future hands are more to our liking.

As of a few weeks ago I believe that in terms of the asks of Government we were close to agreement, but a combination government caution about upsetting it’s back benchers so close to the EU referendum, the current undeclared Tory Leadership contest and the problems caused by the lack of symmetry between functioning economic areas and local government boundaries has meant that the ardour in the Tory party has somewhat cooled for the moment. An example of political self interest getting in the way of economic progress?

Some Tory MPs want no change whatsoever, some want boundaries that will ensure a Tory Mayor and some are concerned about the future of North Yorkshire Council, I have not yet heard one talk about any benefits that may accrue to residents or businesses in their constituencies; and it is clear from the limited powers that have been devolved that there are real benefits in making decisions locally, not as part of a national blueprint.

If we take the Government at their word (go on try it, just this once) and they are committed to devolution and the Northern Powerhouse then to ignore West Yorkshire / Leeds City Region because of internal political difficulties would be a catastrophy not just for us but for the whole policy.

In terms of economic size, manufacturing, exports and any other measure we are central not just to the northern economy but the national one as well. Allowing us the powers to develop and build on what we have and our potential has got to be a win/win. Some of the things we need to do in transportation may not be as sexy as national announcements of tunnels under the Pennines but their economic benefits would be immense, because we all know what needs to be done to boost output, employment and transportation in the region. Perhaps it is time for Ministers to come clean, stop hiding behind some of the spurious arguments being made about geography and either admit they won’t do it, or take the bull by the horns, face down the political self interest and deliver the first steps in devolution to the people of the region.

Earring on the side of caution

I have spent four years not reading the comments on the Telegraph and Argus website. I was warned that no good could come of it and that very rarely does anyone take to their keybord to say anything nice about any politician, so I erred on the side of caution and avoided all that happened below the line. After all many people chose to be rude to me in person, via email and twitter so why did I need any extra analysis of my failings, especially from people who hide behind pseudonyms.

However over the last week I have succumbed out of curiosity given recent events and I have read the in depth analysis, both good and bad, of my four years as leader. Some of it was good, some bad and some just made up to fit peoples prejudice, but a consistent theme was jewellery.

I am not the first Council leader in Bradford to wear earrings, I am not even the first male Council leader to wear them (political nerd of the week award to those of you who can name the other), but the fixation that some of the commentators have with my choice of ear-lobe attire is bizzare.

People may not like men wearing earrings, they may not like seeing people with tattoos, these may not be your adornment of choice, fine, but don’t get hung up on it. You may think I’m a pillock or just plain wrong but base it on what I’ve done or I haven’t done not my jewellery.

I believe the same thing, say the same thing, fight for the same things whether I have the earrings in or out. You need to concentrate on the message not the messenger not just in my case but in all cases.

The increasing concentration on style over substance leads to blandness and the triumph of spin. Earrings did not, and will not, make be a better or worse Councillor, nor did it make me a better or worse leader. Complain about what I did or didn’t do, preferably under your own name, but you’re better than the fixation on adornment and frippery that some of you have become obsessed with.

Its Been A Funny Old Week

Last Thursday saw the Labour Party increase the number of seats we hold on Bradford Council and then Monday saw me lose my position as Leader of the Labour Group, as I say a funny old week.

This isn’t a blog of self pity, nor is it one seeking sympathy (my experience previously would suggest that the latter would be a false hope anyway) but it is perhaps a cautionary tale for anyone seeking involvement in elected office that, as they say, sh*t happens.

So what happens now, and do you care? Well I’ve got a load of ironing to do, I haven’t hoovered in a couple of weeks (I know what a sloven) and I’ve got a CV to write. However on the plus side I’ve now got more time to do it all.

As well as my domestic and employment chores I will have, as the late Tony Benn described it, more time for politics. I’ve never been a believer in socialism in one country, let alone one district, but the local policies of our political parties have a massive effect on the lives of the local communities we serve. As a lifelong democratic socialist I believe that we need to look at radical alternatives to the current austerity programme, not simply slogans, banner waving and armchair pontificating, but real practical ways we can blunt the attacks on the most vulnerable in our society.

I tried to do this in my four years as leader and will continue, as an active member of the Council and the party, to support policies that benefit the whole of the district and in particular those that most need the support of an active and compassionate state.

On the down side for you lot is the bad news that, given all this time I have on my hands, I may blog more and clutter up your timeline with witty and incisive posts, isn’t that something to look forward to?