Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency

9th September 2023

Over at Prospect magazine I have written an article headlined Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’?.

Please do click and read it.

The rest of this post below provides some footnotes to the article and further thoughts about the subject.

*

The title of the article, of course, derives in part from the Alan Moore comic.

*

The other part of the title, however, is derived from one of the various quotations and sayings that you come across if you happen to come from or live in Birmingham. Others are “city of a thousand trades” and “more canals than Venice”.

But “the best-governed city in the world” seemed a good starting-point for this piece.

I knew it was from an American journalist about late Victorian Birmingham, but off-the-top-of-my-head I did not know more than that.

So I thought it may be interesting to track down the original quotation: any further information and context may at least add colour to a piece about local government finance and public procurement, which are not easy things to write about in an accessible way.

*

Pretty soon I got a year for the article which had the quotation – 1890 – the name of the journalist – Julian Ralph – and the name of the magazine – Harper’s.

Finding it was Harper’s magazine was amusing for this is the glossy magazine still published today:

And indeed the 1890 article about Birmingham municipal glory is still available on Harper’s website, but only to subscribers:

I am not, however, a subscriber to Harper’s – and it seemed disproportionate to take out a subscription just to obtain the piece, as I suspected there would not be many other articles about Birmingham.

So I wondered if the article was available elsewhere.

(The issue of copyright then crossed my mind, but it seemed to me that an 1890 article by a writer who died in 1903 was likely to be in the public domain.)

*

And eventually – Bingo! – I found an online copy of the publication:

And there on the contents page was the article and it actually had the quote as its title:

(Isn’t the Birmingham – see “Best-Governed City,” etc a lovely detail.)

For some reason I expected it to be a short piece, but the actual article was some twelve pages long with double columns.

So I started reading:

 

And on the last page of the article, and in the last paragraph, was this discussion of debt and the treatment of workers (which you should read so as to make sense of the rest of this post):

Any researcher will tell you of those moments when they are visited by the goddess Serendipity.

Not only had I found some colour for my Prospect piece, I had actually found a detailed point of comparison and contrast for a piece about Birmingham’s current predicament.

And, significantly, the 1890 article about “the best-governed city in the world” averred that the city council prowess was not because it avoided debt – indeed, the city council embraced immense debt, at levels almost unimaginable at current prices.

It was about how those Victorian councillors managed and resourced that debt, as serious people of business engaged in grand projects.

More of the Prospect piece then clicked in to place.

*

Switching to the here-and-now, a close reading of the “section 114 notice”, the legislation, the relevant legal cases (for example this Supreme Court decision) and the detailed reportage at the Register and elsewhere, meant that various knee-jerk things to blame dissolved.

Labour! Conservative! – well, the key employment claim was commenced when the council was under a Conservative-led coalition, and then a Labour majority. And IT project disasters care little for party affiliation.

Resources! tax! – the IT project disaster looks as if it would have also swallowed double the budget. More public money would have just gone straight through to the contractors and consultants.

(Money In, Money Out is as much a feature of bad IT procurement as Garbage in, Garbage Out.)

The problem with both the matters that have brought down Birmingham is governance.

The employment case was litigated and litigated, but the ongoing exposure appears not to have been properly managed. And sometimes litigants lose.

The IT procurement ended up as an exercise in constant changes to the software to match working practices, rather than the reverse. And any public sector procurement of bespoke developed software, as opposed to commercial-off-the-shelf software, will always tend to go badly.

The problem was glaring: neither exercise in managing risk and exposure was sensibly managed.

Compare and contrast this with the various endeavours mentioned in the 1890 article: the acquisition of gas and water undertakings, and the improvement scheme that changed the face of a Victorian city. These were also enterprises which could have gone wrong, very wrong.

But read again that last paragraph from Julian Ralph:

You will see the seriousness in how the risks and exposures are managed.

*

Of course, the Victorian councillors were deft self-publicists – and the leading Birmingham politician of the age, Joseph Chamberlain, can only be matched by Benjamin Disraeli in how his public image was manufactured and exploited.

