A Very Constructive Meeting

Tonight I attended a Mebyon Kernow branch meeting.

What struck me was the sheer determination of our members to put Cornwall and the people of Cornwall first.

At the beginning of every meeting (after apologies and the usual formal rigmarole) we have reports from our councillor members - a chance for councillors and other members to catch up and communicate about what is happening in their own individual localities. Over the last year this section has begun to take up a significant amount of time. Tonight we had eight councillors present, from Parish to Unitary level, talking about a wide range of issues from protecting heritage to setting budgets. It was extremely rewarding to see how Mebyon Kernow continues to be involved in local communities, to take part and to lead the way.

At the same time we discussed policy proposals for our upcoming national conference. In particular, tonight, we looked at housing and development policy. Mebyon Kernow is in the process of developing a comprehensive policy that will provide innovative Cornish solutions to Westminster imposed problems.

We are also looking forward to and actively planning for the 2013 unitary elections. We already have three fully ratified prospective candidates in our branch - Cllr Stuart Cullimore, Cllr John Rowe and myself. We also have a list of eight other potential candidates that we are fitting into the jigsaw that is our campaign plan. We are well on course to provide our branch's quota of MK's national target to field 50 candidates in the 2013 elections and with more members joining with each meeting we are looking to do even better.

There is a real 'buzz' in the branch at the moment - and I am hearing the same thing from other branches of MK across Cornwall. This is reflected in the recent flurry of members and councillors defecting from the tarnished Liberal Democrats.

We always welcome new members who want to make a difference and work for a better Cornwall. Please contact me if you think you might want to be part of something exciting and special over the next few years.

starichardson@btinternet.com

That's My Boy!

My son, Sam, has just been elected as a Student Councillor at Staffs University where he is studying Broadcast Media.

I would like to say he is following in his Dad's footsteps but I fear he is already far ahead of me!

He has set up his own political blog (Stoke Elected) and recently managed to secure an exclusive interview with the Leader of the Stoke on Trent Unitary Council. A few months ago he met David Miliband following a debate at Staffs Uni. While he maintains his blog (and keeps his academic studies at a very high grade level) he also helps to report for and present a weekly politics show on student radio.

His involvement in student life at Staffs follows his work at Camborne College where he produced his own newsletter and served on the Student Union, resulting in a Star Award in 2010.

When see reports of young people being involved in gang culture and rioting I believe that I am particularly blessed to have three extremely socially minded children, each of whom I like to think bring something good to the world.

MK Develop Ties With Small Nations

MK Deputy Leader and Cornwall Councillor for Callington, Andrew Long, recently visited Estonia.

See here for Cornish Guardian report.

With a population of just over one million, Estonia is one of many small nations that show that being small doesn't mean you can't be viable as an economic entity.

Affordability - Another Westminster Red Herring

Over the last month or two I have tried to show that the Conservative (supported by their Lib Dem whipping boys) idea of 'Localism' is anything but - especially when it comes to development policy.

There is, sadly, another term that seems to be being scattered like confetti by Westminster politicians. A cynical attempt to fool us into believeing that they are trying to solve the housing crisis in Cornwall.

'Affordable Housing' is the mantra of the politcian that wants us to think that he or she understands the situation and wants to do something about it. If some LibLabCon person mentions Affordable Housing and the dire need for homes for local people it demonstrates their empathy for the struggle that the people of Cornwall are facing. Yeah - right!

The problem is what they mean by 'Affordable Housing' and what we would like to think they mean are very different things.

'Affordable Housing' is actually a specifically defined term to be found in the Department for Communities and Local Government's Policy Statement . There is also information on Cornwall Council's website.

There are basically two parts to Affordable Housing - the rented sector and purchase sector. As the subject of Affordable Housing usually comes up in the media in the context of people being able to buy their own home I mainly looked at what the policy means for people who want to do just that.

Basically Affordable Housing is available to Eligble Households who earn less than Stephen Gilbert MP and who have a development building Affordable Housing within 10 miles or so of where they currently live. If you want to buy your home outright then you may be able to find a house with a "20% - 50% discount" compared to market value.

Given that the average house price in Cornwall is now over £220,000 even a 50% dscount would be £110,000.

I have asked for more information from Cornwall Council as to exacly how many discounted Affordable Homes have been provided in Cornwall over the last year and what the average discount has been and I will blog again when I get this information.

However, in the meantime I will make a few assumptions.

First of all the average price includes all housing and will be distorted by higher value detached houses. I will use £185,000 as the basic market value price. This is the figure for the average semi-detached house in Cornwall.

Secondly I will assume the discount is 25%. I have seen a few schemes where a 20% discount has been offered but never any where 50% was available, so I think 25% is being generous.

This means an average Affordable Home would cost £138,750.

Given the average wage in Cornwall is now £17,000, this means that the average Affordable House is more than 8 times the average wage. Of course this means that, as everyone knows, even an Affordable House isn't affordable.

So what does all this mean?

Well it means that there is no such thing as an Affordable House for the average person in Cornwall.

It means that politicians in Westminster parties are at best being disingenuous at best when they talk about their committment to Affordable Housing because they are merely talking about a committment to something that doesn't exist.

However, there is more harm being done by the Affordable Housing red herring.

The hidden problem is that supposed Affordable Housing is being used to drive development in Cornwall using the fairy tale that housing is being provided for local need as well as developers' greed.

The media allows people who have a vested interest in seing houses built to make comments such as:

"There is a pent up demand for houses."

"There is a housing shortage so we need to build more."

What nobody is ever allowed to say is:

"Building more houses - even Affordable Housing won't allow the average person in Cornwall to buy one."

