If you only read one thing today…

Posted on May 5th, 2010 by Jeremy Cliffe

… read this article by Johann Hari in today’s Independent. Here are some excerpts:

In 2006, a group of rebranded “compassionate Conservatives” beat Labour for control of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, a long stretch of west London. George Osborne says the work they have done since then will be a “model” for a new Conservative government, while Cameron has singled them out as a council he is especially “proud” of.

[...]

The Conservative administration was determined to shrink the size of the state and cut taxes as an end in itself. Rather than pay for it by taking more from the people in the borough with the most money, they slashed services for the broke and the broken first. After the homeless, they turned to help for the disabled. In their 2006 manifesto, the local Conservatives had given a cast-iron guarantee: “A Conservative council will not reintroduce home-care charging”. It was a totemic symbol of leaving behind Thatcherism: they wouldn’t charge the disabled, the mentally ill or the elderly for the care they needed just to survive.

Within three months, the promise was broken. Debbie Domb, 51, is a teacher who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1994. She had to give up work, and now she needs 24/7 care. After being lifted up by a large metal harness and placed in her wheelchair so she can talk to me, she explains: “This was always such a great place to live if you were disabled. You were really treated well. Then this new council was elected and it’s been so frightening… The first thing that happened when they came in was that they announced any disabled person they assessed as having ‘lower moderate’ needs was totally cut off. So people who needed help having a shower, or getting dressed, had that lifeline taken away completely. Then they started sending the rest of us bills.

[...]

And in this boarded-up youth club, in Debbie’s panic, in the image of Jane and her bump on the floor of the park, I realise I am peering into the reality of David Cameron’s “Big Society”. The council here told people that if they took away services like this, there would be volunteers; if the state withered away, people would start to provide the services for each other. But nobody opened their home to Jane, or volunteered to feed Debbie, or started a new youth club on their own time and with their own money. The state retreated and the service collapsed. It’s a rebranding trick. The Conservatives know that shutting down public services sounds cruel, while calling for volunteerism sounds kind – but the effect is exactly the same.

[...]

So what is Cameron so proud of here? There seems to be only one answer: in this area the Tories have managed to cut council tax by 3 per cent. They’ve given back about £20 a year to somebody on an average income, and about four times more to a rich person. That’s why, when Cameron was challenged about what has happened here, he said: “When I look at the record of what the Conservatives have done here in Hammersmith and Fulham, far from being embarrassed as the Conservative leader, I’m proud of what they’re doing.” As I heard this, I remembered that earlier this year Cameron’s close friend and shadow cabinet member Ed Vaizey said Cameron is “much more Conservative than he acts, or than he is forced to be by political exigency”. The principles that run through Cameron’s politics seem to become visible at last, as clear and as stark as the Westway on the Hammersmith skyline: tax cuts, whatever the social cost.

Is wielding the Hammersmith hammer really worth it? Is cutting taxes by a fraction justified if it means abandoning the most desperate people – the homeless, the disabled, the poor? Is that who we want to be? The last time I see her, Debbie Domb tries to move a little in her chair – painfully, slowly – and says: “People should look at what they have done to us in Hammersmith. This is what Cameron and Osborne want to do to Britain. They say so. Remember, the people running this council said before they were elected that they were compassionate Conservatives. I can see the Conservatism. Where’s the compassion?”

Ombudsman slams H&F council as pregnant domestic violence victim is forced to sleep in park

Posted on January 28th, 2010 by Stephen Cowan

When David Cameron came to Hammersmith & Fulham recently he told locals that “when I look at the record of what the Conservatives have done here in Hammersmith and Fulham, far from being embarrassed as the Conservative Leader, I’m proud of what they’re doing”.

Last Thursday the Local Government Ombudsman condemned H&F Council and determined it must pay compensation to a pregnant woman fleeing domestic violence, after Cameron’s ‘flagship’ local authority refused to provide her with support and temporary accommodation. The terrified woman was later found seeking shelter in a park.

The Ombudsman found that “she was not provided with the level of support and assistance she could reasonably expect as a person who was homeless and in priority need”. You can read the Ombudsman’s report here.

The sharp practices detailed by the Ombudsman are a now regular occurrence and go some way to explaining why H&F Council only accepts less than half the numbers of homeless people it had under Labour back in 2006. Regular readers of my blog will recall how the Conservative Administration tightened acceptence criteria so that more homeless people would be turned away.

A leading Conservative Councillor gave an insight to the attitude being taken behind this policy change when he described the homeless as a “law and order issue” while explaining why he had banned the BBC and Crisis from running a Christmas shelter. The Tory Administration has also cut funding to local homeless charities and sold off twelve homeless hostels.

I have written to those responsible seeking a full explanation about this case and called for a review of the policies that brought it about. I will let you know when I get a response.

Cameron backs H&F council house demolitions

Posted on January 8th, 2010 by Stephen Cowan

It was biting cold as the snow began to fall but the protesters stayed outside the Church. David Cameron was in Hammersmith – the home of a flagship Conservative council.

Inside St. Paul’s Church Cameron was taking questions. “When I look at this borough I’m very proud of what they have done,” he told Maxine Bayliss, a mother-of-two and a resident of the Queen Caroline Estate. Maxine had asked why the Tory leader seemed content to allow the Conservative-run Council to knock down her home along with over 3500 other council houses. She wanted to know why they wouldn’t guarantee that she and her family would be offered an alternative home in the same area that they could afford or would like. Cameron didn’t reassure, he answered: “It’s not a good idea simply to have low-cost rented council accommodation… you need to have a variety” adding “There’s been a lot of black propaganda by the Labour party and others on this issue.”

But Maxine wouldn’t let go of the microphone. “That’s not true Mr. Cameron” she told him. “The Council is now openly consulting on proposals to knock down six estates in its Local Development Framework… Some, like my home, could go very soon. How is that compassionate Conservatism?” Cameron ignored her question and walked away. “There’s no better time than an election year to make your voice known. If you don’t like them, stand against them!” he said “you’ve had quite long enough”. With that he moved on.

While this exchange was a far cry from the ‘caring Cameron’ image that’s been carefully crafted by his media advisors, it was a key moment in this developing story as it’s the first time Cameron has publically endorsed H&F Conservatives’ controversial housing plans.

It’s now almost three years since my fellow Councillor Lisa Nandy, first uncovered news about the Tories’ plans to knock down people’s homes. Since then we have learnt of Conservative councillors in secret meetings with property speculators on the French Riviera and have forced the Tories to publish a list of the estates being offered up.

So far, the Tory strategy has been to remain tight lipped, refusing all media interviews and only reluctantly commenting on the matter when ambushed by residents at a public meeting (which you can view here) or by the Guardian (which you can view here).

The policy ideas that lie behind this were published in a pamphlet by the Leader of H&F Council earlier this year. In it he states that social housing estates are “broken neighbourhoods”; calls for “a move to near market rents” and an “end to secure tenancies” for tenants.

Tory round-table meetings, hosted by H&F Council, have concluded that council estates offer a “risible return on assets” and that they may only be a requirement for “10%” of the current social housing stock.

Tory insiders say all of this is highly influential in Cameron’s circle. Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister, has already confirmed that near market rents and ending secure tenancies were on the cards when he appeared on the Politics Show last autumn.

A Cameron victory this spring would make many of these ideas a reality tenants would have to face up and down the country. It removes much cherished and hard fought for rights to a decent, secure, affordable home and would make life much harder for all.