Joseph Chamberlain even oversaw a memorial put up to himself, while he was still a relatively young politician and businessman.

And the 1890 article was the glossy magazine puff-piece of its time.

But.

Even realising the talent for rampant self-publicity of the Victorian politicians, the acquisition of the gas and water undertakings, and the slum clearances redevelopment, were considerable achievements for what was a growing and unfashionable urban sprawl.

(Indeed, until the year before the 1890 article, Birmingham was not even technically a city – the charter dates only from 1889.)

Whatever the (sometimes understated) faults of the municipal corporations of the time, local government was taken seriously – by voters, by the councillors, by the polity generally. Corporations had great powers, and they often used those powers sensibly, if ambitiously.

*

A close look at current day problems of Birmingham city council also points to it not really being just about Birmingham at all.

Unequal pay will have been a problem for many councils, and poor IT procurement does not only have a Brummie accent.

The predicament of Birmingham is that two major exposures came together at once.

(Though, as the city has long been a centre for transport routes, from the canals to Spaghetti Junction, being the venue for such a confluence does seem apt.)

Many councils are probably a few steps away from a section 114 notice – under all political parties and none. Birmingham, which we are often told is the largest local authority in Europe, is just a striking illustration of a wider problem.

In part, the problems is about resources and ideology – and under-resourced councils and ideological commitments will often make things worse.

But section 114 notices – the emergency brake of local government finance – are also perhaps a function of poor management over time.

The overall problem is perhaps a lack of seriousness: in how we as a polity now treat local government, in how central government and parliament treats local government, and in how councils themselves manage risk and exposure.

*

Finally, a shout-out to Prospect to being able to use this glorious 1886 depiction of Birmingham as the picture for the piece – complete with the Chamberlain monument in the foreground:

This print was up on the wall of an office in which I once worked as a temp and staring it probably was the start of my fascination with the (actual) history of my own city.

And if you look carefully at this 1886 print, you will see the dirty industrial smoke is blowing away from the nice civic architecture. As said above: the Victorians were deft self-publicists.

But if they took themselves too seriously, they also took local government seriously. And the latter is the lesson they give to us today.

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

What is a section 114 Notice?

7th September 2023

Birmingham has more canals then Venice and more hills than Rome – you will be told – and it has the largest local authority in Europe and it is the only city in the United Kingdom, other than London, with a population of over a million.

And the city council now also has a section 114 notice – you can click here to read it.

The notice is under section 114(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (coincidentally the legislation that introduced the poll tax).

The provision is simple:

“The chief finance officer of a relevant authority shall make a report under this section if it appears to him that the expenditure of the authority incurred (including expenditure it proposes to incur) in a financial year is likely to exceed the resources (including sums borrowed) available to it to meet that expenditure.”

The report is worth reading in full as a snapshot of a council in trouble and as an account of how it got into that trouble.

I am a writing a longer piece about this, but I thought this would be a useful post.

The authority of Jackie Weaver – and what the Handforth council reports now show

30th March 2022

And so this blog returns to the unhappy local council at Handforth.

(It is now a town council and no longer a parish council, which is a bit of a shame.)

You will recall the viral (but edited) video of that Zoom council meeting.

And you will recall the now-immortal exchange:

‘You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver, no authority at all!’

[Silence]

‘She’s just kicked him out.’

[…]

‘Read the standing orders, read them and understand them!’

*

A published analysis of the meeting concluded the following:

“on the face of the Standing Orders, Jackie Weaver did not seem to have the authority”

“Weaver did not have authority as ‘Proper Officer’”

“Weaver did not appear to have the formal power to exclude the disruptive councillors”

Those were, however, not the conclusions that were published and widely reported yesterday – but the conclusions of this blog at the time of the viral video.

That is what you can find when you – ahem – read the standing orders.

When you read them and understand them.

*

What has returned Handforth council to the news is that Cheshire East Council has now published (with redactions) six reports in respect of allegations of bullying.

These reports were requested in a freedom of information request – and although that request was refused – the refusal was on the basis that the reports would be published as part of a publication scheme.

