Are Brum coalition leaders ill-equipped?

Feb 10 2006 Birmingham Post

After The Post's front page comment yesterday about the city council's failing relationship with businesses, former Birmingham Forward deputy chairman Andrew Sparrow assesses the situation...

This is not an occasion for polite rhetoric. The city is failing. Where culpability lies is clear. How it can be remedied must be the imperative for the business community.

It is the nature of a political or business diary that events intervene which force cancellation of long standing commitments. However, when 120 leading business figures make time available to engage in the real politic they are owed a duty.

So it cannot be acceptable when the ruling coalition, charged with leadership of the City fail to honour the obligation of accountability. That it was the height of dis-courtesy is common ground. My assertion that it represents more than that may not be.

The decision by both the Leader of the Council and his deputy not to participate in a key debate on the future of Birmingham had little to do with diary conflict. It was a conscious priority which, political wisdom aside, sends a message and leaves Birmingham in a perilous state.

I have said on several occasions that this administration has proved derelict in its duty to lead the city. I do not take sober satisfaction in events which offer substance to that charge. I no longer speak for Birmingham Forward which must draw its own conclusions as to preferred future strategy in light of a very public rebuke this week. I do say that the coalition is ill equipped to govern and my comments are not about political ideology.

Sometimes seemingly innocuous developments when taken in their full context, provide clarity to the otherwise blurred strategic landscape.

The decision to disap-point those who help generate the wealth of the region serves as prime example. The business community should now recognise the imperative to seize the initiative and use its combined talent in the form of able leaders to do more than be passive witnesses to the career of Birmingham.

Even Sir Bernard Zissman, had little option but to express dismay at the leadership's spectral presence at the business lunch. He says that the City excelled when it worked in partnership with business. That has to be right but it assumes a parity of status in the relationship which in 2006 has been lost. If you think my statement is wholly misplaced it's well to consider how a city gets to a point where business leaders no longer feel it within their remit to openly express displeasure at the policy agenda of the administration.

The comforting contention that only by quiet counsel, in the form of private dinner or lunch can real influence on affairs be brought about does not survive scrutiny.

I strongly sense that it is not by dint of chance that the current malaise on major policy initiatives has coincided with the culture of qualm which has beset the city. But Birmingham's direction should matter to those who earn their livelihoods within its precincts. If it is set clear then the commercial environment in which they operate is enhanced.

However, to actually have impact on decisions which will define our place in a decade requires very skilled effort. It does no good to share forums with political lead-ers hopelessly ill prepared on the issues upon which business might offer constructive challenge.

So it can no longer be assumed that the council leadership is comprised of individuals whose abilities are equal to a role which unquestionably is difficult. The benefit of the doubt must be withdrawn.

The next time Councillor Whitby utters the words that his leadership is characterised by the words 'Progress Through Partnership' identify the evidence in support if you can afford to lose a week in idle endeavour.

Squandering essential time and resources on hopeless Underground plans which risked attempts to secure government funding for the Metro extension matters.

Inability to make decisions on major development projects matters.

Those in business who hope to employ their skills beyond their day to day concerns should do it now because if left unaddressed the legacy of this period will be the realisation in 2016 and beyond that economic performance has been sacrificed.

That our transport infrastructure cost industry its competitive advantage. That of all the ironies there existed the strongest professional and business sector which had at its disposal the best talent, but which directed its energies solely toward domestic wellbeing.

I refer only to a hard won status which be assured will be consigned to history unless business now tests the coalition. Next week. In the months ahead. Constantly.