“There is one important subject I do not want to pass over, the mistake which princes can only with difficulty avoid making if they are not extremely prudent or do not choose their ministers well.”

“There is one important subject I do not want to pass over, the mistake which princes can only with difficulty avoid making if they are not extremely prudent or do not choose their ministers well.  I am referring to flatterers, who swarm in the courts.  Men are so happily absorbed in their own affairs and indulge in such self-deception that it is difficult for them not to fall victim to this plague; and some efforts to protect oneself from flatterers involve the risk of becoming despised.  This is because the only way to safeguard yourself against flatterers is by letting people understand that you are not offended by the truth; but if everyone can speak the truth to you then you lose respect.  So a shrewd prince should adopt a middle way, choosing wise men for his government and allowing only those the freedom to speak the truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinion, and nothing else.  But he should also question them thoroughly and listen to what they say; then he should make up his own mind, by himself.  And his attitude towards his councils and towards each one of his advisers should be such that they will recognize that the more freely they speak out the more acceptable they will be. Apart from these, the prince should heed no one; he should put the policy agreed upon into effect straight away, and he should adhere to it rigidly.  Anyone who does not do this is ruined by flatterers or is constantly changing his mind because of conflicting advice: as a result he is held in low esteem.

I want to give a modern illustration of this argument.  Bishop Luca, in the service of Maximilian the present emperor, said of his majesty that he never consulted anybody and never did things as he wanted to; this happened because he did the opposite of what I said above.  The emperor is a secretive man, he does not tell anyone of his plans, and he accepts no advice.  But as soon as he puts his plans into effect, and they come to be known, they meet with opposition from those around him; and then he is only too easily diverted from his purpose.  The result is that whatever he does one day is undone the next, what he wants or plans to do is never clear, and no reliance can be placed on his decisions.

A prince must, therefore, never lack advice.  But he must take it when he wants to, not when others want him to; indeed, he must discourage everyone from tendering advice about anything unless it is asked for.  All the same, he should be a constant questioner, and he must listen patiently to the truth regarding what he has inquired about.  Moreover, if he finds that anyone for some reason holds the truth back he must show his wrath.  And though many suppose that a prince may rightly be esteemed shrewd not because he is so himself but because of the quality of those there to advise him, they are undoubtedly mistaken.  For this is an infallible rule: a prince who is not himself wise cannot be well advised, unless he happens to put himself in the hands of one individual who looks after all his affairs and is an extremely shrewd man.  In this case, he may well be given good advice, but he would not last long because the man who governs for him would soon deprive him of his state.  But when seeking advice of more than one person a prince who is not himself wise will never get unanimity in his councils or be able to reconcile their views.  Each councillor will consult his own interests; and the prince will not know how to correct or understand them.  Things cannot be otherwise, since men will always do badly by you unless they are forced to be virtuous.  So the conclusion is that good advice, whomever it comes from, depends on the shrewdness of the prince who seeks it, and not the shrewdness of the prince on good advice.”

The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

Is Rachel Reeves Labour’s secret weapon?

A multi-layered patchwork quilt of local administrative bodies, variable revenue raising powers, statutory responsibilities and voluntary responsibilities etc will not make the landscape of the UK economy easier to navigate, Sir Keir!

“I think the shadow cabinet is still not absolutely the powerhouse it could be,” one shadow cabinet minister said. “There are a lot of people who are not in the right jobs. What is Jim McMahon doing there? Anneliese Dodds is invisible. And Lisa Nandy is clearly unhappy so why doesn’t she get something else?”

One senior Labour MP predicted that any changes were likely to be very minor reorganisation. “If Keir won’t have people like Rosena Allin-Khan, Darren Jones or Stella Creasy in cabinet because he’s worried about people outshining him, then it’s hardly going to be fruitful for David Miliband is it?”

