Private Eye delivers the beginner's guide to Houchens Teesworks:

Local journos must be in on the gravy train for them to offer no press scrutiny of these shenanigans.
I don't think they exist anymore. Not real investigative journalists. There are no resources for such people anymore so we get the pap and regurgitated propaganda that the Gazette and every other local newspaper has turned into.
 
I am no fan of Ben Houchen or the quality of most of the politicians on Teesside but development companies like these have been behind regeneration in places across the country. Public money is used to kickstart investment and negate the risk for the private sector. The public/private setup allows access to borrow from local government finance rates. Councils of all political parties have done this. When they go wrong they are the cesspit of corruption, when they go right they are the act of a visionary.

Middlesbrough Council being on the verge of special measures is a big part of this. Whitehall has no faith whatsoever that Middlesbrough can spend investment sensibly. Public/Private might be the only option to drag things forward. Not ideal for scrutiny and transparency and someone somewhere is going to make a lot of money but this is not unusual stuff.

Just a reminder - all council capital spending can be "called in" for scrutiny. This stuff is not being called in. Local journalism has been battered and anything owned by Reach PLC/Mirror group is chronically understaffed and underpaid. They don't have the time to dedicate to serious pieces. Jen Williams was incredibly dedicated to working away at the MEN before moving to the FT. Local news outlets don't have a team of Jen Williams' at their disposal. They are also very risk-averse. One way to help local news cover this stuff would be for local Councillors to call in everything, all the time - make it a public debate.
 
Local journalism has been battered and anything owned by Reach PLC/Mirror group is chronically understaffed and underpaid. They don't have the time to dedicate to serious pieces.
i'm sure i read that they were moving part of their pay to "per click" hence the move from real journalism as we view it to click bait ***** that we are served up across the board. or they have KPI's to get certain number of hits or they don't pass reviews
 
i'm sure i read that they were moving part of their pay to "per click" hence the move from real journalism as we view it to click bait ***** that we are served up across the board. or they have KPI's to get certain number of hits or they don't pass reviews
I have not heard this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Their income must be predominantly ads now and their sites are basically unusable because of the amount of pop-ups and scroll ads.

Why TF should I or anyone else be made to give money to the private sector? Socialism for the corporations, as we are seeing yet again with the latest banking crisis.
Yeah, I mean your point is ideological and people can certainly have that discussion about whether it is suitable to have private/public partnerships. I think most people would agree that public money should be accountable which is where this gets murky. But realistically speaking - this is a preferred system that we have in place and the public sector relies on the private sector for things like regeneration now and it is desperate for scrutiny and accountability.
 
I have not heard this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Their income must be predominantly ads now and their sites are basically unusable because of the amount of pop-ups and scroll ads.


Yeah, I mean your point is ideological and people can certainly have that discussion about whether it is suitable to have private/public partnerships. I think most people would agree that public money should be accountable which is where this gets murky. But realistically speaking - this is a preferred system that we have in place and the public sector relies on the private sector for things like regeneration now and it is desperate for scrutiny and accountability.
The thing is that there is a difference between encouraging investment and simply handing over the assets to mates who take on no risk, while the liabilities remain public.
 
It's not about public or private enterprises doing what is required, both could do it brilliantly or both fail. What is relevant is scrutiny and accountability, which is what is being denied here.

A ridiculous amount of public money is being given to and controlled by, people who answer to what/who?

They could build a mini Dubai, it would make little difference to the area if all those profits go to a handful of private "businessmen".
No issues with scrutiny, agree in ideal world it’s what should happen. But does it in the real world?
 
If you genuinely think that it’s ok to direct business towards friends and associates at preferential rates, while avoiding scrutiny and locking out other local businesses, then you’re not tacitly accepting that corruption happens.

You’re actively supporting it.
I’ve got a banner out the front of my house demonstrating me actively supporting it of course 🙄
 
Stockton has built a hotel, renovated a theatre and in the middle of a massive project to demolish huge swathes of the high street including multi story car park, night club, post office, a part of the high street and a good sized shopping centre to open it up to the river and relocated part of the town centre.

Not sure how you can't call that drastic action, nor how transferring millions of pounds of council assets to a corporation outside of council control or scrutiny wouldn't warrant a reaction?!

Why do they need an MDC? Why wouldn't those assets revert to the council? This is the airport and free port all over again, plenty of people will profit but it won't be the taxpayers.
Not sure, do Stockton have a good record on redevelopment? Do middlesbrough? Are they comparable on the way you have done?

