Latest news with #constituents
Daily Mail
12-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Lib Dem council claims four-day week for staff is a success ahead of vote to make it permanent - but locals hit out at 'deteriorating' services
The four-day working week hailed by its Lib Dem-run council as a success has been met with uproar from its constituents. South Cambridgeshire district council became the first local authority to trial staff working 80per cent of their contracted hours for full pay as long as they maintained full productivity. The council has said it expects to save about £400,000 annually due to through lower staff turnover and relying less on agency workers - the original dilemma which reportedly inspired the scheme. But locals have hit out at the proposals ahead of a vote to make it permanent next week, saying they are fed up of phone lines going unanswered and waiting on responses to emails. One resident told The Times that they found it unfair council employees were able to work four days a week when constituents had to work five to be able to pay their council taxes - that allegedly go up year after year. Another said: 'How can you do 100 per cent of the work in 80 per cent of the time? You can't, it just shows how little the council expects of their staff. They are now doing 80 per cent of their job in 80 per cent of their time!' One business owner believed the service the council provided had gone down, citing communication issues that they felt were down to the limited availability of council employees. A resident survey found only 45 per cent supported the trial and said refuse collection, council tax services and the customer contact centre had all become worse in that time. The locals' remarks come a week after the council released their survey assessing the scheme during its first 27 months, which was monitored by three universities. They found that nine out of 24 council services improved, 12 remained stable and three declined. The consultation response found that of the 13 services measured, nine got worse while four stayed the same, according to those who live in the area. Those to suffer included bin collections, the communications service, licensing matters and environmental health. A business survey found that of the ten services measured, one got worse, four stayed the same and five recorded no result. No increases in satisfaction for services were recorded. Cambourne resident Jill Hyne, 79, said 'if it was a private company then that's fair, they decide the hours. But this is a council service with taxpayers' involved'. Tutor Wendy Lee, 54, added that she was unsure how the employees hours and work could be effectively monitored. Despite locals' concerns, there was 120 per cent increase in job applications and a 40 per cent fall in staff turnover. There were some who did believe the trial to be effective, with one telling The Times: 'They're saving money and they're doing it in a way so that the work hasn't lost its productivity. I don't care about the days they work as long as they're building a long-term efficient workforce.' Elliot Keck of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the survey results were 'devastating' and the response of residents had been 'brutal'. 'South Cambridgeshire council has nowhere to hide after this bruising consultation completely collapses its case for the four day week,' he said. 'Wheeling out yet another piece of propaganda masquerading as an independent report will fool no one, given the overwhelmingly negative response from residents and frosty reception from businesses. 'Town hall bosses need to now face the music, apologise to local taxpayers and bring back the full-time council.' Mr Keck further criticised the 'supposedly independent' report compiled by the three universities after a previous report was found to have been edited by the council's chief executive. Heather Williams, leader of the Conservative opposition, said the new report actually showed that resident satisfaction had fallen in every area since the trial began. 'This reaffirmed my view that this is not something we should be doing at the council. It's incredibly unfair that council tax is going up year after year,' she told the Mail. 'Now it's going up to fund council officers not to work a full week. Residents aren't council - we are legally bound to pay our council tax. 'This has to stop. Residents have had their say and we have to take what they say seriously.' In 2023 it emerged that Liz Watts, the council's chief executive, had helped to edit a supposedly independent report on the scheme. It also emerged that she had been working on her PhD during the four-day week. The council have since said the 'data from the trial … will be used in Liz's research'. Len Shackleton, a research fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank, told the Times there were 'clearly benefits' if staff were happier and stayed in their jobs. But he also questioned whether this was due to workers improving because they know they are under scrutiny. And he warned that rolling out the policy more broadly may also have an inflationary effect as workers in sectors where a four-day week is impossible may demand pay rises to compensate. 'If it works for South Cambridgeshire, good for them. But if this is used as a template for every council across the country, you might run into problems,' he added. Defending the policy, council leader Ms Smith said South Cambridgeshire was 'now offering more stable services, with improved wellbeing and performance'.