The Guardian, 22nd December 2022

I suspect that, a little while ago, Lisa Nandy may have grasped that Sir Keir’s Take Back Control Bill would make the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations) in any future Labour Government as potentially unpopular as any Home Secretary.

Imagine, if you will, just being lobbied during the passage of the Bill (and after its enactment) by 533 English MPs, alone, each seeking a sweet deal for their constituency.

And then add in all the other stakeholders, like council leaders, other local worthies and chambers of commerce.

No Secretary of State might reasonably be expected to please them all.

And many of the lobbyists would appreciate at least one face to face meeting with a Minister to put their case as to why Dunny on the Wold should receive especial treatment.

I am confident that they would not appreciate being fobbed off with a meeting with a mere civil servant.

A bed of nails, if not a crown of thorns for any Labour politician still with their eye on the leadership of the Labour Party and Number Ten.

Two of the key constituencies from which such a one would need to draw support in a Labour leadership election are Labour Councillors and Labour MPs, predominantly representing English seats.

The job of Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in a Labour Government would be less stressful party politically, at least, if its holder had no leadership ambitions.

And, if they did it would frustrate those ambitions, nicely.

A Labour leader wishing to neutralise a challenge from an ambitious colleague would keep Nandy right where she is for the time being.

If being in such a position focused a leadership hopeful’s mind and efforts on the matter in hand, at least between now and the next General Election, it would be all to the well and good, particularly in comparison with the alternative.

I imagine many Labour candidates will want some evidence of what the Take Back Control Act would do specifically for the constituency they hope to win at the next General Election for inclusion in their campaign literature.

What will you do for me is a question the voters will naturally ask and they will want a little detail in response.

And, as Sir Keir says this will be Labour’s flagship Bill of its first Kings Speech.

No pressure then for the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations).

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

How To Improve Regional Policy In England: Ten Lessons from 20 Years …

“We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow.“

Henry Williams, a former Bishop of Carlisle, once said: “furious activity is no substitute for understanding”.  The 20 years that I spent on regional development as a civil servant based in the North West of England were certainly ones of furious activity; unfortunately, they were also ones of limited effect. For example, the UK2070 Commission found the UK to be the 28th most regionally divided of the 30 economies it studied.

Here are my ten suggestions to improve regional policy.

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

“Sir Keir, you’ve not really achieved much as PM, have you?” “I Balkanised Government in England and gave power away. I can’t be blamed for the devolved authorities not falling in line with my Government’s national priorities.”

“Today the leader of the main opposition party in the United Kingdom gave a speech.”Today the leader of the main opposition party in the United Kingdom gave a speech.

You can read a version of Keir Starmer’s speech on the Labour party website.

One part of it which seems possibly interesting from a legal perspective is a proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill.”

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

Take Back Control seems to be an example of displacement activity. Let’s focus on changing structures not working with folk in, say, the #NHS to evolve systems to improve the quality of patient care.

“So we will embrace the Take Back Control message. But we’ll turn it from a slogan to a solution. From a catchphrase into change. We will spread control out of Westminster. Devolve new powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances.

“And we’ll give communities a new right to request powers which go beyond this.

“All this will be in a new “Take Back Control” Bill – a centrepiece of our first King’s speech. A Bill that will deliver on the demand for a new Britain. A new approach to politics and democracy. A new approach to growth and our economy.”

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

Is Jon Ashworth only in Sir Keir Starmer KC’s Shadow Cabinet to make the rest of its members look good in comparison?

The problem with storming and norming is that it gets in the way of delivery.

Jon Ashworth, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has pledged Jobcentre Plus under a Labour Government to deliver a national (probably mandatory) back to work programme for the long term sick on benefits, but only after the Jobcentre network has been fundamentally reformed.

And Labour plans to Balkanise the Jobcentre network whether before reform, during reform or after it has yet to be made clear.

I would hazard a guess that in that scenario it might be at least two years before Ashworth’s programme started working with clients.

