Cameron offers Oxfordshire council leader fast access to no 10 advisers

“David Cameron has been accused of offering a Conservative council chief special access to No 10 advisers as a way to resolve a disagreement about proposed budget cuts.

The prime minister is facing questions about his conduct after he wrote to Ian Hudspeth, the leader of Oxfordshire county council, chastising him for considering cuts to day centres, libraries and museums. Cameron’s own constituency of Witney falls within the area.

In the letter, Cameron extended an offer for how to help to manage the cuts, saying he would be happy to “initiate a dialogue” with the No 10 policy unit about the possibilities of devolution deals and suggesting that Hudspeth contact his aide Sheridan Westlake, who used to work in the Department for Communities and Local Government.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-offered-oxfordshire-council-leader-access-to-advisers

When is an advertisement not an advertisement?

Tighter rules on local authority publications state that

” the new rules would define ‘appropriate use of publicity’ in relation to council newspapers and use of lobbyists: Advertising should be balanced, factually accurate and not likely to be perceived by the public as a political statement or a commentary on contentious areas of public policy.”

In the current edition of its online newspaper for councillors, the Knowledge, there is an article about “The Earth Centre” at Bicton which states: “The Earth Centre at Bicton College offers a unique event, conferencing and meeting venue located in the
heart of the beautiful East Devon countryside but within a short distance of Exeter. The venue acts as an 80 seat auditorium, 50 seat seminar room with external breakout area, or an open space to use as you please. It also has an additional private meeting room for up to 12 people, free car parking facilities for 60 vehicles, catering facilities, WIFI, audio and projector screens”.

Did they pay for this puff job one wonders? Isn’t the Bicton area, much of it owned by Clinton Devon Estates which wants to see housing there, a “contentious area of public policy”?

Or is it a pre-emptive strike for another East Devon District Council satellite office!

37,000 could end up in NHS care when care homes forced to close

Several towns in East Devon rely on care homes for many jobs. Most advertisements in local newspapers are for jobs in the sector. The increase in minimum wage and lower social care fees will cause many care homes to close. The closure of more community hospital beds will exacerbate the problem. Councils facing budget cuts of 40% cannot pick up any slack.

“The NHS could be forced to find room for 37,000 elderly and disabled nursing home residents by the end of the decade as the cash-starved care industry teeters on the brink of collapse, a new report warns.
A study of funding by the think-tank ResPublica concluded that a feared wave of care home closures and cutbacks could leave the NHS forced to pick up a bill of £3 billion a year.

The health budget has been given special protection from austerity cuts for the last five years but councils, which have a legal duty to provide social care, have seen their incomes slashed by 40 per cent. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11987364/NHS-facing-37000-strong-influx-of-elderly-as-care-homes-close.html

David Cameron in denial about cuts – here’s the proof

“… In leaked correspondence with the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire county council (which covers his own constituency), David Cameron expresses his horror at the cuts being made to local services. This is the point at which you realise that he has no conception of what he has done.

The letters were sent in September, but came to light only on Friday, when they were revealed by the Oxford Mail. The national media has been remarkably slow to pick the story up, given the insight it offers into the prime minister’s detachment from the consequences of his actions.

Cameron complains that he is “disappointed” by the council’s proposals “to make significant cuts to frontline services – from elderly day centres, to libraries, to museums. This is in addition to the unwelcome and counter-productive proposals to close children’s centres across the county.” Why, he asks, has Oxfordshire not focused instead on “making back-office savings”? Why hasn’t it sold off its surplus property? After all, there has been only “a slight fall in government grants in cash terms”. Couldn’t the county “generate savings in a more creative manner”?

Explaining the issue gently, as if to a slow learner, the council leader, Ian Hudspeth, points out that the council has already culled its back-office functions, slashing 40% of its most senior staff and 2,800 jobs in total, with the result that it now spends less on these roles than most other counties. He explains that he has already flogged all the property he can lay hands on, but would like to remind the prime minister that using the income from these sales to pay for the council’s running costs “is neither legal, nor sustainable in the long-term since they are one-off receipts”.

As for Cameron’s claim about government grants, Hudspeth comments: “I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72m or 37% as a ‘slight fall’.”

Again and again, he exposes the figures the prime minister uses as wildly wrong. For example, Cameron claims that the cumulative cuts in the county since 2010 amount to £204m. But that is not the cumulative figure; it is the annual figure. Since 2010, the county has had to save £626m. It has done so while taking on new responsibilities, and while the population of elderly people and the numbers of children in the social care system have boomed. Now there is nothing left to cut except frontline services.

… It’s worth remembering that Oxfordshire, which is run by Conservatives, is among the wealthiest counties in England, with the nation’s lowest level of unemployment. In common with every aspect of austerity, the cuts have fallen hardest on those least able to weather them: local authorities in the most deprived parts of the country.

As a report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation discovered, the cuts in some areas are so extreme that local authority provision is now being reduced to little more than social care, child protection and other core services, while the budgets for libraries, museums, galleries, sports facilities, small parks and playgrounds, children’s centres, youth clubs, after-school and holiday clubs, planning and environmental quality have already been slashed to the point at which these can barely function.

In July, the Financial Times revealed that the funding for children’s centres across England has been cut by 28% in just three years: is Cameron unaware of this? As for public protection, it is all but gone. Visits to workplaces by health and safety inspectors have fallen by 91% in four years, and have been abandoned altogether by 53 local authorities. If you want to endanger your workers, don’t mind us. You begin to see how the government’s agendas mesh.

Now, as there is nothing else left to cut, the attack turns to social care, with untold consequences for children, the elderly and people who have mental health problems.

And we are only halfway through the government’s elective, unwarranted austerity programme. The spending review this month will demand even greater cuts from budgets that have already been comprehensively fleeced. How will this be possible without dismantling the basic functions of the state?

The government justifies its austerity programme on the grounds of responsibility: people must take responsibility for their own lives, rather than relying on the state; local authorities must take responsibility for their spending. But, as Cameron’s letter shows, he takes no responsibility for his own policies. Like pain, responsibility is to be applied selectively.”

George Monbiot

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire