No matter how much money is spent on New Street Station, there is no realistic way of expanding the station any further because there is no room for extra lines on the approach.  Tarting the station up and making the platforms longer won’t increase the number of trains that can get into the station, it’ll just allow longer trains.

The cost of the redevelopment is estimated at £598m with £400m of this coming from the taxpayer via the Department for Transport, Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and other quangos.  AWM will be handing over £100m of money intended to benefit the whole West Midlands euroregion to Birmingham New Street.

But the Commons Transport Committee said that they don’t think the station will cope with the number of passengers that will be using it in the near future and think that alternatives should be looked at now.

Funnily enough, there was an alternative proposal to use land adjacent to Snow Hill station to expand the existing station there but that plan was dismissed out of hand because AWM and Birmingham City Council wanted to turn it into a park instead.  Now they want to build offices and shops next to Snow Hill station, ensuring that no rival expansion plans for Snow Hill can scupper AWM’s vanity project at New Street.

Despite the concerns of the Commons Transport Committee, compulsary purchasing of land around New Street started last week and will affect more than 500 business and residents.

This is nothing more than a sticking plaster designed to deflect attention from the fact that city regions are wasteful, undemocratic quangos that the electorate simply does not want.  The is nothing local about a regional government over 50 miles wide from end to end covering a population of several million people and there is certainly nothing democratic about an unelected regional quango that nobody wants, whether it has a token elected mayor or not.

The British government wants the elected mayors to have responsibility for skills, planning, housing and transport.

Harriet Harman said:

I’m keen to see more elected mayors, and I say in the White Paper that we strongly support the idea of elected mayors. I think that the public increasingly wants to see a person that they voted for, that they can hold to account, who is responsible

How ironic - it is Harriet Harman’s government that created the unelected regional assemblies and gave them statutory planning, housing and transport responsibilities (amongst others) in the first place, taking the responsibilities away from our elected local authorities!

The best thing about all this, of course, is that the city region is slowly unravelling and may not even be around by the time this change in the law is made.  Since West Midlands NO! took the name from under their noses, the quango that was to be known as the Birmingham, Coventry & Black Country City Region has abandoned its plans to incorporate itself into a limited company.  The directors are currently liable for all the actions and liabilities of the city region - perhaps that’s why the city region has done pretty much nothing apart from eat up taxpayers money on office, computers and staff?  We have it on good authority that at least one council in the city region is looking elsewhere and another is concerned that its close proximity to Birmingham means it is going to lose out to its bigger neighbour (like it was ever in doubt!).

It’s time to give up trying to legitimise the indefensible transfer of power from elected local authorities to unelected regional quangos and do the right thing - do away with the regional quangocracy and give our properly elected local authorities back the powers that should never have been taken in the first place.

Dr Spink joins Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury & Atcham), Mike Natrass MEP (UKIP, West Midlands), Councillor Denis Allen (Conservative, Telford & Wrekin & Mayor of Wellington, Shropshire), Councillor George Ashcroft (Conservative, Telford & Wrekin), Robin Tilbrook (Chairman, English Democrats Party) and Fiona McEvoy (Taxpayers Alliance).

Speaking on local radio in the South East the other day, Bob said:

I want smaller, less expensive Government, with fewer MPs and fewer ‘jobs for the boys’ on these ever expanding quangos. Decisions affecting us hould be taken closer to us and those taking them should be directly accountable to us. They suffer from the ‘big brother’ mentality, that hey know best, but they don’t.

Can’t argue with that!

Nothing wrong with suggesting that of course, but it is the dishonesty that shows just how desperate they are.

The regional assemblies are unelected.  Elected councillors sit on the board but not one single person is elected to the regional assembly, nor are any of the councillors on the board elected on a manifesto of regional policies or on the presumption that they will join the quango.

The dishonest use of misleading wording is clearly intended to try and give the impression that they have some legitimacy or even that the electorate has asked them to sit on an unelected regional quango, undermining the system of representative local democracy we’ve had in England for centuries.

The letter is as follows:

Sir, A democratic deficit looms for England if important decisions on jobs, housing, transport and protecting the environment are handed to government appointees instead of elected council leaders.

Proposals in the dry-sounding Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration would mean regional development agencies taking responsibility for sustainable development in each region and preparing a regional strategy of setting targets for jobs and homes.

Public consultation has just closed and the Government is intending to introduce legislation later this year.

As elected leaders representing people across the English regions, we urge voters to defend their right to open and accountable decision-making.

We oppose the democratic deficit implied in the proposed transfer of planning, housing and transport powers to an unelected government agency.

We propose that a forum of council leaders (or equivalent) be responsible for development and submission of the regional strategy.

We recognise that each region needs the freedom to develop its own governance arrangements, including an appropriate future role for stakeholder representatives.