New Labour’s more ambitious suite of welfare to work programmes was delivered with just a bit of rejigging of what was known then as the Employment Service.

Work started on the New Deal for Young People on 2nd May 1997 and the Pathfinder Districts were up and running at the start of January 1998 with full rollout across England, Scotland and Wales by the middle of April that year.

To govern is to choose.

Would a Labour Government really use up two years out of probably a four year Parliament, redrawing boundaries etc before delivering a flagship programme designed to help employers fill jobs (1.2 million vacancies in January 2022) with locals rather than migrant workers?

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

Is there anyone in Sir Keir Starmer KC’s current Labour Shadow Cabinet with the empathy, stamina and intellectual firepower to steer a Take Back Control Bill through Parliament and get it safely onto the Statute Book?

Is there anyone in Sir Keir Starmer KC’s current Labour Shadow Cabinet with the empathy, stamina and intellectual firepower to steer a Take Back Control Bill through both Houses of Parliament, twice, and get it safely onto the Statute Book?

Some further thoughts on the Balkanisation of Jobcentres and related matters in the context of Take Back Control.

The Tories some time before the 1997 General Election, taking a leaf out of a United States playbook, if memory serves me correctly, devolved some of the responsibility for training and enterprise from the Manpower and Services Commission in Sheffield down to Training and Enterprise Councils at the local authority level, but independent of local government control.

The TECs had a great deal of freedom of manoeuvre whilst still being expected to deliver some national programmes.

One TEC, for example, was for a while putting spare cash on the overnight money markets.

In the case of Birmingham and Solihull, each local authority had its own TEC up until a financial scandal overtook Solihull TEC and it collapsed.

David Cragg, the Chief Executive of Birmingham TEC, and a mover and shaker amongst the Great and Good of the City put in a takeover bid for Solihull TEC that was accepted, although probably not with the approval of the leadership of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council who, like their counterparts in the Black Country are sensitive about Birmingham getting too big for its boots and their comfort.

The TECs got a reputation for dubious behaviour and on at least one occasion, a number of them were exposed for dodgy dealings on national television in a documentary wherein reporters went undercover.

New Labour made clear it would deal with such matters, if it were elected at the General Election in 1997.

Addressing the shortcomings of the TECs was not a priority for New Labour, in comparison with the rollouts of the welfare to work New Deals, like the New Deal for Young People in which the TECs played a key role.

Tony Blair observed on at least one occasion in public that “The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.”

Few appreciated that he was quoting verbatim none other than Aneurin Bevan.

Once the New Deals were in place Labour turned to the TECs.

As an aside and to confuse matters more, NDYP (18 to 24) and New Deal 25 Plus were public sector led in Birmingham, but private sector led in Solihull much to the annoyance of SMBC, who only learnt they were going to be in partnership with the private sector when they were literally at the door of the Regional Director of the West Midlands Employment Service and as part of the partnership team ready to present the Solihull NDYP plan for his consideration.

Their understandable annoyance was caused by a last minute intervention by Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour MP for Coventry North West who was a big fan and champion of private sector involvement in the delivery of publicly funded services and who then had a lot of influence amongst the Labour leadership.

Labour decided to set up a (national) Learning and Skills Council, a non-departmental public body jointly sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Children, Schools and Families in England to replace the TECs.

The LSC was represented at the local level by Local Learning and Skills Councils, shortened to LSC in common usage which acted primarily as its delivery arm.

Labour consulted on the areas the LSCs should cover and at the end of the consultation process, Solihull found itself lumped in with Birmingham as it is today for the first tier of management of the Jobcentre network.

SMBC was not amused by not having their own LSC and demanded sight of the responses to the consultation exercise.

At one point, they threatened the recently established Advantage West Midlands, the Regional Development Agency, with legal action if they did not hand over a copy of their consultation response.

As it happened, I was working at AWM at the time this was all going on and my remit included oversight of the AWM funded regeneration schemes in both Birmingham and Solihull.