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
Daily Mail
24-06-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Time to tackle the scourge of Scotland's seagulls...before somebody is killed
Many people find it tempting to dismiss the threat posed by gulls as comic, or to make flippant comparisons with Hitchcock's thriller The Birds. But not the increasing number of those who, from direct experience, know there is nothing funny about the menace that gulls now pose, not only in coastal communities, but in the centre of our largest towns and cities. There's no question that these birds have become ever bolder, and that they pose a very serious risk of injury, particularly to the elderly, the vulnerable and young children. Sooner or later, swooping attacks from gulls will cause serious injury or even fatalities. We, and many of our colleagues in parliament, have been inundated with complaints from constituents who have had to deal with this scourge. We've heard from people who have required medical attention, and in some cases even hospitalisation, because of attacks by birds. The elderly are particularly at risk from injuries as a result of falls. Toddlers face serious damage if they ingest guano – the highly toxic droppings – which may land on them or in their prams or buggies. And everyone is inconvenienced and intimidated by the sheer number of these creatures, who face little or no deterrent for their increasingly aggressive attacks. It is having a significant effect on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, and has left some people in the worst affected areas anxious about stepping out in public. There may be several factors behind the rise in this problem, including the failure to keep on top of basic tasks such as refuse collection and changes to the birds' natural habitat, whether man-made or climate-related, but the chief reason is undoubtedly the reluctance of the authorities to take active steps to control the problem with effective deterrents. When quizzed on the matter at Holyrood, ministers have been inclined to minimise the issue and tend to turn instead to the question of conservation and the declining number of seabirds. Everyone is in favour of protecting genuinely endangered species, but it is an absurd state of affairs when government disregards a clear and present danger to the public in favour of a theoretical risk to creatures that are clearly thriving in, and indeed dominating, populated areas that are not their natural territory. Those skewed priorities are a direct consequence of the role played by NatureScot, the Scottish government arms-length body which is responsible for protecting bird numbers in Scotland, but is also the authority responsible for approving or rejecting licences to control them. That creates a clear conflict of interest and – judging by their actions – NatureScot have come down firmly on the side of the gulls, rather than the people whose lives are being made a misery by their behaviour. Last year, without any warning and without any explanation, NatureScot stopped issuing licences for the control of gulls altogether. When we both raised the matter and pressured them for action, they were belatedly embarrassed into granting limited permissions. Many colleagues across the political divide have told us that their constituents have raised similar concerns, which is why the debate this week has attracted cross-party support. But NatureScot's instinct is clearly to oppose any effective means to deal with the problem. In Eyemouth, after a series of gull attacks, they made the preposterous suggestion that dogs should be employed to scare birds away. That is, frankly, bonkers. The sheer impracticality of this suggestion is an indication that this unaccountable quango is failing to take the problem seriously. When they do not dismiss it or prioritise hypothetical benefits for seabirds over real improvements for people, their proposed solutions are increasingly bizarre and unrealistic. They impose significant costs – in some instances running into six figures – on businesses. And they've been encouraged in this intransigent and unreasonable position by government ministers to whom, in theory, they are accountable. Yet when questioned, those same ministers seem happy to parrot the lines produced by the apparatchiks at NatureScot. People are sick and tired of the failure of the government to act to deal with what has become a serious threat to public safety, as well as a blight on our villages, towns and cities. MSPs have an opportunity to correct that this week, and produce an effective means to tackle this menace.
