The Guardian notes this morning that:
Taxpayers are not being guaranteed value for money or transparency at a regeneration project overseen by the Conservative Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, according to a review that cleared it of cronyism and corruption.
It then added:
An independent review of Teesworks, one of the highest-profile, government-backed regeneration schemes in Britain, found the project was excessively secretive and could not ensure public money was being well spent.
I think the Guardian is missing the fact that opacity whilst raking off public funds for private gain is the whole point of freeports. What other justification for them can there be? This need not be corrupt: the action is, after all, officially sanctioned, and so wrongdoing is not required.
But, opacity and the enrichment of private corporations at cost to the communities that host their activities is implicit in the whole freeport model.
No doubt the report was set up to miss that point and so it has not been commented upon in the media. Let me make good that deficiency.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Always with the rich sleight of hand or the inclination to cover up or avoid accountability for their behaviour. George Monbiot indirectly points this out in his article about support for Trump where he classifies people’s behaviour as being “intrinsic” or “extrinsic” and predominant identification with one or the other :-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/29/donald-trump-americans-us-culture-republican
This just demonstrates the difference between how the tories define free markets, and the natural meaning of the phrase. What it connotes is open and real competition between economic operators. Clearly though, what the tories mean by freeports is free from regulation and free from competition. They are the absolutely the antithesis of free market, and named in a way that might have been created by George Orwell. They will be a sink for criminality and abuse of workers’ rights, as well as sucking the economic life out of other areas not given such favoured status.
You are right about the abuse of the word free
Is this the project some North East fishermen believe may be responsible for the mass shellfish die-off in the North Sea?
Yes
I was going to mention the shellfish problem too, but the structure of this operation needs a really good looking at.
I am reminded by my housing career and the setting up of ALMOs in social housing (arms length management organisations) that were created to do New Labour’s ‘Decent Homes’ work renovating Council homes in the early 2000s.
ALMOS were set up outside of Council operations but owned by them, giving them more leeway to take ‘commercial approaches’ to the decent homes work. Many did a good job, but ALMO senior management wages rose considerably and they also became a tool for cost cutting by the councils through their ‘management contracts’. Many councils have got rid of their ALMOs on the basis that they seemed to have be more expensive to run. But they got things done by not having to go through countless council committee meetings. And, the assets – the homes under management – remained the Council’s and were still bounded by law. I bet the mass shellfish die off was because they ignored their ecological surveys as a cost saving.
Teesworks seems like an Urban Development Corporation gone wrong. It would better to have given any cash to the LA and let them run it as regen project and have the assets in public ownership.
But not in free for all Britain, where if you are rich enough and have enough bullshit, you can just help yourself.
PSR, isn’t Ben Houchen the man in charge of the LA anyway, being the Teesside metro mayor?
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/hs2-ben-houchen-splashes-the-cash/
This is what he has promised the people of Teesside in order to get re-elected.
Opacity very much alive alive and well in rich people’s Britain:-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/30/money-museum-financial-literacy-uk-bank-of-england-education
So much for the argument an independent central bank will be more responsive to the true needs of the people. You’ve been had by the Labour Party people!
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/houchen-tries-to-block-teesworks-evidence-to-mps/
You can see why the tories want to get rid of Wansbeck MP Ian Lavery.
You’ve only got to take one look at Houchen to see that he looks every inch the Tory ‘blue boy’.
Pleased I am in the North East Mayor constituency instead of Teesside. No comparison with Jamie Driscoll. I wonder if that’s because Driscoll didn’t become a politician from the start. He was an engineer.
Private Eye have reported extensively on this ‘project’. It is profoundly depressing.
Abby Innes in her book “Late Soviet Britain” provides very detailed arguments why when issues are very complex and uncertain accountability in the spending of public money is difficult for both private and state organisations (central and local). For example, council house maintenance for cities with a large stock has proved troublesome particularly of non-traditional design. Keeping organisations small and with good accountability to users or potential users works best even if this results in a multiplicity of small organisations for the same purpose.
Yesterday’s debate on it.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2024-01-29a.642.0
Don’t think much of the speaker’s intervention on behalf of Andy McDonald. She couldn’t care less about him.
I find it hard to believe that this is the area which those MPs are talking about.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-town-residents-13200-poorer-28502866?int_source=nba
Why is the tory party so against having an NAO report on Teesworks if there is no problem to discover?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2024-01-30a.1124.3
Thank heavens for the HoL.
Strange that Lord Houchen is not there to defend himself.
One question; if the NAO is not responsible for auditing things like this, what is it responsible for?
Good question
The greatest privatisation in UK post 1979 is land, sold off to private interests (ref: Brett Christophers – “The New Enclosure”). Freeports are in reality such a phenomenon.
The cause for massive concern is the size of the freeport areas. Plymouth’s contains Dartmoor! While in reality this may be unexploited, Teeside alone shows what can be done with a relatively small acreage, behind closed doors. Private Eye (and former Twitterati such as BakerStreetHerald) have warned about this and its ideological attachment to the Charter City movement – of which Sunak is an associate.
I am not convinced we are heading for Charter Cities but wariness is appropriate
https://weownit.eaction.online/council-privatisation
Talking about the sell-off of publicly owned assets, this came this morning .
It’s to send a message to Gove that we don’t want public property selling off to private companies.
Needs sending today as the consultation ends tomorrow.
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/spinning-the-tees-valley-review/
A much more honest take on what is happening on Teesside.