If SMBC had had its way it would have joined the Coventry and Warwickshire LLSC which would then have fitted neatly with its membership of the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire (regeneration) Partnership.

There is no rational case for SMBC to have the partial management of the two Jobcentres within its boundaries devolved to it.

Arguably, those two Jobcentres should stay with the Jobcentre network in Birmingham, possibly under some joint management board made up of at a minimum representatives of Jobcentre Plus, Birmingham City Council and SMBC.

This brings us to the Black Country where the Jobcentre Plus District covers the local authority areas of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton.

The four authorities conveniently make up the Black Country Executive Joint Committee.

Of course, there is the position of the (Metropolitan County of the) West Midlands Combined Authority to consider in all this …

I believe this legislation still applies?

Local Authority Controlled and Influenced Companies

“There are special rules that affect companies in which councils have major interests. These are ‘regulated’ companies for the purposes of the Local Government and Housing
Act 1989. They are in effect controlled by (more than 50% interest) or subject to a council’s influence (20% interest plus business relationship) because of its level of interest, either individually, or with a group of other authorities. They will generally be subject to the local government capital finance regime and special propriety controls.”

I gather Margaret Thatcher was opposed to local councils getting around central government control by setting up companies that would effectively operate outside of the legislation covering local authorities.

Instead of market testing, say, refuse collection and having their in house team lose to an external bidder, they might outsource their refuse collection to their newly liberated in house team, operating outside of the law limiting, amongst other things the ability of councils to generate independent revenue streams.

Mrs Thatcher was opposed to councils engaging in what at times might be deemed unfair competition with private sector companies through, for example, the use of cross subsidy to charge below market prices.

And Whitehall and the Treasury, in particular, are not big fans of local authorities (or other public sector bodies) becoming less reliant on the money central government provides to them.

A Take Back Control Bill would seem to present one hell of a headache for those called upon to draw it up and steer it through both Houses of Parliament, twice.

Would Sir Keir’s plan to replace the House of Lords come before or after his flagship Bill?

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

“… the definition of what constitutes actively seeking work for benefit entitlement purposes may be varied from jobseeker to jobseeker in the same Jobcentre without the first tier of management of Jobcentres being devolved …”

The requirement to be available for and actively seeking work (unless one may show good cause not to be so, temporarily) is enshrined at the very heart of the Social Security legislation covering unemployment benefit and dates back to the initiation of unemployment benefit as paid by central government.

There will, I am confident, be no power given to a devolved authority to overturn those fundamental two requirements for receiving unemployment benefit.

If one is seeking full time employment then one needs must be available for, arguably, at least 35 hours a week at times appropriate for the job or jobs one is seeking.

The steps required to show that one is actively seeking work would include anything to do with finding and getting a job.

One might, for example, argue that keeping up with the local business news for the area in which one is looking for work would be one such step.

As an aside, a Jobcentre slogan of thirty years or so ago was, “Getting a job is a job in itself!”

The requirements of what constitutes actively seeking work may vary from jobseeker to jobseeker, even if they are looking for the same type of work thus arguably, if a jobseeker is looking for a job in their local geographical area then they should be seeking a job of which they are capable and which is regularly advertised by employers locally.

The requirements placed on jobseekers around looking for work may be set in the context of local circumstances and should surely be, if their jobsearch is to be successful.

There has, I know, been a lot of comment, ill informed in some cases, about people on unemployment being required to take any job after a permitted period:

Is formally reducing the possible length of a Permitted Period from Thirteen Weeks to Four Weeks just another element of Operation Red Meat?

I go into the setting of permitted periods in detail here:

Determining Entitlement to a Permitted Period

To put it bluntly, the only time to which anyone has ever been entitled in recent decades to refuse to take any job of which they are capable is one week at the start of their unemployment benefit claim and that week starts before the first time you sign on for unemployment benefit which is paid in arrears.