Keith R. Mitchell (Con)
Chairman, South East England Regional Assembly and Leader, Oxfordshire County Council

Peter Box (Lab)
Chairman, Yorkshire & Humber Assembly and Leader, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Jill Shortland (Lib Dem)
Chairman, South West Regional Assembly and Leader, Somerset County Council

David S. Smith (Con)
Chairman, West Midlands Regional Assembly and Leader, Lichfield District Council

Alex Watson (Lab)
Chairman, North East Assembly and Leader, Derwentside District Council

John Reynolds (Con)
Chairman, East of England Regional Assembly and Cabinet Member, Cambridgeshire County Council

The Times has a “Have your say” on the letter and at this point in time there is only criticism, nobody agrees with what they’re saying.

The whole letter smacks of deperation and shows just how far these unelected quangocrats are prepared to go to hold on to that extra bit of power they managed to get hold of and keep claiming the generous expenses for attending their meetings.

Local businesses are struggling with the credit crunch, the onset of a global recession and the continual decline of the manufacturing industry upon which the economy of the West Midlands connurbation has traditionally been reliant.

With so many companies struggling to stay in business, spending £6m of taxpayers money on new offices for Business Link instead of spending the money helping local businesses is an insult.

The floods last year dealt a blow to many businesses throughout the West Midlands euroregion.  AWM offered grants to affected businesses but some or all of it had to spent on advice from the West Midlands Business Link service.  Prior to the pointless regionalisation of the Business Link service, every major town had its own local service staffed by local people with local knowledge who could build up a face to face relationship with their clients.  Now there is one regionalised Business Link service located on a business park on the side of the M5.  No more local knowledge, no more face to face relationships unless you’re based in Quinton or you can afford to take half a day or more out of work to travel to their offices.

According to the BBC News piece, AWM say that they helped 8,700 businesses last year, exceeding their own target.  According to the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, AWM’s target for helping businesses in 2006-07 was a minimum of 6,000 and a maximum of 9,000.  Their target for 2007-08 is a minimum of 10,333 and a maximum of 13,667.  Half-year figures for April 2007 to September 2007 showed that AWM was on schedule to miss that target by about 30% if their exceptionally poor performance for the first half of the year continues for the rest of the year.

AWM has evolved into a vast, unaccountable quango employing 260 people at the taxpayers expense and spending £320m a year of our money.  AWM will continue to waste taxpayers money for as long as they exist because they have never been accountable to the taxpayer - they have never been held to account for their waste and neglect of the people who pay their bills.

The only way to stop the rot is to abolish AWM and hand their money and responsibilities back to democratically accountable, elected local authorities.

Edwards presided over Birmingham-centric AWM for many years and as anyone who lives outside of “Greater Birmingham” will know, AWM cares very little for rural areas because it is run by business for business and rural areas are too light on big business to be of any importance to them.

The “services to the rural economy” thing is a smokescreen anyway - Edwards is being rewarded for playing his part in the balkanisation of England and advancing the EU’s regionalisation agenda.

There are many, many people who have devoted their lives to caring for the sick and elderly or to charity who are far more deserving of an honour than a man who has devoted his working life to undermining democratic accountability in local government.

The studios have been demolished and the site is nothing more than a patch of bare earth.  AWM wants to turn the site into a medical research centre but so far nothing constructive has happened at the site.  And while AWM continues to drag its heels, spending our money developing prime development land for the benefit of big business, the taxpayer is still paying the lease on the site and getting nothing in return.

If only we could all get our hands on a bottomless supply of taxpayers money whenever we come up with a money-spinning idea.

Dear Sir,

David Bailey criticises Tory proposals to strip Regional Development Agencies of their powers - claiming that this won’t help the West Midlands economy and will inevitably lead to a recentralisation of policy-making and delivery in London.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, it is not Tory proposals that “don’t quite add up”, but rather Mr Bailey’s misplaced assumption that regional and local policies are some how one and the same.

Take the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. This is a regional planning document that has given little or no consideration to the needs of local communities and more alarmingly, perhaps, prevents free and fair competition.

In short, local authorities are being denied the right to determine their own figures for office and retail floorspace on the grounds that too much development in one locality could stifle inward investment elsewhere in the region.

Does Mr Bailey honestly believe that this type of interventionist approach will help local economies adjust and develop?

Mr Bailey points to MG Rover to highlight RDA Advantage West Midlands as a force for good. Whilst there has been success stories, it is equally important to highlight AWM’s shortcomings.

Moreover, business and employers’ groups continue to express their reservations about RDAs’ effectiveness. Just last week, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said RDAs should be spared only if they could demonstrate they were adding value to the local economy and business.

The Conservative Party’s interim findings of the Small Business Task Force were not encouraging. The problems of duplication and waste were two of the biggest concerns. Up to two-thirds of the money spent by RDAs, for example, goes nowhere near businesses and is spent instead on administration. Out of a regional budget of £2 billion that’s an unacceptable waste of taxpayers’ money.

The Tories are committed to stripping RDAs of their transport and planning powers and for these powers, and budgets, to be exercised at the lowest levels possible.

Why? Because we believe the best solutions come from local people. Left to themselves, local councils and communities have a proven track record of knowing how best to deal with the problems they face.