Could argue why does anyone need any external help, cos Joe Bloggs can do it so what is your excuse for not?

For me I want to see action, and I have no issue with transparency, including Ben and Andy’s dealings, but what I don’t want to see is arguing, delay, pondering, lack of investment and negative tactics which is what is appears to be the limit of Middlesbrough councils skill set.
 
The thing is that there is a difference between encouraging investment and simply handing over the assets to mates who take on no risk, while the liabilities remain public.
There will be a capital risk with the private partner. Public liability is the underwriting of the initial risk. In regen projects, there is always a requirement for the LA to take that liability because of where the project is located or as an incentive to locate it within one LA area and another (there is often a competition reason especially now that combined authorities are striking business rate retention deals). But to be clear - I am not suggesting that these are a good or bad way of doing things but it is quite common practice.

What is not common practice and I agree with is the fair and proper tendering process point. It would be interesting to know what a development company's tendering process is. Does it need to follow the same tendering rules as the local authority? Is there a requirement to declare financial interests? How many councillors/council officers are incorporated onto the board of the development company? etc. All very valid points in light of the relationship between the mayor, the other mayor and the individuals set to potentially benefit from the assets.

This is why scrutiny and accountability is an important function of the local authority. The council and the combined authority should have the function to do this with any capital spend or capital risk. They will, by law, have mechanisms to scrutinise the Council's risk either through an audit committee or a finance/budget committee. The latter would have powers of scrutiny over any capital spend or future capital spending. These are time limited to allow the council to be fast-moving in its decision-making process.
 
I am no fan of Ben Houchen or the quality of most of the politicians on Teesside but development companies like these have been behind regeneration in places across the country. Public money is used to kickstart investment and negate the risk for the private sector. The public/private setup allows access to borrow from local government finance rates. Councils of all political parties have done this. When they go wrong they are the cesspit of corruption, when they go right they are the act of a visionary.

Middlesbrough Council being on the verge of special measures is a big part of this. Whitehall has no faith whatsoever that Middlesbrough can spend investment sensibly. Public/Private might be the only option to drag things forward. Not ideal for scrutiny and transparency and someone somewhere is going to make a lot of money but this is not unusual stuff.

Just a reminder - all council capital spending can be "called in" for scrutiny. This stuff is not being called in. Local journalism has been battered and anything owned by Reach PLC/Mirror group is chronically understaffed and underpaid. They don't have the time to dedicate to serious pieces. Jen Williams was incredibly dedicated to working away at the MEN before moving to the FT. Local news outlets don't have a team of Jen Williams' at their disposal. They are also very risk-averse. One way to help local news cover this stuff would be for local Councillors to call in everything, all the time - make it a public debate.
Middlesbrough council is on the verge of specials measures because Preston and his side kick his Tory Deputy- Mieka Smiles, have ran it for the past 4 years, previous to this the Council was doing fine with not a squeak of special measures
So what does Houchen do, he sets up a MDC and invites the very two people who have presided over this clusterfluck to join the board. This MDC doesn't have scrutiny in it's make up, so it's a free for all.

As for "calling it in", the Council voted against it, we can only call in decisions of the council, we didn't want it, we didn't vote for it, the one and only democratic organisation has been overruled by this Tory government in favour of a hand full of local Tories.
 
Middlesbrough council is on the verge of specials measures because Preston and his side kick his Tory Deputy- Mieka Smiles, have ran it for the past 4 years, previous to this the Council was doing fine with not a squeak of special measures
So what does Houchen do, he sets up a MDC and invites the very two people who have presided over this clusterfluck to join the board. This MDC doesn't have scrutiny in it's make up, so it's a free for all.

As for "calling it in", the Council voted against it, we can only call in decisions of the council, we didn't want it, we didn't vote for it, the one and only democratic organisation has been overruled by this Tory government in favour of a hand full of local Tories.
Yeah, I know you feel passionate about it and that you are doing what you can.

Although there was no suggestion of limited powers or special measures, Middlesbrough Council's reputation was not squeaky clean previously. Civil servants have been wary of a few LAs and Middlesbrough have been one of them since the Mallon days.

Yes - you can call in ANY financial decision of the council, including asset decisions. Forget about what happens in the theatre of your full council meetings. The key decisions are the bit you can focus on. Either through audit or whatever budget monitoring/capital monitoring mechanism you have. All of this is a legal requirement within the Local Government Act and it will be in your constitution.