So who are all the houses for?

They must be for people who can afford them - whoever these people are they are not your average Cornish person on the streets of Camborne, St Austell, Bude or Penzance!

A Duchy Algebra Poser

If the Duke of Cornwall retires to bed at midnight and is woken for breakfast at 9:00am by his staff, will he have trousered more or less than the average person in Cornwall earns in a year?

The answer:

Income from the Duchy = £18m per year.

This is £2054 each and every hour of every day.

9 x £2054 = £18486.

Average Cornish annual wage = £17,000

Therefore, Charles makes approximately £1486 more by getting a good night's sleep than a hard working Cornishman earns in a year.

A while back I saw comments on Facebook which maintained that it was obscene that prima donna footballers were earning hundreds of thousands of pounds while soldiers in Afghanistan were being payed peanuts for possibly sacrificing their lives.

I totally agree with those Facebook comments. The point is though, that it is society that chooses to pay over-inflated ticket prices at football matches while it elects a government that not only fails to look after its soldiers but fails to equip them properly as well. If society really wanted to change things it could refuse to pay the ticket price and could elect a government that would look after its soldiers.

It is obscene that footballers earn so much more than people who are prepared to lay down their lives. It also obscene that Charles Windsor, through an accident of birth, should receive more money for going to bed than a normal person would earn in a year and that all this is cloaked in secrecy and never subject to any electoral review.

Private Estate Myth Unravelling Fast!

The Duchy of Cornwall website informs us that the Duchy is a 'private estate'.

Earlier this week the Guardian headlined the news that the Duke of Cornwall, by rights accrued through the Duchy of Cornwall, had been consulted on parliamentary legislation and could have possibly vetoed that legislation.

Of course the question is how can a 'private individual' have constitutional rights?

None of this is news to Cornish constitutional campaigners who, for decades, have been questioning how the Duke can claim all of the benefits of a constitutional body (which is what the Duchy really is) and yet completely ignore the responsibilities that it brings.

Today the decision defining the duchy as a public body under environmental regulations was made by the First-Tier Tribunal on information rights, a court that deals with disputes relating to freedom of information.

It seems that the myth of the Duchy of Cornwall being merely a private estate is unravelling fast.

Apparently Duchy officials are: "reviewing the Tribunal's reasons for reaching its conclusion with a view to establishing whether to appeal the decision"

Not an easy decision for an organisation that has sought to peddle the private estate myth and shroud the Duchy in secrecy.

Mebyon Kernow has consistently called for a full inquiry into the true status of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Save £1.1 Million or Spend a Penny?

Today Cornwall Council voted to reccommend dropping funding for 114 public toilets in order to save £1.1 million.

Before, during and after the debate, leading members of the twitterati and blogosphere had a field day - mainly opposed to the idea.

I, for one, am all for it. In fact, I don't think the proposal goes far enough.

Some claim (including me) that the Unitary Council has been a complete disaster for Cornwall. Some of its misdemeanours have ranged in cost from a few hundred pounds to possibly millions include: ordering silk ties to improve the 'corporate image', helping to fund Devon in a wasted bid to bring world cup football to Plymouth and the on-going incinerator debacle.

In the meantime Kevin Lavery's salary remains extortionate, Officers pay is out of control (while normal people face redundancy) and CC Cabinet members claim huge allowances.

I strongly believe in subsidiarity (in the true meaning of the term) rather than the ideological cost cutting that forms the basis of Tory 'localism'. This is what makes me think that Cornwall Council should stop funding all public toilets and leave it to local communities to manage.

The Unitary Authority should be there to make high level, strategic decisons that affect the way that Cornwall operates as a complete entity. It should be responsible for things like education, healthcare and the co-ordination of emergency services.

In my mind there is no justification for Cornwall Council to micro-manage thing like public toilets. I believe that there would be many benefits, both financial and organisational, if they were managed by towns and parishes.

For example the local community could decide if it wanted the toilets in the first place. They could then decide the best way to mange the service and aspects of that service such as opening hours etc. Local councils could join together to share the costs of maintenace, so as to not lose the efficiencies af scale, and yet still make the contractors far more accountable for the service that they provided. Some toilets might be 'pay as you go' (perhaps in tourist spots) while others might be 'contract' for the benefit of locals. Indeed, there could be a mixture of PAYG and contract at different times of the year - the possibilities are endless and would be down to local people to decide what would be best for them.

Now I can hear, some of you saying "This lets CC off the hook. They are just saving money by badgering local councils into taking responsibility." Well, maybe it does - but ultimately the cost of the service is paid for by through the UA portion of council tax or through the local precept. Surely it will work out better value for money if the service is managed by and made accountable to local people.

There should be more services being devolved to local councils - but we have to face up to the fact that the balance of local taxes has also to swing in favour of the local councils in order to allow this to happen.

This does not mean that I believe that Cornwall Council cabinet have brought about this debate because they believe in subsidiarity. Far from it. They have done it because they are driven by Tory cost cutting ideology, however, why not play them at their own game and rise to the challenge.

At the same time we could throw down a few challenges of our own. Why not transfer car parks to local authorities to manage for the benefit of their residents rather than to (incorrectly as it has turned out) provide funds to subsidise the aforementioned silk ties, Devon football and construction schemes lacking planning permission. Of course, as all these myriad small services that could be provided locally are transferred into local ownership there would be less justification for Kevin Lavery's salary as he would not be resposible for so many different things. There would be less need for so many officers as there would be nothing for them to do. Finally, there would be no need at all for Cabinet Support Members or indeed quite so many Cabinet Members on high 'volunteer' allowances.