Skip to main content
The City Cabinet on Monday had a few interesting decisions.

The demolition and redevelopment of North Newtown is a typically absurd decision by the Housing Department and Cabinet. This estate has a problem with crime. The Housing Department have plucked a figure out of the air that it would cost about £33,000 to improve each of the properties. By underestimating the cost of repurchasing the 35 private properties (which would not cost 33K to improve) they come out with specious figures indicating that it is cheaper to knock the properties down rather than improve them. This, of course, ignores the cost of rebuilding any properties.

Meanwhile in the real world the drug dealing will continue. The people living on the estate will live on an estate that deteriorates dramatically whilst they wait to be cleared and fewer houses will exist for people to live in and as a consequence more people will live in crowded conditions.

Meanwhile the Birmingham Trades Union Council have written the following letter:

We are writing, on behalf of Birmingham Trades Union Council, to advise you of an important resolution adopted by the Trades Union Council at its November meeting.

The Trades Union Council is deeply concerned at the deal done between Labour and Conservative Councillors on Birmingham City Council, as a result of this concern the Council passed the following resolution:

    "Birmingham Trades Union Council condemns the shabby deal entered into between the Birmingham Labour Party Councillors and the Conservative Party to share out leading positions in the City Council.

    This dirty deal is not in the interests of the Birmingham Working Class and represents collaboration of the worst kind, which this Trades Council has always opposed.

    We therefore call upon the Birmingham TUC to lead a trade union campaign to oppose this deal with the object of ensuring that the Labour Councillors withdraw from it and never conclude a similar deal in the future."

As part of the campaign we are launching about the deal we would encourage you to raise this matter with your members and ask them to lobby their Labour Councillors and ensure that no such deals are done in the future. We will also be writing to all Branch and Constituency Labour Parties in Birmingham, and we would ask you to join us in lobbying them to change Labour Party policy to rule out such deals.

The Birmingham Trades Union Council will shortly be organising a series of meetings to develop policies for our public services that advance the interests of working people, as opposed to deals with Conservative Councillors.

Yours sincerely,

Mick Rice/Douglas Jewell - Joint Secretaries Birmingham Trades Union Council

Given that the Mick Rice who has signed this letter is also the Councillor Mick Rice who is a member of the Labour Cabinet (with the support of the Conservatives) this raises some questions in peoples' minds. Luckily although this letter was sent out on 28th November he has already dealt with the issue by trying to disown the letter on 4th December in a confidential email sent to Labour councillors plus 2 Lib Dem Councillors which reads as follows:

Dear Comrades

I am in the process of sending you a letter in my capacity as joint secretary of Birmingham TUC.


The fact that I have signed the letter as an OFFICER of Birmingham TUC does not constitute personal support or agreement with its contents.

Best Wishes

Mick Rice

So that's clear then.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…