And if you are capable of undertaking a job in a skill shortage area (how ever defined and that is another story completely) that is being advertised locally then why would not be applying for it?

Incidentally, one may not turn down a job offer on the grounds it is not, in your opinion, a ‘good job’.

There is no definition of a good job in Social Security law, however, there are grounds, set out within the legislation and accompanying guidance on which one may turn down a job as I explain here:

Circumstances that may show good reason for a refusal or failure to apply for or accept if offered a job vacancy … in other words, grounds for an appeal.

I am not sure all those who think folk should not take ‘bad jobs’ grasp the consequence of folk doing just that whilst on benefit.

The longer you are unemployed, the more unemployable, rightly or wrongly, you become in the eyes of most employers.

And if jobs go unfilled due to lack applicants, as we are seeing with the fallout of the end of Freedom of Movement then people get made redundant and companies even go out of business with knock on effects across these economy.

The vast majority of businesses in the United Kingdom, 2,476,210 or 89.5% of the total, employ nine or fewer staff and have only one site from which they operate.

They are your local business community and Take Back Control is partly about making Britain the best place (in the known universe?) to start and grow a business as Rachel Reeves puts it.

In short, the definition of what constitutes actively seeking work for benefit entitlement purposes may be varied from jobseeker to jobseeker in the same Jobcentre without the first tier of management of Jobcentres being devolved, in the case of Birmingham, from a District Office over a Jobcentre on Sutton New Road, Erdington, to an anonymous council building somewhere in or near Birmingham city centre.

However, individuals and sometimes whole organisations have an unfortunate tendency to be wary, if not frightened of discretionary powers so it is not unusual for guidelines to become rules and freedom of movement to become narrowed to the point where the exercising of discretion becomes frowned upon, if not actively discouraged by ‘guidance’.

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

“Bernard, you must never forget that the elected politicians at Westminster, our lords and masters, are mere placeholders. We, the mature oaks of His Majesty’s Civil Service in Whitehall are the permanent government of His Realm.”

Will the gathered Permanent Secretaries at their next Shadow Cabinet meeting allow themselves a little chuckle about Sir Keir giving away power from Westminster, but not Whitehall?

One of his Tweets, today:

“My Labour government will introduce a Take Back Control Bill.

We will harness the potential that grows, not out of Westminster, but out of our communities.

We will devolve power across the UK, giving people control over their own future.

A new approach to politics.”

Twitter, of course, allows for little subtlety, but I assume Sir Keir does not mean there is no potential at Westminster …

“Bernard, you must never forget that the elected politicians at Westminster, our lords and masters, are mere placeholders. We, the mature oaks of His Majesty’s Civil Service in Whitehall are the permanent government of His Realm.”

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill

“Will a Labour Government provide discreet funding for technical support during the process of devolution?”

When I was a secondary school governor, the governing body routinely adopted draft policies circulated amongst schools by the Department for Education.

We simply agreed to accept the policy as drafted by civil servants at DfE and instructed the head to insert the details of our school in the appropriate places in the document sufficient to make it our own.

We lacked the time, although not necessarily always the competence to amend the draft policy or draw up our own.

Moreover, if for some reason a difficulty arose over the area covered by a policy that we had adopted lock, stock and barrel, we had the comfort and security of knowing we were following the exact policy as recommended by DfE.

What better defence might we offer should a controversy arise?

I wonder how much of a similar approach might be taken by the beneficiaries of Take Back Control.

One area where as a governing body we relied on our own resources was over the draft Private Finance Initiative agreement for a capital project at the school.

Birmingham City Council was not geared up to scrutinise the draft for us and so a fellow governor with a background in management took the draft home, went through it with a fine tooth comb and came up with a list of questions and concerns.

Will a Labour Government provide discreet funding for technical support during the process of devolution?

The sort of support that was provided as part of the European Regional Development Fund to support applicants for funding without the resources to provide it for themselves.

A look at Keir Starmer’s proposal for a “Taking Back Control” Bill