Roger Gambba-Jones

I've just received a letter of response from the Driving Standards Agency, explaining why it is necessary to close the test centre in Spalding and it contains some very plausible reasons.  One of these is of course to do with yet another EU Directive on motorcycle training and this is being used as an excuse for the closure of a valued local service.  I haven't read this directive yet, but I bet you a pound to a pinch of salt that our wonderful civil service has yet again managed to take a piece of EU paperwork and goldplate it in a way that no other EU country would even contemplate doing!

Apparently, the issue of increasing the carbon footprint of all our local driving instructors is not an issue at all, as learner drivers should be taught to drive on their local roads and not just how to negotiate the test route.  The closure will also ensure that two hour lessons are the standard, thereby ensuring that the learner gains full benefit from the tuition.  Both these points are sound given the increasing concern over the rising death toll of young newly qualified drivers.   An ‘acceptable' travel distance of 30 miles, based on our population, is quoted as another justification for the closure.  One wonders how such figures are arrived at, when issues such as global warming and rising fuel prices are now major concerns?

However, two very important issues are completely ignored in the DSA reply to me, is that of localism and rural proofing.  The first is intended give local people control of local services.  The second is supposed to protect rural communities from being damaged by central government policies.  Ignoring both these issues demonstrates very clearly the hypocricy in central government's treatment of local government. 

Westminster is putting pressure on local government to transfer power and assets to local people, whilst also delivering quality local services.  Meanwhile, central government departments are working their socks off to move their services away.  First our tax office, now our driving test centre, I wonder what nasty surprise the Polyclinics idea has in store for us?    

I attended a 2 day planning training workshop last week, during which an announcement appeared in the national press about the government wanting everybody to be able to swim for free by 2012.  One of the presenters expressed an interesting view regarding the maximum number of cabinet members local authorities needed to have (in his opinion).

This chap was an expert in all things local government (but still an outsider looking in at the end of the day) and felt that no cabinet needed to be more than 5 strong.  He also felt that there was no requirement, whatever the size of your council, to have two deputy leaders.

His main reason for not liking large cabinets seemed to be the remuneration issue.  In our case that doesn't actually apply because the increase in numbers was brought about by a division of jobs and therefore a division of allowances.

With regards to the two deputy leaders, he felt that this should not be needed if cabinet members were doing their jobs and this is where I have to agree with him on the one hand, but play devil's advocate on the other. 

I don't believe we need two deputy leaders and the leader knows that.  Not only does it confuse things within the council, it gives the clear impression that cabinet members can't be trusted out in the big wide world!  We're fine within the four walls of Priory Road and possibly even within the boundaries of South Holland, but anything beyond that and we have to send an adult! 

This is rather confirmed by the leader when he states that, in order for South Holland to be taken seriously and listened to by the other adults who attend these very important meetings, you have to have leader somewhere in your title, simply being called portfolio holder for ....... is not good enough, they won't give us any money!

I can understand why he says this although, as I said, I don't agree with him.  His argument is, that the government has forced him in to this arrangement by its practice of making councils bid for everything other than its core grant and as he can't attend every 'important' meeting he needs to clone himself!  This of course brings us full circle to the issue of free swimming and why the leader feels justified in having two deputies.

The government's wants everybody to be able to go swimming for free.  I assume it's because were all too fat, rather than because the scientist keep telling us we'll all be under water by the middle of the century?

To encourage this, they've set up a fund of £133m for local authorities to bid into and of course we will probably have to send an adult to some high powered meeting to plead for our share.  If it's really that important, why doesn't the government just give us the money?  Or is this just another way of demonstrating who is really in charge?

Does the latest story on the government's continuing campaign to destroy the rural communities of our country, by starving them of the grant funding to which they are entitled (see the two Daily Telegraph story links below), give us a hint as to why so many government funded services and agency are retreating back to the urban areas?  Rural proofing in action!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2062951/Labour-crisis-Gordon-Brown-diverts-rural-aid-to-bribe-voters%2C-say-Tories.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/2064686/Has-Labour-damaged-the-rural-way-of-life.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me!"

Spalding's Tax Office and Spalding's Driver Test Centre are both under imminent threat of closure.  Despite courageous campaigns by those directly affected and by those of us who value the local service both of these facilities provide, I fear that it is all part of a greater conspiracy to destroy the fabric of rural communities and turn them into weekend playgrounds for the city dwellers the majority of whom appear to be Labour voters.

There have been some cracking films over the years dealing with the subject of government conspiracies against the people and driven by the greedy multi-national corporations.  Mel Gibson played a gibbering idiot of a New York taxi driver in a film called, guess what? yes that's right, Conspiracy. 

Sometimes I feel just like ......... no not Mel Gibson, but a gibbering idiot, prattling on about the way the Government is treating rural communities and I've also been accused of being a sceptic and/or a cynic (a cynic is a sceptic without the evidence isn't it?) on a few occasions.  This is normally demonstrate by the llok on the face of the civil servant delevering the lastest piece of government dictate, when I stand up introduce myself and then say something along the lines of "Hang on, you can't be serious!".

I suppose constant irritation with the machine of government and how we at the local level are forced to keep playing the game by appointing yet another officer to manage this or that initiative and send our officers and lead members scurrying in all directions to plead for money, also means I'm not much of a team player (never was good at sport anyway!).  Well so be it, long live the individual!  Time to get the Government off the people's backs!

We've just completed a rejig of our cabinet at South Holland and I've have relinquished my role as portfolio holder of Organisational Development (OD) in order to concentrate on those areas the government feel are important (no matter what we think at the grass roots!).

Before I get into the detail of my latest (rant?) I have to express my regret at giving up the OD.   This hard working team has a truly corporate function (cross-cutting in government speak) that gives us the potential to really get things done, even when some initial resistance is experienced - as a Trekkie I would quote our friends the Borg by saying - "Resistance Is Futile!". 

However, I'm sure it's now in the safe hands of one of my cabinet colleagues and the OD Team can now be assured that they will now have two friends at the cabinet table!   

Anyway, I now have the specific role of advancing our policies on reducing the carbon footprint of South Holland and promoting way of reducing the negative impact we all have on the environment. 

Now don't get me wrong on this, especially if you're a global warming sceptic, I have yet to be convinced on that one despite Mr Gore and his wonderful film!  The GW issue has become even more confusing by the recent press reports regarding the 31,000 scientist who have re-signed a letter stating that they do not support the claims that man is responsible for this phenomenon!

However, even if it is somehow proven that we are not the cause and that this would of happened even if the planet was still populated by the dinosaurs (careful now, no jokes about elected members and local government here please, I'm trying to be serious!) there would still be an irresistible case for reducing our impact on our environment.  The recent oil crisis, rise in food prices, loss of the rain forests, increasing population, reduction in some animal species to near extinction, etc, etc., must tell us that human kind is consuming the planet on which we live at an unacceptable and unsustainable rate.  Can you imagine what our grandchildren's grandchildren will be saying about us if we don't do something about it and do it soon?

So, whilst I remain to be convinced on the GW issue, I will be fully behind any steps we take and any sensible and achievable policies we can put in place to reduce the damage we are doing - and I am convinced about that!