And so yesterday was the day they were published – and they can be found here.

The reports are not pleasant reading – and they reveal an ugly culture of confrontation and bullying in local government that is perhaps not as widely known about as it should be.

In the reports there is – almost as an aside – a view taken as to whether Weaver did have the authority.

But that view is not the primary purpose of the reports – the reports are instead about the conduct of the councillors, and so it is interesting to see how this view on Weaver’s authority is taken in context:

That is quite a list of words for what Weaver faced: “aggressive… threatening… menacing… unnecessarily confrontational and disrespectful”.

The report avers: “Faced with what were unusual and difficult circumstances, and the deep-seated issues underpinning those circumstances, we can understand why [Weaver] acted as she did […]”

*

My blogpost last year took a relaxed view of what Weaver did in the circumstances.

She did not have the (formal) authority – but in the remarkable and unfortunate practical situation she was placed in, where a meeting should be going ahead but some councillors wanted to make sure it did not, the conduct of some of those councillors seemed to mean there was little choice for Weaver at the time of the meeting.

This blog also averred last year that the action by Weaver to place councillors in the Zoom waiting room seemed to have been subsequently ratified and affirmed by other councillors, though the published reports don’t take a view on that.

Weaver maintains that the “jury was still out” on whether she was able to move the councillors to the waiting-room, and she is reported as saying the following:

“We were still very vague about how virtual council meetings worked and I did not actually remove them from the meeting, in my opinion, I moved them to the waiting room.

“A little later in the meeting the remaining councillors voted to remove them.

“So I welcome the findings of the report but am deeply saddened that it took so long and cost so much to get there.”

*

The six published reports are not investigations into Weaver.

They are instead investigations into serious complaints in respect of others – in which a view is taken on whether she had the authority.

And, as this blog concluded at the time, Weaver did not have the authority.

But the reports show the wider problem.

The wider problem is that others were not acting within the rules.

It was an almost-impossible position for Weaver or anyone else in her position, and it is not obvious whether, in the circumstances, a less-bad route was practically available at that meeting so as to ensure that the meeting continued.

One of the reports even concluded that bullying took place at the meeting:

While another councillor was not found to have bullied at the meeting was also found to have breached the code by their conduct:

Not bullying – but “unnecessarily confrontational and disrespectful […] There was no need […] to make comments that sought to discredit and question [Weaver]’s experience and professional integrity.”

*

Of course – it is understandable why the media are focusing on whether or not Weaver had the authority.

You cannot argue with a meme.

But that should be a starting-point, not a finishing-point.

The now-published reports indicate a troubling situation in local government: the confrontational, threatening and (in one case) bullying behaviour of councillors.

The lack of “authority” in all this is therefore a lot wider than any one person.

**

Thank you for reading.

This blog needs your support – for these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Does the Handforth Parish Council viral video show that local government should be abolished? Or does it show that all local government meetings should be virtual?

6th February 2021

The interest in that Handforth Parish Council video is extraordinary.

Even at this blog, yesterday’s post has already had more views than any other post here has had in total over the last five years – with the single exception of the post that explained Article 50 the day after the shock of the referendum result.

(Yesterday’s post even attracted a commenter who, without any apparent irony, described Jackie Weaver’s actions as ‘the worst kind of Fascism’ – and one can only wonder what they then thought when their comment was binned rather than published.)

Without doubt the video has added for some to what used to to be called the ‘gaiety of the nation’ – though for others it was a less cheerful public illustration of the abuses, disruption and misconduct in such meetings that is usually hidden from view.

But as interest fades and new memes come along, what – if anything – is the more general significance of the story of that parish council meeting?

*

One problem of local government is lack of interest.

People, it would seem, can only bear so much democracy.

The turnout in local government is lower than parliamentary elections.

And – as with political parties – the fewer people who are engaged, the more unrepresentative are those who stay involved.

When those unrepresentative representatives have actual powers then this means it is more likely that bad decisions will be made instead of good decisions. 

*

One response to this observation will be that the solution is to encourage more interest and more engagement.