The Independent
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Wales will overhaul its democracy at the next election. Here's what's changing
Next May's Senedd (Welsh parliament) election won't just be another trip to the polls. It will mark a major change in how Welsh democracy works. The number of elected members is increasing from 60 to 96, and the voting system is being overhauled. These changes have now passed into law. But what exactly is changing – and why? When the assembly was first established in 1999, it had limited powers and just 60 members. Much has changed since then and it now has increased responsibility, including primary law-making powers over matters such as health, education, environment, transport and economic development. The Wales Act 2014 also bestowed a number of new financial powers on the now Senedd, including taxation and borrowing powers. But its size has stayed the same. This led to concerns about capacity and effectiveness. In 2017, an independent expert panel on electoral reform concluded that the Senedd was no longer fit for purpose. It warned that 60 members simply weren't enough to scrutinise the Welsh government, pass legislation and respond to constituents. A bigger chamber, it argued, would improve both the quality of lawmaking and democratic accountability. Wales also has fewer elected politicians per person than any other UK nation. Scotland has 129 MSPs, while Northern Ireland has 90 MLAs. Even with next year's changes, Wales will still have fewer elected members per citizen compared with Northern Ireland. More Senedd members could ease workloads, improve local representation and importantly, may encourage a more diverse pool of people to stand for office. How is the voting system changing? Alongside expansion will be a change in how Senedd members are elected. Since its inception, Wales has used the 'additional member system', which is a mix of first-past-the-post for constituency seats and proportional representation for regional ones. From 2026, that system will be replaced by a closed list proportional system, using the D'Hondt method. It's a system which is designed to be fairer, ensuring that the proportion of seats a party wins more closely reflects the votes they get. But it also means voters will have less say over which individuals get elected. Wales will be divided into 16 constituencies, each electing six MSs. Instead of voting for a single candidate, voters will choose one party or an independent candidate. Parties will submit a list of up to eight candidates per constituency. Seats will then be allocated based on the overall share of the vote each party gets, with candidates elected in the order they appear on their party's list. For example, if a party wins a percentage share of the vote equating to three seats, the top three people on their party list will be elected. The calculation for this is defined by the D'Hondt formula. The decision to adopt this method in Wales was one of the recommendations of the special purpose committee on Senedd reform in 2022. Several countries across Europe use this system for their elections, including Spain and Portugal. In countries with small constituency sizes, D'Hondt has sometimes favoured larger parties and made it harder for smaller parties to gain ground. That's something observers in Wales will be watching closely. An alternative method, Sainte-Laguë, used in Sweden and Latvia, is often seen as more balanced in its treatment of small and medium-sized parties, potentially leading to more consensual politics. But it, too, has its downsides. In countries which have many smaller parties, it can lead to fragmented parliaments and make decision-making more difficult. In sum, no system is perfect. But D'Hondt was chosen for its balance between proportionality, simplicity and practicality. Could this confuse voters? One concern is the growing differences between electoral systems across the UK and even within Wales itself. At the UK level, first-past-the-post (FPTP) is the method used for Westminster elections. Meanwhile, some Welsh councils are experimenting with the single transferable vote method, which lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. So, some people in Wales could find themselves navigating three different voting systems for three different elections. Obviously, this raises the risk of confusion. Voters who are used to one vote and the 'winner takes all' nature of FPTP may be confused by how seats are allocated in Wales come 2026. With numerous different systems, the risk is that people do not fully understand how their vote translates into representation. In turn, this risks undermining confidence and reducing voter turnout. Voters will need clear, accessible information on how their vote works – and why it matters. But this is particularly challenging when UK-wide media often defaults to FPTP-centric language and framing surrounding debates, which can shape public expectations. News about Wales often barely registers beyond its borders, while news about politics in Wales barely registers within. Electoral reform often prompts broader conversations. As Welsh voters adjust to the new proportional system, some may begin to question Westminster's FPTP model, especially if the Senedd better reflects the diversity of votes cast. FPTP is frequently criticised for producing 'wasted votes' and encouraging tactical voting, particularly in safe seats. Under a more proportional system, tactical voting becomes less necessary, which has the potential to shift voter habits in Wales. If the 2026 reform leads to a more representative and effective Senedd, it may not only reshape Welsh democracy, but reignite debates about electoral reform across the UK.
CTV News
04-06-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Saskatchewan MLA recounts ‘scary' evacuation process as wildfires rage
Watch Saskatchewan MLA Jordan McPhail speaks on the 15,000 people, mostly from his constituency, having to evacuate due to raging wildfires.