Philip Bradbourn OBE, MEP,  Conservative MEP for the West Midlands

This is absolute nonsense. Removing the regional quangocracy will empower local communities, increase democratic accountability in the decision-making process and could provide a vital boost to the local economy at a time when the global economy is taking a nosedive.

Not convinced?

Planning and transport are important areas of policy - the West Midlands has a population the size of Scotland (about 5 million) and the policy that determines when and where a road will be built, the buses and trains run and houses and factories are built is in the hands of an unelected quango with a Birmingham-centric view. Birmingham may be the largest city in the West Midlands but it’s not the only place to live or do business. There are about a million people living in Birmingham - that leaves another 4 million “West Midlanders” treated as an afterthought by the quango that’s supposed to represent their interests.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland planning and transport has its own ministry with dedicated, qualified staff and elected ministers answerable to the electorate for the actions of their department. In the West Midlands we have unelected quangos unanswerable to the 4 million or so voters in the West Midlands.

It is wrong to assume that abolishing regional quangos will result in centralisation - there is no reason why the powers given to regional quangos shouldn’t be given back to the local authorities that they were taken from in the first place.

The Birmingham Post cites the collapse of MG Rover as an example of the value of the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands. “Whilst the MG Rover collapse was a very substantial shock to the West Midlands economy, the impact would have been much greater if the firm had collapsed in 2000″ says David Bailey, the author of the Birmingham Post article. True, the collapse of MG Rover had a major impact on the West Midlands conurbation. It had an impact all over the country but the main impact was felt in Longbridge and the urban core of the West Midlands. The effect of the collapse of MG Rover was probably no worse in Worcester or Oswestry or Stafford than it was in Edinburgh or London or Cardiff.

There is no doubt that the collapse of MG Rover required a response on a grander scale than the local authority covering Longbridge but is the Birmingham Post really suggesting that it is beyond the wit of our elected local councils, who themselves manage multi-million pound budgets and provide hundreds of services under close scrutiny of the electorate, to work with each other to cope with the fallout from the collapse of MG Rover or any other “big issue”?

Whilst Advantage West Midlands was diverting all its energies into buying the Longbridge site and providing advice to businesses in Longbridge and the surrounding area, other parts of the West Midlands were losing out. Making certain polices and functions the sole responsibility of Advantage West Midlands is rather like putting all your eggs in one basket. Local authorities either aren’t allowed - or don’t have the resources - to provide the services Advantage West Midlands would have provided if they weren’t concentrating on MG Rover.

Just like a local solution to a problem isn’t always appropriate, a regional answer isn’t always right either - especially in a euroregion so economically and demographically diverse as to contain England’s second city and most rural county. This is why regional quangos like Advantage West Midlands need to be wound up and loose alliances formed on an issue by issue basis by local authorities and other interested parties. This way decision making remains in the hands of democratically accountable local councils but a “joined up” response to bigger issues is still perfectly workable when it’s needed. And more importantly, from the point of view of the local economy, businesses can be reassured that they won’t be subject to the whim of an unelected, undemocratic quango based in Birmingham.

Perhaps Professor David Bailey’s profile at the Birmingham University website might shed some light on his defence of the indefensible:

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Industrial policy, economic development policy, policy towards transnational corporations and FDI, transition in Central and Eastern Europe, European integration and enlargement particularly with reference to EU Structural Funding and Regional Policy, structural change in the Japanese economy, economic freedom, the automotive industry.

PROFILE

David is Professor of Economic Policy and International Business and Head of the Industrial and Labour Economics (ILE) Group at the Birmingham Business School. He is also an attached member of staff of the University’s European Research Institute and co-chairs the University’s Europe Group.

Outside of Birmingham, David is Chair of the Regional Studies Association and is a member of the ESRC Virtual College. He is also an Academician of the Social Sciences, a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Of course, you’d have to be one of life’s cynics to think that his defence of Advantage West Midlands is influenced at all by the funding Advantage West Midlands provides to his department or his support for European integration and regionalisation.

This story seems to make it into the news roughly every 6 months with the same newspapers expressing the same horrified surprise at the same story they’ve been carrying for the last couple of years.

The idea behind the EU’s trans-national regions is the same as the British government’s idea of English regions - to abolish the nation state.  In the case of the British government, they want to abolish England and replace it with 9 euroregions with their own regional government and identity.  Fortunately for us, the number of traitors willing to support death by regionalisation are still quite low and regionalisation is still progressing at a slow enough pace that we may still be lucky enough to have an England in a decade’s time.   The EU’s idea - having already carved up every member state into artificial regions - is to merge the multitude of euroregions into larger regions that cross national boundaries, attempting to remove national identities and replace them with artificial EU regional identities.

The problem with the EU regionalisation agenda is that it’s driven my the Germans who have been a federation of regions for centuries and simply cannot understand that nobody else in Federal Europe has a regional identity in the way that they do.  It’s that EU belief that one size fits all when it simply doesn’t, especially where England is concerned.

The West Midlands will be in the trans-national region of the Atlantic with Ireland and parts of Spain, Portugal and France.