And such a stirring exhortation will garner claps and cheers – or, at least, their modern equivalent, ‘likes’ and RTs.

But when the nods finish and good intentions are superseded, there will still be little interest in local government.

Because nothing has changed substantially to make local government more accessible.

And so in local government continues to be dominated by those who would only get elected because of that lack of interest.

To which, in turn, there are two three responses.

The first is to shrug and say one gets the local elected representatives one deserves.

The second is to question the need for the democratic element in the provision of local services – after all, many people will not care who their local councillors are, so long as their bins are collected on time.

The third is to see lack of interest as the result of the lack of real powers for local government – and if local bodies had more powers then there would be more local interest.

*

None of these three responses are, for me, compelling.

But.

The Handforth incident suggests there is a way for there to be more interest in local government – and that is simply to make it easier for people to follow what is going on (and even participate) in the making of local government decisions.

One of the few benefits of the coronavirus lockdowns has been that various bodies are now deliberating online rather than in unknown council chambers, and that those deliberations are publicly available.

As a matter of democratic principle, and from the perspective of increasing transparency, there is great deal to be said for deliberations to be done virtually.

Here I do not mean that council proceedings should just be streamed, but that the actual meetings should be done virtually rather than in some council chamber or committee room.

Indeed, one could question whether – given new technology – there is now any need for council chambers at all, other than for ceremonial events and for showing determined tourists.

And we would be free from the tiresome mock-parliamentary debating society macho pedantic silliness of some oral debates – and it would be easier for all representatives to contribute rather than budding after dinner speakers and those who bray in their support.

Councillors would also be able to readily attend around their other professional and home responsibilities, rather than giving up whole days in the manner of leisurely amateurs in frock coats.

At a stroke such virtual proceedings as the norm would be instantly more accessible to the public – and also to otherwise sidelined councillors.

*

Much of what we take as the natural norms in our public affairs are just practices and categories we have inherited from previous generations.

And big set-piece meetings in ornate council chambers may have suited Victorians and Edwardians – but, if we were starting from a blank page today, would we come up with the same model?

(Indeed, would practically minded Victorians and Edwardians have insisted on their model had they been aware of our technology?)

Similar points can also be made about other formal meetings – and indeed court hearings.

Other than when the credibility of witness under examination is at issue – and there is no substitute for that being done in person – or when there are necessary reporting restrictions, there is no overwhelming reason why most court hearings cannot be done virtually.

*

The fact that we inherited practices from a time without virtual technology is no reason, by itself, to persist with those practices, as long as other principles such as due process and fairness are not adversely affected.

Making public affairs more accessible is not only a public good, but would have the practical utility of ensuring more engagement.

People watching – or participating  in – the Handforth council meeting on their laptop or their phone (or indeed iPad) was for many a novelty.

But it would be good for democracy if virtual council and their formal meetings and hearings became the new natural norm.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-m, for oderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Did Jackie Weaver have the authority? – the law and policy of that Handforth Parish Council meeting

5th February 2021

Handforth Parish Council is not a happy parish council.

This is an extract from a formal Letter from the Director of Governance and Compliance at Cheshire District Council (text posted here):

And the unhappiest committee of all the committees of Handforth Parish Council is the Planning and Environment Committee.

An indication of this unhappiness can be seen in the minutes of its meeting of October 2020:

And then in November 2020:

Notice the mention of ChALC – this is to the Cheshire Association of Local Councils of which more in a moment.

So from the official record, something odd is going on.

And so we come to the ‘extraordinary’ meeting of that committee in December 2020, the agenda for which is here.

There is no mention on the agenda of who will do the clerking.

You will see that the chair of the wider parish council was expressly invited.

So were we.

*

Then this extraordinary ‘extraordinary’ committee meeting took place.

The formal minute of the first part of the meeting is as follows:

[ADD – a minute of a further related meeting that evening is here.]

*

As is now widely known, the minutes quoted above do not quite give justice to the remarkable scenes of that committee meeting.

