The remarks from Sir Ed Davey MP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats and former Energy Secretary in the Coalition show how little room there is for any candidates to propose anything meaningful
TL/DR? You can read Sir Ed Davey’s remarks in the Cambridge News here and come to your own conclusions.
These read like they could have been generated by an AI machine. The words in “quotation marks” are from the article, and the words in **stars** are my generic interpretation to show they could be written for any of the other political parties.
Warm welcome on the doorstep? How often do politicians publicise a really bad day out and about?
“We are getting a great reception on the doorstep, I am really grateful to people for being so welcoming to Liberal Democrats.”
**We are getting a great reception on the doorstep, I am really grateful to people for being so welcoming to our party**
Buzzword bingo
“What we are hearing is people are still angry with the Conservatives, they have not forgiven them, and they are very disappointed in Labour, and they see us as frankly the only serious alternative with local candidates from the local community, with ideas to tackle the problems, whether it is potholes or social care.”
***What we are hearing is people are still angry with the Blue Party, they have not forgiven them, and they are very disappointed in the Red Party, and they see us, the Yellow Party as frankly the only serious alternative with local candidates from the local community, with ideas to tackle the problems, whether it is [buzzword 1] or [buzzword 2].***
Who pays?
“Mr Davey said funding for councils had been a “disgrace under the Conservatives”, and said his party wanted to see improvements to social care, which he said would help council budgets and the NHS.”
***Our glorious leader said funding for the public offices my party has candidates for, had been a “disgrace under the Blue Party”, and said his party wanted to see improvements to social care, which he said would help council budgets and the NHS [even though the public office up for grabs has absolutely zero powers to make that happen]***
The mess left by the last lot…
“…we were clearing up a very long mess left by the Conservatives, so it can be quite tricky.”
***the mess left by the Blue Party…***
“However, if you listen to people, if you consult, you can make difficult decisions, but make the right ones where you prioritise and protect the spending that matters to people, while reducing back office costs. I have been really impressed by how Liberal Democrat run councils have been cutting back room management costs, energy costs, those sorts of things where they can make sure there is more investment on the frontline.”
**I have been really impressed by how Yellow-party-run councils have been cutting back room management costs, energy costs, those sorts of things where they can make sure there is more investment on the frontline.**
Whoever has been in control in any local council over the past 15 years has had excruciatingly painful cuts to make – in the face of very visibly high council tax rises.
What’s grim is that incoming Treasury Ministers have made it clear that an overhaul of how local government in England is financed, is not on the cards. And such is the iron grip of The Treasury on the rest of Whitehall (and the country) that local government ministers either have to go along with it or resign. Which is a bit rubbish given that four years ago MPs on the Housing & Local Government Select Committee told Ministers that local government finances were unsustainable. MPs on a Tory-dominated select committee that whose party in government had brought in such huge cuts some eleven years before.
Which is why I keep reminding anyone curious enough to ask as to why you won’t see much change with council services in the longer term unless the structures are overhauled. For now, ministers are sticking with their announced increases in overall spending, small as they are.
“Would reporters have gotten much change out of any of the other party leaders?”
Probably not, because they are unfamiliar with the local area and local issues – in particular the negative impacts of the rapid and unequal economic growth in and around Cambridge. The nature of such visits by national politicians is that they will get a briefing paper from their local or regional party – one that has a few sides of suggested quotations to give to the media that they then reprint/publish without further comment or analysis. Most local operations simply don’t have the journalists with the capacity, subject expertise, or sufficient time on the ground to know the local political history to pass informed comment. (Is that last point their job or for someone else?)
“What would you have liked instead?”
Hard to say when the wider structures and systems are utterly broken and have been for decades.
Ideally? Fewer sentences from the party leader, and more sentences from the candidates covering their top policies *and the dependencies* – i.e. things that will need central government support.
Because that could then call out ministers and leave central government with a choice – light rail being a classic case study for Cambridgeshire & Peterborough. (Do have a read of the 2004 report by National Audit Office on light rail in England – the lessons still apply!!!)
Four out of five candidates back light rail for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
We heard that at the recent online hustings I wrote about here. As I wrote, Labour’s Cllr Anna Smith could not make that same commitment because Treasury Ministers had not given her permission to do so. At the moment, the other four candidates are having to face questions on *how* they propose funding such a major public transport infrastructure project. Because their parties are not in government and because their MPs and Peers are yet to table parliamentary questions on how a light rail for Cambridge (and/or Cambridgeshire and Peterborough) might be financed, no one really knows the answer. (I have thrown a direct question to the Department for Transport, but the response won’t be back until after the elections).
This means that ministers have two options:
- Demonstrate that in the event of Labour losing control of the Combined Authority, they would respect the will of the local electorate and make arrangements for the financing of a light rail for the Cambridge economic sub-region (even if it meant increasing taxes on the businesses and industry sectors (which would benefit the most))
- Demonstrate that in the event of Labour losing control of the Combined Authority, they would turn the guns of central government on the incoming mayor of whichever party, tear them to bits for promising something they could not deliver, and ultimately demonstrate that combined authorities are merely the delivery agents of central government, and that Devolution is ‘DINO” – in name only, as Labour’s former Communities & Local Government Secretary John Denham, and Janice Morphet wrote in this paper in August 2024.
Ministers cannot have it both ways.
Food for thought?
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on BSky <- It’s much less abusive on here compared with Birdsite (in my experience)
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 