I am not making any political statement here, I am just saying there are ways and means that are not being exhausted which could draw this into the cold light of scrutiny. Or at least it doesn't look like they are.
 
Yeah, I know you feel passionate about it and that you are doing what you can.

Although there was no suggestion of limited powers or special measures, Middlesbrough Council's reputation was not squeaky clean previously. Civil servants have been wary of a few LAs and Middlesbrough have been one of them since the Mallon days.

Yes - you can call in ANY financial decision of the council, including asset decisions. Forget about what happens in the theatre of your full council meetings. The key decisions are the bit you can focus on. Either through audit or whatever budget monitoring/capital monitoring mechanism you have. All of this is a legal requirement within the Local Government Act and it will be in your constitution.

I am not making any political statement here, I am just saying there are ways and means that are not being exhausted which could draw this into the cold light of scrutiny. Or at least it doesn't look like they are.
That's my point, this isn't a decision of the council, so we can't call it in, we have looked into the rules on this.
 
That's my point, this isn't a decision of the council, so we can't call it in, we have looked into the rules on this.
No. I understand it is not the will of the council but because the MDC is transferring assets an executive decision or delegated decision takes place. Which means it is well within councillor’s rights to bring the topic to the Ad Hoc Scrutiny Committee and/or the audit committee and/or the Economic Development, Environment and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel.

The MDC has the leader of the council and the deputy mayor on the board right? So it adds to executive function. Why not call an extraordinary meeting of council? Place a motion that requires Middlesbrough Council appointees on the MDC to report to quarterly ad hoc scrutiny (or create a new panel). Then call for a named vote on it. You have the numbers to call a meeting, propose a motion and call for a named vote.
 
I don't defend what is going on, but Its very difficult to redevelop old industrial areas - London Docklands was dodgy in the 1980s. It was very unfashionable, had virtiually no transport links, was seen as a no go area by a lot of people from outside the area.

In the documentary about the Brinks Matt robbery it said alot of the funds from robbery funded early investment on London Docklands, as the robbers knew the area.

Has the people who own Private Eye any ideas about redeveloping old industrial areas of Teesside or willing to manage any of their own wealth there? If the area was all just left to nature, it may nice for the planet, but where do 200,000 people find employment?

I would also add I tend to trust local people to spend money better that someone sitting in Whitehall.
 
Last edited:
I don't think they exist anymore. Not real investigative journalists. There are no resources for such people anymore so we get the pap and regurgitated propaganda that the Gazette and every other local newspaper has turned into.
The Gazette/Teesside Live now has no editor, no photographer and I believe is down to less than 5 full time reporters. All so sad because for me the area loses a lot of its identity and possibly culture as well as right to reply for the its people.
 
No. I understand it is not the will of the council but because the MDC is transferring assets an executive decision or delegated decision takes place. Which means it is well within councillor’s rights to bring the topic to the Ad Hoc Scrutiny Committee and/or the audit committee and/or the Economic Development, Environment and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel.

The MDC has the leader of the council and the deputy mayor on the board right? So it adds to executive function. Why not call an extraordinary meeting of council? Place a motion that requires Middlesbrough Council appointees on the MDC to report to quarterly ad hoc scrutiny (or create a new panel). Then call for a named vote on it. You have the numbers to call a meeting, propose a motion and call for a named vote.
Losing all these assets, possibly including where I work to what could end up being private landlords fills me with so much apprehension for the future of what on this council's watch is becoming an alarmingly failing town. I have never ever felt this way about Middlesbrough before - but I feel decisions are being made right now that frustrating and even alaming.
 
I don't defend what is going on, but Its very difficult to redevelop old industrial areas - London Docklands was dodgy in the 1980s. It was very unfashionable, had virtiually no transport links, was seen as a no go area by a lot of people from outside the area.

In the documentary about the Brinks Matt robbery it said alot of the funds from robbery funded early investment on London Docklands, as the robbers knew the area.

Has the people who own Private Eye any ideas about redeveloping old industrial areas of Teesside or willing to manage any of their own wealth there? If the area was all just left to nature, it may nice for the planet, but where do 200,000 people find employment?

I would also add I tend to trust local people to spend money better that someone sitting in Whitehall.
But have you listened to the podcast Redwurzel?
 
Back
Top