This is compelling viewing, especially the first six minutes – and there is no surprise that it has gone viral.

So let us take what is said in this video in order.

The chair of the wider parish council (whose Zoom account describes him as a “Handforth PC Clerk”) refers to a meeting he was thrown out of ‘last time’ – it is not yet clear if this means the November meeting minuted above.

The chair then presses Jackie Weaver as to the latter’s standing, as a proper officer.

Weaver does not expressly claim to be a proper officer, but that she is clerking.

Who is Jackie Weaver?

Weaver is not a councillor nor is she mentioned in the agenda.

Weaver is no other than the Chief Officer of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils, the organisation which the committee has already had to refer the question of the legality of its meetings.

It appears she has been parachuted in as some sort of a municipal special agent.

The Winston Wolf of Cheshire local government.

The formal letter of the compliance officer and the previous minutes of the committee indicate why this invitation would have happened.

The minutes of this meeting describe her position as follows:

This indicates that she was not regarded for the purposes of the meeting as the ‘Proper Officer’.

And indeed, as we will see, the status of Jackie Weaver as ‘Proper Officer’ is a red herring.

*

Now we come to the ‘Standing Orders’.

Oh, the Standing Orders.

Standing Orders of any local authority are made under section 42 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Under the Standing Orders of this council, there can be ‘extraordinary’ committee meetings (standing order 17C):

And if the chair refuses to do so, then an extraordinary committee meeting can be called by two councillors (standing order 17D):

And this is what was done with this meeting.

So it would appear that the chair of the parish council may have erred in saying the meeting had not been called ‘in accordance with the law’.

Disorderly conduct is turn dealt with at standing order 10:

The chair of the parish council is thereby correct that only the chair can exclude people from the meeting.

The question is who is the chair of the meeting at the point the chair of the parish council is excluded?

(And then there is the more philosophical question of who can exclude a disruptive chair if the chair is disruptive.)

*

We then have the immortal exchange:

‘You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver, no authority at all!’

[Silence]

‘She’s just kicked him out.’

[…]

‘Read the standing orders, read them and understand them!’

*

At this point, on the face of the Standing Orders, it would appear that there had been an exclusions for disruptive behaviour, and that the exclusions – by technology if not by the power of the Standing Orders – had been effected by Weaver.

You will note that she also mentions reporting this to the compliance officer (the author of the formal letter of concern at the head of the post).

Weaver then takes the meeting to the election of a new chair, and another councillor is elected chair.

It then seems a message is sent to the excluded councillors that they could return if they behave, but they do not return.

*

A common sense solution many may think, if not one (strictly) in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Presumably the exclusions can be taken to then be ratified by the new chair, though this is not expressly said or minuted (and given the sequence of events, such a subsequent ratification may have been appropriate).

And the excluded chair and the disruptive councillors can hardly complain about their exclusions on the basis of non-compliance with the Standing Orders if, as they maintained, the committee meeting was illegitimate to begin with.

For on their own version of events, there was no valid committee meeting even taking place.

*

This viral incident is an insight into the reality of one local government meeting.

On balance, it would appear the disruptive councillors were wrong to say the extraordinary meeting was invalid.

And, on balance, the exact manner of their exclusions was not in accordance with the Standing Orders – though, in the circumstances, the disruptive councillors can hardly complain.

You would not get any of what really happened from the official minutes.

This is a useful reminder to all – including historians and legal commentators – that formal documents often do not give the full story.

As such this video is a boon for public transparency of council meeting.

This is why all council meetings should be streamed and available on video.

 

*

And in conclusion, on the face of the Standing Orders, Jackie Weaver did not seem to have the authority to call the extraordinary committee meeting – but she did not need to do so.

Weaver did not have authority as ‘Proper Officer’ – but she did not claim that she had such authority and she did need not any such powers for clerking.

Weaver did not appear to have the formal power to exclude the disruptive councillors – but, given that this exclusion was then accepted by the new chair, and that the disruption was plain, that does not seem to practically matter.

And these conclusions can be offered on the basis of reading the Standing Orders – reading and understanding them.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.